Creating Walkable & 

Bikeable Communities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Guidelines for Creating Walkable and Bicycle-Friendly Communities, Sol No. DU206SF-14-Q-0007 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Prepared by: 

KTU+A Planning and Landscape Architecture

Mike Singleton, Principal and Transportation Planner

Alison Moss, Project Manager and Mobility Planner

Beth Chamberlin, Planner and Publication

Joe Punsalan, Mobility Planner and GIS

Michael J. Johnston, Graphics and Publication

Jacob Leon, Mobility Planner and Graphics

Juan Alberto Bonilla, Planner and Graphics

Drew Wilson, Planner and Researcher

In association with: 

Ryan Snyder Associates 

Ryan Snyder, Mobility Planner

Fehr and Peers

Alex Rixey, Transportation Planner and Researcher

Carly Sieff, Transportation Planner and Researcher

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Luis Borray, AIA

Architect

Office of Policy Development and Research

Marissa Dolin, AICP

Field Economist

Office of Policy Development and Research

Dana Bres, P.E.

Research Engineer

Office of Policy Development and Research

Regina C. Gray, Ph.D.

Policy Analyst

Office of Policy Development and Research

Elizabeth Cocke, Ph.D.

Director, Affordable Housing Research and Technology Division

Office of Policy Development and Research

Agency and Advocate Organization Review Panel: 

Bill Nesper, League of American Bicyclists

Craig Williams, Assoc. of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals

Samantha Thomas / Dan Burden, Blue Zones, LLC

Emiko Atherton, National Complete Streets Coalition

Jana Ecker, City of Birmingham, Michgan

Lynn Richards, Congress for the New Urbanism

Michael Ronkin, Designing Streets for People

Paul Zykofsky, Local Government Commission

Scott Windley, US Access Board

Stefanie Seskin, National Complete Streets Coalition
i

CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PRINCIPLES AND TOOLS

1

2

3

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: THE PLANNING PROCESS..................................1

1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION: STUDY OVERVIEW..................................2

1.2 DOCUMENT FOCUS: TARGET USERS .........................................................4

1.3 USER DIRECTIONS: HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT......................4

1.4 KEY REFERENCES: FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS........................5

1.5 INNOVATION: CONSISTENCY VERSUS NEW IDEAS...........................7

1.6 UNIVERSAL ACCESS: FEDERAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTS...........8

CHAPTER 2: BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ......9

2.1 HEALTH: HOW WALKING AND BIKING CAN IMPROVE 

HEALTH..............................................................................................................................10

2.2 SAFETY: FIRST PRIORITY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN.................11

2.3 ENVIRONMENT: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION’S ROLE........................12

2.4 ECONOMY: SAVING TRANSPORTATION COSTS ....................................13

2.5 QUALITY OF LIFE: HOW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CAN 

HELP IMPROVE..............................................................................................................14

2.6 INVESTMENTS: MAXIMIZING TRANSPORTATION AND 

LAND USE INVESTMENTS .....................................................................................15

2.7 BARRIERS: MEANS TO OVERCOME THEM ...............................................16

2.8 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO CONSIDER...................21

CHAPTER 3: THE PLANNING PROCESS..................................23

3.1 PLANNING: OVERVIEW.........................................................................................24

3.2 PLANNING PRINCIPLES: PROCESSES TO HELP BUILD 

WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES ...............................................24

3.3 PROCESS: A SAMPLE APPROACH..................................................................25

3.4 TOOLS: ASSURING INTEGRATED PLANNING..........................................29

3.5 IDEAS: PROJECT SCALED STEPS .....................................................................32

3.6 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO CONSIDER...................32

CHAPTER 4: LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION ...........33

4.1 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A WALK AND BIKE-FRIENDLY 

COMMUNITY..................................................................................................................34

4.2 TOOLS: BIKE & PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY LAND USE 

PRACTICES.......................................................................................................................35

4.3 BENEFITS: THE RIGHT TOOLS...........................................................................42

4.4 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT TOOLS IN THE RIGHT 

LOCATION........................................................................................................................48

4.5 IDEAS: PROJECT SCALED STEPS .....................................................................54

4.6 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO CONSIDER...................54

4.7 CASE STUDY: GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA........................................................55

CHAPTER 5: STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES ...........................59

5.1 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A WALK AND BIKE FRIENDLY 

STREET................................................................................................................................60

5.2 USERS: DESIGNING FOR ALL .............................................................................63

5.3 NETWORKS: STREET CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS................................64

5.4 TOOLS: BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY STREET DESIGN .........69

5.5 BENEFITS: PICKING THE RIGHT TOOLS .....................................................78

5.6 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT TOOLS IN THE RIGHT 

LOCATION........................................................................................................................80

5.7 IDEAS: PROJECT SCALED STEPS .....................................................................84

5.8 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO CONSIDER...................86

CHAPTER 6: BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN .................87

6.1 USERS: UNDERSTANDING USER PRIORITIES & CAPABILITIES ......89

6.2 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A BIKE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY..............90

6.3 TOOLS: FACILITIES THAT CAN HELP MAKE A BIKE FRIENDLY 

COMMUNITY..................................................................................................................90

6.4 BENEFITS: PICKING THE RIGHT TOOLS ......................................................100

6.5 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT TOOLS IN THE RIGHT LOCATION.102

6.6 IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT SCALED STEPS .....................................122

6.7 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO CONSIDER ..................122

6

5
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS | FINAL

CHAPTER 7: PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES ..................123

7.1 USERS: UNDERSTANDING USER PRIORITIES & CAPABILITIES ......124

7.2 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A WALK FRIENDLY COMMUNITY...........125

7.3 TOOLS: FACILITIES THAT CAN MAKE A WALK FRIENDLY 

COMMUNITY..................................................................................................................127

7.4 BENEFITS: PICKING THE RIGHT TOOLS ......................................................139

7.5 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT TOOLS IN THE RIGHT 

LOCATION........................................................................................................................141

7.6 IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT SCALED STEPS .....................................160

7.7 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO CONSIDER...................160

7.8 CASE STUDY: JACKSON, MICHIGAN............................................................161

CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK....................165

8.1 LOCAL AGENCY: ADOPTION OF PRINCIPLES .......................................166

8.2 IMPLEMENTATION: BIKEWAY NETWORKS ............................................167

8.3 PROGRAMS: CYCLING AND WALKING .....................................................168

8.4 HUD SUPPORT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 

PROGRAM (CDBG)......................................................................................................172

8.5 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO CONSIDER...................172

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL ........173

9.1 ASSESSMENT TOOLS: HOW TO USE THEM FOR YOUR 

COMMUNITY..................................................................................................................174

9.2 ASSESSMENT METRICS: MEASURING CURRENT OR FUTURE 

SUCCESSES......................................................................................................................176

9.3 APPROACH: DESCRIPTION OF METRICS TO USE ................................177

9.4 OTHER INDICATORS: SUPPLEMENTS TO THE 

SELF-ASSESSMENT METRICS...............................................................................186

9.5 FINAL SCORES: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ...................................188

9.6 CASE STUDY: COLUMBIA, MISSOURI ..........................................................189

8

9

A

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL......A-1

METRIC 1: LAND USE DIVERSITY..............................................................................A-2

METRIC 2: NUMBER OF JOBS WITHIN 15 MINUTES.....................................A-8

METRIC 3: PERCENTAGE OF LOW-STRESS ROADWAYS............................A-10

METRIC 4: PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS NEAR BICYCLE FACILITIES A-13

METRIC 5: STREET NETWORK ....................................................................................A-16

METRIC 6: SITE ACCESS AND PARKING TYPOLOGY ....................................A-19

METRIC 7: PERCENT OF STREETS WITH SIDEWALKS ..................................A-20

METRIC 8: PERCENT OF CORNERS WITH CURB RAMPS............................A-22

METRIC 9: DISTANCE BETWEEN MARKED CROSSINGS ............................A-24

APPENDIX B: DESIGN TOOLS ..................................................B-1

B-1: PLANNING TOOLS .................................................................................................B-2

B-2: LAND USE TOOLS ..................................................................................................B-3

B-3: STREET TOOLS .........................................................................................................B-11

B-4: BIKE TOOLS..................................................................................................................B-18

B-5: PEDESTRIAN TOOLS............................................................................................B-34

APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES...............................C-1

7

B

C
iii

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PRINCIPLES AND TOOLS

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2-1: SPEED AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.......................................................................................................................................................11

FIGURE 2-2: AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.......................................................................................................................12

FIGURE 2-3: THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION.........................................................................................................................................................13

FIGURE 2-4: WHAT MOST PEOPLE WANT....................................................................................................................................................................14

FIGURE 2-5: WALKABILITY AND PROPERTY VALUE ..............................................................................................................................................14

FIGURE 2-6: WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE DISTANCES ...........................................................................................................................................16

FIGURE 3-1: TYPICAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS.............................................................................27

FIGURE 3-2: TYPICAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION DESIGN PROCESS....................................................................................30

FIGURE 4-1: TEN MINUTE NEIGHBORHOODS..........................................................................................................................................................40

FIGURE 4-2: ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR SPACES........................................................................................................................................................41

FIGURE 4-3: THE “INTENSITY” CUBE.................................................................................................................................................................................42

FIGURE 4-4: TYPICAL RURAL COMMUNITY UNDER 50,000 POPULATION............................................................................................45

FIGURE 4-5: TYPICAL SUBURBAN COMMUNITY UNDER 100,000 POPULATION..............................................................................46

FIGURE 4-6: TYPICAL URBAN COMMUNITY UNDER 200,000 POPULATION........................................................................................47

FIGURE 4-7: BEST LAND USE PRACTICES FOR RURAL AREAS.......................................................................................................................49

FIGURE 4-8: BEST LAND USE PRACTICES FOR SUBURBAN AREAS ............................................................................................................51

FIGURE 4-9: BEST LAND USE PRACTICES FOR URBAN AREAS......................................................................................................................53

FIGURE 5-1: UPSIDE DOWN TRANSPORTATION HIERARCHY ......................................................................................................................61

FIGURE 5-2: COMPARISON OF A STREET TO AN AVENUE AND TO A BOULEVARD.........................................................................69

FIGURE 5-3: RECLAIMING STREET WIDTHS FOR OTHER USES......................................................................................................................70

FIGURE 5-4: LONG BLOCKS LIMIT DESTINATIONS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCES. .........................................................................71

FIGURE 5-5: INTEGRATED BIKE/WALKING TRAILS WITHIN A GRID OF STREETS................................................................................71

FIGURE 5-6: MANAGED DRIVEWAY ACCESS.............................................................................................................................................................74

FIGURE 5-7: BEST PRACTICES IMPLEMENTATION BENEFITS..........................................................................................................................79

FIGURE 5-8: STREET DESIGN BEST PRACTICES FOR RURAL AREAS...........................................................................................................81

FIGURE 5-9: STREET DESIGN BEST PRACTICES FOR SUBURBAN AREAS................................................................................................83

FIGURE 5-10: STREET DESIGN BEST PRACTICES FOR URBAN AREAS.......................................................................................................85

FIGURE 6-1: BIKE USER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.................................................................................................................................................89

FIGURE 6-2: OVERVIEW OF A TYPICAL RURAL AREA WITH RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS................................................. 105

FIGURE 6-3: RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD....................................................................................................................................................................... 106

FIGURE 6-4: RURAL CORRIDOR....................................................................................................................................................................................... 107

FIGURE 6-5: RURAL DISTRICT........................................................................................................................................................................................... 108

FIGURE 6-6: VILLAGE CENTER.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 109

2

3

4

6

5
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS | FINAL

FIGURE 6-7: OVERVIEW OF A TYPICAL SUBURBAN AREA WITH RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS ...................................... 111

FIGURE 6-8: SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD............................................................................................................................................................. 112

FIGURE 6-9: SUBURBAN CORRIDOR............................................................................................................................................................................ 113

FIGURE 6-10: SUBURBAN DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 114

FIGURE 6-11: TOWN CENTER............................................................................................................................................................................................ 115

FIGURE 6-12: OVERVIEW OF A TYPICAL URBAN AREA WITH RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS............................................. 117

FIGURE 6-13: URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD................................................................................................................................................................... 118

FIGURE 6-14: URBAN CORRIDOR................................................................................................................................................................................... 119

FIGURE 6-15: URBAN DISTRICT....................................................................................................................................................................................... 120

FIGURE 6-16: CITY CENTER................................................................................................................................................................................................ 121

FIGURE 7-1: TYPICAL WALKWAY ZONES ................................................................................................................................................................. 128

FIGURE 7-2: CROSSWALK VISIBILITY............................................................................................................................................................................ 134

FIGURE 7-3: RECOMMENDED CROSSWALK MARKINGS ................................................................................................................................ 134

FIGURE 7-4: APEX RAMP ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 136

FIGURE 7-5: DIRECTIONAL RAMP ................................................................................................................................................................................. 136

FIGURE 7-6: PARALLEL RAMP........................................................................................................................................................................................... 136

FIGURE 7-7: OVERVIEW OF A TYPICAL RURAL AREA....................................................................................................................................... 143

FIGURE 7-8: RURAL “NEIGHBORHOOD” EXAMPLE............................................................................................................................................. 144

FIGURE 7-9: RURAL “DISTRICT” EXAMPLE ................................................................................................................................................................ 145

FIGURE 7-10: RURAL “VILLAGE CENTER” EXAMPLE ........................................................................................................................................... 146

FIGURE 7-11: RURAL “CORRIDOR” EXAMPLE.......................................................................................................................................................... 147

FIGURE 7-12: OVERVIEW OF A TYPICAL SUBURBAN AREA.......................................................................................................................... 149

FIGURE 7-13: SUBURBAN “NEIGHBORHOOD” EXAMPLE................................................................................................................................ 150

FIGURE 7-14: SUBURBAN “DISTRICT” EXAMPLE................................................................................................................................................... 151

FIGURE 7-15: SUBURBAN “CORRIDOR” EXAMPLE............................................................................................................................................... 152

FIGURE 7-16: SUBURBAN “CENTER” EXAMPLE...................................................................................................................................................... 153

FIGURE 7-17: OVERVIEW OF A TYPICAL URBAN AREA ................................................................................................................................... 155

FIGURE 7-18: URBAN “NEIGHBORHOOD” EXAMPLE ......................................................................................................................................... 156

FIGURE 7-19: URBAN “CORRIDOR” EXAMPLE......................................................................................................................................................... 157

FIGURE 7-20: URBAN “DISTRICT” EXAMPLE ............................................................................................................................................................ 158

FIGURE 7-21: URBAN “CITY CENTER” EXAMPLE.................................................................................................................................................... 159

FIGURE 9-1: FLOW CHART - WHICH APPROACH WORKS BEST?............................................................................................................... 174

FIGURE 9-2: METRIC DESIGNATIONS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 175

FIGURE 9-3: ANALYSIS ZONE EXAMPLE: CARRBORO, NC............................................................................................................................. 176

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

9

7

6
v

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PRINCIPLES AND TOOLS

FIGURE A-1: APPROACH 1 IMAGES OF TYPICAL STREETS.............................................................................................................................A-3

FIGURE A-2: APPROACH 2 IMAGES OF LAND USE TYPES ............................................................................................................................A-5

FIGURE A-3: APPROACH 1, STEP 3.................................................................................................................................................................................A-9

FIGURE A-4: APPROACH 1, STEPS 4 - 7.......................................................................................................................................................................A-9

FIGURE A-5: APPROACH 1 IMAGES: LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS (LOW TO HIGH) .......................................................................A-11

FIGURE A-6: APPROACH 2: STEP 2..............................................................................................................................................................................A-14

FIGURE A-7: APPROACH 2: STEP 3..............................................................................................................................................................................A-14

FIGURE A-8: APPROACH 2: STEP 4..............................................................................................................................................................................A-15

FIGURE A-9: APPROACH 2: STEP 7..............................................................................................................................................................................A-15

FIGURE A-10: STREET NETWORK GRIDS.................................................................................................................................................................A-17

FIGURE B-1: BIKE BOULEVARD...................................................................................................................................................................................... B-18

FIGURE B-2: BIKE BOULEVARD TRAFFIC CALMING ACTIONS ................................................................................................................. B-19

FIGURE B-3: BIKE BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.............................................................................................................................. B-19

FIGURE B-4: SHARED LANE MARKINGS................................................................................................................................................................... B-20

FIGURE B-5: NO IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN SIGNAGE......................................................................................................................... B-21

FIGURE B-6: BUFFERED BIKE LANES .......................................................................................................................................................................... B-21

FIGURE B-7: CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANES ............................................................................................................................................................ B-22

FIGURE B-8: MULTI-USE PATH........................................................................................................................................................................................ B-23

FIGURE B-9: SEPARATED BIKE LANE- ONE WAY ................................................................................................................................................. B-24

FIGURE B-10: SEPARATED BIKE LANE- TWO WAY.............................................................................................................................................. B-25

FIGURE B-11: BIKE BRIDGE ............................................................................................................................................................................................... B-26

FIGURE B-12: SEPARATED BIKE INTERSECTION.................................................................................................................................................. B-27

FIGURE B-13: PARTIAL SEPARATED INTERSECTION......................................................................................................................................... B-27

FIGURE B-14: TWO-STAGE TURN QUEUE BOXES .............................................................................................................................................. B-28

FIGURE B-15: JUG- HANDLES......................................................................................................................................................................................... B-29

FIGURE B-16: MIXING ZONE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... B-30

FIGURE B-17: MID-BLOCK BIKE CROSSING ........................................................................................................................................................... B-31

FIGURE B-18: THROUGH INTERSECTION PAINTED MARKINGS ............................................................................................................... B-31

FIGURE B-19: BIKE BOXES ................................................................................................................................................................................................. B-32

FIGURE B-20: TRAFFIC DIVERTER................................................................................................................................................................................. B-32

FIGURE B-21: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES......................................................................................................................................................................... B-37

FIGURE B-22: RAISED SPEED TABLE ........................................................................................................................................................................... B-38

FIGURE B-23: MID-BLOCK CROSSING WITH MEDIAN REFUGE................................................................................................................ B-39

FIGURE B-24: PEDESTRIAN BULB-OUTS.................................................................................................................................................................. B-41

FIGURE B-25: MID-BLOCK CROSSING WITH PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON ................................................................................. B-44

FIGURE B-26: MID-BLOCK CROSSING WITH RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON..................................................... B-45

FIGURE B-27: PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE.................................................................................................................................................................... B-46

FIGURE B-28: CONTROLLED INTERSECTION REQUIRING NO TURN ON RED LIGHT SYSTEM............................................. B-46

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

A

B
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS | FINAL

TABLE 2-1: MOTORIZED TRIPS TO NON-MOTORIZED TRIPS CONVERSION EXAMPLE..................................................................12

TABLE 3-1: SUMMARY OF PLANNING PROCESS GUIDELINES AND POSSIBLE POINTS ..............................................................31

TABLE 4-1: BEST LAND USE PRACTICES FOR CREATING WALKABLE/BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES............................................43

TABLE 5-1: FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNCTION AND CLASSIFICATION..........................................................................................................64

TABLE 5-2: FORM BASED STREET DESIGN CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM......................................................................................................65

TABLE 6-1: BENEFITS AND EFFECTIVENESS RANKINGS OF EACH BIKE IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT ................................... 101

TABLE 7-1: SCALE OF WALKING...................................................................................................................................................................................... 125

TABLE 7-2: WALKWAY WIDTH CAPACITY METRICS............................................................................................................................................ 130

TABLE 7-3: SEQUENCE OF A HAWK SIGNAL........................................................................................................................................................... 138

TABLE 7-4: BENEFITS OF PEDESTRIAN IMPLEMENTATION METHODS ................................................................................................. 140

TABLE 7-5: 5P INTERVENTION TYPES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 162

TABLE 9-1: SELF-ASSESSMENT METRICS AND APPROACHES.................................................................................................................... 178

TABLE A-1: TOTAL EMPLOYMENT POINTS................................................................................................................................................................A-8

TABLE A-2: SIMPLIFIED LTS DECISION TABLE ......................................................................................................................................................A-12

TABLE A-3: BIKE FACILITY POINTS...............................................................................................................................................................................A-13

TABLE A-4: INTERSECTIONS PER SQUARE MILE.................................................................................................................................................A-18

TABLE A-5: PERCENT OF STREETS WITH SIDEWALKS.....................................................................................................................................A-20

TABLE A-6: PERCENT OF CORNERS WITH CURB RAMPS..............................................................................................................................A-22

TABLE A-7: DISTANCE BETWEEN MARKED CROSSWALKS..........................................................................................................................A-24

TABLE B-1: PARKING LANE WIDTHS........................................................................................................................................................................... B-14

TABLE B-2: MEDIAN TYPES AND WIDTHS.............................................................................................................................................................. B-15

TABLE B-3: RECOMMENDED ILLUMINATION BY STREET TYPE ................................................................................................................ B-36

TABLE B-4: APPROPRIATE TREATMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS <30MPH.................................................... B-40

TABLE B-5: APPROPRIATE TREATMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS >30MPH.................................................... B-40

TABLE B-6: CURB RAMP DESIGN STANDARDS.................................................................................................................................................... B-43

TABLE C-1: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................................................................................C-2

LIST OF TABLES

2

3

4

6

5

7

9

A

B

C
1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION: STUDY OVERVIEW . . . . . . 2

1.2 DOCUMENT FOCUS: TARGET USERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3 USER DIRECTIONS: HOW TO USE THIS 

DOCUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.4 KEY REFERENCES: FOUNDATIONAL 

DOCUMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.5 INNOVATION: CONSISTENCY VERSUS 

NEW IDEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.6 UNIVERSAL ACCESS: FEDERAL ACCESS 

REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CHAPTER 1: 

THE PLANNING PROCESS
2

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION: 

STUDY OVERVIEW

Guidance for creating walkable and bikeable communities has increased dramatically over the past 

several years. A growing list of resources identify 

the current best practices for increasing walking, 

cycling, universal access, complete streets, “first 

mile, last mile” solutions, and sustainable urban 

design. This document builds on these previous 

efforts but with a focus on the critical need for 

integrated planning. The document aims to—

• Emphasize the importance of integrating land 

use, street design, and transportation strategies.

• Focus on small to mid-size communities with 

low to moderate income (LMI).

• Suggest innovative and exploratory ideas rather 

than restate regulatory statutes.

• Increase the accessibility of these concepts to a 

wider range of potential users.

• Provide the language needed to engage in dialogue and effect change to improve walkability 

and bikeability.

HUD recognizes the synergy and the link between 

land uses and transportation systems. This document tries to strengthen the link between land use 

planning, street design, and active transportation 

(cycling and walking). The feasibility of walking and 

cycling is as much determined by the presence of bike 

and pedestrian facilities as it is about the proximity of 

critical destinations to where people live. 

The goal of this document is to explore walkable, bikeable options and to provide technical 

assistance, especially for rural, suburban, and 

smaller urban cities and communities. Many of 

these smaller communities cannot afford to keep 

planning staff up to date with recent innovations 

in active transportation. In small communities, 

elected officials have often not been exposed to 

innovative and evolving planning choices that 

may now be possible and desirable to implement. 

This document is designed to provide the tools, 

techniques, and samples for community leaders, 

elected officials, and interested persons to learn 

more how bike and pedestrian facilities might be 

considered in their communities. 

This document is intended to serve as a source of 

discussion for comprehensive land use, pedestrian, 

and bicycle planning. It is not intended as a guideline or regulatory source on how to build streets 

and support transportation options. Many other 

documents and guidelines are available for those 

purposes. The Department of Transportation, 

through various administrative branches such as 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 

is responsible for providing guidance on how to 

build transportation networks. 

The users of this document are reminded to seek 

and utilize current standards and regulations that 

exist at federal, state, regional, and local levels 

on how to implement these changes. The “how” 

should be the ending point of the conversation, 

however. It needs to start with the “what, where, 

and why” first. This document provides the “why” 

we should build communities in an integrated and 

sustainable way. Integrated transportation results 

from understanding land use relationships, scales 

of urban form, and the interface between the 

street and the living environment. This document 

also helps explain “what” changes are possible and 

“where” they should be considered. 

1.1.1 Community Form and 

Transportation Function

The evolution of community form has been tied to 

transportation for many centuries. Human activity requires movement. The extent of movement is 

determined by the transportation choice. Walking 

is perhaps the most basic of transportation modes. 

Travel by walking has been the primary mode 

for most of humanity. Our villages and towns 

evolved out of the unique human scale related to 

walking distance. Horses, wagons, trains, bikes, 

motorcycles, buses, trolleys, streetcars, subways, 

and airplanes each have changed the scale and 

the resulting form of our communities. The scale 

of walking has been replaced by the scale of each 

successive mode of transportation.

At first, our increased mobility extended the functional aspects of our communities and allowed for 

wider travel and expanded opportunities. When 

we started building our communities around the 

scale of the personal automobile, our ability to 

walk or to take short trips or to travel by way of 

public transit was decreased. The way we built 

communities changed dramatically as well. Trails, 

walks, and roads that were once scaled to neighborhoods and communities soon became scaled 

to freeways, major arterials, and hierarchical 

collector streets. The pattern of streets tended to 

focus on connecting remote bedroom communities, regional retail malls, and metropolitan job 

centers. Today we find that walking, cycling, and 

taking transit have been made more difficult due 

to the changed scales of our communities.
3

CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PROJECT OVERVIEW

It does not require large investments to make communities 

more walkable as long as they are scaled to human walking 

distances and take into account safety and pedestrian 

comforts. Photo Source: Mike Singleton

Although increased mobility has enriched life 

experiences and made travel choice a personal 

freedom, it has come with some expense. Trips became longer, congestion higher, and the percentage of our income and time dedicated to mobility 

steadily increased. Transportation based mostly 

on private automobile travel is considered by many 

to be unsustainable in terms of air quality, energy 

resources, safety, and human health. Although our 

mobility has set us free, it has also shackled us to 

a way of life that not all enjoy. This document is 

not demanding that all persons change from their 

auto-centric lifestyles, however. It just notes that 

most all of us will benefit from some changes in 

our mobility options, and for those that wish to 

become less dependent upon all trips being by 

automobile, our own personal health, safety, and 

welfare will be greatly improved as well.

1.1.2 The Scale of Needed Changes

Realistically, we should not expect nor suggest 

large changes in our transportation systems. Our 

transportation economy and personal behaviors 

will not support wholesale changes. Our land 

use patterns and auto-centric roadway systems 

cannot be changed in short periods of time. Small, 

incremental changes that help “evolve” communities back to human-scaled neighborhoods are 

possible, however. Large changes do not need 

to occur everywhere, but they should change in 

areas that we consider “smart growth”—town 

centers, main streets, and urban infill locations. 

They should change in our local neighborhoods 

to support healthier lifestyles. They should change 

where we have invested in public transportation, 

and they should change in areas where economic 

conditions have been harsh for many and where 

affordable housing should be coupled with affordable transportation.

When changes occur, they get noticed by people 

who are interested in connected and compact 

communities and “car-light” lifestyles. Projects 

that get noticed are essential for creating momentum and acceptance in other areas. The amount 

of change needed to start momentum is not that 

great. Certain parts of our communities need to 

be changed or enhanced to provide options for 

short-distance trip and use of transit systems. 

Where connected communities exist in the United 

States, they have attracted people interested in a 

transportation system that is not so reliant on 

regional movement and automobile travel. These 

options are already causing a shift in attitude and 

have helped to institutionalize the tools of change. 

This document discusses these tools in greater 

detail and suggests how they may make our communities more walkable and bikeable.

1.1.3 Affordable Transportation Focus

For residents with limited means, too often savings 

gained from achieving affordable housing are then 

spent on auto-based transportation. For many, job 

opportunities and affordable housing have often 

been located on opposite ends of a community. 

This is why, for instance, up to 30 percent of 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

funds and 50 percent of Entitlement CDBG 

funds are used for transportation infrastructure. 

Because communities are currently using a large 

proportion of their CDBG funds on infrastructure 

investments, HUD wants to make sure to provide 

resources for community leaders to better understand aspects of infrastructure—including the 

investments required to create more walkable and 

bikeable communities. Compact, efficient infill 

development, mixed land uses, and an emphasis 

on walking or cycling for transportation can contribute to major savings in infrastructure costs as 

well as personal transportation costs. 

There is increasing evidence that providing places 

to walk and bicycle are successful strategies for 

improving the economic vitality and public health 

of a community. Walking is the number one physical activity of choice for most people,1

 and cycling 

represents an increasingly important mobility 

option as well as an effective form of exercise.2

Sprawling development patterns with segregated 

land uses and a lack of safe, accessible pedestrian 

and bicycle networks act as barriers to achieving 

the benefits from these transportation options. 

The lack of transportation options often is felt 

more keenly in smaller and medium size cities, in 

communities with limited financial resources, and 

among low- and moderate-income households. 

The costs for individuals to drive are somewhat 

constant, no matter what the economic level of 
4

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

Many communities developed around the scale of the 

pedestrian. Photo source: Mike Singleton

the driver. When fixed transportation costs are 

compared proportionally to the income of the 

drivers, the percentage of one’s income being used 

for transportation becomes much higher to those 

with limited means. As often is the case, persons of 

limited means have less choice of where they live 

and work, which creates an additional burden on 

their personal budgets. 

In the words of the Surface Transportation Policy 

Partnership, “This frustrates the very purpose of 

housing assistance programs, which is to lower the 

overall cost of living to low-income families.”3 An 

individual may realize savings on a month-tomonth basis resulting from affordable housing; 

however, the monthly savings can be wiped out 

very quickly if transportation distances and modes 

are the only choices. To make matters worse, what 

could have resulted in local reinvestment of personal transportation savings now becomes exported out of the community, the region, and potentially the country. Small or medium-size 

communities (with fewer than 200,000 residents) 

often lack guidance or resources that can help 

them plan for, design, or implement more walkable or bikeable communities. HUD has created 

this document to help smaller communities create 

walkable and bicycle-friendly environments. 

1.2 DOCUMENT FOCUS: 

TARGET USERS

The study is focused primarily on information for 

persons who are not expert in the fields of land 

use and town planning. This document has identified 10 different groups that may be interested 

in incorporating pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly 

elements into their communities. These start with 

grassroots-level organizations, such as—

1-Housing advocates.

2-Health and safety advocates.

3-Smart-growth advocates. 

4-Advocates for mobility choices.

The mid-level users of this study are the entities 

that provide or build facilities, including—

5-Developers and financial institutions.

6-Housing providers or institutions.

7-Consultants such as architects, planners, landscape architects, and engineers.

The high-level users of the document are considered to be the decision makers, including— 

8-Agency staff supporting local officials.

9-Local elected officials.

10-Federal, state, and regional regulators. 

Finally, this document is intended to provide tools 

to allow advocates and professionals to better 

understand the mixture of tools needed to create 

a functioning community that incorporates elements that support increased use of walking and 

cycling. To ensure public safety and consistency in 

the environments we travel through, changes must 

follow rules. Innovative approaches may help to 

evolve rules, however, so that improvements in 

public health, safety, and welfare can be the top 

priority. Regulations need to evolve, and momentum from innovation helps this evolution. 

1.3 USER DIRECTIONS: 

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT

This document can be used for many different 

purposes. Tools for finding specific items of interest include five quick reference methods.

Use the key at the beginning of each chapter as a 

guide based on the user type that matches your 

interests. 

Use the tables in chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 to find the 

best tools for your community. These tables point 

out the best practices for different community 

typologies and locations. 

Look at the effectiveness points in these overview 

tables to determine what tool will return the best 

results for your situation. 

At the end of each chapter is section titled “Ideas: 

Project Scaled Tips” to help provide quick methods 

for getting something done in your community.

Utilize the assessment tools in appendix A to 

evaluate your community’s current walkable and 

bikeable ranking, and then utilize the tools in the 

appendixes to help increase the walkability and 

bikeability of your town. 
5

CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PROJECT OVERVIEW

these problems and promote safety among all road 

users. The guide includes information on identifying problems, taking action to address pedestrian 

and bicycle concerns, finding solutions to improve 

safety, and accessing resources to get additional 

information.

Bike/Pedestrian Safety Guide & Countermeasure 

Selection System (http://www.pedbikesafe.org/) 

The Pedestrian 

Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure 

Selection System 

is intended to 

provide practitioners with the 

latest information available for 

improving the 

safety and mobility of those who walk. The on-line 

tools provide the user with a list of possible engineering, education, or enforcement treatments to 

improve pedestrian safety, and/or mobility based 

on user input about a specific location.

Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies (2008)

The guide is intended to provide transit agency 

staff with an easy-to-use resource for improving 

pedestrian safety. The guide includes a variety of 

approaches to address 

common pedestrian 

safety issues that are 

likely to arise near 

transit stations and bus 

stops. It provides references to publications, 

guides, and other tools 

to identify pedestrian 

safety problems. 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2012)

The MUTCD defines the standards used by road 

managers nationwide to install and maintain 

traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public 

travel. The MUTCD is 

published by the FHWA 

under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Part 655, Subpart F. The 

most recent version is 

the 2009 Edition with 

Revisions 1 and 2, completed in 2012. 

The MUTCD, which has 

been administered by 

the FHWA since 1971, is a compilation of national 

standards for all traffic control devices, including 

road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. 

It is updated periodically to accommodate the 

nation’s changing transportation needs and to address new safety technologies, traffic control tools, 

and traffic management techniques.

A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer 

Communities for Walking and Biking (2015)

This guide is intended to assist residents, parents, 

community association members, and others 

in getting involved in 

making communities 

safer for pedestrians 

and bicyclists. The guide 

includes facts, ideas, 

and resources to help 

residents learn about 

traffic problems that 

affect pedestrians and 

bicyclists and to find 

ways to help address 

1.4 KEY REFERENCES: 

FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS

This publication should be used in conjunction 

with other resources for promoting more walkable 

and bikeable communities. This publication is a 

summary of existing tools, techniques, and standards that are used by state and local transportation 

officials, engineers, and planners. The foundational 

documents listed in the following sections should 

be used to supplement this publication, and all 

plans should be compared against these references 

for compliance to national standards.

1.4.1 U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT)

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has 

made significant progress in updating guidelines for 

both bike and pedestrian facilities. These standards 

have also been integrated into other roadway and 

highway design standards. The official DOT policy 

is “to incorporate safe and convenient walking and 

cycling facilities into transportation projects. Every 

transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities 

for walking and cycling and to integrate walking and 

cycling into their transportation systems. Because of 

the numerous individual and community benefits 

that walking and cycling 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.”4

Since launching the Safer People, Safer Streets Initiative 

in 2014, DOT has engaged safety experts, stakeholders, 

local officials, and the public on a range of strategies to 

encourage safety for bicyclists and pedestrians on and 

around our streets, including transit stops. 
6

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

The latest in the NACTO 

series is Transit Street 

Design Guides (2016). 

This document can be 

used to integrate walking, cycling, and transit 

systems. The document 

shows how to accommodate transit access by 

foot or bike.

1.4.3 The American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHTO consists of 52 state transportation departments. The AASHTO bicycle and pedestrian 

design guides are important national resources for 

planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and for identifying appropriate measures to 

improve safety and access. 

Guide for the Planning, 

Design & Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities (2004)

The purpose of this guide 

is to provide guidance on 

the planning, design, and 

operation of pedestrian 

facilities along streets and 

highways. 

Guide for the Development 

of Bicycle Facilities (2012)

This guide provides information on how to accommodate bicycle travel and 

operations in most riding 

environments to meet the 

needs of bicyclists and 

other highway users.

Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015)

The guide outlines planning considerations for 

separated bike lanes (often called cycle-tracks or 

protected bike lanes). It 

highlights different options 

for providing separation, 

including intersection design. It captures the current 

state of practice learned 

from examples across the 

United States.

Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Information Center 

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org)

Since its inception in 1999, the Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Information Center’s mission has been to 

improve the quality of life in communities through 

the increase of safe walking and cycling as a viable 

means of transportation and physical activity. The 

PBIC is operated for FHWA and is based on FHWA 

funds. To support this mission, the PBIC—

• Develops, synthesizes, promotes, and distributes 

accurate and current cycling and walking information.

• Provides expert technical assistance to various 

audiences to ensure that citizens and professionals have access to the best available information.

• Generates a network of informed individuals and 

organizations that can increase the exposure of 

pedestrian and bike issues to the general public.

FHWA Research List of On-line Reports and 

Technical Publications (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

research/publications/technical/#p)

This extensive listing of research and publications 

includes many references to bike- and pedestrian-friendly improvements. 

1.4.2 National Association of City 

Transportation Officials

The National Association of City Transportation 

Officials (NACTO) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit association that represents large cities on transportation 

issues of local, regional, and national significance. 

NACTO views the transportation departments of 

major cities as effective and necessary partners in 

regional and national transportation efforts and 

promotes their interests in federal decision making.

NACTO Publications

These NACTO guides represent innovative bicycle 

and streetscape facilities and treatments. It is important to note that some of its design treatments 

may not be permitted 

under the MUTCD. It is 

the responsibility of the 

reader to verify the latest 

levels of approval from 

FHWA. The NACTO 

Urban Street Design 

Guide (2013) is the more 

generalized of the three 

guides.

The NACTO Urban 

Bikeway Design Guide 

(2014) is organized into 

six sections, but its information is bicycle specific. 

For each section, it offers 

three levels of guidance: 

Required Features, Recommended Features, and 

Optional Features. 
7

CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.4.4 Institute of Transportation Engineers

The Institute of Transportation Engineers is an international educational and scientific association 

of transportation professionals who are responsible for meeting mobility and safety needs. 

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A 

Context Sensitive Approach (2010)

This report was developed in response to widespread interest in 

improving mobility 

choices and community 

character through a 

commitment to creating 

and enhancing walkable 

communities. This study 

highlights not only facility guidelines but also 

community building.

1.4.5 Other Foundational References

Model Design Manual for Living Streets—

County of Los Angeles (2011)

This manual was produced for the County of Los 

Angeles as an open-source document available for 

others to use and adapt for their local conditions. 

The manual focuses on all users and modes of 

public streets. The document seeks to achieve a 

balanced street design 

that accommodates 

vehicles while ensuring 

that pedestrians, cyclists, 

and transit users can 

travel safely and comfortably on streets that 

are lively, beautiful, and 

sustainable.

LEED for Neighborhood Development (2014)

Developed by the 

U.S. Green Building 

Council, Leadership 

in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) for Neighborhood Development (ND) is 

a framework for identifying, implementing, and 

measuring green building and neighborhood 

design, construction, operations, and maintenance. LEED-ND is a voluntary, market-driven, 

consensus-based tool that serves as a guideline 

and assessment mechanism. LEED-ND takes into 

account many land use, transportation design, 

street design, and bike/pedestrian facilities. 

The Complete Streets: Best Policies and 

Implementation Practices (Annual)

The annual Complete 

Streets: Best Policies and 

Implementation Practices 

publication should be 

consulted. This document 

is produced by the American Planning Association 

and the National Complete Streets Coalition. 

Other organizations that promote innovation may 

be able to help in providing ideas for innovation. 

Sample organizations include—

• Transportation for America.

• Smart Growth America.

• Congress for New Urbanism.

• Assoc. of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.

• Alliance for Biking and Walking.

1.5 INNOVATION: 

CONSISTENCY VERSUS NEW IDEAS

There are a variety of tools and resources that can 

assist the transportation community in exploring 

and implementing innovative and experimental 

strategies for pedestrian and bicycle programs, 

devices, and projects. Although public safety, risk, 

and liability must always be considered, some level 

of flexibility is needed for the planning, design, 

and engineering of our roadway systems. Room 

must be provided to allow for innovation, local 

context, and testing of solutions to long-standing 

problems created by the sharing of the roadway 

among several different modes of travel. 

Before a new traffic control device is used on a 

street or highway open to the public, the agency 

having jurisdiction over the roadway must 

ensure the device conforms to the provisions of 

the MUTCD. New designs, devices, or applications not covered in or not in compliance with 

the MUTCD can be used on roads open to the 

public only if FHWA experimentation approval 

is received. Inventors or manufacturers of new 

devices should work with state or local highway 

agencies that are interested in using the device to 

Note: A variety of samples have been used in this document 

to demonstrate typical bike and pedestrian improvements 

found in the United States that are good examples of some 

aspect suggested in this study. Not all elements shown in 

the photos may be up to the latest standards or regulatory 

codes, however. Many of the project samples were completed 

prior to the latest standards. The reader is cautioned not 

to use the samples to create new projects. The latest 

ADA, FHWA, ITE, AASHTO, NACTO, and local standards and 

guidelines must be used in order to be fully compliant. 
8

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

address known problems that they feel existing 

standard MUTCD devices are insufficiently effective in solving. Experimentation approval must 

be requested from FHWA by the highway agency 

having jurisdiction over the road. See Section 

1A.10 of the MUTCD. A successful experiment 

is one in which the research results show that the 

public understands the new program, device, or 

application. The device or application generally 

needs to perform as intended, and the device must 

not cause adverse conditions. The experimenter 

must evaluate conditions both before and after installation of the experimental device and describe 

the measurements of effectiveness (MOEs) of the 

safety and operational benefits (e.g., better visibility, reduced congestion, improved safety). The 

MUTCD process also allows for the use of interim 

approvals. Interim approvals are considered by 

the Office of Transportation Operations based on 

the results of successful experimentation, studies, 

or research and an intention to place the new or 

revised device into a future rulemaking process 

for MUTCD revisions.

1.6 UNIVERSAL ACCESS: 

FEDERAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

Universal access is the principle that all facilities 

should be made more accessible for all portions 

of the public, including those with physical challenges and mobility limitations. Though not as 

broadly applied to the full public, similar requirements have been mandated under federal laws 

and through state implementation of these laws. 

Recipients of federal financial assistance from the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the DOT or its sub-agencies, 

such as the Federal Transit Administration and 

the Federal Highway Administration, must comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against 

persons with disabilities under programs that 

receive federal financial assistance. The DOT adopted regulations implementing this requirement 

in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

27. Congress expanded protections for persons 

with disabilities by passing the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Title II of the 

ADA prohibits public entities, such as states, local 

governments, and public transit providers, from 

discriminating against persons with disabilities 

regardless of whether such entities receive federal 

financial assistance. Specifically, no qualified 

individual with a disability shall, on the basis of 

disability, be excluded from participation in or be 

denied the benefits of the services, programs, or 

activities of a public entity.5

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) adopted 

regulations in 1991 (28 CFR Part 35) setting 

forth more specific requirements public entities 

must follow to carry out the terms of Title II of 

the ADA. The DOJ regulations included the ADA 

Accessibility Guidelines (1991 ADAAG), developed by the U.S. Access Board, which sets forth 

specific standards for the design and construction 

of buildings and facilities to ensure accessibility, 

such as standards for accessible routes, curb 

ramps, ramps, and bus stops, among other things. 

The DOT also adopted the 1991 ADAAG into its 

Section 504 regulations in 1991.

The U.S. Access Board issued revisions to the 

ADAAG in 2004. The DOT adopted the revised 

ADAAG (with some modifications) into its Section 504 regulations in 2006. The DOJ adopted the 

revised ADAAG into its ADA regulations in 2010 

(2010 Standards). The DOT applies the revised 

ADAAG to facilities in the public right-of-way, 

such as sidewalks, bus stops, curb ramps, and 

crosswalks, among other elements. The DOT has 

also adopted ADA regulations that apply specifically to public transportation in 49 CFR Part 37. 

In addition, the U.S. Access Board published a 

Notice of Proposed Rule-making in 2011, supplemented in 2013, setting forth draft accessibility 

guidelines for the design, construction, and alteration of pedestrian facilities in the public right-ofway. These are commonly referred to as the 2011 

Public Rights-Of-Way Accessibility Guidelines 

(PROWAG). Unlike the revised ADAAG, the draft 

PROWAG does not set forth enforceable standards. 

The PROWAG will obtain the force of law only after 

the U.S. Access Board issues a final set of guidelines 

and those guidelines are formally adopted into 

regulation by the DOT and/or the DOJ.

NOTES:

1 http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/walking/

2 http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/05/rise-bicycling-smaller-and-midsize-us-cities/9059/

3 http://transact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/

Transportation_and_Housing.pdf

4 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/policy_accom.cfm

5 https://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/cfr/28cfr/

part35/35130.htm
CHAPTER 2: BENEFITS OF 

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

2.1 HEALTH: HOW WALKING AND BIKING CAN 

IMPROVE HEALTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 SAFETY: FIRST PRIORITY FOR PLANNING AND 

DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3 ENVIRONMENT: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION’S 

ROLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4 ECONOMY: SAVING TRANSPORTATION COSTS . . . . . . 13

2.5 QUALITY OF LIFE: HOW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION 

CAN HELP IMPROVE.................................. 14

2.6 INVESTMENTS: MAXIMIZING TRANSPORTATION 

AND LAND USE INVESTMENTS ....................... 15

2.7 BARRIERS: MEANS TO OVERCOME THEM . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.8 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO 

CONSIDER................................................... 21

Planning, Design or Engineering 

Consultants

Local Elected Officials 

and Review Staff

Federal, State and 

Regional Regulators

Advocate 

Organizations

Providing 

Entities

Decision 

Makers

USER LEGEND

Smart Growth 

Advocates

Mobility Choice 

Advocates

Developers, Financial 

Institutions

Housing Providers and 

Institutions

Health and Safety 

Advocates

Housing 

Advocates

Local Agency Planners 

and Engineers
10

CHAPTER 2 | BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Active Transportation and Health: 3 hours of biking per 

week can reduce your risk of heart disease by 50%.

Transportation Activity for Weight Loss: For even a slow 

bike rider weighing 180 lbs, 245 calories can be burned in 

less than 30 minutes of travel.

Effects of the Built Environment: People who live in 

walkable neighborhoods are twice as likely to get the 

recommended daily amount of physical activity.

Active transportation (bicycling and walking) can 

bring many benefits to individuals, communities, 

and society at large. The following sections describe 

the noted benefits found in each of the primary 

benefit categories. Studies have found that only 20 

percent of American adults regularly engage in recommended amount of physical activity.1

 Creating 

safe, convenient options for walking and bicycling 

allows more people to incorporate active transportation into their daily routine without having to set 

aside a special time for exercise. 

2.1 HEALTH: HOW WALKING AND 

BIKING CAN IMPROVE HEALTH

2.1.1 Active Lifestyles

Building active transportation facilities provides 

opportunities for people to get outside, walk, bike, 

jog, skate, and rollerblade or partake in other physical activities. These aerobic activities all burn 

calories, enabling people to maintain a healthy 

weight and improve mental health. For example, a 

160-pound adult walking at 3.5 miles per hour for 1 

hour burns 314 calories, and running at 8 miles per 

hour for 1 hour burns 861 calories.2 A 130-pound 

person bicycling at 14–16 miles per hour for 1 hour 

burns about 590 calories.3 Burning 500 calories per 

day will translate into 1 pound lost per week.4

The U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, recognized these health benefits in his “Step It Up!” 

campaign, a “Call to Action to Promote Walking 

and Walkable Communities.” 

Children who walk or bicycle to school are often 

healthier than their peers who are driven. Because 

of this, they also miss fewer days of school, are more 

alert in class, and perform better academically. Similarly, healthy employees miss fewer days of work,5

focus better, and perform better at work than do 

those who are less healthy. 

According to the President’s Council on Fitness,6 

regular physical activity—

• Reduces the risk of heart disease, cancer, and 

stroke.

• Strengthens muscles, bones, and joints.

• Improves heart and lung condition.

• Decreases depression.

• Increases energy and self-esteem.

• Lengthens life expectancy.

• Relieves stress.

By contrast, people who live sedentary lifestyles 

have a greater risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, 

high blood pressure, high cholesterol, stroke, heart 

disease, and cancer. One study found that the risk 

for obesity increases 6 percent for every hour spent 

in a car, whereas the risk decreases 4.8 percent for 

every kilometer walked.7

2.1.2 Stress Relief

Exercise can act as a stress reliever. Being active can 

boost your feel-good endorphins and distract you 

from daily worries.8 Mednet.com lists more than 

100 illnesses, medical conditions, and mental problems as either caused by or intensified by stress. 

These conditions range from heart attacks and 

cancer to depression, insomnia, chronic fatigue, a 

variety of mental illnesses, and alcoholism. Having 

attractive bikeways, trails and pedestrian facilities 

can entice more people to get outside and become 

more active, relieving their stress and improving 

their health. 
11

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | BENEFITS

Figure 2-1: Speed and Pedestrian Safety, where magenta icons represent fatalities

2.2 SAFETY: FIRST PRIORITY FOR 

PLANNING AND DESIGN

If provided low-stress bikeways, improved pedestrian crossings, and trails, people will be able to cycle, walk, and ride in a safer environment. Creating 

safe walking and biking facilities is imperative not 

just for providing transportation choices but also 

for providing safe travel for the many people who 

have no choice. Roughly 1 in 10 American households is carless,9

 which makes the issue not one of 

choice but of social equity and justice. 

2.2.1 Safe Facilities

Bicycling on streets with low vehicular volumes and 

speeds or on a dedicated bikeway on a high-volume 

street with higher speeds provides a low-stress bicycling experience.10 Shared streets (those with 

no separated bicycle lane) are often inherently 

uncomfortable bicycling environments, but they 

may be further enhanced with traffic-calming elements.11 Dedicated bikeways make bicyclists more 

comfortable by increasing visibility and legitimacy. 

Bike lanes provide a place to ride where motorists 

generally do not intrude, and cyclists feel more 

comfortable. Separated bikeways go a long way in 

increasing cyclists’ safety and comfort, even when 

traveling alongside fast-moving cars.12

Improved pedestrian-friendly safety features reduce the number of pedestrians hit by cars. For 

example, adding a sidewalk has a crash reduction 

factor of 88 percent.13 Crossing islands reduce pedestrian-involved crashes by 46 percent at marked, 

uncontrolled crossings (no signals or stop signs.)14

Bike lanes, sidewalks, and parkways—when accommodated through narrowing motor vehicle travel 

lanes—also have the potential to reduce the speed 

of cars and improve safety. Speed is a key factor in 

crash reduction for three reasons. First, motorists’ 

peripheral vision declines with speed. Second, stopping distance increases with speed. For example, 

the average stopping distance at 40 miles per hour 

is 170 feet, whereas at 25 miles per hour it is only 60 

feet. Third, crash severity increases with speed. If 

hit by a car moving 20 miles per hour, a pedestrian 

has a 95-percent chance of survival but at 40 miles 

per hour, only a 15-percent chance (figure 2-1).15

2.2.2 Safety in Numbers

The more cyclists, pedestrians, and joggers who 

use local streets and trails, the more people will be 

aware of and will look for them.16 Also, because a 

greater percentage of motorists will use the streets 

and trails as cyclists, pedestrians, and joggers, more 

motorists will be aware of their presence. 

2.2.3 Personal Safety

Personal safety benefits can result from having people out walking, cycling, or skating because they 

put “eyes on the street.”17 If more people are out and 

casually surveying the street, criminals are less likely to engage in antisocial activity. More people on 

the streets provides an increased sense of safety and 

may encourage yet more walking and biking. 
12

CHAPTER 2 | BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Figure 2-1: Air Quality and Transportation Options

Vehicles produce approximately 0.95 lbs of CO2/passenger/mile 

traveled of carbon emissions. Bicycling only produces 0.05 lbs of 

CO2/passenger/mile traveled.

Note: This study took into account not just the emissions from 

the vehicles themselves, but from the entire life cycle of the mode 

including production, maintenance and fuel — which in the 

case of bicycling includes caloric intake.

Source: European Cycling Federation’s publication, “Cycle more 

Often 2 cool down the planet ! Quantifying CO2 savings of 

cycling”

City 

Population

Drivers 

(68.5% 

of total 

population)

Miles driven 

per year by 

residents

Reduction in 

miles driven, 

given 1 mile 

reduction per 

person per day

Equivalent 

of “cars on 

the road” 

reduced

CO2 

reduced 

(lbs)

NOX reduced (lbs) VOC reduced 

(lbs)

50,000 34,250 411,000,000 398,498,750 1,042 10.14 

million 19,082 28,472

Table 2-1: Motorized Trips to Non-Motorized Trips Conversion Example (Passenger Cars)

2.3 ENVIRONMENT: ACTIVE 

TRANSPORTATION’S ROLE

There is a broad spectrum of benefits by providing active transportation networks, and along with 

individual benefits, there are also environmental 

benefits. Providing an increased use of facilities 

improves local air and water quality for the entire 

community (figure 2-2). These benefits are described in the following sections. 

2.3.1 Improved Air Quality

As local residents decide to walk or bicycle instead 

of drive to work, to school, to shop, or for other purposes, greenhouse gas emissions will decrease and 

air quality will improve. Significant benefits can be 

gained even for very short trips. For instance, if residents of a small city (population: 50,000) were to 

convert 1 mile of motorized trips to non-motorized 

trips every day, it would result in 12,501,250 fewer 

miles driven per year (table 2-1). This represents 

the equivalent of 1,042 fewer cars on the road 

and the following air pollutant reductions: 10.14 

pounds less carbon dioxide (CO2), 19,082 pounds 

less nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 28,472 pounds less 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs).18 (Note: These 

calculations relate to passenger cars only; they do 

not include light trucks and SUVs, which comprise 

a large share of vehicles driven and generate higher 

levels of emissions.)

It is important to note that when substituting a 

driving trip with a walking or bicycling trip, it also 

eliminates “cold starts,” the most polluting portion 

of the car trip. Because the preceding calculations 

used trip averages, the actual reductions would 

likely be significantly higher. 

Improved air quality has a positive impact not only 

on the environment but also on the people that live 

in it. According to the Centers for Disease Control 

(CDC), motor vehicles contribute to more than 50 

percent of asthma-triggering air pollution in urban 

areas. According to the same CDC source, “Several 

years ago, researchers took advantage of a natural 

experiment to learn about the impact on pediatric 

asthma of decreased traffic levels and improved air 

quality.” 19

During the 1996 Summer Olympics Games in Atlanta, when peak morning traffic decreased 23 percent and peak ozone levels decreased 28 percent, 

emergency visits for asthma events in children 

decreased 42 percent. At the same time, children’s 

emergency room visits for causes other than asthma did not change. These results suggest that efforts 

to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality can also help improve the respiratory health of a 

community.
13

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | BENEFITS

Figure 2-3: Annual Cost of Transportation

This trail made of decomposed granite allows rainwater to flow 

through, preventing flooding, while providing a solid surface for 

walking and biking. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Figure source: Transit for Livable Communities, Minnesota

The calculations in table 2-1 were based on the following—

• The average fuel economy for a light vehicle 

sold today is approximately 25 miles per gallon. 

(Sean Gagnier, “Average Fuel Economy of New 

US Vehicles Rises to 25.4 mpg,” Automotive 

News, April 3, 2014.)

• There are 685 drivers per 1,000 U.S. residents. 

(Federal Highway Administration, Office of 

Highway Policy Information, Highway Finance 

Data Collection, 2001.)

• 142,590,985 people live in U.S. cities with 

populations between 5,000 and 200,000. (U.S. 

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 

5-year Estimates, 2009–2013.)

• The average U.S. driver drives 13,476 miles per 

year. (Federal Highway Administration, Office 

of Highway Policy Information, 2014.)

2.3.2 Improved Water Supply and Quality

Streets designed primarily for vehicle traffic are 

likely to be wide, with little landscaping and constructed of impervious materials. This is due to 

practical considerations for vehicles and normative 

decisions in which a premium is placed on speed 

and efficiency. These qualities combined offer little opportunity for sustainable water treatment. In 

contrast, streets designed for bicycle and pedestrian 

use, such as neighborhood greenways, are likely to 

be narrow, with enhanced landscaping and may be 

constructed of permeable materials. For example, 

the use of curb extensions and crossing islands to 

shorten crossing distances makes pedestrians more 

visible and reduces exposure while providing opportunities for enhanced landscaping and sustainable water treatment (e.g. bioswales and rain gardens). Similarly, the use of chicanes to calm traffic 

and provide a low-stress cycling experience provides opportunities for increased landscaping and 

water treatment. 

2.4 ECONOMY: SAVING 

TRANSPORTATION COSTS

Active transportation networks can provide not 

only a cost savings to the users but immediate and 

long-term benefits to the local economy as well. 

These benefits are described in the following sections. 

2.4.1 Cost Savings

Local residents that walk or bicycle for daily trips to 

the store, work, school, or other destinations can 

realize substantial costs savings by not using their 

cars (figure 2-3). The estimated annual cost of owning and operating a car is about 35 times more expensive than that of walking. (Note: Costs associated with walking include sturdy walking shoes, rain 

and snow gear, as well as occasional taxi or transit 

trips.)20

Cost savings for individuals and society also result 

from better health. For example, the yearly cost of 

being overweight is $524 for women and $432 for 

men. The annual cost of obesity is $4,879 for women 

and $2,646 for men.21 Nationally, obesity-related ailments, such as chronic disease, disability, and death, 

are estimated to cost $190.2 billion annually.22 

By 2018, obesity is estimated to cost the United 

States $344 billion per year, consuming 21 percent 

of our healthcare budget.23 This would likely cause 

insurance rates to go up for those that purchase private insurance and consume significant resources 

from our public health insurance programs, such 

as Medicare and state health programs. Fortunately, walking and cycling are two forms of moderate 

exercise that are effective and convenient means of 

maintaining healthy weight and general fitness.24
14

CHAPTER 2 | BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Figure 2-4: What Most People Want

Figure 2-5: Walkability and Property Value

2.4.2 Economic Development

Research shows that trails have the potential to 

create jobs, expand local businesses, and enhance 

property values (figure 2-4). Shortly after its completion in 2012, the $62.5 million Indianapolis Cultural Trail, a multipurpose trail in urban Indianapolis, generated 11,000 jobs, as well as $863 million 

through construction, private-sector investment, 

and increased tourism. The project also increased 

property values by $45 million.25 The 150,000 annual visitors to the Little Miami Scenic Trail in Ohio 

spend an average of $13.54 per visit on food, beverages, and transportation to the trail. They also 

spend an estimated $277 each year on clothing, 

equipment, and accessories during these trips.26 In 

Apex, North Carolina, developers added a $5,000 

premium to homes adjacent to a regional greenway, 

and those homes were still the first to sell.27 These 

are just a few of many examples that document the 

economic benefit of active transportation facilities 

(figure 2-5).

All of these factors can help the tourism industry, 

restaurants, and other retail outlets, bringing in 

more tax revenue to the jurisdiction. In addition to 

attracting visitors, walkable, bikeable communities 

may motivate local residents to do more of their 

shopping and entertainment locally, rather than 

traveling to another city or town. Moreover, if they 

save money by driving less, they will have more disposable income that could be used locally. 

2.4.3 Economically Viable Futures

Smaller U.S. cities and towns are having difficulty 

keeping and attracting vibrant industries and a millennial workforce. This “brain drain” is negatively 

impacting smaller cities. Many millennials want a 

more “urban” lifestyle where they can live in compact, walkable, bikeable communities.28 Growing 

Nearly 8 out of 10 Americans believe it is important to live 

“within an easy walk” of shops, cafes, schools and other 

community places.24 

Houses with above average levels of walkability sell for $4,000 to 

$34,000 more than houses with average levels of walkability.25 

evidence exists that the baby boomer generation 

shares a similar desire for more compact, walkable 

communities.29 If smaller cities expect to attract or 

retain both millennials and boomers, planning for 

denser, walkable and bikeable communities would 

be an effective formula. Otherwise, economies may 

stagnate or decline.

2.5 QUALITY OF LIFE: HOW 

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CAN HELP 

IMPROVE

Active transportation provides the opportunity for 

an increase in the quality of life for individual residents as well as the community as a whole. Active 

transportation networks create complete streets 

that make walking or biking more enjoyable and 

increase social interactions. These benefits are described in the following sections. 

2.5.1 Reduced Driving for Short Trips

Many trips are short and can be done on foot or 

bicycle if safe and attractive facilities are available. 

Because 48 percent of all trips are 3 miles or less, 21 

percent of all trips are less than 1 mile, and 60 percent of all trips less than 1 mile are done by driving, 

there is significant potential to convert these trips to 

active transportation trips.30

2.5.2 Social Interaction

Walking, cycling, skating, rollerblading, and other 

non-motorized transportation modes put people in 

the streets in situations that offer much more opportunity for social interaction compared to driving. This can make communities more vibrant and 

can help to develop stronger social capital. 

Active transportation brings about a “people-oriented” feel to streets. People can be seen out where 
15

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | BENEFITS

Shoreline bike path with parallel walking areas - Long Beach, 

CA. Photo source: Mike Singleton

they interact with others that are out as well. Research conducted on three streets in San Francisco 

found that residents living on streets with light traffic 

had three times as many friends and twice as many 

acquaintances as those living on streets with heavy 

traffic.31 Residents living on a bike boulevard (Clinton Street) in Portland, Oregon have put out artistic 

benches facing the street as a show of neighborhood 

interaction. This contrasts with the walls that line 

high-speed arterials in suburban subdivisions. 

2.5.3 Enjoyment

People who use bike and pedestrian networks gain 

a significant opportunity to enjoy outdoor recreation. They are able to go out to enjoy those networks on their own and may find that the trails 

offer a terrific chance to spend time together with 

family. Polls show that residents greatly value trails 

and bikeways in their communities.32 Best of all, 

trail activities can be enjoyed by people of nearly 

all ages.

2.5.4 Improvements to the Public Realm

By making walking and biking true transportation alternatives, cities may reduce the amount of 

public space dedicated to the movement and storage of private vehicles and repurpose it for “higher uses” (i.e. a “road diet,” also referred to as street 

“right-sizing”).33 In addition to creating more space 

for walking and biking, road diets can create more 

public space. Medians, street furniture, landscaping, public art, historical plaques, wayfinding signs, 

improved bus stops, and community gardens exemplify the types of uses that could become the 

“higher and better” use of the public space. 

2.6 INVESTMENTS: MAXIMIZING 

TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE 

INVESTMENTS

It is important to maximize the active transportation network and the process it takes to get there. 

The following are strategies to ensure this happens 

and the barriers that need to be addressed throughout the process. 

2.6.1 Improving Access to Other 

Transportation Modes

Active transportation supports public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, and car-sharing programs. 

The “first-mile, last-mile” problem presents challenges in attracting people to use public transit and 

rideshare programs. The actual ride on transit or 

rideshare may be convenient, but getting to the origin and destination of a trip may discourage use. 

Active transportation allows for a broader use of 

transit and ridesharing by filling the first-and lastmile gaps. 

2.6.2 Synergy with Transit-Oriented 

Development

Active transportation should be an integral part 

of planning transit-oriented development (TOD) 

projects (further explanation of TOD can be found 

in the glossary). The combination of highly accessible transit and attractive options for walking and 

cycling provides opportunities for people to go 

about their daily activities with minimal need for 

driving. In TOD areas, driving and parking can be 

time consuming and expensive, so active transportation and transit can compete well for patronage. 

One study of 26 TODs showed that people living 

within 0.5 mile of a transit station used transit four 

times as often as those living between 0.5 mile and 

3 miles, and six times more likely than those living 

beyond 3 miles.34 For smaller communities, where 

a large transit station is not feasible, this could be 

centered around a single-track train station or a regional transit center with TOD development surrounding the station.

2.6.3 Connecting People to Land Uses

Many neighborhood destinations are within a reasonable walking or biking distance but are driven 

to because of poor bicycle and pedestrian routes 

connecting people’s homes to other destinations 

and because of the ease of driving. People driving 

through their own neighborhood often overlook 

as destinations the assets their own community offers. Once people feel that it is safe and comfortable 

to walk, bicycle, or skate around their community, they will likely use local amenities and services 

more often.35 
16

CHAPTER 2 | BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Figure 2-6: Walkable and Bikeable Distances

Most people are willing to walk 0.5 mile and bike 2.5 miles for 

transportation.

2.6.4 Tactical Urbanism

Tactical urbanism is another means of fast-tracking 

a project that can be held up for political reasons. 

Tactical urbanism is “an umbrella term used to describe a collection of low-cost, temporary changes 

to the built environment, usually—but not always—

in cities, intended to improve local neighborhoods 

and city gathering places.”36 Tactical urbanism is 

also commonly referred to as guerrilla urbanism, 

pop-up urbanism, city repair, or DIY (do-it-yourself) urbanism.37 Successful interventions can run 

the gamut of lawful or sanctioned to illegal or unsanctioned. There is no reason to suggest illegal actions because so many legal yet aggressive actions 

are possible.

2.7 BARRIERS: MEANS TO 

OVERCOME THEM

The barriers to expanding opportunities for active transportation in communities of fewer than 

200,000 people are distance, infrastructure, economic, environmental, and political. These barriers 

are examined in the following sections, along with 

suggestions on how to overcome them individually. 

2.7.1 Distance Barriers

Long distances between origins and destinations 

present a significant barrier for both walking and 

biking. There is a range—of course—of how far 

people are willing to walk and bicycle for transportation, but the planning research standards range 

from 0.25 mile—0.5 mile for walking38 and around 

2.5 miles for bicycling39 (figure 2-6). Distance barriers exist because of land use planning decisions, 

wherein noncom-pact and segregated uses were 

permitted or encouraged. 

Three primary strategies may be employed to overcome distance barriers: (1) develop bike- and pedestrian-friendly land use patterns that improve 

and add to the connectivity of the street network 

(new and old); (2) build pedestrian shortcuts in 

new and old development; and (3) develop transit 

networks that complement the pedestrian and bicycle networks by covering longer-distance trips. 

Changing land use patterns is fundamental to removing distance barriers, but it is typically a very 

slow and incremental process. In the interim, a robust transit network can help overcome these barriers while supporting walking and biking. 

2.7.2 Infrastructure Barriers

Physical constraints present challenges for retrofitting existing communities for active transportation. 

On streets where the community wishes to widen 

sidewalks, improve pedestrian crossings, add bike 

lanes, or add separated bike lanes, there may not be 

enough space. In built environments, the existing 

curb-to-curb width may not be sufficient to make 

these improvements without making changes that 

would reduce the space required for vehicle travel 

or parking. 
17

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | BENEFITS

Pharr Road after Road Diet and Restriping - Atlanta, GA.

Photo source: Ryan Snyder

Fifth Avenue After Road Diet and Restriping- San Diego, CA. 

Photo source: Mike Singleton

Although constructing trails may be quite desirable, some communities have no available corridors 

in which to construct them. Alternatively, right-ofway may exist but suffer from insufficient width or 

encroachment by adjacent property owners. The 

following improvements offer possible means to 

overcome physical barriers.

1) Restriped Streets. Often, streets are striped with 

travel and turn lanes wider than they need to be. By 

restriping travel lanes, turn lanes, and parking lanes 

to narrower dimensions, space can be reclaimed for 

active transportation. In most situations, 10-footwide travel lanes are adequate. Where high numbers 

of buses or trucks run, 11 feet may be needed. 

Parking lanes are commonly striped at 8 feet; they 

can be narrowed to 7 feet. Extending the pavement 

over the gutter pan, which is next to the curb, can 

effectively provide more pavement space. 

2) Road Diets. A road diet is generally described as 

removing travel lanes from a roadway and utilizing 

the space for other uses and travel modes. This 

informational guide will focus on the most common 

road diet reconfiguration, which is the conversion 

of an undivided four-lane roadway to a three-lane 

undivided roadway made up of two through lanes 

and a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). (For 

federal guidance on road diets, see FHWA’s Road 

Diet Informational Guide at http://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/road_diets/info_guide/.)

3) Innovative Drainage Treatments. Islands and curb 

extensions can be used to improve pedestrian 

crossings and provide physical barriers for separated 

bike lanes, but they also alter drainage. Using 

runoff infiltration techniques that allow water to be 

absorbed and cleansed by the soil can reduce the 

need to apply expensive measures, such as moving 

catch basins. Other drainage strategies may redirect 

water around changed curbs.

4) Conditioned New Development and Redevelopment.

New development and redevelopment offer 

opportunities to include walking and biking facilities 

as part of the initial design. By incorporating 

pedestrian and bicycle accommodation into longterm plans, local governments can condition 

new development to construct facilities when the 

property is developed or redeveloped. By utilizing 

updated street design manuals, new streets and 

sidewalks should be built with adequately wide 

sidewalks, low-speed streets, safe street crossings, 

bike lanes, and bike paths as part of the development.

2.7.3 Economic Barriers

Retrofitting existing communities with active transportation projects can result in expenditures for 

new facilities and programs. The facilities include a 

wide range of devices and measures, as shown in 

subsequent chapters of this report, such as sidewalk 

widening, improved pedestrian crossings, new signals and signal modifications, bike lanes and paths, 

separated bike lanes, and traffic calming. Wherever 

possible, active transportation projects should be 

bundled with other transportation projects. Creating an environment that embraces active transportation requires education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs. These additional 

efforts have ongoing operational costs. 

New development and redevelopment bring opportunities to incorporate active transportation design features as integral parts of the development 

and do not present great additional capital costs. 

Moreover, as shown in the Economic Development section, there is often a significant return on 

these investments. Well-established practices often 

require developers to widen streets, flare intersections, and add traffic signals to accommodate new 

traffic resulting from development. 
18

CHAPTER 2 | BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Communities and planning agencies are just starting to mitigate traffic and instead focus on reducing 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by requiring developers to pay for nearby bikeways, improved sidewalks, 

or enhanced pedestrian crossings. Legally, such 

mandates will require a demonstration of nexus between the development’s impact and the required 

improvement, as well as a proportional nexus. Because accurate forecasting methodologies are needed to determine the offsetting benefits of the active 

transportation projects, establishing nexus presents 

challenges. 

The following options help overcome the costs 

of retrofitting existing communities, streets, and 

neighborhoods with active transportation. 

1) Reprioritize existing transportation budget. Every 

gallon of gasoline purchased pays a federal gasoline 

tax, and many states have their own gasoline taxes 

that provide the primary source of funding for 

transportation projects. Some locales have sales 

taxes and other regular sources of revenue for 

ongoing transportation needs. Although there is 

currently legitimate discussion over the adequacy 

of these revenue sources (especially because the 

federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993 and 

cars are more fuel efficient), these taxes still provide 

a regular funding stream. Many communities 

have historically used their transportation budgets 

for automobile-oriented projects. Projects such 

as street widenings, intersection flarings, and 

interchange reconstruction can deplete available 

funding quickly. Active transportation projects, 

by comparison, are relatively inexpensive. Simply 

looking to fund active transportation projects as a 

higher priority with existing funding streams can 

often provide sufficient design and construction 

budgets.

2) Piggyback onto other projects. The most cost-effective 

time to make many street improvements is at the time 

other improvements are being made. For example, 

the cost of applying paint or thermoplastic for bike 

lanes, crosswalks, and advance yield lines is very 

small relative to the cost of resurfacing. Similarly, 

when the street is dug up for major drainage or utility 

projects, new sidewalks with curb and gutter can be 

constructed less expensively than as separate projects. 

3) Institute special assessments. Special assessments 

levy additional taxes on properties that benefit 

from the project being funded. These assessments 

can be structured to be paid for once up front 

or incrementally over time. Neighbors—as in 

Maintenance Assessment Districts (MADs)—can 

agree to tax themselves for a new sidewalk and pay 

for it over 20 years, for example. Alternatively, the 

property owners along a new trail may agree to pay 

for the trail, understanding that their property values 

will increase as a result of the trail. Tax increment 

financing (TIF) and Business Improvement Districts 

(BID) are other means of financing improvements 

through self-assessment (a portion of tax revenue, in 

the former case, and businesses in the latter). 

4) Seek inexpensive treatments. Many active 

transportation projects can be relatively inexpensive. 

In many cases, paint (or thermoplastic, slurry, and 

so forth) can be applied to create bike lanes, highvisibility crosswalks, bike boxes, or other street 

markings without great cost. Similarly, low curbs 

are less expensive than high curbs and are often 

adequate for islands and curb extensions. Many other 

innovative ways exist to cut costs on projects. 

5) Update design manuals. The greatest cost of active 

transportation projects comes in retrofitting streets 

that were not designed for walking or cycling; they 

were built following design manuals that did not 

consider active transportation. In communities 

where new design manuals have been adopted based 

on active transportation and living streets principles, 

changes to streets are made and new streets are 

constructed with walking and bicycling in mind. 

Adopt a Complete Streets or Living Streets Policy, 

which ensures that every department and street 

project is designed, built, maintained, and repaired 

for all users. Include all subdivisions and new 

development in policy language.

6) Train local talent. Funding capital projects is often 

easier than funding operational costs for ongoing 

programs. Many cities lack adequate funding for 

ongoing education, encouragement, enforcement, 

and evaluation programs. By having someone in 

the community—or in schools—trained to provide 

and organize these programs, a greater degree 

of sustainability can be reached. For example, if 

police departments are trained to give bicycle and 

pedestrian education and are keenly aware of bicycle 

and pedestrian needs in enforcement, they can 

incorporate these as part of their ongoing activities.

7) Establish legally accepted nexus metrics. In order 

to overcome the legal issues with establishing 

nexus between the impact of new development 

and required active transportation expenditures, 

accepted methodologies can be developed. Possible 

metrics may include vehicle miles traveled (VMT; i.e. 

a maintenance or reduction in miles traveled) and/

or bicycle and pedestrian mode share (i.e. increase 

biking by a specified percent.
19

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | BENEFITS

Emergency access friendly street treatments - Redmond, WA. 

Photo source: Ryan Snyder

Early input avoids late controversy. Community Workshop - 

Desert Hot Springs, CA. Photo source: Mike Singleton

2.7.4 Environmental Barriers

The primary environmental barrier to active transportation facilities relates to the effects of pavement 

on waterways. Pavement reduces infiltration and can 

cause chemicals from streets to enter adjacent waterways. Common remedies include—

• Using pervious pavement.

• Using materials such as Grasscrete that allow water 

to soak into the ground.

• Using alternatives surfaces to paving, such as decomposed granite or porous pavement.

Further, many active transportation projects can be 

constructed with zero increase, or even a decrease, in 

paved area. Many active transportation projects are 

installed within the current right-of-way, requiring no 

new pavement and no new impacts to soil and water 

quality. Where active transportation projects lead to a 

lasting, reduced demand for driving, it may be possible to remove pavement (formerly dedicated to vehicle 

travel), actually improving soil, water, and air quality. 

Still other active transportation facilities may improve 

water and soil quality through increased landscaping 

(bioremediation), while causing no impact to vehicular circulation. Reclaiming excess paved surfaces for 

landscaping is common in urban trail, bike boulevard, 

and landscaped cycle tracks projects. 

