DRAFT Methodology Report

Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan

May 2016

1
2
3
4
5

Abstract: This methodology report outlines the approach to the Bicycle Master Plan, including the
plan framework. It defines a vision by articulating goals and objectives, realizes that vision through
a network of bikeways and bicycle parking, supported by policies and programs to encourage
bicycling, and proposes accountability and transparency of plan implementation through a
monitoring program.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

6
7

Contents
1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Master Plan Purpose..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Defining the Vision ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

10

3.1

Vision Statement................................................................................................................................................... 8

11

3.2

Goals, Objectives, Metrics and Data Requirements ................................................................................ 8

12

3.2.1

Goal 1: Increase bicycling trips in Montgomery County............................................................. 9

13

3.2.2

Goal 2: Create a highly-connected, convenient and low-stress bicycling network ....... 12

14
15

3.2.3

Goal 3: Provide equal access to low-stress bicycling for all members of the community
16

16

3.2.4

Goal 4: Improve the safety of bicycling............................................................................................ 18

17
18

3.3
4

19

Goals and Objectives Considered but Not Recommended ................................................................ 20

Realizing the Vision..................................................................................................................................................... 22

4.1

Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

20

4.1.1

Low Stress Bicycling ................................................................................................................................ 22

21

4.1.2

Bikeways ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

22

4.1.3

Bicycle Parking .......................................................................................................................................... 51

23

4.2

Programs................................................................................................................................................................ 53

24

4.3

Policies .................................................................................................................................................................... 53

25

4.4

Prioritization ........................................................................................................................................................ 53

26

Monitoring the Vision ................................................................................................................................................ 54

27

5.1

Potential Monitoring Report Template ..................................................................................................... 54

28

5.2

Monitoring Report Detail for Goal 1 ........................................................................................................... 57

29

5.3

Monitoring Report Detail for Goal 2 ........................................................................................................... 65

30

5.4

Monitoring Report Detail for Goal 3 ........................................................................................................... 74

31

5.5

Monitoring Report Detail for Goal 4 ........................................................................................................... 75

32

Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................ 76

33

6.1

Approach to Phasing Separated Bike Lane Implementation............................................................ 76

34

6.2

Approach to Implementing On-Road Bicycle Facilities Incrementally ........................................ 76

35

6.3

Higher Quality Sidepaths ................................................................................................................................ 77

36

6.4

Typical Sections for New Bikeway Facility Types ................................................................................ 77

37

6.5

Intersection Templates .................................................................................................................................... 77

38
39

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

40

1 Introduction

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Bicycling is gaining popularity as a mode of transportation throughout the United States. Driven by
changing travel patterns, investments in bicycling infrastructure that separates bicycling from motor
vehicle traffic and the increasing popularity of bikeshare programs, the share of trips by bicycle has
grown steadily over the past 15 years. Montgomery County continues to make investments in
bicycling infrastructure with projects such as the Capital Crescent Trail and the Woodglen Drive
separated bike lane and is well-positioned to emerge as a leader in bicycling among suburban
jurisdictions. This methodology report outlines how the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will
be built off of a data driven process.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

49

2 Master Plan Purpose

50
51
52
53
54

The Bicycle Master Plan is intended to set forth a vision for Montgomery County as a world-class
bicycling community, where people in all communities are able to get to the places they want to go
on a comfortable, safe, and connected bicycle network, and where bicycling is a viable transportation
option that improves our quality of life. The plan framework is composed of three interconnected
steps.

The first step is Defining the Vision by imaging and articulating a future state of affairs
that meets the goal of enabling all residents to get to their chosen destinations by bike on
a comfortable, safe, and connected bicycle network. That vision is refined and clarified
through articulation of goals, objectives, metrics and data collection.

The second step is Realizing the Vision by describing concrete actions that government,
property owners, stakeholders and the general public can take to fulfill the vision. These
include bicycling-supportive infrastructure, programs and policies.

The third step consists of Monitoring the Vision by setting up an ongoing monitoring
and evaluation program that enables transparency and accountability in plan
implementation.

55
56
57
58
59
60
61

The Bicycle Master Plan will focus on increasing bicycling among the so-called Interested but
Concerned population of people who are interested in bicycling more but are concerned for their
safety (see Section Error! Reference source not found.)1. This group of bicyclists are less tolerant
of bicycling close to traffic and require separated bikeways to encourage them to bicycle on wider
and faster roads. They represent about 50 percent of the population and therefore the greatest
opportunity to increase bicycling in Montgomery County.

The Interested but Concerned population is one of the Four Types of Transportation Cyclists, an
approach coined by Roger Geller, a Bicycle Planner for the City of Portland, Oregon. See
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497
1

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

62

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

63

3 Defining the Vision

64
65
66
67

An essential first step in preparing the Bicycle Master Plan is to define the plans vision. This begins
by imaging and articulating a future state of affairs that meets the goal of enabling all residents to get
to their chosen destinations by bike on a comfortable, safe, and connected bicycle network. That
vision is refined and clarified through articulation of goals, objectives, metrics and data collection.

68
69
70
71

Defining a vision for this plan does not simply put words on paper. It also lays the foundation for a
strong monitoring program, which fosters transparency in evaluation and accountability for
outcomes. Of course a vision is only as good as its components. One way the Bicycle Master Plan can
deliver a world-class bicycle plan is by defining a clear and measurable vision.

Vision
Statement

Goals

Objectives

Metrics

Data
Collection

72
73
74
75

A strong vision statement paints a clear picture of what the plan is intended to achieve. It can be
further explained through goals that identify the conditions that are needed to achieve the vision
statement.

76
77
78
79
80

Goals are broad conditions that are needed to achieve the plans vision statement. They are general
and brief and can always be improved. Goals do not prejudge a solution, but rather articulate the
conditions that might lead to a particular solution. Each goal is described by one or more objectives
that indicate the steps that need to be taken to realize the plans goals. Goals are as effective as the
objectives that describe them.

81
82
83
84
85

Objectives are specific conditions that must be met to advance a particular goal. They are achievable,
measurable, and time specific. Objectives are effective when they show a meaningful change among
different scenarios. They do not prejudge a solution, but rather articulate the conditions that might
lead to a particular solution. Objectives are more likely to be evaluated when they are carefully
defined, avoid wiggle room, and do not require substantial new data collection.

86
87

Metrics reframe the objectives into measureable statements. They determine the data needed to
assess how well the objectives are being met.

88
89
90

Data Collection includes specific information that is required to derive each metric. It indicates the
source of the data and whether the data is currently available, could be available with modifications
to existing survey instruments, or need to be collected through a new survey.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

91
92

3.1 Vision Statement

93
94
95

Montgomery County will become a world-class bicycling community. Everyone in Montgomery

County will be able to travel by bicycle on a comfortable, safe, and connected bicycle network.
Bicycling will become a viable transportation option and elevate the quality of life in the County.

96
97

3.2 Goals, Objectives, Metrics and Data Requirements

98
99
100
101

We propose the following vision statement for the Bicycle Master Plan:

The vision statement will be defined by four goals:

Goal 1: Increase bicycling trips in Montgomery County

Goal 2: Create a highly-connected, convenient and low-stress bicycling network
Goal 3: Provide equal access to low-stress bicycling for all members of the community
Goal 4: Improve the safety of bicycling

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

102
103
104
105
106

3.2.1 Goal 1: Increase bicycling trips in Montgomery County

The most important measure of success for the bicycle master plan is the extent to which the amount
of bicycling increases in Montgomery County. This goal evaluates how bicycling increases over time
among different groups of people, destinations, and trip types. Success in advancing this goal is
largely driven by success in advancing the other three goals of the plan.

