Published: January 20, 2023

2.1 Introduction

ODOT supports the vision that walking and bicycling be safe, convenient, and accessible transportation options for everyone. To achieve this, the consideration, selection, and design of appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities is critically important.

This chapter discusses context-sensitive design and the need to plan and design projects that are sensitive to local circumstances and priorities. The tools, documents, and other ODOT resources needed to guide project development and scoping are discussed, as well as various multimodal planning approaches and analytical tools helpful for practitioners to make informed

planning decisions. Additionally, this chapter can be used to evaluate facility feasibility and assess alternatives. A list of major planning tools and resources focused on bicycle and pedestrian transportation (active transportation) can be found on ODOT’s Active Transportation webpage.

2.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy and Guidance

The following policies and plans serve as the foundation for pedestrian and bicycle project planning and implementation.

2.2.1 Federal Regulations

Federal Regulations require state DOTs and MPOs to consider and include bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities in their engineering and planning activities:

• Title 23 U.S.C 217 Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways

(e) Bridges. In any case where a highway bridge deck being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal financial participation is located on a highway on which bicycles are permitted to operate at each end of such bridge, and the Secretary determines that the safe accommodation of bicycles can be provided at reasonable cost as part of such replacement or rehabilitation, then such bridge shall be so replaced or rehabilitated as to provide such safe accommodations.

(g) Planning and Design

(1) In general - Bicyclists and pedestrians shall be given due consideration in the comprehensive transportation plans developed by each metropolitan planning organization and State in accordance with sections 134 and 135, respectively. Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian users are not permitted.

(2) Safety considerations - Transportation plans and projects shall provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. Safety considerations shall include the installation, where appropriate, and maintenance of audible traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings.

• Title 23 U.S.C. 109 Standards

(m) Protection of non-motorized transportation traffic. The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for non-motorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists.

2.2.2 Required Accessible Facilities

ODOT has adopted the Draft 2011 PROWAG as the governing document for accessible design within ODOT’s public right-of-way. The implementation of accessible designs depends on project type:

• New construction – New construction projects are defined as projects where roadway facilities do not currently exist. All new construction projects with pedestrian facilities shall incorporate accessible design elements conforming to PROWAG and ODOT design requirements.
• Alteration projects – Alteration project, also called Reconstruction Projects, include projects that reconstruct or rehabilitate any portion of an existing facility located within the highway right-of- way. These projects can include full depth replacement, alteration of design elements, lane width, shoulder width or adding lanes. Existing pedestrian facilities on these roadways that are impacted by the project require reconstruction to meet current ADA requirements. Pedestrian facilities that are not disturbed but are within the project limits shall be evaluated for ADA compliance. If found non- compliant, the facility may require replacement within the project limits based on the scope of the project. Alteration projects may also include the construction of new accessible facilities, such as new curb ramps or pushbuttons, to improve accessibility at an intersection.
• Unaltered Facilities - For unaltered, existing facilities, no changes to existing accessible facilities is required, nor are new accessible facilities required, unless an alteration project is identified for the facility. At that time, any non-compliant facilities within the project corridor must be made compliant as directed under the Alteration Projects section of this guide.

2.2.2.1  ADA Compliance Evaluation for Alteration Projects

Resurfacing is an alteration that triggers the requirement to add curb ramps if it involves work on a street or roadway spanning from one intersection to another and includes overlays of additional material to the road surface, with or without milling. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following treatments or their equivalents: addition of a new layer of asphalt, reconstruction, concrete pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction, open-graded surface course, micro-surfacing and thin lift overlays, cape seals and in-place asphalt recycling.

Projects classified as maintenance do not trigger an evaluation of existing curb ramps and the addition of new curb ramps. Maintenance treatments are those that serve solely to seal and protect the road surface, improve friction, and control splash and spray because they do not significantly affect the public’s access to or usability of the road. Some examples of the types of treatments that would normally be considered maintenance are: painting or striping lanes, crack filling and sealing, surface sealing, chip seals, slurry seals, fog seals, scrub sealing, joint crack seals, joint repairs, dowel bar retrofit, spot high-friction treatments, diamond grinding, and pavement patching. A curb ramp evaluation form is available online in ODOT’s ADA Design Resources.

2.2.3 Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Goals

ODOT’s Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Walk.Bike.Ohio (WBO), sets forth a vision and key goals to guide Ohio’s investments in multimodal infrastructure and programs. As a modal plan focused on bicyclists and pedestrians, this plan also informs ODOT’s overarching Long Range Transportation Plan: Access Ohio 2045 as well as the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. WBO documents multiple benefits to the State of Ohio from multimodal transportation facilities, including emissions reductions, cost savings, and community health improvements. The inclusion or improvement of multimodal facilities is necessary to allow roadway users to safely and freely move using active transportation, primarily walking and bicycling, across rural, suburban, and urban settings.

Effective active transportation networks often lead to more people walking, bicycling, and riding transit by creating routes that are efficient, seamless, and easy to use. All projects, alternatives analyses, and processes impacting bicycle and pedestrian transportation should be developed in alignment with the vision and goals of WBO. Projects should also be developed according to their Purpose and Need.

When planning, programing, scoping, and designing walking and bicycling facilities, designers should be guided by WBO’s vision and goals.

2.3 Project Life Cycle

2.3.1 Planning

Figure 2-1 generally describes the process of moving any project type from planning and programing to construction.

Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations may be identified and documented within a variety

of planning documents or policies. This may include Long Range Transportation Plans, local thoroughfare plans, complete streets policies, active transportation plans, school travel plans, etc. For guidance on developing active transportation plans, which specifically document the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, see ODOT’s Active Transportation Plan Development Guide.

Where plans are unavailable, or do not consider the needs of pedestrians or bicyclists, Chapter 2 can be used to determine if and what type of pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be provided in a project during the planning stage. By considering the potential need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities early in the process, projects can be programed and funded appropriately. Where Complete Street Policies have been adopted, planners and designers must also follow guidance laid out in the Policy.

Figure 2-1: Project Life Cycle

2.3.1.1 Planning Resources

ODOT maintains a variety of transportation system information that project managers can leverage to inform their decision making during the planning and programing process. The following tools provide some important information on existing conditions and can contribute to a prudent and context-sensitive approach to individual projects.

Table 2-1: Planning Resources

2.3.2 Programing and Funding

ODOT is required by federal law to develop a Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) that facilitates the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and includes accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities. The STIP is developed in cooperation with Ohio’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and in consultation with non-metropolitan local officials, Indian Tribal governments, the Secretary of the Interior, State,

Tribal, and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation. Collaboration and consultation with these stakeholders will ensure prioritization of projects is consistent with the goals and objectives identified by the State, MPOs and locals.

It is the responsibility of each project sponsor to review state and local transportation plans, to ensure an appropriate level of accommodation for pedestrians and bicyclists is constructed on the specific project they are programming, developing and/or managing. Where local plans do not exist, or do not consider all modes, the following may be used to determine the appropriate level of accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists:

• Context sensitive guidance for the provision of pedestrian and bicycling facilities (see Sections 2.4 and 2.5);
• Public engagement (see Section 2.6); and
• Multimodal analysis tools as appropriate (see Section 2.7).

Selecting pedestrian and bicycling accommodations should be guided by Ohio’s Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan goals (see Section 2.2.3) and each project sponsor should coordinate this process with their ODOT District Bicycle and Pedestrian coordinator and MPO. Early identification and engagement with stakeholders during the public engagement process is strongly encouraged.

There are many simple and cost-effective ways to integrate or improve non-motorized users into the design and operation of Ohio’s transportation system, by including pedestrian and bicycle accommodation as a part of larger ongoing projects. Examples include:

• Providing paved shoulders on new and reconstructed roads.
• Restriping roads (either as a stand-alone project, or after a resurfacing or reconstruction project) to create striped bike lanes.
• Building sidewalks and shared use paths, installing traffic calming, and marking crosswalks or on-street bike lanes as a part of new highways or roadways.
• Requiring new transit vehicles to have bicycle racks and/or hooks installed and providing pedestrian and bike facility connections within a reasonable radius of bus stops (see Section 2.5.3).

Federal surface transportation law provides flexibility to states and MPOs to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements from a wide variety of programs. Virtually all the major transportation funding programs can be used for bicycle and pedestrian-related projects. When considering ways to improve conditions for bicycling and walking, MPOs and local governments should review and use the most appropriate funding source for a particular project and not rely primarily on Transportation Alternatives Program funding. Many bicycle and pedestrian projects can be eligible and meet the goals of other programs, such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the Surface Transportation Program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Safe Routes to School Program, the Clean Ohio Trails Fund, the State and Local Capital Improvements Program, the Recreational Trails Program, Community Development Block Grants, and the Federal Transit, Capital, Urban & Rural Program.

Most funding programs require a local dollar match, and the amount will differ depending on the program. It is usually encouraged to provide above the minimum required amount and pair other funding sources for a local government to be competitive. Funding programs are administered by several agencies including the Ohio Department of Transportation, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Public Works Commission, Ohio Department of Development, MPOs, regional transit authorities, and Housing and Urban Development entitlement Cities & Counties.

2.3.3 Project Development Process

Once a project has been funded, the Project Development Process (PDP) may begin. In the first phase of the PDP process, Chapter 2 can be used in conjunction with the PIP and public engagement to assess if there are additional pedestrian and bicycle facility needs within the project area. If a need is identified, it should be documented through the project Purpose and Need Statement. Project managers may need to reevaluate funding needs depending on the findings of this process.

Subsequent sections provide additional guidelines for specific stages of the PDP. For a complete overview for all project types, see the PDP Manual.

2.3.3.1 Purpose and Need Statement

A project’s Purpose and Need Statement guides the project from development through construction. A well-defined and well-justified Purpose and Need Statement should clearly define the primary and secondary transportation needs that show that a No Build alternative will not solve an existing transportation problem. A good Purpose and Need Statement helps to both develop the project scope and aid in the selection of a preferred alternative for the project. The Purpose should clearly define the transportation problem to address the issue. The Need will provide data to support the problem statement (i.e., Purpose), which could include issues of safety, existing deficiencies, user demand, equity, etc.

Section 2.2.3 summarizes ODOT’s statewide vision and goals for walking and biking in the state and may be used as a guide at this stage. Statewide active transportation demand and needs analyses can be viewed in TIMS and provide a general understanding of if there is a high demand or high needs for active transportation in the project area, see Table 2-1. The findings of this high demand and high need analysis may be used to support a project’s Purpose and Need Statement.

Stakeholder involvement is also an essential element for establishing the project’s Purpose and Need Statement. See Section 2.6 for more information on stakeholder and public engagement.

For general information regarding developing a Purpose and Need Statement, see ODOT’s Developing Purpose and Need Guidance.

