How to Make Incremental Progress in Your Bike Network Through Private Development

Option 1: Build the extra pavement width and stripe the bike lane.

Your first option is to take advantage of the opportunity to build a piece of your bike network, and require the full bike lane build-out and striping by the developer. Start and end the bike lane with appropriate transitions at the edges of the development.

Advantages of this approach:

• It will never be cheaper than now to build the full improvements. Material and labor costs will continue to rise.
• The development will be completed with no future disturbances along their frontage to build the bike lane in the future.
• City building is always an incremental process. Typically, when one development comes in, others soon follow. You can seize the opportunity now, then work to fill in the gaps through future private development and public capital investments.

Drawbacks of this approach:

• Depending on the length of the bike lane along the frontage, bicyclists may not feel safe and comfortable using the bike lane and then transitioning back into a shared travel lane. Bicyclists who currently use the street may prefer to stay in traffic and hold their space.
• This may aggravate drivers, who notice that bicyclists are not using the allocated space. Adjacent residents may try to reclaim the space for on-street parking.
• Developers and residents who don’t understand the incremental nature of city building may complain to elected officials and agency staff about “bike lanes to nowhere.” Without proper education, this could begin to erode elected official support for bike lane requirements in new developments.

Option 2: Build the extra pavement width, but don’t stripe the bike lane.

You also have the option to require a full build-out, but not stripe the bike lane. This creates an extra-wide curb lane. Where agencies use this option, that additional pavement width is often claimed by motorists as on-street parking until a more complete bike lane can be constructed. This may be an intentional interim treatment on behalf of the municipality or an ad hoc behavior that develops to occupy the unstriped bike lane space due to lack of enforcement or guidance.

Advantages of this approach:

• As with option 1, you’re taking advantage of the opportunity to get the extra pavement width for the bike lane.
• You’re not creating the same potential confusion for bicyclists and drivers that is possible through having a fully striped, but very short bike lane.

Drawbacks of this approach:

• Striping the bike lane will require some future investment on behalf of the agency in the future.
• Since the bike lane will be hidden, so will your intentions to incrementally build a complete bike network over time.
• Once adjacent owners start using the space as on-street parking, they will start to perceive it as a permanent right for the owner. Future improvements to build the bike lane may be met with frustration and pushback if drivers can no longer park there. If/when drivers do not park in the extra-wide curb lane, that additional lane width may encourage speeding and reduce safety.

Option 3: Get the right-of-way so you can build the bike lane later.

You could require that the developer dedicate right-of-way for a future bike lane, but not build the extra pavement width. This is sometimes referred to as a “buried bike lane,” because the bike lane is often buried in an extra wide planting strip, with the intent to “daylight” it and build the bike lane at some undetermined point in the future.

Advantages of this approach:

• You’re taking advantage of the opportunity to get the additional right-of-way now.
• You’re not creating the perception of a “bike lane to nowhere” or an extra wide curb lane that could threaten safety or set undesirable expectations about on-street parking availability.

Drawbacks of this approach:

• Because you didn’t get the additional pavement width, you left some of the most challenging and expensive parts of bike lane construction for later (i.e. utility relocation, stormwater reconstruction, and roadway widening). It will require significant agency investment in the future to “daylight” the bike lane.
• Since the bike lane is “buried,” so are your intentions to incrementally build a complete bike network over time.

Option 4: Allow a fee-in-lieu.

A fee-in-lieu is a payment that a developer can make instead of constructing the required improvements. A fourth option is to not require any bike lane construction, and collect the fee from the developer for a future City-led project on the corridor that can be constructed all at once. (This approach could be used to help offset future costs from the “buried bike lane” approach in Option 3.)

Advantages of this approach:

• Given that standards may change between the original development and future improvements, taking a fee-in-lieu and not requiring development gives you flexibility in implementing the new standards (raised cycle track, multi-use path, etc.) without reconstruction. This gives agencies an opportunity to incorporate the findings of NCHRP Report 1036: Guide for Roadway Cross Section Reallocation.

Drawbacks of this approach:

• Many jurisdictions may lack the enabling legislation to require fees-in-lieu.
• A fee-in-lieu will likely be insufficient to fully cover a future project that will provide a similar scope/level of public benefit, due to design and construction cost escalation. The agency will likely not be able to build in the future what the developer can now.
• Anytime a fee-in-lieu is accepted, the money is at risk of being spent somewhere else, since the project is likely competing with limited capital resources and other agency-wide funding priorities. While these agreements are recorded in the permits, tracking them is challenging, and the agencies are reliant on staff remembering it when the time comes to fund the improvements.
• In some places, the fee structure is a bond that is held for a certain period of time and then returned if not used. This creates additional pressures and challenges for capital planning, especially with uncertain funding cycles and projects that can often take years to design and implement.

So, What Do You Choose?

Every project has unique conditions, and every decision should be made by considering the context of the project at hand. In general, you’ll typically find us encouraging agencies to pursue Option 1 and embrace city building as an incremental process, which usually means working with the developer to build and stripe the bike lane with an appropriate transition back to the existing conditions beyond the development. Our growing urban bike networks should be given the same opportunity to expand incrementally as the rest of our infrastructure systems, and it’s usually better to improve a portion of someone’s trip by offering a dedicated facility than not improve anything at all. Given this, we typically see the pros outweigh the cons with this decision—but again, it’s important to make sure the decision is right for your project.

Know the Big Picture

It’s also important to understand how these individual pieces of the bicycling network fit into your community’s larger bicycle infrastructure goals. Many communities face the challenge of knowing they need better bicycling facilities, but have not developed a plan for the larger network to know how an individual piece fits in. A well-designed bicycle plan, supported by a complementary bicycle capital investment program, can help inform corridor-wide decision-making during a rezoning and entitlement process and make expectations for developers clear from the start. Having a broader narrative about bicycling infrastructure demonstrates not only the need, but also the expectation of the development community to deliver on a publicly-vetted and council-approved policy and plan.

Have a project of this nature you’d like to chat about? Reach out to us to start the conversation!