107

108
109

Source: Michael Tercha/Chicago Tribune

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

110
111
112
113
114
115
116

Objective 1.1: Increase the percent of Montgomery County residents who commute by
bicycling to #% by 20##.
o Metric
Percent of residents who commute by bicycle.
o Data Requirements and Source
Method of transportation that people use for the longest distance segment of
their trip to work. (American Community Survey)

Objective 1.2: Increase the percent of people who commute by bicycle to Montgomery
Countys Transportation Management Districts (TMD) by:
o #% in Downtown Silver Spring by 20##
o #% in Downtown Bethesda by 20##
o #% in North Bethesda by 20##
o #% in Friendship Heights by 20##
o #% in Greater Shady Grove by 20##
o #% in White Oak Science Gateway by 20## (when funded)
o Metric
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of their commute to the Silver
Spring TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of their commute to the Bethesda
TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of their commute to the North
Bethesda TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of their commute to the Friendship
Heights TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of their commute to the Greater
Shady Grove TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of their commute to the White Oak
TMD.
o Data Requirements and Source
Number of respondents who bicycle to work by Transportation Management
District (Commuter Surveys currently combine walking and bicycling)
Number of respondents by Transportation Management District (Commuter
Surveys)

Objective 1.3: Increase the percent of people who access a Montgomery County
o Red Line station by bicycle to #% by 20##.
o MARC Brunswick Line station by bicycle to #% by 20##.
o Purple Line station by bicycle to #% by 20## (future objective when Purple Line
opens).
o Metrics
Percent of boardings at Red Line stations that access the station by bicycle.
Percent of boardings at MARC Brunswick Line stations that access the station
by bicycle.
Percent of boardings at Purple Line stations that access the station by bicycle.
o Data Requirements and Source

117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

10

156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164

Number of boardings at each Red Line station that are accessed by bike
(WMATA)
Number of boardings at each Red Line station (WMATA)
Number of boardings at each MARC Brunswick station that are accessed by
bike (MTA)
Number of boardings at each MARC Brunswick station (MTA)
Number of boardings at each Purple Line station that are accessed by bike
(MTA)
Number of boardings at each Purple Line station (MTA)

165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180

Objective 1.4: Increase the percent of students who bicycle to school by #% by 20##.
o Metric
Percent of elementary school students who travel to school by bicycle.
Percent of middle school students who travel to school by bicycle.
Percent of high school students who travel to school by bicycle.
o Data Requirements and Source
The number of elementary school student who bicycle to school. (requires
new survey)
Total number of elementary school students. (requires new survey)
The number of middle school student who bicycle to school. (requires new
survey)
Total number of middle school students. (requires new survey)
The number of high school student who bicycle to school. (requires new
survey)
Total number of high school students. (requires new survey)

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

11

181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190

191
192

3.2.2 Goal 2: Create a highly-connected, convenient and low-stress bicycling network

Bicycling can become a mainstream mode of transportation in Montgomery County if a low-stress
bicycling network is put in place that enables most people to travel to the places they want to go by
bicycle. The network will be composed of the 70 percent of roads in the County that can already be
considered low-stress (mostly residential streets) and roads that require infrastructure to make
them appealing to Interested but Concerned bicyclists. Simply providing a comfortable bicycling
network is insufficient if people do not have a secure place to leave their bicycle when they get to
their destination, which is why this goal also considers bicycle parking at major destinations, such as
transit stations, commercial areas and public facilities such as schools, libraries and recreation
centers.

The Montgomery County Planning Departments Bicycle Stress Map

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

12

193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202

Objective 2.1: ##% of potential bicycle trips can be made on a low-stress bicycle network by
20##.
o Metric
Percent of potential bicycle trips that can be made on a low-stress bicycle
network.
o Data Requirements and Source
Level of Traffic Stress network (M-NCPPC)
Regional Travel Demand Model Trip table (M-NCPPC)
Bicycle trip length decay function (MWCOG Household Travel Survey)
Location of dwelling units (M-NCPPC)

Objective 2.2: #% dwelling units located within 2.0 miles of each Red Line, Brunswick Line
and Purple Line station will be able to access the rail station on a low stress bicycling network
by 20##.
o Metric
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of Red Line stations that can access
the station on a low-stress bicycling network.
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of Brunswick Line stations that can
access the station on a low-stress bicycling network.
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of Purple Line stations that can
access the station on a low-stress bicycling network.
o Data Requirements and Source
Level of Traffic Stress network (M-NCPPC)
Location of existing and planned Metrorail, MARC, and Purple Line station (MNCPPC)
Location of dwelling units (M-NCPPC)

Objective 2.3: ##% of dwelling units located within 1.0 mile of each elementary school, 1.5
miles of each middle school, and 2.0 miles of each high school will be able to access the school
on a low stress bicycling network by 20##.
o Metrics
Percent of dwelling units that are connected to elementary schools on a lowstress bicycle network.
Percent of dwelling units that are connected to middle schools on a low-stress
bicycle network.
Percent of dwelling units that are connected to high schools on a low-stress
bicycle network.
o Data Requirements and Source
Level of Traffic Stress network (M-NCPPC)
Location of Montgomery County public schools (M-NCPPC)
School boundaries (M-NCPPC)
Location of dwelling units (M-NCPPC)

203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

13

236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245

Objective 2.4: ##% of dwelling units located within 2.0 miles of each public library will be
able to access that library on a low stress bicycling network by 20##.
o

Metrics
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each public library that can
access the library on a low-stress bicycling network.
Data Requirements and Source
Level of Traffic Stress network (M-NCPPC)
Locations of public libraries (M-NCPPC)
Location of dwelling units (M-NCPPC)

246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256

Objective 2.5: ##% of dwelling units located within 2.0 miles of each recreation center will
be able to access that recreation center on a low stress bicycling network by 20##.
o

Metrics
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each recreation center that can
access the recreation center on a low-stress bicycling network.
Data Requirements and Source
Level of Traffic Stress network (M-NCPPC)
Locations of recreation centers (M-NCPPC)
Location of dwelling units (M-NCPPC)

257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264

Objective 2.6: By 20##, ## of 12 Red Line stations, ## of Brunswick Line stations and ## of
11 Purple Line stations in Montgomery Co will have a bike station.
o Metrics
Number of Red Line stations in Montgomery County with a bike station.
Number of Purple Line stations in Montgomery County with a bike station.
o Data Requirements and Source
Locations of bike stations (M-NCPPC)

Objective 2.7: ##% of Montgomery County public schools will have bicycle parking by 20##.
o Metrics
Percent of Montgomery County elementary schools with public bicycle
parking.
Percent of Montgomery County middle schools with public bicycle parking.
Percent of Montgomery County high schools with public bicycle parking.
o Data Requirements and Source
School locations
Locations of bicycle racks at public schools (RackSpotter,
www.rackspotter.com)

Objective 2.8: ##% of blocks in commercial areas will have either a public bike rack or a bike
corral by 20##.
o Metric
Percent of blocks in commercial areas with a public bike rack or a bike corral.