2.3.3.2 Preliminary Engineering

In addition to the feasibility study and preliminary engineering activities laid out in the Preliminary Engineering Phase of the PDP, the following should be considered for project scopes that include pedestrian and bicycle facilities:

• Include multimodal level of service and bicycle and pedestrian performance metrics as typical criteria for feasibility studies and alternatives analysis. This could include:
  • Pedestrian and bicyclist count data as part of traffic data
  • Pedestrian and bicyclist crash data as part of the safety analysis
  • Pedestrian and bicyclist delay under existing and future conditions
• Consider conducting road safety audits, walkability audits, and bikeability audits to gather information on existing conditions that may be applicable to safety.
   
• Where accommodations for pedestrians and/or bicycles are identified in the project purpose, approaches to cross-section formulation should be presented from right-of-way edge to edge rather than from the centerline out to ensure that accommodation of all modes is positively encouraged in the preliminary design development.
   
• For larger, complex projects, the Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM2016) should be used in an effort to quantitatively assess and balance the level and quality of performance for each mode. This analysis could result in independent levels of service for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motor vehicle drivers, with a solution that is designed to provide equivalent levels of safety and services for each mode. Another approach is to emphasize safety by prioritizing the needs of the most vulnerable users of the street. The safety of pedestrians, as the most vulnerable street users, would receive priority in this case.
   
• For interchange projects, pedestrian and bicyclist needs should meet the best practices laid out in Chapter 9: Multimodal Accommodations at Interchanges & Alternative Intersections.

2.4 Context-Sensitive Design

Context-sensitive design asks questions first about the need and purpose of the transportation project, and then equally addresses safety, mobility, and the preservation of scenic, aesthetic, historic, environmental, and other community values. It results in projects that are sensitive to, and incorporate, local circumstances and priorities, and can generate greater community support.

This guide distinguishes five land use context classifications for the purposes of planning and designing for people walking and bicycling. The five context classifications are shown in Figure 2-2 and are generally defined by development density (existence of structures and structure types), land uses (primarily residential, commercial, and/or agricultural), and building setbacks (distance of structures to adjacent roadways). While a street may have one functional classification, it may pass through multiple context classifications, and the transitions between those classifications is often gradual. Possible changes in context classification resulting from future development must also be considered in design. Understanding the context classification is important to conduct a more thorough assessment of multimodal needs to identify priorities among transportation modes within a corridor.

Figure 2-2: Land Use Types (Source: Florida DOT Context Classifications Modified by Toole Design)

2.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations

The following sections discuss when to and what type of pedestrian or bicycle facility to consider based on context. Existing data and analyses listed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.7 are available to support the planning process. Designers should use this section in conjunction with public engagement to determine a project’s scope of work.

2.5.1 Pedestrian Facilities

The provision of facilities to accommodate pedestrians along and crossing roads is essential for the safe movement of people walking. Other than on limited access freeways where pedestrians are prohibited, the provision of pedestrian facilities should be assessed along any road where pedestrians are permitted, including along rural and suburban highways. In rural town, suburban, and urban land uses, pedestrians are expected and a well-connected pedestrian network is necessary to provide for safe travel.

In addition to the required provisions stated in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, pedestrian accommodations should be provided where the following conditions are present:

• In residential and commercial urban core, urban, suburban, and rural town context classifications
• Along corridors with pedestrian travel generators and destinations (i.e., schools including colleges and universities, public parks, commercial centers, community centers including public libraries, government buildings, hospitals, transit stops, etc.), or areas where such generators and destinations can be expected prior to the design year of the project
• Where there is an occurrence of reported pedestrian crashes that could be mitigated by providing separate sidewalk/walkways
• Where there is evidence of pedestrian traffic (e.g., counts, a worn path along a roadway, etc.)
• Where a need is identified by a local government or MPO through an adopted planning study or where existing or future land uses indicate a need
• Where the project area has a high Active Transportation Need and Demand score
• On all new and widened bridges where any of the criteria listed above are met

2.5.1.1 Sidewalk and Walkway Facility Selection

Table 2-2 provides recommendations for sidewalk and walkway types for various land use context classifications. Sidewalks should also be considered on all projects which provide curb-and-gutter and in areas where there is obvious pedestrian use (such as worn footpaths). A sidewalk or walkway should be provided on both sides of the roadway.

Table 2-2: Guidelines for New Sidewalk/Walkway Installations

2.5.1.2 Pedestrian Crossings

Whether marked or unmarked, crosswalks exist at all legs of all intersections represented by the extension of the property lines, curb lines, or edge of the traversable roadway through the intersection, including T-intersections, except where signs prohibit pedestrian crossings. However, as intersecting traffic volumes approach 9,000 vehicles/day, vehicle speeds exceed 30 mph, or the number of travel lanes to be crossed exceed two lanes, the rate of motorist yielding on the uncontrolled approach drops significantly which can create crossing challenges for people walking or bicycling. In these instances, designers should consider enhanced crossings treatments at currently uncontrolled intersections or mid-block where signalized crossings exceed 600 ft.

Marked crossings should be located where there is a desire to cross due to existing or future land use. Examples of this include:

• Schools, public parks, libraries, or community centers located across a street
• Commercial centers, public parks, government centers, and hospital or school/university campus spanning across a street
• Transit stops
• Existing pedestrian demand demonstrates a need (e.g., counts, parking lot and office building on opposite sides of the roadway, shared use path crossings, etc.)