2.7.5 Political Barriers

Building new trails and incorporating well-designed 

sidewalks and attractive bike lanes into new development is unlikely to create political resistance from 

the community. In new greenfield development, a 

community doesn’t exist. Developers sometimes oppose requirements to incorporate these features into 

their projects because they perceive them to add to 

costs without offering a similar return in value. As 

noted previously, however, active transportation features likely increase the value of their developments. 

Political opposition more often stems from retrofitting existing roadways (i.e. reallocating space or 

eliminating on-street parking). Local residents 

sometimes express concerns that bicycle or pedestrian route improvements may exacerbate congestion. Fire departments often oppose street modifications that they perceive will impair their ability to 

respond quickly to emergencies. 

Vehicle parking lost to bicycle projects is a continual 

concern, particularly among business owners. It is 

interesting to note that loss of parking often generates the most opposition to an active transportation 

project even where parking removal is minimal.40

Some communities have experienced crime along 

trails and are reluctant to expand them. The level of 

crime, although very low and not likely, can be perceived negatively. In other cases, residents oppose 

new trails along waterways or rights-of-way behind 

their homes because they perceive a loss of privacy. 

The following strategies offer some means to avoid 

or ameliorate these political issues.

1) Involve the community and key stakeholders in early 

stages of the design process. Too often, local planning 

or transportation departments bring plans to 

show the community after they are in a final form. 

Including a broad cross-section of stakeholders in 

workshops early in the planning process can avoid 

much community discontent. If stakeholders are 

included in the design process, they take ownership 

of the plan and want to see their ideas implemented. It 

is also critical to mix stakeholders at workshop tables 

so they understand the needs of different people. 

For instance, by putting school administrators, 

homeowners, business owners, and fire departments 

together with people with disabilities, older 

adults, and bicycle advocates, each group learns to 

understand and appreciate the other’s needs. 
20

CHAPTER 2 | BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Traffic circle with mountable curb to allow access for large 

vehicles. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Retrofitted streetscape, including several vegetated planters and 

permeable paving. Photo source: Mike Singleton

2) Use emergency access-friendly street treatments.

Emergency responders may oppose features that 

increase their response time. Some measures to reduce 

speeding to make communities more walkable and 

bikeable raise concerns from emergency responders. 

By planning improvements with this in mind, design 

for emergency access can be successful. Techniques 

such as mountable curbs on islands and curb 

extensions allow emergency vehicles to pass. Traffic 

calming facilities can be limited to streets that carry 

little traffic and are local and residential in nature so 

that the majority of the emergency access trip takes 

place on other streets. First responders like wellconnected grids of streets with small blocks, as 

opposed to cul-de-sacs. These grids are much more 

conducive to walking and bicycling, so there is 

agreement here. Again, it is important to include 

emergency responders in planning and designing 

streets. More information on this topic can be found in 

Best Practices: Emergency Access in Healthy Streets, 

produced for the Los Angeles County Department of 

Public Health.41 Also to note, emergency responses 

may be as a result of a collision between bikes, 

pedestrians, and vehicles. Anything that can be done 

to improve the safety of these users lowers the need for 

emergency access in the first place. 

3) Implement design solutions. Design solutions can often 

reduce or eliminate political concerns. For example, 

there may be design solutions to reduce the impact of 

new trails located behind backyards. Moving 

alignments farther from homes and constructing 

fences or other features may alleviate some of these 

concerns. Where trails have a history of crime, adding 

lighting, call boxes, and wayfinding systems and 

trimming adjacent vegetation for greater visibility may 

reduce the likelihood of crime. As more people use 

trails, the crime element likely decreases because of 

greater exposure (more “eyes on the street”).42

4) Pick the low-hanging fruit. Bringing active 

transportation projects to streets that create little 

disruption will likely result in minimal opposition. 

For example, restriping wide, low-traffic streets 

to create space for bike lanes is likely to create less 

opposition than road diets. Road diets are more 

politically feasible where traffic is light rather than 

where it is heavier. Introducing active transportation 

projects with little impact creates a growing 

constituency that will likely support more ambitious 

measures in the future. The improvements for 

cyclists and pedestrians can also often reduce traffic 

congestion and speeds. These side benefits should 

always be stressed to people and businesses along 

these streets to win their support for the project.

5) Introduce new concepts with visual representations 

and local examples. In communities that are 

just beginning to include active transportation 

facilities, many people are likely to be unfamiliar 

with the designs and vocabulary. Using visuals, 

such as pictures and renderings, helps people 

understand the concepts. Often, people think of 

compact communities as crowded, congested, and 

undesirable cities. Some people raise concerns about 

congestion resulting from changes proposed in the 

street, but showing contrasting photos of walkable 

communities and suburban arterial strips illustrates 

a different type of community. Most people respond 

positively to photographs of walkable communities. 

By using renderings to show how improvements 

could change the appearance of local streets, people 

can better envision what is planned and will often 

become more supportive. If people focus more on 

how nice their neighborhood could become, they 

will be less likely to focus on perceived negatives, 

such as congestion. Field visits, especially with 

elected officials and other policymakers, are another 

powerful way of conveying active transportationrelated issues and opportunities. 

6) Propose interim solutions. The field of active 

transportation is rife with examples of interim or 

temporary projects used to demonstrate the function 

of, and win community support for, a controversial new 

facility.43 Temporary projects may include anything 

from a cycle track to a street closure (and public space 

creation). Best practices indicate that installations 

should appear convincingly temporary yet attractive 

and functional (and potentially compelling). 
21

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | BENEFITS

When the right tools have been placed in the right places with the right public and political support, a walkable and bikeable 

community can become a reality. Photo source: Mike Singleton

2.7.6 Jurisdictional Barriers

Some small cities may face jurisdictional barriers, 

such as a lack of authority to make transportation 

and land use decisions. The authority may instead 

reside in a county, state, or regional governmental 

entity (such as a metropolitan planning organization, or MPO). This is often the case with main 

streets that double as state highways. Best practices 

include collaboration with the superseding agency 

to identify planning and design solutions to meet 

the needs of both parties. More concretely, this collaboration could result in coordinated regional 

plans and projects that reflect best practices in bicycle and pedestrian accommodation. If a partnership cannot be formed, cities should provide documentation of their support for given 

recommendations or consider requesting a jurisdictional transfer. This way, there is a precedent of 

support if and when the superseding agency adjusts 

its position. 

2.8 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT 

RESOURCES TO CONSIDER

For more information on land use planning, please 

consult the following foundational documents.

FHWA:

• Creating Safer Communities for Walking/Biking (2015)

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

• Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies (2008) 

AASHTO:

• Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)

NACTO:

• Transit Street Design Guides (2016)

• Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014) 

• Urban Street Design Guide (2013) 

OTHERS:

• Complete Streets: Best Policies and Implementation Practices (Annual) 

• LEED for Neighborhood Development (2014)

• Model Design Manual for Living Streets (2011)
22

CHAPTER 2 | BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

NOTES:

1 http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/

p0502-physical-activity.html.

2 http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weightloss/in-depth/exercise/art-20050999?pg=2.

3 Bicycling Magazine. Cycling Calories Burned Calculator. http://prod.bicycling.com/training-nutrition/

training-fitness/cycling-calories-burned-calculator.

4 Mayo Clinic website: http://www.mayoclinic.org/

healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/calories/art20048065.

5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prevention Makes Common “Cents.” 2003.

6 http://fitness.gov/.

7 Frank, L., et. al. 2004. Obesity Relationships with 

Community Design, Physical Activity, and Time 

Spent in Cars.

8 http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/

stress-management/in-depth/exercise-and-stress/art20044469.

9 http://www.umtri.umich.edu/our-results/publications/has-motorization-us-peaked.

10 http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1005.html.

11 http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/bicycle-boulevards/.

12 https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/city-cycling.

13 Federal Highway Administration Pedestrian Safety 

Design course.

14 Zegeer, C., J. Stuart, and H. Huang. 2001. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

15 Jacobsen, P.L. “Safety in Numbers.” Injury Prevention 

9: 205–209.

16 Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2008. 

Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption 

for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.

18 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/airpollution.htm.

19 http://www.tlcminnesota.org/the-annual-cost-ofowning-a-car-is-8776-what-about-other-modes-aback-of-the-envelop-calculation/.

20 Dor, Avi, Christine Ferguson, Casey Langwith, and 

Ellen Tan. 2010. A Heavy Burden: The Individual 

Costs of Being Overweight and Obese in the United States. Washington, DC: The George Washington 

University School of Public Health and Health Services Department of Health Policy.

21 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 

2012. Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: 

Solving the Weight of the Nation. Report brief. May 8.

22 National Association for Sport and Physical Education. 2010 Shape of the Nation Report.

23 http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ralph_Buehler/

publication/45721029_Walking_and_cycling_to_

health_a_comparative_analysis_of_city_state_and_

international_data/links/0fcfd50c0b88ca4fe7000000.

pdf.

24 http://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2015/living-without-a-car.html.

25 http://blog.walkscore.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities.pdf.

26 Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Indianapolis Cultural Trail: Improving Livability in Central 

Indiana.

27 Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. 1999. Trail Users Study, Little Miami Scenic 

Trail, 15–32.

28 Hopey, Don. 1999. Prime Location on the Trail. Railsto-Trails. Fall/Winter.

29 Dure, Beau. 2014. Millennials Continue Urbanization 

of America, Leaving Small Towns. National Public 

Radio. October 21.

30 http://t4america.org/docs/SeniorsMobilityCrisis.pdf.

31 National Household Transportation Survey. 2009.

32 Appleyard, Don. 1981. “Three Streets in San Francisco.” In Livable Streets.

33 http://trec.pdx.edu/research/project/583/Lessons_

from_the_Green_Lanes:_Evaluating_Protected_

Bike_Lanes_in_the_U.S._.

34 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/.

35 Cervero, Robert. Transit-Oriented Development’s 

Ridership Bonus: A Product of Self-Selection and 

Public Policies.

36 http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/Bicycling_

and_the_Economy-Econ_Impact_Studies_web.pdf.

37 Pfeifer, Laura. 2013. “The Planner’s Guide to Tactical 

Urbanism.”  Montreal: Regina Urban Ecology. Retrieved 23 October 

38 Lydon, Mike, Dan Bartman, Tony Garcia, Russ Preston, and Ronald Woudstra. 2012. Tactical Urbanism 

2: Short-term Action, Long-term Change. New York: 

The Street Plans Collaborative.

39 http://cityparksblog.org/2011/05/13/pedestriansand-park-planning-how-far-will-people-walk/.

40 http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Dilland-Gliebe-2008.pdf.

41 http://trec.pdx.edu/research/project/583/Lessons_

from_the_Green_Lanes:_Evaluating_Protected_

Bike_Lanes_in_the_U.S._.

42 http://completestreetsprince.org/docs/Best-Practices-Emergency-Access-in-Healthy-Streets.pdf.

43 http://islandpress.org/tactical-urbanism.
CHAPTER 3: 

THE PLANNING PROCESS

3.1 PLANNING: OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2 PLANNING PRINCIPLES: PROCESSES TO HELP 

BUILD WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES. . . . . 24

3.3 PROCESS: A SAMPLE APPROACH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.4 TOOLS: ASSURING INTEGRATED PLANNING. . . . . . . . . 29

3.5 IDEAS: PROJECT SCALED STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.6 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO 

CONSIDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

23

Planning, Design or 

Engineering Consultants

Local Elected Officials 

and Review Staff

Federal, State and 

Regional Regulators

Advocate 

Organizations

Providing 

Entities

Decision 

Makers

USER LEGEND

Smart Growth 

Advocates

Mobility Choice 

Advocates

Developers, Financial 

Institutions

Housing Providers and 

Institutions

Health and Safety 

Advocates

Housing 

Advocates

Local Agency Planners 

and Engineers
24

CHAPTER 3 | THE PLANNING PROCESS

Community involvement is critical in the planning process. 

Photo source: Mike Singleton

The first step in making a community more bikeand pedestrian-friendly is to plan for it. Planning 

at a high level is essential in getting treads and 

soles on the ground. The modern regulatory environment is very complex and can cause significant 

delays in constructing the infrastructure that a 

community wants and needs. If the foundation 

has not been set from the high level of policies and 

plans, then getting something built that will improve the physical circulation environment may 

be delayed or prevented because consistent planning has not been accomplished.

3.1 PLANNING: OVERVIEW

A plan provides guidance on a community’s longterm vision and goals. The planning process offers 

many opportunities to integrate pedestrian and 

bicycle improvements into a community’s policies, plans, and projects. Pedestrian and bicycle 

planning may be included in a variety of plans. 

• General or comprehensive plans: These broad 

plans are intended to provide a vision, goals, 

and policies for the long-range development 

of a city and include a variety of elements pertinent to bicycle and pedestrian planning: circulation, land use, parks and recreation, open 

space, or air quality and environmental issues. 

• Mobility master plans: The circulation element of a comprehensive plan is an important 

means of integrating bicycle and pedestrian 

planning into broader transportation planning. 

This integrated approach may be bolstered by 

the preparation of dedicated bike and pedestrian master plans.

• Community plans and specific plans: These 

types of plans are location-specific, more detailed versions of comprehensive plans. Whereas a comprehensive plan is concerned with an 

entire city, a community or specific plan is 

looking at just a portion of that city. This level of detail typically allows for more detailed 

mapping and recommended improvements: 

bike and pedestrian facilities as they relate to 

land uses and roadway configurations. 

• Regional transportation plans: These plans 

(e.g., county and MPO plans) present opportunities to improve regional multi-modal mobility and—increasingly—local networks of regional significance.

3.2 PLANNING PRINCIPLES: 

PROCESSES TO HELP BUILD WALKABLE 

AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES

Communities that are highly walkable and bikeable do not happen on their own. Some areas were 

developed through historical periods when vehicle travel did not dictate the design of communities. Some have evolved from policies or programs 

put in place. Most communities need to take an 

active planning and integration role to make real 

progress in building transportation networks that 

support active transportation, however. Ways to 

integrate this process include—

• Try to conceive of single projects that solve 

many problems. Consider addressing parking problems with solutions that address additional problems (e.g. conversion of parallel 

parking to back-in, angle parking in addition 

to increasing parking may contribute to traffic 

calming, an improved pedestrian realm, and 

placemaking). 

• Incentivize projects that focus on enhancing 

the public realm. All properties impact, and 

are impacted by, decisions concerning public 

rights-of-way. Therefore, cities may incentivize 

project property owners to positively impact 

the transportation network in their immediate 

area (e.g. through traffic calming, public realm 

development, safety improvements, and active 

transportation enhancements).
25

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

• Integrate policies and priorities across several 

planning tools. These tools include the general 

plan; the circulation or mobility element; the 

land use element; conservation, climate action, 

or sustainability plans; park and recreation 

programs; and public safety and community 

health and well-being programs. 

• Adopt multi-modal standards for level of service or quality of service as well as other complete streets or livable streets policies.

• Avoid mitigations based on levels-of-service 

analysis that actually hinder other modes of 

use, such as cycling. For example, to increase 

traffic throughput, additional turning lanes 

or general lanes are added, sometimes taking 

away on-street bike lanes or reducing walkway 

widths. One or more modes suffer so that vehicular input can be increased. This is counter 

to complete street goals.

• For transportation sustainability and equity in 

modes, consider switching to comparisons of 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or reduction in 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

• Ensure that development policies and review 

processes will help capture opportunities for 

active transportation improvements at the private project level or through public capital improvement plans.

• Highlight the links between land use planning, 

transportation planning, and public health. 

• Recognize the important links between transit 

station area or bus stop access requirements 

and the role that active transportation plays in 

the first- and last-mile opportunities to utilize 

the transit facilities. 

3.3 PROCESS: A SAMPLE APPROACH

The planning processes in small cities (those with 

populations under 200,000) may differ from one 

another depending on the city’s neighbors and its 

regulatory foundation, as well as the size of the city. 

Planning in cities that are a part of larger metropolitan areas will likely require more coordination 

with neighboring jurisdictions and governing bodies than planning in cities that are surrounded by 

unincorporated, undeveloped lands. A metropolitan focus with regional perspective may offer cities 

increased support by way of funding sources and 

broader support, but this may also deprive the community of its independence. Standalone cities often 

have the opportunity to be more innovative and 

quicker in implementation than are those held back 

by multi-agency coordination and regional policies 

and practices. Regardless of context, all planning 

efforts rely on the support of planning agencies, the 

need for local political support, and a driving momentum created by grassroots organizations. 

The following section discusses a typical planning 

process and a typical design process that can be applied to most active transportation improvements 

(figure 3-1). Some active transportation projects 

will be handled more at the general plan, master plan, or specific plan level and are considered 

planning efforts. Other plans will be for specific 

projects in which a much greater level of design 

and engineering is possible and that are therefore 

considered design projects. Design is an inclusive 

term that includes the design and engineering of 

a project with an emphasis on detailed plans that 

can be implemented. 

3.3.1 Typical Planning-Level Process

The typical planning process involves a range of 

participants and leaders. Most often, plans originate from city planning or public works departments. As such, leaders are typically city planning 

or public works staff and, in many cases, hired 

consultants. Depending on the plan, residents and 

other stakeholders may also assume strong leadership roles. 

Discuss Priorities

An initial discussion of priorities should involve 

identified stakeholders, city staff, and consultants 

(if hired). Priorities should relate to other planning 

efforts, and they should be transparent and well 

documented. These priorities and goals should be 

used throughout the planning process as guiding 

principles and a framework for the plan.

Document Existing Conditions

Relevant existing conditions data for bicycle and 

pedestrian planning typically include existing and 

planned transportation facilities (pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicular), existing and planned 

land use, and demographic information (for example, bike/walk mode share, transit ridership, 

car ownership). This information is ideally collected as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

data. Other important information regarding existing conditions is gathered through a review of 

existing and ongoing plans, such as the agency’s 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition 

Plan, standards, discussions with city staff and 

other stakeholders, and fieldwork verification and 

observation. 
26

CHAPTER 3 | THE PLANNING PROCESS

Identify Opportunities

Ideally, opportunities are developed through the 

analysis of the information gleaned from data, discussions, and fieldwork. Using the latest in GIS capabilities, spatial analysis, and modeling provides 

data-driven methods for identification of opportunities. GIS-based analysis topics can include attractors, walk times, level of traffic stress, bicycle/

pedestrian priority, population and employment 

density, walk/bike-to-work mode share, income, 

and car ownership. Without GIS capabilities, 

planners will need to rely on field observation and 

public input to identify opportunities. 

Develop an Outreach Plan

A strong outreach plan is informed by an analysis of existing conditions—with particular attention paid to community demographics—and the 

identification of opportunities. The traditional 

town hall weeknight meeting is increasingly seen 

as an ineffective means of soliciting community 

input that is representative of the community as a 

whole. Alternative strategies include piggybacking 

on existing, popular community events and using 

technology to create virtual town hall meetings 

and to reach community members on their schedules. This can be done through on-line surveys, 

social media outreach, e-mail surveys, and interactive websites for citizens to go to on their own 

time to provide feedback. A comprehensive outreach process will include gathering input from 

the community at large, as well as developing a 

smaller stakeholder steering committee composed 

of representatives from public agencies, advocate 

organizations, and community groups.

Gather Preliminary Community Ideas

This input opportunity is typically at an introductory meeting, where the project team presents the 

plan and receives initial input. Participants at this 

meeting typically share their perception of walking and cycling in the community, mark up maps 

showing barriers to active transportation, and 

suggest other ideas on how to improve walking 

and cycling conditions.

Develop Initial Recommendations

Preliminary recommendations should be developed through an analysis of existing conditions, 

the identification of opportunities, a discussion of 

priorities, and initial community input.

Obtain Initial Community Review of

Recommendations

This opportunity represents a chance to share preliminary recommendations with the community 

and solicit their feedback. This is an opportunity 

to get directed feedback from advocacy or professional groups.

Provide More Detailed 

Recommendations

Recommendations should be refined, where appropriate, according to input received during the 

initial community review of the recommendations.

Revise Recommendations and Develop 

Implementation Plans

Given initial review comments from the community, revise any of the recommendations that 

need to be adjusted. Then an implementation plan 

should be developed that includes project ranking, phasing, rough cost estimates, and information regarding funding opportunities. 

Obtain Final Consensus or Public 

Alignment on the Recommendations

This opportunity represents a chance to share the 

refined recommendations and implementation 

plan with the community and solicit their feedback.

Produce a Final Plan for Review and

Adoption

This represents the final round of production and 

review. Typically, approval for the plan is sought 

at departmental head, planning director, special 

boards, planning commission, and council levels. 

Perform Post-Implementation Evaluation

of Adopted Plan

An effective way to ensure that the plan is actually 

implemented—rather than “sitting on a shelf ”—

and that the plan successfully achieves stated goals 

is to develop a group of stakeholders who will 

monitor and assist with implementing the plan 

and assign staff to work toward implementation. 

The plan should also be shared on-line and with 

other public agencies that may be affected by some 

of the projects in the plan. 

For more information on the transportation planning process, see the Federal Highway Administration’s website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes.
27

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Figure 3-1: Typical Land Use and Transportation Planning Process
28

CHAPTER 3 | THE PLANNING PROCESS

Ideas should come from or at least be agreed to by the public 

that is affected by the decisions. Photo source: Mike Singleton

3.3.2 Typical Design-Level Process 

The process is slightly different for a project that 

has had some previous level of idea creation and 

approval process. The design-level process focuses 

on specific decisions and designs that should result in something eventually getting constructed 

(figure 3-2). 

 Document Existing Conditions

The documentation of existing conditions for 

projects is generally the same as for plans, but because this process type is one step closer to implementation, it requires a more thorough analysis 

effort and can be done prior to public outreach. 

 Identify Opportunities

Opportunities may be different at the project level 

than the plan level. Project opportunities become 

more specific when taken from a design versus a 

planning perspective. The type of bike or pedestrian facility and location should be determined 

by previous planning efforts. Often, the original 

planning assumptions may not have been correct or the physical limitations of a site become a 

known reality, causing some of the assumptions 

or program elements to be modified. This may require a loop back to the original goals or policies 

identified at the plan level. 

 Develop an Outreach Plan

An outreach plan at the project level will resemble that of the planning level but may include an 

opportunity to capitalize on previous outreach efforts conducted at the planning stage. 

 Confirm Project Direction and Discuss 

Priorities

The initial outreach effort should be used to confirm that the project’s focus and program are still 

supported by the community. If not, then a discussion is needed to determine the range of alternatives that should be considered. At this time, a 

process on how to select a preferred alternative 

should also be discussed. An initial discussion 

of priorities should involve identified stakeholders, city staff, and consultants (if hired). Priorities 

should relate to other planning efforts, and they 

should be transparent and well documented.

 Identify Budgetary Constraints

Rough order cost estimates should be produced 

early to provide parameters for the scope of the 

project. 

 Explore Alternatives

Based on initial public input, preliminary alternatives should be developed through an analysis of 

existing conditions, the identification of opportunities, a discussion of priorities, and the identification of budgetary constraints. Each alternative 

should be measured against a ranking metric or a 

decision making process agreed to or informed by 

the initial public planning effort. 

 Present Project Programming and

Initial Concept for Public Review

This second public input opportunity is where the 

project team presents the project through schematic or broad alternatives and receives detailed input 

on concerns or priorities. Depending on how much 

previous planning work was done, this step could 

be combined with the initial public review meeting. 

 Develop Alternatives

Alternatives should be developed through an 

analysis of alternatives and initial community input. At least three alternative approaches, route locations, or solution types should be developed to 

get a true broad range of choices and costs. 

 Present Alternatives for Public Review

This step represents a chance to share additional 

or refined alternatives with the community and 

solicit their input. An initial ranking of the pros 

and cons of each alternative may be done prior to 

the presentation. Input should still be solicited to 

confirm conclusions or to air disagreements on 

the rankings or priorities, however. Alternatives 

should be ranked according to defined criteria and 

public input from previous meetings. 
29

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

 Develop Final Recommendations

This is a final round of design refinement that 

comes from community input, agency review, or 

staff direction. This should finalize the design at 

the 30-percent level and allow the project to move 

forward. Depending on local policies and directives, this may need to be approved at higher levels 

through planning commission or city council actions. Those authorities may require that the environmental review process be completed at this 

stage as well, or, depending on the project, it may 

then be available for moving into final design and 

engineering. 

 Develop Final Design and

Engineering Plans

The next step often includes the detailed design 

and engineering aspects of final construction documents, including a 60- or 65-percent construction drawing package. The package should include 

final drawings, phasing, detailed cost estimates, 

specifications, and other information needed to 

solicit bids, select a contractor, and construct the 

project. 

 Produce a Plan for Review and Adoption

This represents the final round of production and 

review unless the project was approved at an earlier stage in this process. If not previously approved 

or if conditionally approved, this final step will 

act as the authoritative approval to commence the 

construction phase. 

If you do not bring the public along on the process, they are 

likely to show up at the approval process and are not so likely 

to support the project. Photo source: Joe Punsalan

3.4 TOOLS: ENSURING INTEGRATED 

PLANNING

Integrated planning refers to the incorporation of 

bicycle and pedestrian accommodation planning 

into overall planning processes. Making bicycle and 

pedestrian accommodation an integral part of the 

planning process, rather than a “tacked on” element 

or afterthought, is necessary to create truly walkable 

and bikeable communities. Integration is required to 

achieve the health, safety, and welfare benefits discussed in chapter 2. Specific means of making bicycle 

and pedestrian accommodation planning integral 

with other efforts are described in table 3-1. 

 Refine the Selected Alternative

Based on rankings, a top alternative should be further refined. At this point, it is acceptable to take 

the project to a 30-percent design and engineering 

level to work out the details or to determine constraints and costs with a high level of certainty. 

 Final Public Outreach

This is an opportunity for the community to respond to the final conceptual design of the selected alternative. It should be made clear that additional public input will not be sought after the 

30-percent design phase has been completed, so 

it is important to express all concerns and comments at this final outreach meeting. 

Modify the Alternative

If there are still concerns over the project that indicate a lack of support of the project as proposed, 

some of the previous steps may need to be repeated. Having a minority opinion should not stop the 

project if everything has been done to address the 

concern or if the tradeoffs are so great that they 

will lessen the benefits of the alternative. If many 

public members have these same concerns and the 

concerns are based on logical discussions and not 

unsupportable fears, then it may be time to ask 

agency staff or elected officials for help to determine the future of the project. 
30

CHAPTER 3 | THE PLANNING PROCESS

Figure 3-2: Typical Land Use and Transportation Design Process
31

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

3.4.1 Develop Multi-Modal 

Transportation Plans (MM)

MM-1: Develop transportation plans that focus 

on the improved mobility of people and 

goods rather than automobiles.

MM-2: Develop plans that include goals of lowering overall vehicle miles traveled and 

greenhouse gas emissions.

MM-3: Recognize the relationship between transportation modes, and plan accordingly (i.e. 

transit enables longer cycling and walking 

trips; cycling or walking enables “first- and 

last-mile” connections to transit). 

MM-4: Utilize transportation demand management 

measures to maximize existing facilities. 

MM-5: Match transportation investments with 

planning goals.

MM-6: Consider how transportation is connected with land uses and destinations that 

represent the daily needs and trips of residents.

3.4.2 Develop Land Use and 

Transportation Plans Concurrently (LT)

LT-1: Highlight the synergy between land development and transportation projects.

LT-2: Reinforce land use and transportation 

goals and policies with mobility options.

LT-3: Demonstrate why cycling and walking are 

key to the development of compact communities.

LT-4: Ensure that “10-minute neighborhoods” 

are built on a strong foundation of mobility options so that most daily needs can be 

met with a 10-minute walk, ride, or use of 

transit.

LT-5: Add mobility options to the concept of 

housing options.

LT-6: Provide a balance of jobs and housing to lower long-distance commute requirements.

LT-7: Develop parking and site-planning goals that 

support walking, transit use, and cycling. 

Table 3-1: Summary of Planning Process Guidelines and Possible Points 

LT-8: Use building design standards, including 

building scale and orientation, that are inviting and accessible to people arriving on 

foot, bike, and transit.

3.4.3 Suggest Other Means of Interjecting 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (OM)

OM-1: Develop policies of routine accommodations that require appropriate bicycle and 

pedestrian accommodation in all new and 

major redevelopment projects (for an example, see the San Diego Association of Governments’ Board Policy 031, Rule 211).1

OM-2: Develop policies of adding or improving 

bicycle facilities during routine street resurfacing (slurry sealing) and striping projects 

by way of lane diets or road diets.

OM-3: Develop a policy of street reclamation, 

wherein underused street space is reclaimed 

for cycling, walking, plazas, or other “higher” public uses.
32

CHAPTER 3 | THE PLANNING PROCESS

Most members of the public can benefit from bike and 

pedestrian improvements. Photo source: Mike Singleton

OM-4: Develop policies of multi-modal mitigation, 

wherein developers mitigate their transportation impacts by providing multi-modal—

rather than automobile-only—improvements, such as allowing bike parking to 

substitute for car parking spaces.

OM-5: Develop policies for parking exemptions in 

which developers are exempt from providing vehicle parking in certain districts and 

instead contribute to multi-modal improvements, including bicycle parking (see land 

use case study on Gainesville, Florida, in 

chapter 4).

OM-6: Adopt a complete streets policy pledging to 

accommodate all modes of transportation 

in future roadway design, such as Smart 

Growth America’s list of the “Best Complete 

Streets Policies.”2

OM-7: Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian capital improvement projects (CIPs), and establish 

goals for their implementation.

OM-8: Create an ADA transition plan that identifies necessary accessibility improvements 

and establishes goals and prioritization of 

implementation.

3.5 IDEAS: PROJECT-SCALED STEPS

• No matter how small the project, there are opportunities at all scales to provide for active transportation improvements. 

• As a landowner, with or without a project, understand the importance of proper planning and design and how it may affect your property or proposed project in the future. Become engaged in the 

process well before it is time to submit applications 

to the local agency for approvals and permits. 

• Build alliances between public agencies and private 

interests so that when the time comes to obtain 

funding or to get approvals, the process will move 

more quickly and with less resistance.

• Support a positive outreach process that is transparent yet still protective of private property rights 

and the needs of the broader public. 

• Engage local advocate groups in projects as supporters of good planning, safety, and well-designed 

communities. 

• Offer to be a partner in funding adjacent active 

transportation elements that may extend a bit beyond the project’s immediate impact areas. The 

project and the community will see a return on this 

investment. 

• When possible, engage professionals that balance 

creativity and solutions with budgets and engineering constraints. This often means that planners, 

architects, landscape architects, and engineers will 

need to be part of the development team. 

3.6 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT 

RESOURCES TO CONSIDER

FHWA:

• Creating Safer Communities for Walking/Biking (2015)

• List of On-line Reports and Technical Publications

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

NACTO:

• Transit Street Design Guides (2016)

• Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014) 

• Urban Street Design Guide (2013)

ITE:

• Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares (2010)

OTHERS:

• Complete Streets Best Policies and Implementation Practices (2010/Annual) 

• LEED for Neighborhood Development (2014)

• Model Design Manual for Living Streets (2011)

NOTES:

1 http://www.sandag.org/organization/about/pubs/

policy_031.pdf.

2 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets-2014-analysis

For 10-minute neighborhoods to work, local businesses need 

to provide needed services or national chain stores need to 

downsize. Photo source: Plannersweb.com
CHAPTER 4: 

LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

4.1 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A WALK-FRIENDLY AND 

BIKE-FRIENDLY COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.2 TOOLS: BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 

LAND USE PRACTICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.3 BENEFITS: THE RIGHT TOOLS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.4 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT TOOLS IN THE 

RIGHT LOCATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.5 IDEAS: PROJECT SCALED STEPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.6 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO 

CONSIDER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.7 CASE STUDY: GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA. . . . . . . . . . 55

33

Planning, Design or 

Engineering Consultants

Local Elected Officials 

and Review Staff

Federal, State and 

Regional Regulators

Advocate 

Organizations

Providing 

Entities

Decision 

Makers

USER LEGEND

Smart Growth 

Advocates

Mobility Choice 

Advocates

Developers, Financial 

Institutions

Housing Providers and 

Institutions

Health and Safety 

Advocates

Housing 

Advocates

Local Agency Planners 

and Engineers
34

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

The street layout and design of the public realm should be 

supportive of adjacent land uses. Likewise, encouraging land 

uses that provide an interface with the street and eyes on the 

street will be supportive of the street classification and its 

success. Photo source: Dan Burden

Building setbacks need to match the needs of the public walk, 

but no more than necessary. Photo source: Ryan Snyder

All successful and sustainable communities include a range of distinct and different types of 

places—from quiet, shady residential streets to 

busy corridors, and from noisier, mixed-use 

downtowns to single-purpose industrial and employment districts. Considering how these land 

uses are arranged is perhaps the most important 

way to create communities that can easily be 

walked and biked. Within these various land use 

patterns, site and building design are also critically 

important in ensuring that coherent, safe, functional, and valuable places result.

4.1 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF 

A WALK- AND BIKE-FRIENDLY 

COMMUNITY

Good land use planning and urban design are best 

measured by how they complete the community’s 

vision for a specific place and how they enhance 

the daily lives of their residents and users. 

Consider the following qualitative and quantitative principles of effective land use planning—

• Effectively integrate transit, land use, and design.

• Encourage employment related businesses to be 

located within a 15-minute commute by public 

transportation, cycling, or walking.

• Create a shopping experience that is convenient 

and within a comfortable walking or biking distance.

• Site schools and parks within walking distance of 

a large number of homes.

• Provide useful transit options accessible by a 

10-minute walk from a large number of homes 

and/or workplaces.

• Establish zoning standards or guidelines that protect or create the vision of the community.

4.1.1 Actions To Include

The following are overarching or underlying land 

use planning and design principles or actions that 

are the foundation of the recommendations made 

in this chapter. 

• Allow for integration of land uses, bringing everyday destinations (schools, parks, and retail) 

and residential areas closer together, thereby 

decreasing distance barriers for walking. 

• Strive for a housing and jobs balance in local 

communities. If not possible, provide walking 

and transit routes or bike facilities between 

these separated areas.

• Permit a mixture and intensity of land use to 

support an efficient transit system. 

• Provide the ability to develop a compact urban 

framework through block length maximums 

and mixed-use zoning that ensures a high intersection density, thereby providing greater 

connectivity for active transportation.

• Provide incentives, bonus densities, or return 

of savings associated with balanced neighborhoods that have lower roadway infrastructure 

capital and maintenance costs.

• Prioritize continuously connected walkways 

along development that include buffering from 

the street.

• Require street connectivity within housing developments to improve the directness of routes 

and to decrease the distance barriers for walking and bicycling.

• Require a maximum setback distance for building entrances (as compared with the more standard setback minimums), which can enhance 

the pedestrian experience by siting buildings 

closer to the street and ensuring shorter trips 

through parking lots.

• Provide flexibility on the required number of 

car parking spaces to limit or reduce the size 

of parking lots or to encourage shared parking 

strategies and the unbundling of free parking 

that is hidden in rents and leases.
35

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

A well scaled neighborhood street with a parkway buffer, 

walkways and buildings in close proximity to the walkway 

system. Photo source: Ryan Snyder

A well scaled infill project can help to bring life back to streets 

by way of the design of the interface, the ground floor uses 

and by adding more residents and potential customers to the 

local area. Photo source: Google Earth

• Allow for the sharing of off-street parking 

among adjacent uses, and require new development to use shared parking; where shared 

parking is not possible, place parking lots to 

the rear of the lot or underground.

• Create bicycle parking minimum standards at 

commercial and workplace destinations, and 

promote showers and lockers to encourage bicycle-friendly businesses.

• Limit the interruption of the pedestrian experience by driveways by encouraging vehicular 

access from alleys or shared driveways when 

possible, as well as establishing driveway maximums in urban areas.

• Prohibit leapfrogging or noncontiguous development, and require consistent and connected 

patterns of development to reduce sprawl and 

distances between land uses. 

4.1.2 Actions To Avoid

Proper land use planning can be quickly undone 

by mistakes made by planners or, more likely, 

benign neglect when planning principles are ignored. The following land use actions can cause a 

community to become isolated and bike and pedestrian unfriendly. 

• Allow vehicular speed, movement, and flow to 

be the focus of how a street is engineered.

• Isolate land uses in uniquely different areas of 

the community.

• Concentrate retail in “big box” stores and in 

one area of a city, away from its customers.

• Allow a community’s jobs to move to adjacent 

communities, and focus on providing major 

auto-centric corridors to get automobiles there.

• Concentrate local schools into larger regional 

schools that are isolated from neighborhoods.

• Focus on regionally scaled park facilities.

• Focus on large, simplified polygons of land uses 

instead of fine-grained neighborhoods and pedestrian-scaled mobility options.

4.2 TOOLS: BIKE- AND PEDESTRIANFRIENDLY LAND USE PRACTICES

This part of the chapter discusses a classification 

of the many tools that can be used to improve the 

walkability and bikeability of a community. Every 

city, town, and village is unique. This uniqueness 

creates a sense of place. There are a few general types of places that repeat from community to 

community where the relationship of street to adjacent land uses can be best expressed, however. The 

following place types are typical throughout built 

communities, although the type of community 

(urban, suburban, and rural) and local conditions 

create unique place types very specific to the community’s setting. Using the tables on the following 

pages, look for ideas for your community by first 

picking the place type and then the community 

type to see what may apply best in your local area. 

4.2.1 Neighborhoods (N)

Neighborhoods are the main component of cities, 

towns, and villages. These are the places where almost everyone lives. Neighborhoods may be composed primarily of single-family homes or may 

include a range of multifamily housing types.

4.2.2 Corridors (C)

Corridors traverse developed areas and can have 

many different characteristics. They can occur at 

all scales—from a rural stop along a highway, to 

a main avenue within a town, to a high-intensity 

urban corridor in a large city. Many major street 

corridors began as rural roads, evolved into automobile thoroughfares lined with a range of commercial uses, and have lost much of their commercial value as retail and office uses have migrated 

to larger-format retail centers and business parks. 

Many of these corridors present a significant opportunity for communities to provide infill housing mixed with modest amounts of commercial 

uses within walking distance of adjoining neighborhoods. The repositioning of these often blighted “commercial strips” as more valuable mixeduse places requires a coordinated redesign of the 

streets and careful planning of the infill development along the corridor. 
36

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

Special districts with a campus style layout can be very 

walkable and bikeable. Photo source: Ryan Snyder

Shopping districts should be designed with wide walkways 

that activate the public space. Photo source: Lisa Padilla

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be incorporated into 

office parks . Photo source: http://www.schlitzpark.com/

4.2.3 Districts (D)

Special-use districts are areas dominated by a single type of land use, such as industrial districts 

where manufacturing, production, and distribution of goods are the primary activities. Other examples are employment centers that primarily 

provide high concentrations of commercial offices, medical centers, and large education campuses. 

Such districts benefit from a location that provides 

easy access to regional roads and highways. The 

sizes of buildings, truck traffic volumes, and hours 

of operation make them generally unsuitable for 

residential uses, however. Even within special-use 

districts, there are many opportunities to integrate 

useful amenities and strong reasons to ensure that 

all the streets are walkable, bikeable, and served by 

transit. In industrial, office-dominated, educational, or medical campus districts, this enables restaurants and other support businesses to succeed 

while reducing workers’ need to drive out of the 

district for basic services, thereby reducing local 

traffic congestion as well. 

4.2.4 Centers (VC/TC/UC)

Centers are typically the economic and social 

hearts of villages, towns, and cities. They can be 

village-scale centers or low- to high-rise downtowns, where unique regional destinations are 

often located. Village centers are generally related to rural areas, whereas town centers are related 

to suburban areas. Urban centers are restricted to 

urban communities by definition. The treatments 

and level of intensity of the three center types warrant guidelines specifically designed for each.

Village Centers (VC)

Village centers take many forms and occur at all 

scales, from a country store at a key intersection in 

a rural neighborhood to a busy “main street” in a 

larger but mostly rural community. Most village 

centers are generally more historic areas because 

many were built during a time when walking to 

stores was important and parking was generally 

scarce. They generally occurred prior to World 

War II, some dating back to the founding of original towns. 

Town Centers (TC) 

Town centers in suburban areas generally came 

about after World War II, tied closely to suburban sprawl. Town centers are often less distinct in 

suburban areas than they are in rural centers or 

urban centers. Often it is difficult to find a public center of a suburban community. The centers 

often tend to be shopping districts or other institutional areas that are concentrated in a core area. 

For clarity of wayfinding and a sense of community and destination, a suburban area needs to have 

a center. People who tend to gravitate to suburban 

areas do so because of the lifestyle associated with 

single-family neighborhoods and school facilities 

and generally are not as concerned about the convenience of nearby shops, jobs, and schools. 

Urban Centers (UC)

The primary difference between a town center and 

an urban center is that the latter environment is a 

compact mix of a wide range of land uses that typically creates a high land value as well as a high 

potential for roadway congestion. Accordingly, it 

is important that in addition to having a balanced 

street network for pedestrians, bikes, and motor 

vehicles, such places be provided with high levels 

of transit service. 
37

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Rentals and market rate sale housing. 

Photo source: Mike Singleton

Housing should be diverse for diverse residential needs. 

Photo source: Mike Singleton

Housing near transit. Photo source: Mike Singleton

4.2.5 Housing Choices (H)

Where people live often determines how they 

move about the community on a daily basis. Often, 

where a person decides to live is determined by 

the availability of housing types and price points. 

Therefore, if a community is to be walkable and 

bikeable, it has to start with the mixture, size, and 

distribution of housing. 

Select Sites To Develop That Are Already 

Walkable and Bikeable (HL)

To ensure that future owners, tenants, and renters 

can walk or bike to various destinations, housing 

planners, during the first step of site selection, 

should take into account the context of where the 

proposed project can be considered and whether 

the project can be centered in more intensive, diverse, and transit-supported areas.

Concentrate Housing Near Transit (HT)

Walking and biking are natural extensions of trips 

taken by transit. Many transit agencies do a good 

job of accommodating bikes on transit, and some 

make improvements for pedestrian access to stations. Transit, in turn, leverages partial trips taken 

by biking and walking. A well-served area persuades residents to be at least “car light,” meaning 

that multi-driver households may be able to get by 

on one vehicle. With one vehicle, they are also much 

more apt to take transit and walk or bike to the station or to their final destinations. Ideally, development should be within 0.25 mile of transit for walking and 1 mile for biking. Some people will walk up 

to a mile and ride more than 3 miles to take transit, 

but their numbers drop off quickly, to a lesser degree. 

Provide a Variety of Unit Sizes and Price Points (HS)

The nation’s demographics are very diverse, and 

the occupant mix of this demographic requires 

a variety of resources. Various economic limitations and quality-of-life preferences have shifted 

housing needs to a broad range of housing types. 

To support a local jobs housing balance and encourage people to live in areas that are transit supportive as well as walkable and bikeable, a range of 

price points are needed, especially for households 

earning at or below the Area Median Income. 

Generally, the primary determinants of the price 

of units are first, location, and then, size. Most 

projects build excessively large units. Studio units, 

one-bedroom units, and flexible space design all 

allow for a person to afford to live near where they 

work, learn, play, and shop. Three-bedroom units 

are also important; they allow families to live in 

urban areas and not be forced into suburbia to 

find enough rooms.

Provide a Mixture of Rentals (HM)

To support a jobs housing balance in an area, 

workforce housing should be provided. The housing options should focus on rentals because ownership of housing can often anchor the buyer into 

one location for many years, during which the 

person may have multiple job locations and be 

forced into long commutes to get to work. If people are renting, they are more apt to find a location 

to rent near their employment than if they owned 

the unit. To increase diversity, include Additional 

Dwelling Units (ADUs), cottage-style housing, 

and workforce townhomes. Provide inclusionary 

housing that integrates affordable units for those 

living below the local median income found in the 

community. 
38

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

Compact infill and flexible units make housing more 

affordable. Photo source: Steven Vance

Create Compact Units To Lower Costs (HC)

The amount of space needed for developments 

directly affects how spread out our residential origins and destinations become. The more spread 

out, the more citizens have to rely on longer-distance driving. The more land used up, the greater the costs of housing and leasable spaces. All of 

these factors affect the ability of an area to provide 

people and services that can be connected with 

walking and biking.

Develop Flexible Units That Can Grow With 

Family Size (HF)

Design flexible space into developments, in which 

walls can be moved to combine smaller blocks of 

space to create spaces that match the buyer’s or 

renter’s needs. Design flexible space into developments where connections can be made between 

units if the occupant size increases or decreases. 

4.2.6 Land Use Mixtures (L)

Social trends created the current problem of isolated land uses, and many people in the planning 

professions were unable to see the disadvantages 

with this type of land use pattern. What was a positive attempt at separating incompatible land uses 

through Euclidean zoning and land use enforcement led the way to planning that over simplified 

land use patterns. It resulted in many general plans 

having large, colored land use polygons in widely 

separated quadrants of a community. Although 

this approach made mapping and planning easier, 

it resulted in replacing walkability as the appropriate scale to design our cities with the planning 

scale of the automobile and the freeway system. 

A return to human-scaled, walkable communities requires a reversal of planning trends from 

the past 50 years. The following are some ideas on 

how to avoid making auto-centric communities.

Encourage Housing and Jobs Near Each Other (LJ)

The most prevalent trip is one related to going to 

work each day, yet we separate our workplaces 

from our living places—often at great distances. 

Build housing near employment centers or at least 

near transit centers that can connect with employment centers. Traditionally, the types of employment that are more likely to have employees who 

live and work in the same general area are blue 

collar jobs because they were more widely distributed than were white collar jobs that tended to be 

concentrated in business parks, financial market 

areas, and government centers. Those who cannot 

afford higher transportation costs are more likely 

to live and work closer together. Current trends 

are indicating that those in higher-paid jobs are 

increasingly willing to pay more to live and work 

in more urban areas that have a concentration 

of social, economic, and entertainment options, 

however. Small business owners also often look 

close by for living opportunities. If jobs are centered in more remote areas, try to connect these 

areas with bike and pedestrian facilities or improved access to transit that would then connect 

to these job centers. 

Encourage Community Centers Near Housing (LC)

For areas with families, young single adults, and 

seniors, a community center can be a very important part of daily life. Select a development area 

that is close to existing community centers. If the 

project is large enough, consider building a community center as part of the overall project.

Encourage Neighborhood Schools (LS)

Second to employment centers, the next most 

prevalent daily destination is schools. The travel 

may be from school buses, drop-offs, or, for older 

high school and college-aged students, by way of a 

vehicle. A well-distributed network of schools will 

result in more walking, biking, transit use, and 

carpool use. A centralized school system will require longer-distance commutes. 

Provide Smaller and Well Distributed Parks (LP)

Access to parks is a regular weekly activity for 

families and younger active adults. The recreation 

experience should start at the front door, not at the 

car door. Walking or biking to the park is a health 

benefit associated with active transportation. A 

10- to 15-minute walk time distance is reasonable 

for those wanting to get exercise. This translates 

into a 0.5-mile distance for walking and a 2-mile 

distance for biking. Tot lots should be within less 

than 0.25 mile of families. Smaller parks allow for 

distributed investments in broader areas compared to all investments going into community 

wide park facilities.
39

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Neighborhood grocery stores can reduce auto trips and 

distances. Photo source: Dan Burden

Encourage Small or Distributed Grocery Stores 

and Pharmacies (LG)

Local stores should be aimed at providing the daily 

needs of customers at a neighborhood level. When 

stores are centralized into large retail centers that 

are far away from residents and only accessible by 

vehicle, less frequent but larger purchases become 

more common, which in turn requires a vehicle 

just to transport the purchases. 

Focus on Vertically or Horizontally Mixed Uses (LV)

The more land uses that can be found within a 

10-minute or 0.5 mile walk of each other, the more 

walkable and bikeable the community will be. For 

the most efficient use of land, utilize ground floor 

spaces for retail, community functions, and services, with employment and residential uses on 

the upper floors. This vertical mix is the most efficient use of land area as long as privacy and noise 

issues are addressed. Horizontally distributed land 

uses may also be supportive of walking and biking, 

however, if proper site planning has been accomplished. 

Encourage High-Density Housing in Blocks 

Surrounding Walkable Main Streets (LM)

Given a 10-minute walk time, linear corridors of 

commercial businesses and older main streets are 

often surrounded by customers. Often, these districts turn their backs on neighborhoods. Land 

use planning and street layouts that encourage 

alleyways or short blocks provide better walking 

routes into these main street areas. Make sure that 

major roadways are able to be crossed safely and 

conveniently so that they do not split a main street 

area in half for those traveling by foot or bike. 

Consider transitional zoning for mid-density residential between single-family neighborhoods and 

main streets. This allows the single-family homes 

to be buffered from noise and traffic and builds in 

additional patrons for nearby businesses who do 

not require parking when visiting the businesses.

Add Eating/Entertainment/Social Centers Near 

Housing (LE)

People like to watch people and other activities occurring in a neighborhood. This makes people feel 

connected with others socially and provides great 

opportunities for the start of conversations that 

can lead to friendships. People like to eat outdoors 

when the weather is suitable. They like to walk to 

local entertainment and social centers. Provide 

these types of facilities near neighborhoods and 

encourage higher densities of residential populations to support these types of businesses. 

4.2.7 Human-Scaled Elements (T)

The historical development of cities and towns 

throughout the world was designed with the human scale in mind until the last half of the twentieth century. The best cities throughout the world 

have always combined urban forms, street design, 

and land use mixtures that allow a person to work, 

play, learn, shop, and meet others, all within walking distance. Even building design that emphasized the human scale was important in our early 

communities but lost during the modernization of 

our cities. Horses, wagons, and buggies began to 

stretch this distance further. Bikes also extended 

the distance a few miles more down the road. Early transit buses and trains stretched our communities out more. None of these changes extended 

our range of communities faster and further than 

the advent of wide ownership of private automobiles, however. The scale of human travel based on 

walking needs to be revisited if we want our communities to become more walkable and bikeable. 

Destinations need to be planned to be closer together if we want people to walk and bike to them. 

Reserve Avenues/Boulevards for Main Street-Type 

Retail (TA)

An avenue or a boulevard (see chapter 5 on street 

design) is the best location to have main street 

types of businesses. Although a main street is a 

type of street by itself, main street here refers to 

a scale of business and orientation of the business 

to the street. The street arrangement, pedestrian 

walkways, and bike facility elements can all add to 

the commercial viability of a street of commerce. 

Reserve these special streets for commercial activities that can build synergy between one parcel 

and the next. This can occur along corridors or 

main streets. 
40

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

Figure 4-1: Ten minute neighborhoods

Typical services needed within walking distances. 

Discourage Big-Box Retail From Neighborhoods/

Centers (TB)

Large, regionally sized commercial buildings can 

dominate and dehumanize the scale of businesses. 

It can pull away a customer base from an area that 

was previously successful. The lure of free and ample parking can draw away a customer base to those 

businesses that offer only a product to be purchased 

at discount, volume prices. Businesses that are part 

of a user experience, including going to a nice place 

and interacting with others, are one of a few ways to 

counter the pull of big-box retail. Such businesses are 

designed for user experience and social interaction. 

Big-box retail is not defined by the franchise type 

or prices and marketing demographics but on the 

form of the building and the presence of large parking lots, which encourage longer-distance driving to 

meet basic neighborhood retail needs. Some of the 

large retail corporations have adapted their buildings 

and locations to be more contextual with urban areas or infill locations. If these types of developments 

do occur, make sure that through-the-site access for 

pedestrians is provided so that they are not forced 

around super blocks. Also build to ensure that people who have driven are not forced to move their vehicles to multiple locations in the same parking lot 

because the distance is too great and unfriendly to 

walk to other stores in the complex. 

Keep Single Land Use Areas to Less Than Six 

Contiguous Blocks (TI)

A fine grain of land use mixture is needed to create 

walkable and bikeable communities by providing a 

mixture of origins and destinations in a walkable 

matrix. Block after block of single land uses do not 

promote walking or biking from origin to destination if the distance is too far. Avoid having more 

than six blocks in a row of the same land use. For 

measurement purposes, assume that one block is an 

average of 200 feet on its long axis. Some length of 

employment, institution, recreation, retail, or public services should interrupt the sameness of land 

uses that often prevails in many areas of communities. It is also important to limit physical barriers 

between different land use types. Provide pedestrian cut-throughs between housing and 

office or retail developments. Another 

acceptable measurement is a 10-minute walk, or 0.5 mile, where land uses 

need to be mixed to support origins 

and destinations at a walking scale.

Orient Public Spaces at Centers 

of Intense Use (TS)

Human nature is to want to be 

part of activities with other humans. Urban forms and use levels 

that are too intensive can result 

in stress, however. Public spaces 

where a person can be slightly removed from the high intensity of uses 

should be added in centers to provide 

outlets for this stress. These areas also 

provide reasons for walking and help to activate the street, making it better for others that 

may also be enticed to walk or ride through—as 

well as to—these areas. 

Provide Local Uses in 10-Minute Walk 

Neighborhoods (TT)

Historically, 10-minute neighborhoods are how our 

towns originally grew. The centers of towns were 

a mixture of land uses that supported a lifestyle in 

which the majority of what people needed was within a 10-minute walk. In today’s terms, a 10-minute 

neighborhood is where residents can access shops, 

services, recreation, and transit within a 10-minute 

walk. This concept needs to be included in urban 

planning and new development (see figure 4-1). 

4.2.8 Urban Design Treatments (U)

Urban design is the creation of urban environments, whether in small villages, neighborhoods, 

corridors, town centers, or major urban districts. 

Although sometimes used to describe only the selection of sidewalk patterns, benches, and streetlights, the term urban design is used here in its 

broadest and simplest sense: the design of environments in which people live, work, shop, and play. 
41

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Figure 4-2: Active ground floor spaces are essential in creating a street life that in turn, supports retail areas

Active ground floor spaces are essential in creating a street 

life that in turn, supports commercial retail areas. Photo 

source: Ryan Snyder

The design and use of private development—collectively, the “private realm” of the city—must 

work in tandem with and shape the public realm 

of the city, defining the overall character of the 

place. When the design of the private and public 

realm work well together, the places they make are 

often experienced as “great streets” or “great places” and desirable destinations.

Creating great streets with good private realm design starts at the initial phase of laying out a project on a site, including the location and design of 

the building or buildings and the design of the access, parking, and landscape. Urban greening is 

one way of softening the harsh urban environment 

by providing human scale, visual interest, and 

comfort from extreme changes in weather. It also 

makes our built environments more sustainable. 

The following principles are general and are based 

on practices that support livable and healthy communities through (1) thoughtful site design, (2) 

appropriate building forms, and (3) good relationships between the building and the sidewalk and 

street that it fronts.

Positive Site Design and Orientation (UD)

The orientation of every building affects the building’s relationship to people on the street. Each 

building component demands careful site design. 

Orientation of the active aspects of the building to 

public realm aspects of the street is imperative to 

activating the street and celebrating the pedestrian. Public spaces, parks, plazas, and tot lots help 

to tie the street to the land use and provide for 

socialization and spaces to eat, talk, and watch. 

These spaces can also provide for special events, 

farmers markets, and other social events. Parking lots and service entrances should be located 

toward the rear of the lot, accommodating automobiles but making it comfortable for people to 

access the buildings on foot. In order to encourage 

safe crossing at intersections, building entrances 

are best placed near these corners. 

The public edge of a site should include landscape 

treatments and greening for aesthetics and sustainability as well as for adding human scale and 

protection from climate extremes. 

Appropriate Building Forms (UB)

Every building interacts with the street, so the details of key aspects of its form need careful consideration (see figure 4-2). The fenestration, window 

transparency, proximity to the walking portions of 

the street, height, and human scale of the building 

all determine the walkability of the street and how 

it interacts with the adjacent land uses. 

Buildings’ Relationship to Walkways (UW)

Each building needs to interact directly with the 

adjacent sidewalk on a micro level. Physical and 

visual access is critical for street activation and 

personal safety because it helps to provide more 

eyes on the street and more nearby social activity, 

which, in turn, supports many types of businesses. 
42

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

4.3 BENEFITS: THE RIGHT TOOLS

Land uses set the foundation for a walkable and 

bikeable community. Although transit may bridge 

the distance gap for more remote employment 

areas, destination distance is the most important 

land use factor to consider. Choosing the right improvements for an area requires attention to the 

issues that are in need of change, the context of the 

project site, the available budget, and the benefits 

desired from the investment. This section ranks 

the characteristics and benefits achieved from 

each listed element. Table 4-1 shows the benefits 

achieved by the implementation of each element. 

Supports affordable lifestyles and transportation choices: Helps people become 

more financially independent through 

savings in housing costs resulting from 

lower construction costs. 

Saves commuting time and personal 

transportation costs: Can reclaim a person’s time and money by providing links 

to less-expensive commute patterns and 

modes or by walking or biking.

Enables walking and biking due to decreased distances afforded by land use 

proximity: Allows for more direct walking and biking trips resulting from close 

proximity to local services, retail, schools, 

recreation, and employment. 

Provides for a jobs/housing balance: If a 

variety of housing types and costs are provided, this housing could support local 

workers or may encourage employers to 

locate in the area. 

Supports 10-minute neighborhoods 

with services: Supports the concept of a 

10-minute neighborhood, where most 

trips can occur within a 10-minute walk, 

ride, or drive for a resident.

Provides for trip chaining within local 

drive time: Because a variety of services 

are provided in a well-mixed neighborhood, many trips can be chained together 

to and from work or school. 

Builds more sociable and connected communities: Walking, local shopping, and 

the activation of the street can contribute 

to improved social interaction and an improved sense of community. 

Can be integrated into smaller-scale projects and/or initiatives: The scale of this 

improvement makes it likely to be implementable as part of smaller infill projects 

or other neighborhood-level improvements. 

Provides multiple benefits 

for many individuals: Because of the protection or 

convenience of travel, this 

element should entice new 

users to biking and walking for transportation or 

recreation.

4.3.1 Intensity Factors To Consider

Decisions that need to be made in terms of selecting the right tool for the right situation are partly 

based on the street intensity of vehicular movement 

(number of vehicle trips and speed), land use intensity (dwelling units per acre, mixture of land uses, 

and amount of activity), and the type of community (rural, suburban, or urban). Figure 4-3 displays 

the dimensionality of this decision process. A simple, two-dimensional approach of only two of these 

factors is not possible. All three dimensions must 

be considered when trying to find the best match 

of solutions to the location of the planned facility or 

where the countermeasure is needed. Although land 

and construction costs may be higher in more-intensive areas, compact development and existing 

infrastructure lower costs. These areas also enable 

increased physical activity, as walking and biking become a greater option through land use proximity. 

These transportation options also provide economic 

savings for the people living in these locations, which 

can offset the increases in housing costs.

Figure 4-3: The “Intensity” Cube
43

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Table 4-1: Best Land Use Practices for Creating Walkable/Bikeable Communities
44

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

Little Italy in San Diego has a large number of persons with high levels of vehicular traffic which 

requires special solutions to create public spaces. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Seattle has a robust street, transit, and bikeway system. Solutions need to keep the local conditions 

in mind. Note treatments are not fully compliant with MUTCD. Photo source: Mike Singleton

This small street in Philadelphia requires no special walking or biking solutions since the intensity 

of vehicular, people use and lands uses are so low. Photo source: Mike Singleton

4.3.2 Place-Types To Consider

The remainder of the document utilizes community types (rural, suburban, and urban) along with 

place types (neighborhoods, corridors, districts, 

and centers) to describe the conditions that must 

be taken into account when trying to find the right 

solution for the right location. Rural areas usually 

have less complexity and less intensity than many 

other community types. They have their unique 

issues that must be addressed, however. For a map 

showing a typical rural area, please refer to figure 

4-4. For a depiction of a suburban area, please refer to figure 4-5.” Urban areas generally require 

more complex and costly improvements because 

of the intensity of land uses, people, and vehicular 

movement. For a typical urban area, please refer to 

figure 4-6. 
45

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Figure 4-4: Typical Rural Community under 50,000 population

This model will be used as the background for bike and pedestrian treatments in other sections of this chapter.

COMMUNITY 

TYPOLOGIES NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT VILLAGE CENTER CORRIDOR
46

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

Figure 4-5: Typical Suburban Community under 100,000 population

This model will be used as the background for bike and pedestrian treatments in other sections of this chapter. 

COMMUNITY 

TYPOLOGIES NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT CORRIDOR TOWN CENTER
47

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Figure 4-6: Typical Urban Community under 200,000 population

This model will be used as the background for bike and pedestrian treatments in other sections of this chapter.

COMMUNITY 

TYPOLOGIES NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR DISTRICT CITY CENTER
48

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

4.4 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT 

TOOLS IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS

The primary purpose of a street is to connect people to the land uses where they live, learn, work, 

shop, and play. As local land uses have moved 

farther away from where people live, the roadway 

network has become a facility to transport people 

over increasingly greater distances. Distances that 

used to be short and walkable now require either 

automobile or transit systems to get to services 

and destinations on a day-to-day basis. This never-ending cycle of centralizing land uses into separate and regionally based parts of a community 

forces everyone to travel much greater distances 

and has resulted in the restructuring of neighborhoods and communities as well as streets. This 

trend can only be reversed if the decentralization 

of land use is considered when revitalizing inner 

cities or in new greenfield developments. Human 

scale of travel needs to be considered and a focus 

placed back on 10-minute neighborhoods, where 

most of what people need is within walking and 

biking distance.

Traditional urban areas have maintained a mixture of land uses that supports the scales and distances of destinations that are feasible to reach by 

foot or bike. A fine-grain mixture of land uses are 

found within a 0.25-to-0.5-mile walking distance 

from most of the residential areas. More distant 

areas can be reached through transit systems, but 

the first 0.25- to 1-mile distance getting to and 

from the transit stop must also be pedestrian or 

biking friendly. 

This portion of the chapter shows three examples 

of the community place types (neighborhood, corridor, district, and centers) in each of the three different types of community typologies (rural, suburban, and urban). Each of these areas is discussed 

on the following pages by use of a representative 

urban form and street network generated from actual locations in the United States. 

The diagrams should be used to determine where 

a particular type of land use treatment should be 

considered and the extent that the network of 

streets and land uses must work together to achieve 

a walkable and bikeable community. The diagrams 

should be used only as a guide because they need 

to be adjusted based on local conditions, priorities, and policies. They provide insight, however, 

into how local context must be considered and 

how the interaction of land use, street configurations, and spatial arrangements can be integrated. 

The matrices represent general guidance on the 

types of treatments and elements that are available to consider and where they may be most appropriate. None of this should take the place of a 

community master plan, circulation element, bike 

master plan, or pedestrian master plan but should 

serve as a foundation for these efforts. An extensive public review process that allows local conditions and priorities to be factored into the recommendations must take place when making plans 

for extensive changes in a community. The matrices provide insight as to the full range of items that 

should be considered.

4.4.1 Land Use Planning for Rural Areas

Rural Neighborhood Context 

Rural areas are typically single-story, single-family detached homes. Some of these homes are on 

ranches, some on farms, but most are found in 

low-density neighborhoods, where the buildings are located at the center of larger lots where 

a farmhouse may have originally been centered 

in agricultural fields. These neighborhoods are 

typically serviced by a grid of streets, with large 

block spacing and large parcel sizes. A significant 

amount of open space exists, with a lower amount 

of improved recreation-based parks. The same 

type of land use may exist for a very large area of 

the community; although the number of units may 

not be high, the land area they take up typically is 

high. Refer to figure 4-7 for the most appropriate 

land use principles applicable to these areas. 

Rural Corridor Context

Rural corridors are often made up of through-town 

highways and major avenues (arterials). The typical 

land uses adjacent to these through corridors are 

neighborhood- and community-serving commercial retail and service facilities, most with available 

parking in front of the business. The distance between land use types presents difficult challenges 

for walking and biking. Many rural corridors are 

the result of suburban style development, based on 

vehicular distances and inexpensive land. They are 

often made up of chain or corporate franchise business types that follow a model of extensive parking 

surrounding the business.
49

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Downtown Commercial

Community Commercial

Legend

Limited Commercial

Mixed Use Commercial

Office and Institutional Conservation

Residential

Mixed Residential

Single Family Residential 10 (SF10)

Single Family Residential 6 (SF6)

HM

HS

LJ

LG

LM

LC

LE

LP

TB LS

TA

TS

TT

TI

HL

Figure 4-7: Best Land Use Practices for Creating Walkable/Bikeable Communities in Rural Areas

DISTRICT VILLAGE CENTER CORRIDOR

NEIGHBORHOOD

HT

HC

HF

LV
50

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

Traditional main streets are some of the most walkable and human scaled urban forms from a planning 

standpoint. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Rural District Context

A rural district is mostly made up of concentrated 

non-main-street-style shopping centers versus the 

strip commercial centers discussed in the preceding corridor section. These districts can also include industrial parks, major recreation centers, 

and rural-based community college areas or other educational campuses. Rural districts are often 

disconnected and separated from neighborhoods 

and corridors and may need connection improvements to make them bikeable and walkable. 

Rural Village Center Context

A village center will typically have the main roads 

of the rural town coming through the commerce 

and government center. Mostly known as main 

streets, the collection of businesses and services is 

generally large enough to support many of the daily needs of these communities. The buildings are 

typically at the front of the parcels, with on street 

parking in front of the businesses. The scale is typically tall, single story or two to three story, with 

residential or office uses on the upper floors. Fortunately, these centers were developed historically with a human scale in mind and are not based 

purely on parking convenience. These areas are 

walkability and bikeability assets that need to be 

expanded or enhanced because they represent the 

type of land use and building form that typically 

interfaces well with the street. 

4.4.2 Land Use Planning for Suburbs

Suburban Neighborhood Context

Suburban neighborhoods typically are made up of 

single-story, single-family detached homes. A certain mixture of apartments and condominiums 

can be found along the larger streets in the area. 

These are typically attached, three-story buildings. 

Some locally serving land uses will often include 

schools, libraries, parks, and community centers. 

In older communities, locally serving grocery 

stores can be found. The street network often is responsible for lowering bikeability due to its arrangement, hierarchy, and street widths. Extremely large portions of a community can consist of 

block after block and mile after mile of the single 

residential land use. Refer to figure 4-8 for the 

most appropriate land use principles applicable to 

these areas. 

Suburban Corridor Context

Suburban corridors areas are the very typical development pattern associated with suburbs. The 

arrangement of one-lot-deep commercial properties that are strung along great distances of avenues 

and boulevards (major arterial, minor arterial, 

and major collectors) is typical of these areas. As 

a result of retail trends over the past 30 years, bigbox retail businesses have often taken up the larger parcels, mostly surrounded by parking. Office 

buildings and medical facilities are also scattered 

in a linear fashion along these suburban corridors. 

The commercial areas typically developed with the 

idea that land uses that support a neighborhood 

should be concentrated in arterial intersections 

and along corridors that are within a few miles 

of housing. Though this centralization had some 

economic benefits for the businesses, it meant that 

most customers would come by way of car. Therefore, site planning focused on maximizing highly visible parking. Despite these typical problems 

with walkability, suburban districts can be retrofitted with improvements and land uses that can 

support higher levels of walking and biking.

Suburban District Context

Suburban districts are often made up of shopping 

districts (not counting commercial strips), large 

schools and community college campuses, business 

districts, major single corporate employers, public 

works yards and institutional facilities. Similar to 

rural areas, these districts are often not connected 

to the corridors and neighborhoods of these communities. They do represent an opportunity for 

positive infill if residential development can be provided through infill revitalization projects.
51

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Commercial

Public Facilities

Legend

Office and Institutional 

Conservation

Single Family Residential

Multi-family Residential

Mobile Homes

HS

HM

HT

HF

HC

LG

LS

LP

LC

LE

LJ LV

LM

TI TB

TA

TS

TT

Figure 4-8: Best Land Use Practices for Creating Walkable/Bikeable Communities in Suburban Areas

DISTRICT

TOWN CENTER

CORRIDOR

NEIGHBORHOOD

HL
52

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

Suburban areas sometimes have more intensive town centers 

where people gather. Photo source: Mike Singleton Downtowns often incorporate historic districts converted to 

urban main streets with retail and large amounts of street 

activity. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Suburban Town Center Context

Unlike rural and urban areas, it is often difficult to 

find the centers of many suburbs. There is not always a natural progression of density or an increased mixture and intensity of land uses. Often, 

suburban town centers are defined by the concentration of public civic facilities in close proximity 

to each other. They will often have a variety of office buildings and government office centers at 

their core. Even with these facilities located in the 

town centers, it is often difficult to find a concentration of destinations that are within walking or 

riding distances of each other. The potential for 

increasing walking and biking opportunities is 

high if a comprehensive approach is provided that 

creates residential infill and increased land use 

mixtures. 

4.4.3 Land Use Planning for Urban Areas

Urban Neighborhood Context

Urban neighborhoods most commonly have a 

mixture of locally supporting businesses as well 

as a broad range of housing types (owned and 

rented), housing forms (attached and detached), 

housing intensity (two- to four-story housing 

above parking or taller towers of housing). Urban 

neighborhoods are typically more bikeable and 

walkable because of the closer distances for riding, the gridded nature of the roadway network, 

and the presence of biking facilities, high-quality 

walking facilities, and a mixture of land uses that 

can provide most of the daily needs of local residents. These neighborhoods are generally better 

supported by transit, thereby extending the distance of non-vehicular travel patterns. Refer to 

figure 4-6 for the most appropriate land use principles applicable to these areas.

Urban Corridor Context

Urban corridors generally comprise a large mixture of commercial and neighborhood areas 

bounding major boulevards and avenues. They 

do contain some amount of commercial businesses with parking located in front but are generally 

deeper than a single parcel and are typically multiple blocks in area. Unlike the single-sided focus 

of suburban corridors, all sides of an urban corridor block contain destinations. This difference 

improves the overall walkability of the area by 

providing multiple destinations in a short walking or cycling distance. These areas are generally 

surrounded on some of their sides with neighborhoods, making them good candidates for increasing connectivity and bikeability to the corridors. 

Urban District Context

Urban districts generally include major campuses, 

cultural centers, entertainment districts, historic 

districts, and financial centers, with major employment in business parks and towers. Districts 

are typically surrounded by or interspersed with 

mixed neighborhoods. Generally, the block sizes 

are reasonable and biking and walking distances 

are acceptable. 

City Center Context

Urban areas have clearly defined downtowns that 

spread over many blocks and contain a broad variety of residential, employment, entertainment, 

transportation, and cultural facilities. By the very 

nature of mixed uses, small blocks, gridded streets, 

and density, these areas are often very bikeable 

and walkable and have the added bonus of generally being serviced well by transit. 
53

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Downtown Commercial

Retail Commercial

Legend

Office and Institutional 

Conservation

Single Family Residential

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential

HM

HC

HL

HF

HC

HT

LM LC

LS

LG LE LV

LJ

LP

LE

LV

TI

TT

TI

TB

TS

TA

Figure 4-9: Best Land Use Practices for Creating Walkable/Bikeable Communities in Urban Areas

DISTRICT

CITY CENTER

NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR

HS
54

CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

4.5 IDEAS: PROJECT-SCALED STEPS

In order to achieve the recommendations of this 

chapter, land use practices must support the creation of good streets and great places to walk and 

bike. Project-scaled tools include—

• Draft community-based vision plans, which 

are critical agreements or road maps that articulate how communities see their streets, neighborhoods, districts, and future growth.

• Create zoning standards that allow, encourage, and require a diverse mix of land uses that 

support the creation of walkable, bikeable, and 

sustainable places. 

• Integrate planning efforts that take into account comprehensive planning and the inclusion of transportation when land use and design decisions are being made.

• Adopt a complete streets ordinance or policy 

that requires all departments to analyze and attempt to integrate as many roadway users into 

the development of the roadway itself.

• Utilize policies that put a premium on integrated land use and compact infill development 

that is located nearest transit and in areas that 

are walkable and bikeable. 

• Strike a balance between parking standards 

that protect areas from excessive use of on 

street parking and neighborhood parking impacts and from providing too much parking 

where parking adds to the cost of housing and 

leasing, expands the distances between origins 

and destinations, dominates a site, and discourages walking. 

• Select your development site in an area that is 

already bikeable or walkable based on a good 

mixture of land uses as well as transit support.

• Select the specific site to make sure it can be 

connected to the rest of the area, and commit 

to improving the connections to the adjacent 

area so that the project can be both an origin 

and a destination for trips. 

• Assume the costs necessary to connect the site 

with the community should be considered as 

part of site preparation. At the same time, work 

with the local community to extend these improved connections beyond the immediate adjacency of the project limits. Provide a project 

match of funds that will leverage other general 

fund, property bonding, or grant-based funding sources. 

• If the project is a larger site, provide access 

through the site for walking and biking. 

• If the project is large enough, provide on site 

recreation, neighborhood-serving functions, 

community facilities, a daycare facility, and 

other uses that allow a person to walk to the 

site, without having to drive. 

• Ensure that the immediate site edges all have 

walkable environments that are safe, comfortable, and attractive.

• Contribute to crossing improvements that connect with important destinations within a few 

blocks of the development.

• Ensure that off-street and on street bike parking is made available.

• For the nonresidential portions of the project, ensure that employment centers contain 

changing rooms, showers, or locker rooms. 

This is valuable not only for people that may 

ride a bike or run or walk to work but also for 

the healthy midday breaks that employees can 

take for walking, running, or cycling.

• Avoid having the site dominated by parking 

in front of buildings. Consider maximizing 

on street parking through a cooperative agreement with the approving agency.

• Unbundle the cost of parking, especially structured parking, so that a future tenant, buyer, or 

renter can opt for less parking and be rewarded 

for not taking a parking space. This works best 

where one space is provided for a residential 

unit, with a second parking space requiring 

payment for use. 

• Consider all parking on the proposed site a 

shared resource. Avoid reserved parking spaces 

where possible, and pool the parking resources through shared parking strategies and other 

uses of technology that stretch parking as far 

as possible without dominating the site or the 

expenses of the development that result in increased housing and business costs. 

• Provide vertically mixed land uses that balance 

residential, retail, and employment in one location.

• For larger sites, provide horizontally mixed 

land uses that supplement the primary land use 

(residential, shopping, or employment) with 

supporting uses. 

• Consider artist lofts and working studios that 

allow a person to live and work in the same facility.

• Create public spaces or edges that encourage a 

person to enter the site, interact with community members, and activate retail edges. 

4.6 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT 

RESOURCES TO CONSIDER

For more information on land use planning, please 

consult the following foundational documents.