265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

14

281
282
283
284

Data Requirements and Source

Number of commercial blocks in Montgomery County (not yet available)
Locations of bike racks and bike corrals in Montgomery County (RackSpotter,
www.rackspotter.com)

285
286
287
288
289
290
291

Objective 2.9: ##% of Montgomery County libraries will have bicycle parking by 20##.
o Metric
Percent of Montgomery County libraries with public bicycle parking.
o Data Requirements and Source
Library locations (M-NCPPC)
Locations of bicycle racks at public libraries (M-NCPPC)

Objective 2.10: ##% of Montgomery County recreation centers will have bicycle parking by
20##.
o Metric
Percent of Montgomery County recreation centers with public bicycle
parking.
o Data Requirements and Source
Recreation center locations (M-NCPPC)
Locations of bicycle racks at recreation centers (M-NCPPC)

292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

15

301
302
303
304
305
306

3.2.3 Goal 3: Provide equal access to low-stress bicycling for all members of the community
Montgomery County can only become a world-class bicycling community if there is equal access to a
low-stress bicycling for all members of the community, including minorities and people with lower
incomes. Since many minority and lower income areas are far from a Red Line, Brunswick Line or
future Purple Line station, this goal also considers the ability of lower-income and majority-minority
areas to access bus stops on a low-stress bicycling network.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

16

307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318

Objective 3.1: The percent of bicycle trips that can be made on a low stress bicycling network
in low-income and majority-minority areas will be the same as or greater than the County
overall.
o Metric
Percent of potential bicycle trips that can be made on a low-stress bicycle
network in low-income and majority-minority areas.
o Data Requirements and Source
Level of Traffic Stress network (M-NCPPC)
Regional Travel Demand Model Trip table (M-NCPPC)
Bicycle trip length decay function (MWCOG Household Travel Survey)
Location of dwelling units (M-NCPPC)
Low income and majority-minority areas (US Census)

Objective 3.2: The #% of dwelling units within 0.5 miles of the nearest Metrobus or RideOn
bus stop that will be able to access the bus stop on a low-stress bicycling network in lowincome and majority-minority areas will be the same as or greater than the County overall.
o Metric
Percent of dwelling units within 0.5 miles of the nearest Metrobus or RideOn
bus stop that will be able to access the bus stop on a low-stress bicycling
network in low-income and majority-minority areas.
o Data Requirements and Source
Level of Traffic Stress network (M-NCPPC)
Location of bus stops (Montgomery County)
Location of dwelling units (M-NCPPC)
Low income and majority-minority areas (US Census)

319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

17

332
333
334
335
336

3.2.4 Goal 4: Improve the safety of bicycling

The intent of this goal is to make bicycling safe by reducing the rate of crashes at dangerous
intersections and by eliminating fatalities. While safety can be improved by taking active measures
to reduce travel speeds and by providing separation from traffic, this goal will be evaluated by
reactive metrics based on crash reports.

337

338

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

18

339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346

Objective 4.1: Reduce the ratio of bicycle crashes to bicycle trips at the ## highest crash
locations in the County by ##% by 20##.
o Metric
The ratio of bicycle crashes to bicycle trips at the ## highest crash locations
in the County
o Data Requirements and Source
Bicycle crash reports (Montgomery County CountyStat)
Bicycle counts at major crash locations (requires new data collection)

Objective 4.2: Eliminate bicycle deaths by 20##

(based on adoption of Vision Zero by the Montgomery County Council in October 2016)
o Metric
The number of bicyclists killed per year.
o Data Requirements and Source
Bicycle crash reports (Montgomery County CountyStat)

347
348
349
350
351
352
353

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

19

354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365

3.3 Goals and Objectives Considered but Not Recommended

Numerous bicycle master plans from communities as diverse as Fairfax County, Virginia and
Portland, Oregon were reviewed for their goals and objectives and were considered for inclusion in
the Bicycle Master Plan. Most of the goals in these plans fit into eight categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Increased bicycling
Connectivity
Equity
Safety
Economic development
Environmental quality
Health
Livability

366
367

Category #1 is an outcome rather than a condition needed to achieve the plans vision, it is
measurable and time specific, can show a meaningful change, and relies on existing data sources.

368
369
370

Of these eight categories, only # 2, #3 and #4 express conditions that are needed to achieve the plans
vision. Furthermore, each goal can be continuously improved upon and critically, can be described
by one or more objectives that are measurable based on readily available data.

371
372
373

Categories #5, #6, and #7 are all relevant to Montgomery County, and are stated reasons that decision
makers, planners, and designers frequently site for supporting bicycling. However, we do not believe
they should be included as goals because developing effective objectives for them would:

374
375
376

Require an extensive data collection program.

Be unlikely to have policy implications, since different scenarios would not likely show a
meaningful change.

377
378
379
380
381

For these reasons, we strongly recommend against including # 5, 6, and 7. They do not strengthen
the vision definition at this time, and may weaken the monitoring program by creating a set of
objectives that cannot be easily measured. If the means to collect the data to evaluate these goals
becomes easier to collect, inclusion of these goals should be reconsidered. These categories can be
discussed as other benefits and outcomes of bicycling in a working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan.

382
383
384

Category #8 is also relevant to Montgomery County, but is exceedingly difficult to define. In fact, is it
likely that all of the preceding goals are a component of livability. So rather than include a separate
livability goal, we have included livability in the vision statement.

385
386
387
388
389
390
391

While there are many conditions that a bicycle plan should measure, the proposed objectives for each
goal reflect what we believe the plan can realistically measure at this time. If too many objectives are
included that require new data collection or that are overly cumbersome, the assessment of the
objectives would likely be ignored. Therefore, we propose to focus the initial master plan assessment
on the objectives above. Once we prove that we can successfully institutionalize assessment of these
objectives, we would propose to consider the following aspirational objectives, which would make
the evaluation more comprehensive:

392

Prospective Goal 1

393
394
395
396
397

Increase the percent of people who access a Montgomery County BRT station by bicycle to
#% by 20##.
Increase the percent of people who bicycle for non-work and non-school trips by #% by
20##.
Increase the percent of people who bicycle to work in:

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

20

398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412

o
o
o

Clarksburg Town Center to ##% by 20##.

Germantown Town Center to ##% by 20##.
Olney Town Center to ##% by 20##.

Prospective Goal 2

#% dwelling units located within 1.0 mile of each BRT station will be able to access the rail
station on a low stress bicycling network by 20##.
#% dwelling units located within 0.5 miles of each Metrobus and RideOn bus stop will be able
to access the bus stop on a low stress bicycling network by 20##.
By 20##, ## of ## BRT stations in Montgomery Co will have a bike station.
##% of existing apartment and condo buildings will have secure, enclosed bicycle parking by
20##.

Prospective Goal 3

By 20##, the percent of dwelling units and work places in low-income and majority-minority
areas connected with each Red Line, Brunswick Line, Purple Line and BRT station within 2.0
miles by the low stress bicycle network will be the same as or greater than the County overall.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

21

413

4 Realizing the Vision

414
415
416
417

An essential second step in preparing the Bicycle Master Plan is to make recommendations on how
to realize the plans vision. This includes concrete actions that government, property owners,
stakeholders and the general public can take to fulfill the vision and includes identifying a network
of bicycle parking and bikeways and recommending bicycling-supportive programs and policies.

Infrastructure

418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431

Programs

Policies

Priorities

Bicycle supportive Infrastructure includes a highly-connected and low-stress bikeway network,

where physical improvements on higher stress roads knit together the vast majority of roads and
trails in Montgomery County that are already appropriate for people of all ages and bicycling abilities.
Bicycle supportive infrastructure also includes adequate and secure bicycle parking, since many
people will not ride a bicycle as part of their work, school or shopping trip if they are concerned that
their bicycle will be damaged or stolen. This includes privately maintained bicycle parking spaces at
residential and commercial buildings and publicly maintained parking spaces at activity centers such
as transit stations, employment centers, and commercial areas. Bicycle Programs encourage
bicycling by identifying bicycle-supportive events, services, opportunities and projects. Similarly,
Bicycle Policies are actions that guide government decisions that affect bicycling. These may include
laws, policies, standards and guidelines. Since bikeway and parking projects, and bicycle-supportive
programs and policies take time to implement, the plan will Prioritize those that contribute most to
the vision of the plan as measured by the goals and objectives.

432
433
434

4.1 Infrastructure

435
436
437
438

4.1.1 Low Stress Bicycling

439
440
441
442
443
444
445

4.1.1.1 Target User Group

In 2006, Peter Geller, a bicycle planner for Portland, Oregon, proposed an approach to classifying
bicyclists that he called the four types of transportation cyclists. These included the Strong and
Fearless group who are comfortable bicycling regardless of road conditions, the Enthused and
Confident group who are comfortable sharing the roadway with traffic, but prefer their own space,
the Interested but Concerned group who would bicycle more if they felt safer, and the No Way No
How group who are not currently interested in bicycling. While Portland had spent many years

The Bicycle Master Plan will recommend two types of bicycle infrastructure: bikeways and
bicycling parking.