When evaluating a corridor to determine appropriate enhanced crossings, it is important that designers consider both land uses and destinations along the corridor as well as in the areas immediately adjacent to the corridor. For example, a commercial street may be surrounded by residential areas that contain parks and schools. Considering pedestrian circulation to those major destinations within neighborhoods will help designers identify key crossings along the commercial corridor that serve the larger area as well as land uses along the street.

Pedestrian and bicycling crashes should also be reviewed to determine if an enhanced crossing should be provided at an uncontrolled intersection or mid-block location. However, a lack of crashes does not always indicate that existing crossings are safe (see Section 2.7.2).

To promote and achieve high compliance, mid-block crossings should be located where intersection spacing is greater than 600 ft, and there is a natural desire line for the pedestrian’s path of travel (as described above). Mid-block crosswalks should typically not be installed within the functional area of intersections. They should be located a minimum of:

• 200 ft. from signalized intersections
• 120 ft. to 200 ft. or more from unsignalized intersections.1

Selecting pedestrian crossing treatments and designing for safe crossings is discussed in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. For crossing design of uncontrolled intersections along bicycle boulevards, see Section 6.3.2 and 6.5.6.

2.5.2 Bicycle Facilities

Bicyclists should be expected on all roadways except where prohibited by law. A network of safe, comfortable, connected, and intuitive bikeways supports bicycling as a viable, convenient, and appealing mode of transportation for people of all ages and abilities. Communities with a well- designed and maintained bicycle network typically have higher rates of bicycling. A safe and connected network provides users with a comfortable place to ride over the course of their entire trip. In urban and suburban centers and rural towns, where a large share of trips are shorter than three miles in length, there is opportunity for bicycling as a transportation mode to complement recreational bicycle activity. A bikeway should typically be provided when any of the following conditions are met:

• If the project is on a U.S., state, regional, or local bicycle route
• Where a project connects to an existing bikeway (e.g., bicycle boulevard, paved shoulder, bicycle lane, separated bicycle lane, or shared use path)
• Along project alignments or within close proximity to bicycle travel generators and destinations (i.e., residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, schools, colleges, scenic byways, public parks, transit stops/stations, etc.)
• Within a 3-mile bicyclist catchment area of an existing fixed-route transit facility (i.e., stop, station, or park-and-ride lot). A catchment area is defined by a radial distance from a transit facility per Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines - this includes crossing and intersecting streets
• Where there is an occurrence of reported bicycle crashes that could be mitigated through the provision of a bikeway
• Where the project area has a high Active Transportation Need and Demand score
• On all new and widened bridges when any of the criteria listed above are met

2.5.2.1 Bikeway Facility Selection

The selection of a preferred bikeway requires a balance of data analysis and engineering judgment working within relevant constraints for the project. Key criteria includes the target design users, traffic conditions, and land use contexts. Before beginning this process, designers should be familiar with the different bicycle design user profiles discussed in Section 3.2.1.

Proximity to motor vehicle traffic is a significant source of stress and discomfort for bicyclists. Crash and fatality risks sharply rise for vulnerable users when motor vehicle speeds exceed 25 mph. Further, as motorized traffic volumes increase above 6,000 vehicles/day, it becomes increasingly difficult for motorists and bicyclists to share roadway space. For example, on a roadway with 10,000 vehicles/day, a bicyclist traveling at 10 mph will be passed approximately every four seconds by a motor vehicle during the peak hour.

Figure 2-3 provides guidance for how motor vehicle volume and speed should be taken into consideration to determine a preferred bikeway type in the rural town core (e.g., main streets), suburban, and urban contexts for the Interested but Concerned Bicyclist. The preferred bikeway type shown in Figure 2-3 is based on Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). If the roadway in question cannot physically accommodate the preferred bikeway type, refer to Section 2.5.2.2.

Figure 2-3: Preferred Bikeway Type for Interested but Concerned Bicyclists in Urban Core, Urban, Suburban and Rural Town Contexts

Notes

1. Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed
2. See Section 2.8.1 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.

Rural roadways, shared lanes, bike lanes, paved shoulders, and shared use paths are potential bikeway types. Highly Confident or Somewhat Confident Bicyclists are most likely to travel long distances on rural roadways between towns and cities and are therefore often assumed as the default design user profiles. Figure 2-4 shows when a shoulder (or other bikeway) should be provided to accommodate these bicyclists based on traffic volumes and posted speeds in the rural context. The preferred bikeway type shown in Figure 2-4 is based on the Bicycle Level of Service (LOS) as described in the Highway Capacity Manual. Designing for the Highly Confident or Somewhat Confident Bicyclists will not accommodate people of all ages and abilities. For agencies that have identified that there is a need for an all ages and abilities facility, Figure 2-3 should be used for the Interested but Concerned design user profile.

Figure 2-4: Preferred Bikeway for Highly Confident Bicyclists in Rural Contexts

Notes

1. Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed.
2. If the percentage of heavy vehicles is greater than 10%, consider providing a wider shoulder or a separated pathway.

Along rural roads with higher speeds (45 mph or greater) it is preferable to provide a shared use path separated from the road if the road segment:

• is a well-used and important bicycle route
• is located in an area that attracts larger volumes of bicycling due to scenic views
• serves as a key bicycle connection between major destinations
• serves a population of bicyclists who fit the Interested but Concerned Bicyclist Profile

2.5.2.2 Bikeway Feasibility Assessment

Once the preferred bikeway type is identified, designers will need to assess its feasibility in the given project location against potential project constraints which could limit the ability to implement the preferred bikeway. This assessment may involve determining whether additional separation between motorists and bicyclists is warranted, identifying portions of the roadway to reallocate to achieve desired widths, selecting the “next best” bikeway, or selecting an alternative route for the bikeway.