FHWA:

• Creating Safer Communities for Walking/Biking (2015)

• List of Online Reports and Technical Publications

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

NACTO:

• Transit Street Design Guides (2016)

• Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014) 

• Urban Street Design Guide (2013)

OTHERS:

• Complete Streets Best Policies and Implementation 

Practices (2010/Annual)

• LEED for Neighborhood Development (2014)

• Model Design Manual for Living Streets (2011)
 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING TOOLS

55

Sample corridor conditions in the CP/UH area (addressed 

by the 2005 Plan). Photo source: City of Gainesville, FL

Sample land use conditions in the CP/UH area (addressed 

by the 2005 Plan). Photo source: City of Gainesville, FL

4.7 CASE STUDY: GAINESVILLE, 

FLORIDA

City Background

The city of Gainesville, Florida, has a history of 

land use planning and zoning efforts in support 

of creating more walkable and bikeable communities. Gainesville is located in north-central Florida. 

It is the county seat and largest city in terms of size 

and population in Alachua County. The city measures 62.4 square miles. At the time of the 2013 

American Community Survey, the population of 

Gainesville was 127,488. As of the 2010 census, 

the racial composition of Gainesville was 64.9 percent White, 23.0 percent African-American 6.9 

percent Asian, 0.3 percent American Indians and 

Alaska Natives, 0.1 percent Native Hawaiians and 

Other Pacific Islanders, 1.9 percent some other 

race, and 2.9 percent reporting two or more races. 

Gainesville is home to the University of Florida 

(UF), the nation’s eighth largest university campus 

by enrollment. According to the HUD exchange 

FY 2014, 61.6 percent of people in Gainesville are 

low and moderate income. The city earned the 

“Silver Level” Bicycle Friendly Community designation from the League of American Bicyclists 

and has a bicycle mode share of 6.27 percent. 

According to the on-line Walk Score application, 

Gainesville is a “Car Dependent City,” with most 

errands requiring a car (Walk Score: 33), though 

the urban core of the city, which includes the College Park/University Heights community (the 

specific focus of this case study, explained in the 

following section), is considered “very walkable,” 

with Walk Scores ranging from 71 to 89. 

The College Park/University Heights 

Community Redevelopment Area 

This case study specifically focuses on the College Park/University Heights Community Redevelopment Area. The CP/UH Community 

Redevelopment Area is located in the center of 

the city of Gainesville and comprises three subareas: College Park, University Heights, and the 

Expansion Area. Collectively, the CP/UH area 

can be characterized as part residential, part 

mixed use, and part light industrial, with portions that have been in decline for several years. 

The CP/UH area is interesting because it has 

been the subject of multiple rounds of land use 

and zoning strategies aimed at the same thing: 

creating a more urban, vibrant, walkable, and 

bikeable place. To date, the 2005 College Park/

University Heights Community Redevelopment 

Plan Update has had the strongest impact on 

active transportation-supportive land use and 

is the focus of this case study. (The city is currently developing a form-based district plan, a 

plan that uses form-based code to support more 

streamlined and predictable development, as 

well as increased walk- and bikeability.)

The 2005 College Park/University 

Heights (CP/UH) Community 

Redevelopment Plan Update

In 2004, the city decided to update the CP/UH 

Redevelopment Plan, last updated in 1995, and 

include the Expansion Area. The 2005 plan included a refinement of the 1995 Land Use Characteristics and the formulation of objectives, 

initiatives, and cornerstone projects, intended 

to implement the 1995 plan. The following sections summarize elements of the 2005 plan and 

discuss how it supported a more walkable and 

bikeable community. 
CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

56

Planned land use for the CP/UH area (per the 2005 Plan). Photo source: City of Gainesville, FL

Land Use Characteristics, Transportation 

Mitigation, and Parking Exemption

The College Park/University Heights area was 

mostly built out at the time of the 2005 plan. As 

such, future land use designations reflected a necessary balance between existing conditions and 

desired character. The two greatest contributions 

of the land use designations to walking and biking in the CP/UH area were the high overall mix 

of uses called for and densities permitted. The land 

use designations also specified other design elements supportive of walking and biking. For example, descriptions of several land uses stipulated 

that buildings be oriented to the street (i.e. front the 

street, with modest setbacks and build-to lines) and 

contribute to the pedestrian character of the area. 

The plan update also included a planned use district designation, an overlay land use district that 

allowed for increased land use flexibility. 

Complementing land use plans were the 

Multi-modal Transportation Mitigation ordinance 

and Parking Exemption policy. The purpose of the 

Multi-modal Transportation Mitigation ordinance 

is to establish a method whereby the impacts of development on transportation facilities in the Urban 

Cluster can be mitigated through a Multi-modal 

Transportation Mitigation Program. The ordinance 

is intended to demonstrate a strong commitment to 

comprehensive transportation mobility planning, 

thereby reducing the potential for moratorium or 

unacceptable levels of traffic congestion without 

viable multi-modal alternatives. The Parking Exemption policy exempts developers from providing 

parking in the Central City District and requires 

bicycle parking and other multi-modal improvements as mitigation for transportation impacts.
 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | PLANNING TOOLS

57

“After” conditions on SW 2nd Avenue (called for by 

the 2005 Plan). Photo source: Gainesville Landscape 

Contractors

Above: “After” conditions of the Innovation Square site; Below: “Before, During and After” conditions of the Innovation 

Square Site (called for by the 2005 Plan). Photo source: Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Gainesville, FL

Objectives and Initiatives

The 2005 plan included concrete objectives 

and initiatives to help achieve broader land use 

goals. The objectives and initiatives most relevant to creating walkable and bikeable communities are in the following list. Those that best 

demonstrate the plan’s impact on walking and 

bicycling in the CP/UH area are further described with text and images.

• Infrastructure.

• Parking.

• Urban form.

• Traffic circulation.

• Land acquisition and redevelopment.

• Creation of mixed-use technology hubs.

• Public spaces.

• Cornerstone projects.

• SW 2nd Avenue.

• University Avenue as a Signature Street.

• Depot Rail Trail Gateway.

Creation of Mixed-Use Technology Hubs

The hub was seen as an opportunity to infuse 

the Redevelopment Area with new businesses and professors, researchers, and students. 

The increased foot traffic generated by the hub 

would provide necessary support for the mix of 

retail, residential, and other commercial uses 

envisioned for the area. Development of the 

mixed-use technology hub, coined “Innovation Square,” is now well under way. Innovation 

Hub, the first building in Innovation Square, 

was completed in 2012 and is currently occupied by more than 20 startup companies. 

SW 2nd Avenue

This project was identified as a “Great Street,” a 

largely mixed-use activity center and corridor, tying 

residential neighborhoods to the university and 

downtown at either end (to use the terms employed 

in this document, part urban district and part urban corridor). The plan called for transportation 

options to be stressed along this corridor, including 

transit, cycling, and driving. The corridor was identified as an ideal location for the technology incubator and an ideal route for the UF circulator. Since 

the plan’s completion, multi-modal improvements 

such as bike lanes, improved sidewalks, enhanced 

crosswalks, and landscaping have been implemented. Development of Innovation Square, described 

in the previous section, has also begun.
CHAPTER 4 | LAND USE & MOBILITY INTEGRATION

58

“University Avenue as a Signature Street:” New mixed-use 

development and adjacent multi-use path (called for the 

2005 Plan). Photo source: Google Earth

“After:” Helyx Bridge/ Depot Avenue Rail Trail 

Improvements (called for the 2005 Plan). Photo source: 

Community Redevelopment Agency, Gainesville, FL

“Before:” Depot Avenue Rail Trail Bridge. Photo source: 

Community Redevelopment Agency, Gainesville, FL

University Avenue as a Signature Street

This project called for the elevation of University 

Avenue as a “destination place” through aesthetic and parking improvements as well as planned 

upscale housing. Two of the housing developments, Jackson Square and West University Avenue Lofts, have been built. These developments 

contribute to the intended community character, 

including the pedestrian-friendly orientation of 

the buildings, enhanced sidewalks, landscaping, 

and quality bike parking. The creation of a destination place will require comparable transformations of adjacent properties.

Depot Rail Trail Gateway

The former Depot Rail Trail Bridge over SW 13th 

Street was identified as a source of blight. Due to 

its highly visible location, at the edge of the Community Redevelopment Area, the bridge was 

identified as a Gateway opportunity. In 2009, the 

CRA commissioned design for the redevelopment of the bridge. The bridge is now complete 

and won the Florida APWA’s “Project of the Year” 

award in 2014. 

4.7.1 Conclusion

The city of Gainesville has been largely successful at supporting traditionally urban infill development and has increased walking, biking, 

and transit use within its urban core. To date, 

the city has made significant strides through redevelopment planning (which establishes a 

clear vision and goals), zoning overlays and a 

land development code (which support more 

compact, mixed-use development), and policies 

of multi-modal transportation mitigation and 

parking exemption (which capitalize on the interrelationship between active transportation-supportive land use and transportation). If 

approved, the creation of form-based districts 

within the University Heights/College Park area 

will likely perpetuate, and possibly accelerate, 

the walking and biking transformations already 

in motion.
CHAPTER 5: STREET 

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

5.1 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A WALK FRIENDLY AND 

BIKE FRIENDLY STREET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.2 USERS: DESIGNING FOR ALL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.3 NETWORKS: STREET CLASSIFICATION 

SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.4 TOOLS: BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 

STREET DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.5 BENEFITS: PICKING THE RIGHT TOOLS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5.6 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT TOOLS IN 

THE RIGHT LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

5.7 IDEAS: PROJECT SCALED STEPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

5.8 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES 

TO CONSIDER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

59

Planning, Design or 

Engineering Consultants

Local Elected Officials 

and Review Staff

Federal, State and 

Regional Regulators

Advocate 

Organizations

Providing 

Entities

Decision 

Makers

USER LEGEND

Smart Growth 

Advocates

Mobility Choice 

Advocates

Developers, Financial 

Institutions

Housing Providers and 

Institutions

Health and Safety 

Advocates

Housing 

Advocates

Local Agency Planners 

and Engineers
60

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Fisherman’s Wharf Redesign: San Francisco’s newest shared 

street. Photo source: Aaron Bialick

The United States has a long and distinguished 

history of creating memorable and enduring cities, including Savannah, Georgia; Charleston, 

South Carolina; Madison, Wisconsin; Santa Barbara, California; and Port Townsend, Washington. 

These cities are memorable and enduring partly 

because of their streets. Well-planned streets help 

to create sustainable cities that support the environmental, social, and economic needs of their 

residents. This chapter provides insight and guidance on what makes streets work and how they 

can be planned, designed, and engineered to support walking and biking. 

Streets can be examined at several levels: as independent travel ways, at the intersection of two or 

more travel ways, and as a network of travel ways 

and intersections. The design and function of each 

level and their relationship to one another is essential to creating walkable and bikeable communities. This chapter is organized by the three primary components of a street: networks, travel ways, 

and intersections. It begins with a summary of key 

principles for all street design and is followed by 

more detailed sections and design guidelines. 

5.1 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A 

WALK- AND BIKE-FRIENDLY STREET

Good land use planning and urban design can 

help create healthy neighborhoods with great 

streets and innovative and sustainable buildings. 

This section serves to highlight the essential principles governing street network, travel way, and 

intersection design. It also offers suggestions on 

what to do and what not to do in designing street 

networks, travel ways, and intersections. Note that 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recently demonstrated strong support for connected 

pedestrian and bicycle networks (see “Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks” from FHWA 

one of several examples).

5.1.1 Networks Principles

Street networks come in many forms, but those 

that support walking and bicycling have certain 

characteristics that need to be included, primarily for safety reasons. More than 32,000 people 

are killed each year in the United States in traffic 

crashes (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, 2003–2013 data). A 

well-designed street network is a powerful tool for 

reducing traffic crashes and fatalities while providing unique and beautiful places for our cities. 

Some of the basic justifications for safety improvements include—

• Sustainable and resilient street networks foster 

economic and social activity. They constrain 

traffic growth by limiting the number of lanes 

on each street while providing maximum travel options by collectively providing more lanes 

on more streets. By providing opportunities for 

all modes of travel, an ideal street network enhances social equity and provides an ideal setting for high-quality design at all scales, including buildings, neighborhoods, and the region. 

The resulting communities can be some of the 

most beautiful places, with high property values and outstanding quality of life.

• Sustainable street networks improve traffic 

safety. Hierarchical street patterns (arterial-collector-local) with cul-de-sac subdivisions 

that depend on arterials have less capacity and 

contribute to crashes more than do gridded 

and distributed street networks. Hierarchical 

street networks divert traffic to high-speed arterials that have large intersections. 

• According to the Federal Highway Administration,1

 40 percent of crashes occur at intersections. The speed at which motor vehicles move 

on these arterial streets increases the likelihood 

and severity of crashes. 

• Poorly connected street networks can be more 

dangerous than well-connected networks. 

A 2011 study of 24 California cities found a 

30-percent higher rate of severe injury and a 

50-percent higher chance of dying from traffic-related causes in cities dominated by sparsely connected cul-de-sacs compared with cities 

with dense, connected street networks.2 A 2009 

study from Texas found that each mile of arterial is associated with a 10-percent increase 

in multiple-vehicle crashes, a 9.2-percent increase in pedestrian crashes, and a 6.6-percent 

increase in bicycle crashes.3

• The rate of road fatalities per 100,000 people 

was 3.2 per year in cities with high intersection 

density versus 10.5 per year in cities with low 

intersection density.

• Sustainable street networks increase the number of people walking and bicycling and reduce 

vehicle miles traveled. Connectivity enables 

people to take shorter routes. It also enables 

them to travel on quieter streets. These shorter routes on quieter streets are more conducive 

to bicycling and walking. The California study 
61

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

A common pedestrian problem in suburban roadways are 

wide high speed streets. Photo source: Joe Punsalan

cited previously found that locations with a 

dense, connected street network had three to 

four times more people walking, bicycling, or 

using transit to get to work. This in turn led to a 

50-percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled 

per capita in these cities. 

• Sustainable street networks allow more effective emergency response. Studies in Charlotte, 

North Carolina found that when one connection was added between cul-de-sac subdivisions, the local fire station increased the number of addresses served by 17- percent and 

increased the number of households served by 

12-percent. Moreover, the connection helped 

avoid future costs by slowing the growth of operating and capital costs; most of the cost to 

run a fire station is in salaries. Furthermore, 

Congress for the New Urbanism’s report on 

emergency response and street design found 

that emergency responders favor well-connected networks with a redundancy of routes to 

maximize access to emergencies. Emergency 

responders can get stuck in a cul-de-sac and 

need options when streets back up.4

• These studies and others provide strong evidence that the benefits of a well-designed street 

network go beyond safety; they include environmental, social, and economic gains. Sustainable street networks shape land use markets 

and support compact development, in turn decreasing the costs of travel and providing utilities. Street networks like these have been resilient over hundreds of years and accommodate 

changing technology, lifestyles, and travel patterns. Interconnected street networks can also 

preserve habitat and important ecological areas 

by condensing development, reducing city edges, and reducing sprawl.

• Streets conducive to active transportation both 

shape and respond to the natural and built environment.

• Streets conducive to active transportation provide advantages to trips by foot, bike, and transit because these are the most sustainable types 

of trips.

• Streets conducive to active transportation are 

built to human-scaled walking dimensions.

• Street networks conducive to active transportation work in harmony with all transportation 

modes. Large parts of all of these networks are 

coincidental with the street network, but if any 

parts are separate from the street network, they 

must connect and interact with the network.

• Street systems conducive to active transportation protect, respect, and enhance a city’s natural features and ecological systems.

• Streets conducive to active transportation maximize social and economic activity.

5.1.2 Travel Way Principles

The following key principles should be kept in 

mind for a well-designed travel way—

• Design to accommodate all users. Street design 

should appropriately accommodate all users of 

the street, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, automobile drivers, and commercial vehicle drivers. Although not all streets can equally 

accommodate all users, a well-designed travel way 

considers context and purpose to provide appropriate accommodation for all street users. The 

upside down transportation hierarchy is shown in 

figure 5-1.

• Design according to the desired target speed for 

the surrounding context. Target speeds should 

reflect the role and responsibility of the street, including the type and intensity of land use; urban 

form; the desired activities on the sidewalk, such as 

outdoor dining; and the overall safety and comfort 

of pedestrians and bicyclists. The speed of vehicles 

impacts all users of the street and the livability of 

the surrounding area. Lower speeds reduce crashes 

and injuries. 

• Design for safety. The safety of all street users, especially the most vulnerable users (children, older adults, and people with disabilities) and modes 

(pedestrians and bicyclists) should be paramount 

in any design of the travel way. The safety of streets 

can be dramatically improved through appropriate 

geometric design and operations.

Pedestrians

Bicycles

Public Transit

Commercial Vehicles

High Occupancy Vehicles

Single Occupancy Vehicles

Figure 5-1: Upside Down Transportation Hierarchy 
62

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

5.1.3 Intersection Principles

The following principles apply to all users of intersections—

• Good intersection designs are compact.

• Unusual conflicts should be avoided.

• Simple, right-angle intersections are preferred 

since many intersection problems are worsened at skewed and multi-legged intersections.

• High-speed, free-flowing movement should be 

avoided.

• Access management practices should be used 

to remove additional vehicular conflict points 

near the intersection.

• Signal timing should consider the safety and 

convenience of all users and should not hinder 

bicycle or foot traffic with overly long waits or 

insufficient crossing time.

5.1.4 Actions To Include

Active transportation functions best in well-connected street networks with small blocks, narrow 

streets, and integration of designs that encourage 

walking and bicycling. In order to support walking and biking, as well as safer access to transit, 

utilize the following active street guidelines.

Networks

• Develop highly connected street networks with 

small block sizes. 

• Design streets with as few travel lanes as necessary. If a highly connected network exists, most 

of these streets should have only two lanes.

• Incorporate well-designed sidewalks and pedestrian crossings into all streets and intersections.

• Lay out tight networks (200–300’-foot grids) 

so that streets offer cyclists and walkers many 

options for changing direction at each intersection, thereby reducing the overall length of the 

walk or ride. 

• Where new development occurs outside existing developed areas, extend new streets from 

existing streets with similar characteristics and 

functional classifications. 

• Reconnect broken street networks by adding 

new infill development that will also add connections for streets that are missing or that do 

not go through.

• Where residents desire disconnected grid (to 

limit vehicle traffic), recommend partially permeable street networks. 

Travel Ways

• Build streets to the narrowest width necessary.

• Build or stripe travel lanes, turn lanes, and 

parking lanes to the narrowest width necessary.

• Design streets to the desired target speed. 

• Incorporate dedicated bike facilities into all 

new boulevards and avenues.

Intersections

• Design intersections that are compact.

• Design simple, right-angle intersections because many intersection problems are worsened at skewed and multi-legged intersections.

• Avoid free-flowing movements designed for 

high vehicle speeds.

• Use access management practices to remove 

additional vehicular conflict points near the 

intersection.

• When establishing signal timing, consider the 

safety and convenience of all users and do not 

hinder bicycle or foot traffic with overly long 

waits or insufficient crossing times.

• Design tight curb radii and use curb extensions 

to reduce pedestrian crossing distances.

• Use roundabouts, to lower speeds and eliminate turn lanes, and neighborhood traffic circles, to calm traffic.

5.1.5 Actions To Avoid

The following list includes common design characteristics that discourage walking and bicycling.

Networks

• Do not encourage cul-de-sac networks that 

concentrate trips onto major streets, necessitating multi-lane streets to handle the traffic and 

reducing the number of options people have to 

travel to most destinations. Multi-lane streets 

have little “friction” to slow traffic because the 

lack of connectivity results in long blocks. With 

a lack of friction, these streets run fast and create speed differentials that are not compatible 

with bicycling or walking. The lack of connected blocks also requires people to walk long distances to cross the street. 

• Do not encourage new development to occur 

in locations not already adjacent to existing 

development (leapfrog development). In order 

for new land uses to connect with existing land 

uses, new streets need to directly link to existing street networks.

• Do not construct streets without consideration 

of the needs of people walking or bicycling. 

Streets built without sidewalks, or without 

well-designed sidewalks, and street crossings 

present barriers to walking. Bicyclists need 

tight networks of bicycle-supportive streets so 

they do not have to travel too far out of their 

way to ride along attractive streets or bikeways. 

• Do not construct more travel lanes than necessary. Multi-lane streets are more difficult for 

pedestrians to cross. They also introduce rearend, sideswipe, and left-turn broadside crashes 

that do not occur on two-lane streets.5 (Multilane streets have capacity for 40,000 vehicles 

per day. Cities with populations of 200,000 

people or less should not need multi-lane 

streets if they have well-connected street networks except where they are contiguous with 

other cities in major metropolitan areas.)
63

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

• Do not encourage gated communities. By definition, these are exclusive areas that break up 

the street network and require people on foot 

or bicycle to travel long distances to go around. 

Where residents desire disconnected grid (to 

limit vehicle traffic), recommend partially permeable street networks.

Travel Ways

• Do not build streets wider than necessary. 

Wide streets create more exposure for pedestrians when crossing the street. Wide streets 

have less friction that slows motor vehicle traffic, so they induce speeding, which degrades 

the street for bicyclists, as well as pedestrians. 

Wide streets also make land uses farther apart 

than necessary. Keeping land uses close to one 

another is central to designing for pedestrian 

and bicycle scale. 

• Do not build new streets wider than needed for 

the desired target speed. The extra width, often given as an attempt to increase safety, likely contributes to higher actual speeds and the 

increased likelihood for pedestrian and bicycle 

fatalities.6

• Do not assume that future growth will necessitate more travel lanes. Additional capacity 

induces travel. Miles traveled have been essentially flat since 2007 (Historical Vehicle Miles 

Traveled Report, Federal Highway Administration, 1970 through December 2014). Furthermore, excess width can lead to burdensome 

maintenance costs, especially as municipal 

budgets get tighter.

• Do not build boulevards and avenues (major 

arterials) without dedicated bike facilities or 

pedestrian accommodation.

• Do not build boulevards without medians or 

crossing islands for pedestrians.

Intersections

• Do not stripe more than one left-turn lane.

• Do not stripe or construct right-turn-only 

lanes unless turning volumes are very high.

• Do not use signals where roundabouts are 

more appropriate.

• Do not use stop signs where mini-roundabouts 

or mini-circles are appropriate.

• Do not construct or stripe right-turn slip lanes except where large numbers of trucks or buses turn.

5.2 USERS: DESIGNING FOR ALL

The presence of several users and other factors are 

known to play central roles in the design and resulting walkability and bikeability of streets. The 

following paragraphs offer brief discussions of the 

roles played by each user or factor. 

5.2.1 Pedestrians

The goal of roadway and intersection design 

should be to create an environment that is conducive to walking, where people can walk along and 

across the road and the roadside becomes a place 

where people want to be. The three most effective 

methods to achieve these goals are to minimize 

the footprint dedicated to motor vehicle traffic, to 

slow down the speed of moving traffic, and to provide sufficient buffers between fast-moving traffic 

and pedestrians.

5.2.2 Bicyclists

All streets should be designed with the expectation that bicyclists will use them. This does not 

mean every street needs a dedicated bicycle facility. For example, streets with low speeds and low 

volumes may be comfortably shared with vehicles. 

Streets need only to accommodate cyclists in an 

inviting and safe environment. 

5.2.3 Target Speed

Frequently, the approach for setting design speeds 

is to use as high a design speed as possible to maximize throughput and lower travel time. This approach has many negative effects. Speed can kill 

the sense of place just as it can kill people. Because 

high speeds degrade the social and retail life of a 

street, they can devalue the adjacent land. In contrast to this approach, the goal for living streets is 

to support a design speed that creates a safer and 

more comfortable environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This approach also increases access to adjacent land, thereby increasing 

its value. For living streets, target speeds of 20 to 

35 miles per hour are desirable.

5.2.4 Design Vehicles

A design vehicle is a generic vehicle type that designers and engineers design for based on expected use of a given street (e.g. a “truck route” will 

be designed to accommodate a high number of 

trucks). Designing for a larger vehicle than necessary is undesirable due to the potential negative 

impacts larger dimensions may have on pedestrian crossing distances and the speed of turning vehicles. On the other hand, designing for a vehicle 

that is too small can result in operational problems if larger vehicles frequently use the facility. 

It is important to design the street for the most 

common vehicles. 
64

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Table 5-1: Relationship between Functional Classification and Thoroughfares 

5.2.5 Transportation Performance Metrics 

and Active Transportation 

Traffic volume data collection is an integral part 

of transportation planning and decision making, 

including forecasting. Traffic volumes determine 

such factors as the number lanes needed, the need 

for turn lanes, intersection treatments, appropriate pedestrian crossing treatments, appropriate 

treatment for bicycles, and the need for bus lanes. 

Multi-Modal Level of Service

The quality of service of streets has conventionally 

been obtained using level of service (LOS) measurements. LOS assesses delay for motorists along 

a roadway section or at a signalized intersection. 

Where delay is greatest, LOS is lowest. Using this 

metric results in solutions that allow more traffic to 

flow and move faster. This degrades the street for 

pedestrians, people on bicycles, and people using 

transit. In response to this situation, a Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) has been developed 

that assesses the quality of the street for all modes. 

Using this metric can result in improvements for 

bicyclists, pedestrians, and people using transit. 

Alternatives to Level of Service: Vehicle 

Miles Traveled (VMT) and Automobile Trips 

Generated (ATG)

In addition to MMLOS, we now have other metrics, such as reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

and automobile trips generated (ATG), to measure 

performance in a way that encourages less driving 

and promotes alternative modes (walking, bicycling, and transit use). These metrics help break 

the cycle of induced demand: a phenomenon in 

which increases in roadway capacity—intended 

to relieve congestion—induce more drivers and 

more driving. 

5.2.6 Access Management

A major challenge in street design is balancing the 

number of access points to a street. Many conflicts 

between users occur at intersections and driveways. The presence of many driveways in addition 

to the necessary intersections creates many conflicts between vehicles entering or leaving a street 

and bicyclists or pedestrians riding or walking 

along the street. When possible, new driveways 

should be minimized and old driveways should 

be eliminated or consolidated, and raised medians 

should be placed to limit left turns into and out of 

driveways.

5.3 NETWORKS: STREET 

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

The Federal Highway Function and Classification 

system is the conventional classification system 

that is commonly used to define the function and 

operational requirements for streets. Historically, 

this system has also been used as the primary basis 

for design criteria. This traditional classification 

system has focused mostly on the needs of automobiles and other motorized vehicles, however. It 

has not adequately taken into account the interaction of adjacent land uses or the urban form and 

function of streets to other uses and users. It has 

been used far too long to create streets that move 

vehicles in the most efficient and quickest way but 

has failed to integrate other users of streets. Table 

5-1 compares the traditional classification system 

with an alternative classification system.

Traffic volume, trip characteristics, speed, level of 

service, and other factors in the functional classification system relate to the mobility of motor vehicles and do not consider the context or land use 

of the surrounding environment. This approach, 

while appropriate for high-speed rural and some 

suburban roadways, does not provide planners or 

engineers with guidance on how to design for living streets in a context-sensitive manner.
65

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Urban context through corridor: Syracuse, NY.

Photo source: Onondaga Citizens League

Street types described here provide mobility for 

all modes of transportation, with a greater focus 

on the pedestrian. Designers should recognize 

the need for greater flexibility in applying design 

criteria, based more on context and the need to 

create a safe environment for pedestrians rather 

than strictly following the conventional functional classification system in determining geometric 

criteria.

The terms for an alternative typology for living 

streets are described in the following sections. 

Many municipalities use the terms avenue and 

street in combination with the street name as a 

way to differentiate streets running north and 

south from those running east and west (e.g., 1st 

Street, 1st Avenue); these uses differ from the definitions used in this manual. Table 5-1 provides the 

Federal Highway Function and Classification system names next to the living streets typologies. 

Table 5-2 provides a list of common street types.

Table 5-2: Form Based Street Design Classification System

STREET TYPE DESCRIPTION COMMON STREET 

CLASSIFICATIONS

THROUGH 

CORRIDOR

• Connections between urban, suburban and rural 

village centers generally with higher speeds

• Driver focus on point “A” to point “B” connections

• Higher volumes of traffic

• Freeways or limited access 

highways,

• Highways

• Frontage roadways

• Major or principal arterials

BOULEVARD

• Connections between major centers or village centers 

within urban or suburban area

• Often has a planted median.

• Major or principal arterials

• Arterials or minor arterials

AVENUE

• Traverses and connects districts, links streets with 

boulevards. For all vehicles including transit. May or 

may not have a median.

• Urban minor arterials

• Urban collectors

STREET*

• Serves neighborhood, connects to adjoining 

neighborhoods

• Serves local function for vehicles and transit

• Local collector

• Local street

ALLEY/LANE • Link between streets

• Allows access to garages • Narrow and without sidewalks

*May have segments with specialized functions and features such as a Main Street segment. 

Typical rural context through corridor: Chapel Hill, NC.

Photo source: Laura Sandt- www.pedbikeimages.org

Suburban context through corridor: Charlottesville, VA.

Photo source: Dan Burden- www.pedbikeimages.org
66

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Typical (although may not be ideal) urban context boulevard: 

Missoula, MT. Photo source: Dan Burden

Typical (although may not be ideal) rural context boulevard: 

Florida. Photo source: Neil Spiller FHWA

Typical (although may not be ideal) suburban boulevard: 

Orange, CA. Photos source: Nicole Schneider

5.3.1 Through Corridor

A street that travels through a major portion of a 

village, town, or city is considered to be a through 

corridor. The majority of users on these streets are 

not on local trips. The origins and the destinations 

generally are likely to be outside the community. 

This street typology is often associated with freeways, limited-access highways, primary urban arterial streets, and business district loops associated with the interstate or state highway systems.

The restricted-access highways and freeways are 

always designed for high-speed travel. These higher-speed streets usually restrict bike or pedestrian 

access except in the western United States, where 

bicycle travel is often permitted. Through corridors 

are not a focus of this study except for the barriers that they represent to walking and biking. The 

through-corridor streets that have moderate- to 

high-speed and high-volume goals are the streets 

with the greatest safety concern and that represent 

the greatest barriers to our neighborhoods, districts, and centers. Additionally, because these roadways tend to be lined with destinations—this type 

of “strip commercial” development is the primary 

type of commercial development in many small to 

mid-size, low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities—it is important to incorporate a level of 

bike and pedestrian access into their design.

5.3.2 Boulevard

A boulevard is a street designed for high vehicular 

capacity and moderate speed, traversing an urbanized area. Boulevards serve as primary transit 

routes. Boulevards should have dedicated bike facilities and fully accessible, wide walkway systems 

integrated with them. They may be equipped with 

bus lanes or side access lanes buffering sidewalks 

and buildings. Many boulevards also have raised 

medians that restrict left-turn movements. Often, 

these medians are landscaped as well. Because of 

the nature of these boulevards for through traffic, 

they are likely to be two to three lanes in each direction and also not have signal-controlled intersections at each block. 
67

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Typical (although may not be ideal) urban context avenue: 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Photo source: Dan Burden

Typical (although may not be ideal) suburban context 

avenue: Cornelius NC. Photo source: Dan Burden

Typical (although may not be ideal) rural context avenue: 

Seattle, WA. Photo source: Dan Burden

Typical (although may not be ideal) urban street: Kalamazoo, 

MI. Photos source: Dan Burden

Typical (although may not be ideal) suburban street: 

Charlotte, NC. Photos source: Laura Sandt

Typical (although may not be ideal) rural street. Photo 

source: Pedestrians.org

5.3.3 Avenue

An avenue is a street of moderate vehicular capacity and low to moderate speed, acting as a 

short-distance connector between urban centers 

and districts. An avenue will likely have more than 

one lane in each direction and may or may not 

have raised medians. A striped combination center turn lane may exist, and it is likely that not every intersection will be a controlled intersection.

5.3.4 Street

A street is a local, multi-movement facility suitable 

for all community typologies and all frontages and 

uses. It is the most common type of roadway facility. It is rarely more than one lane in each direction, although it may contain a left turn pocket or 

combination turn lane. A street is generally controlled at intersections by stop signs or yield and 

through combinations. A street is typically urban 

or suburban in character, with raised curbs, gutter 

and drainage inlets, sidewalks, parallel parking, 

and trees in individual or continuous planters. The 

character may vary in response to the commercial 

or residential uses lining the street. 

5.3.5 Lanes/Courts/Alleys

A court or a lane is a narrow street, often without 

sidewalks. Courts and lanes often do not allow 

two vehicles to pass each other between parked 

vehicles and generally do not contain centerline 

stripes. Alleys are narrow bypass streets, generally 

at the back of properties and typically used for 

utilities, trash pickup, and very local connections 

to garages and off-street parking areas.
68

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Sample of an urban lane or court: Philadelphia, PA.

Photo source: Dan Burden

Sample of path: Seattle, WA.

Photo source: Dan Burden

Specialty street- Festival Street: Asheville, NC.

Photo source: Dan Burden

5.3.6 Paths/Trails/Special-Use Lanes

In new development, integrating a network of 

shared-use paths and earthen trails into the street 

network should be considered. Under this concept, every fourth or fifth “street” should provide 

comfortable access with low stress for bicyclists, 

pedestrians, joggers, skaters, and others along a 

linear parkway without motor vehicles. Where 

these paths and trails intersect streets, they should 

be treated as intersections with appropriate treatments. This type of network allows people to circulate to schools, parks, stores, and offices while 

staying primarily on dedicated paths and trails. 

These networks can also link to other paths and 

trails along waterways, utility corridors, rail 

rights-of-way, and other, more common active 

transportation corridors. 

5.3.7 Sample Cross-Sections

Municipalities that are developing new subdivisions or modified streets through second-generation development should create new street standards based on the preceding street and functional 

classifications. Sample obliques for the basic street 

typologies are shown in figure 5-2.” When adopting standards for new streets, local jurisdictions 

should also include the sidewalks as an integral 

part of the overall right-of-way and use the guidance provided in this chapter that recognizes all of 

the functional aspects of streets, including multiple modes of transportation and interaction with 

adjacent land uses. 

In situations in which a community has a well-distributed network of gridded streets, most streets 

should have just two lanes (one in each direction). 

Four-lane streets or avenues (arterials and collectors) should be used to carry higher capacity along 

streets with more intensive adjacent land. In all but 

a few rare situations, six-lane boulevards (primary 

arterials) should not be needed. If a street has a 

very high traffic flow requirement, it can handle 

this flow as well as other street functions without 

being a divider street. A divider street splits the 

two sides of the street by making the roadway a 

barrier to cross-travel. The wider the street, the 

greater the number of lanes, and the higher the 

speed, the more the street would be considered a 

divider street. A seam street is one that pulls the 

two sides of the street together as a combined urban form. The street functions as a comprehensive 

space that includes circulation, but the ability to 

cross the street is not a problem and the flow of 

the street is slow enough to contribute to the retail or other function of the street. A street that 

is designed as a boulevard would be considered a 

through corridor if the majority of the trips begin 

or end outside the community. 

Figure 5-2 shows the differences between a street, 

an avenue, and a boulevard. This figure demonstrates the subtle differences between the three 

that are emphasized when the context of land use, 

urban form, and street setting are all the same. In 

general, a street would only have two lanes, with 

on street parking. An avenue may have one or 

multiple lanes in each direction but is generally 

devoid of left turn controls and medians. A boulevard contains a median or some other form of left 

turn control as a method to keep opposing-direction vehicles apart. The overall width and right-
69

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Boulevard

of-way, as well as the likely vehicular volume of 

throughput, all increase from street, to avenue, 

and to boulevard—the highest. 

In built-out communities, rigid street standards 

are often impractical. Curb-to-curb widths are 

expensive to change, buildings, exist and rightsof-way do not allow meeting full cross-section 

standards. Municipalities may want to reconfigure 

streets by reassigning space to make streets more 

closely meet the principles of living streets. This is 

most commonly done by “lane diets” and road diets, which redistribute space between the existing 

curb and gutter limits of the street but may also 

include new sidewalk construction. 

Figure 5-3 provides examples of how some of the 

primary principles can be applied. This figure illustrates how poorly designed streets (at left) can 

be transformed into redesigned, living streets (at 

right). Road diets for four-lane streets (reducing 

the number of travel lanes) should be considered 

where daily traffic volumes are fewer than 20,000 

(and sometimes 25,000) trips per day. Road diets 

for six-lane streets should be considered where 

daily traffic volumes are 40,000 or fewer. 

Lane diets (reducing the width of lanes) can commonly be instituted for most streets except those 

with heavy truck traffic. Inside lanes should never 

be wider than 12 feet and can be as narrow as 9 

to 10 feet. Outside lanes—depending on parking, 

bike facilities, and shoulders—should typically be 

no wider than 13 feet and as narrow as 10 feet if 

done in conjunction with shoulders, bike lanes, or 

shared outer lanes. 

5.4 TOOLS: BIKE- AND PEDESTRIANFRIENDLY STREET DESIGN

Streets have an important bearing on the safety 

and general quality of life for all who use them. 

This section includes a discussion of the role of 

street networks in safety and livability, as well as 

characteristics of active, transportation-friendly 

street networks and design guidelines to create 

them. 

5.4.1 Street Network Guidelines

Street networks compatible with active transportation provide a pattern of multi-modal streets 

that serve all community land uses and facilitate 

easy access to local, city, and regional destinations. 

The pattern, which mostly affects non-motorized modes, can result in the distribution of traffic that is consistent with the desired function of 

the street. One characteristic of a well-distributed 

grid network is that it offers many route choices 

that connect multiple origins with multiple destinations. (See figures 5-4 and 5-5. Source: Michele 

Weisbart.) 

The street network functions best when it provides 

a variety of street types. The variety is enforced by 

the pattern of the street network itself but also by 

the design of individual street segments. Natural 

and built features, including topography and important community destinations, should be taken 

into account to create unique designs.

Figure 5-2: Comparison of a Street to an 

Avenue and to a Boulevard

(Same land use context, different street types & configurations. 

Source: Claire Vlach, Bottomley Design & Planning )

Street

Avenue
70

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 5-3: Reclaiming Street Widths for Other Uses* 

*For Federal guidance on road diets, see FHWA’s Road Diet Informational Guide: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/

Note: While actual widths permitted or required may vary from city to city, travel lanes of 11’ or less are recommended for traffic calming, safety and pedestrian/bicyclist stress reduction.
71

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 5-5: Integrated bike/walking trails within a grid of streets. Source: 

Michele Weisbart

The types of streets used in the network are described in the design standards provided in the 

following sections. The types differ in terms of 

their network continuity, cross-section design, 

and adjoining land use. The individual streets will 

change in character depending on their immediate land use context.

Lay Out Small Block Sizes To Shorten Walk/Ride 

Distances (NF)

Smaller block sizes shorten distances for both pedestrians and bicyclists. As a result, they ensure 

greater accessibility within the block through alleys, service courts, and other access ways. Larger 

blocks can be retrofitted with new streets, alleys, 

and other pedestrian or bicycle connections.

Provide a Grid or Straight Roadway Segments 

To Lower Out-of-Direction Travel (NG)

Boulevards and avenues that extend beyond the 

local area allow multiple street connections between neighborhoods and districts in a region. 

Additionally, local streets without closures can 

provide connections with adjacent neighborhoods 

and keep shorter blocks.

Provide a Distributed Network That Avoids 

Concentration of Traffic (ND)

A distributed network maximizes route options and the distribution of a fixed number of trips 

across a broader range of streets. 

It provides various low-stress 

routes for active transportation, 

including multiple routes for 

Figure 5-4: Long blocks limit destinations within emergency vehicles.

walking distances. Short blocks offer more direct 

routes to more destinations

Source: Marty Bruinsma

Avoid Dead Ends/Gated Communities/Cul-deSacs (NC)

Dead ends and gated communities can create 

major out-of-direction travel for bikes, vehicles, 

and pedestrians. These network obstructions 

may cause conflicts in mixed-use neighborhoods, 

where there are many local destinations and origins. In order to avoid dead ends, pedestrians and 

bicyclists should be fully accommodated before a 

street is closed to prevent through traffic.

Avoid Wide/Fast Streets That Divide 

Communities (NW)

Maintain network quality by accepting growth 

and the resulting expansion of the street network 

(including development, revitalization, intensification, or redevelopment, particularly of active 

transportation facilities) while avoiding increases 

in street width or number of lanes because wider 

streets can create faster traffic that divides a community. 
72

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Devices that prevent vehicles from through movements 

but allow bikes and pedestrians to enter a street are called 

diverters such as this on Morro Street in San Luis Obispo. 

Photo source: Drew Reed

Sometimes, only a bridge can make the needed connections. 

Photo source: George Ammerman

Avoid streets so wide they divide the community. If exist, 

include ped. crossings at all intersections. 

Photos source: Utah Department of Transportation

A street should bring together both sides like this example 

from Denver. Photo source: Ryan Snyder

Create Streets That Provide a Seam Between 

Sides of the Street (NS)

A pedestrian-friendly street needs safe and conveniently located crossing points that are universally 

accessible and well lighted. Streets should be created or revitalized to be seam streets, which may be 

achieved by road diets, lane diets, traffic calming, 

streetscape development, improved pedestrian 

crossing, and other types of improvements.

Include Bike- and Pedestrian-Friendly Diverters 

That Prevent Vehicular Through Traffic (NP)

In some instances, a street my need to be dead ended 

to prevent undesired through traffic. Traffic diverters 

can be used to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections through the end of the street. These types 

of diverters are also useful for bike boulevards and 

other streets where lower traffic volumes are a goal. 

Avoid Leapfrog Development Into Areas With 

Few Mobility Options/Streets (NL)

Encouraging development for infill development 

where transit, bike, and pedestrian options exist 

can protect investments in these systems and 

avoid major infrastructure expansions. 

Span Barriers With Bike or Pedestrian Bridges (NB)

Pedestrians and cyclists generally do not divert 

very far from horizontal or vertical directions for 

detours from their route. Bridges do not work well 

if they require long ramps, stairs, and elevators if a 

local street level option is available. Use landforms 

to obtain a gradual slope up to a bridge, and avoid 

out-of-direction ramp systems that emphasize the 

longer distance for pedestrians and bikes.

5.4.2 Roadway Guidelines

Roadway design is defined as design of the part of 

the street right-of-way between the two faces of 

curbs. It includes parking lanes, bicycle lanes, 

transit lanes, general-use travel lanes and medians. The design of the roadway is critical to the 

design of the entire street right-of-way because it 

affects not just the users in the roadway but those 

using the entire right-of-way, including the areas 

adjacent to the street.

Design To Accommodate All Modes (TM)

Do not force one mode of use to make changes to 

increase capacity at the expense of the other 

modes. Utilizing quantitative metrics to measure 

success may not always be the best way to accommodate all modes. Qualitative metrics are more 

appropriate. 
73

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Protect and entice pedestrians by providing street trees and 

furnishings between vehicles and public spaces. 

Photo source: Mike Singleton

Main Street (Route 62) is a major NY State truck route. The 

Village of Hamburg worked with NY State DOT to “right-size 

the street,” narrowing travel lanes to 10 feet, inventing a 3 ft 

“park assist” lane. Photo source: Dan Burden

Ensure the Right Design Speed/Avoid OverDesigning the Street (TO)

Maximum throughput (based on congestion related to reaction time and the “Slinky®” delay effect associated with starts and stops and based on 

vehicular energy efficiencies) is best when kept at 

35 miles per hour. For streets with high-volume 

demands, focus signal synchronization and design 

speeds on this ideal travel speed. 

Design for Safety First, Multi-Modes Second, 

and Traffic Flow Third (TD)

“Safety first” should not be only a slogan but a 

foundation for street and community design. Safety of trips, regardless of mode, should always be 

the focus. Calmed traffic that is free flowing works 

best for all roadway users and reduces the severity 

of collisions if they do occur. 

Protect Walkers by Using Parkways, Parking, 

and Street Trees (TP)

Pedestrians can be protected using parkways, 

parking, and street trees. On street parking can 

be important in the urban environment for the 

success of retail businesses that line the street 

and can provide a buffer for pedestrians and help 

calm traffic speeds. Additionally, pedestrian-scale 

lighting along sidewalks provides greater security, especially for people walking alone at night. 

Street trees that are large enough and spaced close 

enough can also be used as barriers to protect pedestrians because they can slow or stop a vehicle 

that comes onto the sidewalk. 

Reduce Overall Roadway Widths as Much as Is 

Practical (TN)

Curb-to-curb widths that take more than 75 percent 

of the overall roadway right-of-way should be avoided if possible. Bike, parking, and walking facilities 

can be built by reclaiming width from excessively 

wide lanes of travel or an overbuilt number of lanes. 

Curb extensions or bulb-outs can be used to reclaim 

parts of the travel lanes that are not parkable and reduce overall crossing distances for pedestrians. 

Minimizing the number of travel lanes is another 

important means of reducing overall width. Streets 

that average fewer than 20,000 average daily trips 

(ADTs) generally do not need more than one lane in 

each direction. Streets with fewer than 40,000 ADTs 

generally remain operational with two lanes in each 

direction.

Reduce Lane Widths To Allow for Other Users 

and for Traffic Calming (TR)

Wide lanes encourage speeding and meandering between striped lines. In order to increase driver attention and to limit weaving and drifting into adjacent 

lanes and bike facilities, lane widths can be narrowed. 

In most cases, a 10- or 11-foot lane is adequate for 

all vehicles, including larger buses or fire emergency 

vehicles. Only roadways with large trucks need to be 

wider. Permissive center left turn lanes should be no 

more than 12 feet in width and can be as small as 10 

feet in width. All other roadway assets can be made 

available for medians, bike lanes, parkway strips, and 

other pedestrian facilities.

Manage Access by Limiting Curb Cuts/

Driveways (TY)

Right turn conflicts between vehicles and bikes or 

pedestrians are increased along streets that have a 

large number of driveways accessed through curb 

cuts. It may be possible to lower these collisions by 

having joint-use access aprons between properties, as shown in figure 5-6. Additionally, regulatory signage and other raised median construction 

can help reduce problematic vehicle turns for cyclists and pedestrians.
74

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Manage Left Turn Movements Along Roadway 

Segments (TL)

Medians used on urban streets provide access 

management by limiting left turn movements 

into and out of abutting development to select locations where a separate left turn lane or pocket 

can be provided. The reduced number of conflicts 

and conflict points decreases vehicle crashes, provides pedestrians with a refuge as they cross the 

road, and provides space for landscaping, lighting, 

and utilities. These medians are usually raised and 

curbed. Landscaped medians enhance the street 

or help to create a gateway entrance into a community. 

5.4.3 Intersection Overview

Most conflicts between roadway users occur at intersections, where travelers cross each other’s path. 

Good intersection design indicates to those approaching the intersection what they must do and 

who has to yield. Exceptions to this include places 

where speeds are low (typically less than 18 miles 

per hour) or where a shared space design (naked 

streets) causes users to approach intersections with 

caution. Conflicts for pedestrians and bicyclists are 

exacerbated due to their greater vulnerability, lesser 

size, and reduced visibility to other users. 

Manage in and out privileges for driveway to avoid in-lane 

conflicts and collisions with bikes and pedestrians. Source: 

Michele Weisbart

Figure 5-6: Managed Driveway Access

Limit free left turns between intersections through the use of 

medians. Photo source: Melissa Saks- The Brooklyn Paper

This section describes design considerations in 

intersection geometry and intersection signalization, as well as roundabouts and other features to 

improve safety, accessibility, and mobility for all 

users. The benefits and constraints of each feature 

are examined, and the appropriate use and design 

of each feature are described. 

Intersection geometry is a critical element of intersection design, regardless of the type of traffic 

control used. Geometry sets the basis for how all 

users traverse intersections and interact with each 

other. The principles of intersection geometry apply to both street intersections and freeway onand off-ramps. 

Yield Controlled

Yield-controlled intersections include both those 

that are explicitly yield controlled and those that are 

“uncontrolled.” Uncontrolled intersections, those 

without any accompanying regulatory signage or 

pavement markings, are yield controlled by default. 

Intersections that are explicitly yield controlled can 

be identified by both signage and pavement markings. Yield control can be superior to stop control 

because it results in less air pollution, wasted fuel, 

and neighborhood traffic noise. In many contexts, 

particularly at the intersection of residential and local streets, yield control also provides an equal or 

even greater degree of safety (i.e. safety may be increased where yield control results in less certainty 

and more cautious driving). 

Stop Controlled 

Stop control utilizes regulatory signage and pavement markings. Two-way stop control is the most 

common form of intersection control, followed 

by all-way stops. The use of all-way stops should 

be consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Stop control is 

sometimes (over)used to calm traffic but has the 

unintended effect of increasing air pollution, fuel 

consumption, and neighborhood traffic noise. As 

previously mentioned, in many contexts, a neighborhood traffic calming circle is a preferable and 

more effective option. 
75

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Limit free left turns lanes through new medians, road diets, 

and protected signalized intersections.

Photo source: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Pedestrians benefit greatly on streets with two or four way 

stop signs. Photo source: Polish Hill Civic Association

Signalized Intersections 

Signalized intersections provide unique challenges and opportunities for livable communities and 

complete streets. On one hand, signals provide 

control of pedestrians and motor vehicles—with 

numerous benefits. Where signalized intersections are closely spaced, signals can be used to 

control vehicle speeds by providing appropriate 

signal progression on a corridor. Signalized intersections should be consistent with the MUTCD. 

Traffic signals allow pedestrians and bicyclists to 

cross major streets with minimal conflict with 

motor vehicle traffic. On the other hand, traffic 

signals create challenges for non-motorized users. Signalized intersections often have significant 

turning volumes, which conflict with concurrent 

pedestrian and bicycle movements. In some cases, 

roundabouts offer safer, more convenient intersection treatment than do signals. 

5.4.4 Intersection Guidelines

Make All Legs of an Intersection Available for 

Pedestrian Crossings (IP)

The practice of restricting only one or two legs 

of an intersection from pedestrian crossing does 

not create a pedestrian-friendly street. Signalization and out-of-direction crossing distances disproportionately inconvenience pedestrians. Also, 

excessive crossing distances may result in unsafe 

crossings. Pedestrian crossing restrictions are often implemented in the name of safety; however, 

they often are equally guided by goals or standards 

of high vehicular throughput. Another problem 

with pedestrian crossing restrictions is that the restriction is difficult to communicate to those with 

vision disabilities.

Minimize Free Left Turn Only and Free Right 

Turn Only Lanes (IL)

Medians used on urban streets provide access 

management by limiting left turn movements into 

and out of abutting development to select locations where a separate left turn lane or pocket can 

be provided. The reduced number of conflicts and 

conflict points decreases vehicle crashes, provides 

pedestrians with a refuge as they cross the road, 

and provides space for landscaping, lighting, and 

utilities. These medians are usually raised and 

curbed. Landscaped medians enhance the street 

or help to create a gateway entrance into a community. 

The most commonly used left turn phases at an intersection with a left turn lane are permissive, permissive-protected, and protected phasing. Protected phasing provides a separate signal time when 

pedestrians can cross the street without conflicts 

with turning vehicles; this is the preferred option. 

Permissive-protected phasing provides a shorter 

time of non-conflicts with pedestrians, and permissive phasing allows motorists to turn simultaneously with pedestrians crossing the street. 

Provide Signals or Stops on Roads (IS)

If the hierarchy of traffic flow and street classification is very clear, pedestrian crossing signals, allway stops, or pedestrian-actuated yield crossing 

points can be used. Stop signs or yield sign-controlled intersections can provide safe crossings for 

pedestrians at all intersections involving more 

than two lanes and that are posted above 25 miles 

per hour. It should be noted that stop signs can 

have the effect of increasing mid-block travel 

speeds and should not be used for traffic calming. 

The use of stop signs and signals should be determined by local standards and engineering review 

(MUTCD warrants for signals and stop signs may 

still be required).

Provide Minimal Radius on Corners or Utilize 

Rolled Curb Bulb-Outs (IM)

Intersection geometry based on the turning radius 

can have a significant impact on the comfort and 

safety of non-motorized users as well as the ability of the vehicle to make the turning movement. 

Although the goal should be to use standard curbs 

and ramps for bulb-outs, in some cases, street geometry and local radius standards may require the 

use of rolled curbs. Small corner radii provide the 
76

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Traffic circle used to slow traffic and avoid stop sign 

requirements. Photo source: Ryan Snyder

Modern roundabout used to increase throughput (compared 

to signals) and lowers speeds overall. Photo source: Andrew 

Bossi

following benefits: smaller, more pedestrian-scale 

intersections resulting in shorter crossing distances; slower vehicular turning speeds; reduced pedestrian crossing distance and crossing time; better geometry for installing perpendicular ramps 

for both crosswalks at each corner; and simpler, 

more appropriate crosswalk placement in line 

with the approaching sidewalks. 

Bulb-outs provide additional benefits for pedestrians: they occupy space at intersections unavailable to car parking (for visibility reasons), effectively adding it to the sidewalk to reduce crossing 

distance, slow vehicle speeds, and provide more 

space for street furniture.

Make Intersections Compact and Well Defined (IC)

Decisions at intersections often require split-second choices, precisely at the point of the greatest number of potential conflict points. As such, 

the clarity of movements and the understanding 

of yielding expectations must be very simple and 

well defined.

Avoid Irregular Intersections Unless Striping/

Medians Can Make Them Safer (II)

Multi-leg intersections (more than two approaching roadways) are generally undesirable and introduce complications for all users. Multiple conflict 

points are added because users arrive from several 

directions. Users may have difficulty assessing all 

approaches to identify all possible conflicts and 

yield requirements. These intersection types require users to cross more lanes of traffic, thereby 

making the travel distance across the intersection 

wider. Skewed intersections also require users to 

crane their necks to see other approaching users, 

making it less likely that some users will be seen.

Use Roundabouts and Mini-Circles To Eliminate 

Left Turn Conflicts and Control Speeds (IR)

Modern roundabouts are potentially the least expensive, safest, and most aesthetic form of traffic 

control for many intersections. This section of the 

chapter briefly describes roundabout application 

and design information. For more detailed information, refer to the NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition.

Well-designed roundabouts have central islands 

for users of the street to go around the intersection, splitter islands that force users of the street 

to travel around the central island, truck aprons 

that larger vehicles can mount where needed, 

pedestrian crossings, and signs and markings. 

Roundabouts operate on the principle that drivers approach a roundabout and look left for any 

approaching vehicles that could conflict with their 

travel path. If there is no possible conflict, the approaching driver can enter the roundabout without delay. If there is a vehicle, or many conflicting vehicles, the approaching drivers yield to the 

conflicting vehicle on their left and wait for a safe 

gap to enter the roundabout. Though most roundabouts in the United States are single lane roundabouts, there are several multi-lane roundabouts 

found in heavily traveled urban areas. 

Mini-roundabouts are a new form of roundabout 

that includes a traversable central island and traversable splitter islands to accommodate large vehicles. Mini-roundabouts are used in low-speed 

environments where operating speeds are 30 miles 

per hour or less and right-of-way constraints preclude the use of a standard roundabout.

Neighborhood traffic circles (or mini-circles) are 

very small circles that are retrofitted into local 

street intersections to control vehicle speeds within a neighborhood. Typically, a tree and/or landscaping is located within the central island to provide increased visibility of the roundabout and to 

enhance the intersection. The design of neighborhood traffic circles is primarily confined to selecting a central island size to achieve the appropriate 

design speed of around 15 to 18 miles per hour.
77

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Curb extension or bulb-outs used in Florida.

Photo source: Dan Burden

Curb extension at a pedestrian crossing.

Photo source: National Association of City Transportation Officials

Due to their free-flowing nature, both round-

abouts and neighborhood traffic circles require 

special design treatments for accessibility. These 

may include, but are not limited to, ADA stan-

dards, positive traffic control (through Rectangu-

lar Rapid Flashing Beacons [RRFBs], audible de-

vices and truncated domes.

Use Bulb-Outs or Curb Extensions To Calm Traffic (IB)

The straight line and continuous and consistent 

edge of roadway principles in the past have actually 

resulted in increased speeds and increased severity 

of collisions. The lack of edge friction and the exces-

sive consistency allow drivers to feel complacent 

and inattentive and are more likely to increase 

speed. An abruptly changing roadway edge, on the 

other hand, may require evasive action if the change 

is too dramatic. A variety of improvements can be 

made that provide horizontal deflection of motor 

vehicle movements, with the benefit of reduced 

speeds and protection of adjacent users. Curb ex-

tensions offer many benefits, including reduced pe-

destrian crossing distance, resulting in less expo-

sure to vehicles and shorter pedestrian clearance 

intervals at signals; improved visibility between pe-

destrians and motorists; a narrowed roadway, 

which has a potential traffic calming effect; addi-

tional room for street furniture, landscaping, and 

curb ramps; reduced rear ending of parked cars due 

to inattentive drivers; additional on street parking 

potential due to improved sight lines at intersec-

tions; and management of street water runoff with 

infiltration techniques.
78

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

5.5 BENEFITS: PICKING THE 

RIGHT TOOLS

Street networks and conditions can either enhance or destroy the ability of a community to 

be walkable and bikeable. Choosing the right improvements for an area requires attention to the 

issues that are in need of change, the context of the 

project site, the available budget, and the benefits 

desired from the investment This section ranks 

the characteristics and benefits achieved from 

each listed element. Figure 5-7 shows the benefits 

achieved by the implementation of each of the following elements.

Increases safety for bicyclists and pedestrians: Safety for cyclists and walkers can 

increase if streets are designed appropriately, with legible intersections, proper 

widths to match or calm speeds, and dedication of appropriate space for different 

users. 

Decreases travel distance and travel time 

commitments: Connected and distributed streets ensure the shortest distance 

between likely destinations. Directness of 

route can be assisted through the use of 

smaller blocks, simple grids, smaller street 

crossing distances, as well as intra-property connections or mid-block crossings. 

Allows for multiple choice of direction of 

travel: The more choices pedestrians or 

cyclists have for turning on a block generally means a quicker route to destinations 

on that block. 

Supports access to adjacent land uses: 

These changes will result in better support 

of adjacent land uses, especially from a 

cyclist and pedestrian perspective. 

Can result in lower infrastructure costs: 

Overall costs of development or redevelopment are lower because the cost of construction or maintenance of roadways will 

go down.

Helps in traffic calming: The proposed 

street elements will contribute to calmed 

traffic and will create a better environment for main street shopping and business uses.

Supports increased socialization: Walking, local shopping, and the activation of 

the street can contribute to improved social interaction and an improved sense of 

community. 

Can be integrated into smaller-scale projects and/or initiatives: The scale of this 

improvement makes it likely to be implementable as part of smaller infill projects 

or other neighborhood-level improvements. 

Provides multiple benefits for many individuals: Because of the protection or 

convenience of travel, this element should 

entice new users to engage in biking and 

walking for transportation or recreation.

Streets are public spaces all onto themselves, but when 

connected with the right balance of land uses, they become a 

communities focal point. Photo source: iStock-Getty Images
79

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

When features of walkways bike facilities, transit services, activated edges, parking and calmed vehicular traffic all come together, it becomes a complete street. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Figure 5-7: Best Practices Implementation Benefits
80

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

A common pedestrian problem in rural roadway are the lack of walking facilities. Photo source: Joe Punsalan

5.6 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT 

TOOLS IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS

The primary purpose of a street is to connect people to the land uses where they live, learn, work, 

shop, and play. Streets, however, have been slowly converted to only move vehicular traffic, often 

through an area or neighborhood instead of within the local community. 

This portion of the chapter shows four examples of 

the community place types (neighborhood, corridor, district, and center) in each of the three different types of community typologies (rural, suburban, and urban). Each of these areas is discussed 

on the following pages by use of a representative 

street network that comes from various locations 

in the United States. The diagrams should be used 

to determine where a particular street should be 

considered and the extent to which the network of 

streets and land uses must work together to 

achieve a walkable and bikeable community. The 

diagrams should be used only as a guide because 

they need to be adjusted based on local conditions, priorities, and policies. They provide insight, however, into how local context must be 

considered and how the interaction of land use, 

street configurations, and spatial arrangements 

can be integrated. The Best Street Planning and 

Design Practices for Creating Bikeable Communities figures represent general guidance on the 

types of treatments and elements that are available 

to consider and where they may be most appropriate. None of this should take the place of a community master plan, circulation element, or bike 

or pedestrian master plan but should serve as a 

foundation for these efforts. The matrices provide 

insight as to the full range of items that should be 

considered.

5.6.1 Street Design for Rural Areas

Rural Neighborhood Context 

Rural neighborhoods are typically serviced by a 

grid of streets, with large block spacing and large 

parcel sizes. The network is often not complete, 

with large parcels of land without roadways, making walking and biking more challenging. Blocks 

are long and crossing opportunities are limited. 

Roadways typically are narrower, with limited 

shoulders and walkway systems. Standard streets 

and courts or lanes are also somewhat common. 

Figure 5-8 identifies the most appropriate street 

network and roadway design principles applicable 

for these areas. 

Rural Corridor Context

Rural corridors are often made up of throughtown highways and major avenues (arterials). In 

this context, through corridors are more prevalent 

than avenues and boulevards. Many rural corridors are the result of suburban-style development, 

based on vehicular distances and inexpensive, 

land putting destinations at great distances from 

each other. 

Rural District Context

A rural district is mostly made up of concentrated 

non-main-street-style shopping centers versus strip 

commercial establishments discussed previously in 

the corridor context. Rural districts are often disconnected and separated from neighborhoods and 

corridors and may need connection improvements 

to make them bikeable and walkable. 

Rural Village Center Context

A village center will typically have the main roads of 

the rural town running through the commerce and 

government center. Fortunately, these centers were 

developed historically with a human scale in mind 

and not based purely on parking convenience. These 

areas are walkability and bikeability assets. 
81

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Through Corridor

Boulevard

Legend

Avenue

Lane/Alley/Court

Path/Trail/Special Use Lane 

NW TF

IB

IL

IF

IS

IM

IC

II

IP

IR

TN

TM

TP

TR

TO

TY

TD

NG

NF

NF

ND

NS

NL

NC

NB NC NP

Figure 5-8: Street Design Best Practices for Rural Areas

DISTRICT

VILLAGE CENTER CORRIDOR

NEIGHBORHOOD
82

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

5.6.2 Street Design for Suburban Areas

Suburban Neighborhood Context

Street patterns are mostly curvilinear and arranged in a collector-style hierarchy, in which the 

neighborhood streets are regularly intersected 

with collectors, arterials, and major arterials collecting and distributing vehicular volumes. Often 

the streets are made up of cul-de-sac streets that 

do not connect with other streets. Some bikeway 

facilities are present, mostly as bike lanes on wider streets. The most prevalent cycling and walking 

problem in these areas relates to a lack of short 

connections between areas due to cul-de-sacs, 

large distances needed to travel to other land uses 

or destinations, and higher-speed and higher-volume streets. The street network often is responsible for lowering bikeability due to its arrangement, 

hierarchy, and street width. Figure 5-9 identifies 

the most appropriate street network and roadway 

design principles applicable for these areas.

Suburban Corridor Context

These areas are the typical development type associated with suburbs. The arrangement of onelot-deep commercial properties that extend along 

great distances of avenues and boulevards (major 

arterials, minor arterials, and major collectors) is 

typical of these areas. The greatest walking and 

biking challenge relates to the large distances between land use destinations and neighborhood 

origins. Roadway design is usually focused on 

getting the largest volume of traffic through these 

areas, so the distances and the movement through 

intersections are significant challenges. In addition, free-turning left turns and right turns into 

and out of driveways are particularly troublesome 

for many cyclists and pedestrians due to misjudgment by drivers.

Suburban District Context

Similar to rural areas, these districts are often not 

connected to the corridors and neighborhoods of 

suburban communities.

Suburban Town Center Context

Usually, street speeds are reduced in town centers 

compared to districts and corridors, which is better for cyclists and pedestrians. Extensive amounts 

of on street parking does represent a challenge for 

cyclists due to pullouts, backups and door openings. Typically, street block widths are reasonable, 

and most intersections have positive control with 

signals or stop signs. 

5.6.3 Street Design for Urban Areas

The street systems in urban areas are typically 

gridded, although some boulevards and avenues 

can split the grid or be angular or curvilinear. Urban neighborhoods are typically more bikeable because of the closer distances between destinations, 

the gridded nature of the roadway network, the 

presence of biking facilities, and the presence of 

10-minute neighborhoods, with a mixture of land 

uses that can provide for most of the daily needs 

of local residents. Walking is also benefited by the 

street network and intersection designs of urban 

areas. Figure 5-10 identifies the most appropriate 

street network and roadway design principles applicable for these areas.

Urban Neighborhood Context

Street networks in urban neighborhoods are typified by highly connected grid patterns, with a finegrained mesh of residential streets comprising the 

majority of the streets. These streets are typically bounded by collector streets and avenues that 

carry more traffic (of all modes) and may include 

some neighborhood-serving destinations. Strong 

network connectivity tends to support walking 

and bicycling because it provides short travel distances and multiple route options. 

Neighborhood streets in urban areas tend to be 

rather narrow and configured as follows: two 

narrow travel lanes; two vehicle-parking lanes; 

generous, tree-lined parkway strips; connected 

sidewalks; and few driveways. The basic design 

of urban neighborhood streets provides inherent 

support for walking and bicycling (i.e. narrow 

streets, parked cars and street trees, calm traffic). 

In terms of special facilities, pedestrians have sidewalks and crosswalks, whereas bicyclists tend to 

comfortably share narrow streets with motorists. 

In some cases, traffic calming, signage, and other 

enhancements may be required. 

Urban Corridor Context

Urban corridors generally consist of a large mixture of commercial and neighborhood areas 

bounded by major boulevards and avenues. These 

areas are generally surrounded on some of their 

sides with neighborhoods, making them good 

candidates for increasing connectivity and bikeability to the corridors.

Urban District Context

Generally, block sizes are reasonable and biking 

and walking distances are acceptable in urban districts. Walkway widths and amenities are present, 

increasing walkability in these districts. 

City Center Context

City centers generally consist of human-scaled 

block sizes and controlled intersections, making walking easy and direct. Congestion levels in 

downtown areas, along with parking deficiencies, 

can make walking and biking more competitive 

with drive times.
83

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 5-9: Street Design Best Practices for Suburban Areas

Through Corridor

Boulevard

Legend

Avenue

Lane/Alley/Court

Path/Trail/Special Use Lane 

IM

II

IR

IS

IL

IC IF IP

IB

TM

TR

TO

TY

TP

TN

ND

NF

NS

NW

NP

NG

DISTRICT

TOWN CENTER

CORRIDOR

NEIGHBORHOOD
84

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

5.7 IDEAS: PROJECT-SCALED STEPS

In order to achieve the recommendations of this 

chapter, implement street layout and design practices that support the creation of good streets and 

great places to walk and bike. Tools for the agency 

representative or elected official include—

5.7.1 Tools To Be Used by Approving 

Agencies With Land Use and Street 

Jurisdiction

• Consider the guidelines in this document when 

completing general plan, circulation element, 

and community plan updates. 

• Review project-level and specific plan-level 

proposals, utilizing these guidelines.

• Consider adjusting design manuals or street 

standards to reflect these guidelines. 

• Adopt complete street, multi-modal street, or 

livable street policy and associated design manuals.

• Use the guidelines as a different perspective for 

projects that are being required to modify lane 

geometry or for new roadway construction in 

order to handle greater levels of traffic. Context 

is important, as is the overall network and the 

role of the street in providing for many uses. 

• Consider a street under review as a part of a 

network. If the street forces other uses to be 

compromised and the integration of the design 

principles of this document do not resolve the 

issue, then consider making adjacent streets 

more useful, accessible, and safe.

• Through the environmental review process, require projects to consider all users of a street 

when determining levels of service and possible mitigations. 

A common problem in urban areas are over-capacity walkways with infrequent crossing opportunities. Many urban type 

solutions have been provided including this pedestrian scramble that allows for all directions of street crossings during a 

controlled phase of the signals. Photo source: streets.mn

5.7.2 Tools To Be Used by Project 

Proponents or Developers

• Select a development site in an area that is already bikeable or walkable, based on a good 

street network, with ample bike and pedestrian 

facilities already available.

• Assume the costs necessary to connect the site 

with the local street, bicycle, and pedestrian 

network as part of site preparation costs. At the 

same time, work with the local community to 

extend and improve the street network beyond 

the immediate adjacency of the project limits. Provide a project match of funds that will 

leverage other general fund, property bonding, 

or grant-based funding sources. 
85

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Through Corridor

Boulevard

Legend

Avenue

Lane/Alley/Court

Path/Trail/Special Use Lane 

Figure 5-10: Street Planning and Design Best Practices for Urban Areas

Through Corridor

Boulevard

Legend

Avenue

Lane/Alley/Court

Path/Trail/Special Use Lane 

IM

IR

IL

IF

IB

IC

IB

IP

IS

II

TP

TM

TR

TM

TF

TD

TO

TY

NW

NS

NP

ND

ND

ND

NB

NC

NF

NG

NG

NG

NP

NC

DISTRICT

CITY CENTER

NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR
86

CHAPTER 5 | STREET DESIGN PRINCIPLES

• If the project site is large, provide the proper 

layout and mix of streets to accommodate the 

project and the wider communities needs. 

• Ensure that the immediate site edges all have 

walkable environments that are safe, comfortable, and attractive.

• Contribute to crossing improvements that connect with important destinations within a few 

blocks of the development.

• Push to make improvements for mitigating 

traffic congestion issues by way of increased 

support for transit, biking, and walking. 

• Resist project requirements that cause the project to decrease the safety, access, and comfort 

of cyclists or pedestrians near your project site. 

5.8 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT 

RESOURCES TO CONSIDER

For more information on land use planning, please 

consult the following foundational documents.

FHWA:

• List of Online Reports and Technical Publications

NACTO:

• Transit Street Design Guides (2016)

• Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014) 

• Urban Street Design Guide (2013) 

ITE:

• Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares (2010)

OTHERS:

• LEED Neighborhood Design (2014)

• Model Design Manual for Living Streets (2011)

• Complete Streets Best Policies and Implementation 

Practices (2010/Annual)

NOTES:

1 The National Intersection Safety Problem 2009. 

FHWA-SA-10-005. November. 

2 Marshall, W., and N. Garrick. “Does the Street 

Network Design Affect Traffic Safety?” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 43(3): 769–781

3 Dumbaugh, E.R. Rae. “Safe Urban Form: Revisiting 

the Relationship between Community Design and 

Traffic Safety.” Journal of the American Planning 

Association 7 (53): 309–329)

4 Effect on Connectivity on Fire Station Service Area 

and Capital Facilities. 2009 presentation by the 

Charlotte, North Carolina Department of Transportation.” http://www.midwesternite.org/2009meeting/presentations/2A/2009%20ITE%20MW%20

Conference%20-%20Magnasco.pdf.

5 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets-2014-analysis.

6 Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context 

Sensitive Approach. 2010. Institute of Transportation Engineers.
6.1 USERS: UNDERSTANDING USER 

PRIORITIES AND CAPABILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

6.2 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A BIKE 

FRIENDLY COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

6.3 TOOLS: FACILITIES THAT CAN HELP 

MAKE A BIKE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . 90

6.4 BENEFITS: PICKING THE RIGHT TOOLS........100

6.5 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT TOOLS IN 

THE RIGHT LOCATIONS.........................102

6.6 IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT SCALED 

STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

6.7 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES 

TO CONSIDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

CHAPTER 6: BIKEWAY 

PLANNING AND DESIGN

87

87

Planning, Design or 

Engineering Consultants

Local Elected Officials 

and Review Staff

Federal, State and 

Regional Regulators

Advocate 

Organizations

Providing 

Entities

Decision 

Makers

USER LEGEND

Smart Growth 

Advocates

Mobility Choice 

Advocates

Developers, Financial 

Institutions

Housing Providers and 

Institutions

Health and Safety 

Advocates

Housing 

Advocates

Local Agency Planners 

and Engineers
88

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

There are many cyclists with highly variable levels of skill, speed and comfort levels. All need to be accommodated.

Many early bikeway plans assumed that bicyclists 

more resemble pedestrians than vehicles in their 

behavior. This approach led to undesirable situations in which bicyclists were being under served 

by inadequate facilities, pedestrians resented bicyclists being in their space, and motorists became 

confused by bicyclists entering and leaving the 

traffic stream in unpredictable ways. Only under 

special circumstances (e.g., on multi-use paths) 

should bicyclists and pedestrians share the same 

space. 

People on bicycles are legal users of the street, although they are slower and less visible than motor vehicles. Bicyclists are also more vulnerable to 

injury in a collision compared to motorists. They 

need accommodation on busy, high-speed roads 

and at complex intersections. In congested urban 

areas, bicyclists provided with well-designed facilities can often proceed faster than motorists.

Well-designed bicycle facilities guide cyclists to 

ride in a manner that conforms to the vehicle 

code: in the same direction as traffic and usually in a position 3 to 4 feet from the right edge of 

the traveled way. This distance may need to be 

increased to avoid parked cars, debris, drainage 

grates, and other potential hazards. 
89

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-1: Bike User Classification System

6.1 USERS: UNDERSTANDING USER 

PRIORITIES AND CAPABILITIES

Bicycling is different from other transportation 

modes in several important respects, and it also 

contains several different classes of users. Bicycling relies heavily on momentum. Because bicyclists use their own power and must constantly 

maintain their balance, they generally try to avoid 

interruptions. Typical bicyclist speeds range from 

10 to 15 miles per hour, enabling them to make 

trips of up to 5 miles in urban areas in about 25 

minutes, the equivalent of a typical suburban 

commuter trip time. Varying cyclist skill levels 

result in a wide variety of speeds and expected behaviors. 

Several systems of bicyclist classification are used 

within the bicycle planning professions. These 

classifications can be helpful in understanding 

the characteristics and infrastructure preferences 

of different cyclists. Bicycle planning should use a 

wide variety of options, from shared roadways to 

separated facilities, to accommodate as many user 

types as possible and to provide a comfortable and 

safe experience for the greatest number of cyclists.

A classification system developed by the City of 

Portland, Oregon (figure 6-1), lists the following 

bicycle user types—

• Strong and Fearless: Bicyclists who will ride 

anywhere regardless of roadway conditions. 

These bicyclists can ride faster than other user 

types, prefer direct routes, and will typically 

choose roadways, even if shared with vehicles, 

over separate bicycle facilities, such as paths. 

These constitute a very low percentage of the 

population. 

• Enthused and Confident: This group encompasses intermediate cyclists who are mostly 

comfortable riding on all types of bicycle facilities but usually prefer low-traffic streets, bike 

lanes, or separate paths when available. They 

may deviate from a more direct route in favor 

of a preferred facility type. This group includes 

commuters, utilitarian cyclists, and recreational riders and probably represents less than 10 

percent of the population.