Bicycle planning has become increasingly sophisticated since Montgomery County last
comprehensively updated its bicycle plans in 2005. New methodologies are available that allows
planners to evaluate their existing bicycling network based on a standardized approach.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

22

446
447
448

working to improve bicycling, he argued that the efforts were largely focused on improving bicycling
for the Enthused and Confident group and that new approaches were needed to attracted the
Interested but Concerned population to bicycle for transportation.

449
450
451
452

Recent research by Portland State University indicates that while the Strong and Fearless and
Enthused and Confident bicyclists account for about 12 percent of the population, Interested but
Concerned bicyclists account for about 50 percent of the population and therefore represent the
greatest opportunity to increase bicycling2.

453
454
455
456

The Bicycle Master Plan will focus on increasing bicycling among the Interested but Concerned
population by identifying a network of bikeways composed of neighborhood streets, trails and
infrastructure improvements on streets where bicycling is stressful for most people.

457
458
459
460
461
462
463

4.1.1.2 Level of Traffic Stress

To identify those streets that are excessively stressful for the Interested but Concerned population,
the Bicycle Master Plan team is using a modified version of the Level of Traffic Stress, a methodology
development by the Mineta Institute in 2012 to evaluate the amount of traffic stress that bicyclists
experience on road segments, intersection approaches, and unsignalized crossings. Using this
approach, a street network can be classified into four stress levels, ranging from low stress to high
stress. For a bicycle network to attract the broadest segment of the population, it must provide low-

Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil, Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey,
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, forthcoming
2

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

23

464
465
466

stress connectivity, defined as providing routes between peoples origins and destinations that do
not require cyclists to use links that exceed their tolerance for traffic stress, and that do not involve
an undue level of detour.

467
468
469
470
471

There are several strengths to this approach. First, the data is generally available through publicly
available mapping tools, such as Google Streetview. Second, it provides a consistent approach to
evaluating traffic stress. Third, it can be tied to the four types of transportation cyclists
classification, so planners can determine how well our existing a planned bicycle networks are
connected for different user groups.

472
473

The Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) methodology focuses on the following criteria for evaluating traffic
stress on bicyclists:

474

Segments

475
476
477
478
479
480

481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488

Number of lanes
Speed limit or prevailing speed
Presence or absence of bike lane
Presence or absence of parking
Frequency of vehicles parked in bike lanes
Width of bike lane and parking lane

Intersection Approaches

Presence of right turn lane(s)

Length of right turn lane
Turn lane configuration (bike lane shifts vs. bike lane continues straight)

Unsignalized Crossings

Width of cross street

Speed limit of cross street
Presence or absence of median refuge

489
490
491
492

The analysis applies a weakest link logic, wherein the stress level is assigned based on the lowestperforming attribute of the street. For example, even if a segment has mostly low stress
characteristics, the occurrence of one higher-stress attribute (for example, frequent bike lane
blockage) dictates the stress level for the link.

493

The Level of Traffic Stress methodology identifies four stress levels:

494
495
496
497

LTS 4 High stress, only suitable for experienced bicyclists

LTS 3 Moderate traffic stress for all bicyclists
LTS 2 Low traffic stress, and suitable for most adults
LTS 1 Requires little attention to surroundings; suitable for most children

498
499
500

Generally, Strong and Fearless cyclists will be comfortable bicycling on roads of all stress levels.
Enthused and Confident cyclists will be comfortable bicycling on roads with a LTS of 3 or lower.
Interested but concerned bicyclists will be comfortable on facilities with an LTS of 1 or 2.

501
502
503
504
505

The Bicycle Master Plan team evaluated over 3,500 miles of roads and trails in the County using a
modified version of the original Level of Traffic Stress methodology to determine the amount of
traffic stress that people experience when bicycling on roads and trails in Montgomery County. Our
analysis found that 78 percent of roads and trails in Montgomery can be considered lower stress
while 22 percent of roads and trails can be considered higher stress:

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

24

506
507
508
509

High Stress (LTS 4) = 13 percent

Moderate Stress (LTS 3) = 9 percent
Low Stress (LTS 2) = 10 percent
Very Low Stress (LTS 1) = 68 percent

510
511

When considering this evaluation, it is important to note that around half of all road miles in
Montgomery County are residential streets.

512
513
514
515

To achieve a bicycling network that appeals to the Interested but Concerned population, the Bicycle
Master Plan will focus on reducing traffic stress levels to a low stress (LTS 2) or better Countywide
and to a very low stress (LTS 1) around places that children visit, including schools, libraries, parks
and recreation centers.

516
517
518
519

4.1.2 Bikeways

520
521

4.1.2.1 Bikeway Network Classification

Bikeway network classification refers to a bikeways importance to the network.

522

Existing Approach

523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531

Since 2005, Montgomery County has classified each master-planned bikeway as either a Countywide
Bikeway or Local Bikeway. Countywide Bikeways are often located on arterial streets and provide
longer distance connections, linking major destinations such as municipalities, central business
districts, town centers, employment centers, major transit stations, and regional parks and trails.
Local Bikeways provide important connections from Countywide Bikeways to community facilities
such as schools, libraries, community and recreation centers and local retail centers. While this
network classification system gives greater importance to Countywide Bikeways, that importance is
diluted in practice because Countywide Bikeways comprise about two-thirds of all master-planned
bikeways providing no way to distinguish the most important bikeways.

532

Proposed Approach

533
534
535
536
537
538

A new bikeway network classification system is proposed for Montgomery County that designates
each road as either a High Priority Bikeway (HPB), Priority Bikeway (PB), or Bikeway (B). Unlike the
Countywide Bikeway / Local Bikeway approach, this classification system will have policy
implications by assigning each bikeway a level of priority in the bicycling network that is tied to
higher quality design, greater weight in trade-offs for space among other transportation modes, and
potentially greater levels of funding.

539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547

High Priority Bikeways are the most important master-planned bikeways in the network. They are
likely to experience the greatest amount of bicycling because they connect to major commercial
areas, rail stations or bridges, include a long corridor that serves many neighborhoods, or collect
traffic from other routes. To achieve a high quality design, they may require greater funding than
other bikeway projects and should be prioritized in discussions related to limited space and tradeoffs between transportation modes. High Priority Bikeways are master-planned bikeways that are
designated with a bikeway facility type (see below), such as a bicycle boulevard, bike lane, or
separated bike lane. They are intended to consist of approximately 10 20 percent of all masterplanned bikeways.

Classifying bikeways helps decision makers, planners, designers and the public understand the
proposed bikeway network. Many jurisdictions assign both a bikeway network classification and
a bikeway facility classification to each master-planned bikeway.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

25

548
549
550
551

Priority Bikeways are master-planned bikeways that provide direct and convenient access but are
not as important to the overall bikeway network as High Priority Bikeways. They are designated with
a bikeway facility type, such as a bicycle boulevard, bike lane, or separated bike lane, and are likely
to consist of approximately 80 90 percent of all master-planned bikeways.

552
553
554
555
556
557
558

Bikeways are not master-planned bikeways, but include all other roads where it is legal to bicycle in
Montgomery County, reflecting that just like motorists and pedestrians, people bicycle on all roads
available to them to access their homes, jobs, shopping, other local destinations. While they are not
designated with a bikeway facility type and will not appear on the bikeway map, they should be
designed with the understanding that people of all ages and abilities will bicycle on them. As such,
they are candidates for traffic calming measures on residential and business district streets to reduce
the speed of automobiles.

559
560
561

4.1.2.2 Bikeway Facility Classification

Bikeway facility classification refers to the type of bikeway, including shared use paths, bike lanes,
and separated bike lanes.