Designers have an obligation to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, which may require a careful evaluation of mobility and safety for each user. When evaluating safety trade-offs, options that reduce serious injuries and fatalities should be prioritized over options that may reduce property damage or minor injuries.

Conditions for Increasing Separation

There are a variety of conditions that may indicate the need for greater separation between motorists and bicyclists, which could increase the width of the bikeway or materials used in the buffer. The conditions where greater separation may be appropriate to accommodate the selected design user include:

• Unusual peak hour motor vehicle volumes (more than 8 to 12 percent of AADT),
• High percentage of heavy vehicles (trucks, buses, and heavy vehicles are more than 5 percent of traffic),
• Motor vehicle operating speeds exceed posted speed
• Frequent parking turnover or heavy curbside activity,
• High volumes of bicyclists (500 bicyclists per hour),
• Presence of vulnerable populations (i.e., school children),
• Network connectivity gaps,
• Proximity to transit; and
• Frequent driveways.

Options for Reallocating Roadway Space

Bikeways should be built to the minimum dimensions. For retrofit projects, it may be necessary to evaluate options that reallocate existing space or use minimum or constrained dimensions. The following are strategies for reallocating roadway space to accommodate a bikeway:

• Narrowing wider than necessary travel lanes, including medians/turn lanes;
• Removing travel or turn lanes;
• Removing parking on one side of street; and
• Converting angled parking to parallel parking.

Designers should refer to Section 7.5 reallocating street space for additional guidance.

Selecting the Bikeway Type or Parallel Routes

Impacts on ridership, comfort/stress, safety, and overall network connectivity should be considered when evaluating alternative bikeway designs or potential parallel routes to ensure the project will still meet the purpose identified at the outset. The following trade-offs should be considered and documented in the design process:

• Reduced or suppressed ridership where the bikeway does not meet the needs of the target design user;
• Additional length of trip when bicyclists must use a parallel route. This length should not exceed 30 percent more than original route and should not add excessive delay;
• Critical gaps in the network when projects fail to provide bicycle accommodations;
• Reduced safety where bicyclists must operate with relatively high motor vehicle speed and/or high-volume traffic in shared lanes;
• Reduced safety where bicyclists must operate in narrow space (e.g., narrow bike lanes adjacent to parking lanes or narrow shared use paths with high volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists)
• Reduced safety where bicyclists improperly use facilities (e.g., bicycle the wrong way on shared lanes, sidewalk riding, etc.); and
• Increased sidewalk bicycling where bicyclists are avoiding low-comfort/high-stress roadway conditions.

If selecting a parallel route as the preferred route for the Interested but Concerned Bicyclist occurs, the provision of a bikeway along the desired route should still be considered to accommodate the Highly Confident design user and to provide connections for bicyclists to and from properties that exist along that desired route. An example would be the provision of a bike lane or shoulder on a higher volume roadway which can benefit the Highly Confident bicyclists while a convenient, direct parallel route on an adjacent low volume street serves the Interested but Concerned Bicyclists.

2.5.3 Transit

Transit cannot function without people getting to and from the transit stop or station. This access must be safe, comfortable, and convenient to allow transit to serve as a high-quality transportation option and system.

Bicycle transportation is particularly effective in combination with transit systems: when used together, each expands the range of the other mode. Linking bicycles with transit can help people overcome such barriers as lengthy trips, trips where transit service exists on some but not all of the route, long transfer times between transit routes, personal security concerns, poor weather, and riding at night or up hills. Connecting transit stops and stations with a network of bicycle facilities is an important element of planning for bike-to-transit trips.2

The Federal Transit Administration considers bike facilities within three (3) miles of a public transportation stop eligible for funding due to their “de facto functional relationship.”3 Routes designed to help people access public transportation stops are commonly referred to as “first- and last-mile connections.”4

Planning for first- and last-mile connections should consider:5

• Low-stress bicycle routes to arrive at transit stations and stops.
• Seamless connections to long-term, short-term, and sheltered bike parking that does not require dismounting.
• Bicycle storage on transit vehicles, such as “bikes-on-buses” and “roll-on rail” access.
• Adequate parking.

Providing safe and accessible pedestrian facilities at transit stops is important to facilitate mobility. Similar to bicycle first- and last-mile needs, connectivity to the sidewalk network and accessibility to other mobility options such as bicycles, scooters, or park and ride lots provide pedestrians options to travel beyond the stop to their destinations. While individual transit agencies within Ohio have specific design criteria, coordinating stop locations, crosswalks, and crossing frequency, and identifying additional crossing treatments such as high visibility crosswalk markings, crossing islands, flashing crossing signs, rapid rectangular flashing beacons, or pedestrian hybrid beacons on corridors will be helpful to address pedestrian comfort and safety.

2.5.4 Facilities that Prohibit Multimodal Users

Some roadways prohibit people walking and bicycling, such as highways and freeways. In these scenarios, facilities that prohibit walking and bicycling can create a barrier to pedestrian and bicyclist travel, particularly if the overall road network is sparse and alternative routes that would present minimal time or distance detour for pedestrians and bicyclist are not available.

When designing access-controlled roads—or projects in their vicinity—it is important for designers to review key origins and destinations and the alternate routes available to access them. Planners and designers should evaluate if ample crossings are provided so that people can cross the access-controlled road safely and legally, with minimal detour from a direct route between their origin and destination.

