CHAPTER 5

Policy and Planning Considerations

A successful planning process needs to be grounded in the desired outcomes that accomplish the policies and goals established by the public agency or community. These outcomes are frequently related to increasing bicycle mode share, safety, connectivity and access, and equity. Agencies and communities are increasingly recognizing that to achieve such goals there needs to be a focus on “all ages and abilities” networks consisting of bikeways that provide low-stress connectivity.

There are important policy and planning considerations and decisions to be made to achieve bicycle networks that provide safe and comfortable access to a broad spectrum of people with varying levels of experience and risk tolerance. Many of these considerations are discussed in existing guidance from NACTO, AASHTO, and FHWA. For example, FHWA’s Bikeway Selection Guide provides vehicle speed and volume thresholds for selecting the appropriate bikeway type for the broader population (Schultheiss et al. 2019). AASHTO and NACTO guidance also discusses general principles around how to minimize conflicts and increase awareness and legibility of bikeways as discussed in Section 2.1, Safety Principles and Strategies. Often bike network planning and implementation involve trade-offs. While some trade-offs may be corridor-specific, many may recur throughout the network. Having clear policies around modal priority, curb space management, and access management can help agencies avoid the design challenges and decisions outlined further below and more effectively achieve desired outcomes. However, even with clear policies in place, it can often be challenging to make trade-off decisions, particularly in complex urban contexts.

5.1 Context and Modal Priority

Establishing a modal priority policy can give clarity to operational and design decisions that impact bikeway planning and implementation. A modal priority policy may be system-wide, tied to specific land use (e.g., within urban centers), or corridor-specific. Typically, modal priority policies tie back to, and are supportive of, other policies such as equity, safety, and mode shift. In the case of bikeway network planning, a modal priority policy may facilitate a decision to reallocate roadway space to achieve the desired bikeway design or inform a decision to avoid putting a bikeway on a corridor where, for example, there is insufficient space to also accommodate reliable transit service, which may be a higher priority. In the case of development review, a modal priority policy may inform a decision to restrict placing new driveways or loading zones on a bikeway or transit priority corridor, and instead give preference to locating driveways or loading zones on abutting side streets or alleys. Where high-volume driveways serving garages will be located on bikeway and pedestrian corridors, consideration could be given to building designs that ensure adequate sight lines are available between exiting motorists and people walking on sidewalks and operating on bikeways adjacent to the site, as discussed in Section 4.3. This can be particularly beneficial on roadways with downhill grades where a bikeway is planned.

There are different approaches to establishing and applying policies that establish modal priority or the level to which the needs of various modes are to be addressed in design. Agencies such as Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) identify expected road users based on the land use context and then identify the design elements that could be considered. For example, in FDOT’s Context Classification Guide, the urban core context classification anticipates having more pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, and therefore calls for the provision of lower design speeds, signal spacing, crossing distances, bicycle facilities, and wide sidewalks to increase the safety and comfort of these users (FDOT 2020). Similarly, Division 11 of WSDOT’s Design Manual establishes a low, medium, or high “modal level of accommodation” based on land use context (Figure 29) (WSDOT 2022). Montgomery County, Maryland’s Complete Streets Design Guide establishes modal and design element priorities for constrained rights of way for each of its 12 defined street types that are responsive to a range of land use and functional needs (Montgomery County 2021).

5.2 Access Management

As discussed in Section 3.4, driveways are a primary source of midblock conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. Access management is a FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure (FHWA 2021). Communities need to have access management policies that aim to reduce conflicts and support more walkable and bikeable streetscapes. Access management policies could be embedded into land use codes or ordinances to ensure driveway access does not negatively impact the safety of users of the adjacent street and is responsive to land use context. Policies may address

restrictions (e.g., outside of the functional area of an intersection or preference given to alleys or adjacent minor streets). In addition, a maximum number of driveways per distance or block face, or a minimum spacing between driveways may be established (see Section 3.4).