562

Existing Approach

563

Montgomery County currently classifies each master-planned bikeway as one of five facility types:

564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581

Shared use paths are paved two-way paths that are typically 10 feet wide, but can vary
between 8 feet and 14 feet wide, and are designated for walking, bicycling, jogging, and
skating. They are separated from motorized traffic by a curb, barrier, or landscape panel.
Shared use paths are sidepaths when they are located within a street right-of-way, and trails
when they are located within a separated right-of-way.
Separated bike lanes are an exclusive bikeway facility that combines the user experience of
a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. They are
physically separated from motor traffic by curbs, landscape panels and /or parking and
distinct from the sidewalk.
Bike lanes are a portion of a street designated for the exclusive use of bicycles by striping,
signing, and pavement markings.
Signed shared roadways are streets that are shared by both bicycle and motor vehicle travel
and are signed as such. This may be a street with wide curb lanes, streets with paved
shoulders, or a low volume and low speed street with no additional accommodation for
bicycles.
Dual bikeways are bikeways that feature two types of bikeways: 1) shared use path and bike
lanes, or 2) shared use path and signed shared roadway. The dual bikeway accommodates
both on-road and off-road bicycling along the same roadway.

582

Proposed Approach

583
584
585
586
587

A new bikeway facility classification system is proposed for Montgomery County. This classification
system organizes bikeway facility types into five bikeway facility classifications, based on their level
of separation from traffic. It includes bikeway facility types that were not available or commonly used
when the County last comprehensively amended its bikeway plan in 2005 and removes obsolete
bikeway facilities. The proposed bikeway facility classifications and bikeway facility types are:

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

26

588

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

27

589
590
591
592
593
594

4.1.2.2.1 Trails
Trails are paths that are located outside of the road right-of-way. They provide two-way travel
designated for walking, bicycling, jogging, and skating. Trails are typically 10 feet wide, but can vary
between 8 feet (in constrained locations) and 14 feet wide (where usage is likely to be higher), On
trails with very high levels of walking and bicycling they can include separated space for pedestrians
and bicyclists.

595
596

Benefits

597
598
599
600
601

Provide a bicycling environment suitable for all ages and abilities as they are completely
separated from traffic, except at street crossings.

Typical Application

Often located along existing or unused railroad rights-of-way, utility rights-of-way, or along
linear environmental features such as streams and rivers.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

28

602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609

4.1.2.2.2 Separated Bikeways

Separated bikeways provide physical separation from traffic and include sidepaths and separated
bike lanes. They will be considered on any roads with one or more of the following characteristics:

Traffic Lanes: 4 lanes.

Posted speed limit: 35 mph.
Traffic volumes: 6,000 vehicles per day.
On-Street Parking Turnover: frequent.
Bike Lane Obstruction: likely to be frequent.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

29

610
611
612
613
614

Sidepaths are shared use paths that are located within the road right-of-way. They provide two-way
travel designated for walking, bicycling, jogging, and skating. Sidepaths are typically 10 feet wide, but
can vary between 8 feet (in constrained locations) and 14 feet wide (where usage is likely to be
higher), Sidepaths are separated from motorized traffic by a curb, barrier, or landscape panel. When
designed well, they can provide a comfortable bicycling environment.

615
616

Benefits

617
618
619
620
621
622
623

More attractive to a wider range of bicyclists than striped bikeways (see the Strip Bikeways
section below) on higher volume and higher speed roads.

Typical Application

See Separated Bikeway section overview.

Adjacent to the roadway.
Recommended on higher volume and higher speed roads where pedestrian volumes are low,
including suburban streets.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

30

624
625
626

Separated Bike Lanes are an exclusive bikeway facility type that combines the user experience of a
sidepath with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. They are physically separated
from motor vehicle traffic and distinct from the sidewalk.

627
628

While separated bike lanes are attractive to a wider range of bicyclists than striped bikeways, they
can provide different levels of separation:

629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636

Separated bike lanes with flexible delineator posts (flex posts) alone offer the least
separation from traffic and are appropriate as interim solution in retrofit situations (see
Section 6.1).
Separated bike lanes that are raised with a wider buffer from traffic provide the greatest level
of separation from traffic, but will often require road reconstruction.
Separated bike lanes that are protected from traffic by a row of on-street parking, such as
shown in the image of Woodglen Avenue, offer a high-degree of separation, but would benefit
from more aesthetically pleasing design features.

637

Other forms of separation from traffic include bollards, curbs, and planters.

638
639

Benefits

640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647

More attractive to a wider range of bicyclists than striped bikeways (see the Strip Bikeways
section below) on higher volume and higher speed roads.
Eliminate the risk of a bicyclist being hit by an opening car door.
Prevent motor vehicles from driving, stopping or waiting in the bikeway.
Provide greater comfort to pedestrians.

Typical Application

See Separated Bikeway section overview.

Adjacent to the roadway.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

31

648
649
650

Recommended on higher volume and higher speed roads where pedestrian volumes are high,
including higher density areas, commercial and mixed-use development, and near major
transit stations.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

32

651
652
653
654
655
656
657

4.1.2.2.3 Striped Bikeways

Until a few years ago, striped bikeways (including buffered bike lanes, conventional bike lanes,
advisory bike lanes, and climbing bike lanes), were the gold standard of bicycle planning in urban
areas. While bike lanes have been included in Montgomery Countys bike plans since 1978, it has only
been the past few years that the County has embraced them. Currently, 150 miles of conventional
bike lanes are recommended in Montgomery Countys master plans and about 30 miles have been
fully implemented.

658
659
660

While striped bikeways remain a useful tool to reduce traffic stress, they are insufficient to attract
Interested but Concerned bicyclists in many environments because they do not provide sufficient
separation from traffic and because they are often obstructed by motorized vehicles.

661
662
663
664
665

Communities around the country are beginning to recognize that bike lanes do not provide sufficient
separation for bicyclists on most arterial roads and have instead begun to implement separated bike
lanes. In fact, in January 2016, Portland became the first community to make separated bike lanes the
default form of bike lane. Every time Portland road designers recommended a bike lane, they need to
make it a separated bike lane or else explain why not.

666

Striped bikeways will be considered on any roads with one or more of the following characteristics:

667
668
669
670
671
672

Traffic Lanes: 3 lanes.

Posted speed limit: 30 mph.
Traffic volumes: 9,000 vehicles per day.
On-Street Parking Turnover: infrequent.
Bike Lane Obstruction: likely to be infrequent.
Where a separated bikeway is not feasible or desirable.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

33

673
674

Buffered Bike Lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a designated buffer space separating
the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.

675
676

Buffered Bike Lanes on Clyburn Avenue, Chicago

677
678

The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide identifies these benefits and typical applications of buffered
bike lanes:

679

Benefits

680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687

688
689

Provides greater shy distance between motor vehicles and bicyclists.

Provides space for bicyclists to pass another bicyclist without encroaching into the adjacent
motor vehicle travel lane.
Encourages bicyclists to ride outside of the door zone when the buffer is between parked
cars and bike lane.
Provides a greater space for bicycling without making the bike lane appear so wide that it
might be mistaken for a travel lane or a parking lane.
Appeals to a wider cross-section of bicycle users.

Typical Application

See Striped Bikeway section overview.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

34

690
691

Conventional Bike Lanes (or just bike lanes) are a portion of the roadway that has been designated
by striping, signage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.

692
693

Bike Lanes on Tilden Lane

694
695

The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide identifies these benefits and typical applications of
conventional bike lanes:

696

Benefits

697
698
699
700
701

702
703

Increases bicyclist comfort and confidence on busy streets.

Creates separation between bicyclists and automobiles.
Increases predictability of bicyclist and motorist positioning and interaction.
Increases total capacities of streets carrying mixed bicycle and motor vehicle traffic.
Visually reminds motorists of bicyclists right to the street.