In some cases, the only roadway that connects a town to other destinations (e.g., employment or education centers) may be access-restricted to pedestrians and bicyclists, in which case it is particularly essential to consider the needs of multimodal users. In these cases, a shared use path should be considered to provide safe separation between high-speed vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Where there are no safe and legal routes for pedestrians or bicyclists immediately adjacent to or across an access-controlled corridor, designers should also consider providing a grade-separated facility to serve pedestrians and bicyclists to allow them to safely and legally cross the access-controlled corridor.

It is particularly important to provide safe and legal pedestrian and bicycle facilities when constructing bridges across a facility that prohibits these users, or across a similar barrier (such as a river), since crossing opportunities of such barriers for pedestrians and bicyclists are often not available where they may be needed or desired by these potential users.

2.6 Public Engagement

All of the tools described in this chapter contribute to the planning process. However, no tool is a substitute for public engagement. Involving the public in the planning and project development process is an essential tool in the planning and design of multimodal transportation facilities. It builds public trust in the process, improves the overall quality of work, ensures that the project aligns with local needs and priorities, and encourages community ownership of the final result.

People who walk and bike in the community have the best knowledge of current conditions as well as specific opinions on areas that need new facilities or current facilities that may need design changes. Opinions and feedback of interested users who do not walk, bicycle, or use transit regularly (or at all) should also be sought to provide input regarding which facilities or programs would enable them to use multimodal transportation options. Designers should also consider hosting walk and bike audits with local stakeholders to better understand safety issues using both local knowledge and professional expertise.

For a project to serve a community, a diverse cross-section of people must guide the planning process. A blended approach that employs both traditional engagement strategies and more innovative methods is often the most effective way to gather a depth and diversity of perspectives that will ensure strong community support for the project. Conventional outreach efforts could include a website, community workshops and open houses, stakeholder meetings, and online surveys. These methods tend to not reach underrepresented communities as well as more innovative methods, such as focus groups, translated materials for non-English speakers, interactive, informative games, temporary demonstration projects, and pop-up tabling at community events. See the Active Transportation Plan Development Guide Chapter 3: Engage the Community for more information on community engagement including a list of engagement strategies with associated cost and reach of underrepresented communities.

The demographic characteristics of participants in public engagement events should reflect the demographics of the community being served, to ensure the full range of needs of the community are being met and that the planned outcomes reflect them. Project teams should make a concerted effort to engage marginalized and underserved groups, including communities of color, youth, older adults, individuals with low-income and/or low educational attainment, zero-vehicle households, people with disabilities, and limited English or non-English speakers. Earmarking budgets for these activities in advance is important to make sure the appropriate resources are available (e.g., interpreters).

A public engagement plan can help guide the engagement process and is required for certain projects under ODOT’s NEPA public involvement requirements. Public engagement plans describe the approach and strategies for community and stakeholder outreach to build consensus throughout the planning and design process. They identify engagement tools and resources, target audiences, intended messages, and timing relative to milestones within the greater project schedule. Public engagement plans also include opportunities for stakeholders and elected officials to participate in community engagement and take ownership of the project. A public engagement plan is a living document that should be revisited and updated as needed throughout the project. The details of the engagement approach should be developed with significant input from key stakeholders and community groups, including advocates, elected officials, local transportation department staff, District staff, and Central Office staff.

More information on public involvement may be found on ODOT’s website, ODOT’s Active Transportation Plan Development Guide, its Public Involvement Manual for NEPA and the Project Development Process, and the regularly updated Public Involvement Requirements document.

2.7 Multimodal Analysis Tools

Below are several analyses that can be conducted for a single project. For information on network planning or planning for multiple project’s see ODOT’s Active Transportation Development Guide’s Chapter 5: Assess Existing Conditions.

2.7.1 Safety Analysis

Analysis of crash trends and crash risk, particularly at intersections or along corridors where most crashes between active transportation users and motorists occur, is one of several factors that are helpful when selecting and designing appropriate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. By analyzing crash data, ideally in conjunction with volume data, planners and engineers seek to target specific areas, understand the combination of conditions that could be creating high crash rates, profile corridors with high crash risk, compare the characteristics of one facility type to another, and focus attention most effectively. When using crash data to determine potential locations for improvements to reduce the likelihood, frequency or severity of crashes, it is important to review at least three years of data to account for anomalies that might occur in a single year.

2.7.2 Perceived Safety Analysis

The perceived safety of walking or bicycling can be a barrier for a person to consider that mode of transportation. For pedestrians, perceived safety lies in personal safety and security. Sidewalk width and proximity to traffic lanes, especially high-speed traffic, can discourage pedestrian travel. Pedestrian crossings that are excessive in length, have confusing signal phasing or locations, or where pedestrian crossings intersect with fast turning vehicles impact perceived as well as actual safety. Factors such as pedestrian volumes and inadequate or no lighting is another perceived safety factor. Sidewalks with higher volumes of people walking tend to be viewed as more secure locations to walk. Dark or poorly lit sidewalks and sidewalks with few pedestrians may be viewed as unsafe, particularly for people walking alone.6 Dark or poorly lit sidewalks also have direct impacts on actual safety; 75% of pedestrian deaths occur at night and can likely be attributed to inadequate lighting.7

Research has found a significant relationship between how safe and comfortable people feel bicycling, whether and how often they bicycle, their preferences for bicycle facility types, and the provision of those facilities. ^{8, 9, 10} If planners and designers know how safe people feel along various routes, they can plan and design for bicycling that overcomes those barriers.