• Interested but Concerned: This user type 

makes up the bulk (likely between one-half and 

two-thirds) of the cycling or potential cycling 

population. They are cyclists who typically ride 

only on low-traffic streets or paths under favorable conditions and weather. They perceive 

traffic and safety as significant barriers toward 

increased use of cycling. These cyclists may become “Enthused and Confident” with facilities, 

education, and encouragement.

• No Way, No How: People in this category are 

not cyclists; they perceive severe safety issues 

with riding in traffic and do not ride a bicycle 

under any circumstances. Some among this 

group may eventually give cycling a second look 

and may progress to one of the preceding user 

types. This group likely accounts for between 

one-fourth and one-third of the population. 
90

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

6.2 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A BIKEFRIENDLY COMMUNITY

The following principles are needed for setting the 

foundation for a bikeable community and should be 

considered when planning a new community, for infill projects, or for neighborhood revitalization. 

• Bicyclists should have safe, convenient, and comfortable access to all destinations. 

• Every street could possibly be used by cyclists, regardless of designation or improvements.

• Not every street need to accommodate cyclists; 

however, parallel streets and corridor networks 

need to provide appropriate facilities for all abilities. Bike, pedestrian, and transit facilities should 

be integrated to provide a network of travel solutions.

• Bicyclists should generally be separated from pedestrians except while on multi-use paths.

• Shared use of the roadway with vehicles is acceptable along low-volume, low-speed streets.

• Conventional or buffered bike lanes should be 

used on medium-volume, medium-speed streets.

• High-volume, high-speed streets need to have 

horizontal separation (as provided by a multi-use 

path) or vertical separation (as provided by roadway barriers) commonly provided by cycle tracks.

• Bikeway treatments should provide clear guidance for how a cyclist is expected to utilize the facility and how vehicles and cyclists should interact 

in a predictable manner.

• Because most bicycle trips are short, a complete 

network of designated bikeways should have a 

grid of roughly 0.5 mile or less.

• Attention should always be focused on intersections or segments where safety risks are high or 

where a segment condition changes dramatically, 

to the detriment of riding space.

6.2.1 Actions To Include

• Design streets with the assumption that people on 

bicycles have to travel to the same destinations as 

do people in motor vehicles.

• Design streets to encourage cyclists to act in a 

manner that is consistent with vehicular travel.

• Design streets to make it clear where cyclists 

should be and how they should move through the 

space.

• Design streets with the assumption that nearly every street may be used by a bicyclist.

• Design bikeways to the highest level that is needed 

and feasible in its context.

• Ensure that well-designed bicycle parking is available wherever it might be needed.

6.2.2 Actions To Avoid

• Do not construct new boulevards (arterial streets) 

without low-stress bicycle facilities, such as buffered or separated bike lanes.

• Do not construct new avenues (collector streets) 

without bike lanes or some bikeway designation.

• Do not remove bike lanes to make space for more 

vehicular travel lanes or turn lanes.

• Do not stripe the minimum width of a bike lane 

where space is available for a wider one.

• Do not assume that people will ride only in certain 

parts of town or on certain streets.

• Do not assume that drivers understand the rules 

of the road or their responsibility in sharing the 

roadway with other users. 

• Do not assume that enforcement or self-motivated actions on the drivers’ part will cause them 

to react or behave in a safe and accommodating 

fashion. 

6.3 TOOLS: FACILITIES THAT 

CAN HELP MAKE A BIKE-FRIENDLY 

COMMUNITY

This part of the chapter discusses a series of tools 

that can be used to improve the bikeability of a 

community. The tools are broadly grouped into 

five categories— 

• Bike and vehicle sharing travel lanes.

• Bike-only travel lanes.

• Protected bike facilities, separated from travel 

lanes.

• Bike facilities at intersections.

• Bike amenities.

Within each of the five categories, the tools are ordered from most to least effective. Each category 

is identified by a unique letter label, and each tool, 

a unique two-letter label (e.g. Tools for Bike and 

Vehicle Sharing Travel Lanes: S; Bike Boulevards: 

SB). These two-letter labels are also used in the 

contextual matrices and maps. 

For each tool, a high-level discussion regarding 

where, why, and how to use the tools is provided. 

Each description is also accompanied by one or 

more photos from real projects in real communities. The photos represent typical applications of 

the tools. Photos are not meant to provide regulatory guidance and may or may not meet all of the 

current regulatory requirements or best management practices. The reader should consult applicable guidelines specific to the community as well as 

national level guidelines found in the foundation 

reference documents in chapter 1. More specific 

information describing the broad range of available tools and sample 3D models can be found in 

appendix B.
91

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Vehicle diverter. Photo source: www.pedbikeimages.org/ 

Adam Fukushima

Neighborhood Traffic Circle often used as a diverter to slow 

vehicular traffic. Photo Source: Bike Long Beach

Neighborhood Greenway for “All Ages and Abilities.” Photo Source: Clintonville Greenways

6.3.1 Bike and Vehicle Sharing Travel 

Lanes (S) 

Bike Boulevards/Greenways (SB)

A bicycle boulevard is an enhanced shared roadway, where a local street has been modified to 

function as a prioritized through street for bicyclists while maintaining local access for automobiles. This is done by adding traffic-calming devices to reduce motor vehicle speeds and installing 

traffic diverters or controls that limit through 

movements by vehicles. A bike boulevard gives 

priority to through bicyclist movement and generally removes stops signs in the primary direction 

of the street. 

Generally, bicycle travel on local streets is compatible with residential neighborhoods. Often, measures that support bicycle boulevards are done in 

conjunction with neighborhoods that would benefit from restricting through traffic of motorists. 

By reducing traffic and improving crossings, bicycle boulevards also improve conditions for pedestrians. 

A greenway is a version of a bike boulevard that 

typically includes urban forestry, placemaking features, and stormwater runoff or rain gardens. Successful bicycle boulevard implementation requires 

careful planning with residents and businesses to 

ensure acceptance.
92

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Bike route sign. Photo source: 

Mike Singleton 

Sharrow road marking. 

Photo source: John 

Holloway

Buffered Bike Lanes. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Sharrows With Standard or Greenback Boxes (SH)

Shared-lane marking stencils (commonly called 

“sharrows”—derived from the words shared and 

arrows) may be used as an additional treatment for 

shared roadways. The stencils can serve a number 

of purposes: they remind bicyclists to ride farther 

from parked cars to prevent “dooring” collisions, 

they make motorists aware of bicycles potentially 

in the travel lane, and they show bicyclists the correct direction of travel and lane position.

Bike Routes With No Improvements Other Than 

Signage (SR)

Posted bike route signs can be used on roadways 

with low traffic volume. These routes may parallel 

busier streets and provide low-stress alternatives, 

as in Bike Boulevards. Bike route signage can provide direction to other bike facilities or destinations. Although less desirable than other bike facilities, routes are typically implemented for the sake 

of network connectivity. They may be ineffective 

at closing gaps due to the high-stress experiences 

they create. In light of this, many communities offer widened sidewalks (“urban trails”) in addition 

to bike route signage in such locations. 

6.3.2 Bike-Only Travel Lanes (B)

A bike lane is a portion of the travel way designated for use by bicyclists, with restricted movement 

by motor vehicles across the solid white line. They 

are most suitable on avenues and boulevards or 

any street that has the width to accommodate at 

least a 5-foot-wide marked lane. Bike lanes may 

also be provided on rural roads where there is anticipation of high bicycle use. Bike lanes are generally not recommended on local streets that have 

relatively low traffic volumes and speeds because 

a shared roadway would be the more appropriate 

facility. There are no hard and fast mandates for 

providing bike lanes, but as a general rule, most 

jurisdictions consider bike lanes on roads with 

traffic volumes in excess of 3,000–5,000 ADT or 

traffic speeds of 30 miles per hour or greater. 

Bike lanes have the following advantages—

• They enable cyclists to ride at a constant speed, 

especially when traffic in the adjacent travel lanes 

tends to speed up or slow down (stop-and-go).

• They enable cyclists to position themselves where 

they will be visible to motorists.

• They encourage cyclists to ride in the designated 

lane rather than on the sidewalk.

• As long as roads are wide enough, these treatments are inexpensive to implement.

• They are a visual reminder for vehicles turning 

onto the roadway that the lane may be occupied 

by bikes.

Buffered Bike Lanes (BB)

Buffered bike lanes have many of the benefits of 

protected bike facilities, with a much lower cost 

and the added benefit of maneuverability. They 

provide a painted divider between the bike lane 

and the vehicular travel lanes and/or parked vehicles on the street. 

This additional space can improve the comfort of 

cyclists because they do not have to ride as close to 

passing motor vehicles. A buffer may also be used 

between parked cars and bike lanes to direct cyclists 

to ride outside the door zone of the parked vehicles. 

Additionally, buffered bike lanes can also be used 

to slow traffic because they narrow the travel lanes. 

Buffered bike lanes are most appropriate on wide, 

busy streets. They can be used on streets where 

physically separating the bike lanes with vertical 

protection is undesirable for cost, operational, or 

maintenance reasons. 

Conventional Bike Lanes (BL)

Conventional bike lanes are one-way facilities that 

carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Ideally, bike lanes should 

be provided on both sides of a two-way street. 

These bike lanes are created with a solid stripe and 

stencils.

Movements across the bike lane are allowed for 

driveways and at intersections. Commonly, the bike 

lane will be dashed where heavier vehicular turning 

movements are needed across the bike lane direction. Motorists are prohibited from using bike lanes 

for driving and parking but may use them for emergency avoidance maneuvers or breakdowns.
93

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Bike Path or Multi-Use Paths. Photo source: Joe Punsalan

One-Way protected Cycle Track. Photo source: San Francisco 

Bicycle Coalition

6.3.3 Separated (Protected) Bike Facilities 

From Travel Ways (P)

This category of bike travel way includes pathway 

systems that are completely removed from roadways or those that have separations from motor 

vehicles using vertical and horizontal barriers. Separated bike lanes, sometimes known as cycle tracks, 

are bikeways located on or adjacent to streets where 

bicycle traffic is separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical barriers, such as on street parking, 

posts or bollards, and landscaped islands. 

Streets selected for separated bike lanes should have 

minimal pedestrian and driveway crossings. They 

should also have minimal loading and unloading 

activity associated with delivery vehicles and other street activity that may conflict with the free and 

open movement of the cycle track.

The design of separated bike lanes at intersections 

requires particular care. At intersections, the facility 

may be terminated, forcing cyclists to momentarily 

reenter the street while crossing, or the facility may 

continue via a protected intersection, where protection is provided by physical barriers and a dedicated signal phase. 

The area to be used by bicycles should be designed 

with adequate width for street sweeping to ensure 

that debris will not accumulate (generally 8 feet 

clear of obstructions). If less than 8 feet is provided, then a smaller-than-standard street sweeper will 

need to be purchased by the local road authority.

Separated bike lanes may be designed as one-way 

or two-way facilities. In most circumstances, oneway separated bike lanes work best because they 

are much simpler to design at intersections and because drivers are less likely to expect cyclists traveling against the flow of vehicular traffic (i.e. drivers 

will not likely look both ways). 

Bike/Multi-Use Paths (PM)

A multi-use path, also known as shared-use path, 

is a bike facility where other non-motorized uses 

are allowed. Multi-use paths are designed primarily for use by bicyclists and pedestrians, including 

pedestrians with disabilities, for transportation 

and recreation purposes, as mentioned in the 

Access Board’s 2013 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule-making on shared-use paths. These 

facilities are separated from the roadway and are 

paved with a firm surface. Historically, multi-use 

paths have generally been associated with river 

corridors, rail corridors, open space, and recreational use areas. Often, they are direct routes with 

only a few cross-streets, making them quick ways 

to get from point A to point B. In this way, they 

also make for great transportation corridors.

One-way separated bike lanes may exist on the 

same street (on two-way streets) or on parallel streets as “couplets” (on one-ways streets). 

Characteristic conflicts related to separated bike 

lanes and interruptions (mid-block driveways, 

alleyways, and other curb cuts) may be mitigated through proper geometric design, pavement 

markings, signage, education, and enforcement. 

Separated Bike Lanes—Two-Way Cycle Track (PT)

Two-way separated bike lanes are similar to oneway separated bike lanes in that they are against 

the curb and protected from the adjacent travel 

lane with a raised curb and a parking lane. They 

provide two-way travel space and require only 

one protective barrier, taking up less space on the 

street than two one-way separated bike lanes. At 

the same time, however, they are wide enough for 

most conventional street sweepers. Two-way separated bike lanes present more potential conflict 

points at intersections than do one-way separated 

bike lanes. Therefore, these facilities must be designed with more care, such as requiring separate 

signal phases at intersections.

Separated Bike Lanes—One-Way Cycle Track (PO)

The purpose behind separated bike lanes is to offer a protected area for bicycle travel in areas with 

high-speed and high-volume vehicular traffic. In 

general, vehicle speed and volume are positively 

correlated with the degree of vertical and horizontal 

separation, as well as strength of buffering material, 

provided. Typically, separated bike lanes are located on existing streets but may intermittently depart 

from streets, functioning more like a bike path. Additional guidance can be found in the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 
94

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

A Dual Path Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge over I-80, Berkeley, CA. 

Photo source: http://journeyleaf.typepad.com/

Two-way buffered Cycle Track protected by offset buffers 

from the roadway. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Protected bike intersection, Chicago, IL. Photo source: John 

Greenfield

Bike Lane or Path Utilizing a Bridge (PB)

In some cases, the only way to safely travel across a 

major roadway, through corridor, limited-access 

highway, or freeway is to cross the roadway with a 

bridge. In additional cases, such as over rail lines or 

through major land features, bridges may be required 

to make bike network connections. 

Bike bridges can be combined with pedestrian bridges. Given the expensive nature of the bridge, they 

should be constructed only if they are serving both 

bike and pedestrian uses. Bridges generally work 

best when the ramps are as short and direct as possible while still meeting ADA requirements for grade.

6.3.4 Bike Facilities at Intersections (I)

All too often, improvements in bikeability along 

roadway segments are overshadowed by difficult 

and uncomfortable intersection crossings. Although high-speed street segments can be protected by certain types of facilities listed in the previous section, a “concerned, but interested” person 

willing to ride along these improved streets will be 

deterred by poorly designed and potentially unsafe intersections. 

A well-designed intersection facilitates the 

through movements of bicyclists, pedestrians, 

motorists, and transit, so traffic flows in a safe and 

efficient manner. Designs for intersections with 

bicycle facilities should reduce conflicts between 

bicyclists and vehicles by heightening visibility, 

clearly denoting right-of-way, and ensuring that 

the various users are aware of each other. Intersection treatments can resolve both queuing and 

merging maneuvers for bicyclists and are often coordinated with timed or specialized signals. 

Chapter 5 provided general principles of street 

geometric design. If these principles are applied, 

they will not only help calm traffic but also benefit cyclists and pedestrians. The configuration of 

a safe intersection for bicyclists may include additional elements, such as color, signs, medians, 

signal detection, and pavement markings. 

Intersection design should take into consideration 

existing and anticipated bicyclist, pedestrian, and 

motorist movements. In all cases, the degree of 

mixing or separation between bicyclists and other modes is intended to reduce the risk of crashes 

and increase bicyclist comfort. The level of treatment required for intersections will depend on the 

bicycle facility type used, the adjacent street function, and the adjacent land use. 

Protected Bike Intersections (IG)

Communities across the United States are implementing protective treatments for intersections—a 

technique developed in the Netherlands—similar 

to that for separated bike lanes. Protected intersections are important because they maintain the 

integrity (low-stress experience) of their adjoining separated bike lanes by fully separating cyclists 

from motor vehicles. Hallmark features of these 

protected intersections include a two-stage crossing supported by an advance queuing space, protective concrete islands, special bike-cross markings 

(alongside crosswalks), and special signal phasing. 

Although mostly experimental in the United States, 

protected intersections are appropriate to pair with 

separated bike lanes/cycle tracks. Separated bike 

lanes at intersections require deliberate design solutions. Protected intersections offer the highest level 

of clarity and ease of use through design.
95

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Two stage turn queue boxes. Photo source: National 

Association of City Transportation Officials

Jug Handle. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Mixing zone markings. Photo source: Joe Punsalan

Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes (IQ)

Two-stage turn queue boxes can provide a more 

comfortable crossing for many cyclists because 

they entail two simple crossings rather than one 

complex crossing. They also provide a degree of 

separation from vehicular traffic because they do 

not require cyclists to merge with traffic to make 

left turns. They require experimental approval, 

however. 

On right-sided, one-way separated bike lanes, bicyclists are often unable to merge into traffic to 

turn left due to the physical separation that is part 

of this facility. This makes the provision of twostage left turns critical in ensuring these facilities 

are functional. The same principles for two-stage 

turns apply to both bike lanes and separated bike 

lanes. 

Although two-stage turns may increase bicyclist 

comfort in many locations, this configuration will 

typically result in higher-than-average signal delay for bicyclists due to the need to receive two 

separate green signal indications—one for the 

through street followed by one for the cross-street.

Jug Handles for Left Turn With Bike Crosswalk (IJ)

A jug handle is a change in the outer curb lane 

or striping that allows cyclists to reposition their 

direction to take advantage of bike traffic signals, 

bike crosswalks, and actuators that allow for a leftturn movement from the right side of the street. 

Because this treatment allows cyclists to make a 

protected left turn rather than simply merge with 

vehicular traffic, it will appeal to a broader range 

of cyclists (those who identify as “interested, but 

concerned”). 

Mixing Zone With Solid and Dashed Markings (IZ)

Pavement coloring is useful in conjunction with 

several bicycle facilities. The primary goal of colored pavements is to differentiate specific portions 

of the travel way with colored pavements that can 

clarify where vehicles and bikes are supposed to 

mix and yield to each other. Colored pavements 

should be used to highlight conflict areas between 

bicycle lanes and turn lanes, especially where bicycle lanes merge across motor vehicle turn lanes or 

where exiting lanes for motor vehicles cross bike 

through-movements. Colored pavements can be 

used in conjunction with shared-lane markings 

(greenback sharrows) in heavily used commercial 

corridors where no other provisions for bicycle facilities are evident. 

Although a variety of colored treatments have 

been used, the Federal Highway Administration 

has approved a bright green for interim use. Maintenance of color and surface condition are issues 

to consider. Traditional traffic paints and coatings 

can become slippery when wet and may present 

safety issues for cyclists. Long-life surfaces, which 

use a mixture of bonding agents and sand or bead 

particles, provide good wet-skid resistance and 

enhance safety.
96

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Bike cross walk. Photo source: Calm Street Boston

Painted markings through intersection. Photo source: Mike Bike Box, National City, CA. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Singleton

Mid-Block Bike Crossings/Signals (IH)

In many instances, off-street bike paths and cycle 

tracks meet existing roadways mid-block. This is 

especially true of multi-use paths. If the intersection of the path and the roadway is close to a standard signalized or controlled intersection, then it 

is reasonable to require the path user to travel to 

the nearest intersection. If this distance is excessive, 

however (several hundred feet away), many path 

users will not use intersection crossings, crossing 

instead along the most direct route and endangering themselves. In these cases, a mid-block crossing 

may be warranted to enhance safety and comfort. 

Through-Intersection Painted Markings (IT)

Continuing marked bicycle facilities at intersections ensures that separation, guidance on proper positioning, and awareness by motorists are 

maintained through these potential conflict areas. 

These markings remind the vehicle driver that a 

route through the intersection is related to the 

possible presence of cyclists in the marked space. 

Bike Boxes (IK)

A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of 

queuing traffic during the red signal phase. These 

boxes keep vehicles back far enough that bikes can 

position themselves to make a left turn or be safely 

removed from a free right turn lane.
97

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Shared right turn lane, Portland, OR. Photo source: 

BikePortland.org

Traffic diverter, San Luis Obispo, CA. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Dedicated or Shared Right Turn Lanes (IR)

The appropriate treatment for right-turn-only 

lanes is to place a bike lane pocket between the 

right turn lane and the rightmost through-lane. If 

a full bike lane pocket cannot be accommodated, a 

shared bicycle/right turn lane can be installed that 

places a standard-width bike lane on the left side 

of a dedicated right turn lane.

Diverter of Traffic/Bike and Pedestrians Allowed (ID)

Diverters may be required in some locations to 

maintain a low-stress cycling experience by preventing direct and convenient vehicular access. In 

the case of bike boulevards, the priority of movement for bikes through an area—accomplished by 

“flipping” stop signs away from the direction of 

bicycle travel—may entice more vehicle use. 

To reverse this unintended negative consequence, 

a semipermeable diverter may be used, permitting 

bike and pedestrian access while prohibiting vehicle access. In other cases, diverters or barriers may 

be used to reconfigure suboptimal intersections 

(e.g. skewed, multi-leg). In these cases, reclaimed 

space may be used for bicycle and pedestrian travel and queuing. 
98

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Bike station, Washington, DC. Photo source: John Holloway Bike signal. Photo source: Mike Singleton

6.3.5 Bike Amenities (A)

This section describes miscellaneous bike treatments that are not specifically part of bike travel 

ways or intersection treatments. In most cases, 

these elements are bike amenities that make the 

cycling experience more useful, convenient, and 

prioritized. 

Bike Stations With Public Lockers/Showers (AD)

Certain types of mobility hubs, transit centers, or 

major destination points have such a high density of possible bike users that a bike station may 

be warranted. A bike station is a center for bike 

storage, repair, and general information. In some 

cases, bike stations have lockers, changing facilities, and showers, which may further incentivize 

bicycle commuting.

Private Lockers/Showers (AP)

Besides improving safety for cyclists, perhaps the 

next most important aspect of determining if an 

individual can commute to work on a regular 

basis is the availability of a place to change and 

shower. Related to this is the ability for safe and 

secure storage that is located in a convenient and 

well-monitored location in the building. These facilities may be required under development standards. The availability of these amenities can also 

encourage other healthy lifestyles, such as exercising at work during lunch breaks or before or after 

work hours. 

Bike Traffic Signal Heads (AH)

This category includes all types of traffic signals 

that are directed at cyclists. These can include 

traffic light-style green, yellow, and red lightings, 

with signage indicating who the light signal is for, 

or special bikeway icons displayed in the signage 

light itself. Nearside bicycle signals may incorporate a countdown-to-green display as well as a 

countdown-to-red display.
99

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Bike actuators for signals. Photo source: Joe Punsalan

Capital Bikeshare, Washington, DC. Photo source: John 

Holloway

Bike Repair Station . Photo source: Urban Racks

Bike Signal Detection/Sensors/Actuators (AF)

Bicycle detection is used at intersections with traffic signals to alert the signal controller that a bicycle crossing has been requested. Bicycle detection 

occurs either through the use of push buttons or 

by automated means (e.g., in-pavement loops, video, and microwave). Inductive loop vehicle detection at many signalized intersections is calibrated 

to the size or metallic mass of a vehicle, meaning 

that bicycles may often go undetected. The result 

is that bicyclists must either wait for a vehicle to 

arrive, dismount and push the pedestrian button 

(if available), or cross illegally. Loop sensitivity can 

be increased to detect bicycles.

Bicycle-Share Stations/Programs (AB)

The inclusion of a bike-share station may be economically feasible if the demand is high enough, 

such as in urban or tourist areas, large institutions, 

and educational districts. A bike-share program 

has the potential to encourage non-cyclists to 

choose this form of transportation, with minimal 

upfront investment from the user. For a system to 

be useful and reliable as a transportation option, 

the distribution of bike-share stations must be frequent and widespread.

Bicycle Storage and Parking (AS)

To support bicycling, all businesses, institutions, 

and employment centers should provide bike 

parking and storage systems for its employees, students, and customers. Refer to the Association of 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) Bike 

Parking Guidelines for additional information. 

Bikeway Wayfinding Systems (AW)

A bikeway wayfinding system is typically composed of signs indicating direction of travel, location of destinations, and travel time/distance to 

those destinations; pavement markings indicating 

to bicyclists that they are on a designated route or 

bike boulevard and reminding motorists to drive 

courteously; and maps providing users with information regarding destinations, bicycle facilities, 

and route options.

Bike Repair/Tool Stations (AT)

The inclusion of a bike repair facility or a smaller 

self-contained tool station may be warranted and 

useful to many users at mobility hubs located near 

major transit or at institutions that have a high 

number of bike users. 
100

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

6.1 BENEFITS: PICKING THE RIGHT 

TOOLS

Choosing the right improvements for an area requires attention to the issues that are in need of 

change, the context of the project site, the available 

budget, and the benefits desired from the investment. This section ranks the characteristics and 

benefits achieved from each listed element. Table 

6-1 identifies the benefits achieved by the implementation of each of the described elements.

Provides a cost-effective element: This 

element is considered to be cost effective, 

with reasonable costs when compared to 

the overall benefits of implementation.

Quick to do and easy to implement: Implementation should be relatively simple 

in terms of processing, design, and construction. The overall implementation 

schedule is short.

Attracts new users: Because of the protection or convenience of travel, this element should entice new users to bike for 

transportation or recreation.

Balanced (cost effective, quick, and 

adds users): Given the previous benefits, 

this ranking indicates that the element 

provides a balance of all three rankings 

of cost, time, and attraction of new users.

Allows for innovative approach: This 

treatment is considered to be new or 

experimental. Many agencies and developers may wish to try new, innovative 

techniques.

Increases biking efficiency and reduces trip length: Speed and directness of 

route affect the ability of riders to get to 

their destination. This ranking indicates 

that the improvement will cut down on 

travel time. 

Provides for traffic calming: Safety and 

comfort can be improved for cyclists if 

car travel is calmed to slower speeds and 

motor vehicle movements are more subtle and predictable.

Adds protection from traffic: A level of 

security and safety improvements can be 

expected from this element. It may also 

result in real or perceived safety.

Can be integrated into smaller-scale 

projects/initiatives: The scale of this 

improvement makes it likely to be implementable as part of smaller infill projects 

or other neighborhood-level improvements. 

Provides multiple benefits for multiple 

modes: Improvements may directly affect cycling activities but also benefit 

transit users, pedestrians, and businesses 

located along the proposed area of improvement.

The greatest benefits from bike facilities comes from when it touches the greatest number of users. 
101

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

The greatest benefits from bike facilities comes from when it touches the greatest number of users. 

Table 6-1: Benefits and effectiveness rankings of each bike improvement element
102

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

6.5 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT 

TOOLS IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS

The second half of the chapter will focus on the 

ways in which these tools may be combined in 

specific place types to provide a viable bicycle network. 

There are many options for a wide range of traditional and innovative bike facilities that can be 

added to most streets. The first half of the chapter 

was dedicated to the tools available. The second 

part of the chapter is dedicated to understanding 

the local context of community typologies and 

place types. Matching the right type of facility to 

the right type of user to the right location is very 

important and potentially complex, requiring attention to detail. Utilize the following guidance for 

an overview of where certain facilities should be 

considered—

• Use shared roadways where a bike route is 

needed as part of a complete bikeway network 

and where space does not exist for bike lanes 

along streets with traffic volumes under 3,000 

to 5,000 vehicles per day and where speeds are 

typically under 35 miles per hour.

• Use bike boulevards where a continuous route 

can limit traffic volumes to under 3,000 per day, 

preferably where alternative parallel streets exist that have capacity to absorb any traffic that 

may be diverted.

• Use shoulder bike lanes (if roads are greater 

than 5 feet) or shoulder stripes (if roads are less 

than 5 feet) on rural highways.

• Use bike lanes along routes where adequate 

space exists and traffic volumes are greater than 

3,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day.

• Use wider or buffered bike lanes and colored 

bike lanes where traffic volumes are high (over 

10,000 vehicles per day) and/or where prevailing travel speeds are over 30 miles per hour.

• Use bikes in bus lanes where bus lanes exist, especially where the bus lane is over 12 feet wide.

• Use buffered bike lanes where adequate space 

exists (where there is room for only one buffer, 

it should go between the travel lane and bike 

lane, except where on street parking turnover 

is frequent).

• Use raised bike lanes where extra protection for 

bicyclists is desired and where a high expectation of mounting and unmounting the curb is 

expected.

• Use separated bike lanes in downtown areas or 

along busy or high-speed streets.

• Use one-way separated bike lanes (cycle tracks) 

when possible instead of two-way separated 

bike lanes because drivers often do not expect 

cyclists coming in a contraflow direction. 

• Use multi-use paths along continuous rightsof-way, such as waterways, railways, utility corridors, and recreation areas.

Various matrices, diagrams, and maps have been 

created to show the context of different community typologies and different place types. The maps 

should be used to see where a particular type of 

facility should be considered and the extent to 

which the network needs to be developed. These 

diagrams should be used only as guidance and 

need to be adjusted based on local conditions, priorities, and policies. They provide insight, however into how local context must be considered and 

how the interaction of land use, street configurations, and spatial arrangements must be integrated. The matrices represent general guidance on the 

types of facilities that are available to consider and 

where they may be most appropriate. None of this 

should take the place of a bike master plan and a 

public review process that allows local conditions 

and local priorities to be factored into the recommendations. These matrices provide the full range 

of items to be considered, however. Subsequently 

in the chapter, the benefits of each type of bikeway element and amenity have been summarized 

and ranked on matrices. A review of these benefits 

should be part of the overall planning process. 
103

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Because of the vast difference in speed and skill of cyclists, 

assume that the slower and less skilled cyclists are provided 

with facilities that they feel comfortable and safe with. Photo 

source: Dan Burden

6.5.1 Integrating Bike Facilities With the 

Street System

Most bikeways are physically part of the street; 

therefore, well-connected street systems are very 

conducive to bicycling, especially those with a finegrained network of low-volume, low-speed streets 

suitable for shared roadways. In less-well-connected street systems, where wide streets carry the 

bulk of traffic, bicyclists need supplementary facilities, such as short sections of paths and bridges, to 

connect otherwise unconnected streets.

There are no hard and fast rules for when a specific 

type of bikeway should be used, but some general principles may help to guide the selection. As 

a general rule, when traffic volumes and speeds 

increase, greater separation from motor vehicle 

traffic is needed. Other factors to consider include 

users (more children or recreational cyclists may 

warrant greater separation), adjacent land uses 

(multiple driveways may cause conflicts with 

shared-use paths), available right-of-way (separated facilities require greater width), and costs. 

As a general rule, designated bicycle facilities (e.g., 

bike lanes and separated bike lanes) should be 

provided on all major streets (avenues and boulevards) because these roads generally offer the 

greatest level of directness and connectivity in the 

network and are typically where destinations are 

located. There are occasions when it is infeasible 

or impractical to provide bikeways on a busy street 

or the street does not serve the mobility and access 

needs of bicyclists. 

The following guidelines should be used to determine whether it is more appropriate to provide 

facilities on a parallel local street—

• It is not economically or environmentally feasible 

to provide adequate bicycle facilities on the street.

• The street does not provide adequate access to 

destination points within reasonable walking distances, or separated bikeways on the street would 

not be considered safe.

• The parallel route provides continuity and convenient access to destinations served by the street.

• Costs to improve the parallel route are no greater 

than costs to improve the primary street.

• If any of these factors are met, cyclists may actually prefer the parallel local street facility in that it 

may offer a higher level of comfort (bicycle boulevards are based on this approach). 

Off-street paths can also be used to provide transportation in corridors otherwise not served by 

the street system, such as along rivers and canals, 

through parks, along utility corridors, on abandoned railroad tracks, or along active railroad 

rights-of-way. Although paths offer the safety and 

scenic advantages of separation from traffic, they 

must also offer frequent connections to the street 

system and to destinations, such as residential 

areas, employment sites, shopping, and schools. 

Street crossings must be well designed, with measures such as signals or median refuge islands. Additional guidance includes—

• Use buffered bike lanes where adequate space 

exists (where there is room for only one buffer, 

it should go between the travel lane and bike 

lane except where on street parking turnover 

is frequent).

• Use raised bike lanes where extra protection for 

bicyclists is desired.

• Use separated bike lanes in downtown areas or 

along busy or high-speed streets.

• Use one-way separated bike lanes where there 

is space for one buffer or to minimize conflict 

from cyclists coming in a contraflow direction.

• Use two-way separated bike lanes on streets 

with high activity levels or where it connects to 

a path on one end. 

• Use multi-use paths along continuous rightsof-way, such as waterways, railways, utility corridors, and recreation areas.
104

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Rural bike facilities tend to be focused on recreational activities 

and avoiding main through corridors. Photo source: iStock

6.5.2 Planning for Different Places and 

Different Communities

The following text and supporting graphics describe how bike guidelines should be considered 

in each of the four community place types. The 

intensity, typical streets, and land uses have been 

grouped into the three development types: —rural, suburban, and urban. Because funding of biking facilities is generally very limited, selecting the 

right solution for the right location is very important. Land use type and the intensity and conditions of the roadway are the primary determinants 

in setting priorities and matching improvements 

to local conditions. The overall goal of all guidelines discussed in this chapter is to match the improvement type with the area so that the largest 

cross-section of the community will benefit from 

the improvement and so that safety will also be 

increased by recognizing the context of the area’s 

land uses, street patterns, and use levels. 

This listing does not exclude other treatments 

from being considered. It identifies those treatments that are the most important to be considered. Each community may wish to customize 

these guidelines based on their own specific combination of intensity of development and vehicular 

travel volumes, as well as their specific mixture of 

land uses. 

6.5.3 Planning and Designing Bikeway 

Facilities for Rural Areas

Rural Neighborhood Context 

Rural areas are typically single-story, single-family detached homes. Some of these homes are on 

ranches, some are on farms, but most are found 

in low-density neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are typically serviced by a grid of streets, 

with large block spacing and large parcel sizes. 

A significant amount of open space exists, with 

a lower amount of improved recreational-based 

parks. Many streets do not contain bikeway or 

walkway systems, and roads are relatively narrow, 

providing challenges for cyclists in these areas. 

Figures 6-2 and 6-3 identify the most appropriate 

bikeway facility treatment for these areas.

Rural Corridor Context

Rural corridors are often made up of through 

highways and major avenues (arterials) (figure 

6-4). The typical land uses are neighborhood- and 

community-serving commercial retail and service 

facilities, mostly with available parking in front 

of the businesses. Larger distances separate these 

land use types, mostly without the connectivity of 

bikeway systems. Although traffic volumes may be 

reasonable, vehicle speeds are typically higher and 

on typically smaller streets with limited biking facilities, which is why a wide shoulder is desirable.

Rural District Context

A rural district is mostly composed of concentrated and non-main-street shopping centers (versus 

strip commercial), industrial parks, major recreation centers, and rural-based community college 

areas (figure 6-5). These districts may or may not 

have a good internal network of bikeway facilities. 

They are often disconnected from neighborhoods 

and corridors and may need connection improvements to make them bikeable. 

Rural Village Center Context

A village center will typically have main roads of the 

rural town, extending through the commerce and 

government center (figure 6-6). Mostly known as 

main streets, the collection of businesses and services is generally large enough to support many of 

the daily needs of these communities. The buildings 

are typically at the front of the parcels, with on 

street parking in front of the businesses. The scale is 

typically tall, single story or two to three story, with 

residential or office uses on the upper floors. For the 

most part, these centers are bikeable based on their 

scale but may have challenges due to extensive on 

street parking. Also, traffic volumes and turning 

motions are typically a challenge if this street is carrying a large capacity of through traffic. 
105

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-2: Overview of a Typical Rural Area with Recommended Treatments

PM

PM

PM

SR

SR SL

SH SH

SH

SR

SR

SR

SB

BL

BL

BB

BB

BB

BB

BB

DISTRICT VILLAGE CENTER

CORRIDOR

NEIGHBORHOOD

PB
106

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Figure 6-3: Rural Neighborhood

SB Bike Boulevards / Greenways

BB Buffered Bike Lanes

IK Bike Boxes

IK

BB

SB

SB
107

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-4: Rural Corridor

SR Bike Route

 Separated bike lane

PM Bike / Multi-Use Path

SR

PM

PT

PT

PT
108

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Figure 6-5: Rural District

SB Bike Boulevards / Greenways

BB Buffered Bike Lanes

BL Bike Lane

IZ Mixing Zones

IT Through Intersection Markings

IK Bike Boxes

ID Diverters

SB

BB

BB IK IK IT

BB

IZ

ID

BL
109

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-6: Village Center

SR Bike Route

BL Bike Lane

BB Buffered Bike Lanes

IK Bike Boxes

ID Diverters

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

BB

BB

BL

BL

IK

IK

IK

IK

ID

BB
110

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Suburban bike facilities need to buffer against higher speed 

streets and direct or parallel routing. Photo Source: Streetsblog 

Los Angeles

Planning and Designing Bikeway Facilities 

in Suburban Areas

Suburban Neighborhood Context

Suburban neighborhoods are typically single-story, single-family detached homes. A certain mixture of apartments and condominiums can be 

found along the larger streets in the area. These 

are typically attached three-story buildings. Street 

patterns are mostly curvilinear and arranged in a 

collector-style hierarchy, where the neighborhood 

streets are regularly intersected with collectors, arterials, and major arterials collecting and distributing vehicular volumes. Often, the streets include 

cul-de-sac streets that do not connect with other 

streets. Locally serving land uses will often include 

schools, libraries, parks, and community centers. 

In older communities, locally serving grocery 

stores can be found. Some bikeway facilities are 

present, mostly bike lanes on wider streets. 

The most prevalent cycling problem in these areas 

relates to the lack of short connections between 

areas due to cul-de-sacs, large distances needed to 

travel to other land uses or destinations, and higher-speed and higher-volume streets. The street network is often responsible for lowering bikeability 

due to its arrangement, hierarchy, and street widths. 

Figures 6-7 and 6-8 identify the most appropriate 

bikeway facility treatment for these areas. 

Suburban Corridor Context

These areas are the typical development type associated with suburbs (figure 6-9). The arrangement 

of one-lot-deep commercial properties extending along great distances of avenues and boulevards (major arterial, minor arterial, and major 

collector) is typical of these areas. As a result of 

retail trends over the past 30 years, big-box retail 

businesses have often taken up the larger parcels, 

mostly surrounded by parking. Office buildings 

and medical facilities are also scattered in a linear 

fashion along these suburban corridors. 

The greatest cycling challenge relates to the large 

distances between land use destinations and 

neighborhood origins. The attention is usually 

focused on getting the largest volume of traffic 

through these areas, so intersection movements 

and the distances are significant challenges. In addition, free-turning left turns and right turns into 

and out of driveways are particularly troublesome 

for many cyclists due to misjudgments by drivers. 

Suburban District Context

Suburban districts are often made up of shopping districts (not counting commercial strips), 

large schools and community college campuses, 

business districts, major single corporation employers, and public works yards and institutional 

facilities (figure 6-10). Similar to rural areas, these 

districts are often not connected to the corridors 

and neighborhoods of these communities. 

Suburban Town Center Context

Unlike rural and urban areas, it is often difficult 

to find the centers of many suburbs (figure 6-11). 

There is not always a natural progression of density or of an increased mixture and intensity of land 

uses. Often, suburban town centers are defined 

by the concentration of public civic facilities in 

near approximation to each other. They will often 

have a variety of office buildings and government 

office centers at their core. Even with these facilities located in the town centers, it is often difficult 

to find a concentration of destinations that are 

within biking distances of each other. Usually, the 

street speeds come down in these areas compared 

to districts and corridors, which makes it better 

for the cyclists. Extensive amounts of on street 

parking does represent a challenge for cyclists due 

to pullouts, backups, and door openings. The potential for infill and increasing land use mixtures 

and bikeable destinations is high if handled comprehensively.
111

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-7: Overview of a Typical Suburban Area with Recommended Treatments

PO PT

PM

PM

PM

PM

SR

SH

SH

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB SB

SB

BL

BL BB

BB

BR

BL

BL

BL

NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT CORRIDOR TOWN CENTER
112

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Figure 6-8: Suburban Neighborhood

SB Bike Boulevards / Greenways

BL Bike Lane

PM Bike / Multi-Use Path

ID Diverters

SB

SB

BL

BL

PM

PM

ID

SB
113

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-9: Suburban Corridor

SH Sharrows

SR Bike Route

 Separated bike lane

PM Bike / Multi-Use Path

IQ Two Stage Queue Boxes

IJ Jug Handles

SH

SR

PM

PM

IQ

IJ

PT

PT

PT
114

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Figure 6-10: Suburban District

BB Buffered Bike Lane

BL Bike Lane

IT Through Intersection Painted Marking

IK Bike Boxes

IR Dedicated / Shared Right Turn Lanes

IZ Mixing Zones

BB

BB

BL

BL

BL

IT

IK

IK

IR

IZ

IR
115

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-11: Town Center

SH Sharrows

SR Bike Route

BB Buffered Bike Lane

PO Separated bike lanes - One Way

PT Separated bike lanes - Two Way

IQ Two Stage Queue Boxes

IT Through Intersection Painted Marking

SH

SR

BB

IQ

IQ

PO

PO

PO

PT

IT
116

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

City riding is often more constrained with more activity that 

requires bike facilities in more locations. Photo Source: iStock

6.5.4 Planning and Designing Bikeway 

Facilities in Urban Areas

Urban Neighborhood Context

Urban neighborhoods most commonly have a 

mixture of locally supporting businesses, as well 

as a broad range of housing types (owned and 

rented), housing forms (attached and detached), 

housing intensity (two- to four-story housing 

above parking; taller towers of housing). The 

street systems are typically gridded, although 

some boulevards and avenues can split the grid 

or be angular or curvilinear. Urban neighborhoods are typically more bikeable because of the 

closer distances for cycling, the gridded nature of 

the roadway network, the presence of biking facilities, and the mixture of land uses that can provide for most of the daily needs of local residents. 

These neighborhoods are generally well supported by transit, thereby extending the distance of 

non-vehicular travel patterns. Figures 6-12 and 

6-13 identify the most appropriate bikeway treatment for these areas.

Urban Corridor Context

Urban corridors are generally made up of a large 

mixture of commercial and neighborhood areas 

bounding major boulevards and avenues (figure 

6-14). They contain some commercial businesses 

with parking found in front but are generally more 

than one parcel deep along a corridor. These areas 

are generally surrounded on some of their sides 

with neighborhoods, making them good candidates for increasing connectivity and bikeability 

to the corridors. 

Urban District Context

Urban districts generally include major campuses, cultural centers, entertainment districts, historic districts, and financial centers, with major 

employment in business parks and towers (figure 

6-15). Districts are generally surrounded or interspersed with mixed neighborhoods. Generally, the 

block sizes are reasonable and biking distances are 

acceptable. 

City Center Context

Urban areas have clearly defined downtowns that 

spread over many blocks and contain a broad 

variety of residential, employment, entertainment, transportation, and cultural facilities (figure 6-16). By their very nature of mixed uses and 

density, these areas are often very bikeable and are 

serviced well by transit.
117

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-12: Overview of a Typical Urban Area with Recommended Treatments

BB

PM

PT

PO

PT

PM

PM

PM

PM

PM

SR

SH

SH

SH SB

SB

SB

SH SL

BL

BL

BL

BL

CITY CENTER

NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR DISTRICT
118

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Figure 6-13: Urban Neighborhood

SB Bike Boulevards / Greenways

PO Separated bike lanes - One Way

PM Bike / Multi-Use Path

IT Through Intersection Painted Marking

SB

PO PO

PM

IT
119

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-14: Urban Corridor

SB Bike Boulevards / Greenways

PO Separated bike lanes - One Way

ID Diverters

IG Protected Bike Intersections

SB

PO

ID

IG
120

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

Figure 6-15: Urban District

SH Sharrows

PM Bike / Multi-Use Path

PO Separated bike lanes - One Way

PT Separated bike lanes - Two Way

SH

PM

PO

PT

PM
121

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 6-16: City Center

SL Sharrow with Green Lane

SH Sharrows

PM Bike / Multi-Use Path

SL

SL

SH

PM
122

CHAPTER 6 | BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN

6.6 IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECTSCALED STEPS

The bikeway network can sometimes be improved 

with low-cost solutions that can easily and quickly 

be implemented. Some may result in lasting changes, whereas others may serve as an interim step 

to experiment with design concepts until more 

permanent solutions can be constructed. Lighter, 

quicker, cheaper (LQC) features can also involve 

people in the community to help with installation. 

Implementation ideas that do not require a high 

degree of traffic engineering analysis, environmental review, political approvals, public vetting, 

or cost are included in this category. The assumption for implementation ideas is that the applicant 

has proposed a construction project that may be 

residential, mixed use, institutional, retail, or employment based and that this project will attract a 

fair number of residents, students, customers, or 

employees. The following suggestions exemplify 

LQC opportunities that make the project site and 

the neighborhood more bikeable— 

• Work with the approval agency to fund and 

construct a bike route or route adjacent 

to the project.

• If room exists and the idea is consistent with 

existing plans—or at least not contrary to 

plans—integrate a bike lane or buffered bike 

lane and fund its construction as part of the 

project approval process.

• For any intersection adjacent to the project 

site, work with the approval agency on making 

changes that improve safety and clarity of that 

intersection. Integrate these changes into the 

project, and fund the improvement. 

• If on street parking exists or is planned next 

to the project, ensure that the appropriate offset from this parking is accommodated in the 

street, with wider curb lanes or buffered bike 

lanes.

• If the project includes open space and park 

areas, integrate and fund a multi-use path 

through the project site or to the center of the 

recreation space. 

• If the local agency has an adopted a master 

plan or a capital improvements plan for bike 

facilities adjacent to the project site, not only 

integrate these plans but also fund their construction as part of the project.

• Provide bike racks, bike lockers, or bike cages 

in a secure and monitored location as a basic 

part of the overall project.

• If a bike-share program is proposed in the area, 

accommodate the program by offering a portion of the site or right-of-way for bike-share 

use.

• Program and construct a shared changing 

room and/or shower facility as part of the site 

amenities for all employees or visitors to the 

project. This is not required for purely residential projects.

6.7 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT 

RESOURCES TO CONSIDER 

For more information on land use planning, please 

consult the following foundational documents.

FHWA:

• Bike/Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure

• Creating Safer Communities for Walking/Biking (2015)

• List of Online Reports and Technical Publications

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2012)

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

• Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015)

NACTO:

• Transit Street Design Guides (2016)

• Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014) 

• Urban Street Design Guide (2013)

ITE:

• Guide for the Development of Bike Facilities (2012)

OTHERS:

• Complete Streets Best Policies and Implementation Practices (2010/Annual) 

• LEED for Neighborhood Development (2014)

• Model Design Manual for Living Streets (2011)
CHAPTER 7: PEDESTRIAN 

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

7.1 USERS: UNDERSTANDING USER PRIORITIES 

AND CAPABILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

7.2 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A WALK FRIENDLY 

COMMUNITY................................... 125

7.3 TOOLS: FACILITIES THAT CAN MAKE A WALK 

FRIENDLY COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

7.4 BENEFITS: PICKING THE RIGHT TOOLS . . . . . . . . 139

7.5 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT TOOLS IN THE 

RIGHT LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

7.6 IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECT SCALED 

STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

7.7 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO 

CONSIDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

7.8 CASE STUDY: JACKSON, MICHIGAN........... 161

123

Planning, Design or Engineering 

Consultants

Local Elected Officials 

and Review Staff

Federal, State and 

Regional Regulators

Advocate 

Organizations

Providing 

Entities

Decision 

Makers

USER LEGEND

Smart Growth 

Advocates

Mobility Choice 

Advocates

Developers, Financial 

Institutions

Housing Providers and 

Institutions

Health and Safety 

Advocates

Housing 

Advocates

Local Agency Planners 

and Engineers
124

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Pedestrians are diverse in their levels of comfort, safety priorities 

and capabilities. Photo source: BlueZones

Designing for pedestrians equates to designing for 

people. Pedestrians are simply people walking or 

wheeling for health, transportation, exploration, 

and socializing. Sometimes, the walking environment can be harsh and unsafe. For these reasons, 

it is critical to ensure that people have a safe and 

comfortable place to walk. People of all ages and 

physical abilities should be able to walk along 

and cross streets in a safe manner. Crossing the 

street should not be a nerve-racking experience. 

It should feel safe and comfortable for everyone. 

Nowhere is the concept of universal access more 

important than in the design of the pedestrian environment. Although perhaps not obvious at first 

glance, streets are the focus of public life and the 

most openly accessible part of our built environment. Users of streets consist of the greatest variation in travel modes and capabilities and are thus 

the realm where attention to design detail is essential to effectively balance user needs. The public walkway is also the location where signs and 

street furniture are located and is where transitions are made between modes (e.g., driver or passenger to pedestrian via parking, bus stop, train 

station, or bike rack). The pedestrian environment 

consists of (1) walkways that are along streets and 

through other public spaces; (2) street crossings; 

(3) the transitions from walks to streets, generally 

referred to as ramps or curb ramps; (4) control devices; and (5) the operations of these devices. 

When basic principles or guidelines are not followed, walkways can often be too narrow and full 

of obstructions, such as utility poles, steep driveway ramps, and bus stops surrounded by obstructions that block the path of travel. Many walking 

environments appear disorderly, with random 

placement of shelters, poles, trash receptacles, and 

bike racks. When basic principles and guidelines 

are followed, walkways can be built to accommodate pedestrians of all ages and physical abilities. 

They become inviting pedestrian environments 

that accommodate walking for transportation and 

health, as well as for social interaction and interfacing with businesses. 

Designing the pedestrian realm for universal access enables persons with disabilities, from minor 

physical challenges typical of the elderly or the very 

young to more dramatic challenges related to disease, accidents, and disabilities from birth. Those 

with challenges can be helped, through changes 

in the built environment, to live independently 

and to lead full, enriched lives. With fully accessible facilities, they should be able to go to work, 

school, shop, and otherwise engage in normal activities on their own. Moreover, walking environments that accommodate people with disabilities 

improve walking conditions for everyone. People 

with strollers and rolling suitcases can make their 

way with ease. Children can mature by learning 

to navigate through their neighborhoods with 

independence. Inaccessible pedestrian networks, 

on the other hand, can lead to people becoming 

housebound and socially isolated, which in turn 

can lead to a decline in well-being and a host of 

associated negative mental health outcomes, such 

as depression. 

These pedestrian design guidelines integrate design and land use to provide safe and convenient 

passage for pedestrians. Walking facilities should 

have adequate walking areas and provide comfortable buffers between pedestrians and traffic. These 

guidelines will ensure that walkways, in all development and redevelopment areas, provide access 

for people of all ages and physical abilities. 

7.1 USERS: UNDERSTANDING USER 

PRIORITIES AND CAPABILITIES

Pedestrians are even more diverse, in terms of 

their capabilities and requirements, than cyclists. 

Almost everyone is a pedestrian at one time or another. No matter the travel mode (bicycle, transit, 

automobile), travelers begin and end their trips as 

pedestrians. As such, planning for pedestrians requires a comprehensive and accessibility-focused 

approach. 
125

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

When planning for the creation of walkable and 

bikeable communities, it is extremely important to 

understand the scale of walking as shown in table 

7-1. What may seem to be a close trip in a vehicle 

or a moderate distance by bike is often prohibitively long by walking. Although humans evolved 

over hundreds of thousands of years as wanderers 

traveling 6–12 miles a day, in the United States, 

the average walking distance is typically less than 

1 mile per day, with many being much more sedentary than this. For planning standards, however, 

0.5 mile walking trips are reasonable to assume. 

For general guidance, taking into account roadway crossings that may include signals, assume 

that most pedestrians can cover 0.5 mile within a 

15-minute period. Most people are willing to walk 

this distance for transportation, health, and social 

interaction reasons. If done for transportation, assume two trips per day. The recommendation for a 

healthy activity level—counting all steps taken—is 

10,000 steps per day. Given this recommendation, 

0.5-mile trips are safe to assume, with an outer 

range of 1 mile. 

According to the 2010 U.S. census, nearly 20 percent of the population identify as having a disability. The majority of these disabilities affect the individual’s ability to walk or maneuver across streets. 

This large percentage of the American population 

emphasizes the need for universal access and the 

enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) and other accessibility requirements in all 

public rights-of-way and places, as well as facilities 

accessed by other members of the community. 

Table 7-1: Scale of Walking

PEDESTRIAN 1 

(VERY FAST)

PEDESTRIAN 2 

(FAST)

PEDESTRIAN 3 

(MODERATE)

PEDESTRIAN 4 

(SLOW)

Minutes per Mile 15 17.5 20 22.5

Miles per Hour 4 3.43 3 2.67

Roadway/Slope Impedance 3.5 3 2.75 2.4

Feet per Second 5.1 4.4 4 3.5

20 Minute Time Commitment 1.16 1.00 0.91 0.08

15 Minute Time Commitment 0.87 0.75 0.68 0.60

10 Minute Time Commitment 0.58 0.50 0.45 0.40

5 Minute Time Commitment 0.29 0.25 0.23 0.20

*Use engineering judgment when considering whether to provide extra time for pedestrians crossing streets beyond the MUTCDrequired interval where appropriate conditions exist.

7.2 PRINCIPLES: BASICS OF A 

WALK-FRIENDLY COMMUNITY

The following principles should be incorporated 

into every pedestrian facility— 

• The walking environment should be easy to use 

and understand.

• The walking environment should seamlessly 

connect people to places. It should be continuous, with complete sidewalks, well-designed 

curb ramps, and well-designed street crossings. 

• Pedestrian and driver sight distances should be 

maintained near driveways and intersections. 

• Pedestrians must be able to cross roads safely. 

Municipalities have an obligation to provide 

safe and convenient crossing opportunities.

• The safety of all street users, particularly more 

vulnerable groups (e.g. children, older adults, 

and people with disabilities) must be considered when designing streets.

• Allow uncontrolled crossings on narrow streets 

with low volumes and speeds. In these locations, provide marked crosswalks, pedestrian 

crossing signs, and regulatory signs indicating 

a yield requirement to pedestrians on the part 

of drivers and pedestrians.

• Provide active control crossings for all wide 

streets with high volumes and speeds, particularly where distance between crossings is great. 

Controls can be signals, pedestrian-actuated 

flashers, or other hybrid signalization. 
126

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Safety issues should be focused on both pedestrian corridors and crossings. Photo source: Mike Singleton

7.2.1 Actions To Include

• Construct sidewalks and/or walkways convenient to where people need to go.

• Adopt and follow four-zone walkway design 

guidelines (see descriptions that follow).

• Follow all accessibility standards and Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines 

(PROWAG) recommendations.

• Design tight curb returns (15 to 20 feet preferred) except where buses or trucks frequently 

turn and the travel lane is adjacent to the curb.

• Break up large or complex intersections with 

islands.

• Design pedestrian crossings for both safety and 

accessibility; assume that crossings are needed 

where significant numbers of people are crossing or will likely cross once built.

• Design for safe pedestrian crossings, especially 

near transit stops and near schools where children may cross.

• Design crossings for pedestrians of all ages and 

abilities, especially around senior centers, medical centers, and service centers, where people 

with physical challenges may congregate.

• Add more safety design features to pedestrian crossings as traffic volume, the number of 

lanes, the street width, and speed increases. 

7.2.2 Actions To Avoid

• Do not construct a sidewalk on only one side of 

the street where development is on both sides.

• Do not construct sidewalks with poles, posts, 

utility boxes, and so forth in the pedestrian 

zone of the sidewalk.

• Do not construct more than one left or right 

turn that is not controlled by a signal or that 

is considered to be permissible (yield) with pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections.

• Do not make pedestrians wait more than 90 

seconds to cross at signalized intersections.

• Do not install pedestrian push buttons in locations that are not easily accessed by people in 

wheelchairs.

• Do not use warning lights that flash all the time 

at pedestrian crossings; they are ignored.

• Do not construct streets wider than necessary, 

thereby increasing pedestrian crossing distances.

• Do not space pedestrian crossings too far apart 

(within communities, they should be spaced 

no more than 200 to 300 feet apart).

• Do not design curb returns to accommodate 

the largest vehicles on the road unless large 

vehicles are the dominant vehicles planned for 

in the design of the road. On multi-lane roads 

with more than one lane in each direction, larger vehicles can utilize the two lanes for turning 

motions.

• Do not attempt to divert pedestrians to cross at 

locations away from where they are crossing, 

unless those locations are very close by. Do not 

expect pedestrians to walk more than 150 feet 

in any direction to find a safe crossing point.

• Do not construct textured crosswalks that are 

rough on wheelchairs. Such crosswalks will 

create maintenance problems, and they are not 

very visible to approaching drivers.

• Do not remove crosswalks unless they are 

poorly located and unsafe.

• Do not compromise pedestrian safety or convenience to improve motor vehicle traffic flow.

• Do not divert pedestrians to overpasses or 

underpasses unless those alternatives are designed to be nearly as convenient as directly 

crossing at street level. 
127

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

A well defined and barrier free walking environment must be the focus of walkway systems. Photo source: Bruce Damonte

7.3 TOOLS: FACILITIES THAT CAN 

MAKE A WALK-FRIENDLY COMMUNITY

This part of the chapter discusses a series of descriptions of the many tools that can be used to 

improve the walkability of a community. The descriptions provide explanations on what the element can be used for, individual recommendations or guidelines on how to use the facility, and 

what components are needed to make the tool 

work. The ways the tool can be used for various 

situations and conditions, as well as how the tool 

can be combined with other tools are the focus of 

the second half of the chapter. 

These guidelines are arranged by the three primary locations of pedestrian facilities: walkway 

segments along streets or in open space or recreation areas; street crossings mid-block or at intersections; and the transition between walkway 

and intersection interface, commonly referred to 

as ramps, driveways, and curb cuts. This chapter 

then discusses some additional input on crossing-control devices and signal timing. 

Because the roadway system of the United States is 

so heavily influenced by vehicular use, the categories primarily deal with the relationship of where 

the pedestrian is in relation to the motor vehicle. 

The guidelines have been arranged with the more 

effective and innovative facilities first and then the 

more traditional and simpler elements. All categories have been noted by a single letter for the 

one of five broader categories. Each element has 

a two-letter abbreviation, and individual components and guidelines include a number. This 

three-digit coding is used throughout the rest of 

the document and is included on the matrices, as 

well as the maps at the end of the chapter. 

7.3.1 Walkway Treatments (W)

By definition, sidewalks are walkways provided 

within a roadway corridor. Under PROWAG, they 

are allowed to follow the vertical grade of the 

street. Walkways can either be sidewalks or pedestrian facilities that are separated from the street. 

Sidewalks should provide a comfortable space for 

pedestrians between the roadway and adjacent 

land uses. Sidewalks along streets are the most important component of pedestrian mobility. They 

provide access to destinations and critical connections between modes of travel, including automobiles, transit, and bicycles. General provisions for 

sidewalks include pathway width, slope, space for 

street furniture, utilities, trees and landscaping, 

and building ingress and egress requirements. 

Walkway Presence and Continuity (WC)

Perhaps the most important attribute for pedestrian facilities is continuity. The United States evolved 

from a rural setting and smaller towns, primarily 

without the dominance of the automobile. When 

the automobile grew in popularity, it was at a time 

of tremendous growth. Many developments ignored the needs of the pedestrian, assuming that 

all would drive to all destinations. For those who 

could not afford a vehicle, it was assumed that they 

could take public transportation. Based on these 

historical development patterns, we now face the 

need to fill gaps to provide pedestrian continuity. 

Note that many cities rely on developers to build 

their sidewalks—segment by segment—as “conditions of approval.” Although this policy saves cities 

money, it makes the construction of usable, continuous sidewalks contingent on development. 
128

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-1: Typical Walkway Zones 

Primary Universal Walkway Access Guidelines (WU)

Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, 

state and local governments and transit agencies 

must ensure access to people with disabilities. Under ADA, the U.S. Access Board develops guidelines and standards to ensure this access; these are 

found in the proposed rule form in the PROWAG. 

The United States Access Board’s ADA and ABA 

Accessibility Guidelines focus mainly on facilities 

on sites. Although the guidelines address certain 

features common to public sidewalks, such as 

curb ramps, further guidance is necessary to address conditions and constraints unique to public 

rights-of-way. The Board is developing new guidelines for public rights-of-way that will address various issues, including access for blind pedestrians 

at street crossings, wheelchair access to on street 

parking, and solutions to various constraints 

posed by space limitations, roadway design practices, slope, and terrain. The new guidelines will 

cover pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets, 

including crosswalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way. The Board’s aim 

in developing these guidelines is to ensure that access for persons with disabilities is provided wherever a pedestrian way is newly built or altered and 

that the same degree of convenience, connection, 

and safety afforded the public generally is available 

to pedestrians with disabilities. 

Once these guidelines are adopted by the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, they will become enforceable standards under title II of the ADA. Until they are enforceable, 

title II entities must still provide access to pedestrian facilities in accordance with ADA regulations.

This document will not attempt to list ADA requirements or to propose guidelines for these 

statutes and standards. The standards may change 

and are open to some level of interpretation. The 

adoption of other state and local standards, which 

can exceed the federal standards, also makes it difficult to include requirements on a national-level 

publication.

All pedestrian projects as well as street projects 

must abide by the latest standards of both federal 

and local requirements and must not discriminate 

against persons with disabilities, even if there is no 

standard for a particular type of facility. This applies to new construction and also to any project 

that changes an area, thereby requiring facilities 

be brought up to the latest standard. 

In addition, even without a project identified, 

the responsibility for the removal of barriers to 

access remains enforceable and must be worked 

into ADA transition plans, with some community 

funding identified to remove the barriers.

A broader approach that takes the basic philosophies of universal access into account should be 

incorporated into all planning, design, engineering, and public facility programming projects as a 

basic foundation to these efforts. 

Segments of Walkway Systems

Sidewalks associated with walkways next to roadways are made up of four distinct zones: the curb 

zone, the furnishing zone, the pedestrian zone, 

and the building frontage zone (figure 7-1). The 

minimum widths of each of these zones vary 

based on street classifications as well as land uses. 

The Street Classifications section in this chapter 

describes these recommendations in more detail 

as applied to individual cities. “Walkway Width 

Capacity Metrics” recommends minimum widths 

for each zone for different street types and land 

uses. Some judgment may be needed on a caseby-case basis to establish actual widths of each of 

the four zones.

Curb zone Furnishing zone Pedestrian zone Frontage zone
129

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

The furnishing zone does not have to have actual street furniture, but should include trees, lighting and other utilities as a minimum. 

Photo source: Unknown

Walkers do not take up much space, but care must still be taken 

to meet ADA requirements and comfort of all walkway users. 

Photo source: Mike Singleton

Curb Zones—Curb, Gutter, Parking, and Bulb-Outs (W1)

The curb zone serves primarily to prevent water 

and cars from encroaching on the sidewalk. It defines where the area for pedestrians begins and the 

area for vehicles ends. It is the area that people using assistive devices must traverse to get from the 

street to the sidewalk, so its design is critical to 

accessibility. 

Furnishing Zone—Trees, Signage, Utilities, and 

Furniture (W2)

The furnishing zone is located between the curb 

line and the pedestrian zone. The furnishing zone 

should contain all fixtures, such as street trees, bus 

stops and shelters, parking meters, utility poles 

and boxes, lamp posts, signs, bike racks, news 

racks, benches, waste receptacles, drinking fountains, and other street furniture to keep the pedestrian zone free of obstructions. In residential 

neighborhoods, the furnishing zone is often landscaped. Resting areas with benches and space for 

wheelchairs should be provided in high-volume 

pedestrian districts and along blocks with a steep 

grade to provide a place to rest for older adults, 

wheelchair users, and others. The furnishing zone 

is essential to ensure that driveway ramps are kept 

out of the pedestrian use areas.

Pedestrian Zone—Surface Materials, Continuity, 

Slopes (W3)

The pedestrian zone, situated between the building frontage zone and the furnishing zone, is the 

area dedicated to walking and should be kept 

clear of all fixtures and obstructions. The pedestrian access route (PAR) is a major component of 

the pedestrian zone: clear space that connects the 

public right-of-way to building and property entry 

points, parking areas, and public transportation. 

Building Frontage Zone—Furniture/Utilities (W4)

The building frontage zone is the portion of the 

sidewalk located immediately adjacent to buildings, and provides shy distance or buffer from 

buildings, walls, fences, or property lines. It includes space for building-related features, such 

as entryways and accessible ramps. It can include 

landscaping, as well as awnings, signs, news racks, 

benches, and outdoor café seating. In single-family residential neighborhoods, landscaping typically occupies the building frontage zone.

Walkway Width Capacity Metrics (WW)

Sidewalks vary according to the type of street they 

serve. A local street with residences requires different sidewalk dimensions than a boulevard with 

commercial establishments (table 7-2). The descriptions indicate the recommended width of the 

various walkway zones. 
130

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Table 7-2: Walkway Width Capacity Metrics

BOULEVARD AVENUE STREET

WW-1: 

VILLAGE/TOWN/CITY CENTERS

Frontage: 4’6” (8’ with café seating)

Pedestrian: 8’

Furniture: 7’ (6’-8’ at bus stops and where 

large trees are desired) 

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 20’

Frontage: 3’6” (8’ with café seating)

Pedestrian: 7’

Furniture: 5’ (6’-8’ at bus stops, and where 

large trees are desired)

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 16’

Frontage: 2’6” (8’ with café seating)

Pedestrian: 6’

Furniture: 4’

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 14’

WW-2: 

DISTRICTS

Frontage: 1’ 6”

Pedestrian: 6’

Furniture: 6’

Curb: 1’ 6”

Minimum Width: 15’

Frontage: 1’ 6”

Pedestrian: 5’

Furniture: 5’

Curb: 1’ 6”

Minimum Width: 13’

Frontage: 1’ 6”

Pedestrian: 4’

Furniture: 4’

Curb: 1’ 6”

Minimum Width: 11’

WW-3: 

CORRIDORS

Frontage: 4’ 6”

Pedestrian: 6’

Furniture: 5’ (6’-8’ at bus stops and where 

large trees are desired) 

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 16’

Frontage: 2’ 6” 

Pedestrian: 6’

Furniture: 5’ (6’-8’ at bus stops, and where 

large trees are desired)

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 14’

Frontage: 1’ 6”

Pedestrian: 6’

Furniture: 4’

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 12’

WW-4: 

NEIGHBORHOODS

Pedestrian: 6’

Furniture: 7’ 6”

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 14’

Pedestrian: 5’

Furniture: 6’6”’

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 12’

Pedestrian: 4’

Furniture: 5’ 6”

Curb: 6”

Minimum Width: 10’

Note 1: Where 4’ width is permitted for pedestrian zones, passing areas must be provided at maximum 200’ intervals.

Inadequate width walkway. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Note: 2 Federal, local and state standards need to be verified. Use of the foundational documents listed in this publication is recommended.

Adequate width walkway. Photo source: Mike Singleton Ideal width walkway. Photo source: Mike Singleton
131

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

7.3.2 Street Crossings (C)

Walking requires two important features in the 

built environment: people must walk along streets 

and they must get across streets. Crossing a street 

should be easy, safe, convenient, and comfortable. 

Although pedestrian behavior and intersection 

or crossing design affect the street-crossing experience, motorist behavior is the most significant 

factor in pedestrian safety. About 40 percent of pedestrian crashes occur at intersections. Additional 

pedestrian crashes occur when a person crosses 

the road away from intersections,1 especially with 

turning vehicles.

A number of tools exist to improve pedestrian 

safety and make crossing streets easier. Effective 

traffic management can address concerns about 

traffic speed and volume. A motorist driving more 

slowly has more time to see, react, and stop for a 

pedestrian. The number of pedestrians also influences motorists. In general, motorists are more 

aware of pedestrians when more people walk. 

Most tools to address crossing challenges are engineering treatments, but tools from enforcement, 

education, and planning toolboxes are also important. Providing marked crosswalks is only one 

of the many possible engineering measures. 

When considering how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians, the question should not be, 

“Should I provide a marked crosswalk?” Instead, 

the question should be, “What are the most effective measures that can be used to help pedestrians safely cross the street?” Deciding whether to 

mark or not mark crosswalks is only one consideration in creating safe and convenient pedestrian 

crossings. Because safety should be the greatest 

concern, however, crosswalk identification should 

be increased in general. Many drivers believe 

that they do not need to yield to pedestrians unless they are in a marked crosswalk. This popular 

but inaccurate belief can be countered with more 

crosswalk markings. 

• Crossing treatments that have the highest crash 

reduction factors (CRFs) should be used when 

designing crossings.

• The best pedestrian crossings begin with controlling local speed. In general, urban arterials 

should be designed to a maximum of 30 or 35 

miles per hour (note: 30 miles per hour is the 

optimal speed for moving motor vehicle traffic 

efficiently.)

• Every crossing is different and should be selected and designed to fit the local environment. 

• Crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections (including mid-block crosswalks) require special 

treatment because these are locations where 

motorists do not automatically stop. 

Pedestrian Bridge or Underpass (CB)

Certain crossings of high-speed roadways, freeways, limited-access highways, and rail lines are 

difficult or impossible to make work at grade 

crossings. Although every effort should first be 

made to resolve the at-grade conflicts, the priority 

of the facility or other safety standards may prevent at-grade crossings. 

Because most of these barriers are very long with 

few above-grade or at-grade crossing points available, sometimes a grade-separated option must be 

pursued to provide the needed connectivity for 

cyclists and pedestrians. Although grade separation, obtained through a bridge or tunnel, is a superior way of deconflicting mobility uses, it often 

is very expensive and, if not handled properly, can 

be ignored by individuals who are used to crossing 

at illegal locations. 
132

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Raised speed table, high visibility markings and warning signs. 

Photo source: Dan Burden

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon with median refuge.

Photo source: Mike Singleton

High visibility cross walk with static ped. warning signs.

Photo source: Mike Singleton

Median refuge with a ‘z’ crossing, improving sight lines and 

providing more storage space. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Standard light signal at pedestrian only mid-block crossing. 

Photo source: Mike Singleton

Contrasting cross walk with rubberized warning sign.

Photo source: Mike Singleton

Flashing diodes in pavement* and warning sign.

Photo source: Dan Burden 

Pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWK) and median refuge.

Photo source: Mike Cynecki

Raised median refuge with marked crosswalk.

Photo source: Dan Burden

*Note: In-pavement flashers tend to be less visible, and require more maintenance, than overhead illumination. 
133

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Direct bridges are recommended. Photo source: Mike Singleton Drummond Bike Tunnel, Davis , CA; Photo source: The Davis Enterprise

Bridges that force a great deal of out of direction travel are not 

likely to be used. Photo source: Vicki Scuri

Raised Crosswalk/Speed Table (CT)

Raised crosswalks slow traffic and put pedestrians 

in a more visible position. They are trapezoidal in 

shape on both sides and have a flat top where the 

pedestrians cross. They are most appropriate in areas with significant pedestrian traffic and where 

motor vehicle traffic should move slowly, such as 

near schools, on college campuses, in main street 

retail environments, and in other similar places. 

They are especially effective near elementary 

schools, where they raise small children by a few 

inches and make them more visible.

Crossings at Signals (CS)

Pedestrian crossing treatments at signalized intersections are less complicated than uncontrolled 

crossings because motorists have to come to a full 

stop. The following provides guidance for crossing 

tools at signalized intersections.

Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs (CY)

Pedestrian crossing treatments at stop-controlled 

intersections are less complicated than uncontrolled 

crossings because motorists have to come to a full 

stop. They are also usually less complicated than 

signalized intersections. They are likely to occur at 

intersections with less traffic than would be at signalized intersections. The following provides guidance 

for crossing tools at stop-controlled intersections. 

Crossings at Mid-blocks—Markings, Median 

Refuges, Crossing Islands, and Signs (CM)

A mid-block crossing is a nonstandard location for crossing, so drivers may not be aware of the crossing movements or will be less likely to yield to the pedestrian if the 

crossing area does not include some of the other tools that 

are recommended to be part of the mid-block crossing. 
134

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-2: Crosswalk Visibility

Figure 7-3: Recommended Crosswalk Markings

Crossings at Uncontrolled Intersections (CN)

Intersections without traffic signals or stop signs 

are considered uncontrolled intersections. The decision to mark a crosswalk at an uncontrolled location should be guided by an engineering study. 

Factors considered in the study should include 

vehicular volume and speed, roadway width and 

number of lanes, stopping sight distance and triangles, distance to the next controlled crossing, 

nighttime visibility, grade, origin and destination 

of trips, left turning conflicts, and pedestrian volume. The engineering study should be based on 

the FHWA study, Safety Effects of Marked Versus 

Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. 

Crosswalk Markings and Requirements (CX)

Crosswalks are present, by law, at all intersections, whether marked or unmarked, unless the 

pedestrian crossing is specifically prohibited. At 

mid-block locations, crosswalks exist only where 

marked. At these non-intersection locations, the 

crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. 

Crosswalks should be considered at mid-block 

locations where there is strong evidence that pedestrians want to cross there because origins and 

destinations are across from each other and there 

is an overly long walking distance to the nearest 

controlled crossing. Marked crosswalks alert drivers to expect crossing pedestrians and direct pedestrians to desirable crossing locations. Although 

many motorists are unaware of their precise legal 

obligations at crosswalks, drivers must yield to pedestrians in any intersection, whether marked or 

unmarked.

Because of the low approach angle at which pavement markings are viewed by drivers, the use of 

longitudinal stripes in addition to or in place of 

transverse markings can significantly increase the 

visibility of a crosswalk to oncoming traffic (figure 

7-2). Although research has not shown a direct 

link between increased crosswalk visibility and 

increased pedestrian safety, high-visibility crosswalks have been shown to increase motorist yielding and channelization of pedestrians, leading the 

Federal Highway Administration to conclude that 

high-visibility pedestrian crosswalks have a positive effect on pedestrian and driver behavior.

Decorative crosswalk pavement materials should 

be chosen with care to ensure that smooth surface 

conditions and high contrast with surrounding 

pavements are provided. Textured materials within the crosswalk are not recommended. Without 

reflective materials, these treatments are not visible 

to drivers at night. Decorative pavement materials 

often deteriorate over time and become a maintenance problem while creating uneven pavement. 

Recommended crosswalk striping sample options 

are shown in figure 7-3.

Primary Universal Access Guidelines (CU)

Under ADA, the Access Board has developed and 

continues to maintain design guidelines for accessible buildings and facilities (including access 

through public rights-of-way and access to publicly owned land) known as the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). ADAAG covers a wide 

variety of facilities and establishes minimum requirements for new construction and alterations.

The Board maintains a similar responsibility for 

accessibility guidelines under the Architectural 

Barriers Act (ABA). The ABA requires access to 

certain facilities designed, built, altered, or leased 

with federal funds. Like ADAAG, the Board’s ABA 

accessibility guidelines apply to new construction 

and alterations.