Typical Application

See Striped Bikeway section overview.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

35

704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713

Advisory Bike Lanes are a way to reduce the stress of bicycling on lower volume and lower speed
residential streets where there is insufficient space to provide two bike lanes and two travel lanes.
Space is provided for bike lanes by removing the center line from the road and narrowing the
automobile space. Unlike a conventional bike lane where motorists are discouraged from entering
the bike lane with a solid lane line, the advisory bike lane is continuously dashed to allow motorists
to temporarily enter the bike lane to provide oncoming traffic sufficient space to safely pass, as long
as a bicyclist is not approach. This behavior is similar to the passing behavior on many narrow
residential, un-laned, two-way yield streets where traffic lanes are not designated with striping and
so motorists must pull to the side (into parking gaps or driveways) to let oncoming vehicular traffic
pass.

714
715

Benefits

716
717

718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725

Provides space for bicycling.

Removing the center line reduces the speed of motor vehicles.

Typical Application

Where there is insufficient space for conventional bike lanes and two lanes of traffic
Land Use: Residential.
Number of Travel Lanes: An un-laned, bi-directional street.
Street Width: The un-laned two-way travel space should be 12 to 18 feet.
Posted Speed: 30 mph.
Automobile Volumes: 2,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day.
Parking: May be used on streets with or without on-street parking.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

36

726
727
728

Climbing Lanes include a bicycle lane in the uphill direction and a shared lane in the downhill
direction and are used to improve safety on hills where there is a higher speed differential between
bicyclists and motor vehicles.

729
730

Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica (source: Streetsblog LA)

731

Benefits

732
733

734
735
736

Provide space for bicycling in the uphill direction when the speed differential between
bicyclists and motor vehicles is high.

Typical Application

See Striped Bikeway section overview.

The uphill direction of a steep road.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

37

737
738
739
740
741

4.1.2.2.4 Bikeable Shoulders

Shoulders are a portion of the roadway that accommodates stopped vehicles, emergency use and
bicycles and motor scooters. Bikeable shoulders of at least three feet in width can improve comfort
on some roadways for some bicyclists. They are more likely to be present in suburban and rural
locations in the county, often where posted speed limits are 40 mph and higher.

742
743
744
745

Bicyclists often encounter potentially hazardous conditions while using roadway shoulders, which
are often inconsistent in their width and pavement quality and which sometimes end unexpectedly
or are otherwise unusable because of parked vehicles, forcing bicyclists to move into the travel
lane.

746
747
748
749
750
751
752

It is unlikely that the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will recommend new bikeable
shoulders where they would not otherwise be implemented for pavement stability, emergency use
and stopped vehicles because on most roads they do not create a low-stress bicycling environment.
However, where bikeable shoulders are provided, roadway shoulders should be upgraded to
provide a consistent width and pavement quality. Consideration may also be given to restricting
parking where any significant bike use is expected and where movement into the travel lanes
would be considered potentially hazardous.

753
754

Source: http://bikewalklee.blogspot.com

755

Benefits

756

757
758
759

Provide separation from traffic

Typical Application

Land Use Context: suburban or rural

Posted Speed Limit: 40 mph

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

38

760
761
762
763

4.1.2.2.5 Shared Roads

Shared Roads are bikeways that share space with automobiles, including bicycle boulevards in
suburban areas and shared streets in urban areas. Of course all roadways where bicycles shared
space with automobiles are shared roads, but only some are master-planned shared roads.

764
765
766
767
768

Bicycle Boulevards are streets with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated and
designed to give walking and bicycling priority. They use signs, pavement markings, and speed and
volume management measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and create safe,
convenient crossings of busy arterial streets. The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will
include a concept plan for a bicycle boulevard between Downtown Silver Spring and Wheaton.

769
770
771

The bicycle boulevard in the image below from Portland, Oregon uses diverters to prevent motorized
traffic from traveling across the intersection, but allows bicyclists and pedestrians to continue to
travel through the intersection.

772
773

A bicycle boulevard on Cesar E Chavez Boulevard in Portland, Oregon Source: Toole Design Group

774
775

As outlined in the 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, bicycle boulevards
incorporate several design elements:

776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783

Traffic diverters at key intersections to reduce through motor vehicle traffic while permitting
passage for through bicyclists.
At two-way, stop-controlled intersections, priority assignment that favors the bicycle
boulevard, so bicyclists can ride with few interruptions.
Neighborhood traffic circles and mini-roundabouts at minor intersections that slow motor
vehicle traffic but allow bicyclists to maintain momentum.
Other traffic-calming features to lower motor vehicle speeds where deemed appropriate.
Wayfinding signs to guide bicyclists along the way and to key destinations.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

39

784
785
786
787

Shared-lane markings (sharrows) where appropriate to alert drivers to the path bicyclists
need to take on a shared roadway.
Crossing improvements where the boulevard crosses major streets (including traffic signals,
median refuges, and curb extensions).

788
789
790
791
792

The term bicycle boulevard is misleading since bicycle boulevards convey benefits to both bicyclists
and pedestrians. In fact, many communities use different terminology to define bicycle boulevards,
including neighborhood greenways and slow streets. The Bicycle Master Plan team has not yet
identified a name for this bikeway facility type that is appealing, and so for the time being will
continue to refer to them as bicycle boulevards.

793

Benefits

794
795
796
797

798
799
800
801

Attractive to a wide range of bicyclists.

Reduce the speed and volume of traffic.
Prioritize walking and bicycling at minor street crossings.
Improve safety and reduce delay for walking and bicycling at major street crossings.

Typical Application

Posted Speed Limit: 25 mph.

Context: areas where through traffic can be diverted to parallel streets.
Street pattern: where a continuous route for bicycling is possible.

802

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

40

803
804
805
806

Shared Streets are an urban design approach where pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles can
comfortably coexist. They are typically located on low traffic volume, low traffic speed and high
pedestrian volume streets and often eliminate design features such as curbs, road surface markings,
traffic signs, and traffic lights.

807
808
809
810
811

Shared streets will be included in the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan as a bikeway facility
type. However, this facility type is dependent on the roadway and land use context, which is
typically addressed in area master plans, so only existing shared streets will be reflected in the
working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

41

812

4.1.2.3

813
814
815

4.1.2.3.1 When Separated Bikeways Should Be Separated from Traffic

Once the decision to provide a separated bikeway from traffic is made, planners must determine
whether the bikeway should also be separated from pedestrians.

Separated Bikeway Planning Considerations

Separated Bike Lanes on Woodglen Drive

Sidepath on MacArthur Blvd

816
817
818
819
820

Pedestrian demand will be the primary consideration for determining whether a separated
bikeway should be implemented as a sidepath or a separated bike lane. All other things being
equal, sidepaths will be recommended where observed or anticipated pedestrian demand is lower,
since conflicts between people walking and bicycling will be infrequent. Separated bike lanes will be
recommended where pedestrian volumes are observed or anticipated to be higher.

821
822
823
824
825
826
827

Another closely related factor is the land use type and density of the surrounding
environment. Sidepaths tend to be more appropriate in suburban areas where pedestrian travel is
less and where pedestrian movements tend to be more predictable. In urban areas pedestrian travel
is characterized by meandering and stop-and-go movements as people socialize, enter and exit
stores, dine outdoors, access transit or walk to and from on-street parking. Pedestrians movements
are less predictable so providing separated bike lanes and sidewalks is recommended in the vicinity
of commercial and higher-density mixed use areas and major transit facilities.