Data on perceived safety provides important insights into street conditions and actual risks that crash data may not reflect. Various studies have found that pedestrian and bicycle crashes, even those involving motorists, tend to be underreported. ^{11, 12} A lack of crashes does not always indicate that there are no incidents, as studies have shown that near misses are more common than collisions and that these near-miss events impact a user’s perception of their safety using the facility.^{13, 14} Bicyclists who experience near-miss crashes are likely to be more vigilant. Still, they are also likely to be more concerned about bicycling conditions leading some people to avoid certain routes or stop bicycling.15 Some streets which have few crashes are, in fact, streets which feel so unpleasant or unsafe that very few people bicycle there. Thus, a small number of crashes does not necessarily indicate that a street is safe, but rather that there may be fewer people walking and bicycling or unreported crashes.

Walk and bike audits are often used to assess the safety and comfort of sidewalks, streets, and crossings within a community. Audits are conducted with residents of the study area or employees of local businesses interested in proving the walking and bicycling in their community. Though this process, designers can leverage local knowledge to better understand how people are using the network today and what deficiencies or safety issues are present that are not otherwise visible through available data and mapping.

2.7.3 Equity Analysis

Walking and bicycling is an important source of transportation for many at the lower end of the economic spectrum.¹⁶ Planning processes can include a focus on making the multimodal

transportation network accessible and safe for people of all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds, as well as people of any age and gender. During WBO’s planning process statewide active transportation demand and needs analyses were conducted. The results of the analysis can be viewed in TIMS and provide a general understanding of if there is a high demand or high need in the project area. For more information on Equity analyses see Walk.Bike.Ohio’s Needs Analysis Report and Walk.Bike.Ohio’s Demand Analysis Report.

2.7.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis

Planning agencies can use cost-benefit analysis to quantify the impacts of bikeways and discuss them in easily understood terms. Costs are generally divided into one-time capital construction costs and ongoing annual operating costs. Application of a cost-benefit methodology to pedestrian and bicycle projects can allow comparison to motor vehicle and transit projects. A comparative cost-benefit analysis of planned bikeways can help prioritize projects that will have a high benefit- to-cost ratio. A cost-benefit analysis tool for bikeways can be found at the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center website.^{17, 18} The benefit calculation includes estimates of mobility benefits (existing and new commuters), health benefits (estimated cost savings), recreation benefits (estimated value), and mode shift (reduced congestion, reduced air pollution, and user cost savings).¹⁹

2.7.5 Qualitative Indices

Some systems of evaluating bicycling and walking conditions are qualitative and based on surveys and observations. Examples include the Bicycle Environmental Quality Index from San Francisco and the City of Charlotte Level of Service Protocol. ^{20, 21} Walk audits are on-the-ground investigations that identify concerns related to pedestrian safety, access, comfort, and convenience. They allow transportation professionals to gain a local understanding of pedestrian challenges. In return, the public learns what kind of tools can be used to mitigate problems. Data and feedback gathered during the audit can inform policy and infrastructure recommendations. These and other qualitative approaches can be used to provide information for the planning and design process.

2.7.6 Pedestrian Demand Analysis

Understanding existing and potential levels of walking and bicycling is important in multimodal transportation planning, particularly if there is a need to prioritize among many potential capital investments. Estimating demand is less important when opportunities arise to incorporate the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in roadway resurfacing and rehabilitation projects, since routine accommodations for walking and bicycling should be a standard operating procedure. Methods for determining pedestrian demand include Stated Preference and Corridor Level Analysis, described below.

2.7.6.1 Stated Preference

This method relies on public engagement to identify where people want to walk. It is a valuable and common tool used in many pedestrian planning efforts, but its effectiveness is limited to those populations who are able and willing to engage in the planning process. The needs of communities that have historically been ignored or marginalized in transportation planning, and who are often not included in transportation planning processes, (e.g., minorities; people with disabilities; people with lower income, financial resources, or who are experiencing homelessness; youth, people from a different national or cultural origin or who have limited English proficiency, etc.) are only captured in this process if equity is a deliberate focus of engagement activities.

2.7.6.2 Corridor Level Analysis

This method is used to estimate future pedestrian activity along a corridor if a certain facility type or improvement was provided, given a minimum level of pedestrian accommodation be achieved. Similar to sketch planning models, corridor level analysis requires robust contextual data, including existing number of utilitarian and recreational trips, proximity to populations and employment, level of service, and existing infrastructure quality.

2.7.7 Bicycle Demand Analysis

Evaluating bicycle travel demand shares some similarities to motor vehicle travel demand modeling. Both forecast future needs based on objective data inputs. Travel demand should consider latent demand (demand that is not apparent, but underlying) because existing conditions on a roadway are often a significant deterrent to bicycle travel, which can be alleviated through design changes. Therefore, bicycle travel demand methods make assumptions regarding how many people would choose to bicycle along a given corridor if conditions were conducive to bicycling based on surrounding land use information and other relevant variables.²² Bicycle demand can also be established based on community priorities and goals. For example, if a mode shift goal is established for a community, then the analysis should assume that the mode shift goal will be achieved, and the appropriate mode shift percentages used for future analysis. Planning for the mode shift goal allows the goal to be achievable.

Planners and designers should also be aware that the peak hours for bicyclists may not correspond to the peak hours for motorists. For example, peak bicycle activity may occur during the mid-day on a weekend if the bike facility connects to a popular recreation destination. There may also be significant land use-driven (e.g., university or school) or seasonal (e.g., summer vs. winter) variability in bicycling activity that should be considered when evaluating volume counts or projections.