The agencies responsible for standards under the 

ADA are the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 

Department of Transportation (DOT). The agencies responsible for standards under the ABA are 

the General Services Administration (GSA), the 

Department of Defense (DOD), the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and 

the United States Postal Service (USPS). 
135

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Apex ramps can force a person in a wheelchair too far out into 

the active lanes of the street. Photo Source: Mike Singleton

7.3.3 Access From Walk to Street (A)

Curb Extensions/Bulb-Outs (AC)

Curb extensions extend the sidewalk or curb line 

out into the parking lane or travel lanes, which reduces the effective street width. Curb extensions 

significantly improve pedestrian crossings by reducing the pedestrian crossing distance, visually 

and physically narrowing the roadway, improving 

the ability of pedestrians and motorists to see each 

other, and reducing the time that pedestrians are 

in the street. 

Motorists typically travel more slowly at intersections or mid-block locations with curb extensions because the restricted street width sends a 

visual cue to slow down. Turning speeds are lower 

at intersections with curb extensions (curb radii 

should be as tight as is practicable.) Curb extensions also prevent motorists from parking too 

close to the intersection.

Curb extensions also provide space for two curb 

ramps and level sidewalks where existing space is 

limited, increase the pedestrian waiting space, and 

provide additional space for pedestrian push button poles, street furnishings, plantings, bike parking, and other amenities. A benefit for drivers is 

that extensions allow for better placement of signs 

(e.g., stop signs and signals).

Curb extensions are generally only appropriate 

where there is an on street-parking lane. Where 

street width permits, a gently tapered curb extension can reduce crossing distance—without creating a hazard—at an intersection along streets that 

do not have on street parking. Curb extensions 

must not extend into travel lanes or bicycle lanes. 

Primary Universal Access on Ramps—

Perpendicular/Apex/Parallel (AA)

Proper curb ramp design is essential to enable 

pedestrians using assistive mobility devices (e.g., 

scooters, walkers, and crutches) to transition between the street and the sidewalk. These design 

guidelines provide a basic overview of curb ramp 

design. ADA requires installation of curb ramps in 

new sidewalks and whenever an alteration is made 

to an existing sidewalk or street. Roadway resurfacing is considered an alteration and triggers the 

requirement for curb ramp installations or retrofits to current standards. Curb ramps are typically installed at intersections, mid-block crossings 

(including trail connections), accessible on street 

parking, and passenger loading zones. Curb ramps 

should have a proper landing, approach, flare, 

ramp, and gutter and a detectable warning. Each of 

these is critical in providing safe access for people in 

wheelchairs. In order to be functional, they must be 

designed and constructed with the correct dimensions. Please refer to figures 7-4 and 7-5 for more 

information on ramp placements. It is important 

to note that directional ramps are always safer and 

more accessible. Apex ramps are shown in this document for comparison purposes only because they 

are a very common type of ramp.

Level Walk to Street With Blended Transition (AL)

Blended transitions are areas where either the entire sidewalk has been brought down to the street 

or crosswalk level or the street has been brought 

up to the sidewalk level. They work well on large 

radius corners where it is difficult to line up the 

crosswalks with the curb ramps; but they have 

drawbacks. 

Children, persons with cognitive impairments, 

and guide dogs may not distinguish the street edge. 

For these reasons, detectable warnings must also 

be placed at the edge of the sidewalk anywhere the 

curb is missing (i.e., if possible, wrapped around 

the entire corner) to alert pedestrians with visual 

impairments of the transition to the street. 

Turning vehicles may also encroach onto the sidewalk. Bollards may be used to prevent encroachment of vehicles onto the sidewalk but are not a 

substitute for detectable warnings. 

Ramps have many components that need to be ADA 

compliant. Photo source: www. http://ada.ashdownarch.com/
136

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-4: Apex ramp

Figure 7-5: Directional ramp

Figure 7-6: Parallel ramp

Reduced Radius Corners (AR)

Corner radii determine vehicle turning speeds 

and pedestrian crossing distances. Minimizing the 

size of a corner radius lowers turning speeds and 

decreases crossing distance by several feet. 

7.3.4 Crossing Control Devices (D)

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (DH)

A pedestrian hybrid beacon is used to warn and 

control traffic at non-signalized locations to help 

pedestrians cross a street or highway at a marked 

crosswalk. A pedestrian hybrid beacon can be used 

at a location that does not meet traffic signal war-

rants or at a location that meets traffic signal war-

rants but a decision has been made to not install 

a traffic control signal. This category can include 

a High-intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 

with special signal sequencing (table 7-3). 

Pedestrian Crossing Using Standard Signal (DP)

Partial intersections that do not allow for left turn-

ing movements or mid-block locations where a pe-

destrian facility is needed can utilize standard traffic signals for controlling these types of crossings. 

Drivers are most familiar with standard green/

yellow/red signals, making this type of treatment 

likely to result in the greatest level of compliance. 

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Crossing (DR)

The RRFB offers significant potential safety and 

cost benefits because it achieves very high rates of 

compliance at a very low cost compared to other, 

more restrictive devices, such as full mid-block 

signalization. The components of the RRFB are 

not proprietary and can be assembled by any ju-

risdiction with off-the-shelf hardware. The FHWA 

believes that the RRFB has a low risk of safety or 

operational concerns; however, a proliferation of 

RRFBs in the roadway environment to the point 

that they become ubiquitous could decrease their 

effectiveness. Use of RRFBs should be limited to 

locations with critical safety concerns, such as pe-

destrian and school crosswalks at uncontrolled lo-

cations. The RRFB uses rectangular, high-intensity 

LED-based indications, flashes rapidly in a wigwag “flickering” flash pattern, and is mounted immediately between the crossing sign and the sign’s 

supplemental arrow plaque. Installation of RRFBs 

requires FHWA approval under the existing Inter-

im Approval.

Pedestrian-Actuated Flashing Signage and InRoad Flashers (DW)

Early versions of mid-block crossings included 

roadway flashers located at the edge of crosswalk 

markings matched with pedestrian yield signs that 

included in-sign flashers as well. The flashers are 

activated by the pedestrian. The driver is expect-

ed to yield to the pedestrian but can pass after the 

pedestrian has cleared the lane in the crosswalk. 

Note that in-pavement flashers tend to be less vis-

ible—and require more maintenance—than over-

head illumination. 

DS-Pedestrian Scramble Signals/Markings (DS)

A pedestrian scramble combines all of the pedes-

trian movements with one signal phase and then 

works two phases of vehicular movement. In areas 

of high pedestrian traffic or with wide streets, the 

total crossing time of pedestrians can be reduced 

because diagonal movements are allowed. Often, 

left and right turning movements have to wait for 

pedestrians to clear the crosswalk. A scramble can 

result in a more efficient traffic flow because direct 

conflicts are separated into different signal phases. 
137

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Pedestrian scramble signage. Photo source: Juan Alberto Bonilla

Pedestrian activated flashing. Photo source: iStock Pedestrian scramble markings. Photo source: Juan Alberto Bonilla

“No Turn on Red” Warnings (DN)

Pedestrian scrambles and other bike-related improvements associated with two-way cycle tracks 

and bike crosswalks require restrictions on turning to lower pedestrian, bike, and vehicle conflicts. 

Because these restrictions are not that common in 

the United States, extra signage and signalization 

are required to communicate this restriction to 

the driver. 

Pedestrian Signals for Universal Access, With 

Audible and Visual Countdowns (DD)

Pedestrian-activated traffic controls require pedestrians to push a button to activate a walk signal and so are discouraged in urban areas, where 

multiple pedestrians are present most of the time. 

Each standard phase should work into the signal 

phasing, a standard pedestrian green light phase 

without an activation. In more suburban or rural 

areas, however, interjecting a standard pedestrian 

phase with or without a pedestrian present is not 

efficient for traffic flow and is overkill for the lower 

number of pedestrians anticipated. 

Section 35.160 of the ADA requires communication with persons with disabilities that is as effective as communication with others. The reader 

should refer to the Accessible Pedestrian Signal 

(APS) provisions (audible and tactile in addition 

to visual communication) in the PROWAG and 

the technical language in the MUTCD. 

Where pedestrian-activated traffic controls exist, 

they should be located as close as possible to curb 

ramps without reducing the width of the path. The 

buttons should be at a level that is easily reached 

by people in wheelchairs near the top of the ramp. 

The U.S. Access Board guidelines recommend buttons raised above or flush with their housing and 

large enough for people with visual impairments 

to see them. 
138

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Table 7-3: Sequence for a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. 

Source: MUTCD

7.3.5 Signal Timing (T)

Leading Pedestrian Interval (TG)

This method of signal phasing allows for the release of the pedestrian signal 5 to 10 seconds prior 

to the release of the vehicular signal. This allows 

pedestrians to be well along the way of the crossing when vehicles are making left or right turns—

potentially across the path of the pedestrians in 

crosswalks. 

Concurrent Pedestrian/Vehicle Signals (TH)

If a signal automatically includes a green cycle for 

vehicular movement along with a pedestrian green 

cycle phase at the same time, then it is considered 

to be concurrent. In urban areas, where pedestrians are waiting to cross the street most of the time, 

it is not necessary to require them to actuate a pedestrian crossing request. This type of integrated 

signal system allows for synchronization of several 

traffic signals because the pedestrian phase is integral and always activated. 

Pedestrian Phase Intervention in Cycle (TJ)

Depending on the technology of the controller, an 

ongoing green phase can be interrupted and extended when a pedestrian pushes an actuator. This 

avoids the need for the pedestrian to have to wait 

through several cycles of signal phasing before the 

next pedestrian phase comes up. Also, when pedestrians realizes they are going to have to wait for 

the next cycle, they will often either cross anyway 

or will push the button for crossing the other direction, leaving behind the request for a crossing 

that may never be used. 

Signals Synchronized to Bikes/Pedestrian Pace (TK)

Synchronizing a series of signals to turn green for 

pedestrians can be accomplished if these signals 

are interconnected. 

Available Crossing Timing for Pedestrian Signals (TX)

People with disabilities often need more time to 

cross the street. Signals can be set to add more 

time to cross where there are more older adults or 

people with disabilities. Some modern technology can also detect slower pedestrians to add more 

crossing time.
139

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

7.4 BENEFITS: PICKING THE RIGHT 

TOOLS

Choosing the right improvements for an area requires attention to the issues that are in need of 

change, the context of the project site, the available 

budget, and the benefits desired from the investment. This section ranks the characteristics and 

benefits achieved from each listed element. Table 

7-4 shows the benefits achieved by the implementation of each of the described element.

Provides a cost-effective element: This 

element is considered to be cost effective, 

with reasonable costs when compared to 

the overall benefits of implementation.

Quick to do and easy to implement: Implementation should be relatively simple 

in terms of processing, design, and construction. The overall implementation 

schedule is short.

Attracts new users: Because of the protection or convenience of travel, this element should entice new users to walk for 

transportation or for recreation.

Balanced (cost effective, quick, and 

adds users): Given the previous benefits, 

this ranking indicates that the element 

provides a balance of all three rankings 

of cost, time, and attraction of new users.

Allows for innovative approach: This 

treatment is considered to be new or 

experimental. Many agencies and developers may wish to try new, innovative 

techniques.

Increases walking efficiency and reduces 

trip length: Speed and directness of route 

affect the ability of walkers to get to their 

destination. This ranking indicates that 

the improvement will cut down on travel 

time. 

Provides for traffic calming: Safety and 

comfort can be improved for pedestrians 

if car travel is calmed to slower speeds 

and motor vehicle movements are more 

subtle and predictable.

Adds protection from traffic: A level of 

security and safety improvements can be 

expected from this element. It may also 

result in real or perceived safety.

Can be integrated into smaller-scale 

projects/initiatives: The scale of this 

improvement makes it likely to be implementable as part of smaller infill projects 

or other neighborhood-level improvements. 

Provides multiple benefits for multiple 

modes: Improvements may directly affect pedestrian activities but also benefit 

transit users, cyclists, and businesses located along the proposed area of improvement. 

Pedestrian facilities need to take into consideration the users, 

the setting and the issues before determining a solution.

Photo source: Joe Raedle / Getty Images
140

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

The benefits from well designed public spaces and walkways include street activation, encouragement of healthy activity, mobility options and improved safety. Photo source: Mike Singleton

Table 7-4: Benefits of the pedestrian implementation methods
141

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

7.5 CONTEXT: USING THE RIGHT 

TOOLS IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS

The following text and supporting graphics describe how pedestrian guidelines should be considered in each of the four community place types. 

The intensity, typical streets, and land uses have 

been grouped into the three development types: 

rural, suburban, and urban. Because funding of 

pedestrian facilities is generally very limited, selecting the right solution for the right location is 

very important. Land use type and the intensity 

and conditions of the roadway are the primary 

determinants in setting priorities and matching 

improvements to local conditions. The overall 

goal of all guidelines discussed in this chapter is to 

match the improvement type with the area so that 

the largest cross-section of the community will 

benefit from the improvement. Safety will also be 

increased by recognizing the context of the area’s 

land uses, street patterns, and use levels. 

There are many options for a wide range of traditional and innovative pedestrian facilities that can 

be added to most streets. The first half of the chapter was dedicated to the tools available. The second portion of the chapter is dedicated to understanding local context of community typologies 

and place types. Matching the right type of facility to the right type of user to the right location is 

very important and potentially complex, requiring 

attention to detail. Utilize the following guidance 

for an overview of where certain facilities should 

be considered:

• Prioritize pedestrian improvements based on 

safety first, connectivity second, access third, 

and qualitative walkability fourth. All of these 

aspects are important to include.

• Removal of ADA-based barriers and lack of connectivity between origins and destinations should 

also be high priorities. All new projects or major 

retrofits will have to consider accessibility.

• Walkability and safety are most important 

around schools, business/commercial districts, 

major employment centers, and transit stops. 

These areas should be given priority in planning, engineering, and implementation. 

• Filling in walkway gaps is more important than 

retrofitting missing walkway systems found in 

many older and more rural neighborhoods.

• Four-way stop sign-controlled intersections 

are best for pedestrians as long as there is only 

one lane in each direction. Roundabouts can 

also be safe treatments but may require special 

design considerations for the visually impaired. 

• Fully signalized intersections are the next safest 

form of street crossing and should be the first 

choice when trying to find an improved way to 

cross a busy street. 

• Mid-block crossings are essential only in areas 

where great distances exist between controlled 

intersections or where trails, open spaces, transit bus stops, and other major destinations are 

located mid-block. These crossings are especially important for safety where long distances 

between formal crossings encourage de facto 

mid-block crossing. 

• To fix pedestrian crossing problems, remember 

context, and provide the best overall pedestrian experience. As a general rule, first consider 

less-intensive solutions (high-visibility crosswalks, yield signs, and so forth) and move to 

more-intensive solutions (RRBF, PHB, or full 

signals), if warranted. 

• Crosswalk markings should be used more extensively in urban, suburban, and rural village 

centers. 

• For streets that have or are likely to have high 

levels of walking, identify pedestrian signal 

phasing that offers the walker priority across 

intersections and the ability to interject a pedestrian crossing request into the current phase 

and/or the ability to add to the time allowed for 

crossing for those that may need more time.

Various matrices, diagrams, and maps have been 

created to show the context of different community typologies and different place types. The maps 

should be used to see where a particular type of 

facility should be considered and the extent to 

which the network needs to be developed. These 

diagrams should be used only as guidance and 

need to be adjusted based on local conditions, priorities, and policies. They provide insight, however, into how local context must be considered and 

how the interaction of land use, street configurations, and spatial arrangements must be integrated. The matrices represent general guidance on 

the types of facilities that are available to consider 

and where they may be most appropriate. None of 

this should take the place of a pedestrian master 

plan and a public review process that allows local 

conditions and local priorities to be factored into 

the recommendations. These matrices provide 

the full range of items to be considered, however. 

Subsequently in the chapter, the benefits of each 

type of pedestrian element and amenity have been 

summarized and ranked on matrices. A review of 

these benefits should be part of the overall planning process.
142

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Typical rural walking environment, Photo source: Dan Burden

Main streets provide some of the most human scaled and walkable communities in the United States. Photo source: iStock

7.5.1 Planning and Designing Walking 

Treatments for Rural Areas

Rural Neighborhood Context

A significant amount of open space exists, with a 

lower amount of improved roadway and walking 

facilities. Many streets do not contain walkway 

systems, and roads are relatively narrow, providing two immediate challenges for pedestrians in 

these areas. 

Rural Corridor Context

Larger distances separate these land use types, 

mostly without the connectivity of walkway systems. Although traffic volumes may be reasonable, 

vehicle speeds are typically higher and on typically 

smaller streets with limited walking facilities.

Rural District Context

These districts may or may not have a good internal network of pedestrian facilities. They are often 

disconnected from neighborhoods and corridors 

and may need connection improvements to make 

them walkable.

Rural Village Center Context

For the most part, these centers are walkable based 

on their scale but may have challenges due to the 

lack of safe crossings over the “main street” of 

downtown if this street is carrying a large capacity 

of through-traffic. 

For an overview of the four community types 

found in rural areas, refer to—

• “Figure 7-7: Overview of a Typical Rural Area

with Recommended Treatments”

• “Figure 7-8: Rural Neighborhood Example

Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements”

• “Figure 7-9: Rural District Example Showing

Typical Pedestrian Improvements”

• “Figure 7-10: Rural Village Center Example

Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements”

• “Figure 7-11: Rural Corridor Example Showing

Typical Pedestrian Improvements”
143

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

CB CN

CS

CY

CT

CN

Figure 7-7: Overview of a Typical Rural Area with Recommended Treatments

DISTRICT VILLAGE CENTER

CORRIDOR

NEIGHBORHOOD

CS

CS

CS

CS

CM
144

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-8: Rural “Neighborhood” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CT Raised Crosswalk / Speed Table

CM Mid-block Crossing

CN Crossings with No Controls

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AR Reduced Radius Corners

AP Painted Sidewalks

CT CM

CN

CX

AR

AP
145

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 7-9: Rural “District” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CX

CS

CY

CS Crossings at Signals

CY Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs

CN Crossings with No Controls

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

DP Pedestrian Only Crossing - Standard Signals

TG Pedestrian Advance Walk

AA

AA

AR

DP

DP

TG

CN
146

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-10: Rural “Village Center” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CS Crossings at Signals

CY Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs

CN Crossings with No Controls

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AC Curb Extensions

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

DP Pedestrian Only Crossing - Standard Signals

TG Pedestrian Advance Walk

CS

CY

CN

CX

AC

AA

AR

DP

TG
147

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 7-11: Rural “Corridor” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CB Pedestrian Bridge or Underpass

CT Raised Crosswalk / Speed Table

CM Mid-block Crossing

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

CB

CT

CM

AA

AR
148

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Suburbs typically have single land use types over broad areas, connected collectors and arterials. Photo source: unknown Suburban streets are often wider than necessary. 

Photo source: Dan Burden

7.5.2 Planning and Designing Walking for 

Suburban Areas

Suburban Neighborhood Context

Street patterns are often curvilinear and arranged 

in a collector-style hierarchy, where the neighborhood streets are regularly intersected with collectors, arterials, and major arterials collecting and 

distributing vehicular volumes. The streets often 

include cul-de-sac streets that do not connect with 

other streets. Walkways are common, mostly sidewalks without parkway strips unless the development was built in the past 25 years. 

The most prevalent pedestrian problem in these 

areas relates to a lack of short connections between areas due to cul-de-sacs, large distances 

needed to travel by foot to other land uses or destinations, and higher-speed and higher-volume 

streets that need to be crossed. The street network 

is often responsible for lowering walkability due to 

its arrangement, hierarchy, and street widths. 

Suburban Corridor Context

The greatest pedestrian challenge relates to the 

large distances between land use destinations and 

neighborhood origins. The attention is usually 

focused on getting the largest volume of traffic 

through these areas, so street crossings and the 

distances between crossing points are significant 

challenges. 

Suburban District Context

Similar to rural areas, these districts are often not 

connected to the corridors and neighborhoods 

of these communities. They may have internal 

pedestrian circulation systems that support intra-district movement but are generally not connected well to other districts, corridors, or centers. 

Suburban Town Center Context

Unlike rural and urban areas, it is often difficult to 

find the centers of many suburbs. There is not always a natural progression of density or of an increased mixture and intensity of land uses. Even if 

more-intense facilities are located in the town center, it is often difficult to find a concentration of 

destinations that are within walking distance of 

each other. Usually, the street speeds are reduced 

in these areas compared to districts and corridors. 

The potential for infill and increasing land use 

mixtures and walkable destinations is high if handled comprehensively. 

For an overview of the four community types 

found in suburban areas, please refer to—

• Figure 7-12: Overview of a Typical Suburban 

Area with Recommended Treatments

• Figure 7-13: Suburban “Neighborhood” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

• Figure 7-14: Suburban “District” Example 

Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

• Figure 7-15: Suburban “Corridor” Example 

Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

• Figure 7-16: Suburban “Center” Example 

Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements
149

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 7-12: Overview of a Typical Suburban Area with Recommended Treatments

DP

DS

CM TA

CT

NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT CORRIDOR TOWN CENTER

CS

CY

CN

DW DR

DN
150

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-13: Suburban “Neighborhood” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CT Raised Crosswalk / Speed Table

CY Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs

CM Mid-block Crossing

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

CT

CM

CY

CX

AA

AR
151

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 7-14: Suburban “District” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CT Raised Crosswalk / Speed Table

CS Crossings at Signals

CY Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs

CM Mid-block Crossing

CN Crossings with No Controls

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AC Curb Extensions

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

DP Pedestrian Only Crossing 

TG Pedestrian Advance Walk

CT

CS

CX

CM CY CN

AC

AA

AR

DP TG
152

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-15: Suburban “Corridor” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CS Crossings at Signals

CY Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AC Curb Extensions

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

TG Pedestrian Advance Walk

CY

CX

AA

AR

AC

TG

CS
153

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 7-16: Suburban “Center” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CS Crossings at Signals

CY Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AC Curb Extensions

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

DN No Turn on Red Warnings

TG Pedestrian Advance Walk

CY

CS

AC

AA

AR

DN TG

CX
154

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Major roadway barriers can sometimes make urban areas 

difficult to walk across, Photo source: Minesweeper

Many of the nation’s mid sized cities are walkable, although the edges of these towns often are not. Photo source: APBP

7.5.3 Planning and Designing Walking for 

Urban Areas

Urban Neighborhood Context

Urban neighborhoods are typically more walkable 

because of the closer distances for walking, the 

gridded nature of the roadway network, the presence of walking facilities, and the mixture of land 

uses that can provide for most of the daily needs of 

local residents. These neighborhoods are generally 

better supported by transit, thereby extending the 

distance of non-vehicular travel patterns. 

Urban Corridor Context

These areas are generally surrounded on some 

of their sides with neighborhoods, making them 

good candidates for increasing connectivity and 

walkability to the corridors. 

Urban District Context

Urban districts are generally major campuses, 

cultural centers, entertainment districts, historic 

districts and financial centers with major employment in business parks and towers that all benefit 

by walking. Districts are generally surrounded or 

interspersed with mixed neighborhoods. Generally, the block sizes are reasonable and walking distances acceptable to make access to a district by 

foot a possibility. 

City Center Context

By their very nature of mixed uses and density, 

these areas are often very walkable and serviced 

well by transit. Land uses are generally mixed both 

vertically and horizontally, helping to created origins and destinations closer to each other. 

For an overview of the four community types 

found in urban areas, please refer to—

• Figure 7-17: Overview of a Typical Urban Area 

with Recommended Treatments

• Figure 7-18: Urban “Neighborhood” Example 

Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

• Figure 7-19: Urban “Corridor” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

• Figure 7-20: Urban “District” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

• Figure 7-21: Urban “City Center” Example 

Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements
155

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 7-17: Overview of a Typical Urban Area with Recommended Treatments

DR

DH

AC DISTRICT

CITY CENTER

NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR

CB

CT

CY

CS

CT CM

CN

AA

AR
156

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-18: Urban “Neighborhood” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CY Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs

CM Mid-block Crossing

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AC Curb Extensions

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

DR RRFB Signals

DN No Turn on Red Warnings

CY

CM

CX

AC

AA

AR

DR

DN
157

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 7-19: Urban “Corridor” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CS Crossings at Signals

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AC Curb Extensions

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

DW Ped. Actuated Flashing Signage & In-Road Flashers

DN No Turn on Red Warnings

TG Pedestrian Advance Walk

CS

CX

AR

AA

DW

DN

TG

AC
158

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Figure 7-20: Urban “District” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CS Crossings at Signals

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AC Curb Extensions

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

CX

CS

AC

AA

AR
159

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure 7-21: Urban “City Center” Example Showing Typical Pedestrian Improvements

CT Raised Crosswalk / Speed Table

CS Crossings at Signals

CY Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs

CM Mid-block Crossing

CX Crosswalk Stripes

AA Universal Access Ramps

AR Reduced Radius Corners

DP Pedestrian Only Crossing - Standard Signals

TG Pedestrian Advance Walk

CT

CS

CY

CM

CX

AA

AR DP

TG
160

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

It does not take a lot to make a walkable location, just attention 

to detail and safety. Photo source: Dan Burden

7.6 IMPLEMENTATION: PROJECTSCALED STEPS

The pedestrian network can sometimes be improved 

with low-cost solutions that can easily and quickly 

be implemented. Some may result in lasting changes, whereas others may serve as an interim step to 

experiment with design concepts until more permanent solutions can be constructed. Lighter, quicker, 

cheaper (LQC) features can also involve people in 

the community to help with installation. Implementation ideas that do not require a high degree of traffic engineering analysis, environmental review, political approvals, public vetting, or cost are included in 

this category. The assumption for these implementation ideas is that a project-level improvement for 

a residential, institutional, mixed-use, retail, or employment facility is proposed by a developer, public 

or private. The construction of the project is likely to 

attract a fair number of residents, students, customers, or employees. Therefore, the applicant should 

consider what can be done specifically by the project, assuming that items that are too far away from 

the project site will be difficult to show a nexus that 

requires contribution by the applicant. 

The following exemplifies LQC enhancements— 

• Make the project itself as walkable as possible, 

including making the connections and offering 

the site as part of the pedestrian network. 

• Solve the existing pedestrian problems immediately surrounding the site. These may include 

difficult crossings, incomplete connections, excessive distances between controlled intersections, ADA compliance issues, and maintenance 

problems with walking surfaces. 

• Look at making better connections in the general neighborhood or district, especially related to 

safe routes to school and to transit. 

• If the project site is larger, provide mid-block or 

midproject walkway improvements that provide 

shortcuts to project tenants, employees, visitors, 

and the general public.

• Provide a great walking environment next to the 

project. This would include full development 

and proper design of the four areas of the walking environment (curb line, furnishing zone, 

pedestrian zone, and building frontage zone). 

Street trees, lighting, public art, and street furniture are all contributors to improving the walking environment.

• Provide adequate lighting to make the immediate project site area is walkable at night as well as 

during the day. 

• Work cooperatively with the approving agency 

for the interconnection of on site, near-site, and 

off site improvements that other grants, projects, 

or agencies can extend toward the project site, 

while the project tries to improve what is in their 

control toward these connections.

• Upgrade the intersections around the project 

site, not only for increased traffic flow and on 

street parking but for pedestrian crossings.

7.7 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT 

RESOURCES TO CONSIDER

For more information on land use planning, please 

consult the following foundational documents.

FHWA:

• Bike/Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure

• Creating Safer Communities for Walking/Biking (2015)

• List of Online Reports and Technical Publications

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2012)

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

• Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies (2008) 

AASHTO:

• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)

ITE:

• Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares (2010)

OTHERS:

• Complete Streets Best Policies and Implementation Practices (2010/Annual)

• LEED for Neighborhood Development (2014)

• Model Design Manual for Living Streets (2011)

• NCHRP Project 20-7 (232): ADA Transition Plans: Guide 

to Best Practices

• NCHRP Project 3-62: Guidelines for Accessible Pedestrian Signals

• 2010 ADA Standards: 28 CFR Part 35; 49 CFR Parts 27 

and 37

• 2011 PROWAG 

• 2013 SNPRM
 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

161

Safe routes to school identifies walking routes to school and 

makes safety improvements to them. Photo source: City of 

Jackson, Michigan

7.8 CASE STUDY: JACKSON, 

MICHIGAN

In 2003, Jackson, Michigan started active-living 

interventions to help solve the low physical activity levels of residents. The small midwestern 

city employed a three-prong community intervention, utilizing the “5P” model to increase safe 

physical activity opportunities and encourage 

walking and biking for short trips. The interventions were targeted at three levels: (1) elementary 

schools; (2) worksites; and (3) citywide networks. 

In 2009, an academic study, including pre-intervention and post-intervention research, was conducted.2

 The 2009 study provides compelling evidence for the success of Jackson’s strategies and is 

the basis of this case study.

7.8.1 City and Demographic Background4

The City of Jackson is located in the south central area of Michigan and is the county seat of 

Jackson County. It is roughly 40 miles west of 

Ann Arbor and 35 miles south of Lansing. The 

city measures roughly 11 square miles and has 

a population density of roughly 3,085 persons 

per square mile. As of the 2010 census, it had a 

population of 33,534. As of the 2010 census, the 

racial makeup of the city was 71.4 percent White, 

20.4 percent African-American, 0.4 percent Native American, 0.7 percent Asian, 1.6 percent 

from other races, and 5.5 percent from two or 

more races. A relatively large share of Jackson’s 

population (59.5 percent) is considered to be 

low to moderate income (LMI). Cited barriers to 

active transportation in Jackson include Michigan’s four-season climate and the area’s strong 

auto-oriented history and culture. The three major private employers in the City of Jackson are a 

hospital, a gas and electric company and a power management company. The 2009 publication 

notes the lack of a centrally located university or 

other conventionally bike/walk-friendly industry as a barrier to active transportation.

Importantly, the City of Jackson, MI has an exceptional record of overweight and obesity. At 

the time of the 2009 paper’s publication, the state 

of Michigan had been among the top 10 heaviest 

states for the past 14 years. In 2009, overweight 

and obesity statistics for Jackson residents mirrored that of the state (62 percent of adults were 

overweight and obese, 11 percent of high school 

students were overweight, and 13 percent were 

at-risk for being overweight).4 In 2009, Jackson’s rates of heart disease were on par with the 

State of Michigan at 252.5 cases per 100,000, and 

Jackson County’s rate of diabetes-related deaths, 

118.7/100,000, were far worse than the state’s average of 88/100,000.5

 Contributing to all of the 

health problems, the 2009 report stated, was a 

low rate of physical activity. Indeed, a 2006 survey completed by the United Way of Jackson 

County found that 30 percent of Jackson County 

respondents indicated that they had not exercised at all during the past month.6

It is interesting to note that Michigan is currently ranked the 15th heaviest state. This mild improvement may be, in part, due to interventions 

similar to those employed in Jackson. (Unfortunately, the comprehensive 2010 Report of the 

Office of Michigan Surgeon General has not 

since been updated.)

7.8.2 General Approach 

The city of Jackson is unique because of its background and its approach. Unlike communities 

well known for their walkability (e.g. Berkeley, 

California; Madison, Wisconsin; and Ann Arbor, Michigan), Jackson, according to the 2009 

report, was “a blue-collar, industry-based city 

without a history of advocacy in active transportation.” Despite its “late start,” Jackson made 

significant strides in 2003 by employing a multipronged approach. Jackson’s approach to increasing physical activity was unique for focusing on 

infrastructure in addition to the typical encouragement programs. Although the health benefits 

of walking and biking are well documented,7 research and understanding of the role of the built 

environment in promoting biking and walking has been historically lacking in the United 

States.8 Several studies have revealed that a significant share of the population feels unsafe because of traffic conditions. The Jackson approach 

is an acknowledgment that encouragement alone 

is insufficient to change behavior and positively 

impact health outcomes. 
CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

162

There was general agreement in Jackson that 

although encouragement programs were successful for the limited number of individuals 

enrolled in the programs, the community was 

ready to try a more widespread intervention 

with the potential to affect a greater number 

of community members. A partnership (the 

Walkable Communities Task Force)—comprising 20 members from the city engineering 

department, road commission, public health 

department, local hospital, public school administration, local bicycle club, and a variety 

of other service organizations—was formed 

to generate ideas for interventions and to seek 

funding opportunities. In 2003, Jackson was selected as 1 of 25 communities in the nation to 

receive the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s 

“Active Living by Design” grant. Soon after, the 

partnership developed its strategy. 

7.8.3 Methods 

The partnership decided that it would employ a 

combination of programs and projects and that 

it would target interventions to two different 

audiences. The Jackson project utilized Active 

Living by Design 5P model, which includes the 

following focus areas: preparation, promotion, 

programs, physical projects, and policy. The 5P 

model calls on multidisciplinary expertise from 

the fields of public health, planning, engineering, and education. The two target audiences 

for the 5P interventions included elementary 

school children (grades K–6), and working-age 

adults. Elementary school children were chosen 

as a target group because of the strong availability of state and national Safe Routes to School 

support, and because of the ability of such interventions to reach both students and parents.9

The intervention goal for this population was 

to increase walking and biking trips among elementary school children by at least 30 percent 

in 5 years. Working-age adults were selected 

because of the availability of national resources for programs such as Bike-to-Work day and 

other employment-sponsored health programs. 

The intervention goal for this population was 

to increase the number of working-age adults 

walking or biking for their short trips (less than 

5 miles) by 50 percent in 5 years.

Table 7-5 summarizes the 5Ps, or intervention 

types; the purpose of each intervention type; 

and the exact intervention used for each target 

audience. 

Table 7-3: 5P Intervention Types TARGET AUDIENCE

INTERVENTION 

TYPE

PURPOSE OF 

INTERVENTION

ELEMENTARY 

SCHOOL CHILDREN

WORKING-AGE 

ADULTS

OVERALL 

COMMUNITY 

LEVEL

PREPARATION

Develop a multidisciplinary partnership to 

oversee the project

Develop grassroots 

‘Safe Routes to 

School’ teams at 

each school

Form leadership 

teams at worksites

Form ‘Walkable 

Communities’ 

Task Force

PROMOTIONAL

Generate interest in 

walkability

Earn media attention 

Introduce individuals 

to “Try-it-Out” events

Walk to School Day Smart Commute Day

Create project 

specific website 

and published 

newsletter

PROGRAMS

Go beyond short term 

promotion

Encourage long-term 

increases in physical 

activity

Safe Routes to 

School

Foot Energy11

Michigan Prisoner Re- entry Initiative bikes 

program

Produced first 

Jackson area 

bike map in 20 

years

PHYSICAL 

PROJECTS

Improve the safety 

and convenience of 

walking and biking in 

the City of Jackson

Variety of improvements to make walking to school saferBike lanes, Bike route 

signage, Bus bike 

carriers

None listed

POLICY

Create policies that 

could lead to long-term, 

sustainable, change

School District Wellness Policy

Media campaign to 

raise support for bike 

lanes

Complete 

Streets Policy
 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

163

7.8.4 Results 

The results of Jackson’s 5P Model approach 

show positive changes in attitudes toward active 

transportation, intentions to try active transportation, and, most importantly, actual physical activity. The impacts of preparation and policy interventions are anecdotal and not directly 

tied to active transportation outcomes, so they 

have been excluded from this discussion.10 Promotional, program, and physical project interventions were found to have direct and measurable impacts on walking and biking. Highlights 

of these impacts follow.

Promotion 

1) Walk to School Day: Participation increased 

from 650 student participants in 2004 to 1,254 

participants in 2007.

2) Smart Commute Day: Smart Commute Day 

participation increased 102 percent in 3 years, 

and more than 80 percent of people said the 

event “would” or “might” increase the probability of them smart commuting in the future.

3) Variety of improvements to make walking to 

school safer: Website hits increased 300 percent. 

Publication of quarterly newsletter since 2005.

Programs

1) Safe Routes to School:

• Established Safe Routes to School programs 

grew from one school in 2004 to seven in 

2007.

• The percentage of the student body walking 

to school doubled at three of the four participating schools.

2) Foot Energy and Michigan Prisoner Reentry 

Initiative bikes program:11

• This organization established a worksite pilot “company bikes program.” 

3) The prisoner reentry program had 16 participants in the first 3 months.

• Jackson produced its first area bike map in 

20 years; nearly 9,000 maps were distributed in 2006–07.

Physical Projects

1) A variety of improvements were made to make 

walking to school safer: sidewalks, crosswalks, 

and signage was installed around four elementary schools.

2) Bike lanes, bike route signage, and bus bike 

carriers were added: 6.5 miles of new bike lanes 

were constructed, 12 bus bike carriers were 

installed (for the entire fleet), and signs were 

posted on all bike routes.

7.8.5 Conclusions From Case Study 

The 2009 study was merely observational. Data 

limitations and the inclusion of possibly confounding variables prevent the formulation of 

causal relationships. Nonetheless, the Jackson 

experience indicates the effectiveness of local 

community-driven projects, which utilize a variety of interventions, to increase walking and 

biking. The unusually high degree of success 

across the various target audiences in Jackson 

seems to point to the particular effectiveness 

of including infrastructure improvements in 

promoting physical activity. The Jackson experience also indicates the importance of identifying a clear lead organization or partnership to 

help initiate and manage such a project. 

To date, the City of Jackson is continuing efforts 

to promote walking, biking, and community 

health. The Walkable Communities Task Force 

currently functions as an advisory board to the 

City Council. The city also has a list of ongoing pedestrian and bicycle improvements, many 

of which were presumably generated by the 

Walkable Communities Task Force, the 2003 

grant-funded 5P project and related projects. 

Jackson can serve as a source of inspiration for 

many reading this design manual. In the words 

of the 2009 report, “If a small city with winter 

weather, in the heart of automotive country can 

rally support and enthusiasm for this important 

mission, many other communities nationwide 

should join in the call to create active, healthy 

places for their citizens to live as well.”

Pedestrian improvements in Downtown Jackson, Michigan. 

Photo source: Google Earth
164

CHAPTER 7 | PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

NOTES:

1 Federal Highway Administration. 2003. A Review of 

Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and 

Abroad.

2 http://www.humankinetics.com/acucustom/

sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/17541.pdf.

3 Some city and demographic information has changed 

since the 2009 study. This summary will report current information and reference 2009 figures only 

where relevant and interesting to this case study.

4 Office of Michigan Surgeon General. 2004. Michigan Surgeon General’s Health Status Report: Healthy 

Michigan 2010. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department 

of Community Health.

5 Jackson County Health Department. 2006. 2006 Annual Report. Jackson, MI.

6 Jackson County United Way. 2006. 2006 Jackson 

Community Report Card. Jackson, MI.

7 http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dch/pdf/HealthEquityGuide.pdf.

8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12948971.

9 Staunton C.E., D. Hubsmith, and W. . 2003. “Promoting Safe Walking and Biking to School: The Marin 

County Success Story.” American Journal of Public 

Health, 93 (9): 1431–34.

10 Full results can be viewed in the full paper, on which 

this case study is based.

11 The Foot Energy Program consisted of individualized 

maps and active transportation plans for workers; 

workplace active transportation improvements (e.g. 

lockers, bike racks); and a “Company Bikes” program.
CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION 

FRAMEWORK

8.1 LOCAL AGENCY: ADOPTION OF PRINCIPLES . . . . 166

8.2 IMPLEMENTATION: BIKEWAY NETWORKS . . . . . . 167

8.3 PROGRAMS: CYCLING & WALKING.............. 168

8.4 HUD SUPPORT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 

GRANT PROGRAM ................................ 172

8.5 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO 

CONSIDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

165

Planning, Design or Engineering 

Consultants

Local Elected Officials 

and Review Staff

Federal, State and 

Regional Regulators

Advocate 

Organizations

Providing 

Entities

Decision 

Makers

USER LEGEND

Smart Growth 

Advocates

Mobility Choice 

Advocates

Developers, Financial 

Institutions

Housing Providers and 

Institutions

Health and Safety 

Advocates

Housing 

Advocates

Local Agency Planners 

and Engineers
166

CHAPTER 8 | IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

Streets are for people and for the daily activities that are the heart and soul of our communities. Photo source: BlueZone

The intent of this chapter is to discuss various ways 

in which an organization can implement projects, 

policies, or programs that will result in a larger 

quantity and higher quality of walking and biking facilities. It also discusses methods in which 

HUD can take a supporting role or, in some cases, 

a leadership role that may encourage the implementation of these guidelines. 

8.1 LOCAL AGENCY: ADOPTION 

OF PRINCIPLES

Cities and communities may wish to incorporate 

these principles when wishing to create walkable 

and bikeable communities. This may be best accomplished by integrating these principles with 

other policies, plans, and regulatory frameworks. 

8.1.1 Use This Guide on a Project Basis

A city wishing to use this guide, but unwilling or 

unable to incorporate it in a systemic manner, may 

be able to use it for a specific project. This approach 

has the benefit of easy implementation. Much of 

the information provided in this guide can be applied to a given project without requiring general 

plan amendments or other significant undertakings. This approach has the drawback of being only 

a one-time benefit. Projects designed and implemented using this guide may reflect best practices 

in bicycle and pedestrian planning but do little to 

influence the overall transportation system over a 

long period of time. Notably, however, efforts to 

implement projects using this guide may highlight 

systemic, citywide walkability/bikeability issues (i.e. 

general plan guidance that dictates greater-than12-foot travel lanes on all city streets, thereby inducing vehicle speeding and inhibiting the creation 

of bicycle lanes). Identification of these issues may 

catalyze more fundamental changes. 

8.1.2 Use This Guide for “Complete 

Streets” and “Routine Accommodation” 

Ordinances

The adoption of a complete streets or routine accommodation ordinance represents a more aggressive integration of walking and biking into a 

city’s overall transportation system. A complete 

streets ordinance ensures that transportation systems are planned and designed for all users, regardless of travel mode, age, or physical ability. A 

routine accommodation ordinance typically ensures that pedestrian and bicycle accommodation 

for all new streets and all major street reconstruction is provided routinely. This guide may be used 

to provide increased definition to these relatively 

high-level ordinances. They can describe what is 

specifically meant by appropriate bicycle and pedestrian accommodation and what is required to 

build a complete street. Major strengths of these 

approaches are that they address the creation of 

networks and the importance of routinely accommodating pedestrians and cyclists. Drawbacks to 

these approaches include their slower timetable 

(i.e. ordinances must be fully vetted and adopted before generating projects) and their potential 

lack of influence on the city as a whole (i.e. complete streets ordinances may identify only certain 

streets, and routine accommodation ordinances 

apply only to new and reconstructed streets). 

8.1.3 Use This Guide for General 

Plan Amendments and Development 

Regulations 

This guide may be used to inform general plan 

amendments and developer regulations. Doing so 

represents the most aggressive—but also the most 

effective—means of fostering a pedestrian- and 

bicycle-friendly community. Pursuing a general 

plan amendment or overhauling developer regulations is the most aggressive approach because it 

considers bicycle and pedestrian accommodation 

not just as an added benefit but as integral to the 

transportation system. By and large, most general plan transportation or circulation elements in 

American cities are automobile oriented and treat 

bicycle and pedestrian accommodation as afterthoughts. Amending a general plan or updating 

developer regulations presents an opportunity to 

look at city streets as public spaces, places to accommodate all modes of transportation, and even 

places to be re-purposed for “higher” uses (e.g. 

pedestrian malls, “woonerven,” etc.). The primary drawback to these approaches is the amount of 

time required to make these changes. This is due 

to not only the generally slow planning and regulatory processes but also the inevitable political 

opposition involved in fundamentally changing 

transportation planning and practice. 
167

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | IDEA TOOLS

8.2 IMPLEMENTATION: BIKEWAY 

NETWORKS 

Implementation of a bikeway network often requires 

an implementation plan. Some bikeways—such as 

paths, bicycle boulevards, and other innovative techniques described in this guide—will require a capital 

improvement project process, including identifying 

funding, a public and environmental review process, 

and plan preparation. Other bikeway improvements 

piggyback onto planned construction, such as resurfacing, reconstruction, or utility work.

The majority of bikeway facilities are provided on 

streets in the form of shared roadways or bicycle 

lanes. Shared roadways usually require virtually no 

change to existing roadways except for some directional signs, occasional markings, and minor changes in traffic control devices; removing unnecessary 

centerline stripes is a strategy that can be implemented after resurfacing projects. Striped bike lanes are 

implemented on existing roads through use of the 

following strategies.

For further information on the following topics, see 

relevant FHWA documents— 

• Road Diet Informational Guide.

• Workbook for Building On-Road Bicycle Networks 

through Resurfacing Projects.

8.2.1 Bike Facilities Added as Part of 

Resurfacing 

The cost of striping bicycle lanes is negligible when 

incorporated with resurfacing, as this avoids the high 

cost of stripe removal; the fresh pavement provides a 

blank slate. Jurisdictions will need to anticipate opportunities and synchronize restriping plans with 

repaving and reconstruction plans. If new pavement 

is not anticipated in the near future, grinding out the 

old lane lines can still provide bike lanes. 

There are three ways of finding room for bike lanes.

Lane Diets

Where all existing or planned travel lanes must be 

retained, travel lanes can be narrowed to provide 

space for bike lanes. Recent studies have indicated 

that the use of 10-foot travel lanes does not result 

in decreased safety in comparison with wider lanes 

for vehicle speeds up to 35 miles per hour.1 Especially on streets where trucks and buses frequently run, 11-foot lanes can be used satisfactorily at 

higher speeds. Where a choice between a 6-foot 

bike lane and an 11-foot travel lane must be made, 

however, it is usually preferable to have the 6-foot 

bike lane. Parking lanes can also be narrowed to 7 

feet to create space for bike lanes.

Road Diets

Reducing the number of travel lanes provides space 

for bicycle lanes. Many streets have more space for 

vehicular traffic than is necessary. Some streets 

may require a traffic and/or environmental analysis to determine whether additional needs or impacts may be anticipated. The traditional road diet 

changes a four-lane undivided street to two travel 

lanes, a continuous left-turn lane (or median), and 

bike lanes. In other cases, a four-lane street can be 

reduced to a two-lane street without a center turn 

lane if there are few left turn movements. One-way 

couplets are good lane-reduction candidates if they 

have more travel lanes in one direction than are 

necessary for the traffic volumes. Because only one 

bike lane is needed on a one-way street, removing a 

travel lane can free enough room for other features, 

such as on street parking or wider sidewalks. Both 

legs of a couplet must be treated equally so there is 

a bike lane in each direction. 

Parking Removal 

On street parking is vital on certain streets (such 

as in residential or traditional central business districts with little or no off-street parking), but other 

streets have allowable parking without a significant visible demand. In these cases, parking prohibition can be used to provide bike lanes, with 

minimal public inconvenience. 

8.2.2 Bike Facilities Added as Part of 

Utility Work

Utility work often requires reconstructing the 

street surface to complete restoration work. This 

provides opportunities to implement bike lanes 

and more complex bikeways, such as bike boulevards, separated bike lanes, or paths. It is necessary to provide plans for proper implementation 

and design of bikeway facilities prior to the utility 

work. It is equally necessary to ensure that existing bikeways are replaced where they exist prior to 

utility construction.

8.2.3 Bike Facilities Added as Part of 

Development Projects

When streets are slated for reconstruction in conjunction with redevelopment, opportunities exist 

to integrate bicycle lanes or other facilities into the 

redevelopment plans. 
168

CHAPTER 8 | IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

Many roadways are wider than needed for vehicular travel and 

can be reclaimed for other uses. Photo source: BlueZone

8.2.4 Bike Facilities Added as Paved 

Shoulders

Adding paved shoulders to existing roads can be 

expensive if done as standalone, capital improvement projects, especially if ditch lines have to be 

moved or if open drains are changed to enclosed 

drains. Paved shoulders can be added at little cost, 

however, if they are incorporated into projects that 

already disturb the ground beyond the pavement, 

such as laying utility lines or drainage work. 

8.2.5 Bike Facilities Implemented Using 

Lighter, Quicker, and Cheaper Methods

Many treatments for adding bikeways to streets 

simply involve paint (or thermoplastic) and signs, 

which are not expensive compared to structural 

changes. The least expensive way to make these 

changes is to install them with resurfacing of 

streets. Separated bike lanes can involve more expense, but this can also be minimized through use 

of planters, pylons, rubber parking stops, and similar other devices to provide the physical protection. For additional examples of lighter, quicker, 

and cheaper methods, see chapters 6 and 7 (Bikeway Planning and Design, and Pedestrian Design 

Principles, respectively).

8.3 IMPLEMENTATION 

PROGRAMS: CYCLING AND WALKING 

This section comprises a diverse menu of programs 

intended to support increased bicycling and walking. Due to a long history of routine accommodation for pedestrians (i.e. sidewalks, crosswalks, 

dedicated signals), programs targeting walking 

are relatively uncommon. Conversely, the historic lack of routine accommodation for cyclists has 

fostered confusion about the role of bicycles in the 

overall transportation system and has necessitated 

an impressive diversity and breadth of bicycle-related programs. Despite a likely emphasis on programming and less on projects, bicycle programs 

remain an important element of successful bicycle 

planning. The following sections offer some background on the changing “state of practice” in bicycle programming—namely, the increased integration of programs and projects—culminating in 

a comprehensive menu of bicycle and pedestrian 

programs.

8.3.1 Evolving the State of Practice in 

Bicycle Programs 

There has been a shift away from the traditional, 

compartmentalized “Five E’s’” approach developed by the League of American Bicyclists (engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, 

and evaluation and planning) and toward a fully 

integrated, complementary menu of initiatives. By 

offering a menu of initiatives, rather than a prescriptive list, active transportation programming 

can more accurately address the existing conditions and desired outcomes of a given context. 

In addition to changes in the content and organization of active transportation programs, there 

has also been a shift in implementation strategies. 

Programs are increasingly targeted at specific project areas, in conjunction with the construction of 

bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. The implementation of a capital project presents a unique 

opportunity to promote a city’s active transportation system and cycling and walking as attractive 

transportation options. Projects, or engineering, 

represent the most visible and perhaps most tangible evidence of a great place for bicycling. The 

same can be said for walking. A new bicycle facility 

attracts attention of cyclists and non-cyclists alike. 

As such, it represents a great opportunity to reach 

out to the “interested, but concerned” within the 

neighborhood. The effect on this target group will 

be strongest by directly linking facility improvements and supportive programs. In this way, bundling bicycle programs with projects represents a 

much higher return on investment for both. 

Recommended programs are organized as a menu 

of initiatives, each listed under a broad category— 

1. Education/encouragement/marketing. 

2. Education/enforcement. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation. 
169

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | IDEA TOOLS

Safety should be in front of other efforts when making our 

communities bikeable and walkable. Photo source: BlueZone

8.3.2 Education/Encouragement/

Marketing

Smart Trips Program Bundle

Smart Trips is a generic name for community-based transportation demand management 

(TDM) programs that provide tools and incentives to make cycling (and often, walking, ridesharing, and transit) the preferred mode for particular trips. Traditionally, TDM programs are 

implemented as employer-based programs targeting the commute trip. Smart Trips are intended to 

complement efforts aimed at commuting behavior 

by targeting other household trips. Implementation of a variety of initiatives, leveraged as part of 

a Smart Trips program and delivered as a “bundle,” has been important to the success of Smart 

Trips programs in other cities. The bundled delivery of Smart Trips initiatives (initiatives a through 

e, described in the following sections) allows for 

the saturation of a target audience within a target 

neighborhood and has been instrumental in maximizing limited outreach dollars. 

Street Smarts Classes and Bicycle Ambassador 

Programs

This initiative promotes safe bicycling through 

community-based outreach, which helps bridge 

the gap between people who want to start riding 

and the availability of opportunities to help people 

learn to bike safely. Ideally, safety would be taught 

through bike safety courses delivered at a cycling 

education center (described subsequently) and on 

city streets, as appropriate. 

Bicycle Friendly Businesses and Districts

Cities can promote the League of American Bicyclists’ (LAB) Bicycle Friendly Business program 

among local businesses to encourage cycling by 

their employees and customers. Businesses then 

use their bike friendliness as part of marketing. 

Bicycle Friendly Business Districts combine the 

efforts of individual businesses to offer a more 

supportive and coherent cycling environment. 

Community Bike Programs

Community bike programs, also known as bike 

kitchens, are commonly formed as grassroots initiatives by community members within low-income and underserved communities to provide 

bicycles, helmets, maintenance, and safety instruction to people as a means of expanding their 

transportation options and providing people better access to work and services.

Events—Bike Month 

Proclaim May as Bike Month, and participate in 

Bike to Work Week events. Host pit stops during 

Bike to Work Weeks and Days. To increase encouragement, host Bike to Work days more often, 

such as monthly. Promote Bike Month or monthly 

Bike to Work days heavily within Smart Trips target areas and among target populations. 

Safe Routes to School Program 

Successful Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs 

not only provide encouragement and support for 

walking and cycling but address legitimate safety 

concerns of many parents. SRTS programs tackle 

safety issues through education and infrastructure 

improvements. Wherever possible, SRTS efforts 

should be integrated into the larger processes of 

planning and project implementation. Best practices in SRTS education programs combine more 

traditional print media and classroom tactics with 

experiential courses and clinics.2 Ideally, SRTS 

programs could partner with a traffic garden (discussed subsequently) to offer more comprehensive 

traffic safety education, teaching children the fundamental rules and responsibilities of all modes.

SRTS efforts for infrastructure improvement are 

unique in their incorporation of youth perspectives. Youth are encouraged to participate at all 

phases and even to serve as a Safe Routes to School 

liaisons. Funding may be available through additional Safe Routes to School grants, available at 

both the federal and state level. This funding can be 

used for a variety of activities, including site-specific evaluation and planning, infrastructure costs, 

and education programs. Assistance with funding 

applications and program facilitation is available 

from local nonprofits. More information can be 

found at http://www.saferoutesinfo.org.
170

CHAPTER 8 | IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

Walk and Bike to school days can teach mobility options and 

safety at a young age. Photo source: BlueZone

Promote the Walking School Bus3 and Bicycle Train

These are volunteer-based programs in which 

children are chaperoned by adults as they walk or 

bike to school. Parents often cite safety issues as 

one of the primary reasons they are reluctant to allow their children to walk or ride a bike to school. 

Providing adult supervision may help reduce 

those worries for families who live within walking 

or bicycling distance to school. These programs 

and volunteer efforts require coordination and 

potential attention to other issues, such as safety 

training and liability. 

Participate in Walk and Bike to School Day

This one-day event in October is an international 

effort in more than 40 countries to celebrate the 

many benefits of safely walking and bicycling to 

school. Walking and rolling to school embodies 

the two main goals of First Lady Michelle Obama’s 

Let’s Move! campaign: to increase the physical 

activity of kids and to empower parents to make 

these kinds of healthy choices. The National Center for Safe Routes to School, which serves as the 

clearinghouse for the federal Safe Routes to School 

(SRTS) program, coordinates on-line registration 

efforts and provides technical support and resources for Walk to School Day. For more information, go to www.walktoschool.org.

Cycling/Pedestrian Education Center 

A cycling/pedestrian education center would serve 

as a clearinghouse for cyclist and pedestrian educational materials—electronic and printed—and 

host a variety of courses. Course material would 

be bike and pedestrian specific and, in the case of 

the traffic garden (described in the next section), 

cover general mobility. 

Build and Operate a Traffic Garden 

Traffic gardens are mini-streetscapes where elementary-age children operate pedal-powered vehicles. The goal is to teach them how to be responsible roadway users. They have been a fixture in 

European cities for decades and, by some accounts, 

exist in several U.S. cities as “Safety Towns.” Traffic 

gardens are likely the most powerful educational 

tool because they are experiential and they require 

participants to experience the roadway through 

all modes. Education efforts aimed at understanding the “other” modes would be far less necessary 

if everyone used each mode from time to time. 

Barring this reality, traffic gardens offer a great 

simulation. The 2009 International Scan Team, a 

federally sponsored delegation of pedestrian and 

bicycle professionals, was so impressed with traffic 

gardens that they included traffic gardens in their 

official policy recommendations. 

Building Awareness of Cycling as a Safe and 

Common Mobility Option Through Marketing 

Campaigns

Marketing is about more than advertising; communication and promotion play important roles. 

For people to see bicycling as a desirable mode 

choice and pay attention to safety, they need to be 

engaged through effective marketing. More-engaged people will have a twofold effect— 

• It will lead to more people riding bikes.

• It will lead to more-aware bicyclists, drivers, and 

pedestrians and to more people who care about 

bike safety.4

Typical marketing campaigns, especially those 

initiated by government agencies, tend to be information laden and uninspiring. Lessons from 

the field of marketing point to the proven effectiveness of positive messages.5

 Positive messages 

will inspire people and get more of them to ride. 

The objective is not to get everybody to ride bicycles all of the time but rather to target those who 

are most ready to change. Messages should inspire 

people to move from “might” to “sometimes” and 

from “sometimes” to “often.”

Host an Open Streets Event

Open Streets events are celebrations of livable 

streets and communities, encouraging citizens 

and businesses to get out in the street and enjoy 

their city through active participation. In Open 

Streets events, the street is closed to automobiles 

for use by people and non-motorized transportation. Bogotá, Colombia, often is credited with 

starting Open Streets events (called Ciclovías 

there), but they have gained considerable popularity in the United States in the past 5 years. For 

more information on Open Streets events, visit 

http://openstreetsproject.org/. 
171

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | IDEA TOOLS

8.3.3 Education and Enforcement

Designate a Police Department Liaison 

Responsible for Cycling and Pedestrian Issues

This liaison would perform the important function 

of communication between the law enforcement 

agency and the community. The liaison would be 

in charge of the supplemental education of fellow 

officers regarding pedestrian and bicycling rules, 

etiquette, and behavior. The liaison could be the 

same person as the referee for the traffic garden.

Targeted Enforcement

Targeted enforcement at locations of demonstrated bicycle and pedestrian issues is an effective way 

to expand motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian education. Targeted enforcement may be expanded to 

warn and educate those stopped about laws, rules 

of the road, and safety procedures. This could be 

in the form of a brochure or tip card explaining 

each user’s rights and responsibilities. 

8.3.4 Monitoring and Evaluation

Create a City Staff Bicycle/Pedestrian 

Coordinator Position

The creation of a bicycle/pedestrian coordinator position6

 would demonstrate commitment 

to walking, cycling, and creating more complete 

streets. The position of a coordinator or program 

manager can help coordinate between different 

city departments to ensure consistency and cooperation in planning projects. A coordinator would 

manage programs and implement projects listed 

in city plans.

Support a Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory 

Committee 

A bicycle/pedestrian advisory committee (BPAC) 

assists cities with the implementation of plans, 

projects, policies, and programs. A BPAC allows 

city staff, volunteers, and bicycle advocates to continue efforts to improve cycling throughout their 

city. This group acts as a community liaison and 

addresses issues concerning local cycling. The 

BPAC can review the implementation and regularly evaluate the progress of adopted master 

plans. City support for creating the committee and 

for budgeting time and resources for city staff and 

elected officials to attend and support these meetings is recommended.

Conduct Cyclist and Pedestrian Counts and 

Review Collision Data

Conduct regular cyclist and pedestrian counts to 

determine baseline mode share and subsequent 

changes. This assists in prioritizing and justifying projects when funding is solicited and received. Counts can also be used to study cycling 

and walking trends. Counts should be conducted 

at the same locations and at the same times every 

year. Conducting counts during different seasons 

within the year may be beneficial to understanding the differences in bike and pedestrian traffic 

volume based on weather. Results of the number 

of cyclists should be regularly recorded for inclusion in the bicycle report card.

Establish a Process for Referrals to Law 

Enforcement

Design a communication process that encourages 

students and parents to notify schools and police 

of the occurrence of a crash or near miss during 

school commute trips involving auto, bus, pedestrian, or bicycle transportation. Include in this reporting system not only the police department but 

also the traffic safety commission, the planning 

department, and SRTS stakeholders to help better 

use the data generated. 

Develop a Bicycle/Pedestrian Report Card

Develop a bicycle/pedestrian report card, a checklist used to measure the success of plan implementation as well as any effort made. The report 

card could be used to identify the magnitude of 

accomplishments in the previous year and general 

trends. The bicycle/pedestrian report card could 

include, but not be limited to, the following categories—

• System completion.

• Travel by bicycle or on foot (counts).

• Safety.

The report card could be developed to utilize information collected as part of annual and ongoing 

evaluations, as discussed in the previous sections. 

The report card is not intended to be an additional 

task for city staff but rather a means of documenting and publicizing7

 efforts related to bicycle and 

pedestrian planning. If a bicycle/pedestrian advisory committee is appointed, it can be a task of the 

committee to review the report cards and adjust 

future plans and goals accordingly. 
172

CHAPTER 8 | IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

Traffic garden. Photo source: Alison Moss 

8.4 HUD SUPPORT: COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 

PROGRAM (CDBG)

One way in which communities may implement 

the tools presented in this guide is to take advantage of HUD’s existing support for creating 

walkable and bikeable communities through its 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

program. Although decisions on how to spend 

CDBG resources are entirely local, this program 

is often used to fund infrastructure: typically, state 

recipients spend upwards of 50 percent of their 

CDBG allocation, and local entitlement jurisdictions spend around 10 percent, on infrastructure. 

HUD would like to actively support infrastructure 

expenditures with this guide, which can a serve 

as a resource for community leaders—and other 

document users—to better understand not only 

best practices in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure but also the street network and land use contexts needed to support them.

State and local governments can further support 

walkable and bikeable communities by adjusting 

their funding award process or infrastructure 

budgeting process funds to include any or all of 

the guidelines found within this document. For 

example, a state or local government that uses 

a competitive process could incorporate bonus 

points based on the design guideline numbering 

system found in this document, which would reward an applicant for incorporating such design 

features into its proposed project.

8.5 RESOURCES: IMPORTANT 

RESOURCES TO CONSIDER

There are significant resources available through Internet research that will provide more current discussions on policies, standards, and best practices. 

These resources should be reviewed prior to making 

any decisions on planning, design, or engineering. 

The foundational documents listed in chapter 1 

should always be referenced first. Then, the references and research in appendix B should be consulted 

early. Finally, local documents and policies will always take precedence over the suggestions made in 

this document and should be thoroughly reviewed 

and integrated into any efforts toward making local 

communities more bikeable and walkable. 

Apply for Bicycle Friendly Community/

Neighborhood Designation

Bicycle Friendly Community/Neighborhood designation is part of an official program offered by the 

League of American Bicyclists (LAB) intended to 

provide communities with guidance on becoming 

more bicycle friendly and offer recognition for their 

achievements. Like the report card described previously, applying for Bicycle Friendly Community/

Neighborhood designation provides a standard by 

which cities may measure their progress. 

From the LAB website— 

“The Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) program 

provides a roadmap to improve conditions for bicycling and the guidance to make your distinct vision 

for a better, bikeable community a reality. A community recognized by the League as Bicycle Friendly welcomes bicyclists by providing safe accommodation.”

NOTES:

1 Potts, Ingrid, Douglas Harwood, and Karen Richard. 

2007. “Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban 

and Suburban Arterials.”

2 The Alameda County SRTS program offers the following array of education and safety programs: Educator Guides, Skills Drills Bicycle Safety Course, Bicycle Clinics, Bicycle Safety Certification Program, and 

Bikemobile, a mobile repair clinic.

3 www.walkingschoolbus.org.

4 http://bikepgh.org/care/.

5 Bikes Belong Foundation Safety Campaign Best Practices Report: www.bikesbelong.org

6 http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports.

7 The City of San Francisco publishes its bicycle report 

cards on-line: http://www.sfbike.org/?report card.
9.1 ASSESSMENT TOOLS: HOW TO USE THEM 

FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174

9.2 ASSESSMENT METRICS: MEASURING 

YOUR CURRENT OR FUTURE SUCCESSES. . . . . . . 176

9.3 APPROACH: DESCRIPTION OF METRICS TO 

USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177

9.4 OTHER INDICATORS: SUPPLEMENTS TO 

THE SELF-ASSESSMENT METRICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186

9.5 FINAL SCORES: INTERPRETATION OF 

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188

9.6 CASE STUDY: COLUMBIA, MISSOURI. . . . . . . . . . 189

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITY 

SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
174

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

Figure 9-1: Flow Chart - Which Approach Works Best? This chapter presents a Community Self-Assessment Tool that allows communities with varying 

levels of resources and expertise to assess their 

bikeability and walkability. A thorough assessment of walking and biking conditions provides 

an understanding of what is and is not working 

well to support a walkable and bikeable community. Aspects that are working well can be monitored 

to ensure that they continue to support walking 

and biking, and aspects that are lacking can be targeted for investment and improvement. A detailed 

example of the Self-Assessment Tool can be found 

in Appendix A.

The chapter begins with an overview of how to 

use the Self-Assessment Tool, including pre- and 

post-evaluation considerations, guidance on selecting analysis zones, and a brief listing of the 

self-assessment metrics and additional indicators 

for measuring and tracking walkability and bikeability. The next sections, Assessment Metrics: 

Measuring Your Current or Future Successes and 

Approach: Description of Metrics To Use, provide 

more detailed descriptions of the metrics and the 

approach options for measuring them, each followed by the approach methodologies. Finally, the 

Other Indicator: Supplements to the Self-Assessment Metrics section describes more walkability 

and bikeability measures that communities can 

track over time.

Because walkability and bikeability evaluation is 

important for communities of all sizes and with all 

levels of resources, this chapter provides multiple 

approaches to each metric. All approaches address 

the same underlying concept, but each requires a 

different level of resources and effort and results in a 

different level of measurement accuracy (table 9-1). 

The lowest-effort approach for each metric, called 

the fast-track approach, is highlighted throughout this document and described in detail, with 

a workbook to guide completion. The workbook 

provides detailed instructions on how to complete 

the fast-track approach for each metric. 

This fast-track approach is intended for communities with limited resources, including software, 

staff time, and planning-related skills. This approach is denoted throughout the document. The 

tradeoff of this approach, however, is a lower level 

of accuracy. 

If your community has the resources, time, and 

skill available, the alternative approaches will provide a greater level of accuracy. Detailed instructions for the more resource-intensive approaches 

can be found in appendix A. Use the flowchart to 

help guide the decision of what approach to use 

for each metric.

9.1 ASSESSMENT TOOLS: HOW TO 

USE THEM FOR YOUR COMMUNITY

This tool allows communities to evaluate their 

own walkability and bikeability by dividing their 

community into appropriate subareas, or analysis zones, calculating individual scores for various metrics, and then weighting and summing 

all metrics to determine an overall Community 

Self-Assessment Score. The tool also includes “Additional Indicators” that do not directly factor into 

the Community Self-Assessment Score but can be 

tracked over time to indicate progress toward a 

more walkable and bikeable community.
175

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

9.1.1 Preparation

To fill out this self-assessment, it is important to 

have an adequate understanding of the time and 

resources that will be required (table 9-2). The 

fast-track approach is expected to take about 8 

hours. It is possible for one individual to complete 

the fast-track approach; however, collaborating 

and crowdsourcing responses are encouraged. 

This collaboration helps create a dialogue on important community wide issues. Completing the 

assessment as a group also increases accuracy by 

bringing together various people’s experiences and 

skills. Metrics that are suitable for crowdsourcing 

are identified throughout this chapter. 

The self-assessment should be led by an individual 

who is invested in the bicycle or pedestrian quality 

of the community, such as a planner, intern, other 

city staff member, political leader, or active transportation advocate. Although one individual can 

feasibly complete the approach alone, it is recommended that the lead for the self-assessment seek 

the input of additional members of the community. This additional input can come from individuals currently involved in the field, but it may also 

come from those familiar with the community, 

including religious groups, neighborhood associations, and large employers. The remainder of this 

chapter will refer to this individual or group as the 

“self-assessment team.”

The only resources required for completing the designated fast-track approaches are 

a computer with Internet and Google Earth. 

Google Earth can be downloaded for free at 

earth.google.com/download-earth.html. 

9.1.2 Accompanying Documents

In addition to this chapter, the following two components will help your community complete this 

self-assessment—

Appendix A contains detailed instructions for all 

of the approaches for each metric. 

The Excel Worksheet allows you to enter the 

chosen weights, approaches, and scores for each 

analysis zone. The instruction tab will guide the 

self-assessment team in how to use this worksheet. 

The summary tab will autofill, based on your input 

scores, for each zone and summarize the results. 

This file is available as a separate downloadable 

Excel worksheet.

9.1.3 Walk- and Bicycle-Friendly 

Community Designations

This self-assessment is a complement of two national designation programs: the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community 

(BFC) and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center’s Walk Friendly Community (WFC). 

Both of these programs have an extensive application that is reviewed by a panel of experts who 

designate communities as honorable mention, 

bronze, silver, gold, or platinum (and diamond 

for BFC) ranking based on their level of walk- or 

bike-friendliness. Awards are also accompanied by 

feedback to help guide communities to reach the 

next ranking. Communities with a desire to seek 

national recognition for their accomplishments in 

creating a more walk- and bike-friendly community may choose to apply for these designations. 

This speech self-assessment can help communities 

with their application to these two programs. Metrics that directly correspond to each of these designations are identified throughout the document. 

The work done for these metrics can be used for 

your BFC or WFC application as well. 

The BFC and WFC programs cover all five Es of 

biking and walking—engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. This 

assessment is based solely on the engineering 

component of your community. This focus helps 

communities evaluate and improve the design of 

facilities and land uses. 

Figure 9-2: Metric Designations

Fast Track Approach

Crowdsourcing Approach

Bicycle Friendly Community 

Approach

Walk Friendly Community 

Approach
176

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

Figure 9-3: Analysis Zone Example: Carrboro, NC

9.1.4 Establish Analysis Zones

Communities applying the tool should consider their neighborhood’s size and characteristics 

to decide whether it is appropriate to divide the 

community into small analysis zones. The tool will 

then be applied to each analysis zone separately. 

Analysis zones will be determined by areas of the 

community that have similar characteristics based 

on local knowledge of factors such as street grid, 

land use, and urban form. Street typologies and 

vehicular speeds and volumes can also be used to 

draw boundaries between subareas, distinguishing between residential, commercial, and other 

land uses. 

There is no predefined size for an analysis zone. It 

will vary greatly depending on the street grid, distribution of land uses, and size of the community. 

In the example of analysis zones for the Town of 

Carrboro, North Carolina, the street grid and land 

uses help guide the creation of analysis zones. 

Analysis zones can vary in shape, and their size 

can range from a couple of blocks to 1 mile wide 

(figure 9-1).

9.1.5 Pre- and Post-Evaluation 

Conducting an assessment before implementing 

any of the guidance described in this document 

provides a baseline for comparison. This comparison allows community members, staff, and 

political leaders to track the progress of their 

community and help guide it to be more walkand bike-friendly. Once steps have been taken to 

improve the walking and biking environment, a 

post-evaluation should be conducted to measure 

the effect of the effort. For factors that may vary 

under different conditions, the post-evaluation 

should be conducted under conditions as comparable as possible to those during the pre-evaluation. Bicycle and pedestrian counts are the metric under Additional Indicators that will be most 

affected by the variation in factors. The following 

factors can be used to minimize variation:

• Duration—Determine the length of time 

that the metric or indicator is measured.

• Day of week—Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and 

Thursdays are most representative of typical 

weekday conditions.

• Season—Measure during the school year, 

avoiding school holidays. If possible, 

coordinate with the National Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Documentation Project count 

dates in May and September each year.1

• Weather—Avoid unusual weather 

conditions, like rain, snow, and heat waves.

• Special events—Avoid parades, holidays, 

and other special circumstances.

The same approach should be used for both preand post-evaluation, even if resources become 

available for a more “accurate” approach during 

post-evaluation than during pre-evaluation. This 

will help to ensure comparable results.

9.2 ASSESSMENT METRICS: 

MEASURING YOUR CURRENT OR 

FUTURE SUCCESSES

The following list, along with table 9-3, provides 

nine metrics that can be used to measure walkability and bikeability—

1) Diversity of land uses within a 5-minute walk 

(0.25 mile). 

2) Number of jobs within 15 minutes (0.75-mile 

walk/3-mile bike). 

3) Percentage of arterial and commercial 

collector roadways with a low level of traffic 

stress.

4) Percentage of residents and workers within 

0.25 mile of a high-quality2 bike facility.

5) Street network.

6) Site access and parking typology.

7) Percent of streets with sidewalks.

8) Percent of corners with curb ramps.

9) Distance between marked crossings.
177

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

9.2.1 Approaches to Measuring the 

Metrics

Data and analysis for each metric can be collected 

and assessed in a number of ways. The various approaches for each metric are organized in table 9-3 

from lowest to highest complexity based on effort 

and resources. Although these are qualitative variables, a scale of 1 to 3 was applied to each to denote 

the relative effort, resources, or importance. Effort 

is a qualitative measure of the amount of staff time 

required to collect any necessary data and execute 

the analysis in order to measure the metric. Resources describe a qualitative measure of any special skills, tools, or software licenses required to 

complete the analysis. The score corresponding to 

accuracy represents how well that approach captures the appropriate value of the metric for the 

community. 

The final weight column indicates the importance of each metric by assigning a weight that 

will be used to compute an aggregate self-assessment score as part of the tool. Although suggested 

weighting values are provided in the table, each 

community should consider the relative importance of the metrics listed in achieving its own 

goals and weight them accordingly. Based on the 

community’s assessment of its own resources and 

values, it will select an appropriate level of effort 

and other resources to apply to computing each 

metric value.

9.2.2 Application

The self-assessment tool is applied by calculating the value of each metric and multiplying the 

result by its respective weight to account for the 

importance of that metric. The weighted scores 

from each metric are then summed to derive an 

overall score for the community. This score is then 

interpreted based on the provided legend. The tool 

presents results in a graphic format that conveys 

to the community the relative importance of each 

factor, suggesting opportunities for the most improvement with the least effort. The level of accuracy of the data collection and analysis approach 

chosen for each metric should also be considered 

when interpreting the results. 

9.2.3 Additional Indicators

This chapter also offers optional, supplemental 

metrics to these nine metrics. These additional metrics are not essential and are less-directly 

correlated to walkability and bikeability. They are 

often easier to measure or collect, however, and 

provide even more metrics to track the walkability and bikeability of your community. Additional 

metrics are divided into two categories: (1) outcome metrics that can be quantitatively tracked 

over time; and (2) actions and initiatives that are 

more qualitative. See the following section for 

descriptions of both outcome- and action/initiative-oriented metrics.

9.3 APPROACH: DESCRIPTION 

OF METRICS TO USE

This section provides information about each 

metric, along with descriptions of the alternative 

approaches to applying each metric. Communities 

interested in conducting a walkability and bikeability self-assessment should—

1) Review the range of metrics and approaches 

described.