If established access management criteria cannot be met with new development, then strategies such as joint-use driveways could be required or incentivized. For existing development, there may be opportunities to incentivize joint-use driveways or other access management strategies through the permitting process when redevelopment or major alterations are proposed or through capital projects that may offer other access or streetscape enhancements. Agencies could look for opportunities to remove redundant driveways accessing the same parcel that do not comply with the established access management policy on corridors where bikeways are being installed and at signalized intersections that are being upgraded. Restricting turning movements in and out of driveways may be accomplished using hardened infrastructure, such as center medians or diverters, or signage. Beyond access management policies that work to minimize conflicts and improve safety for all road users, driveway design plays a critical role in the safety of bikeways at driveway locations (as discussed in Section 4.5).

5.3 Curb Space Management

Bikeways are typically placed adjacent to the curb, putting them in direct conflict with other curb uses such as parking, commercial loading, passenger loading, transit stops, and in some cases, parklets and eateries. While there are design strategies that allow bikeways to safely co-exist with these other curb uses, having a curb space management policy in place can clarify priorities in constrained locations and reduce conflict potential. A curb space management policy could establish curb use priorities based on land uses and functions. It may also determine tools and strategies for allocating curb space along a block or corridor. In commercial districts, the loading/unloading of goods for businesses is a critical function of the public right-of-way. Such activity will occur regardless of whether designated loading areas are provided. A curb space management policy will provide direction on where or when loading can occur within a given block if, for example, a bikeway is deemed a priority and there are unavoidable conflicts between the two functions. Such a policy may be supported by clear guidelines for business owners and operators and technological tools such as apps that allow drivers to understand where there are designated loading zones, if there are time restrictions in place for deliveries, or to reserve loading-zone space.

5.4 Short-Term vs. Long-Term Implementation

In many instances, when jurisdictions want to expand a bicycle network and improve bicyclist safety quickly, bikeways are often installed as lower-cost retrofits to streets. In some instances, this can constrain options for addressing safety challenges related to driveway design, bikeway width, or bikeway transitions, which may ultimately require reconstruction of a roadway to resolve or a comprehensive parking management strategy to be implemented. Designers will have to weigh potential bicycle ridership and safety trade-offs associated with advancing a short-term solution versus waiting for a more extensive capital project to address design challenges.

An example of this is Beacon Street in Somerville, MA (Figure 30). To improve bicyclist safety, the travel lanes and parking lanes were narrowed to install conventional bicycle lanes as a short-term strategy. The frequency of driveways on the corridor was a concern as proposals for separated bicycle lanes were evaluated because the driveway spacing limited space for physical barriers, leaving large areas of the bicycle lane unprotected. Further, the constrained corridor limited space to provide a wide buffer between parked cars and the bikeway. As funding became available and

an on-street parking management strategy gained consensus, the city was able to reconstruct the roadway to provide a separated bicycle lane on one side of the roadway and a raised bicycle lane on the other with parking consolidated to one side. This design approach created the space for a comfortable bikeway and allowed for the driveways to be redesigned to reduce exposure and manage motorist turning speeds. This two-step implementation approach may be beneficial when large portions of a separated bicycle lane will likely be unprotected, or there will be frequent locations of mixing zones or undefined transition areas.

5.5 Maintenance

Research has shown that the provision of high-comfort bikeway networks improves safety and increases trips on bikeways by bicyclists, as well as electrically powered micromobility and mobility device users. High-comfort bikeways such as separated bicycle lanes require additional amounts of pavement markings, signs, and supplemental supportive devices such as vertical elements compared to conventional bikeways. Seasonal maintenance (e.g., clearing leaf litter, snow removal) of separated bicycle lanes may also require specialized equipment. Maintenance policies and funding levels need to account for this additional maintenance activity to support a functional bikeway network that people feel comfortable using year-round.