Research shows that shorter distances between destinations and increased density and mixing of population, employment centers, schools, parks, transit stops, retail, and housing result in higher numbers of people bicycling for utilitarian, commuting, and recreational purposes, while longer distances between destinations and steep topography result in lower numbers of people bicycling.^{23, 24, 25} Additional key factors are socioeconomic factors and the presence of safe bicycling infrastructure.²⁶ Network barriers, including crossings of freeways, interstates, railroads, or bodies of water, as well as roadways that are uncomfortable to bicycle on or cross, can substantially inhibit bicycling. Accordingly, these factors should be accounted for in estimates of anticipated bicycle travel demand with long-term planning working to address the network barriers.

Determinants of bicycling between rural and urban areas can be different, but the relative rates of bicycling are similar between the contexts based on analysis of the National Household Travel Survey data.²⁷ Rural areas may have reduced rates of utilitarian and commuting bicycling, but that can be offset by recreational bicycling trips.²⁸ In the U.S., older adults have been found to be more likely to bicycle in less urbanized areas than in highly urbanized areas.²⁹

Chapter 2 Endnotes

1. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
2. Schneider, R., Toole Design Group, College Park. Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 62: Integration of Bicycles and Transit. TCRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2005.
3. 76 F.R. 52046.
4. FTA. Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit. Report No. 0111, Federal Transit
5. Pucher, J. and R. Buehler, Integrating Bicycling and Public Transport in North America. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2009, pp. 79-104.
6. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Trans- portation Officials. (2004, July).
7. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2019, March). Pedestrians: 2017 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 681). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
8. Dill, D. and McNeil, N. Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists. In Transportation Research Record 2587. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2016.
9. Winters, M., G. Davidson, D. Kao, and K. Teschke. Motivators and Deterrents of Bicycling: Comparing Influences on Decisions to Ride. Transportation, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2010, pp. 153–168.
10. Sanders, R. L. We can all get along: The alignment of driver and bicyclist roadway design preferences in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 91, 2016, pp. 120-133.
11. Lopez, D. S, D. B. Sunjaya, S. Chan, S. Dobbins, and R.A. Dicker. Using Trauma Center Data to Identify Missed Bicycle Injuries and Their Associated Costs. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Vol. 73, No. 6, 2012, pp. 1602-1606.
12. Stutts, J. C., and W.W. Hunter. Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis Based on Hospital Emergency Department Data. FHWA- RD-99-078. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1997.
13. Sanders, R. L. Perceived Traffic Risk for Cyclists: The Impact of Near Miss and Collision Experiences. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 75, 2015, pp. 26-34.
14. Joshi, M.S., V. Senior, and G.P. Smith. A Diary Study of the Risk Perceptions of Road Users. Health Risk Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2001, pp. 261–279.
15. Aldred, R. (2016). Cycling near misses: Their frequency, impact, and prevention. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 90, 69-83.
16. Turrell, G., M. Haynes, L.A. Wilson, and B. Giles-Corti. Can the Built Environment Reduce Health Inequalities? A Study of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Walking for Transport. Health and Place, Vol. 19, 2013, pp. 89–98.
17. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities. [cited November 22, 2017]. Available from http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikecost.
18. Bushell, M. A., B. W. Poole, C. V. Zegeer, and D. A. Rodriguez. Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration by UNC Highway Safety Research Center, October 2013.
19. Krizek K., G. Barnes, G. Poindexter, P. Mogush, K. Thompson, D. Levinson, N. Tilahun, D. Loutzenheiser, D. Kidston, W. Hunter, D. Tharpe, Z. Gillenwater, and R. Killingsworth. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 552: Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2006.
20. Parks, J., A. Tanaka, P. Ryus, C. Monsere, N. McNeil, and M. Goodno. Assessment of Three Alternative Bicycle Infrastructure Quali- ty-of-Service Metrics. In Transportation Research Record 2387. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2014.
21. Brozen, M., T. Black, and R. Liggett. What’s a Passing Grade? Comparing Measures and Variables in Multi-Modal Street Performance Calculations. In Transportation Research Record 2420. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2014.
22. Aoun, A., J. Bjornstad, B. DuBose, M. Mitman, and M. Pelon. Bicycle and Pedestrian Forecasting Tools: State of the Practice. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, April 2015.
23. Schneider, R. J., H. Lingqian, and J. Stefanich. Development of a neighborhood commute mode share model using nationally-available data. Transportation, 2017, pp. 1-21.
24. Saelens, B. E., J.F. Sallis, and L. D. Frank. Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling: Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design, and Planning Literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2003, pp. 80-91.
25. Griswold, J., A. Medury, and R. Schneider. Pilot Models for Estimating Bicycle Intersection Volumes. In Transportation Research Record 2247. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2011.
26. Buehler, R., and J., Dill. Bikeway Networks: A Review of Effects on Cycling. Transport Reviews, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2016, pp. 9-27. 27
27. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Active Transportation Beyond Urban Centers. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, DC, 2011.
28. Miranda-Moreno, L., T. Nosal, R. Schneider, and F. Proulx. Classification of bicycle traffic patterns in five North American Cities. In Transportation Research Record 2339, 2013, pp. 68-79.
29. Kemperman, A., and H. Timmerman. Influences of built environment on walking and cycling by latent segments of aging population. In Transportation Research Record 2134. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2009.