2) Select the weight to be applied to each metric 

based on these guidelines and the community’s 

goals and values. A metric can be assigned a 

weight of “0” if it does not reflect community 

goals and values.

3) Select an approach for each metric that is 

appropriate to the effort and resources the 

community can invest in evaluation. Consider 

the fast-track approach, highlighted in yellow, 

if resources are limited and you are aware of 

the limitations of accuracy. A metric can be 

assigned a weight of “0” if an appropriate 

approach cannot be identified.

4) Apply the selected evaluation approaches, and 

enter results in the worksheet in appendix 

A to compute an overall Community SelfAssessment Score.

5) Supplement the Community Self-Assessment 

Score with Additional Indicators as interest 

and resources allow.

Less-complex approaches are described in detail 

within this chapter, whereas more complex approaches with established documentation reference other publicly available resources.
178

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

METRICS APPROACHES DESIGNATION EFFORT 

REQUIRED

RESOURCES 

REQUIRED

LEVEL OF 

ACCURACY WEIGHT

1) LAND USE DIVERSITY

Images of Typical Street 1 1 1

1.2

Images of Land Use Map 1 1 2

Fieldwork 3 2 2

Walk Score® 1 1 2

Entropy Score 3 2 2

GIS Analysis 2 3 3

2) NUMBER OF JOBS 

WITHIN 15 MINUTES 

(WALK/BIKE)

LEHD OnTheMap 2 2 2

0.8

GIS analysis 2 3 2

3) LOW-STRESS ROADWAYS

Images of Typical Street 1 1 1

Simplified LTS Table 2 2 2 1.2

LTS Tables 2 1 3

4) PERCENTAGE OF 

RESIDENTS AND 

WORKERS NEAR HIGHQUALITY BIKE FACILITY

Miles of Bike Facilities per Capita 2 1 1

LEHD OnTheMap 2 1 2 1.0

GIS Analysis 2 3 3

Table 9-1: Self-Assessment Metrics and Approaches
179

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

METRICS APPROACHES DESIGNATION EFFORT 

REQUIRED

RESOURCES 

REQUIRED

LEVEL OF 

ACCURACY WEIGHT

5) STREET NETWORK

Images of Street Network Grids 1 1 1

Manual Count from Google Earth 2 1 3 1.2

GIS Analysis 2 3 3

6) SITE ACCESS AND 

PARKING TYPOLOGY Images of Typical Shopping Area 1 1 1 0.8

7) PERCENT OF STREETS 

WITH SIDEWALKS

Local Knowledge Estimate 1 1 1

1.0

Google Earth Aerial Imagery Review 2 1 2

Google Earth Street View Review 2 1 2

Field Inventory 2 2 3

8) PERCENT OF CORNERS 

WITH CURB RAMPS

Local Knowledge Estimate 1 1 1

Google Earth Desktop Inventory 2 1 2 0.8

Field Inventory 2 2 3

9) DISTANCE BETWEEN 

MARKED CROSSINGS

Google Earth Measurement 2 1 3

1.0

Field Measurement 2 1 3
180

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

9.3.1 Metric 1: Land Use Diversity

Land use diversity measures the variety of destinations within a particular area (i.e. analysis zone). 

With an increase in the variety of land use options 

within a short walk, residents are more likely to 

make shorter, more frequent trips for goods and 

services, and these trips are less likely to be made 

by car. Mixed-use areas have been shown to have a 

statistically significant correlation with higher levels of walking.3

 A 5-minute walk equates to about 

a 0.25-mile buffer, a distance that someone is likely to walk instead of drive.

The fast-track approach for this metric is to use 

Walk Score®. If Walk Score® does not exist for your 

community, however, Approach 1 is recommended as a fast-track approach. 

Approach 1: Images of a Typical Street

Using local knowledge, the self-assessment team 

reviews a spectrum of five street images and selects the image that most accurately depicts a representative street for their community’s analysis 

zones. 

Approach 2: Images of a Land Use Map

Using locally available land use or zoning maps 

and local knowledge, the self-assessment team reviews a spectrum of five land use maps and selects 

the one that most appropriately matches the land 

use mix in their community. 

Approach 3: Fieldwork

The self-assessment team uses guidelines to select 

multiple locations for analysis and then conducts 

a field survey, counting the number of different 

services within a 5-minute walk of each location 

to develop a representative value for the analysis 

area.

Approach 4: Walk Score®

This approach uses Walk Score® values to assess 

the land use diversity of each analysis zone. The 

Walk Score® analysis uses land use categories and 

applies a detailed algorithm to assign different 

scores to destinations based on how far they are 

from the analyzed address. The resulting score 

ranges from 0 (“Car-Dependent”) to 100 (“Walker’s Paradise”). 

The self-assessment team uses guidelines to select multiple locations for analysis and then uses 

www.walkscore.com to look up each location’s 

Walk Score® value. 

Approach 5: Entropy Score

This is a formula used to measure land use diversity that ranges from 0 to 1, calculated from employment-related land use data. The score will equal 1 

when land use is most heterogeneous and 0 when 

most homogeneous. 

Approach 6: GIS Analysis

A Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial 

analysis will allow the self-assessment team in the 

community to use the land use shape file within 

a certain buffer area to calculate the variation of 

land use types based on the entropy formula. 

HOW TO IMPROVE LAND USE 

DIVERSITY

See chapter 4 to learn more about how to incorporate a mixture of land uses within your 

community. Section 5.4 on Health, Land Use, 

and Mobility and section 5.5 on Implementation provide more specific guidance on 

creating a land use that encourages biking 

and walking. This includes recommendations 

to provide access to grocery stores, opportunities for open streets events, land uses that 

attract a mix of generations, and effective 

use of public space. Implementation strategies for these recommendations include improving zoning standards, creating community-based vision plans, integrating land use 

and transportation in the planning process, 

and promoting infill development.

9.3.2 Metric 2: Number of Jobs Within 15 

Minutes 

A higher density of jobs increases the likelihood 

that residents will be able to have a job within a 

walkable/bikeable distance from their home. This 

metric equates to a radius of 0.8 mile or 2.5 miles 

for walking and biking, respectively. A 15-minute buffer was chosen based on an average of the 

walking and biking journey-to-work times, as 

reported by American Community Survey 2009–

2012 Summary Reports—11.5 minutes and 19.3 

minutes for walk and bike trips, respectively.4
181

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Approach 1: LEHD OnTheMap 

The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data source, available from the U.S. 

Census Bureau, provides estimates of employers 

and employees coded at the census block level. By applying the 0.8-mile and 2.5-mile buffers 

for walking and biking using the freely available 

web-based tool called On The Map, determine the 

number of jobs within those buffers. 

Approach 2: GIS Analysis

Use the network buffer tool to determine the census blocks that are within the determined 0.8- and 

2.5-mile buffers of the subarea. Import LEHD 

data, and join these data with the predetermined 

census blocks. Use the statistics tool to view the 

total number of jobs within these census blocks.

HOW TO IMPROVE NUMBER OF 

JOBS WITHIN 15 MINUTES

The approach to improving job density is 

similar to those recommended under Metric 1: Land Use Diversity which references 

chapter 5. In addition, there should be a 

specific focus on the location of large employers and on distributing jobs throughout 

the community, mixed with other land uses.

9.3.3 Metric 3: Percentage of Low-Stress 

Roadways

For bicycling to attract a high percentage of the 

population, with a focus on the “interested but concerned” bicyclists, it is important to create a lowstress, comfortable bicycling environment.5

 The 

Mineta Transportation Institute developed a mechanism to quantify the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 

of roadways that corresponds to the type of users 

willing to use them.6 LTS 1 describes a roadway that 

most children can tolerate. LTS 2 will be tolerated 

by the mainstream adult population. LTS 3 is tolerated by the “enthused but confident” cyclists who 

have a higher threshold but still prefer a dedicated 

facility. LTS 4 is tolerated only by the “strong and 

fearless” cyclists. Because local residential streets 

tend to have low levels of traffic stress, the greater 

the percentage of arterial and commercial collector 

streets that have a low LTS, the more connected a 

network is and the greater the number of destinations comfortably accessible for the majority of the 

population to reach by bike. The approaches described in the following sections all approximate 

LTS for arterial and commercial collector streets 

within the analysis zone and score based on the 

percent of those roadways that achieve LTS 1 or 

2. Although neighborhood streets tend to be lower stress, crossings of larger collector and arterial 

streets can still present significant barriers for some 

bicyclists. For additional reading on Level of Traffic Stress, see http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.

furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/. 

Approach 1: Images of Typical Street

The self-assessment team reviews images of four 

streets that represent each LTS. The self-assessment team will then determine which image best 

represents the character of the arterial and commercial collector streets in the subarea. 

Approach 2: Simplified LTS Table

Use a simplified decision table to approximate the 

LTS for arterial and commercial collector streets 

in the analysis zone. Answer questions about the 

type of bike infrastructure available, the speed of 

the roadway, and the number of lanes per direction to determine an approximate LTS score.

Approach 3: LTS Tables

Use the six tables provided in an LTS summary 

document to determine the LTS for each arterial 

and commercial collector roadway in the analysis 

zone. Consider the LTS for each segment, as well 

as each intersection crossing.

HOW TO IMPROVE THE PERCENTAGE 

OF LOW-STRESS ROADWAYS

Refer to chapter 6 on Bikeway Planning and 

Design for recommendations for improving 

the comfort of your community’s streets for 

bicyclists. Section 6.3 comprehensively discusses each type of bike facility, when it is 

best applied, and how to effectively design 

it. By appropriately implementing a bicycle 

facility type that is appropriate for the number of lanes, speed, and volume of a roadway, all levels of bicycle users can feel safe. 
182

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

HOW TO IMPROVE THE PERCENTAGE 

OF RESIDENTS AND WORKERS NEAR 

BICYCLE FACILITIES

The first three sections of chapter 6 identify 

strategies to determine how to create an effective bicycle network that is well connected and comprehensive. Ensuring that a lowstress bicycle facility is provided within close 

proximity of all residences and employers 

requires an extensive network that takes 

advantage of opportunities for implementation. A priority focus should be on implementing a low-stress bicycle facility within 

close proximity to high-density residences 

and employers. 

9.3.4 Metric 4: Percentage of Residents 

and Workers Near Bicycle Facilities

It is important for a complete community to have 

high-quality biking facilities within close proximity 

(defined for this analysis as 0.25 miles or less) to all 

residents. Residents are more likely to choose to bike 

if they are able to access a designated, high-quality facility within a 3-minute bike ride from their 

home. For this analysis, a high-quality bike facility 

is defined as one with an LTS of 2 or better.

Approach 1: Miles of Bike Facilities per 

Capita Calculation

Determining the number of miles of high-quality bike facilities per square mile does not directly 

address the percentage of residents and workers 

near high-quality facilities, but it is an acceptable 

proxy for this metric. Divide the miles of on- and 

off-street facilities (LTS 2 or better) in the analysis area by the area of the analysis zone in square 

miles. If the number of trails and bike lanes is not 

already known, use Google Earth or conduct field 

measurements to determine the mileage.

Approach 2: LEHD OnTheMap

The LEHD data source, available from the U.S. Census Bureau, provides estimates of employers and employees coded at the census block level. By applying 

the 1- and 3-mile buffers for walking and biking using the freely available web-based tool OnTheMap, 

determine the number of jobs within those buffers. 

Approach 3: GIS Analysis

In GIS, map the high-quality bicycle facilities in the community. Use the buffer tool to create a layer of 0.25 mile buffer around each of these facilities. Bring in census data for 

population density at the census block level. Determine the 

number of residents in the buffer previously created by selecting tracts within the buffer and using the statistics tool. 

9.3.5 Metric 5: Street Network

This metric is positively correlated to smaller block 

sizes and greater connectivity, which are indicators 

of walkability and bikeability. A greater density of 

intersections decreases walking distance between 

destinations and allows for a greater number of 

route options for pedestrians and bicyclists. It also 

translates to opportunities for pedestrians or bicyclists to choose a route on a lower-volume or 

lower-speed road. A study by Robert Cervero and 

Reid Ewing found that intersection density has a 

larger effect on walking than land use density or 

diversity.7

Approach 1: Images of Street Network Grids

Using local knowledge, the self-assessment team 

reviews five images that represent a spectrum of 

street grid networks and selects the image that 

most accurately depicts the street grid for their 

community’s analysis zone. 

Approach 2: Manual Count Through 

Google Earth 

Use Google Earth aerial imagery to count the 

number of intersections within the study area. 

Measure the area of the study area. Divide the 

number of intersections in the study area by the 

area of the study area in square miles to find the 

average number of intersections per square mile 

in the analysis zone. 

Approach 3: GIS Analysis

Use GIS analysis tools to determine the number of 

intersections within the analysis zone by creating 

an intersection shape file from the streets shape 

file, and divide by the square mileage of the analysis area. 
183

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

HOW TO IMPROVE THE NUMBER OF 

INTERSECTIONS PER SQUARE MILE

Section 6.2, Essential Principles of Active 

Transportation Street Networks, and section 

6.3, Street Network Characteristics describe 

ways to increase the number of intersections per square mile. Establishing a block 

size maximum of 1,600 feet means more intersections that allow for more route choices and increased connectivity. Larger blocks 

can also be retrofitted with alleys and bicycle and pedestrian connections, such as 

paseos and promenades. Discouraging oneway streets, gated streets, cul-de-sacs, widening of streets, and limited-access streets 

also helps create a dense street grid accessible to all users. Block length requirements, 

zoning, and connectivity within housing 

developments are also all within the control 

of the jurisdiction and can improve intersection density. 

9.3.6 Metric 6: Site Access and Parking 

Typology

Commercial, retail, and office site plan design, 

particularly regarding how parking is incorporated, is an important indicator of walkability and 

bikeability. Locating building entrances close to 

the street network and its bicycle/pedestrian facilities provides more convenient and safer access for 

pedestrians. On the other hand, frontage parking 

lots provide an additional distance and barrier, 

and are high-conflict areas for bicyclists and pedestrians. A large amount of vehicle parking that 

is readily accessible, visible, and not priced can 

artificially alter mode splits by discouraging biking and walking and encouraging driving. In addition to the design of parking, parking policy can 

influence the supply and use of parking. Parking 

policies include shared parking, parking pricing, 

parking maximums instead of minimums, allowance to replace car parking requirements with 

bike parking, and altering parking requirements 

by overlay districts. 

Refer to chapter 4, Land Use & Mobility Integration, for further guidance on parking design, 

placement, and policy. 

Approach 1: Images of Typical Shopping 

Area

Review a spectrum of five site and parking typology images, and select the image that most accurately depicts a representative commercial, retail, or office center for the community’s analysis 

zone. Then assign the analysis zone a score from 0, 

meaning vast areas of parking all located between 

the street’s pedestrian facilities and shopping entrance, to 100, meaning that there is no parking 

located on site.

HOW TO IMPROVE SITE ACCESS 

AND PARKING

There are numerous policy and urban design 

techniques that can help make site access 

and parking more walk and bike friendly. 

These include— 

1. Ensuring that building setback makes 

sites accessible from pedestrian facilities. 

2. Creating parking maximums rather than 

minimums that consider context, land 

use, and transit proximity. 

3. Proposing shared parking for land uses 

with offset peak uses. 

4. Utilizing on street parking rather than 

off-street parking to serve as a buffer 

from moving vehicles for pedestrians. 

5. Integrating parking into site design rather than simply placing frontage parking 

lots between the street and building. 

6. Promoting district parking strategies; 

promoting parking in the rear of buildings or underground.

7. Providing ground floor retail for abovegrade parking to activate the pedestrian space. 

Section 5.2.6, Access Management and section 5.2, Street and Paired Land Use Environment Types, further describe how to create 

parking lot designs and layouts that are conducive to biking and walking. 
184

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

9.3.7 Metric 7: Percent of Streets With 

Sidewalks

The presence of sidewalks increases both levels of 

walking and the safety of pedestrians. Sidewalks 

reduce crashes caused by walking along the roadway by 86 percent.8

 It is preferable to have a sidewalk on both sides of the street to allow pedestrians to safely and conveniently reach destinations 

on either side of the street. Only sidewalks that are 

at least 4 feet wide should be considered within 

this metric. Based on commonly adopted ADA 

standards, 4 feet allows a sidewalk to be navigated 

by a wheelchair, with limited passing capability of 

others on the walkway. This metric will determine 

the percent of each side of the street that has a 

universally accessible sidewalk. Even small gaps in 

the sidewalk should not be counted, regardless of 

whether the majority of the block has a sidewalk.

Approach 1: Local Knowledge Estimate 

Using local knowledge, the self-assessment team 

estimates the percentage of miles of street in the 

subarea that have no sidewalk, sidewalk on one 

side, and sidewalk on both sides. These estimates 

should be reviewed by additional staff or community members who are familiar with the pedestrian network. 

Approach 2: Google Earth Aerial Imagery 

Review

The self-assessment team uses Google Earth to 

measure the sidewalk inventory from an aerial 

view.

Approach 3: Google Earth Street View Review

The self-assessment team uses Google Earth to 

measure the sidewalk inventory from street view. 

This will provide a more accurate inventory than 

the aerial view.

Approach 4: Field Inventory

The self-assessment team goes into the field and 

measures the presence of sidewalks on all streets 

within the subarea using a measuring wheel.

9.3.8 Metric 8: Percentage of Corners 

With Curb Ramps

Curb ramps are an important component of the 

street network that makes a community accessible to pedestrians of all abilities. Curb ramps must 

be designed to allow the safe and accessible use by 

wheelchairs. Each corner of an intersection must 

have a curb ramp that provides direct access for 

each street. A traditional four-way intersection 

will have two ramps at each corner, as shown in 

the middle image. An exception can be made 

when there is at least 48 inches of depth between 

the sidewalk ramp and crosswalk markings.

Approach 1: Local Knowledge Estimate

Using local knowledge, the self-assessment team 

estimates the percent of street corners in the subarea that have the appropriate number of curb 

ramps. This estimate should be reviewed by additional staff or community members who are 

familiar with the pedestrian network. ADA-compliant standards should be determined to the best 

ability possible. 

Approach 2: Google Earth Desktop Inventory

The self-assessment team uses Google Earth to 

count the number of curb ramps from street view. 

ADA-compliant standards should be determined 

to the best ability possible.

Approach 3: Field Inventory

The self-assessment team goes into the field and 

counts all curb ramps and measures them to determine whether they are ADA compliant by using a measuring tape.

HOW TO IMPROVE THE PERCENTAGE 

OF STREETS WITH SIDEWALKS

Completing the sidewalk network requires 

strategic prioritization before spending 

money on design and implementation. Prioritization will include land use and population/employment density to best meet the 

needs of the community. It is also important 

to design sidewalks to meet standards and 

effectively and safely serve the needs of pedestrians. See chapter 7, Pedestrian Design 

Principles, to learn more about effectively 

incorporating sidewalks into the street network. Section 8.6.8 also has recommendations for sidewalk implementation given 

limited resources and time. 
185

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

HOW TO IMPROVE THE PERCENTAGE 

OF CORNERS WITH CURB RAMPS

Proper curb ramp design and installation 

is defined by ADA requirements to provide 

access for all users. Roadway resurfacing or 

alterations provide a good opportunity to 

update curb ramps. Similar to the process 

for sidewalks, a prioritization of locations 

will provide the information to most effectively install and update curb ramps to satisfy codes. Section 8.5 of the guidelines comprehensively covers the proper elements to 

address pedestrian needs at intersections, 

including the variations of options and geometry for curb ramps. 

9.3.9 Metric 9: Distance Between Marked 

Crosswalks

The proximity of marked pedestrian crossings is 

important in promoting safe and accessible walking. The more destinations on a corridor, the more 

important it is to have frequent marked crossings at signalized intersections and mid-block 

crossings if intersections are far apart. Infrequent 

marked crossings are more likely to force pedestrians to take an indirect route (to detour to the 

crosswalk) to reach their destination. Determine 

the densest destination corridor within the study 

area. This can be done through Google Earth 

aerial views or local knowledge. More pedestrian-friendly study areas have a smaller average 

distance between marked crossings (at signalized 

intersections, stop-controlled intersections, and 

mid-block. Mid-block crossings on corridors with 

more than two lanes and speeds greater than 30 

mph should have a pedestrian refuge island and 

a beacon or signal. Refer to the MUTCD, Chapter 4, Part E for additional guidance on mid-block 

crossing enhancements (http//mutcd.fhwa.dot.

gov/htm/2009/part4/part4e.htm).

Approach 1: Google Earth Measurement

The self-assessment team uses Google Earth to 

measure the distance between marked crosswalks 

on the densest destination corridor in the subarea.

Approach 2: Field Measurement

The self-assessment team goes into the field and 

uses a measuring wheel to measure the distance 

between marked crosswalks on the densest destination corridor in the subarea.

HOW TO IMPROVE DISTANCE 

BETWEEN MARKED CROSSWALKS

Inventorying spacing of pedestrian crossings 

is an important first step in identifying the 

need for additional crossings. Studying key 

origins and destinations in combination with 

areas with gaps in marked crossings will help 

identify locations to implement additional 

crossings. These locations should be prioritized based on factors including pedestrian 

counts; key land uses, such as schools and 

parks; and crash history. Design and implementation team members should select appropriate treatments as discussed in previous 

chapters identifies pedestrian crossing treatments and appropriate facilities to use based 

on speed, volume, and lanes.
186

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

9.4 OTHER INDICATORS: 

SUPPLEMENTS TO THE SELFASSESSMENT METRICS

This list of additional metrics includes low-effort 

options that can provide additional insight into 

the bikeability and walkability of a community. Although they are not a part of the tool, they 

provide an easy way to track the improvements in 

mobility of a community over time. They complement the tool by providing additional information 

that directly addresses the travel behavior of community members. These metrics are separated into 

two categories: outcome measures and actions/

initiatives. Within each category, metrics are listed 

generally in order of their priority. 

9.4.1 Outcome Measures

Bike Score/ Walk Score

Walkscore.com allows users to put in an address, 

city, or neighborhood and produces a 0–100 score 

for walking and biking in that area. This methodology determines the walkability and bikeability of an area through an algorithm that analyzes 

distances to hundreds of destinations, weighted 

based on category of relevance. Amenities within 

a 5-minute walk are given the most points, with 

fewer points awarded as distance increases. It is 

important to note that this value does not consider the bicycle or pedestrian facilities used to reach 

these destinations. Walk and Bike Score tells a 

community the density, type, and distribution of 

destinations in an area or near an address.

Although Walk and/or Bike Score are primarily 

used for specific addresses, they often are available on a neighborhood or citywide scale. When a 

score is not available at this scale, enter an address 

close to the center of the analysis zone to determine an average scale.

Currently, Walk Score and Bike Score values for 

individual locations are available free of charge 

from walkscore.com. Bulk data requests can be 

purchased for approximately $1 dollar per point 

location.

Screenline Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Counts 

Screenline bicycle or pedestrian counts determine 

the number of cyclists/pedestrians entering and 

leaving a certain area. It also indicates the number 

of cyclists/pedestrians using a particular facility. 

Identify the main bicycle/pedestrian routes for cyclists/pedestrians entering and exiting the analysis 

zone, and count the number of bicyclists/pedestrians entering and exiting during a peak hour. 

Manual bicycle counts can also capture the ratio of 

female to male bicyclists. Female bicyclists are said 

to be an “indicator species” for safe bicycling conditions.9

 This is due to supporting research showing that some women are more risk averse than 

men, meaning they are more likely to bike when 

bike-friendly conditions are present. 

Screenline counts do not indicate how comfortable a bicyclist or pedestrian is using that facility 

or the distance of their trip. 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Commute 

Mode Share

The American Community Survey publishes estimates for resident’s primary mode of transportation to work. Refer to the American Community 

Survey’s most recent 3- or 5-year estimates for the 

bicycle and pedestrian mode share for your city. 

This value represents the number of residents that 

identify bicycling or walking as their primary 

mode to get to work. This value does not indicate 

the number of people who bike or walk for recreation or as part of their commute, such as to a 

transit station. The data are also skewed against 

accurate bike/walk mode share because the survey 

is collected throughout the year, including during 

harsh winter months, so the data may under-represent biking and walking activity. The survey taker 

is asked for the primary mode used in the previous 

week, so even a commuter making multiple bike 

commute trips would not be counted unless the 

primary mode of transportation was a bike. The 

numbers do not take into account the variability 

of modes for one user; only the primary mode is 

counted. This information will not be available at a 

neighborhood level. Data that change annually are 

not reliable given the small sample size. Therefore, 

this metric is best looked at over an extended period of time.

Bicycle or Pedestrian-Related Crash

Rate per Capita(PDO, Injury, and 

Fatality)

Work with the local police department, sheriff, 

highway patrol, or state Department of Transportation to retrieve the past year of crash data. 

Crash data should be organized by crash type that 

allows the filtering by bicycle- or pedestrian-related crashes. Separate crashes into those involving bikes and those involving pedestrians. Divide 

each category by 10,000 to get crashes per 10,000 

population. Crashes that occurred in the analysis 

zone can only be separated out if the resources 

are available. Crash data serve as a proxy for how 

dangerous an area is for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Crash data are often incomplete due to unreported crashes and inconsistency in the method that 

police use to report a crash. These data also do not 

reveal near misses. 
187

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Bicycle- or Pedestrian-Related 

Fatalities per Capita

Crash data should also include severity—property damage only, injury, and fatality. Use the same 

methodology as in the previous metric, except 

only consider crashes resulting in a fatality. Fatalities that occurred in the analysis zone can be 

separated out only if the resources are available. 

Fatalities serve as a proxy for how dangerous an 

area is for bicyclists and pedestrians. Because the 

sample size for fatalities is so small, however, this 

may not be an accurate representation of safety. 

Percent of Intersections With Bicycle 

Intersection Treatments

Count the total number of intersections in the 

analysis zone. Count the number of intersections 

in the analysis zone that have a treatment or treatments specifically for bicyclists. This can include a 

bicycle signal, loop detector, striping, green paint, 

a bike box, or a continued bike lane. Intersections 

are often seen as the weakest link for bicyclists, 

serving as the location that is the least comfortable 

for bicyclists. Therefore the percentage of intersections with bicycle treatments is a representation 

of the level of safety and comfort provided to bicyclists through the infrastructure present. Refer 

to NACTO for guidance on bicycle intersection 

treatments: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments/.

Number of government employees, in full-time 

equivalents (FTE), that work on bicycle and/or pedestrian-related issues

Having dedicated staff to work on bicycle and pedestrian issues allows these issues to receive the 

appropriate level of attention. Note all city staff 

that work on these issues and the time dedicated. 

For example, an employee who works 20 hours 

a week on these issues would count as 0.5. This 

value is an indicator of the resources delegated to 

biking and walking but does not represent what is 

on the ground for biking and walking. 

Percent of Sidewalks With at Least Two 

Urban Design Features

Sidewalks that have urban design features make 

walking a safer and more comfortable experience. Urban design features can include, but are 

not limited to, pedestrian-scale lighting, trees, and 

plantings; street furniture; or community identifiers (gateways, public art, and so forth). Estimate 

or measure the percentage of sidewalks in the 

analysis zone that have at least two urban design 

features that enhance the pedestrian experience. 

This metric reflects more on the comfort of a pedestrian facility than on the safety, convenience, 

or accessibility of a facility. This metric does not 

consider bikeability. 

9.4.2 Actions and Initiatives

An adopted Bicycle and/or 

Pedestrian Master Plan

Does your community have a bicycle and/or pedestrian master plan in place? 

Having an adopted bicycle and/or pedestrian master plan lets a community focus on implementation. A plan helps lay out a schedule, funding opportunities, and responsibility and accountability 

to various agencies. The process itself brings key 

stakeholders together to prioritize and discuss issues. The existence of a plan, however, does not 

necessarily equate to implementation. 

Existence of a Bicycle and/or 

Pedestrian Advocacy Group 

Does your community have a bicycle and/or pedestrian advocacy group?

An advocacy groups helps unite the efforts of 

community members who are passionate about 

improving biking and walking in the community. This energy can be effectively harnessed to 

plan education and encouragement events, as well 

as to speak in favor of engineering projects that 

improve biking and walking. The existence of an 

advocacy group, however, does not necessarily 

equate to implementation.

Adopted ADA Transition Plan 

Does your community have an ADA Transition 

Plan in place? 

Every agency is required to have an ADA Transition Plan. This plan ensures that all facilities in a 

community are universally accessible and identifies the methods, schedule, and responsible parties. 

Existence of a Bike-Share Program

Does your community have a bike-share program 

or bike library?

Bike-share programs come in varying forms: bikes 

that are scattered around a community without 

locks and can be used by anyone and picked up 

and deposited anywhere; a bike library has all bikes 

located in one place and is usually man powered; 

and automated stations that are scattered throughout a community. A bike-share program provides 

residents and visitors easy and accessible ways to 

make short trips by bike and helps complete the 

first or last mile of a transit trip. The existence of 

a bike-share program, however, does not address 

land use or infrastructure issues. 
188

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

Existence of Bike Parking Ordinances 

Does your community have any ordinances in place 

for bike parking? If so, how aggressive are those ordinances?

Evaluate the types of ordinances in place, as well as 

the specific requirements identified in those ordinances (such as the number of bike parking spaces 

per apartment unit). Ordinances can include bike 

parking required with existing development, bike 

parking required with new development, and bike 

parking that substitutes for car parking. Bike parking is an important end-of-trip facility but does 

not reflect on the facilities present as part of the 

street network. 

Total Number of Public and Private Bike 

Parking Spaces in Your Community

Count or estimate the number of bike parking 

spaces in your community, including those at 

apartment buildings, shopping centers, transit 

stops and stations, offices, and so forth. Note the 

type of bike rack provided and how it fits into the 

following bike parking guidelines: www.apbp.org/

resource/resmgr/publications/bicycle_parking_

guidelines.pdf.

Regular Maintenance of Bicycle and

Pedestrian Facilities (Sweeping and 

Plowing)

How often does the municipality sweep or plow the 

bike lanes and sidewalks? How frequent are complaints from residents regarding debris or snow removal?

Existence of Safe Routes to School 

(SRTS) Programming (Walk to School

Day, Walking School Bus, Student

Safety Patrol, Tracking System) 

Does your community have a Safe Routes to School 

program? Have you received grant funding toward 

these efforts? How many engineering projects have 

been implemented through SRTS efforts? How 

many educational and encouragement programs 

have been implemented through SRTS efforts?

Existence of Walking, Biking, or Trails 

Map

Do you have a walking, biking, or trail map created? How are these distributed to the community—

at major events, at trailheads, located in City Hall? 

How frequently is this map updated?

Perform Bicycle and/or 

Pedestrian Intercept Surveys 

Do you survey bicyclists and pedestrians in your 

community? Do you collect survey data after the implementation of a major bicycle or pedestrian project? What do you do with the survey data collected?

Number of Traffic Calming Practices 

Implemented

Do you have traffic-calming elements present on your 

streets? What is the process for determining where 

and which traffic-calming elements to implement?

Traffic-calming elements can include roundabouts, curb extensions, partially closed streets, 

pedestrian refuge islands, narrower travel lanes, 

and speed tables. Having traffic-calming facilities is important, but they must be implemented appropriately in order to be effective. Further 

explore various traffic-calming approaches here: 

http://trafficcalming.org/.

9.5 FINAL SCORES: 

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The summary tab of the self-assessment worksheet 

provides the subscore for each metric, each analysis zone, and the total weighted score for all analysis zones for the nine metrics summed. Based on 

a community’s total score, the level of walkability 

and bikeability can be identified based on the following ranges. Also look at how each analysis zone 

scored and each metric. Aim to reach the next 

score level during your community’s post-evaluation. Analyze each analysis zone and metric in 

order to determine what it will take to move to the 

next designation.

Score 0–20: Bronze

Score 21–40: Silver 

Score 41–60: Gold

Score 61–80: Platinum

Score 81–100: Diamond
 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

189

9.6 CASE STUDY: COLUMBIA, 

MISSOURI

Columbia, Missouri is 63.5 square miles and is located in north-central- Missouri, a little more than 

100 miles from Missouri’s two largest cities—Kansas City and St. Louis. Columbia’s population increased by about 30 percent from 2000 to 2013. 

The estimated area median income in 2012 was 

$40,118, compared to $45,321 for all of Missouri. 

The population is made up of 76.0 percent White, 

10.8 percent African-American, 5 percent Asian, 

3.5 percent Hispanic and 5 percent other.

This case study focuses on the various approaches 

implemented by Columbia to evaluate engineering, education, and encouragement programs 

and projects. Columbia, Missouri was one of four 

participating pilot communities in the Federal 

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NMTPP), 

receiving $25 million of funding for bicycle and 

pedestrian infrastructure projects and programs. 

Following the pilot program, each community 

saw a significant shift to active mode and the resulting benefits in energy savings, environmental 

quality, safety, and public health. Quantified benefits of the program from the four communities 

cumulatively include the following—

• A reduction of 85.1 million miles from 

vehicular trips between 2009 and 2013.

• A 15.8-percent increase in walk mode share 

from 2007 to 2013.

• A 44-percent increase in bike mode share from 

2007 to 2013.

• Increased walk and bike trip count at project 

sites of 56 and 115 percent, respectively.

• A 20-percent decline in the number of pedestrian 

fatalities and a 28.6-percent decline in the number 

of bicycle fatalities from 2002 to 2012.

• A cumulative reduction of 25 pounds of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) pollution per capita in 2013, or 

a total of 9,065 tons.

Columbia specifically saw significant improvements in bicycling over the course of the program. 

This progress was tracked through a number of 

different evaluation tools that the city applied. 

By performing bicycle and pedestrian counts, 

the city noted increases in biking and walking 

during peak commute hours over specific periods 

of time. From 2007 to 2008, biking and walking 

during peak commute times increased 71 and 

33 percent, respectively. Between 2007 and 2013, 

annual counts in Columbia revealed that walking 

increased an estimated 22 percent and bicycling 

increased an estimated 44 percent. In addition to 

the increases in biking and walking seen over the 

course of the program, transit ridership tripled 

and bikes placed on bus racks increased by 83 

percent. The city tracked the number of existing 

and newly implemented facilities, as well. Infrastructure projects during the NMTPP included 

intersection improvements, 30 miles of bike lanes, 

14 miles of marked bike routes, sidewalk projects, 

trail connections, and additional bike parking.

Although educational and promotion efforts 

housed under the “GetAbout Columbia” marketing campaign represent only a small portion of the 

budget of this program, they were indicated as an 

essential complement to infrastructure improvements that were partially responsible for the 

achievement of the mode shift. Surveys are distributed to those who participate in GetAbout Columbia’s classes, and feedback is evaluated. As a 

part of the NMTPP, the city completed a “Consumer Awareness and Attitudes” annual survey to 

capture more nuanced trends in travel behavior. 

Columbia also applied to the League of American 

Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community, a mechanism to receive feedback on the five Es (engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and 

evaluation) and a method to track progress.

New pedway on the north side of Stadium Boulevard in 

Columbia, MO. Photo source: GetAbout Columbia

Cyclist on the Windsor/Ash Bicycle Boulevard in Columbia, 

MO. Photo source: GetAbout Columbia
190

CHAPTER 9 | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

NOTES:

1 http://bikepeddocumentation.org/participate/

2 Level of Traffic Stress 2 or better

3 Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and 

the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment. 1997;2(3):199–219.

4 http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/2014/

acs-25.pdf

5 Roger Geller, Four Types of Cyclists, (Portland, OR: 

City of Portland, Office of Transportation, n.d., circa 

2007), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746

6 Mekuria, Maaza, Peter Furth and Hilary Nixon. 

Low-Stress Bicycling and Netrok Connectivity. Mineta Transportation Institute. May 2012. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf.

7 Cervero, R and Reid Ewing. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of American 

Planning Association. 2010; 76 (3); 265-294.

8 McMahon, P., Zegeer, C., Duncan, C., Knoblauch, R., 

Stewart, R., & Khattak, A. (2002). An analysis of factors contributing to ‘walking along roadway’ crashes: Research study and guidelines for sidewalks and 

walkways. (FHWA-RD-01-101). Washington, DC: 

Federal Highway Administration.

9 Baker, Linda. “How to Get More Bicyclists on the 

Road.” 21 September 2009. 

10 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gettingmore-bicyclists-on-the-road/
COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL 

METHODOLOGY

METRIC 1: LAND USE DIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

METRIC 2: NUMBER OF JOBS WITHIN 15 MINUTES.. A-8

METRIC 3: PERCENTAGE OF LOW-STRESS 

ROADWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10

METRIC 4: PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS NEAR 

BICYCLE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13

METRIC 5: STREET NETWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-16

METRIC 6: SITE ACCESS AND PARKING 

TYPOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-19

METRIC 7: PERCENT OF STREETS WITH 

SIDEWALKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-20

METRIC 8: PERCENT OF CORNERS WITH 

CURB RAMPS.......................................A-22

METRIC 9: DISTANCE BETWEEN MARKED 

CROSSINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-24

APPENDIX A:
METRIC 1: LAND USE DIVERSITY

Approach 1: Images of a Typical Street

1. Consider the land uses and distribution of 

those land uses within the analysis zone. Consider the land uses that people within the 

zone—including residents, workers, students, 

and visitors—would encounter within a 5-minute walk of their home, school, or place of employment. Could the typical person accomplish 

all of his or her daily needs within a 5-minute 

walk (about 0.25 mile)? Are there any potential 

destinations within walking distance? Consider commercial destinations, such as restaurants, coffee shops, grocery stores, bars, and 

shopping, as well as community destinations, 

like parks, schools, health services, and cultural 

and religious resources.

2. Review the following descriptions and accompanying images (figure A-1). Select the one that 

most accurately represents the analysis zone. 

a) Score 0–20: There is no variation in the 

types of destinations available within a 

5-minute walk. 

b) Score 21–40: Very few needs can be met 

within a 5-minute walk for most people. 

Residents in adjacent neighborhoods could 

conceivably walk to the commercial corridor for a specific purpose, but most would 

not choose to do so. Retail employees have 

limited options for restaurants within walking distance and would have challenges 

crossing to the other side of the roadway.

c) Score 41–60: Some needs can be met within a 5-minute walk. Residents in adjacent 

neighborhoods could walk to the commercial center for some local-serving destinations, like restaurants, coffee shops, and personal services. Sidewalk connectivity allows 

workers to walk to restaurants and coffee 

shops in the area. 

d) Score 61–80: Many needs can be met within a 5-minute walk. Residents in adjacent 

neighborhoods could walk to a variety of 

local-serving destinations, like cafes, restaurants, personal services, shopping, and perhaps grocery stores, small offices, and entertainment venues. Some residents could live 

above other land uses, placing walkable destinations at their doorstep. Some residents 

may even work within walking distance of 

their homes. 

e) Score 81–100: A wide variety of destinations are available within a 5-minute walk. 

Multiple options for restaurants, cafes, bars, 

shopping, grocery stores, entertainment 

venues, and personal services are accessible 

on foot. Public open space, education and 

cultural centers, and multiple employment 

options are also available. Determine a score 

within the 20-point range of the chosen image. Select the middle of the range (e.g., 10 

for 0–20) if your average street looks most 

closely like the image provided. If your typical street looks less mixed than the image, 

then pick a number at the lower end of 

the range. If your typical street looks more 

mixed than the image, then pick a number 

at the upper end of the range. 

3. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 Score 

for Metric 1: Land Use Diversity in the self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for 

each analysis zone, as necessary.

A-2

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
a) Score 0–20 

Image source: imgarcade.com

b) Score 21–40

Image source: dkolb.com

c) Score 41–60

Image source: Bradenton.com

d) Score 61–80

Image source: growinwatsonville.com

e) Score 81–100

Image source: Glenwood Springs

Figure A-1: Approach 1 Images of Typical Streets

A-3

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
Approach 2: Images of a Land Use Map

1. After establishing an analysis zone or zones, 

reflect on the streets and the mix of land uses 

within them, using a local land use map as a 

guide. Consider the land uses that people 

within the zone—including residents, workers, students, and visitors—would encounter 

within a 5-minute walk of their home, school, 

or place of employment. Could the typical person accomplish all of their daily needs within a 

5-minute walk (about 0.25 mile)? Are there any 

potential destinations within walking distance? 

Consider commercial destinations such as 

restaurants, coffee shops, grocery stores, bars, 

and shopping, as well as community destinations like parks, schools, health services, and 

cultural and religious resources. 

2. Review the following descriptions and accompanying images (figure A-2). Select the one that 

most accurately represents the analysis zone. 

3. Assign the analysis zone a score from 0, meaning 

no destinations within walking distance, to 100, 

meaning daily needs can be met within walking 

distance. The following land use map images 

provide illustrative examples for comparison.

a) Score: 0–20: There is no variation in the 

types of destinations available within a 

5-minute walk. 

b) Score: 21–40: Very few needs can be met 

within a 5-minute walk for most people. A 

church and a school provide some neighborhood destinations, but the commercial 

uses along the major arterial are primarily 

automobile-oriented (a car dealer and gas 

station). A liquor store, a convenience store, 

and a fast-food restaurant provide the only 

local-serving options. A railroad right-ofway prevents walking to the southeast.

c) Score: 41–60: Some needs can be met within a 5-minute walk. Residents in adjacent 

neighborhoods could walk to the commercial strip for some local-serving destinations, such as restaurants, coffee shops, 

home goods stores, and personal services. 

Sidewalk connectivity allows workers to 

walk to restaurants and coffee shops in the 

area.

d) Score: 61–80: Many needs can be met within a 5-minute walk. Although the dominant 

land use is residential, residents could walk 

to a variety of local-serving destinations, 

such as cafes, restaurants, personal services, 

shopping, grocery stores, small offices, and 

entertainment venues. Some residents may 

even work within walking distance of their 

homes.

e) Score 81–100: A wide variety of destinations are available within a 5-minute walk. 

Multiple options for restaurants, cafes, bars, 

shopping, groceries, entertainment and personal services are accessible on foot. Public 

open space, education and cultural centers, 

and multiple employment options are also 

available. 

4. Determine a score within the 20-point range 

of the chosen image. Select the middle of the 

range (e.g., 10 for 0–20) if your average street 

looks most like the image provided. If your typical street looks less mixed than the image, then 

pick a number at the lower end of the range. If 

your typical street looks more mixed than the 

image, then pick a number at the upper end of 

the range. 

5. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 Score 

for Metric 1: Land Use Diversity in the self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for 

each analysis zone, as necessary. 

A-4

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
Figure A-1: Approach 2 Images of Land Use Types 

a) Score 0-20 b) Score 20-40 c) Score 40-60

d) Score 60-80 e) Score 80-100

A-5

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
Approach 3: Fieldwork

1. After establishing an analysis zone or zones, 

reflect on the streets and the mix of users 

within the zones to select a handful of addresses to serve as starting points for analysis. 

Consider locations that reflect the experience 

of residents, workers, students, and visitors. 

Select at least three starting points that will reflect representative conditions throughout the 

analysis zone.

2. Review the 10 categories of land uses in the 

following list—

• Grocery stores: including full-service grocery stores and local-serving food markets

• Restaurants: with dine-in or takeout service

• Cafes: such as coffee, tea, or donut shops

• Bars: bars and nightlife destinations

• Parks: parks and outdoor green spaces

• Schools: elementary, middle, and high schools

• Shopping: such as retailers for clothing, 

gifts, and home goods

• Entertainment: such as cinemas, theaters, 

and other arts venues 

• Services: such as dry cleaners and hair and 

nail salons

• Community: such as libraries, churches, 

and recreation centers 

3. Walk through the community, starting from 

each identified address, to see how many of 

these destination categories can be reached 

within a 5-minute walk. For each starting 

point, assign 10 points for each destination 

category that can be reached within a 5-minute walk. Do not score additional points for 

multiple destinations within the same category. For example, if there are three restaurants 

within a 5-minute walk but no other destination categories are accessible, score 10 points 

only. If few or no destination categories are 

accessible within a 5-minute walk, consider scoring 5 points (half score) for destination categories that can be reached within a 

10-minute walk (about 0.5 mile). Document 

this approach, if taken, so that post-evaluation is based on a comparable approach. The 

final score for each starting point is the sum 

of points for all accessible land use categories. 

The overall score for each analysis zone is the 

average of the scores for each starting point 

within that analysis zone.

4. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 1: Land Use Diversity in the 

self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

Approach 4: Walk Score®

This approach uses Walk Score® values to assess 

the land use diversity of each analysis zone. The 

Walk Score® analysis uses land use categories, including grocery stores, schools, parks, and retail, 

and applies a detailed algorithm to assign different scores to destinations based on how far they 

are from the analyzed address. Additional detail on the Walk Score® approach is available at 

https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml. 

The resulting score ranges from 0 (“Car-Dependent”) to 100 (“Walker’s Paradise”). 

1. Go to www.walkscore.com.

2. Select three to five addresses within the analysis zone that accurately represent the area 

with regard to land use mix. Consider locations that reflect the experience of residents, 

workers, students, and visitors.

3. Enter each address individually into the Walk 

Score® website, and record the Walk Score® for 

each address.

4. Total the three to five Walk Scores® recorded 

in step 3.

5. Calculate the average Walk Score®: divide the 

total Walk Score® (step 4) by the number of 

addresses used to collect Walk Score® (step 2). 

6. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 1: Land Use Diversity 

in the self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this 

approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

A-6

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
Approach 5: Entropy Score

The entropy score is a formula used to measure 

land use diversity that ranges from 0 to 1, calculated from household- and employment-related land 

use data. The score will equal one when land use is 

most heterogeneous (most diverse) and zero when 

most homogeneous (least diverse). There are many 

possible specifications of the entropy formula, but 

a useful version employed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Smart Location Database (SLD) assigns employment types to five 

broad categories and includes a sixth category for 

households: (1) Office, (2) Retail, (3) Industrial, 

(4) Services, (5) Entertainment/Accommodation/

Food Services, and (6) Households. 

To calculate the entropy score—

1. Sum employment and households by the six 

categories listed previously for each analysis 

zone or subarea. 

2. Calculate the entropy score according to the 

following formula (additional information 

provided in the Smart Location Database User 

Guide):

D2a_EpHHm (Entropy Score) = -A/(ln(N))

Where: 

A = (HH/TotAct)*ln(HH/TotAct) + 

(E5_Ret10/TotAct)*ln(E5_Ret10/TotAct) + 

(E5_Off10/TotAct)*ln(E5_Off10/TotAct) + 

(E5_Ind10/TotAct)*ln(E5_Ind10/TotAct) + 

(E5_Svc10/TotAct)*ln(E5_Svc10/TotAct) + 

(E5_Ent10/TotAct)*ln(E5_Ent10/TotAct) 

TotEmp = total employment

HH = number of households 

E5_Ret10 = retail employment

TotAct = TotEmp + HH

E5_Off10 = office employment

E5_Ind10 = industrial employment

E5_Svc10 = service employment

E5_Ent10 = entertainment/accommodations/

food services employment

N = number of activity categories (employment or households) with count > 0. 

3. Aggregate the entropy scores from each subarea to get an entropy score for the analysis 

zone. Because the entropy score varies between 0 and 1, multiply by 100 and round 

to the ones’ place to score this metric in the 

self-assessment worksheet (e.g., an entropy 

score of 0.557 should be recorded as 56).

4. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 1: Land Use Diversity in the 

self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

Approach 6: GIS Analysis

A GIS-based approach makes it possible to calculate 

the entropy score, described previously, more accurately and more quickly, provided that GIS software 

and a skilled analyst are available. The calculation is 

the same as the previous calculation, but GIS analysis allows the employment data to be aggregated 

more precisely to the identified analysis zone or 

zones and the calculation can be automated, rather 

than manual. This approach will provide more directly comparable values of the entropy score.

If GIS resources are available—

1. Consider an approach that systematically divides analysis zones into regular subareas of 

roughly even size and shape. 

2. Aggregate the entropy scores from each subarea to get an entropy score for the analysis 

zone. Because the entropy score varies between 0 and 1, multiply by 100 and round 

to the ones’ place to score this metric in the 

self-assessment worksheet (e.g., an entropy 

score of 0.557 should be recorded as 56).

3. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 1: Land Use Diversity in the 

self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

A-7

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
METRIC 2: NUMBER OF JOBS WITHIN 

15 MINUTES

Approach 1: LEHD OnTheMap

The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data source, available from the U.S. 

Census Bureau through a simple, web-based tool 

at http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/, provides estimates of employers and employees coded at the 

census block level. The tool is free to use. Circular 0.8-mile and 2.5-mile buffers will overestimate 

the number of jobs accessible within a 15-minute 

walk and bike ride, respectively, but are a consistent and relatively accurate approximation of 

a walkable and bikeable distance. The following 

steps describe in detail how to use LEHD OnTheMap to calculate employment within a 15-minute 

walk or bike ride. Additional documentation for 

OnTheMap is available at http://lehd.ces.census.

gov/applications/help/onthemap.html#!what_is_

onthemap.

1. Select two to four addresses to serve as points 

for analysis. Consider locations that reflect 

the experience of residents, workers, students, and visitors. Select a number of starting 

points that will reflect representative conditions throughout the analysis zone. These can 

be the same as or different from other points 

chosen for this analysis zone. 

2. Enter the first address in the search bar in the lefthand pane of http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. 

3. Select the “Geocoder Results” item that corresponds to the address searched (figure A-3). 

4. Select “Change Selection Area” from the resulting text bubble on the map (figure A-4).

5. Change the value in the “Simple/Ring” Radius 

field to 0.8 mile.

6. Press “Confirm Selection.” 

7. Select “Perform Analysis on Selection Area” 

in the text bubble on the map.

8. Select the following settings from the menu—

a) Home/Work Area: Work

b) Analysis Type: Area Profile—All Workers

c) Year: 2012 (or most recent)

d) Job Type: All Jobs

9. Record the number of Total All Jobs, as it appears on the right side panel.

10. Repeat steps 2 through 7 for each selected address in step 1, and record the Total All Jobs 

for each. 

11. Repeat steps 2 through 7 for a 2.5-mile radius 

(changing the value in step 5) for each of the 

addresses identified in step 1, and record the 

Total All Jobs for each. 

12. Average the jobs calculated for the Total All 

Jobs in the 0.8-mile radius. 

13. Average the jobs calculated for the Total All 

Jobs in the 2.5-mile radius.

14. Find where the number calculated in step 12 

falls in column A of table A-1. Find where the 

number calculated in step 13 falls in column B 

of the same table. Use the higher score in the 

event that a 2.5-mile buffer extends substantially beyond the edges of your community or 

developed area. Record the number of points 

associated with the total jobs calculated in the 

preceding steps.

15. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 2: Number of Jobs 

within 15 Minutes in the self-assessment 

worksheet. Repeat this approach for each 

analysis zone, as necessary.

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 

0.8-MILE RADIUS 

(COLUMN A)

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 

2.5-MILE RADIUS 

(COLUMN B)

POINTS

< 80 < 750 0

81–400 751–3,800 10

401–800 3,801–7,500 20

801–1,600 7,501–15,000 30

1,601–3,200 15,001–30,000 40

3,201–4,800 30,001–45,000 50

4,801–8,000 45,001–75,000 60

8,001–16,000 75,001–150,000 70

16,001–24,000 150,001–225,000 80

24,001–32,000 225,001–300,000 90

> 32,000 > 300,000 100

Table A-1: Total Employment Points

A-8

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
5

6

7

4

Figure A-3: Approach 1, Step 3

Figure A-4: Approach 1, Step 4-7

A-9

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
Approach 2: GIS Analysis

1. Start by selecting two to four addresses to 

serve as points for analysis. Consider locations 

that reflect the experience of residents, workers, students, and visitors. Select a number of 

starting points that will reflect representative 

conditions throughout the analysis zone.

2. Use the network buffer tool in a GIS software 

program like ArcGIS, to determine which 

census blocks are accessible within a 0.8-mile 

walk and 2.5-mile bike ride of each analysis 

point. The network analysis buffer will be 

smaller than a simple circular buffer because 

it reflects the available paths within the determined 0.8- and 2.5-mile buffers of the subarea. This approach more accurately represents 

the destinations to which a commuter could 

actually walk or bike. 

3. Import LEHD data (http://lehd.ces.census.gov/) 

comparable to the data described in Approach 

1, and join these data with the selected census 

blocks. Use the statistics tool to view the total 

number of jobs within these census blocks. 

4. Score the analysis zone based on walkable and 

bikeable employment using table A-1 in Approach 1. This will result in lower scores than 

the simple circular buffer approach, but they 

will be more accurate.

5. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 2: Number of Jobs 

within 15 Minutes in the self-assessment 

worksheet. Repeat this approach for each 

analysis zone, as necessary.

METRIC 3: PERCENTAGE OF LOWSTRESS ROADWAYS

Approach 1: Images of a Typical Street

1. Make a list of all of the arterial and collector 

streets in the analysis zone. Arterial roadways 

are typically multi-lane thoroughfares that carry longer-distance through traffic. Commercial collector roads carry moderate volumes of 

traffic and are typically abutted by commercial 

uses, like shops, restaurants, and other businesses.

2. Review the images corresponding to Levels of 

Traffic Stress 1 through 4 (figure A-5). 

a) Level of Traffic Stress #1: A separated bike 

lane separates bicyclists from moving vehicular traffic. 

b) Level of Traffic Stress #2: A bike lane on a 

30-mph street, with room to avoid the door 

zone. 

c) Level of Traffic Stress #3: Bike lane next to 

parking on multi-lane, 30-mph street in a 

commercial area, without space to ride outside the door zone. 

d) Level of Traffic Stress #4: Mixed traffic on a 

30-mph, multi-lane road. 

3. For each arterial and commercial collector 

street in the analysis zone, use local knowledge 

and/or aerial images and fieldwork to select 

the level of traffic stress that best represents the 

character of the street. 

4. Determine the percent of streets that had an 

image with LTS 1 or 2. Streets achieving only 

LTS 3 or 4 should not count. This percent is the 

analysis zone’s score for metric 3. For example, 

if roughly 10 percent of arterials and commercial collectors in the analysis zone achieve LTS 

1 and 20 percent of arterials and commercial 

collectors in the analysis zone achieve LTS 2, 

the score for the analysis zone would be 30.

5. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 3: Percentage of Low-Stress 

Roadways in the self-assessment worksheet. 

Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as 

necessary.

A-10

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
Figure A-2: Approach 1 Images: Level of Traffic Stress (Low to High) Stress (Low to High)

a) Level of Traffic Stress #1 

Source: www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-oftraffic-stress/

c) Level of Traffic Stress #3

Source: www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-oftraffic-stress/

b) Level of Traffic Stress #2

Source: www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-oftraffic-stress/

d) Level of Traffic Stress #4

Source: www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-oftraffic-stress/

A-11

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
Approach 2: Simplified LTS Table

Use table A-2 to assign roadways to Levels of Traffic Stress 1 through 4. Note that the simplified 

table is only an approximation and does not consider the full set of factors included in a Level of 

Traffic Stress assessment (Mekuria 2012). 

1. For each arterial and commercial collector 

street in the analysis zone, collect information 

on bike facilities, vehicular speeds, and number of lanes; then reference table A-2 to identify 

the corresponding Level of Traffic Stress. Arterial roadways are typical multi-lane thoroughfares that carry longer-distance through traffic. 

Commercial collector roads carry moderate 

volumes of traffic and are typically abutted by 

commercial uses, like shops, restaurants, and 

other businesses.

2. Assign the analysis area a score based on the 

percent of arterial and commercial collector 

streets that achieve LTS 1 or 2; streets achieving 

only LTS 3 or 4 should not count. For example, 

if roughly 10 percent of arterials and commercial collectors in the analysis zone achieve LTS 

1 and 20 percent of arterials and commercial 

collectors in the analysis zone achieve LTS 2, 

the score for the analysis zone would be 30.

3. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 3: Percentage of Low-Stress 

Roadways in the self-assessment worksheet. 

Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as 

necessary.

Approach 3: LTS Tables

1. Use the six tables provided in an LTS summary 

document by Peter Furth, available here: http://

www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/LTS-Tables1.pdf. 

• Table 1: Helps narrow LTS by bicycle facility type.

• Tables 2 and 3: Show LTS for a bike lane 

alongside and not alongside a parking lane, 

respectively.

• Table 4: Shows LTS for streets with bikes in 

mixed traffic based on number of lanes and 

prevailing speed.

• Table 5: Shows LTS based on treatments 

and geometry of a bike approaching an intersection at a right turn lane.

• Table 6: Shows LTS at unsignalized crossings based on number of lanes and speed.

2. Use the tables to determine the LTS for each 

roadway in the subarea. The tables should be 

combined using a “weakest link” approach, 

meaning that a given roadway should receive 

the worst score merited by consideration of all 

criteria. If conditions of the roadway change, 

identify the appropriate LTS for each similar 

segment. Determine the percentage of streets 

that have an LTS 1 or LTS 2 similar to Approach 2. 

3. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 3: Percentage of Low Stress 

Roadways in the self-assessment worksheet. 

Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as 

necessary.

PHYSICALLY 

SEPARATED 

BIKEWAY?

BIKE 

LANE SPEED LANES PER DIRECTION

LEVEL 

OF 

TRAFFIC 

STRESS 

(LTS)

Yes (any) 1

No

Yes

25mph 

or less

1 1

2+ 3

30mph

1 2

2+ 3

35mph (any) 3

40mph (any) 4

No

25mph 

or less

1 2

2 3

3+ 4

30mph

1 3

2+ 4

35mph+ (any) 4

Source: Fehr & Peers, adapted from Mekuria, Maaza, Peter Furth 

and Hilary Nixon. Low-Stress Bicycling and Netrok Connectivity. 

Mineta Transportation Institute. May 2012. http://transweb.

sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-networkconnectivity.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2015. 

Table A-2: Simplified LTS Decision Table

A-12

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
METRIC 4: PERCENTAGE OF 

RESIDENTS NEAR BICYCLE FACILITIES

Approach 1: Miles of Bike Facilities per 

Capita Calculation (proxy) 

This approach does not directly determine the percentage of residents and workers near high-quality facilities, but it is an acceptable proxy for this 

metric. 

1. Open or download Google Earth Pro: 

http://www.google.com/earth/.

2. Identify the analysis zone in Google Earth Pro. 

You may want to draw a boundary around this 

area using the “Add Polygon” tool. Adjust the 

“Style, Color” setting for “Area” to “Outlined” 

so the area within the boundary is not covered.

3. Using the measuring tool in Google Earth Pro 

(the ruler on the top of the screen), measure 

all of the bike lanes within the analysis zone. 

Record the miles of bike lanes.

4. Using the measuring tool in Google Earth 

Pro, measure all of the paths and trails within the analysis zone. It may be easiest to use 

the “path” feature within the rule tool if trails 

and paths are not straight. Record the miles of 

paths and trails.

5. Add the miles of lanes (step 3) and trails (step 

4), and record the total miles. 

6. Open the ruler tool in Google Earth Pro and 

select “polygon.”

7. Trace the boundary of the analysis zone, and 

record the area in square miles, as reported by 

the ruler tool.

8. Divide the miles of off-street trail and on street 

bike facility (step 5) in the analysis zone by the 

area of the analysis zone (step 6), and record 

the miles of bike facilities per square mile.

9. Using the value from step 8, determine how 

many points to attribute this analysis zone using table A-3.

10. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 4: Percentage of Residents and Workers near Bike Facilities in the 

self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

Table A-2: Bike Facility Points

MILES OF BIKE FACILITY PER 

SQUARE MILE

POINTS

< 1 20

1–2 40

2–4 60

4–8 80

> 8 100

A-13

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
Approach 2: LEHD OnTheMap

The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynam-

ics (LEHD) data source, available from the U.S. 

Census Bureau through a simple, web-based tool 

at http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/, provides esti-

mates of employers and employees coded at the 

census block level. The tool is free to use. LEHD 

OnTheMap can be used to calculate the number of 

residents and workers living and working within 

0.25 mile of a high-quality bicycle facility. Addi-

tional documentation for OnTheMap is available 

here: http://lehd.ces.census.gov/applications/

help/onthemap.html#!what_is_onthemap.

1. Start by creating a kml (Google Earth) or 

shapefile (GIS) of all bike facilities considered 

LTS 1 or LTS 2. This will include off-street 

paths that can accommodate bikes, as well as 

bike lanes on streets with speed limits of 30 

mph or less and 2–3 lanes.

2. Select “Import [KML, SHP, or GPS]” in 

the search bar in the left-hand pane of 

http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Import the 

high-quality bike facility file in its appropriate 

form (figure A-6). 

3. Select “Zoom to Imported Shapes.” If shape is 

correct, click on “Select all lines,” and then se-

lect “Continue with Selected Feature” (figure 

A-7). 

4. From the “Add Buffer to Selection” window, 

select “Simple/Ring,” and enter .25, to rep-

resent the 0.25-mile buffer, and then press 

“Confirm Selection” (figure A-8).

Figure A-6: Approach 2: Step 2

Figure A-7: Approach 2: Step 3

A-14

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
5. Select “Perform Analysis on Selection Area,” 

and then do two runs to get first data on em-

ployees and then data on residents. Select the 

following settings from the menu—

a) Home/Work Area: First Work, then Home

b) Analysis Type: Area Profile—All Workers

c) Year: 2012 (or most recent)

d) Job Type: All Jobs

6. Note the number of “Total Jobs” for both the 

home and the work analysis.

7. Repeat steps 2 through 5 for a polygon of the 

entire analysis zone, but do not buffer (figure 

A-9). 

8. Note the number of home and work jobs for 

the entire analysis zone.

9. Divide the total number of home (or origin) 

and work (or destination) jobs in the bike fa-

cilities buffer by the total number of home (or 

origin) and work (or destination) jobs in the 

entire analysis zone. 

10. The score assigned for this metric will be 

equal to the percentage of total residents and 

workers who live and work within 0.25 mile of 

a high-quality bicycle facility. 

11. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 4: Percentage of Resi-

dents and Workers near Bike Facilities in the 

self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this ap-

proach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

Figure A-8: Approach 2: Step 4

Figure A-9: Approach 2: Step 7

A-15

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
Approach 3: GIS Analysis

1. Create a polygon shape file of the analysis 

zone in GIS. Import U.S. census population 

data at the census block level into GIS. Import 

LEHD data (http://lehd.ces.census.gov/) 

for the census blocks contained with the 

analysis zone. Use the clipping tool to cut the 

residential and employment data to match 

the analysis zone. Note the number of people 

who live and work in the analysis zone, using 

the statistics tool. Because population and 

employment distribution is not consistent for 

a census block, take a percentage proportional 

to the area clipped.

2. Create or import an existing shape file of 

off-street paths and on street bike lanes. Use 

the network buffer tool to create a polygon 

shape file that is a 0.25-mile buffer of these 

bicycle facilities. Use the clipping tool to 

create a new polygon of U.S. census data and 

LEHD OnTheMap data that are within the 

0.25-mile buffer polygon. Use the statistics 

tool to determine the number of residents 

and employees who live and work within this 

0.25-mile-buffer polygon. Divide this number 

by the total number of people who live and work 

in the analysis zone, as determined previously. 

This will provide the percent of people that live 

and/or work within 0.25 mile of a high-quality 

bicycle facility out of the total number that live 

and/or work in the analysis zone.

3. The score assigned for this metric will be equal 

to the percent of total residents and workers 

who live and work within 0.25 mile of a highquality bicycle facility. 

4. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 4: Percentage of 

Residents and Workers near Bike Facilities 

in the self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this 

approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

METRIC 5: STREET NETWORK

Approach 1: Images of Street Network 

Grids

1. After establishing analysis zones, determine 

the streets and grid within the zones. Are 

streets curvilinear or parallel/perpendicular? 

Are blocks less than 700 feet long, providing 

a number of pedestrian options? Are there 

frequent cul-de-sacs and/or loops, or do local 

streets connect through? Assign the analysis 

zone a score from 0—meaning that streets 

are curvilinear, full of cul-de-sacs, and do not 

connect—to 100—meaning that all streets are 

parallel or perpendicular with short blocks, 

forming a dense grid. The following images 

provide illustrative examples for comparison. 

Determine a score between the stated ranges 

based on where the grid and street configuration within your analysis zone falls.

2. Review the following descriptions and accompanying images (figure A-10). Select the one that 

most accurately represents the analysis zone. 

a) Score 0–20: The street grid consists of 

large, curvilinear arterials that branch out 

into local streets that primarily end in culde-sacs. Almost none of the local streets 

connect. Arterials draw large amounts of 

vehicular through traffic, creating large 

intersections with many conflicts. This is 

often referred to as “lollipops on a stick.”

b) Score 21–40: Local streets branch off of 

arterials. Arterials are primarily curvilinear. Many local streets end in cul-de-sacs, 

but not all of them. Other local streets loop 

around and connect back to the same arterial they started from. Rarely do local 

A-16

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
streets connect through to a parallel arte

-

rial. This is often referred to as “loops and 

lollipops.”

c) Score 41–60: There is an occasional culde-sac, but most streets connect. Streets are 

primarily curvilinear rather than parallel, 

disorienting the pedestrian. Most blocks 

are long—greater than 1,000 feet—creat-

ing fewer choices for pedestrians. There is 

no pattern or consistency to this distorted 

grid system. There are still some cul-desacs, but only a few.

d) Score 61–80: Streets are parallel and 

connect to each other to form a grid, but 

blocks are inconsistent in length, with 

most blocks greater than 700 feet, twice the 

length of a typical city block. Not all streets 

connect through to a perpendicular street 

but create an “L” shape instead, causing 

pedestrians to potentially detour to reach 

their destination.

e) Score 81–100: All streets are parallel or 

perpendicular and connect to form a dense 

grid. Blocks are short—300 to 400 feet—

providing lots of options for pedestrians 

and bicyclists and diffusing vehicular traffic, making for fewer conflicts at intersections.

3. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 4: Percentage of Resi-

dents and Workers near Bike Facilities in the 

self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this ap-

proach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

Figure A-10: Street Network Grids

a) Score 0-20

b) Score 20-40

c) Score 40-60

d) Score 60-80

e) Score 80-100

(Images Source: Southworth, M. and 

E. Ben-Joseph (1997). Street and the 

Shaping of Towns and Cities. New 

York, McGraw-Hill.)

A-17

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
Approach 2: Manual Count From Google 

Earth

1. Open or download Google Earth Pro: www.

google.com/earth/download/gep/agree.html.

2. Identify the analysis zone in Google Earth 

Pro. Draw a boundary around this area.

3. From Google Earth’s aerial view, count the 

number of intersections in the zone. An intersection is defined as the junction of two 

or more roads meeting or crossing. The following variations would be considered one 

intersection: a three-way (or T) intersection, 

a four-way intersection, and a junction with 

five or more legs. Roads include alleyways and 

pedestrian-only streets but not sidewalks, private roads, or cul-de-sacs. All roads should be 

publicly accessible. 

4. Open the ruler tool in Google Earth Pro, and 

select “Polygon.” Trace the boundary of the 

analysis zone, and record the area in square 

miles, as reported by the ruler tool.

5. Divide the number of intersections counted 

in the analysis zone (step 3) by the size of the 

zone (step 5), to determine the number of intersections per square mile. 

6. Using the number of intersections per square 

mile (step 6), determine how many points to 

attribute to this analysis zone using table A-4.

7. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 5: Street Network in 

the self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

MILES OF BIKE FACILITY PER 

SQUARE MILE

POINTS

< 10 10

11–30 20

31–50 30

51–100 40

101–150 50

151–200 60

201–250 70

251–300 80

301–400 90

> 400 100

Approach 3: GIS Analysis 

GIS allows for a more automated approach to determining the number of intersections in the study 

area. It is important to have an accurate shape file 

of the intersections within the study area. If you 

have a road shape file but not an intersection 

shape file, you can use the Intersect tool (Analysis 

Tools<Overlay<Intersect) to create a point shape 

file of intersections based on all instances where 

roads intersect. It is important to clean this layer, 

making sure that cul-de-sacs do not appear as intersections and that private roads are not counted. 

Be sure that you have an accurate polygon shape 

file of the analysis zone. Determine the number of 

intersections within the analysis zone by following 

these steps:

1. Selection<Select by Location<Select Features 

from “Analysis Zone Intersections,” Source 

Layer: Analysis Zone<Spatial Selection: Are 

Within the Source Layer Feature. This will select all of the intersections within the analysis 

zone. Open the attribute table of the intersections, and note the number of points selected. 

Divide this by the area (in square miles) of the 

analysis zone. This can be determined by using 

the statistics tool under the polygon analysis 

zone shape file. 

2. Award the analysis zone the number of points 

denoted in table A-4 based on the number 

of intersections per square mile calculated 

through this approach.

3. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 5: Street Network in 

the self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

Table A-3: Intersections per Square Mile

A-18

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
METRIC 6: SITE ACCESS AND 

PARKING TYPOLOGY

Approach 1: Images of a Typical Shopping 

Area

Using local knowledge, the self-assessment team 

from the community reviews a spectrum of five 

site and parking typology images and selects the 

image that most accurately depicts a representative commercial, retail, or office center for their 

community’s analysis zone. 

After establishing analysis zones, determine shopping areas and their parking configuration within 

the zones. Then, assign the analysis zone a score 

from 0—meaning vast areas of parking all located 

between the street’s pedestrian facilities and the 

shopping entrance—to 100—meaning that there 

is no parking located on site. Look at an aerial 

photograph of the analysis zone. 

1. Think about the quantity of vehicular parking 

provided and the location and distribution of 

that parking within the site. Is there an excess 

supply of parking? How much of the street 

or sidewalk is fronted by off-street parking? 

Are there pedestrian facilities and amenities 

throughout the parking lot? 

2. Review the following images and accompanying descriptions. Select which one (a through 

e) most accurately represents the analysis zone. 

a) Score 0–20: There are very large surface 

parking lots primarily located between the 

street and the building. Each retailer generally has its own parking. It takes a long 

time and is dangerous to walk or bike from 

the street to the building entrance. (Image 

Source: coastalpaving.com)

b) Score 21–40: There is a large amount of vehicular parking. Not all parking is between 

the street and the building—parking is distributed throughout the site. Buildings are 

slightly more pedestrian accessible from 

the street than in the previous image. (Image Source: cvilleshop.com)

c) Score 41–60: There is only a small amount 

of parking between the street and the 

building entry. Some parking may be behind the building. There are pedestrian 

facilities throughout the parking area. 

Parking is shared among retailers. (Image 

Source: localsugar.co)

d) Score 61–80: Parking is available close 

to the building entrance, but pedestrian facilities are prioritized. Parking is 

shared among retailers. (Image Source: 

visitjacksonville.com)

e) Score 81–100: There is no parking between the primary pedestrian space and 

the building frontage. There are a large 

number of pedestrian facilities and amenities that provide direct access to building 

entrances. Customers can stroll down the 

pedestrian facility without a particular destination and window shop. (Image Source: 

philipsmarchall.net)

3. Determine a score within the 20-point range 

of the chosen image. Select the middle of the 

range (for example, 10 for 0–20) if your average street looks most like the image provided. 

If your typical street looks less pedestrian accessible than the image, then pick a number 

at the lower end of the range. If your typical 

street looks more pedestrian accessible than 

the image, then pick a number at the upper 

end of the range. 

4. Place this averaged score as the community’s 0–100 Score for Metric 6: Site Access 

and Parking Typology in the self-assessment 

worksheet. Repeat this approach for each 

analysis zone, as necessary.

A-19

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
MILES OF BIKE FACILITY PER 

SQUARE MILE POINTS

0–20% 10

21–40% 30

41–60% 50

61–80% 70

81–100% 90

METRIC 7: PERCENT OF STREETS 

WITH SIDEWALKS

Approach 1: Local Knowledge Estimate

1. Based on local knowledge, consider the presence and condition of sidewalks throughout 

the analysis zone. Think of each side of the 

street separately. For example, if sidewalks 

are complete on one side of every street but 

there are no sidewalks on the other side of the 

street, count as 50 percent of streets with sidewalks. There must be a complete sidewalk on 

both sides of every street to receive 100 percent. Also, only consider sidewalks that can 

be navigated by a wheelchair. In order for a 

wheelchair to navigate a sidewalk, the sidewalk should be at least 4 feet wide and the 

pavement or concrete should be in at least fair 

condition.

2. Estimate the percentage of each side of the 

street that has a sidewalk.

3. Using the value from step 2, determine how 

many points to attribute this analysis zone, using table A-5. 

4. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 7: Percent of Streets 

with Sidewalks in the self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis 

zone, as necessary.

Approach 2: Google Earth Aerial Imagery 

Review

1. Identify the analysis zone in Google Earth. 

2. In aerial view, look at each side of the street 

separately, measuring the miles of sidewalk 

with the ruler tool that appears to be wheelchair accessible—estimated to be at least 4 feet 

wide with pavement that appears to be in at 

least fair condition. For example, if sidewalks 

are complete on one side of every street but 

there are no sidewalks on the other side of the 

street, this would be considered 50 percent of 

streets with sidewalks. There must be a complete sidewalk on both sides of every street 

to receive 100 percent. Divide the length of 

wheelchair-accessible sidewalk summed from 

each side by the total length of both sides of 

the street combined, whether or not a sidewalk is present (also equal to double the centerline mileage). The resulting decimal will be 

the percent of streets with sidewalk.

3. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 7: Percent of Streets with 

Sidewalks in the self-assessment worksheet. 

Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, 

as necessary.

Table A-4: Percent of Streets with Sidewalks

A-20

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
Approach 3: Google Earth Street View 

Review

1. Identify the analysis zone in Google Earth. 

2. Looking at each side of the street separately, 

use the ruler tool to measure the miles of sidewalk that appears to be wheelchair accessible. 

Wheelchair accessibility can be determined by 

sidewalks that measure at least 4 feet wide with 

the ruler tool in aerial view and appear to have 

at least fair pavement condition in street view. 

Consider each side of the street separately. For 

example, if sidewalks are complete on one side 

of every street but there are no sidewalks on 

the other side of the street, this would be considered 50 percent of streets with sidewalks. 

There must be a complete sidewalk on both 

sides of every street to receive 100 percent. 

Divide the length of wheelchair-accessible 

sidewalk on both sides of the street combined 

by the total length of both sides of the street 

combined, whether or not a sidewalk is present (also equal to double the centerline mileage). The resulting decimal will be the percent 

of streets with sidewalk.

3. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 7: Percent of Streets with 

Sidewalks in the self-assessment worksheet. 