828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835

Factor

Sidepaths

Separated Bike Lanes

Pedestrian Volumes
(observed or
anticipated)

Lower

Higher

Land Use Character

Lower density development,

especially suburban / rural
areas

Higher density development,

especially commercial / mixed-use
areas

There are many areas in Montgomery County with higher pedestrian volumes and higher density
development where sidepaths either exist or are recommended in a master plan. These include Silver
Spring, White Flint, Glenmont, Germantown, Olney and White Oak. One prominent example of an
existing urban sidepath is the Silver Spring Green Trail, which exists in segments along Second
Avenue and Wayne Avenue between Spring Street and Whole Foods in Downtown Silver Spring. As
shown in the image below, the Silver Spring Green Trail is indistinguishable from a wide sidewalk in
places. This is a common feature of many urban sidepaths.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

42

836
837

The Silver Spring Green Trail in front of Fenwick Station Apartments

838
839

Even where the Silver Spring Green Trail provides both a sidewalk and a sidepath, many bicyclists
are reluctant to bicycle on the sidepath because it is heavily used by pedestrians.

840
841
842
843

The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will reclassify existing and master-planned
sidepaths as wide sidewalks in areas with high pedestrian volumes and with higher density
land use (such as commercial areas) and will not carry them forward as bikeways. An
alternate bikeway recommendation will be considered in these locations.

844
845
846

Sidepaths are still appropriate as an interim bikeway in urban areas where the master-plan
recommended separated bike lane is not yet implemented due to right-of-way, funding or other
constraints. This will be discussed more in the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

43

847
848

The Silver Spring Green Trail in front of the Wayne Avenue parking garage.

849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858

4.1.2.3.2 When Two-Way Separated Bikeways Should Be Considered on Both Sides of the Street
Montgomery County has many multilane, high-speed, high-volume roads with limited crossings and
multiple destinations on both side of the streets. This creates a barrier for bicycling, especially when
the bikeway is split by the direction of travel (as in conventional bike lanes) or when there is a twoway bikeway on one side of the road (such as a sidepath or separated bike lanes), requiring bicyclists
to cross the same street twice to reach their destination. Where the barrier is excessive, bicyclists
may either be deterred from bicycling, ride in the bikeway in the wrong direction, or ride on the
sidewalk. Two-way bikeways on both sides of the street will encourage short bicycle trips by
minimizing the need to 1) cross wide roadways, and 2) travel excessive distances to cross at a safe
location.

859
860

Since constructing a two-way bikeway on both sides of the road requires a substantial investment, it
will only be applied where the following conditions are met:

861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871

Long distances between safe, comfortable crossings (typically 800 to 1,000 feet)
Wide automobile travel way cross section (four or more lanes)
Presence of destinations/active land uses on both sides of the street

Before settling on the choice to recommend a two-way bikeway on both sides of the street, other
network and roadway reconfiguration options will be investigated. Parallel routes on lower-volume,
lower-speed streets may be available that require minimal detour and a lower level of investment.
The Bicycle Master Plan team will also consider whether changes are feasible to the street in regard
to:

Adding or improve crossings to be safe and comfortable

Reducing the width of the road (lane diet and / or road diet)
Changing the posted speed

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

44

872
873

These types of changes may not be feasible in retrofit projects, but the design process of a street in a
newly developing or redeveloping area should take these questions into consideration.

874
875
876
877
878
879
880

Rockville Pike in the White Flint area is perhaps the quintessential example of a street that is wellsuited to a two-way bikeway on both sides of the street due to the excessive distance between safe,
comfortable crossings (approximately 850 feet), wide street cross section (a six-lane road with
multiple turn lanes) and presence of active commercial destinations on both sides of the street. A
two-way bikeway on both sides of the street will be considered between Flanders Avenue and the
City of Rockville3. Implementing a two-way bikeway on both sides of the street will result in tradeoffs,
but is critical to making White Flint a bikeable community.

881
882

Rockville Pike at Edson Lane

883
884
885

4.1.2.4 Elimination and Replacement of Two Bikeway Facility Classifications

The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will recommend eliminating and replacing of two types
of bikeways: signed shared roadways and dual bikeways.

886
887
888

4.1.2.4.1 Signed Shared Roadways

Signed shared roadways have been a bicycle facility classification in Montgomery County since the
1978 Master Plan of Bikeways. Currently, there are over 400 miles of roads recommended as signed

The March 2016 Draft Rockville Pike Plan recommends two-way separated bike lanes from the City line to
Viers Mill Road.
3

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

45

889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898

shared roadways in the County. The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will make the following
recommendations for signed shared roadways.

Eliminate signed shared roadways, including those with wide outside lanes, as a bikeway
facility classification.
Include bikeable shoulders, bicycle boulevards, and shared streets as bikeway facility types.
Continue use of wayfinding signs, regulatory signs (such as bikes may use full lane) and
pavement markings (such as sharrows) as implementation tools for MCDOT and SHA, but
not master-planning tools.
Encourage MCDOT to develop a comprehensive wayfinding plan.
Encourage MCDOT to develop a sharrow policy.

899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908

While signed shared roadways provide value to bicyclists, they should be eliminated as a
bicycle classification. Even though they can be implemented in ways that make bicycling more
comfortable, a signed shared roadway by itself shared space between bicycling and driving that is
identified with a sign does not improve the comfort of bicycling. In fact, the three main functions of
designating signed shared roadways (wayfinding, public bicycle maps, and identification of locations
where pavement markings, such as sharrows, and signs, such as Bikes May Use Full Lane, could be
added to supplement existing shared lanes) are operational and regulatory approaches that are the
responsibility of the Montgomery County Department of Transportation and the Maryland State
Highway Administration, not a master plan. Furthermore, it is unclear when a signed shared roadway
has been implemented.

909
910
911
912
913

While we recommend eliminating signed shared roadways as a bikeway facility classification,

the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will add shared roads as a bikeway facility
classification and consider the use of another bikeway facility type in locations where signed
shared roadways are currently recommended, including buffered bike lanes, bike lanes,
advisory bike lanes, bikeable shoulders, and bicycle boulevards.

914

Two types of signed shared roadways include wide outside lanes and bikeable shoulders.

915
916
917
918
919
920

Wide outside lanes should be discontinued as a bikeway facility type. While wide outside travel
lanes provide space for both bicyclists and drivers to operate within the same lane, there is a general
consensus that while wide outside lanes provide more space for a driver to pass a bicyclist, this
additional width does not increase a bicyclists comfort, especially on roadways with high speeds.
Additionally, wide lanes tend to increase automobile travel speeds, and may actually make bicyclists
less comfortable next to higher speed traffic than on a similar roadway with standard width lanes.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

46

921
922
923

Wide outside lanes provide more space for drivers to pass bicyclists. but do not change the level of comfort
experienced by most riders.

924
925

Bikeable shoulders will be identified as a new bikeway facility classification. See Section
4.1.2.2.4.

926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933

A wayfinding plan should be developed by the Montgomery County Department of

Transportation as a separate planning process from the master plan. Implementation of
wayfinding routes is already underway by MCDOT and has been based, in part, on previously
recommended signed shared roadways. However, in developing the detailed sign plans for routes,
planners have found a need to deviate from the identified routes to take advantage of more
comfortable crossing locations. A wayfinding plan would identify the most suitable routes for
bicycling based on existing conditions and should be updated every few years as new bikeways are
constructed and new destinations emerge.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

47

934
935

Montgomery County DOT has implemented some wayfinding routes

936
937
938
939
940

The Montgomery County Department of Transportation should develop a sharrow policy.

Sharrows serve three primary purposes: 1) to indicate where it is recommended that bicyclists ride
in the road, 2) to provide a visual cue to remind drivers that bicyclists may be present, and 3) for
wayfinding. While none of these are master planning functions, they are considerations for
implementation.

941
942
943
944
945
946

It should be noted, however, that implementation has varied among different jurisdictions. For
instance, Portland, Oregon uses sharrows primarily as a wayfinding marking and only on lowvolume, low-speed streets. This usage includes bicycle boulevards where additional traffic calming
and/or diversion is present. Most other jurisdictions use sharrows to fill gaps in the network,
regardless of traffic volume, where other dedicated facilities do not exist. In many cases these are
located on higher volume collectors or arterials.