To manage maintenance costs over time, thought could be given to the resources needed to maintain the facilities during the design phase. Where bikeway widths (Section 4.1) will require specialized equipment (e.g., smaller or narrower) or additional labor to maintain the facility (including the cleaning of debris, ice, and snow), that equipment could be purchased or changes in maintenance procedures could be accounted for. Routine maintenance and replacement of vertical elements, signs, etc. could also be accounted for.

Agencies might incorporate a regular inspection process and have a method to monitor and address community concerns (e.g., 3-1-1). At a minimum, inspections could evaluate:

• Pavement quality—Poor pavement quality or joints with gutters within a constrained operating space need to be addressed to reduce bicyclist crash risk.
• Drainage—Locations that experience poor drainage flows to storm sewer systems resulting in standing water, frequent icing during winter, or silting within the bikeway need to be addressed through changes in surface grading or the addition of new drainage structures.
• Pavement marking and signs—Missing or faded markings or signs need to be replaced to maintain bikeway visibility.
• Vegetation adjacent to and over bikeways—Vegetation that extends into the operating space of a bikeway could be removed to avoid striking a person while traveling within the bikeway.

• These can create unexpected crash hazards, particularly during low-light or dark conditions (see Figure 31).
• Vertical element conditions—Damaged vertical elements that extend into the bikeway operating space could be removed and missing vertical elements replaced to maintain the integrity of the separated bicycle lane.

Many of these common maintenance issues are significant contributing factors to bicyclist crashes. Low-light and nighttime conditions can also increase the potential crash risk for users encountering these hazards or diminish the visibility of the bikeway to motorists.

Life-cycle costs need to be considered when evaluating materials. It is desirable to choose materials that have a longer operating life and are more durable to potential motor vehicle impacts. Bikeways with temporary materials that require frequent replacement or are subject to frequent damage could be prioritized for replacement with more durable materials (NACTO 2023).

5.6 Chapter Summary and Guidance for Implementing Agencies

This chapter discusses key policy and planning approaches that can help agencies avoid or minimize situations where one or more contextual or design factors identified in Chapters 3 and 4 contribute to midblock bikeway conflicts. The research team identifies the following key planning and policymaking decisions that agencies can adopt to improve bicyclist safety at midblock locations:

• Modal priority—A modal priority may facilitate a decision to reallocate roadway space to achieve the desired bikeway design. Alternatively, it can also inform a decision to avoid putting a bikeway on a corridor where other roadway users may have higher priority (e.g., transit).

• Such a policy may be system-wide, tied to specific land use, or corridor-specific, and is tied to other policies such as equity, safety, and mode shift. Some agencies and states are starting to use modal priority as a policy to inform the decision-making process, such as FDOT and WSDOT.
• Access and curb space management—As discussed throughout this guidance, driveways are major conflict points between motorists and bicyclists. Adequate access management policies need to be embedded into land use codes or ordinances to ensure driveway access does not negatively impact the safety of users of the adjacent street and is responsive to land use context. Similarly, curb space management policies could establish curb use priorities based on land uses and functions to avoid conflicts between bicyclists and other roadway users at parking, commercial loading, passenger loading zones, transit stops, and, in some cases, parklets and eateries.
• Short-term and long-term implementations—Bikeway design and implementation decisions may be affected by the intended timeframe (e.g., short-term or interim retrofit design versus more permanent long-term design). Designers will have to weigh potential bicycle ridership and safety trade-offs associated with advancing a short-term implementation versus waiting for a more extensive capital project to address design challenges associated with driveways, parking, alleys, and intersection approaches.
• Maintenance—Unlike conventional bicycle lanes, high-comfort and safer bikeways such as separated bicycle lanes have a higher maintenance cost associated with pavement markings, traffic signs, drainage, repair/replacement of vertical elements, as well as the seasonal maintenance of bikeways and vegetation. Seasonal maintenance (e.g., clearing leaf litter, snow removal) of separated bicycle lanes may also require specialized equipment. Maintenance policies and funding levels need to account for this additional maintenance activity to support a functional bikeway network that people feel comfortable using year-round.