Approach 4: Field Inventory

1. Print a map of the analysis zone or zones, and 

take it into the field, along with a measuring 

wheel or tape, level, and clipboard. Evaluate 

and measure the sidewalk of each side of the 

street separately. All existing sidewalks must 

meet ADA accessibility standards, which can 

be located in Section 4.3 Access Characteristics 

in the following document: http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/chap4a.cfm. A summary of 

these guidelines is in the following list. Refer to 

the document and any state or local ADA policies for more detailed guidance. 

• Sidewalks must have 4 feet of clear space, 

not including curb width.

• The grade of the sidewalk is not to exceed 

5 percent.

• Cross-slopes should not exceed 2 percent.

• There must be 80 inches of unobstructed 

vertical passage space.

• Changes in level of sidewalk are not to exceed 0.25 inch.

• Grates located in walking surfaces should 

have spaces no greater than 0.5-inch wide 

in one direction.

• Objects projecting from walls that have 

leading edges of 27–80 inches should not 

protrude more than 4 inches into walks 

and passageways.

• Sidewalk surfaces should be firm, stable, 

and slip resistant.

2. Consider each side of the street separately. For 

example, if sidewalks are complete on one side 

of every street but there are no sidewalks on the 

other side of the street, this would be considered 50 percent of streets with sidewalks. There 

must be a complete sidewalk on both sides of 

every street to receive 100 percent. Divide the 

length of wheelchair-accessible sidewalk on 

both sides of the street combined by the total 

length of both sides of the street combined, 

whether or not a sidewalk is present (also equal 

to double the centerline mileage). The resulting 

decimal will be the percent of streets with sidewalk.

3. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 Score 

for Metric 7: Percent of Streets with Sidewalks 

in the self-assessment worksheet. Repeat this 

approach for each analysis zone, as necessary.

A-21

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
MILES OF BIKE FACILITY PER 

SQUARE MILE POINTS

0–20% 10

21–40% 30

41–60% 50

61–80% 70

81–100% 90

METRIC 8: PERCENT OF CORNERS 

WITH CURB RAMPS

Approach 1: Local Knowledge Estimate

1. Think about the intersections in the analysis 

zone, both signalized and unsignalized. 

2. Think about the curb ramps of each intersection and whether they are ADA compliant. Refer to ADA Accessibility Survey Instructions 

for curb ramps to more specifically explore 

the geometrics that determine whether a curb 

ramp is ADA compliant: http://www.ada.gov/

pcatoolkit/app1curbramps.pdf. In order for 

a curb ramp to be ADA compliant, use your 

best judgment to determine if each corner and 

ramp satisfies the following criteria—

• Has a separate, directional curb ramp for 

each crossing leg. For corners with one diagonal crosswalk, there should be 4 feet between the ramp and crosswalk striping to 

allow wheelchairs to turn into the crosswalk 

before the start of vehicle traffic.

• Ramp slope and width that can be maneuvered by a wheelchair.

• Three feet of clear sidewalk space before the 

start of the ramp.

• Detectable warning material along the 

width and length of the ramp.

3. Estimate the percentage of corners that have 

ADA-compliant curb ramps. 

4. Using the value from step 3, determine how 

many points to attribute this analysis zone, using table A-6. 

5. Place this averaged score as the community’s 

0–100 Score for Metric 8: Percent of Corners 

with Curbs Ramps in the self-assessment 

worksheet. Repeat this approach for each 

analysis zone, as necessary.

Approach 2: Google Earth Desktop 

Inventory

1. Draw or note the analysis zone limits in Google Earth. 

2. Go to each intersection (signalized and unsignalized) in the analysis zone in street view, and 

take an inventory of the curb ramps on every 

corner. Refer to ADA Accessibility Survey Instructions for curb ramps to more specifically 

explore the geometrics that determine whether a curb ramp is ADA compliant: http://www.

ada.gov/pcatoolkit/app1curbramps.pdf. In 

order for a curb ramp to be ADA compliant, 

use your best judgment to determine if each 

corner and ramp satisfies the following criteria—

• Has a separate, directional curb ramp for 

each crossing leg. For corners with one diagonal crosswalk, there should be 4 feet between the ramp and crosswalk striping to 

allow wheelchairs to turn into the crosswalk 

before the start of vehicle traffic.

• Ramp slope and width that can be maneuvered by a wheelchair.

• Three feet of clear sidewalk space before the 

start of the ramp.

• Detectable warning material along the 

width and length of the ramp.

Table A-5: Percent of Corners with Curb Ramps

A-22

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
3. Estimate the percent of corners that have 

ADA-compliant curb ramps. 

4. Using the value from step 3, determine how 

many points to attribute this analysis zone, us-

ing table A-6. 

5. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 8: Percent of Corners with 

Curbs Ramps in the self-assessment work-

sheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis 

zone, as necessary.

Approach 3: Field Inventory 

1. Print a map of the analysis zone, and take it 

into the field, along with a measuring wheel or 

tape, level, and clipboard. Go to each intersec-

tion (signalized and unsignalized) in the anal-

ysis zone, and take an inventory of the curb 

ramps on every corner. Refer to ADA Acces-

sibility Survey Instructions for curb ramps 

to more specifically explore the geometrics 

that determine whether a curb ramp is ADA 

compliant: http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/

app1curbramps.pdf. A summary of ADA-ac-

cessible criteria for curb ramps includes— • There should be a separate curb ramp in 

the direction of each approach leg. If there 

is only one diagonal curb ramp, use the 

measuring wheel to determine if there is 

48 inches between the curb ramp and the 

painted crosswalk, providing enough room 

for a wheelchair to turn before entering the 

space designated for vehicle traffic. If a di-

agonal curb ramp does not have 48 inches, 

it will be counted as not having an adequate 

curb ramp. 

• The width of the ramp, not including flared 

sides, should be 36 inches.

• The slope should not exceed 10 percent for a 

6-inch rise or 12.5 percent for a 3-inch rise.

• The slope across the ramp should not ex-

ceed 2 percent.

• The slope of the gutter should not exceed 5 

percent.

• The ramp should be flush where it meets the 

gutter and where it meets the sidewalk.

• Detectable warning material should be pres-

ent along the width and length of the ramp.

• Vehicles should be prohibited from parking 

in front of the curb ramp.

• The curb ramp should have 36 inches of 

clear space at its preceded sidewalk.

• The slope of the curb ramp’s flared sides 

may not exceed 8.33 percent when there is 

less than 48 inches between the top of the 

curb ramp and the edge of the sidewalk.

• The entire curb ramp, not including the 

flared sides, should be within the marked 

crosswalk.

2. Divide the total number of corners with 

wheelchair-accessible curb ramps by the to-

tal number of corners in the study area. The 

score received for this metric will be equal to 

the percent of corners with wheelchair-acces-

sible curb ramps.

3. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 8: Percent of Corners with 

Curbs Ramps in the self-assessment work-

sheet. Repeat this approach for each analysis 

zone, as necessary.

A-23

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
MILES OF BIKE FACILITY PER 

SQUARE MILE POINTS

> 2,500 0

1,001–2,500 20

701–1,000 40

401–700 60

200–400 80

< 200 100

METRIC 9: DISTANCE BETWEEN 

MARKED CROSSINGS

Approach 1: Google Earth Measurement

1. Determine the densest destination corridor 

within the analysis zone. This will be the 

street through the area that has the most 

commercial and retail destinations. It can 

be determined through local knowledge, 

observing the density from a Google Earth 

aerial, or referring to a zoning map for a 

commercial corridor overlay district. 

2. Determine the points between which the 

corridor has commercial or retail land uses. If 

the whole analysis zone is residential, pick the 

corridor with the most residences (identifying 

apartments or multifamily homes is a good 

start). 

3. In Google Earth, use the ruler tool to measure 

the distance between marked crosswalks, 

either at intersections or mid-block, along this 

corridor between the predetermined extents. 

A marked crosswalk can be as simple as two 

parallel painted lines or it may be something 

of higher visibility. In order for a mid-block 

crossing at a four-lane road to qualify, it 

should have a median refuge island and a 

beacon or signal. 

4. Average the distances measured in step 3. 

5. Use table A-7 to assign a point value to the 

value from step 4.

6. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 9: Distance Between marked 

Crosswalks in the self-assessment worksheet. 

Repeat this approach for each Analysis Zone, 

as necessary.

Approach 2: Field Measurement

1. Follow the same steps 1 and 2 listed in 

Approach 1: Google Earth Measurement. 

2. In the field, use a measuring wheel to measure 

the distance between marked crosswalks, 

either at intersections or mid-block, along this 

corridor between the predetermined points. 

A marked crosswalk can be as simple as two 

parallel painted lines, or it may be something 

of higher visibility. In order for a mid-block 

crossing at a four-lane road to qualify, it 

should have a median refuge island and a 

beacon or signal. 

3. Average the distances measured between each 

of the marked crosswalks. Use table A-7 to 

assign a point value to the average distance 

between marked crosswalks.

4. Place this score as the community’s 0–100 

Score for Metric 9: Distance Between marked 

Crosswalks in the self-assessment worksheet. 

Repeat this approach for each analysis zone, 

as necessary.

Table A-6: Distance Between Marked Crosswalks

A-24

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

Instructions for Self-Assessment 

worksheet

Note: Delete and replace the sample text in the 

light green cells. This sample text serves as an 

example, and should be filled in by the evaluation 

B2:D3

1. Identify all of the analysis zones within the 

community.

2. Place the name of each analysis zone in cell 

C3 in each of the tabs in this worksheet. Leave 

unused tabs with blank entries.

3. Estimate the percent of the community that 

is comprised of each analysis zone (based on 

your judgment or data about the zone's area, 

population, or relative importance in the 

community). Input these values in the "Zone 

Weighting" column of the summary tab.

4. For each zone, use the table and text in the selfassessment to determine the most appropriate 

approach for each metric from the drop down 

in cells C6 through C14. Within the same 

metric the approach will likely be the same for 

all zones, unless a certain zone has more or 

fewer resources than other zones.

5. You can use the recommended weights (cells 

D6 through D14, based on best practices 

and professional judgment) or identify 

community and zone-specific weights based 

on your community's priorities.

Figure A-11: Self-Assessment Tool Summary

Figure A-12: Zone 1 Example: Steps 1-5

1

2 3

A-25

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS
6. After completing the pre-evaluation for each 

metric based on the instructions provided in 

the guide, fill out cells E6 through E14 with 

the resulting score. Fill in the date or date 

range of the pre-evaluation in cell E3.

7. The final, weighted score from the preevaluation will auto-fill in Cell E15.

8. Once you have completed a post-evaluation, 

fill in cells G6 through G14 with those results. 

Fill in the date or date range of the postevaluation in cell G3.

9. The final, weighted score from the postevaluation will auto-fill in Cell G15.

10. Fill in additional indicators (columns O and 

P, cells 5-18, 20-35) as described in the guide.

11. The summary tab will auto-fill completely, 

except for the Zone Weighting selected in 

step 3. This provides a summary of the key 

information from each analysis zone as well 

as an overall weighted Community SelfAssessment Score.

Figure A-13: Zone 1 Example: Steps 6-11

6 8

10

10

A-26

APPENDIX A | COMMUNITY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
B.1 PLANNING TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2

B.2 LAND USE DESIGN TOOLS..................... B-3

B.3 STREET DESIGN TOOLS....................... B-11

B.4 BIKE DESIGN TOOLS.......................... B-18

B.5 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-34

APPENDIX B:

DESIGN TOOLS
B-2

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS B-1: Planning Tools

Develop Multi-Modal Transportation 

Plans (MM)

For multi-modal plans, communities should consider—

MM-1: Developing transportation plans that focus 

on the improved mobility and accessibility of 

people and goods rather than of automobiles.

MM-2: Developing plans that include goals of lowering overall vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

MM-3: Recognizing the interrelationship between 

different transportation modes, and planning 

accordingly (i.e. transit enables longer biking 

and walking trips; biking and walking enable 

“first/last mile” connections to transit). 

MM-4: Utilizing Transportation Demand Management measures to maximize the use of existing facilities (e.g. active transportation, transit, ridesharing, telecommuting, ITS)

MM-5: Matching transportation investments with 

planning goals.

MM-6: Considering how the transportation network 

is connected. (e.g. whether people living in 

residential areas can walk or bike to employment centers, shopping, schools, parks, and 

transit hubs).

Develop Land Use and Transportation 

Plans Concurrently (LT)

For the concurrent development of land use and 

transportation plans, communities should consider—

LT-1: Highlighting the synergy between land development and transportation projects.

LT-2: Reinforcing land use and transportation goals 

and policies with transportation options.

LT-3: Demonstrating why biking and walking are 

key to the development of compact communities.

LT-4: Building “10-minute neighborhoods” on a 

strong foundation of active transportation 

options and street connectivity so that most 

daily needs can be met with a 10-minute walk, 

bike ride, or transit trip.

LT-5: Providing a balanced mix of housing, working, shopping, recreation, and civic uses to 

lower long-distance commute requirements.

LT-6: Developing parking and site-planning goals 

that support walking, transit use, and biking. 

LT-7: Using building design standards, including 

building scale and orientation, that are inviting and accessible to people arriving on foot, 

bike, and transit. 

LT-8: Adopting a standard of short block lengths 

(200–400 feet), street connectivity, and/or intersection density. (These principles are crucial to providing more options—routes—to 

people who walk and bike.)

Suggest Other Means of Interjecting 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (OM)

For other means of interjecting bicycle and pedestrian planning, communities should consider—

OM-1: Developing policies of routine accommodations that require appropriate bicycle and pedestrian accommodation in all new and major 

redevelopment projects. 

OM-2: Developing policies of adding or improving 

bicycle facilities during routine street resurfacing (slurry sealing) and striping projects by 

way of lane diets or road diets.

OM-3: Developing a policy of street reclamation, 

wherein underused street space is reclaimed 

for biking, walking, plazas, or other “higher” 

public uses.

OM-4: Developing policies of multi-modal mitigation, wherein developers mitigate their transportation impacts by providing multi-modal, 

rather than automobile-only, improvements 

(e.g. allowing bike parking to substitute for car 

parking spaces).

OM-5: Developing policies for parking exemptions, in 

which developers are exempt from providing 

vehicle parking in certain districts and instead 

contribute to multi-modal improvements, including bicycle parking (see land use case study 

on Gainesville, Florida in chapter 4).

OM-6: Adopting a complete streets policy, pledging 

to accommodate all modes of transportation 

in future roadway design. 

OM-7: Prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian capital improvement projects (CIPs), and establishing 

goals for their implementation.

OM-8: Creating an ADA transition plan that identifies necessary accessibility improvements and 

establishes goals and prioritization of implementation.
B-3

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS B-2: Land Use Tools

Neighborhoods (N)

For neighborhoods, communities should consider—

N-1: Providing users from “8 to 80 years old” access 

and use of streets. This helps create successful cities for everyone. Streets are the living 

rooms and playrooms of the neighborhood 

and may be designed mainly for the safety and 

enjoyment of pedestrians while still accommodating vehicular use. Streets in nonresidential areas can be focused on movement, 

but neighborhood streets should be focused 

on living.

N-2: Designing streets with sidewalks, flanked by 

street trees and landscaped parkway strips on 

the public side and landscaped front yards on 

the private side.

N-3: Encouraging on-street parking in neighborhoods where right-of-way widths permit. Onstreet parking serves visitors and residents and 

provides a valuable buffer between pedestrians, 

children at play, and passing traffic.

N-4: Placing residences to front the street with 

gracious front doors and overlook the street 

with windows to provide a sense of security 

through eyes on the street.

N-5: Designing front doors of houses to be closer 

to the street than the garage to emphasize the 

home over automobile storage and to bring 

eyes closer to the street. 

N-6: Providing access to parking and garages via 

alleys and driveways from side streets so that 

automobiles cause minimal disruption to the 

pedestrian environment (sidewalks). When 

necessary, a driveway from the front of a lot 

to access a garage located behind or beside 

the residence can be as narrow as possible, 

and the walkway and driveway design should 

clearly indicate that the driver is crossing a pedestrian area instead of the pedestrian crossing a driving area.

Corridors (C)

For corridors, communities should consider—

C-1: For short- to mid-length corridors that are no 

longer being used effectively as commercial corridors, lining the majority of the corridor with uses, 

including neighborhood centers at appropriate 

nodes and densities; multifamily housing of various types; and single-family housing appropriately buffered with landscaped setbacks. 

C-2: Avoiding forms of “pure buffers,” such as sound 

walls and berms, because they can disconnect the 

city and should be employed only as a last resort.

C-3: Integrating the community visioning process 

with transit-planning processes and retail capacity studies to determine the ideal location and size 

of neighborhood centers.

C-4: Conducting analyses to define existing or emerging character by segment, potential nodes and 

centers, or destinations that are focused on pedestrian activity.

C-5: Including a mix of land uses at specific nodes that 

encourage people to make trips by walking and 

bicycling.

C-6: Creating design standards for development within the segments that will remain automobile 

oriented and allow the segments to be made as 

pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly as possible by 

minimizing the number of curb cut locations and 

widths that interrupt the sidewalk; using buffering 

from on-street parking so that the walk environment is made safer and more comfortable; and 

providing setbacks for landscaping and transit 

amenities, where possible, to encourage transit use.

C-7: Encouraging appropriately scaled buildings on 

either side of the corridor to create, but not overshadow, the pedestrian environment. Consult 

closely with the residents of adjoining neighborhoods to ensure that building size matches community expectations.

Districts (D)

For districts, communities should consider—

D-1: Organizing special-use districts around a balanced street network, with development standards to ensure that the urban design does not 

exclude pedestrians and bicyclists.

D-2: Allowing other uses (e.g., restaurants, cafes, 

and small convenience stores) within the area 

to provide a pedestrian-friendly street frontage 

that encourages employees or visitors to travel 

from nearby businesses on foot.

D-3: Establishing safety measures for bicycles and 

pedestrians, understanding that major corridors entering special-use districts typically carry heavier traffic and trucks.

D-4: Ensuring that street networks have clear paths 

of travel for truck traffic that do not encroach 

on sidewalks. Instead of widening roadways 

or travel lanes to provide this buffer, provide 

parkways, street furnishing zones, widened 

sidewalks, and so forth, that both enhance the 

pedestrian realm and further separate pedestrians from roadway traffic.

D-5: Designing buildings to create a good public 

face along streets, with unattractive uses behind buildings or screened by fences and landscaping.

D-6: In uses such as medical centers, designing 

the building frontage and entrances onto the 

campus and its individual buildings from the 

sidewalk to be pedestrian friendly and to accommodate people with mobility impairments. 

Services open to the public, such as cafés and 

gift shops, may face the street.
B-4

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

D-7: Designing educational campuses, which generally are composed of larger areas without public streets, to have a clear network of pedestrian 

paths and streets that encourage walking and 

biking, not driving, and allow neighboring pedestrians and bicyclists to pass through the campus.

D-8: Providing setbacks that vary based on the street 

and sidewalk character of the buildings. Landscaping along public sidewalks and shade trees 

should be provided to reduce the effects of urban heat islands, which are common in highly 

paved industrial districts.

D-9: Using on-street parking to buffer pedestrians 

from faster-moving traffic, and, where provided, on-site parking that is connected to clear, 

safe pedestrian pathways.

D-10: Designing loading docks and service functions 

to avoid conflicts with pedestrian entrances 

from sidewalks into the facility.

Centers

Village Centers (VC)

For village centers, communities should consider—

VC-1: Including a high level of mixed use, providing 

an array of goods, services, employment, and 

residential options that can function both as 

an extension of the adjoining neighborhoods 

and as a convenient destination for people 

passing through.

VC-2: Designing buildings to face the primary street 

to engage pedestrians and create a livelier 

street environment.

VC-3: Where vertical mixed use is feasible, locating commercial uses that provide convenient goods and services to customers on the 

ground floor, with upper floors as residential 

or office space.

VC-4: Using street trees, landscaped areas/planters, 

street furniture, decorative lampposts, and 

public art to create a sense of place and a safe 

and enjoyable pedestrian environment.

VC-5: Within setback areas, locating forecourts with 

sidewalk dining, narrow landscape zones that 

soften the streetscape while allowing views of 

the shops, and simple shop fronts built right 

to the sidewalk

VC-6: When designing purely residential buildings 

in village centers, ensuring the ground-floor 

street interface provides a degree of privacy 

for the residents, either by setting the building 

back behind a landscaped yard or raising the 

ground floor above the sidewalk level, or both.

VC-7: Where off-street parking is required, locating 

it behind the building or underground whenever possible rather than between the sidewalk and the buildings. 

VC-8: Reducing the number of required large offstreet parking structures or lots through 

shared use, by which people whose peak parking demand in the daytime (for offices) share 

the parking space with those whose peak use 

is at night (e.g., dinner restaurants and residences). This saves cost, improves environmental effects, and improves the urban environment for people.

VC-9: Utilizing plazas in village centers, which can 

create opportunities for resident interaction.

Town Centers (TC)

For town centers, communities should consider—

TC-1: Combining government agencies, major employers, cultural facilities, and commercial retail centers 

into a more concentrated core of the community 

that will result in a destination and a level of street 

activity that occurs when an individual parks his or 

her vehicle and does a number of chained activities 

during that visit. 

TC-2: Encouraging a central parking lot, concentrated areas of on-street parking, or a parking structure that 

is centrally located, and arranging a number of land 

uses around that site that are synergistic in providing a sense of place and a variety of purposes that 

will result in people walking throughout the center. 

TC-3: Using wayfinding, public art, and urban form to 

emphasize the center of the community.

TC-4: Investing in an extensive street revitalization program that has wider walkways, great interconnection of many facilities with walkways, a strong 

streetscape program with large trees, and street 

furnishings.

TC-5: Emphasizing the center of town by creating a visible 

presence in the roadway environment, with major 

pedestrian crossing facilities such as high-visibility 

marked crosswalks, pedestrian crossing warning 

signs, mid-block crossings, bulb-outs, and protected parking lanes with angled parking.
B-5

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Urban Centers (UC)

For urban centers, communities should consider—

UC-1: Ensuring that transit services and amenities 

connect to and complement pedestrian and 

bicycle networks. Urban centers require a 

suite of mobility options to serve large populations and prevent auto congestion.

UC-2: Promoting a mix of uses to provide an array 

of goods, services, employment, and housing 

along with important public and cultural institutions.

UC-3: Designing buildings to face the primary street 

(which often can be more than one side of a 

block) and support an active pedestrian environment.

UC-4: Designing buildings in large urban centers 

to form a consistent street wall (following a 

consistent pattern of setback and height); the 

street wall typically is at the back of a wide 

sidewalk.

UC-5: Designing the ground floor-street interface to 

provide a degree of privacy for the residents of 

purely residential buildings, with residences 

normally set back from and raised above the 

sidewalk.

UC-6: Ensuring that windows from offices and other 

interior spaces overlook the street to support 

an environment that feels safe. Commercial 

uses generally front the sidewalk with large, 

transparent shop fronts, but some institutional and office uses commonly connect to the 

sidewalk environment with lobbies and foyers 

instead. 

UC-7: Designing porte-cochère or drop-off areas, for 

hotels and office buildings that require them, 

to occur at the street edge along the curb zone 

to avoid interrupting the sidewalk. When such 

off-street vehicular access must be provided, 

it may be integrated into a forecourt or entry 

plaza that is designed first as a public space for 

people and incidentally allows vehicular access. The width of the pedestrian zone can be 

maintained throughout; the furniture and/or 

frontage zones can be reduced.

UC-8: Including on-street parking to buffer pedestrians from faster-moving traffic

UC-9: Requiring above-grade structured parking to 

be lined with ground-floor active uses that 

front the street rather than either exposed or 

hidden with blank walls. Upper floors can be 

screened, at a minimum, or preferably located behind inhabited portions of the building, 

which may continue to face the street.

UC-10: Placing surface parking lots behind a building 

that fronts the sidewalk and public street, or, 

at a minimum, screened with attractive landscaping or public art to provide a comfortable 

street edge for passing pedestrians. Vendor kiosks or “slim stores” can also be used for this 

purpose.

UC-11: Establishing a district parking strategy that 

creates a supply of available parking that is 

shared by many uses, whose peak parking demands will be at different times of the day and 

the week. This, together with a strong transit 

component and an attractive walking and 

biking environment, will reduce the required 

amounts of parking. 

Housing Choices

Select Sites To Develop That Are Already 

Walkable and Bikeable (HL)

To select sites that are already walkable and bikeable, communities should consider—

HL-1: Checking walk and bike scores, which will indicate the general walkability and bikeability 

of an area.

HL-2: Understanding the demographics of the potential users of a future project, which is important in determining the types of destinations and job locations that these future users 

may have as a priority. Siting near employment centers is important, as would be siting 

near educational centers. Providing nearby 

destinations of interest to future residents is 

one way of ensuring that some people in the 

proposed project will decide to walk or bike to 

their destinations. 

HL-3: Looking for major destinations up to 0.5 mile 

from the proposed project site to gauge walkability. 

HL-4: Utilizing 3 miles for biking to gauge bikeability, depending on street network barriers and 

stress levels of adjacent streets. 

HL-5: Assuming 5 miles for transit distance, which 

includes a 0.5-mile walk time zone for the first 

and last segments of the trip and 4 miles of 

transit travel time. Of course, some will travel 

much greater distances on transit and by car 

for what they consider local destinations. In 

order to lower overall vehicle miles traveled, 

even a 5-mile drive to major destinations can 

save significant energy, improve air quality, 

and lower congestion.
B-6

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Concentrate Housing Near Transit (HT)

To concentrate housing near transit, communities 

should consider—

HT-1: Locating the housing project within 3 miles of 

a major transit hub. An express or rapid busbased transit system would need to be within 

1 to 2 miles. Standard bus services with longer 

wait times may be able to only attract riders 

from less than 1 mile. 

HT-2: Planning the new project so its future users 

can easily get to and from transit stations or, 

better yet, accommodate them on site. 

HT-3: Providing on-site connections and improvements to near-site transit services.

HT-4: Supporting an on-site or near-site bike-share 

or carshare program. 

HT-5: Providing a drop-off zone for rideshare (Uber, 

Lyft, carpool, and vanpool) options to accommodate newer rideshare trends.

Provide a Variety of Housing Sizes (HS)

To concentrate housing near transit, communities 

should consider—

HS-1: Providing a mixture of sizes from studios to 

three-bedroom units that are efficient with the 

size of the spaces to keep the units affordable. 

HS-2: Recognizing the trends that have many single-occupant households as well as combined 

friends, nontraditional family types, and extended-family living situations.

Provide a Mixture of Rentals and For-Sale Units (HM)

To concentrate housing near transit, communities 

should consider—

HM-1: Focusing on integrating affordable units with 

the market-rate units.

HM-2: Allowing for an intra-building mix of for-sale 

units and rental units, or allow for subleasing 

on a more liberal basis.

HM-3: Providing affordable units and supporting 

first-time buyers, while encouraging those 

who wish to invest more in walkable and 

bikeable neighborhoods that are affordable. 

Individuals that self select these locations also 

appreciate a lifestyle that has greater financial 

returning terms of transportation savings. 

to activate the community and provide for a 

broad range of customer types and employer 

types as well.

Create Compact Units To Lower Costs (HC)

To create compact units to lower costs, communities 

should consider—

HC-1: Being efficient with the horizontal arrangement of site features to keep unit prices low 

and minimize spread of the built environment.

HC-2: Rightsizing units so that they are not excessive in space. The right-sized units may also 

help to control excessive gentrification of certain urban areas where younger and wealthier 

people may wish to live and invest, sometimes 

at the expense of those less fortunate. 

HC-3: Preparing site plans that do not overly dedicate space to parking by way of efficient parking lot design, structured parking, parking 

lifts and technologies for compact parking, 

tandem parking, and other on-site carshare 

opportunities that may lower on-site parking 

requirements. 

HC-4: Allowing certain types of guest parking or 

overflow parking to double as public realm 

space or recreational space that can be temporarily used for parking peaks. 

Develop flexible units that can grow with family 

size (HF)

To develop flexible units, communities should consider—

HF-1: Designing flexible space into developments, in 

which walls can be moved to combine smaller 

blocks of space to create spaces that match the 

buyer or renter needs. 

HF-2: Designing flexible space into developments, 

in which connections can be made between 

units if the household size increases or decreases.

HF-3: Creating first-floor land uses that are commercial in nature but that allow the space to be designed so that it can provide an occupant use 

benefit, such as community rooms and sales 

offices, but later may evolve into commercial 

retail that can help to activate the street. 
B-7

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Land Use Mixtures

Encourage Housing and Jobs Near Each Other (LJ)

To encourage housing and jobs near each other, 

communities should consider—

LJ-1: Building housing near employment centers or 

at least near transit centers that can connect 

with employment centers. The most prevalent 

trip is one related to going to work each day, 

yet we separate our workplaces from our living places. 

LJ-2: Looking for job areas and a general density 

of employment, especially small businesses 

associated with town centers or main streets, 

corridors, and business districts. The types of 

employment that are more likely to have a person live and work in the same general area are 

blue-collar jobs and low- to moderate-paying 

jobs. Small business owners also often look 

close by for living opportunities. 

Encourage Community Centers Near Housing (LC)

To encourage community centers near housing, 

communities should consider—

LC-1: Selecting a development area that is close to 

existing community centers. For areas with 

families, young single adults, and seniors, a 

community center can be a very important 

part of daily life.

LC-2: Building a community center as part of the 

overall project if the project is large enough.

Encourage Well-Distributed/Smaller 

Neighborhood Schools (LS)

To encourage well-distributed and smaller neighborhood schools, communities should consider—

LS-1: Establishing a well-distributed network of 

schools that will result in more walking, biking, transit use- and carpool use. Second to 

employment centers, the most prevalent daily 

destination is that of schools. The travel may 

be on school buses, as drop-offs or, for older 

high school and college-age students, by way 

of a vehicle. A centralized school system will 

require longer-distance commutes. 

LS-2: Building housing and other support facilities 

near community colleges to allow for some 

students to live nearby and be able to walk or 

bike to these campuses.

Provide Smaller and Well-Distributed Parks (LP)

To provide smaller and well-distributed parks, communities should consider—

LP-1: Providing access to parks. Going to the park 

is a regular weekly activity for many families 

and younger active adults. The recreation experience should start at the front door, not at 

the car door. Walking or biking to the park is a 

health benefit associated with active transportation. A 10- to 20-minute walk time distance 

is reasonable for those wanting to get exercise. 

This translates into almost a 1-mile distance 

for walking and a 3-mile distance for biking. 

LP-2: Ensuring that parks have walking access 

points and bike facilities nearby. 

LP-3: Ensuring that bike parking facilities are provided at all parks.

Encourage Small/Distributed Grocery Stores/

Pharmacies (LG)

To encourage small and distributed grocery stores 

and pharmacies, communities should consider—

LG-1: Ensuring that local groceries stores can provide the daily needs of customers at a neighborhood level. Centralized into very large 

shopping centers that are only accessible by 

vehicles and encouraging large quantities of 

groceries to be bought requires customers to 

have a vehicle for getting the groceries home 

and for getting to these regional shopping 

centers. 

LG-2: Locating pharmacies within walking distances 

of neighborhoods in areas where a high percentage of the population is seniors. The small 

size of products purchased makes it realistic 

for seniors to be able to walk to these centers 

for their prescriptions and other daily needs.

Focus on Vertically or Horizontally Mixed Uses (LV)

For vertically or horizontally mixed uses, communities should consider—

LV-1: Utilizing ground-floor spaces for retail and 

community functions and services, with employment and residential uses on the upper 

floors, for the most efficient use of land. This 

vertical mix is the most efficient use of land 

area as long as privacy and noise issues are addressed. The more land uses that can be found 

within a 10-minute or 0.5-mile walk of each 

other, the more walkable and bikeable the 

community will be.

LV-2: Using a horizontal mix of land uses if height 

restrictions prevail in certain areas. Horizontally mixed uses are effective as long as the internal circulation does not force the entrances of all establishments to the outside of the 

block, without any interior routes provided.
B-8

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Back Up Walkable Main Streets With HighDensity Housing (LM)

To back up walkable main streets with high-density 

housing, communities should consider—

LM-1: Encouraging alleyways and short blocks that 

provide better walking routes into main street 

areas through land use planning and street 

layouts. Given a 10-minute walk time, linear 

corridors of commercial businesses and older 

main streets are generally surrounded by customers. Often, these districts turn their back 

on neighborhoods. 

LM-2: Reaching into the neighborhoods with street 

improvements, urban design treatments, and 

angle parking with bulb-outs and crosswalks.

LM-3: Avoiding main streets that have a through-corridor that is not sensitively designed for safe 

and convenient crossings. Such areas can be 

restricting their walk-in customers to one-half 

their potential if the main streets do not attract people from neighborhoods located on 

the other side of these through-corridors.

Add Eating/Entertainment/Social Centers Near 

Housing (LE)

For eating, entertainment, and social centers near 

housing, communities should consider—

LE-1: Providing facilities near neighborhoods that allow people to engage in social activities. People 

like to watch other people and other activities 

in a neighborhood. It makes them feel connected and provides great opportunities for the start 

of conversations that can lead into friendships. 

People like to eat outdoors when the weather is 

suitable. People like to walk to local entertainment and social centers.

LE-2: Being cautious of establishments that produce 

loud noises and other levels of activities that 

may create tension with adjacent residents. Provide an alleyway or street between these uses if 

possible. If not, make sure that interior sound 

attenuation will address the nuisance levels that 

can occur with certain types of establishments. 

Human-Scaled Elements

Reserve Avenues/Boulevards for Main Street 

Type Retail (TA)

To reserve avenues and boulevards for main street 

type retail, communities should consider—

TA-1: Reserving avenues or boulevards for commercial activities that can build synergy between 

one parcel and the next. These special streets 

are the best locations to have main street types 

of businesses. The street arrangement, pedestrian treatments, and bike facility elements 

can all add to the commercial viability of a 

street of commerce. This can occur along corridors or main streets. 

TA-2: Providing lighting and landscaped street 

treatments consisting mostly of street trees 

and street furnishings because the walking 

environment must be safe and well lighted to 

build synergy. There has to be a buffer distance 

between moving vehicles and the storefront/

pedestrian interface. A parkway may be used 

to set the active roadway farther back from the 

public realm spaces. 

TA-3: Planning land uses to concentrate activity into 

nodes instead of long corridors or edges. This 

will make the distance between possible destinations shorter and more walkable. 

TA-4: Avoiding gaps in business districts. A few parcels that have switched from streetwall urban 

forms to pulled-back buildings with off-street 

parking can break the continuity of a walking street and cause customers to stop and 

turn around at the area where the main street 

seems as though it stops, which harms the rest 

of the businesses that are farther away. 

Restrict Big-Box Retail From Neighborhoods/

Centers (TB)

To restrict big-box retail from neighborhoods and 

centers, communities should consider—

TB-1: Avoiding large, regionally sized commercial 

buildings that can not only dominate and 

de-humanize the scale of business districts but 

also pull away a customer base from an area 

that was previously successful. 

TB-2: Designing for user experience and social interaction. The lure of free and ample parking can draw away a customer base for those 

businesses that just offer a product to be purchased. Businesses that are part of a user experience, including going to a nice place and 

interacting with others, offer one of a few ways 

to counter the pull of big-box retail.

TB-3: Avoiding big-box retail in areas with pedestrian-scale and main street environment or 

in other centers of villages, towns, or cities 

that may result in damage to these commercial place types. Certain corridors may be an 

appropriate location for some types of larger 

national chain stores, however.
B-9

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Keep Single Land Use Areas to Less Than Six 

Contiguous Blocks (TI)

To keep single land use areas to less than six contiguous blocks, communities should consider—

TI-1: Avoiding more than six blocks in a row of the same 

land use. A fine grain of land use mixture is needed to create walkable and bikeable communities. 

Block after block of single-use land does not promote the movement from origin to destination if 

the distance is too far. Some level of employment, 

institution, recreation, retail, or public services 

should interrupt the sameness of land uses that often prevails in many areas of communities. 

TI-2: Changing the intensity of similar land uses, which 

may be helpful. High- to low-density housing 

should transition from one area to another. Variations in retail types and institutions may also help 

to provide variation in urban forms. It is not as successful as actual differences in land uses, however.

Orient Public Spaces Toward Intense-Use 

Centers (TS)

To orient public realm spaces at centers of intense 

use, communities should consider—

TS-1: Adding public spaces, where a person can be 

slightly removed from the bustle and traffic of 

an area, in centers that have an intensity of uses. 

Human nature is to interact or be part of activities in our built environment. Too much intensity of urban forms and use levels can result in 

stress, however. 

TS-2: Consulting design professionals to ensure the 

three levels of experience: social interaction, areas of observation, and areas of respite and passive internal thought. 

TS-3: Including public spaces to help activate semiprivate spaces. A well-designed public space can 

draw people to commercial nodes or institutional plazas. The facility can help to support commercial success and improve public safety. 

Create 10-Minute Walk Neighborhoods With 

Local Services (TT)

To create a 10-minute-walk neighborhood, communities should consider—

TT-1: Including the concept of a 10-minute walk 

neighborhood in urban planning and new 

development. This concept relates back historically to how our towns grew. The centers 

of towns were a mixture of land uses that 

supported a lifestyle in which the majority of 

what people needed was within a 10-minute 

walkable distance.

TT-2: Designing the center of neighborhoods and 

districts to include a mixture of institutions 

and retail businesses. Higher-density housing 

should surround these centers to provide the 

greatest benefit to the greatest number of residents. 

TT-3: Designing the zone around the center to include not only the more intense residential 

land uses but also recreation, public service, 

education, and employment areas. 

TT-4: Including lower levels of residential density in 

the outer zone, along with park and recreation 

facilities and some commercial shopping districts and corridors. 

TT-5: Ensuring that transit services come through 

all of these zones, especially the center of the 

zones. 

TT-6: Installing bike facilities, which can extend the 

10-minute walking distance of 0.5 to 0.67 mile 

up to 2 miles, within a short 10-minute ride.

Urban Design Treatments (U)

Thoughtful Site Design (UD)

For thoughtful site design, communities should consider—

UD-1: Designing new projects or buildings developed 

on large parcels to form new blocks and interior streets that create a comfortable and walkable 

block size to help create or complete a network of 

streets.

UD-2: Designing buildings to be oriented to the street to 

promote sidewalk activity and provide eyes on the 

street for the safety and comfort of pedestrians.

UD-3: Designing the site to minimize disruptions to pedestrian areas, whether sidewalks or mid-block 

passageways (typically by limiting the number 

and width of driveways).

UD-4: Designing all buildings to be sited with their primary entries and fronts easily accessed from the 

nearest sidewalk to encourage access from the 

sidewalk and on-street parking.

UD-5: Limiting and consolidating the number of driveways. They may be no wider than necessary and 

designed to allow motorists to see pedestrians on 

the sidewalk.

UD-6: Locating parking lots and service entrances toward the rear of the lot, accommodating automobiles but making it comfortable for people to 

access the buildings on foot.

UD-7: Extending a coherent network of pedestrian 

routes into the property wherever buildings are 

not built immediately adjacent to the public sidewalk so that pedestrians approaching from the 

street can access each building without walking 

through vehicular drives and parking lots.

UD-8: Designing the building pattern within a block to 

form comfortable, habitable outdoor spaces that 

promote a “sense of place” and a unique local 

character.
B-10

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Appropriate Building Forms (UB)

For appropriate building forms, communities should 

consider—

UB-1: Planning and designing building height, density, and setbacks to create a type of place that 

has an appropriate scale and character closely 

coordinated with the street typology.

UB-2: Developing building design standards to support a healthy street environment for pedestrians. For example, design buildings to take 

into account how they interact with strong 

winds to avoid wind tunnels or restrict flows 

of natural light and air.

UB-3: Designing one- to three-story buildings entirely at a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood 

scale, with features that can be appreciated by 

people walking or bicycling.

UB-4: Designing mid-height buildings of four to six 

stories at a pedestrian-oriented scale for the 

lower two to three floors and integrating windows, balconies, and other features that provide opportunities for occupants to overlook 

the street from upper floors. Taller buildings 

(more than six stories) can have a base of lower floors designed similarly to those of midheight buildings and may benefit by stepping 

back from the frontage above this level to provide a street character that is not overwhelming to the pedestrian. 

UB-5: Knowing that in most mixed-use districts and 

neighborhood centers, it is more important 

to provide a relatively steady streetwall to define a simple “street as an outdoor room” than 

to provide varied setbacks and step-backs to 

break up the mass (see preceding section on 

streetscape environment types). In suburban 

environments with freestanding buildings, the 

desire to articulate the building form is understandable. In urban districts and centers, however, the primary placemaking role of buildings is to calmly define the space of the place 

rather than to “express themselves” as unique 

objects. 

UB-6: Designing towers in very dense areas (such 

as an urban center) to be slender and mostly 

transparent, with a low to mid-rise base that 

provides pedestrian-oriented features. Towers can be designed to look attractive and approachable from the street and sidewalk, not 

to be simply an icon in the skyline.

UB-7: Integrating parking into the site and building design; ideally, parking would be (a) underground, (b) tucked behind the building 

fronting the sidewalk and accessible from an 

alley or side street, or (c) sited internally to the 

project or block so that the buildings “wrap it” 

to the greatest degree possible.

UB-8: Designing buildings by applying universal 

access principles (like locating stairs in prominent locations to encourage people to use 

them), making naturally clear paths through 

good design and an integrated site and building design approach.

Buildings’ Relationship to Walkways (UW)

For buildings’ relationship to walkways, communities should consider—

UW-1: Providing well-designed frontages and clear entry 

points from the sidewalk to buildings, which contributes to the overall character of the community.

UW-2: Designing building frontages to be mostly transparent, with “active storefronts” that allow pedestrians to see into shops, restaurants, and public 

spaces for active mixed-use and commercial 

streets. 

UW-3: Designing building frontages to include windows overlooking the street, with a layering of 

landscape, porch, patio, or semipublic space that 

buffers appropriately (setbacks will vary based 

on street typology and the scale of the buildings) 

along residential streets.

UW-4: Designing the primary building face to be located on the most active street frontage, with an attractive and welcoming facade that includes entry 

doors, windows, signs, and other character-defining elements.

UW-5: Designing the secondary building face that exists 

along a mid-block passage or side street to also 

include openings overlooking the public space.

UW-6: Locating the tertiary (back) side of the building 

along a back alley or service drive, where pedestrian movement is secondary to service, with loading docks, service entries, trash storage, and other 

unattractive functions accommodated there.

UW-7: Limiting blank walls to the rear and very limited 

along the secondary face.

UW-8: Integrating lighting into the building design to indirectly illuminate the sidewalk at night by light 

filtering through storefront windows and installing architectural lighting that features the building and enriches the street environment at night.
B-11

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS B-3: Street Tools

Street Network Guidelines

Lay Out Small Block Sizes To Shorten Walk/Ride 

Distances (NF)

For small block sizes that shorten walk or ride distances, communities should consider—

NF-1: Establishing a block size maximum of 1,600 

linear feet (additive perimeter of all sides; 

equates to 400 linear feet on a side if a square).

NF-2: Where block size is exceeded, retrofitting large 

blocks with new streets, “paseos” (or pedestrian plazas), “woonerven” (or shared streets), 

promenades, alleys, and pedestrian and/or bicycle connections.

NF-3: Ensuring greater accessibility within the block 

through alleys, service courts, and other access ways.

Provide a Grid or Straight Roadway Segments 

To Reduce Out-of-Direction Travel (NG)

For grid or straight roadway segments to reduce 

out-of-direction travel, communities should consider—

NG-1: Not allowing street closures that would result 

in longer blocks for existing networks.

NG-2: Requiring multiple street connections between neighborhoods and districts across the 

whole region. This is achieved by designing 

boulevards and avenues that extend beyond 

the local area. Multiple local streets must also 

connect with adjacent neighborhoods.

NG-3: Maintaining network function by discouraging one-way streets unless the advantages 

from multi-modal accommodation outweigh 

the out-of-direction disadvantages.

Provide a Distributed Network That Avoids 

Concentration of Traffic (ND)

For a distributed network that avoids concentration 

of traffic, communities should consider—

ND-1: Providing a redundancy of routes to maximize route options and the distribution of a 

fixed number of trips across a broader range 

of streets. 

ND-2: Distributing networks that provide various 

low -tress routes for active transportation as 

well as multiple routes for emergency vehicles.

ND-3: Providing a diverse street network comprising 

a variety of street types. 

Avoid Dead Ends/Gated Communities/Cul-deSacs (NC)

In order to avoid dead ends or cul-de-sacs, communities should consider—

NC-1: Not allowing full or partial street closures except on bike boulevards or in other areas where 

pedestrian have been fully accommodated.

NC-2: Providing connection for pedestrians and cyclists through the street to an adjacent unrestricted street where a street closure has been 

used to prevent through traffic on local streets.

NC-3: Not allowing gated communities in mixed-use 

neighborhoods with many local destinations 

and origins that can create major out-of-direction travel for bikes, vehicles, and pedestrians.

NC-4: Not allowing a network obstruction for cyclists 

and pedestrians if it causes more than a 2-minute out-of-direction delay.

Avoid Wide/Fast Streets That Divide 

Communities (NW)

In order to avoid wide and fast divisive streets, communities should consider—

NW-1: Maintaining network quality by accepting 

growth and the resulting expansion of the 

street network (including development, revitalization, intensification, or redevelopment, 

particularly of active transportation facilities) 

while avoiding increases in street width or in 

number of lanes. 

NW-2: Concentrating additional vehicular throughput along the corridor on the intersections 

and not the roadway segments. If the majority of the road can be made to accommodate 

multiple uses, then do not extend multiple 

lanes down segments only because special 

turning lanes are needed at the intersections. 

NW-3: Providing mitigations—including special signals, roadway markings, lane diets, signage, 

and/or walkway extensions—if a left or right 

turn lane is needed and bike or pedestrian facilities are negatively affected.

NW-4: If possible, not allowing major streets to traverse neighborhoods, districts, or centers. If a 

street is beyond human scale (more than 80 

feet in width), has multiple lanes for crossing 

(more than three), has high speeds (greater 

than 25 mph), and has a moderate to high 

level of vehicular movement (more than 3,000 

vehicles per day), it is potentially a “divider” 

street and must include potential improvements to offset these dividing characteristics.

NW-5: Offsetting a wide divider street by adding median refuges, mid-block crossings, landscaped 

medians, wide sidewalks, walkway extensions, 

parking, street trees, lighting, and bike lanes to 

help counter the negative affects of such streets.
B-12

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

NW-6: NW-6: Avoiding widening existing streets 

for capacity increase, or reclassifying a street 

with limited access for cyclists and walkers. 

Look first to improved signal technology 

and then to a distribution of traffic to adjacent streets that will not increase the effects 

to these areas. If these options do not work, 

either consider accepting higher levels of congestion or ensure that other improvements are 

made to this street or adjacent couplets that 

will adequately support the adjacent land use 

and multiple modes of travel. 

Create Streets That Provide a Seam Between 

Sides of the Street (NS)

For streets that provide a seam between sides of the 

streets, communities should consider—

NS-1: Using road diets, lane diets, traffic calming, 

streetscape development, walkway buffers, 

lighting, consistent design features, on-street 

parking, and improved pedestrian crossings 

to create or revitalize existing streets to be 

“seam” streets.

NS-2: Providing pedestrian crossings at least every 

300 feet where pedestrian activity is common 

or where land uses should be generating pedestrian activities. If intersections are farther apart 

than 300 feet, then consider mid-block crossings—if they can be made safe and will not significantly affect the vehicular flow of traffic.

Include Bike- and Pedestrian-Friendly Diverters 

That Prevent Vehicular Through-Traffic (NP)

For bike- and pedestrian-friendly diverters, communities should consider—

NP-1: Providing for pedestrian connections through the 

street end if a street does have to be dead ended. 

For streets where through traffic is not desired, 

provide for bike traffic to continue through the 

intersection by way of a traffic diverter that is sensitive to bike and pedestrian users. 

Avoid Leapfrog Development Into Areas With 

Few Mobility Options/Streets (NL)

In order to avoid leapfrog development into areas 

with few mobility options, communities should consider—

NL-1: Encouraging development as infill development in areas where transit, bike, and pedestrian options already exist. 

NL-2: Encouraging new development as close as 

possible to existing development, where capacity in transit, walking, and biking can be 

absorbed. 

NL-3: If new development does occur in a leapfrog 

pattern, connect pedestrian and bicycle facilities to the new site from existing areas of 

connectivity.

Span Barriers With Bike or Pedestrian Bridges (NB)

For span barriers with bike or pedestrian bridges, 

communities should consider—

NB-1: Avoiding the expense of bike or pedestrian 

bridges where at-grade crossings are more appropriate.

NB-2: Avoiding a bridge that requires substantial 

vertical or horizontal out-of-distance travel. 

These types of facilities are not likely to be 

used if they require a great deal of extra travel.

NB-3: Connecting streets by way of a bridge across 

urban freeways so that pedestrians and bicyclists have links to neighborhoods without 

having to use streets with freeway on and off 

ramps. 

NB-4: Where possible, utilizing existing landforms 

to support sides of bridges and to minimize 

the vertical access requirements. 

NB-5: Where possible, having ramp systems moving in the direction of travel, without a lot of 

back-and-forth direction on ramps that take 

the user out of direction. 

NB-6: Designing all pedestrian bridges (minimum 

of 5 feet wide) to accommodate bikes (minimum of 10 feet wide), and, when possible, designing bridges to provide emergency vehicular and maintenance access as well (minimum 

of 15 feet wide).

Travel Way Guidelines

Design To Accommodate All Modes (TM)

In order to accommodate all modes, communities 

should consider—

TM-1: Designing streets to deliver a high multi-modal level of service (MMLOS). Level of service 

assesses traffic flow and assigns a higher level 

to streets that flow freely. MMLOS measures 

the quality of service provided to transit users, 

pedestrians, and people on bicycles.

TM-2: Ensuring that most streets integrate bike facilities within the travel way by including bicycle 

lanes, separated bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, 

and other types of shared roadways (with or 

without shared lane markings). 

TM-3: Ensuring that major transit streets give priority to transit systems, including dedicated transit lanes, bus bulbs, bus pullouts, and shared 

bike/bus transit lanes. 

TM-4: Ensuring that safe pedestrian crossings and 

protected walking areas are present on all 

streets, regardless of the classification. Pay 

special attention to any street where the traffic 

is faster than 35 mph because survivability of 

a collision goes down dramatically above this 

speed.

TM-5: Providing on-street curbside parking on most 

streets. Exceptions can be made for very narrow streets or streets with bus lanes.
B-13

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Ensure the Right Design Speed/Avoid 

Overdesigning the Street (TO)

In order to ensure the right design speed, communities should consider—

TO-1: Keeping maximum throughput (based on 

congestion related to reaction time and the 

“Slinky®” delay effect associated with starts 

and stops, and based on vehicular energy efficiency) at 35 mph. For streets with high-volume demands, focus signal synchronization 

and design speeds on this ideal travel speed. 

TO-2: Installing additional protection for pedestrians through the use of buffers, barriers, and 

offsets for streets where posted speeds exceed 

35 mph. Consider additional buffers or protection for cyclists as well.

TO-3: Providing alternative routes for walkers and 

cyclists on nearby, slower-speed streets for 

through-corridors and limited-access roadways with posted speeds that exceed 45 mph.

TO-4: Having a 25-mph speed limit for maximum 

safety of various user types on all other streets.

TO-5: Using design features that support lower-speed environments, such as narrower 

streets, narrower lanes, and small corner radii.

TO-6: Providing signal progression at speeds that 

support the target speed of a corridor whenever feasible.

Design for Safety First, Multi-Modes Second, 

and Traffic Flow Third (TD)

In order to design for safety first, communities 

should consider—

TD-1: Ensure that “Safety first” is not simply a slogan 

but a foundation for street and community 

design. Pay special attention to the crossing of 

multi-lane wide roadways with high volume 

and high speeds. 

TD-2: Focusing on the throughput of trips, regardless 

of mode. Bike and walking trips take up a much 

lower percentage of the street infrastructure, as 

do transit trips, so they should receive higher 

priority for accommodation and congestion relief. 

TD-3: Protecting walkers by using parkways, on-street 

parking and street trees, because calmed traffic 

that is free flowing works best for all roadway 

users. 

TD-4: Providing on-street parking, which is important 

in urban environments for supporting adjacent 

retail, calming traffic, and providing a buffer for 

pedestrians. On-street parking occupies about 

one-half the surface area per car compared with 

off-street parking, which requires driveways 

and aisles for access and maneuvering. (Where 

parking is provided, a portion of spaces must be 

ADA accessible.; see PROWAG for guidance.)

TD-5: Pedestrians are hit disproportionately when visibility is poor: at dusk, night, and dawn. Providing illumination or improving existing lighting 

increases nighttime safety at intersections and 

mid-block crossings, as motorists can better 

see pedestrians. Pedestrian-scale lighting along 

sidewalks provides greater security, especially 

for people walking alone at night. Transit stops 

require illumination of the travel way for safer 

street crossing and pedestrian-scale illumination 

at the stop or shelter for security. 

TD-6: Managing demand for on-street parking by 

charging market-rate prices. Free or under 

priced parking encourages people to drive instead of biking, walking, or taking transit. Parking expert Donald Shoup recommends setting 

variable parking prices to target a 15-percent 

vacancy rate for curb parking. In addition to encouraging people to curtail driving, it also creates turnover that benefits retailers by making 

convenient parking available for short shopping 

trips. 

TD-7: Using back-in (or head-out) angled parking in 

lieu of head-in angled parking where angle parking is proposed for on-street parking. Motorists 

pulling out of back-in angled parking can better see the active street they are entering. This 

is especially important to bicyclists. Moreover, 

people exiting cars do so on the curbside and are 

unlikely to step into an active travel lane. 

Protect Walkers by Using Parkways, Parking, 

and Street Trees (TP)

For parkways, parking, and street trees, communities should consider—

TP-1: Adding on-street parking to provide protection for pedestrian walkways. If the street has 

highly variable levels of daytime and nighttime parking, however, the lack of vehicles in 

parking spaces may make the driver feel it is 

okay to drive faster. 

TP-2: Including street trees in a 5- to 10-foot-wide 

parkway strip to form a protective barrier. 

These trees must be no more than 30 feet apart 

to be effective, and they must be of sufficient 

size.

TP-3: Including a buffer distance from the edge of 

the curb to the walking environment to help 

protect pedestrians. Contiguous sidewalks at 

the curb line should be avoided unless an onstreet parking lane or bike lane exists. 
B-14

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Reduce Overall Roadway Widths as Much as 

Practical (TN)

In order to reduce overall roadway widths, communities should consider—

TN-1: Avoiding curb-to-curb widths that take more 

than 75 percent of the overall roadway rightof-way. The parking lane and curb extensions 

(if any) would count toward the non-travel 

way portion of this cross-section. 

TN-2: Reclaiming width from excessive lanes of 

travel or overbuilt number of lanes and return 

it to bike, parking, or walking facilities. Do not 

reconfigure curbs and gutters for less than a 

3-foot gain on either side of the roadway. If 

marginal width increases do not allow for 3 

feet, consider widening walkways on only one 

side of the street. 

TN-3: Utilizing curb extensions or bulb-outs to reclaim parts of the travel lanes that are not 

parkable. This will reduce the overall crossing 

distance substantially. 

TN-4: Ensuring that the bulb-out still leaves at least 

4 feet of lane width for bikes to go through the 

intersection corners on roadways that have a 

through bike lane and a travel lane less than 

13 feet wide. 

TN-5: Sizing the on-street parking lanes based on 

the adjacent street speeds (table B-1). 

Table B-1: Parking Lane Widths

MOVEMENT 

TYPE

DESIGN 

SPEED

PARKING LANE 

WIDTH

Slow 20–25 mph Angle: 16.5’(60°); 

15’(45°) 

Slow 20–25 mph Parallel: 7 feet

Low 30–35 mph Parallel: 7–8 feet

Reduce Lane Widths To Allow for Other Users 

and for Traffic Calming (TR)

In order to reduce lane widths, consider—

TR-1: Providing a certain amount of shy (or clear) 

space for lane widths, assuming most vehicles 

are only 6 feet wide and larger commercial vehicles are 8.5 feet. It is possible, where traffic is 

slower, to consider a 9-foot lane. In fact, consider making 10-foot travel lanes the default, 

with permission to go to 11 when a major bus 

or truck route is present. In nearly all cases, a 

10- or 11-foot lane is adequate for all vehicles, 

including larger buses or fire emergency vehicles. Do not build lanes wider than 12 feet 

unless intended for shared vehicle/bicycle use. 

Wide lanes encourage speeding and meandering between the striped lines. Driver attention 

is more constant on narrower lanes, limiting 

weave and drifting into adjacent lanes and bike 

facilities. 

TR-2: Designing turn lanes to be made at 9 or 10 feet, 

because of slower speeds, with a maximum of 

11 feet for roads that serve trucks. 

TR-3: Designing permissive center left turn lanes to 

be no more than 12 feet in width.

TR-4: Dedicating all other roadway width to medians, bike lanes, parking lanes, bulb-outs, chevron “no drive” stripes, and other pedestrian 

facilities beyond the curb, including parkway 

strips for plantings and walking surfaces. 

Manage Access by Limiting Curb Cuts/Driveways (TY)

In order to manage access, communities should consider—

TY-1: Requiring joint-use access aprons between 

properties, limiting the width of the driveways 

to 24 feet, and preventing left turns as much as 

possible to reduce collisions with bikes. Right 

turn conflicts between vehicles and bikes or 

pedestrians are increased along streets that 

have a large number of driveways accessed 

through curb cuts. 

TY-2: Limiting left turns by regulatory signage and/

or raised median construction. Exiting vehicles making left or right turns out of driveways 

and local access road aprons are also problematic for cyclists and walkers.

TY-3: Reclaiming space for on-street parking where 

an adjacent land use and building typology has 

changed and access from the street through a 

curb cut is no longer needed. 

Manage Left Turning Movements Along 

Roadway Segments (TL)

In order to manage left turning movements, communities should consider—

TL-1: Avoiding permissive (yield only) left turn 

lanes along roadway segments where possible. 

This free turning movement is very problematic for cyclists because most drivers poorly 

judge the speed of fast-moving cyclists. Separated left turns at intersections are much safer. 

TL-2: Installing a left turn lane, which can be beneficial when used to perform a road diet, such 

as reducing a four-lane section to three lanes, 

with the center lane provided for turning 

movements.
B-15

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

TL-3: Using medians to create tree canopies over 

travel lanes, contributing to a sense of enclosure, which equates to edge friction that slows 

vehicles. As shown in table B-2, medians can 

vary in width. Recommended widths depend 

on available right-of-way and function. Because medians require a wider right-of-way, 

the designer must weigh the benefits of a median with the issues of pedestrian crossing: 

distance, speed, context, and available roadside width.

Table B-2: Median Types and Widths

MEDIAN TYPE MINIMUM 

WIDTH

RECOMMENDED 

WIDTH

Median for access 

control 4 feet 6 feet

Median for pedestrian 

refuge 6 feet 8 feet

Median for trees and 

lighting 6 feet1 10 feet2

Median for single left 

turn lane 10 feet3 10 feet2

Median for single 

left turn lane and 

pedestrian refuge

16 feet4 16 feet

Table Notes:

An area measured 6 feet from curb face to cut-out walkway 

edge generally is considered the minimum width for 

proper growth of small trees. If trees are in a planter with 

a tree grate, a 4-foot width by 10-foot length should be 

considered as the minimum planting area.

Wider medians provide room for larger trees and more extensive landscaping.

A 10-foot lane provides for a turn lane without a concrete 

traffic separator.

This measurement includes a 10-foot turn lane and a 6-foot 

pedestrian refuge.

Intersection Guidelines

Make All Legs of an Intersection Available for 

Pedestrian Crossings (IP)

In order to make all legs of an intersection available for 

pedestrian crossings, communities should consider—

IP-1: Avoiding the use of pedestrian restrictions at any 

intersection except those that require multiple 

left turn movements and where other solutions 

that follow will not allow for safe pedestrian 

crossings. 

IP-2: Using a pedestrian scramble, in which all pedestrian movements are separate from vehicular 

movements. 

IP-3: Using special signage and warning signals about 

the need for vehicles making left turns to yield 

to pedestrians.

IP-4: Providing a leading pedestrian interval (LPI): a 

pedestrian crossing signal that holds the first few 

seconds of the phase for pedestrian crossings. 

IP-5: Providing a pedestrian median refuge where 

people can safely stand until they are sure that 

the vehicle will yield to their crossing movement. 

Minimize Free Left-Turn-Only and Right-TurnOnly Lanes (IL)

To minimize free turn only lanes, communities 

should consider— 

IL-1: Balancing the need for turn lanes for vehicle 

movements with other needs because turn 

lanes increase vehicle speeds on the street 

and the chance of left turn head-on collisions. 

Turn lanes also increase the crossing distance 

for pedestrians.

IL-2: Placing left turn lanes in an urban environment 

where they are considered acceptable because 

there are negative effects to roadway capacity 

when left turns block the through-movement 

of vehicles. 

IL-3: Restricting free left turn movements altogether at minor intersections on streets with a 

moderate to high number of pedestrians and 

cyclists. Medians can be used to block smallstreet intersection movements and prevent 

free left turns from the travel lane segments. 

IL-4: Avoiding more than one left turn lane at an 

intersection in urban places. The more lanes 

there are, the wider the street is for pedestrians 

to cross. Although right turns from throughlanes may delay vehicle through-movements, 

they also reduce vehicle speeds due to slowing 

associated with turning, which increases pedestrian safety and comfort.

IL-5: Avoiding the installation of right turn lanes 

because they increase the crossing distance 

for pedestrians and the speed of vehicles; 

therefore, exclusive right turn lanes should 

rarely be used except at limited-access highway intersections. If required, they should be 

mitigated with raised channelization islands. 

Double right turn lanes create difficult choices 

for bicyclists, who need to ride on the left side 

of the turn lanes. 

Provide Signals or Stops on All Roads Except 

Two-Lane, Low-Speed Streets (IS)

In order to provide signals or stops, communities 

should consider—

IS-1: Providing at least a stop-sign- or yield-sign-controlled intersection at all intersections with more 

than two lanes and a posted speed exceeds 25 mph 

or where the 85th percentile of drivers are exceeding 25 mph. 

IS-2: Installing a two-way stop-sign-controlled intersection if the hierarchy of traffic flow and street classification is very clear. In these cases, if the free-movement direction is high speed and high volume and 

the context indicates the need for pedestrian crossings, consider the use of signals, four-way stops, or 

pedestrian-actuated yield crossing points. 
B-16

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

IS-3: Providing safe, controlled crossing points no 

more than 300 feet apart in urban and suburban areas where pedestrians are likely.

IS-4: Providing short signal cycle lengths to allow 

frequent opportunities for pedestrians to cross 

major roadways.

Provide Minimal Radius on Corners (IM)

In order to provide minimal radius on corners or 

rolled curb bulb-outs, communities should consider—

IM-1: Using a passenger vehicle as the default design 

vehicle when designing corner radii. The default 

corner radius for a passenger vehicle is 15 feet. 

IM-2: Using larger-design vehicles as the default design vehicle only where they are known to regularly make turns at the intersection. Corner radii 

should be designed based on the larger-design 

vehicle traveling at very slow speeds.

IM-3: Adjusting the radius to assume that if there are 

two lanes of travel in each direction, then the 

larger turning vehicle can utilize the number one 

lane for the movement, bypassing the number 

two lane, which typically would require a broader radius depending on the receiving lane on the 

perpendicular street. Encroachment onto multiple receiving lanes by large vehicles is acceptable. 

IM-4: Taking into account the effect that bicycle lanes 

and on-street parking may have on the effective 

radius. The bike and parking lane can help with 

the ease of turning for larger vehicles. 

Make Intersections Compact and Well Defined (IC)

In order to make intersections compact and well 

defined, communities should consider—

IC-1: Positioning on-street parking far enough away 

from intersections to allow for good visibility 

of pedestrians preparing to cross the street. 

IC-2: Following all local- and national-level standards for placement, size, and content of signage and signalization needs. 

IC-3: Placing the highest level of visibility on the 

movement or yielding action that will result 

in the greatest improvement in safety for those 

users that are most vulnerable to injury. 

IC-4: Designing compact intersections that result in 

a lower number of overall moving lanes and 

signals, as well as slower speeds and lower 

risks of death or injury. 

IC-5: Designing right-angle intersections (intersections where streets meet at perpendicular angles) whenever possible to decrease crossing 

distances and increase visibility.

Avoid Irregular Intersections Unless Striping/

Medians Can Make Them Safer (II)

In order to avoid irregular intersections, 

communities should consider—

II-1: Designing the intersection so that there are 

no more than four legs. This is accomplished by 

removing one or more legs from the major intersection and creating a minor intersection further 

up- or downstream of the intersection.

II-2: Designing or redesigning the intersection closer 

to a right angle. Some right-of-ways may have to 

be purchased, but this can be offset by the larger 

area no longer needed for the intersection, which 

can be sold back to adjoining property owners 

or re-purposed for a pocket park, rain garden, 

greenery, and so forth.

II-3: As an alternative, closing one or more of the approach roads to motor vehicle traffic, while still 

allowing most segments and directions through 

the intersection.

II-4: Providing pedestrian refuges if the crossing distance exceeds approximately 40 feet.

II-5: Striping general-use travel lanes and bike lanes 

with dashes to guide bicyclists and motorists 

through a long undefined area.

Use Roundabouts and Mini-Circles To Eliminate 

Left Turn Conflicts and Control Speeds (IR)

For roundabouts and mini-circles, communities 

should consider—

IR-1: Using roundabouts for streets below 20,000 to 

25,000 average daily traffic volumes. A roundabout keeps traffic moving at a speed that is 

overall more efficient than traffic signal-controlled intersections while allowing multiple 

users to move through this intersection in a 

safe manner. 

IR-2: Avoiding the creation of roundabout without 

taking into account movements by bikes and 

pedestrians. Signage, lane striping, and deflection angles that decrease speed in the mixing 

circle are all required to accommodate bike 

use. Median splitters, refuges, high visibility 

striping, and signage are also essential for pedestrian safety. 

IR-3: Installing roundabouts where angled parking 

or other on-street parking is required. It reduces the overall speed in the area to less than 

25 mph, which allows for collision avoidance 

between vehicles backing out and those seeking to move through the area. 

IR-4: Taking into account emergency vehicle and 

truck traffic turning radii by providing a portion of the roundabout as a mountable curb. 

IR-5: Allowing vertical elements to be in the roundabout circle and raised median splitter islands 

so that they create highly visible spatial definers of where vehicles should and should not 

be. Driver eye-level views should be kept as 

open as possible so that drivers are aware of 

other movements in the roundabout. 

IR-6: Utilizing traffic circles on smaller or lower-volume streets to obtain some level of traffic calming and pedestrian crossing priority.
B-17

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Use Bulb-Outs or Curb Extensions To Calm 

Traffic (IB)

For bulb-outs, communities should consider—

IB-1: Using curb extensions to replace the parking 

lane at crosswalks where on-street parking 

is allowed. Curb extensions should be the 

same width as, or slightly narrower than, the 

parking lane. The appropriate corner radius 

should be applied based on local conditions 

and standards. Due to reduced road width, the 

corner radius on a curb extension may have 

to be larger than if curb extensions were not 

installed. 

IB-2: Reducing the crossing distance by adding a 

curb extension where excessively wide streets 

occur.

IB-3: Using rolled curbs to allow emergency vehi-

cles and trucks to partially utilize a portion 

of the bulb-out for making tight turns if the 

receiving lanes of the perpendicular street are 

limited and the turning radius is kept small. 

Markings on the ground should be used to in-

dicate a “stay back” distance if large vehicles 

are approaching. 

IB-4: Combining bulb extensions with highly visible 

pedestrian crosswalks, improved lighting, and 

other public realm improvements that help to 

justify the costs associated with these changes. 

All ADA and universal access requirements 

must be met.

Avoid Free Right Turn Channelization Designs (IF)

In order to avoid free right turn channelization 

designs, communities should consider—

IF-1: Avoiding right turn lanes because they in-

crease the size of the intersection, the pedes-

trian crossing distance, and the likelihood of 

right turns on red by inattentive motorists 

who do not notice pedestrians on their right. 

IF-2: Adding a right turn lane where there are heavy 

volumes of right turns (approximately 200 ve-

hicles per hour or more) to provide addition-

al vehicle capacity without adding additional 

lanes elsewhere in the intersection. 

IF-3: Installing a raised channelization island be-

tween the through-lanes and the right turn 

lane at intersections of multi-lane roadways 

where trucks make frequent right turns to en-

hance pedestrian safety and access.

IF-4: Installing a raised island to allow pedestrians 

to cross fewer lanes at a time with an overall 

reduction in the total vehicle conflict exposed 

travel distance. The design should allow mo-

torists and pedestrians to judge the right turn 

movement separately from the pedestrian 

conflict crossing point. 

IF-5: Providing a yield sign for the slip lane, with at 

least a 60-degree angle between vehicle flows, 

which reduces turning speeds and improves 

the visibility of pedestrians and vehicles to the 

yielding driver.

IF-6: Placing the crosswalk across the right turn 

lane about one car length back from where 

drivers yield to traffic on the other street, al-

lowing the yielding driver to respond to a po-

tential pedestrian conflict first, independently 

of the vehicle conflict, and then move forward, 

with no more pedestrian conflict.
B-18

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Descriptions and Tools for Bike and 

Vehicle Sharing Travel Lanes (S)

Bike Boulevards/Greenways (SB)

For bike boulevards/greenways, communities 

should consider—

SB-1: Selecting a direct and continuous street rath-

er than a circuitous route that winds through 

neighborhoods. 

SB-2: Placing motor vehicle traffic diverters or barri-

ers at key intersections to reduce through-mo-

tor vehicle traffic (diverters are designed 

to allow through-bicyclist and -pedestrian 

movements).

SB-3: Turning stop signs toward intersecting streets 

so bicyclists can ride with few delays in for-

ward movement. 

SB-4: Replacing stop-controlled intersections with 

mini-circles and mini-roundabouts to reduce 

the number of stops cyclists have to make and 

to calm traffic.

SB-5: Placing traffic-calming devices, such as speed 

tables, chicanes, and other horizontal or verti-

cal deflections to reduce motor vehicle traffic 

speeds.

SB-6: Placing wayfinding and other signs or mark-

ings to direct cyclists to key destinations and 

to alert motorists of the presence of bicyclists. 

SB-7: Utilizing signals where appropriate, including 

loop detection to ensure that bicyclists can ac-

tivate the signal. 

SB-8: Utilizing a wide enough median refuge at 

street crossings to provide a safe holding loca-

tion for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

SB-9: Providing a median refuge without positive 

signal control only on two-lane (total) streets.

SB-10: SB-10: Using signalized median crossings on 

higher-peed /multi-lane streets.

Figure B-1: Bike Boulevard

SB-3

SB-6

SB-1

SB-2

SB-7

B-4: Bike Tools
B-19

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure B-2: Bike Boulevard Traffic Calming Options

SB-2

Figure B-3: Bike Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing

SB-5
B-20

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Shared-Lane Markings With Standard or 

Greenback Boxes (SH)

For shared-lane markings with standard or greenback boxes, communities should consider— 

SH-1: Using shared-lane markings only when roadway 

widths do not allow for a higher separated facility 

but continuity of travel through these restricted areas is needed.

SH-2: Not allowing shared-lane markings to be used 

when the roadway is wide enough to accommodate the minimum standards of a bike lane. 

SH-3: Using shared-lane markings only on streets with 

traffic speeds of 25 mph or less. Although many 

states and cities allow the use of shared-lane markings on streets up to 35 mph, it is not consistent 

with “best practices.”

SH-4: Placing shared-lane markings on streets that have 

two lanes in each direction or at least a center turn 

buffer lane.

SH-5: Using raised Botts’ dots or markers to provide an 

audible clue to what the passing driver is intending 

to do, allowing riders to know when they are being 

passed. 

SH-6: Placing shared-lane markings that are next to parallel parking at an appropriate distance from the 

curb or from the typical edge of parked vehicles.

SH-7: Placing shared-lane markings in the center of the 

shared travel lane to promote cyclists taking the 

lane in areas with wider parking lanes.

SH-8: Placing the shared-lane marking between vehicle 

tire tracks to increase the life of the markings and 

decrease long-term maintenance costs. 

SH-9: Using a greenback color behind the shared-lane 

marking symbol to increase visibility. 

SH-10: Using a black or dark grey background or a greenback color when placing white stencil on concrete 

surfaces.

SH-11: Installing signage that indicates the right of the 

cyclist to take the lane and to help warn drivers of 

cyclists’ presence.

SH-12: Installing shared-lane markings where they will direct cyclists away from hazards (e.g. the gutter pan, 

the door zone).

Figure B-4: Shared Lane Markings

SH-1

SH-8
B-21

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Bike Routes With No Improvements Other Than 

Signage (SR)

For bike routes with no improvements other than 

signage on streets with low traffic volume, communities should consider—

SR-1: Providing a bike route sign, located along the 

route, at least every 1,000 feet. 

SR-2: Providing a sign with an arrow, at an appropriate distance in advance of the turn, when 

the route changes direction or streets.

SR-3: Providing major destination directions and 

general distances, with directional arrows if 

located near intersections, where the rider 

may depart from the route to join another 

bike facility or standard road.

SR-4: Removing centerlines on streets with low volumes to enable cyclists and vehicles to share 

the road more effectively.

Descriptions and Tools for Bike-Only 

Travel Lanes (B)

Buffered Bike Lanes (BB)

For buffered bike lanes, communities should consider—

BB-1: Providing a buffer to increase cyclist comfort 

and safety and to calm traffic.

BB-2: Buffering to remove excess space from travel 

lanes and provide edge friction and enclosure 

on the perception of width in the roadway 

surface.

BB-3: Delineating buffer with white chevron-style 

diagonal lines between two solid white lines.

BB-4: Delineating buffer when the bike lane is proposed to be more than 6 feet wide to clarify 

that the lane is not for motor vehicles. 

BB-5: Designing buffer to start 5 feet from the curb 

face and be at least 2 feet wide.

BB-6: Allowing buffers on either side of the bike travel way to go from several feet wide down to no 

buffering. This way, the bike facility can adapt 

to changing roadway conditions and geometry. 

BB-7: Adjusting buffering and solid lines to accommodate right turns (or left turns if on the lefthand side of one-way streets) to clarify where 

drivers are expected to make lane turns.

Figure B-5: No Improvements other than Signage

SR-1 SR-4

Figure B-6: Buffered Bike Lanes

BB-1

BB-3

BB-5
B-22

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Conventional Bike Lanes (BL)

For conventional bike lanes, communities should 

consider—

BL-1: Designing bike lanes to be a minimum of 5 

feet wide from the face of a curb; 6 feet is preferred, and 4 feet is acceptable in constrained 

scenarios.

BL-2: Ensuring that bike lanes are a minimum of 4 

feet wide on open shoulders.

BL-3: Placing bike lanes far enough from the curb 

to avoid debris and drainage grates and far 

enough from other vehicles to avoid conflicts.

BL-4: Designing bike lanes to direct cyclists to ride far 

enough from the curb to be visible to motorists.

Descriptions and Tools for Separated Bike 

Facilities Away (Protected) From Travel 

Ways (P)

Bike/Multi-Use Paths (PM)

For multi-use paths, communities should consider—

PM-1: Designing shared-use paths to be a minimum 

of 8 feet wide with 2 feet of graded shoulder on 

each side. This width is suitable in open space, 

rural, small-town, or suburban settings. 

PM-2: Generally, a 12-foot-wide paved path is preferred for more urban areas. Wider pavements 

may be needed in high-use areas, regardless of 

the rural, suburban, or urban nature of the area. 

PM-3: Widening pavement or separating walkways 

with significant numbers of pedestrians, bicyclists, or skaters to eliminate conflicts.

PM-4: Providing firm to hard surface paths—made 

of concrete, asphalt, or (compacted and emulsified) decomposed granite—to accommodate 

wheeled transportation modes and to meet 

ADA requirements.

PM-5: Providing firm-surface side trails or graded 

shoulders for the safety and comfort of wheeled 

transportation users. 

PM-6: Using color, stains, or paint to enhance safety, 

operational efficiency, and a sense of place.

PM-7: Designing street crossings to be direct, safe, 

and comfortable (see section 6.3.4, Descriptions and Guidelines for Bike Facilities at Intersections [I]). 

PM-8: Including amenities, such as signage, pathway 

entry control, lighting (in some limited cases), 

trash facilities, drinking fountains, interpretive 

points of interest, seating areas, and public art.

Figure B-7: Conventional Bike Lane

BL-1

BL-3
B-23

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure B-8: Multi-Use Path

PM-2

PM-4

PM-6

PM-7

PM-8

PM-1
B-24

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Separated Bike Lanes—One-Way Cycle Track (PO)

For separated bike lanes and one-way cycle tracks, 

communities should consider—

PO-1: Designing the bicycle travel lane to be at least 

as wide as a standard bike lane. 

PO-2: Providing sufficient bicycle travel lane width 

to accommodate street sweeping and snow removal equipment service. 

PO-3: Providing a buffer between the bike lane and 

the adjacent parking or travel lane that is wide 

enough to mitigate conflicts (e.g. a 3-foot buffer may prevent door conflicts).

PO-4: Using any of the following protective barriers 

within the buffered area: posts/bollards, pylons, curbing, and landscaped islands.

PO-5: Prohibiting parking near driveways and intersections to allow for good visibility.

PO-6: Constraining driveway openings along separated bike lanes to slow vehicles and improve 

mutual visibility.

PO-7: Using coloring, yield markings, and/or signage in areas where motorists cross separated 

bike lanes.

PO-8: Constructing separated bike lanes above the 

grade of the streets and driveways, requiring 

vehicles to mount cycle tracks and giving priority to cyclists.

PO-9: Installing gaps in protective barriers to allow 

wheelchair users to cross them, ensuring that 

all gaps meet accessibility standards. 

PO-10: Identifying and remediating any obstructions 

(e.g. cracks, utility covers) when installing 

separated bike lanes on existing streets. 

PO-11: Carefully integrating separated bike lanes and 

transit, ensuring that accessibility standards 

are met and pedestrian and bike conflicts are 

minimized. 

Figure B-9: Separated Bike Lane - One Way

PO-1

PO-2

PO-7

PO-8

PO-9

PO-5

Please note FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, as well as emerging best practices for maintaining accessibility

PO-3

PO-6
B-25

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Separated Bike Lanes—Two-Way Cycle Track (PT)

Although guidelines for the one-way cycle track also 

apply to the two-way facility, communities should 

also consider—

PT-1: Designing the bike lanes to be 12 feet wide for 

two-way cycle tracks (with a 3-foot buffer), 8 

feet wide in constrained scenarios.

PT-2: Designing terminations of the two-way facility with care, directing cyclists to safe crossings 

or adjacent facilities. 

PT-3: Requiring a dashed centerline. 

PT-4: Installing additional vertical signage warning 

of two-way bike traffic, as well as colored lane 

markings, to improve safety.

PT-5: Adding markings through the intersection, as 

well as restrictions on right turns on red, and 

special bike signals and sensors.

Figure B-10: Separated Bike Lane - Two Way 

PT-4

PT-1

PT-2

PT-3

PT-5
B-26

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Bike Lane or Path Utilizing a Bridge (PB)

For bike lanes or paths utilizing a bridge, communities should consider—

PB-1: Ensuring that the bridge meets ADA ramp 

limitations: no more than 5-percent continuous grade or 8.33 percent with landings and 

handrails. 

PB-2: Ensuring that the bridge meets safety standards of railing height (with railing/fence at 

least 4 feet high).

PB-3: Providing minimum widths for emergency, 

maintenance or security vehicles to be allowed 

on the bridge. 

PB-4: If needed, installing bridge lighting for any 

protrusions that may be placed in the more 

limited travel way. 

PB-5: Installing barriers or a perceived non-entry 

device to keep motor vehicles off the bridge, 

especially if it was not designed for vehicular 

use. 

PB-6: Elevating the climb to the bridge from as great 

a distance as possible to lessen the braided 

ramp system that may be required for ADA.

Figure B-11: Bike Bridge

PB-1

PB-3

PB-2
B-27

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Descriptions and Tools for Bike Facilities at 

Intersections (I)

Separated Bike Intersections (IG)

For separated bike intersections, communities 

should consider—

IG-1: Providing physical protection in the form of 

small, paved and raised barriers that separate 

vehicles from bikes. 

IG-2: Providing a special signal phase that corresponds with motor vehicles traveling the same 

direction to give cyclists a head start and allow 

right turn restrictions to be released when the 

through movement turns green.

IG-3: Having a red phase in separated bike lanes 

when conflicting turning movements of vehicles in the travel lanes have a green phase, and 

vice versa. 

IG-4: Adding colored and stencil-separated bikeways through intersections to notify motorists 

that they are crossing a bikeway.

IG-5: Designing in conjunction with pedestrian crosswalks to avoid bike and pedestrian conflicts.

Figure B-12: Separated Bike Intersection

IG-1

IG-2

IG-4

IG-3

IG-5

Figure B-13: Partial separated intersection combined with a two-way cycle track and a bike/pedestrian crosswalk.

Please note FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, as well as emerging best practices for accessibility.

Protected bike lane with roundabout. 

Photo source: Blue Zones, LLC and TDC Design Studio

IG-5

IG-1

IG-2

IG-3

IG-4
B-28

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes (IQ)

For two-stags turn queue boxes, communities 

should consider—

IQ-1: Providing two-stage turn queuing boxes to 

assist cyclists making a two-stage turn in a 

complex (multi-lane and/or multi-leg) or separated intersection.

IQ-2: Providing two-stage turn queuing boxes 

where the width of the lanes of both streets 

is wide enough to accommodate the painted 

bike boxes and where they can be separated 

from pedestrian crosswalks.

IQ-3: Avoiding locations where right-turn-only 

pocket lanes cannot be separated from the 

bike box.

Figure B-14: Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes

IQ-2
B-29

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Jug Handles for Left Turn With Bike Crosswalk (IJ)

For jug handles, communities should consider—

IJ-1: Installing jug handles in areas where through 

traffic is at a speed or volume that it is difficult 

for all but the most skilled cyclists to make left 

turns when they are traveling on the right side 

of the road. 

IJ-2: Designing jug handles to start a left-hand 

split from the bike lane early enough to allow 

slowing and a hard left turn for the cyclist to 

reposition themselves at a right angle to their 

previous direction. 

IJ-3: Placing a raised median diverter to separate 

the through-movements by other bikes and 

vehicles, providing a safe haven for cyclists 

who are waiting for signals to change.

IJ-4: Using stripes, chevrons, lane markings, and 

green paint with stencil arrow directions to 

clarify the movement if a raised median is not 

possible.

IJ-5: Providing a special bike crosswalk that is separated from pedestrian crosswalks.

IJ-6: Installing special bike signals, instructions, 

and actuators that can sense the cyclist or be 

activated to complete the movement.

Figure B-15: Jug Handles 

IJ-2

IJ-3

IJ-5

IJ-6
B-30

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Mixing Zone With Solid and Dashed Markings (IZ)

For mixing zones with solid and dashed markings, 

communities should consider—

IZ-1: Using colorful pavement to highlight conflict 

areas between vehicles and bikes.

IZ-2: Using colorful pavement to visibly reduce the 

perceived width of the street for traffic calming and clarity purposes. 

IZ-3: Applying to the FHWA for a non-MUTCD experimental use permit to use color pavement. 

IZ-4: Dashing the colored sections of lanes where 

crossing occurs with white line dashing to 

indicate that a vehicle is crossing over a bike 

facility. This puts the yield burden on the faster-moving vehicle.

Figure B-16: Mixing Zone

IZ-1

IZ-4
B-31

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Mid-block Bike Crossings/Signals (IH)

For mid-block bike crossings, communities should 

consider— 

IH-1: Keeping crossings simple on low-volume, 

low-speed roadways, such as short collectors 

through neighborhoods (e.g. using yield control, painted crosswalk and yield bars, and 

simple regulatory/warning signage). 

IH-2: More-intensive design on high-volume and 

high-speed roadways such as multi-lane minor and major arterials (e.g. using pedestrian 

hybrid beacon (PHB) control or full signalization, refuge islands or raised medians, lighting, and high-visibility regulatory/warning 

signage).

IH-3: Considering an offset of movements across the 

median, if large enough, to allow cyclists to 

watch for vehicular compliance to the yielding.

IH-4: Combining mid-block bike crossings with pedestrian crossings whenever possible. 

Through-Intersection Painted Markings (IT)

For through-intersection painted markings, communities should consider— 

IT-1: Markings through the intersection: dashed 

lines, green boxes, or shared-lane marking 

icons.

IT-2: Adding standard bike lane symbols and arrows or other icon markings that face both 

directions through the intersection on cycle 

tracks, especially two-way cycle tracks on one 

side of a street. 

IT-3: Carrying shared lane marking lanes through 

an intersection, with care given to dash, to indicate that vehicles can cross through this line. 

IT-4: Having simple turning arrows, straight-ahead 

arrows, stop-here markings, and other treatments at intersections.

Figure B-17: Mid-block Bike Crossing

IH-1

IH-4

Figure B-18: Through Intersection Painted Markings

IT-1

IT-2
B-32

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Bike Boxes (IK)

For bike boxes, communities should consider— 

IK-1: Providing bike boxes at signalized intersections 

with high volumes of bicycles and/or motor vehicles, especially those with frequent bicyclist 

left turns and/or motorist right turns.

IK-2: Providing bike boxes where there may be rightor left-turning conflicts between bicyclists and 

motorists.

IK-3: Providing bike boxes where there is a desire to 

better accommodate left-turning bicycle traffic.

IK-4: Providing bike boxes where a left turn is required to follow a designated bike route or boulevard or access a shared-use path, or when the 

bicycle lane moves to the left side of the street.

IK-5: Providing bike boxes when the dominant motor vehicle traffic flows right and bicycle traffic 

continues through (such as at a Y intersection 

or access ramp). 

IK-6: Providing bike boxes to give bicyclists a safe 

and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic 

during the red signal phase.

Dedicated or Shared Right Turn Lanes (IR)

For dedicated or shared right turn lanes, communities should consider—

IR-1: Including solid lane boxes, crossover markings with breaks in solid lines indicating allowed crossing points, and a sharks-tooth 

yield line to best create spaces for bikes to hold 

at an intersection.

IR-2: Placing a dashed strip on the right edge of the 

box and a solid lane marking on the left-hand 

side for a shared right turn lane. The markings must make clear the expected behavior 

and yielding requirements for these types of 

intersections. 

IR-3: Including signs advising motorists and bicyclists of proper positioning within the shared 

right lane and that a vehicle must hold behind 

a bike until the green phase of the light.

Diverter of Traffic/Bike and Pedestrian Allowed (ID)

For traffic diverters, communities should consider—

ID-1: Making barriers to access clear to drivers from 

some distance away.

ID-2: Installing visible signage warning of road closures to clearly indicate the movements allowed.

ID-3: Installing clear markings and signage on diverters so that bikes move toward the middle 

of the street and vehicles turn to the right.

ID-4: Coordinating pedestrian crosswalks, median 

refuges, signals, lane markings, and other features so that both bikes and pedestrians can 

maneuver safely through these intersections.

Figure B-19: Bike Boxes

IK-1

Figure B-20: Traffic Diverter

ID-3

ID-4

ID-1

IK-2
B-33

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Descriptions and Tools for Bike Amenities (A)

Bike Stations With Public Lockers/Showers (AD)

For bike stations with public lockers and showers, 

communities should consider—

AD-1: Installing enclosed and monitored wellplaced series of bike racks at major transit 

hubs, where cyclists will feel comfortable leaving their bike for an extended period. 

AD-2: Installing bike stations at campuses or major 

employment corporate centers. 

AD-3: Requiring all employment centers and businesses larger than a certain size to provide 

bike parking and changing facilities. If this is 

not possible, they can be provided through a 

cooperative or subsidized facility.

AD-4: Having individual unisex stalls used privately by one individual at a time to alleviate risk 

concerns over shower facilities. 

Private Lockers/Showers (AP)

For private lockers and showers, communities 

should consider—

AP-1: Requiring employers with more than 25 employees to provide one private locker and 

shower facility somewhere within the primary 

building or adjacent building complex.

AP-2: Requiring employers to provide one private 

locker and shower facility per every 25 employees, up to 10 facilities.

AP-3: Allowing site operators of health facilities or 

other community- or business park-related 

organizations to meet this performance requirement through shared facility agreements 

or memberships. 

Bike Traffic Signal Heads (AH)

For bike traffic signal heads, communities should 

consider— 

AH-1: Providing bicycle countdowns that communicate how much time is left until the green 

bicycle indication is shown. 

AH-2: Implementing a leading bicycle interval (LBI), 

in conjunction with a bicycle signal head, to 

give bicyclists a green signal while the vehicular traffic is held at all red for several seconds. 

This treatment can be used to enhance a bicycle box.

Bike Signal Detection/Sensors/Actuators (AF)

For bike signal detection, communities should consider— 

AF-1: Including bicycle detection at all intersections 

where cyclists are permitted to ride, as a matter of routine accommodation.

AF-2: Ensuring that bicycle detection provides adequate time for cyclists to cross the full intersection. 

AF-3: Ensuring that all traffic signals are sensitive to 

bike presence to be able to trip the signal on 

the next cycle because all streets can be used 

by cyclists.

AF-4: Ensuring that cyclists are accurately detected 

(are sensitive to the mass and volume of a bicycle and its rider) and providing clear guidance to bicyclists on how to actuate detection 

(e.g., which button to push or where to stand). 

Bicycle-Sharing Stations/Programs (AB)

For bicycle-sharing stations and programs, communities should consider—

AB-1: Working out public and private partnerships 

to initiate a local bike-share program. 

AB-2: Providing a critical mass of facilities in areas that 

are considered to be bikeable communities. 

Bicycle Storage and Parking (AS)

For bicycle storage and parking, communities 

should consider—

AS-1: Providing secure bicycle parking at likely destinations as an integral part of a bikeway network. 

AS-2: Locating bicycle parking in well-lit, secure locations close to the main entrance of a building, 

without interfering with pedestrian movement. 

AS-3: Installing bike racks that support the bicycle well 

and make it easy to lock a U-shaped lock to the 

frame of the bike and the rack.

Refer to the APBP Bike Parking Guidelines for additional information. 

Bike Wayfinding Systems (AW)

For bike wayfinding systems, communities should consider—

AW-1: Implementing a comprehensive wayfinding 

system that supports and describes the local 

bicycle network.

AW-2: Using wayfinding to provide branding and 

placemaking and to encourage access to business, cultural, and tourist destinations.

AW-3: Using wayfinding to provide confirmation of 

route and available choices of routes. 

AW-4: Using wayfinding for information related to 

local destinations.

AW-5: Using wayfinding to provide information related to distances and directions.

Bike Repair/Tool Stations (AT)

AT-1: Locating manned repair facilities in high-use 

areas that would typically be part of a bike station or major bike storage facility.

AT-2: Locating standalone unattended tool stations 

at major confluences of bike facilities and near 

transit centers and major destinations. Vendors 

can provide a turnkey solution that requires little more than the initial capital investment.
B-34

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS B-5: Pedestrian Tools

Walkway Treatments (W)

Walkway Presence and Continuity (WC)

For walkways, communities should consider— 

WC-1: Providing the shortest connections between 

origins and destinations as possible.

WC-2: Minimizing steep grades between surfaces. 

Walkways away from the street are required to 

maintain a 5-percent or 8-percent (with railing) ramp system. 

WC-3: Providing grade separation from adjacent 

streets.

WC-4: Ensuring that walkways attached to the street 

comply with all other ADA requirements. All 

intersections must be regraded to meet percent slope maximums, however. 

WC-5: Providing mid-block crossings along long 

blocks or areas with a wide distribution of 

streets to minimize total walk times.

WC-6: Closing gaps in dead end or cul-de-sac streets 

with pedestrian accessible paths or cutthroughs. 

WC-7: Closing gaps along roadways (e.g. between 

developments) to promote accessibility and 

conform with federal ADA regulations. 

WC-8: Prioritizing sidewalk gap closure along 

through-corridors, boulevards, and avenues—

if not properly handled—presents a gap in 

continuity and therefore must be a priority. 

Primary Universal Walkway Access Guidelines (WU)

The following list of principles is paraphrased from 

the Project Universal Access website (http://www.

humantransport.org/universalaccess/page2.html). 

WU-1: Universal Access to Destinations indicates 

that all destinations served by the public road 

system shall be accessible by pedestrians and 

by drivers of all vehicles (including bicycles), 

except that vehicle operation may be restricted for reasons of excessive weight, noise or 

size, or extraordinary potential for damage to 

the property or person of others.

WU-2: Equal Rights of Use describes the people’s 

right to use that portion of a street designed 

for travel that is not diminished by less weight, 

less size, or less average speed associated with 

their travel mode. The adequate accommodation of heavier, larger, faster travel modes by 

a road’s design must not imply its inadequacy 

for or unintended use by smaller, lighter, or 

slower modes. Demand-actuated traffic signals must detect and serve a diversity of users, 

including bicycle operators in the roadway 

and pedestrians using crosswalks. 

WU-3: Integration of Modes is a principle stating 

that travel by different modes shall not be segregated by law or facility design without compelling, objective, scientifically valid evidence 

of operational advantages of segregation that 

outweigh the disadvantages. Segregation of 

pedestrian from vehicle traffic may be warranted on busy roads due to the different 

maneuverability and nighttime visibility characteristics of pedestrians and vehicles. Segregation of different vehicle types is undesirable, 

as this segregation almost always creates increased conflicts at junctions, forces users of 

some vehicle types to use inferior facilities, or 

stigmatizes users who violate the segregation 

policy for safety reasons.

WU-4: Uniformity and Simplicity is a principle that 

states transportation systems should be simple 

and intuitive. Designs and regulations should 

be uniform across facilities. Similar traffic situations should be treated in a similar manner, 

enabling more rapid and reliable user behavior. Vehicle-type-specific exceptions to the 

rules of the road are undesirable because such 

exceptions make traffic movements less predictable and traffic negotiation less reliable.

WU-5: Accessible Surfaces states that, to the extent 

practicable, travel surfaces should accommodate travel on foot with minimal trip hazards 

and via common assistive devices, such as 

wheelchairs. Roadway surfaces should be as 

clear as possible of hazards for narrow tires 

such as bicycle tires.

WU-6: Crossable Roadways describes the importance of crossing distances at non-signalized 

access locations that must not exceed the distance that can be covered at walking speed 

before traffic may arrive from beyond sight 

distance, or during reasonable gaps in roadway traffic. Refuges provided to reduce crossing distances should be large enough to store 

assistive devices, such as wheelchairs and 

strollers. Traffic signal timing should provide 

adequate clearance intervals for safe crossing 

by pedestrians and slow vehicles.

WU-7: Appropriate Space for Use needed for maneuvering and recovery should be incorporated 

for all vehicle operators and for pedestrians, 

including wheelchair users. If it is desirable to 

accommodate faster speeds for some modes 

while slower modes are present on the same 

road, the road may be designed to facilitate 

easier overtaking between modes. Overtaking 

activities should take place at distances appropriate for the difference in speed, maneuverability of modes, and vulnerability of users.
B-35

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Curb Zones—Curb, Gutter, Parking, and Bulb-Outs (W1)

For curb zones, communities should consider— 

W1-1: Providing a minimum curb zone width of 

6 inches, or 18 inches where pedestrian or 

freight loading is expected and may conflict 

with obstacles in the furniture zone.

W1-2: Providing low curbs (3 to 4 inches high) to reduce the division between the travel way and 

the sidewalk, particularly in areas with significant pedestrian traffic. Low curbs also improve the geometry and feasibility of providing two perpendicular curb ramps per corner.

W1-3: Including on-street parking in the curb 

zone—as appropriate—to calm traffic, thereby 

enhancing pedestrian safety and comfort. 

W1-4: Installing curb extensions, bulb-outs, or bus 

bulb-outs to extend the sidewalk and reap 

the following benefits: decreased crossing distances for pedestrians, increased visibility between pedestrians and drivers, traffic calming 

by “pinching in” on the intersection, increased 

landscaped space, and increased definition of 

the pedestrian realm.

Furnishing Zone—Trees, Signage, Utilities, and 

Furniture (W2)

For furnishing zones, communities should consider—

W2-1: Providing a minimum furniture zone width of 

4 feet.

W2-2: Providing a parkway width of 6 to 8 feet, 

where bus stops exist, to accommodate multiple users. 

W2-3: Providing a minimum planting area of 40 

square feet, where street trees are included.

W2-4: Providing an open planter, where the planting 

area is narrow, to ensure the health of trees.

W2-5: Including parkways strips to achieve mobility, environmental, and public safety goals: traffic calming, stormwater runoff, and pedestrian protection. 

W2-6: Providing tree spacing that is appropriate to 

the tree type and parkway context: small trees 

associated with parkway strips of 4 to 6 feet 

wide should be spaced 20 feet apart; larger 

trees associated with parkway strips wider 

than 6 feet should be spaced 30 feet apart.

W2-7: Installing furnishing elements in the furnishing zones to reduce barriers in the walkway 

zone. All vertical elements and furnishings 

should be kept 2 feet from the face of the curb, 

including signs, meters, light poles, and the 

backs or fronts of street furniture.

W2-8: Installing trash receptacles in the parkway 

strip in business districts or town centers, 

pending the availability of routine collection 

and maintenance.

W2-9: Ensuring the accessibility of all elements in 

the furnishing zone intended for pedestrian 

use—benches, water fountains, and so forth.

W2-10: Installing signage to provide important information for all roadway users. Sign use 

and placement should be done judiciously, as 

overuse tends to create noncompliance and 

disrespect. Too many signs can also create visual clutter.

W2-11: Installing regulatory signage such as STOP, 

YIELD, or turning restriction signs.

W2-12: Installing warning and wayfinding signage 

to provide information, especially to motorists and pedestrians unfamiliar with an area. 

Care must be given to the proper placement of 

these signs to ensure high visibility and continuity in placement. 

W2-13: Installing advance pedestrian warning signs 

where motorists may not expect pedestrian 

crossings. 

W2-14: Using MUTCD-prescribed fluorescent yellow/

green pedestrian, bicycle, and school warning 

signs (Section 2A.10 of the 2009 MUTCD) for 

all new and replacement installations. 

W2-15: Using the sign referred to as a “R1-5” in conjunction with advance yield lines. 

W2-16: Using the sign referred to as “R1-6” on median islands, especially where there is on-street 

parking, to alert motorists to the crossing.

W2-17: Minimizing signage through good street design. For instance, instead of installing signage 

with messages like “SLOW” and “CAUTION,” 

allow streets to convey these messages themselves through narrow travel lanes, parkway 

landscaping, and on-street parking. 

W2-18: Providing lighting in the furnishing zone and 

at all pedestrian crossing locations. Adequately bright illumination should be present at all 

marked crossings.

W2-19: Utilizing the FHWA HT-08-053, Information 

Report on Lighting Design for Mid-block 

Crosswalks. 

W2-20: Providing crosswalk lighting of a color that 

contrasts with standard roadway lighting (see 

“Recommended Illumination by Street Type”). 

Note: Guidance on crosswalk lighting levels comes 

from the Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America (IESNA) intersection guidance to 

illuminate pedestrians in the crosswalk to vehicles. 
B-36

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Table B-3: Recommended Illumination by Street Type

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

AVERAGE MAINTAINED ILLUMINATION 

AT PAVEMENT BY PEDESTRIAN AREA 

CLASSIFICATION

High Medium Low

Through Corridor (Major Arterial) 3.4 fc 2.6 fc 1.8 fc

Boulevard (Major Urban Arterial/Collector) 2.9 fc 2.2 fc 1.5 fc

Avenue (Major Arterial/Collector) 2.6 fc 2.0 fc 1.3 fc

Major Street (Local Road or Collector) 2.1 fc 1.6 fc 1.0 fc

Minor Street (Local or Lane) 1.8 fc 1.4 fc 0.8 fc

Note: FC stands for “foot candle” and is defined as the amount of luminance on a 1 square foot surface of which there is uniformly 

distributed flux of one lumen. ANSI-IESNA RP-8-00, “Roadway Lighting,” P. 15

Walking Zone—Surface Materials, Continuity, Slopes (W3)

For walking zones, communities should consider—

W3-1: Complying with the following ADA-required 

guidelines, including that the route be firm, 

stable, slip-resistant, and have a maximum 

cross-slope of 2 percent.

W3-2: Maintaining a walkway grade that does not 

exceed the general grade of the adjacent street. 

W3-3: Providing a pedestrian access route (PAR) of 

5 or 6 feet to allow two wheelchair users to 

comfortably pass one another. If, instead, a 

minimum PAR (4 feet) is provided, passing 

areas are required at a maximum of 200-foot 

intervals. 

W3-4: Designing pedestrian zones to be at least 4 feet 

wide where there is a parkway strip or furnishing zone of 4 feet and a building frontage 

zone of 2 feet. 

W3-5: Using a 5-foot-wide standard if the walkway 

is not against a building and has no parkway 

strip. If the walkway is adjacent to zero lot line 

storefronts and the curb without a defined 

building edge zone or furnishings zone, the 

walkway should be at least 6 feet wide. 

W3-6: Designing driveways for accessibility, including a cross-slope of no more than 2 percent. 

To provide a continuous PAR across driveways, aprons should be confined to the furniture and curb zones. 

W3-7: Prohibiting the encroachment of utility poles 

or utility transformers and equipment in minimum (4-foot) walking zones. Underground 

vaults would be an exception if they are flush 

to the walking surface.

Building Frontage Zone—Furniture/Utilities (W4)

For building frontage zones, communities should 

consider— 

W4-1: Providing a minimum building frontage zone 

width of 18 inches if adjacent to a wall, fence, 

or building to accommodate door openings, 

window openings, and other protrusions.

W4-2: Providing a building frontage zone of 4 feet in 

locations where outside seating is desired to 

accommodate a small dining area. 

W4-3: Providing a building frontage zone of 8 feet 

in locations where larger-scale dining is proposed.

W4-4: Placing sitting benches at least 3 feet from 

building walls to avoid an encroachment on 

passing pedestrians. 

W4-5: Prohibiting any encroachments that cause 

the usable walkway width to fall below 4- to 

6-foot standards. 

W4-6: Using a special material or treatment to call 

out intrusions in the building frontage zone 

(utility connections, meters, and backflow 

preventers) to prevent injuries. 
B-37

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Street Crossings (C)

Pedestrian Bridge or Underpass (CB)

For building frontage zones, communities should 

consider— 

CB-1: Recommending overcrossings over undercrossings for personal safety. 

CB-2: Designing bridges to be at least 6 feet wide if 

only used by pedestrians and 12 feet wide if 

shared with bikes. 

CB-3: (Required) Following ADA access standards 

and regulations for slopes and cross-slopes.

CB-4: Providing railing and fencing of adequate 

height for the safety of bridge and roadway 

users.

CB-5: Providing adequate lighting for most bridge 

crossings and all underpasses; providing natural light through skylights, if possible.

CB-6: Employing open architecture, if a tunnel or 

passageway is provided, for personal safety.

CB-7: Elevating the climb to the bridge from as great 

a distance as possible to lessen the braided 

ramp system that may be required for ADA. 

Figure B-21: Pedestrian bridges can be great assets, offering direct pedestrian and bicycle connections, and scenic views.

CB-3

CB-2

CB-5 CB-4
B-38

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Raised Crosswalk/Speed Table (CT)

For raised crosswalks/speed tables, communities 

should consider—

CT-1: Installing raised crosswalks to make pedestrians more visible. Raised crosswalks should 

include a flat, smooth surface for walking and 

two beveled slopes for mounting/driving over 

the crosswalk.

CT-2: Paving the level crosswalk area with smooth 

materials. Special texture or pavements used 

for aesthetics should be placed on beveled 

slopes to alert approaching motorists.

Crossings at Signals (CS)

For crossings at signals, communities should consider—

CS-1: Permitting crossing on all intersection legs.

CS-2: Providing a separated left turn signal to reduce conflict from permissive left turns. 

CS-3: Extending the overall phase of the traffic signal to allow all legs of the pedestrian crossing 

to work. 

CS-4: Providing a leading pedestrian interval to give 

pedestrians a head start and increase their visibility to motorists. 

CS-5: Providing a pedestrian exclusive phase known 

as a pedestrian scramble, to clear a larger 

amount of the pedestrian traffic across all legs 

at one time. 

CS-6: Providing a sensor-based pedestrian crossing 

system to allow for the earlier release of the 

left turn hold that conflicts with the pedestrian movement. 

CS-7: Allowing shorter, more “efficient” phases only 

if coupled with special actuators that permit 

extended phases for slower pedestrians.

CS-8: Installing median refuges on very wide streets 

to provide a resting place for especially slow 

pedestrians should they not clear the intersection within a single signal phase.

CS-9: Providing additional actuators in median refuges.

Crossings at Stop/Yield Signs (CY)

For crossing at signals, communities should consider— 

CY-1: Providing marked crossings at yield-controlled intersections where supported by need 

and engineering judgment. 

CY-2: Providing marked crossings at stop-controlled intersections near schools or areas of 

high levels of pedestrian activity with higher 

traffic volumes and greater crossing distances. 

CY-3: Providing marked crosswalks using standard 

double line or ladder or continental-style 

markings.

CY-4: Installing advance stop lines (12 to 24 inches 

wide) at an appropriate distance (4 to 6 feet) 

from the crosswalk to motorists to stop traffic 

well in advance of crosswalks.

CY-5: Tightening curb radii, in conjunction with 

pavement markings, in order to slow turning 

speeds and increase safety for crossing pedestrians. 

CY-6: Providing crossing islands and raised pedestrian crossings where circumstances merit 

(for example, long crossing distances, proximity to schools).

Figure B-22: A raised speed table works well in neighborhood settings where speeds and traffic volumes are low.

CT-1

CT-2
B-39

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Crossings at Mid-blocks—Markings, Median 

Refuges, Crossing Islands, and Signs (CM)

For crossings at mid-blocks, communities should 

consider—

CM-1: Providing mid-block crossings with median 

refuges to simplify pedestrian crossings of a 

complex street (so that crossings may be made 

in two stages and in much less time).

CM-2: Implementing mid-block crossings to slow or 

calm traffic.

CM-3: Including raised islands in mid-block crossings—where traffic speeds and volumes are 

high and sight distances are poor—to further 

calm traffic and increase pedestrian visibility.

CM-4: Installing crossing islands, instead of signal-controlled crossings—on two-lane, slower, and lower-volume streets—to lower installation and maintenance costs, reduce waiting 

times, and increase safety benefits. 

CM-5: Adding crossing islands in conjunction with 

road diets (e.g. where a four-lane undivided 

road is reduced to a two-lane roadway with 

center turn lane/refuge).

CM-6: Planting tall trees and low ground cover on 

crossing islands to increase visibility, reduce 

surprise, and minimize signage.

CM-7: Extending median islands where curves of hill 

crests complicate crossings to improve visibility.

CM-8: Providing adequate lighting for islands and 

crosswalks to enhance visibility and safety. 

CM-9: Designing crossing islands to be a minimum 

6 feet wide (islands may be as narrow as 4 feet 

where roadway width is very constrained). 

CM-10: Inserting a 90-degree bend to the crosswalk—

when used on higher-speed roads and where 

space is available—to help orient pedestrians 

to oncoming traffic as they cross. 

Crossings at Uncontrolled Intersections (CN)

For crossing at uncontrolled intersections, communities should consider— 

CN-1: Implementing advance yield lines at uncontrolled crossings of multi-lane roads to prevent 

multiple-threat vehicle and pedestrian collisions. 

CN-2: Per Section 3B.16 of the MUTCD, placing advanced yield markings 20 to 50 feet in advance 

of crosswalks, depending upon local requirements and location-specific variables: vehicle 

speeds, traffic control, street width, on-street 

parking, potential for visual confusion, nearby 

land uses with vulnerable populations, and demand for queuing space. 

CN-3: Placing advanced yield markings 30 feet in 

advance of crosswalks in the majority of locations. This setback allows a pedestrian to see if a 

vehicle in the second (or third) lane is stopping 

after a driver in the first lane has stopped.

CN-4: Installing advanced yield or stop lines (depending on whether the state requires a yield 

or stop) to indicate where vehicles must yield 

or stop to reduce vehicle encroachment into 

the crosswalk and improve a driver’s view of 

pedestrians.

CN-5: Providing special treatments for pedestrians at 

uncontrolled crossings and mid-block crosswalks. These are locations where motorists do 

not automatically stop. 

Figure B-23: Mid-block crossing with median refuge, shark-tooth yield markings, warning signs and flashers.

CM-1

CM-2

CM-3

CM-5

CM-9

CM-6 CM-4
B-40

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Table B-4: Appropriate Treatment for Pedestrians at Uncontrolled Crossings with Prevailing Speeds Less Than 30 mph

DEVICE OR TREATMENT

NUMBER OF LANES AND TRAFFIC VOLUME 

2 Lanes 2 Lanes + 1 

Turning Lane

4 Lanes ADT = 

10,000-15,000

4 Lanes ADT = 

15,001-20,000

4 Lanes ADT = 

20,001-25,000

4 Lanes ADT = 

25,001-30,000

4 Lanes ADT = 

30,001-40,000

4 Lanes ADT > 

40,000

6 Lanes ADT = 

25,000-40,000

6 Lanes ADT > 

40,000

Marked Crosswalks

Advance Stop Lines

Curb Extensions

Lighting*

Signs**

Raised Crossing Islands/

Medians

Raised Crosswalks***

Rectangular Rapid Flash 

Beacon

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

Signalize with Devices for 

Signalized Intersections

Road Diet

* refers to overhead lighting of crosswalks ** only appropriate at non-signalized crossings ***along school routes, main streets, at transit stations, or where significant numbers of disables people or older adults cross

Table B-5: Appropriate Treatment for Pedestrians at Uncontrolled Crossings with Prevailing Speeds Greater Than 30 mph

DEVICE OR TREATMENT

NUMBER OF LANES AND TRAFFIC VOLUME

2 Lanes 2 Lanes + 1 

Turning Lane

4 Lanes ADT = 

10,000-15,000

4 Lanes ADT = 

15,001-20,000

4 Lanes ADT = 

20,001-25,000

4 Lanes ADT = 

25,001-30,000

4 Lanes ADT = 

30,001-40,000

4 Lanes ADT > 

40,000

6 Lanes ADT = 

25,000-40,000

6 Lanes ADT > 

40,000

Marked Crosswalks

Advance Stop Lines

Curb Extensions

Lighting*

Signs**

Raised Crossing Islands/

Medians

Raised Crosswalks***

Rectangular Rapid Flash 

Beacon

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

Signalize with Devices for 

Signalized Intersections

Road Diet

* refers to overhead lighting of crosswalks ** only appropriate at non-signalized crossings *** along school routes, main streets, at transit stations, or where significant numbers of disabled people or older adults cross
B-41

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Crosswalk Markings and Requirements (CX)

For crosswalk markings and requirements, communities should consider—

CX-1: Marking all signalized intersections with a 

stop bar and double bar crosswalk, at a minimum, unless the pedestrian crossing is specifically prohibited. 

CX-2: Including stop bars on local streets with fourway stops, and also including high visibility, 

marked crosswalks, as appropriate (e.g. near 

schools or other areas of high foot traffic).

CX-3: Using continental crosswalks, a high-visibility crosswalk pattern, around schools at 

stop-controlled locations; at some locations, 

well-marked crosswalks are needed.

CX-4: Including crosswalks across the permissive 

direction at certain two-way stop-controlled 

intersections (e.g. near schools or other areas 

of high foot traffic). 

CX-5: Providing marked crosswalks with—only—

yield control on streets with one lane in each 

direction, and considering additional safety 

features to minimize conflicts on streets with 

multiple lanes. 

CX-6: Providing pedestrian crossing signs, as well 

stop or signal controls if more than one lane is 

provided in each direction. 

CX-7: Marking a high-visibility crosswalk, sharkstooth yield line, and signage indicating the 

responsibility to yield to pedestrians at all uncontrolled intersections (except as noted previously) with only one lane in each direction, 

fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day, and posted 

speeds less than 25 mph.

CX-8: Not including any crosswalk markings for uncontrolled intersections that do not meet the 

preceding requirements (3,000 ADT; 25 mph) 

and are not candidates for stop signs or traffic 

signals.

CX-9: Directing transit users to marked crosswalks. 

CX-10: Marking trail or multiuse path crossings. If 

both bike and pedestrian uses exist, a dual 

crosswalk with a set of bike markings should 

be included. 

CX-11: Including a marked crosswalk with positive intersection control at any signalized or 

stop-controlled intersection that has high pedestrian-generator land use types.

CX-12: Spacing crosswalk markings to provide comfortable and convenient crossings (at least every 300 feet apart in urban or suburban areas). 

CX-13: Providing double-outline crosswalks only at 

four-way stops and certain signalized intersections.

CX-14: Providing high-visibility (ladder- or continental-style) crosswalk markings at all intersections where driver judgment occurs and 

crosswalk prominence is needed.

CX-15: Installing zebra-style stripings or other 

high-visibility treatments near schools. 

CX-16: Providing solid marked crosswalks or enhanced paving only if the contrasting color or 

pavement provides sufficient visual contrast.

CX-17: Implementing “staggered” continental crosswalks, with the longitudinal stripes positioned 

to avoid vehicle wheel paths as much as possible, reducing wear (of the painted or thermoplastic applied markings).

Figure B-24: Pedestrian bulb-outs with high visibility crosswalk markings at a two-way partially controlled intersection.

CX-2

CX-3
B-42

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Primary Universal Access Guidelines (CU)

The Department of Justice and the Department 

of Transportation, through their adoption of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and accompanying regulations, set 

the standard for accessibility in the United States. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires 

nondiscrimination, even if there is no standard. 

In an effort to provide increased specificity and 

standards, the Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian 

Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (Published in 

the Federal Register on July 26, 2011), or PROWAG, was developed. Guidelines from PROWAG, 

some of which may be inconsistent with adopted 

DOT/DOJ standards, are provided in the following list. Further research is advised before community implementation of these guidelines.

CU-1: Pedestrian crossings shall comply with R305 

in chapter 3 (CU-1: R305.1 General)

CU-2: Crosswalks shall comply with R305.2 and 

shall contain a pedestrian access route that 

connects to departure and arrival walkways 

through any median or pedestrian refuge island (R305.2 Crosswalks).

CU-3: Marked crosswalks shall be 6 feet wide minimum (R305.2.1 Width).

CU-4: Where pedestrian access routes are contained 

within pedestrian street crossings, the grade of the 

pedestrian access route shall be 5-percent maximum (R302.5.1 Pedestrian Street Crossings).

CU-5: Except as provided in R302.6.1 and R302.6.2, the 

cross-slope of pedestrian access routes shall be 2 

percent maximum (R302.6 Cross Slope).

CU-6: Where pedestrian access routes are contained 

within pedestrian street crossings without yield 

or stop control, the cross-slope of the pedestrian access route shall be 5 percent maximum 

(R302.6.1 Pedestrian Street Crossings Without 

Yield or Stop Control).

Access From Walk to Street (A)

Curb Extensions/Bulb-Outs (AC)

For curb extensions/bulb-outs, communities should 

consider—

AC-1: Installing curb extensions (on streets with onstreet parking) to reduce the pedestrian crossing distance, visually and physically narrow 

the roadway, and improve the ability of pedestrians and motorists to see each other.

AC-2: Designing the curb extension to properly handle street drainage, which may require that the 

catch basin be relocated.

AC-3: Providing extensions on access manholes, 

valve access panels, and various junction boxes, if affected by curb extensions. 

AC-4: Mitigating any parking loss that may result 

from the addition of curb extensions by, for 

example, relocating curbside fire hydrants to 

areas where no parking is allowed, such as at 

the curb extension.

AC-5: Providing “mountable” curb extensions where 

tighter turning radii affect the turning movements of larger vehicles, such as school buses 

and large fire trucks. 

AC-6: Gently tapering curb extensions, where onstreet parking does not exist, to minimize 

hazards and improve maintenance and street 

sweeping.

Primary Universal Access On-Ramps—

Perpendicular/Apex/Parallel (AA)

For sidewalk ramps, communities should consider 

the following primary universal access principles— 

AA-1: Curb Ramp Components—The following 

text defines the curb ramp components, along 

with minimum dimensions.

• Landing—the level area at the top of a 

curb ramp facing the ramp path. Landings allow wheelchairs to enter and exit 

a curb ramp, as well as travel along the 

sidewalk without tipping or tilting. This 

landing must be the width of the ramp 

and measure at least 4 feet by 4 feet. 

• Approach—the portion of the sidewalk 

on either side of the landing. Approaches 

provide space for wheelchairs to prepare 

to enter landings. 

• Flare—the transition between the curb 

and sidewalk. Flares provide a sloped 

transition (10-percent maximum slope) 

between the sidewalk and curb ramp to 

help prevent pedestrians from tripping 

over an abrupt change in level. Flares can 

be replaced with curb where the furniture 

zone is landscaped. 

• Ramp—the sloped transition between 

the sidewalk and street where the grade is 

constant and cross-slope at a minimum. 

Curb ramps are the main pathway between the sidewalk and the street. 

• Gutter—the trough that runs between 

the curb or curb ramp and the street. The 

slope parallel to the curb should not exceed 2 percent at the curb ramp. 

• Detectable Warning—truncated dome 

surface and visual contrast to alert pedestrians with visual impairments of the 

sidewalk-to-street transition. 
B-43

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Table B-6: Curb Ramp Design Standards

RAMP TYPE CHARACTERISTIC ADA STANDARDS PROWAG

PERPENDICULAR 

(UNLESS NOTED 

AS APEX)

Maximum slope of ramps 8.33% 8.3% 

Maximum cross-slope of ramps 2% 2%

Maximum slope of flared sides 10% 10%

Minimum ramp width 36” 48”

Minimum landing length 36” 48”

Minimum landing width Not Specified 48”

Maximum gutter slope 5% 5%

Changes in level Flush Flush

Truncated domes Full depth & width 

or 24” deep 24” deep

AA-2: Curb Ramp Types—There are several types of 

curb ramps that meet minimum requirements 

for accessibility. Perpendicular curb ramps are 

placed two per corner and provide the shortest and most convenient crossing. Diagonal 

ramps are single ramps at the apex of the corner and meet basic requirements but necessitate longer crossings. Parallel curb ramps are 

oriented parallel to the street and ramp the 

sidewalk down. These are used where there is 

no space for perpendicular ramps.

• Perpendicular Curb Ramps—Perpendicular curb ramps are placed at a 90-degree angle to the curb or the gutter grade 

break. They must include a level landing 

at the top to allow wheelchair users to 

turn 90 degrees to access the ramp or to 

bypass the ramp if they are proceeding 

straight. Perpendicular ramps work best 

where there is a wide sidewalk, curb extension, or planter strip. Perpendicular 

curb ramps provide a direct, short trip 

across the intersection.

• Parallel Curb Ramps—Parallel curb 

ramps are oriented parallel to the street; 

the sidewalk itself ramps down. They are 

used on narrow sidewalks where there is 

not enough room to install perpendicular 

ramps. Parallel curb ramps require pedestrians who are continuing along the 

sidewalk to ramp down and up. Where 

space exists in a planting strip, parallel 

curb ramps can be designed in combination with perpendicular ramps to reduce 

the ramping for through-pedestrians. 

Careful attention must be paid to the construction of the bottom landing to limit 

the accumulation of water and/or debris.

• Diagonal Curb Ramps—Diagonal curb 

ramps are single curb ramps at the apex 

of the corner. These have been commonly 

installed by many jurisdictions to address 

the requirements of the ADA but have 

since been identified as a non-preferred 

design type because they introduce dangers to wheelchair users. Diagonal curb 

ramps direct wheelchair users and people 

with strollers or carts toward the middle 

of the intersection, near active portions 

of the roadway. Being in the intersection 

longer exposes the user to greater risk of 

being hit by vehicles. A single ramp at the 

apex should be avoided in new construction. 

AA-3: One ramp should be provided for each crosswalk, which usually translates to two per corner. This maximizes access by placing ramps in 

line with the sidewalk and crosswalk and by reducing the distance required to cross the street, 

compared with a single ramp on the apex.

AA-4: Install curb ramps at all intersections, midblock crossings, accessible on-street parking 

spaces, and passenger loading zones.

AA-5: Include detectable warning treatments in all 

curb ramps, employing texture and color, to 

alert the visually impaired that they are about 

to enter the street. PROWAG suggests the 

width of the detectable strip to be as wide as the 

ramp and 24 inches deep.
B-44

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Level Walk to Street With Blended 

Transition (AL)

For blended transitions, communities should consider—

AL-1: Using blended transitions in lieu of curb 

ramps on corners with large radii where it 

is difficult to line up the crosswalks with the 

curb ramps.

AL-2: Including detectable warning treatments in 

all blended transitions, employing texture and 

color to alert the visually impaired that they 

are about to enter the street.

AL-3: Augmenting blended transitions with bollards, planting boxes, or other intermittent 

barriers to prevent cars from traveling on the 

sidewalk.

Reduced Radius Corners (AR)

For reduced radius corners, communities should 

consider—

AR-1: Providing the smallest practicable curb radii to increase pedestrian comfort and calm 

traffic. (A 10- to 15-foot radius allows for the 

slower turning and shorter crossing distances 

consistent with an urban environment.)

AR-2: Taking advantage of multiple lanes, where 

they exist, to accommodate wider turns while 

still providing reduced curb radii.

AR-3: Reducing turning speeds to 15 mph or less. 

(Minimizing turning speeds is crucial to pedestrian safety, as corners are where drivers are 

most likely to encounter pedestrians crossing 

in the crosswalk, and this can result in injuries 

and fatalities if vehicle speed is too high.)

Crossing Control Devices (D)

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (DH)

For pedestrian hybrid beacons, communities should 

consider—

DH-1: Placing beacons in conjunction with signage, 

crosswalks, and advanced yield lines to warn 

and control traffic at locations where pedestrians enter or cross a street or highway. 

DH-2: Only installing pedestrian hybrid beacons at 

marked crosswalks.

DH-3: Using accessible pedestrian signal (APS) technology, in conjunction with pedestrian hybrid 

beacons (PHBs), to communicate the signal 

mode to people with vision disabilities.

Pedestrian Crossing Using Standard Signals (DP)

For pedestrian crossings using standard signals, 

communities should consider—

DP-1: Providing a full median that blocks left turn 

movements to prevent driver confusion about 

the permissive green light.

DP-2: Installing a full stop bar and marked crosswalk 

in conjunction with standard signal crossings.

DP-3: Providing enhanced street lighting at the 

crossing to ensure safety for dark nighttime 

conditions.

Figure B-25: Mid-block crossing with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon.

DH-1

DH-2

DH-3
B-45

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Figure B-26: Mid-block crossing with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Crossing.

DR-2

DR-3

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Crossing (DR)

For pedestrian crossings using Rectangular Rapid 

Flashing Beacon Crossings, communities should 

consider—

(Installation of RRFBs requires FHWA approval 

under the existing Interim Approval.)

DR-1: Utilizing RRFBs in locations where traffic is 

likely to yield to pedestrians (this facility is 

supported by yield control only).

DR-2: Installing RRFB treatments where approaches 

are relatively flat and straight (to support motorist and pedestrian visibility).

DR-3: Generally restricting RRFB treatments to two 

lane streets where only two travel lanes must 

be crossed. (Multi-lane crossings require coordinated yielding and generally are less effective and safe.)

DR-4: (Ideally) Installing RRFB crossings in conjunction with the following treatments: 

median refuges, high-visibility crosswalks, 

sharks-tooth yield bar set back 30 feet, signs 

indicating stopping location, and yield requirements. 

DR-5: Using APS technology in conjunction with 

RRFBs to communicate the signal mode to 

people with vision disabilities.

Pedestrian-Actuated Flashing Signage and InRoad Flashers (DW) 

For pedestrian-actuated flashing signage and inground flashers, communities should consider—

DW-1: Including a yield bar, using a sharks-tooth design, positioned at least 20 feet from the crosswalk. 

DW-2: Ensuring that flashing diodes in the crosswalk 

face drivers as well as pedestrians so that both 

parties know when it is safe to cross the street. 

DW-3: Designing a median refuge that allows pedestrians to temporarily hold position at the middle of the crossing to ensure that they have the 

eye of the driver and that the driver is going to 

yield. 

DR-4
B-46

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Pedestrian Scramble Signals/Markings (DS) Figure B-27: In the appropriate location, a pedestrian scramble can save time for drivers and improve safety.

For pedestrian scrambles, communities should consider—

DS-1: Educating both pedestrians and motorists so 

that they may safely and effectively use the facility. 

DS-2: Providing adequate signage and APS technology to support safe and effective use. Pedestrians sometimes jump the gun on the phase 

and walk against the pedestrian signal head, 

thinking that it did not change appropriately. 

Also, many pedestrians approaching a pedestrian scramble are unsure about the diagonal 

crossing, so signage should also communicate 

this opportunity. 

DS-3: Ensuring that communication with persons 

with disabilities is as effective as communication with others (required by 28 CFR 35.160). 

Communication goes way beyond signage.

DS-4: Including “no right turn on red” signage to 

limit the conflict points with pedestrians.

“No Turn on Red” Warnings (DN)

For “no turn on red” warnings, communities should 

consider—

DN-1: Mounting the “no turn on red” sign in a highly visible location and including bright lights 

and iconic turn diagrams that make it very 

clear to the driver they must not turn while 

the light is activated. 

DN-2: Enabling a blackout phase for “no turn on red” 

signage to bring attention back to standard 

signals when the prohibition is lifted.

Figure B-28: Intersection with no turn on red light to protect pedestrians and cyclists from right turn conflicts.

DN-1

DS-2

DS-4
B-47

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | DESIGN TOOLS

Pedestrian Signals for Universal Access With 

Audible and Visual Countdowns (DD)

For pedestrian signals for universal access (including audible and visual countdowns), communities 

should consider—

DD-1: Providing universal access through APS (e.g. 

audible tones, verbal messages, and/or vibrating surfaces) to inform people with visual impairments of the correct time to cross 

the street and the correct direction to move. 

(APSs are the most commonly requested accommodation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For more information 

on effective communication requirements, see 

28 CFR 35.160.)

DD-1: Providing verbal messages, over other APS 

amenities, as they provide the most informative guidance. 

DD-1: Installing APS actuators close to the departure 

location and on the side away from the center 

of the intersection because they are typically 

only audible 6 to 12 feet from the push button.

DD-1: Installing APS actuators at least 10 feet apart 

to prevent competing or conflicting messages. 

DD-1: Where two accessible pedestrian push buttons 

are placed less than 10 feet apart, providing 

accessible push buttons with push-button locator tones, tactile arrows, audible walk messages, and other relevant tools. 

DD-1: Installing APS systems with adaptive (walk 

indication and push-button locator) volume 

levels; volume should automatically adjust in 

response to ambient sound.

Signal Timing (T)

Leading Pedestrian Interval (TG)

For a leading pedestrian interval, communities 

should consider—

TG-1: Installing this type of signal timing in areas 

with high intersection visibility and where 

turning radii are tight, keeping turning speeds 

as low as possible. 

TG-2: Ensuring that APS technology is included in 

implementation of a leading pedestrian interval for the safety of visually impaired pedestrians.

Concurrent Pedestrian/Vehicle Signals (TH)

For concurrent pedestrian/vehicle signals, communities should consider—

TH-1: Utilizing a concurrent pedestrian phase in urban areas or other districts with high pedestrian volumes present throughout the day. 

TH-2: Utilizing a concurrent pedestrian phase where 

synchronized signals have been implemented 

and where older signal-phasing technologies 

cannot accommodate the variability of pedestrian phases that are actuated by pedestrians.

Pedestrian Phase Intervention in Cycle (TJ)

For pedestrian phase intervention in cycle, communities should consider—

TJ-1: Modifying software or hardware at signals 

that currently do not allow for an immediate 

intervention of the phasing cycle with a new 

pedestrian crossing request. (These are most 

important on streets that are wide or for signal 

cycles that are very long.)

Signals Synchronized to Bikes/Pedestrian Pace (TK)

For signals synchronized to bike/pedestrian pace, 

communities should consider—

TK-1: First, determining an appropriate multiplier 

of time that recognizes multiples of various 

modes of travel. (Assuming a 3-mph walking 

speed, along with a 15-mph bike speed and a 

30-mph vehicle speed, a mathematical calculation can be made that synchronizes all three 

modes to hit the intersection at similar times, 

all at the time the light changes to green.)
B-48

APPENDIX B | DESIGN TOOLS

Available Crossing Timing for Pedestrian Signals (TX)

For crossing timing for pedestrian signals, communities should consider—

TX-1: Lengthening crossing times for people with 

disabilities and elderly people. (The Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 

requires that transportation agencies use an assumed walking speed of 3.5 feet per second for 

signal timing and a second check at 3 feet per 

second.)

TX-2: Using an assumed walking speed of 2.8 feet per 

second where a large number of older adults or 

persons with disabilities cross.

TX-3: Installing modern signals, which, upon detecting slower pedestrians, can add more crossing 

time. 

TX-4: Using PUFFIN (Pedestrian-User-Friendly-Intelligent) traffic signals, which use infrared devices to detect the presence of pedestrians in the 

crosswalk, to extend the signal as needed. (PUFFIN signals are more efficient because they allow 

for a faster standard crossing and are extended 

only when needed.) 

TX-5: Providing for personalized signal timing for 

slower pedestrians, as is done in Singapore, 

through the use of a card at the push button that 

adds time to the walk cycle.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

APPENDIX C:
Table C-1: Additional Resources

Reference

 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9

Author Agency Web Link

2009 bicycle friendly America yearbook  Bill Nesper League of American Bicyclists N/A

Walking the Walk    Joe Cortright CEOs for Cities http://blog.walkscore.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities.pdf

Living a Car-Free Life     Jay Walljasper AARP http://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2015/living-without-a-car.html

Obesity Relationships with Community Design, 

Physical Activity, and Time Spent in Cars

   L. Frank et. al. N/A N/A

One in five adults meet overall physical activity 

guidelines

 N/A Center for Disease Control and 

Prevention

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/

p0502-physical-activity.html

A Practitioner’s Guide Advancing Health Equity: 

Community Strategies for Preventing Chronic Disease     Dee Merriam

Center for Disease Control and 

Prevention: Division of Community 

Health

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dch/pdf/HealthEquityGuide.pdf

A Walkable Places Survey: Approach and Results   Katherine Shriver TRB; Baltimore Metropolitan Council http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002081.

pdf

Accessibility and Protected Lanes   Craig Williams, Nathan Wilkes APBP

http://www.apbp.org/?page=PBL_webinars&hhSearchTerms=%22Craig+and+Williams%22, http://

youtu.be/Lv1VFxl-Zys

Active Community Environment Toolkit: Creating 

environments that encourage walking, biking, and 

public transit in Washington State

   N/A Washington State Depts of Health, 

Commerce and Transportation

http://depts.washington.edu/waaction/tools/

docs/15_ACEtoolkt_E12L.pdf

Active Living and Social Justice: Planning for 

physical activity in low-income, black, and Latino 

communities

    Kristen Day N/A http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=778318

Active Transportation Action Plan   N/A Strategic Growth Council/California 

Health in All Policies Taskforce

http://sgc.ca.gov/docs/Active_Transportation_Action_Plan_9-26-14.pdf

Aging in Place, Stuck without Options: Fixing 

the Mobility Crisis Threatening the Baby Boom 

Generation 

 Jana Lynott AARP http://t4america.org/docs/SeniorsMobilityCrisis.pdf

Americans Prefer to Live in Mixed-Use, Walkable 

Communities

 Joe Molinaro and Hugh Morris National Association of Realtors http://www.realtor.org/reports/nar-2013-community-preference-survey

Americans’ Views on their Communities, Housing, and 

Transportation 

 Beldon Russonello Strategists Urban Land Institute http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/

America-in-2013-Final-Report.pdf

Battling America’s Epidemic of Physical Inactivity: 

Building More Walkable, Livable Communities

 Mark Fenton Journal of Nutrition Education and 

Behavior http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16246279

Bicycle Friendly America Blueprint  League of American Bicyclists http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/american_

bicyclist_janfeb11.pdf

Bicycle Friendly America Guide 2012  League of American Bicyclists http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/AB-marapr2012-forweb_1.pdf

Bicycling and Walking in the United States - 2014 

Benchmarking Report

  N/A Alliance for Walking and Biking, with 

support from the CDC

http://www.bikewalkalliance.org/resources/benchmarking#previousreports

Bicycling Means Business: The Economic Benefits of 

Bicycle Infrastructure   Darren Flusche, Pilicy Director League of American Bicyclists http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/Bicycling_and_the_Economy-Econ_Impact_Studies_web.pdf

Bike Walk Twin Cities 2013 Report   N/A FHWA http://www.bikewalktwincities.org/sites/default/

files/bwtc-2013-count-report-final-lowres.pdf

Building Livable Communities: A Policymaker’s Guide 

to Transit-Oriented Development

 Paul Zykofsky Local Government Commission

http://lgc.org/wordpress/docs/freepub/community_design/guides/blc_tod_dev_guidebook_1999.

pdf

C-2

APPENDIX C | ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Table C-1: Additional Resources (cont.)

Reference

 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9

Author Agency Web Link

Building Walkable, Bikeable Communities    N/A Massachusetts Department of Public 

Health

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/mass-inmotion/community-walk-bike.pdf

California Targets Better Air With Smarter Land Use  Stuart Cohen and Seth 

Schneider Community Transportation http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/California_Targets_Better_Air.pdf

City Cycling  John Pucher and Ralph Buehler N/A http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/city-cycling-0

Complete Streets Local Policy Workbook  Stefanie Seskin National Complete Streets Coalition http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/

cs/resources/cs-policyworkbook.pdf

Complete Streets Policy Analysis 2011  Stefanie Seskin National Complete Streets Coalition http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/

cs/resources/cs-policyanalysis.pdf

Connecting Parks, Community and Public Health     Dee Merriam

Center for Disease Control and 

Prevention: Division of Community 

Health

http://www.parkpride.org/media-room/faqs/content/2013parkpridedeemerriam.pdf

Creating Great Places: The Role of Citizen 

Participation

 Lynn Richards Congress for the New Urbanism

http://www.centerforurbanstudies.com/documents/silverman_patterson/jcds_participation_

special_issue.pdf#page=24

Creating Walkable and Bikeable Communities: A User 

Guide to Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Master 

Plans

   N/A The Center for Transportation Studies 

at Portland State University

http://www.pdx.edu/ibpi/sites/www.pdx.edu.ibpi/

files/IBPI%20Master%20Plan%20Handbook%20

FINAL%20%287.27.12%29.pdf

Cycling and the City: A case study of how gendered, 

ethnic and class identities can shape healthy 

transport choices

   R. Steinbach, J. Green, J. Datta 

and P. Edwards N/A http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21396761

Cycling in Small Cities  Susan Handy, Eva Heinen and 

Kevin Krizek N/A http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/research/publications/publication-detail/?pub_id=1789

Dangerous By Design   Lily Shoup USDOT http://letsgokc.com/docs/DangerousbyDesign.pdf

Design Manual for Small Towns: Transportation 

and Land Use Strategies for Preserving Small Town 

Character

    N/A Virginia DOT http://www.tjpdc.org/pdf/rep_comm_designManual.pdf

Economic Impact of Bicycling and Walking in 

Vermont

  

Resource Systems Inc., Economic 

and Policy Resources, Inc., and 

Local Motion

Vermont Agency of Transportation

http://vtransengineering.vermont.gov/sites/

aot_program_development/files/documents/ltf/

BikePedFinal%20Report%20Econ%20Impact%20

Walking%20and%20Biking2012.pdf

Economic Value of Walkability   Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf

Emergency Access in Healthy Streets:Best Practices  Ryan Snyder, Patrick Siegman, 

Herbie Huff, Cullen McCormick

Los Angeles County Department of 

Public Health

Engaging More Women in Bicycling   Liz Cornish Jones, Women Bike 

Program Manager League of American Bicyclists http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/Womens_Outreach_Report_WABA_web.pdf

Equity Asset Map  N/A Safe Routes to School National 

Partnership

http://saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/

pdf/FINAL_EQUITY%20ASSET_map.pdf

Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban 

Zoning codes

 Kevin Nelson et al (Incl Lynn 

Richards) EPA http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/essential_fixes.htm

Estimating Bicycling and Walking for Planning and 

Project Development: A Guidebook (NCHRP Report 

770)

 J. Richard Kuzmyak et al Transportation Research Board (TRB) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/

nchrp_rpt_770.pdf

C-3

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | REFERENCE TOOLS
Table C-1: Additional Resources (cont.)

Reference

 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9

Author Agency Web Link

Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs: Guide 

to Valuing Walking and Cycling Improvements and 

Encouragement Programs

   Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf

Evaluating Smart Growth - Implications for Small 

Communities

 Mary Edwards and Anna Haines http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/1/49.abstract

Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All 

Road Users

  Wesley E. Marshall and Norman 

W. Garrick Journal of Environmental Practice http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bikes-safer-all-roadusers.pdf

Examining Consumer Behavior and Travel Choices  Kelly Clifton Portland State University http://trec.pdx.edu/research/project/411/Examining_Consumer_Behavior_and_Travel_Choices

First Mile, Last Mile:How Federal Transit funds can 

Improve Access to For People who Walk and Bike

  Ken McLeod, Legal Specialist League of American Bicyclists, Alliance 

for Biking and Walking

http://www.advocacyadvance.org/docs/FirstMileLastMile_August2014_web.pdf

Four Model Ordinances to Help Create Physically 

Active Communities

 N/A APA http://www.atpolicy.org/node/124

Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and 

Design

  IBPI

http://www.pdx.edu/ibpi/sites/www.pdx.edu.ibpi/

files/BicycleBoulevardGuidebook%28optimized%29.

pdf

General “Benefits of Biking” Research  N/A FHWA http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/resources/data/benefits_research.cfm

Get Active Orlando: Changing the Built Environment 

to Increase Physical Activity

 McCreedy M and Leslie JG American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944940

Getting Out and About: The Relationship Between 

Urban Form and Senior Travel Patterns

 Jana Lynott et al AARP http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/

abs/10.1080/02763890903327366#.VMFOMSvF-ip

Getting the Wheels Rolling: A Guide to Using Policy 

to Build Bicycle Friendly Communities

 Changelab

http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/

files/Getting_the_Wheels_Rolling_Toolkit-FINAL_20130823_0.pdf

Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban 

Development and Climate Change



Reid Ewing, Keith 

Bartholomew, Steve 

Winkelman, Jerry Walters 

and Don Chen

Urban Land Institute http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/growing-cooler

Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways 

Jerome S. Gluck, Janet M. Barlow, 

Ronald W. Eck, William F. Hecker 

and Herbert S. Levinson

NCHRP

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Jf8QpknYV_0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22Scott+Windley%22+accessibility&ots=di9p_

mm9sQ&sig=If6ayBRtuT0dBa69KC57x11sQno#v=onepage&q=%22Scott%20Windley%22%20

accessibility&f=false

Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle 

Facilities

   Kevin Krizek et al NCHRP/TRB http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/bicycle-facility-investment-nchrp-552.pdf

How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan   Michael Ronkin Designing Streets for People http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/

docs/fhwasa0512.pdf

Impacts of Land Use Strategies on Travel Behavior in 

Small Communities and Rural Areas

 Brian Morton TRB http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.

asp?ProjectID=2987

Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase 

Bicycling: An international review

   John Pucher, Jennifer Dill and 

Susan Handy Journal of Preventive Medicine http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743509004344

Land Use and Zoning Regulations for Healthier 

Communities

 N/A Active Transportation Alliance http://www.atpolicy.org/node/82

C-4

APPENDIX C | ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Table C-1: Additional Resources (cont.)

Reference

 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9

Author Agency Web Link

Land Use Impacts on Transport- How Land Use 

Factors Affect Travel Behavior  Tod Litman and Rowan Steele Victoria Transport Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org/landtravel.pdf

Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity  Maaza C. Mekuria, Ph.D., P.E., 

PTOE Mineta Transportation Institute http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1005.html

Main Street, When a Highway Runs Through It: A 

Guide for Oregon Communities  Michael Ronkin Designing Streets for People http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/mainstreethandbook.pdf

Making Streets for Walking: Dan Burden on 

Reforming Design Standards  Dan Burden Blue Zones

http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/04/08/makingstreets-for-walking-dan-burden-on-reforming-design-standards/

Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity & the 

Built Environment: A Baseline Profile of Indianapolis     Tess Weathers Indiana University School of Medicine - Department of Public Health

http://www.inhealthyweight.org/files/built_environment.pdf

Marin County, CA: Pilot funds energize existing 

community efforts to increase bicycling and walking    N/A Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program

http://www.walkbikemarin.org/documents/

Pilot%20Projects_Marin_Final_ltr_lr.pdf

Measuring the Benefits of Compact Development on 

Vehicle Miles and Climate Change

 Jerry Walters and Reid Ewing Environmental Practice http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6383424

MO Climate Action Plan, Transportation Chapter of 

Brentwood

 Matthew DeAngelo US Green Building Council – Missouri 

Gateway Chapter

https://www.brentwoodmo.org/DocumentCenter/

View/9009

Model Design Manual for Living Streets        Ryan Snyder et. Al. Los Angeles County Department of 

Public Health/UCLA http://modelstreetdesignmanual.com

Move This Way  Changelab http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/

MoveThisWay_FINAL-20130905.pdf

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide  NACTO http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide    NACTO http://nacto.org/usdg/

National Physical Activity Plan: Four transportation, 

land use and community design strategies

    N/A National Physical Activity Plan Alliance http://www.physicalactivityplan.org/transportation.

php

New Walking and Cycling Routes and Increased 

Physical Activity



Anna Goodman, PhD, Shannon 

Sahlqvist, PhD, and David 

Ogilvie, PhD

American Journal of Public Health http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/

AJPH.2014.302059

Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program: 

continued progress in developing walking and 

bicycling networks

   N/A FHWA http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/ntpp/2014_report/hep14035.pdf

Not a “paper”: Community-based tools to increase 

active travel on foot or by bike    Kit Keller APBP https://apha.confex.com/apha/136am/webprogram/Paper182488.html

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information   N/A Washington State DOT http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Planning/Walkable.htm

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information   Not an article; see link for 

organization or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization 

or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information   Not an article; see link for 

organization or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization 

or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information   Not an article; see link for 

organization or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization 

or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information  Not an article; see link for 

organization or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization 

or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information  Not an article; see link for 

organization or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization 

or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information

C-5

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | REFERENCE TOOLS
Reference

 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9

Author Agency Web Link

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information  Not an article; see link for organization or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization 

or topic information

Not an article; see link for organization or topic 

information

Not ONE article; whole library of papers on benefits 

of trails    N/A American Trails and National Trails Training Partnership (NTTP)

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/economics/

Not ONE article; whole library of papers on equity 

in AT

   N/A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - 

Center to Prevent Childhood Obesity

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/toolkits/

toolkits/2012/rwjf72846

Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Toolkit: City of 

Corvallis- Creating a Top Bicycling City in America

  N/A Oregon DOT - Oregon Sustainable 

Transportation Initiative

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/Toolkit/

Case%20Studies/Corvallis%20Case%20Study_Final_071713.pdf

Partnership Moves Community Toward Complete 

Streets



Geraghty AB, Seifert W, Preston 

T, Holm CV, Duarte TH and Farrar 

SM

American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944943

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center- Fact 

Sheets

 N/A Pedestrian and Bicycle Information 

Center http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet.cfm

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System

    PBIC http://pedbikesafe.org/

Planning Complete Streets for Aging America  Jana Lynott et al AARP http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/2009_02_streets.

pdf

Principles for Improving Transportation Options in 

Rural and Small Town Communities

   Lilly Shoup and Becca Homa Transportation for America

http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/

T4-Whitepaper-Rural-and-Small-Town-Communities.pdf

Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve 

Public Health: Lessons From The Netherlands and 

Germany

   John Pucher, PhD, and Lewis 

Dijkstra, PhD American Journal of Public Health http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/AJPHfromJacobsen.pdf

Protected Bike Lanes Mean Business   N/A People for Bikes and Alliance for 

Walking and Biking

https://www.sfbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Protected_Bike_Lanes_Mean_Business.pdf

Public Policies for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and 

Mobility

 N/A USDOT, in collaboration with AASHTO 

and NCHRP

http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PBSPolicyReview.pdf

Rails to Trails- Quantifying the Benefits of Active 

Transportation

 N/A Rails to Trails Conservancy http://www.railstotrails.org/policy/active-transportation-for-america/quantifying-benefits/

Recommended Community Strategies and 

Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United 

States

     Laura Kettel Khan et al CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/

rr5807a1.htm

Resources for Physical Activity Participation: does 

availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood 

socioeconomic status

  PE Estabrooks, RE Lee and NC 

Gyurcsik N/A http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12704011

Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in 

the street



Anne C Lusk, Peter G Furth, 

Patrick Morency and Luis F 

Miranda-Moreno

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/02/ip.2010.028696.full.pdf?sid=a2ed422a-9dbe-409a-b762-40e0ffbcedc6

Speed management : A road safety manual for 

decision-makers and practitioners

 WHO http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/

speed_manual/en/

Statistics regarding bicycling and the environment   N/A People for Bikes http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/

environmental-statistics

Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods    Dan Burden Blue Zones http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/circulars/

ec019/Ec019_b1.pdf

Table C-1: Additional Resources (cont.)

C-6

APPENDIX C | ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Reference

 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9

Author Agency Web Link

Streets and Sidewalks, People and Cars: The Citizen’s 

Guide to Traffic Calming  Dan Burden Blue Zones http://www.lgc.org/streets_and_sidewalks

Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature      Lynn Richards Congress for the New Urbanism

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6he0qcS3ZaUC&oi=fnd&pg=PT17&dq=Lynn+Richards+Congress+for+the+New+Urbanism&ots=7iyqd6GOmy&sig=tubeYZN9vJuYUk0iTRU4KMx8Bo0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Synergies between Low-carbon and Healthy 

Transport Policies



Jennifer S. Mindell 1 ; Judith 

M. Cohen 2 ; Stephen 

Watkins 3 ; Nicholas Tyler 4

ICE Publishing http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/tran.2011.164.3.127

Synthesis of Successful Bicycle Planning in Mid-Size 

Cities 

 Hongchao Liu, Wesley Kumfer, 

Bhargavi Chintaluri Texas Tech University http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/43000/43500/43520/0-6582-1_revised.pdf

The Alliance Benchmarking Report  N/A Alliance for Biking & Walking http://www.bikewalkalliance.org/resources/benchmarking

The Built Environment, Climate Change, and Health: 

Opportunities for Co-Benefits 

Younger M, Morrow-Almeida 

HR, Vindigni SM and Dannenberg 

AL

American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18929978

The Effective of Urban Design and Land Use and 

Transport Policies and Practices to Increase Physical 

Activity: A systematic review



Gregory W. Heath, Ross C. 

Brownson, Judy Kruger,

Rebecca Miles, Kenneth E. 

Powell, Leigh T. Ramsey,

and the Task Force on 

Community Preventive Services

http://activelivingresearch.org/sites/default/files/

JPAH_5_Heath_0.pdf

The Effectiveness of Urban Design and Land Use and 

Transport Policies and Practices to Increase Physical 

Activity: A Systematic Review

    Gregory W. Heath et al N/A http://activelivingresearch.org/sites/default/files/

JPAH_5_Heath_0.pdf

The New Majority: Pedaling Toward Equity   Carolyn Szczepanski League of American Bicyclists http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/equity_report.pdf

The Path to Active Living: Physical Activity Through 

Community Design in Somerville, Massachusetts



Burke NM, Chomitz VR, Rioles NA, 

Winslow SP, Brukilacchio LB and 

Baker JC

American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944939

Urban Structure Matters, Even in a Small Town  Petter Næss and Ole B. Jensen

Journal of Environmental Planning and 

Management, in collaboration with 

the NAACP

http://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/urban-structurematters-even-in-a-small-town%28c46c9e70-3373-

11db-8b1e-000ea68e967b%29.html

Washington County Bicycle Facility Design Kit  Washington County Oregon http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/

CPM/bike-facility-design-toolkit.cfm

Why Walking and Walkability? The Latest Info to Make 

the Case-- Statistics and Data

 Paul Heberling US DOT http://www.slideshare.net/PWPB_Slides/pwpb-heberling-rm30610am

Youth Travel to School: Community Design 

Relationships with Mode Choice, Vehicle Emissions, 

and Healthy Body Weight 

 Lawrence Frank and Company, 

Inc. EPA http://www.epa.gov/dced/youth_travel.htm

Table C-1: Additional Resources (cont.)

C-7

 CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES | REFERENCE TOOLS
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

Washington, DC 20410-6000 

December 2016