947

A sharrow use policy in Montgomery County could designate the use of sharrows in these instances:

948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956

Bicycle Boulevards: Sharrows may be a treatment option on low-volume, low-speed streets

designated as bicycle boulevards. In this context, sharrows can serve a wayfinding function
and also reinforce bicyclists right to bicycle in the center of the lane.
Interim Use: In limited or special cases, sharrows may be used as an interim marking on
streets master-planned for other facilities. For instance, a street may be designated for a
separated bike lane and serve a critical network function in connecting major destinations,
but implementation of the separated bike lane may take years, and a sharrow can help a
segment of the bicycling population navigate high-speed, high-volume roads in the
intervening period. The sharrow would indicate to drivers that they should expect bicyclists.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

48

957
958

Sharrows indicate an appropriate path of travel to bicyclists and encourage drivers to move over to pass.

959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969

4.1.2.4.2 Dual Bikeways

The dual bikeway facility classification was developed in the 2005 Countywide Bikeways Functional
Master Plan to meet the needs of the total range of bicyclists. A dual bikeway consists of both an
off-road sidepath and an on-street bikeway facility type on the same street. In locations where space
is available, the on-road facility is typically recommended to be a bike lane; where space is not
available, the on-street facility it is typically recommended to be a signed shared roadway. The dual
bikeway facility classification is unique to Montgomery County and was recommended in locations
where the County wanted to provide separation from high-speed, high-volume traffic for what today
the industry refers to as Interested but Concerned riders. Currently there are about 48 miles of road
in Montgomery County that are recommended to be a dual bikeway with both a sidepath and bike
lanes, of which 9 miles have been implemented.

970
971
972
973
974
975

The dual bikeway facility classification was recommended to accommodate more confident cyclists
who are comfortable riding near or sharing the road with higher-speed, higher-volume traffic, would
prefer to travel at a higher speed, and do not want to be impeded by slower moving bicyclists and
pedestrians on a sidepath. In addition, a segment of the bicycling population believe they create
safety problems for faster traveling cyclists at intersections and because they require bicyclists to
slow down, yield or stop when crossing side streets and driveways.

976
977
978
979
980
981
982

While these concerns are valid, they have more to do with the poor design of sidepaths than an
inherent weakness. Sidepaths in Montgomery County are often constructed with a thin layer of
asphalt, leading to a bumpy surface over time. Driveway crossings and intersections are almost an
afterthought. In fact, sidepaths are a common feature in suburban settings in the Netherlands, which
has higher levels of bicycling and much lower injury and fatality rates, compared to the United States.
The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will recommend higher design standards for
sidepaths.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

49

983
984
985
986
987
988

Additionally, bike lanes on high volume and high speed roads are likely to be used by only a small
segment of the population (most people would prefer to bicycle in a separated bikeway and a small
percent would prefer to bicycle in the road). In an environment where tradeoffs with cost, right-ofway, pedestrian safety, and stormwater management are key factors in design, it is hard to justify
providing 11 12 feet in the roadway for bike lanes, when additional space is already needed for
sidepaths that have a wide setback from the road.

989
990
991
992

The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will discontinue use of dual bikeways as a facility
classification and instead refer to their individual components, such as separated bike lanes,
bike lanes, sidepaths and shoulders, to better communicate the actual bikeway facility type
recommendation.

993
994
995

As noted previously, signed shared roadways will not be continued as a master-planning bikeway
facility type. However, MCDOT and SHA should consider use of regulatory signs, such as Bikes May
Use Full Lane, sharrows, and wayfinding signs.

996
997

In suburban locations, bike lanes should remain an interim treatment on higher volume and
higher speed roads where:

998
999
1000
1001

a sidepath is either recommended (but not existing), OR

the existing sidepath is substandard, AND
where there is sufficient space in the existing roadway to quickly and cheaply install
bike lanes through restriping.

1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007

However, over time the bike lanes should be eliminated in favor of separated bikeways with
wide separation from the road. For instance, Darnestown Road is an existing dual bikeway with an
8-foot-wide side path, about 3-foot-wide separation from the road in places, and a 5.5-foot-wide bike
lane on the north side of the road. A 3-foot-wide buffer is not wide enough for many children to
bicycle safely along a 40 mph road with 3 lanes of traffic in each direction. Overtime, the bike lanes
should be repurposed to create a wider buffer between the sidepath and the curb.

1008
1009

A dual bikeway on Darnestown Road

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

50

1010
1011
1012
1013

4.1.3 Bicycle Parking

1014
1015
1016
1017

4.1.3.1 Bicycle Parking at Major Transit Stations

Bicycling is one of the least used modes of access to Metrorail stations, but it is growing at a fast rate.
In 2012 1.0% of all trips to Metrorail were by bicycle, up from 0.4% in 2002. WMATA has adopted a
bicycle access mode share goal of 2.1% by 2020 and 3.5% by 2030.

1018
1019
1020

People in Montgomery County have a few options when they arrive at a metro station by bicycle.
They can bring their bicycle on Metrorail outside of peak periods, they can leave their bicycle at
existing bike lockers and bike racks, or if arriving by bikeshare, they can leave their bike at a dock.

1021
1022

Bicycle Parking at the Kramer Station in Austin, Texas

1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028

Bicycle parking stations not to be confused with bikeshare stations offer another means to store
bicycles in an enclosed or covered facilities that offer high volume and high security bicycle parking
for use by bicyclists who are traveling for transportation. These facilities make bicycle transportation
a convenient and more attractive choice for regular commuting, for accessing transit by bicycle, and
for a variety of other utilitarian bicycle trips, especially when the travel distance is between one and
three miles from the station.

As the number of bicyclists continues to grow in Montgomery County, the need for safe, secure and
accessible bicycle parking is becoming more apparent. Bicycle parking is needed at all destinations,
including residences, commercial and office locations, and major transit stations.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

51

1029
1030
1031
1032

Bicycle parking stations can offer services such as bicycle repair, bicycle rental, bicycle retail, food
service, showers and changing rooms, lockers for personal belongings, bicycling information, etc.
Bicycle parking stations are often located at multi-modal transit hubs, but can be also be located in
dense urban neighborhoods, central business districts (CBDs).

1033

Bike stations can expand the use of bicycling to transit by attracting people who:

1034
1035

Are uncomfortable locking their bicycle to a rack for an extended period.

Live beyond areas that bikeshare can serve.

1036
1037

In addition to being more secure than bike racks, they are a more efficient use of space than bike
lockers, which require more space and are typically rented to one person for an extended time period.

1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044

Bicycle parking stations in the United States vary widely with regard to parking capacity and services
provided. Smaller bicycle stations have the capacity to park 20 - 25 bicycles, while the largest bicycle
stations can accommodate over 300 bicycles. Some stations, like the Tri-Met Bike Link facilities in
Portland, Oregon, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Bike & Ride
Center in College Park, Maryland, offer only secure bicycle parking; while others, like Chicagos
Millennium Park Cycle Center, offer secure parking, showers, changing rooms, restrooms, bicycle and
bicycle accessory retail, bicycle rentals, bike tours, and lockers for belongings.

1045

A bike station at the Berkeley BART Station

1046
1047
1048
1049

Within the metropolitan Washington region, bicycle parking stations exist at the Union Station,
College Park and Reston-Wiehle Metrorail stations and are under construction at the East Falls
Church and Vienna Metrorail stations. WMATA operates the College Park bike station and will
operate the East Falls Church and Vienna Metrorail stations.

1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057

The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will consider recommendations for bike stations at all
major existing and planned transit lines, including the Red Line, Brunswick Line, Purple Line, and
future bus rapid transit stations. Specific locations may be identified for transit stations that are
existing (Red Line and Brunswick Line) or in an advanced stage of design (Purple Line and Corridor
Cities Transitway), but general locations are more likely for Montgomery Countys bus rapid transit
stations. Sizing of the stations will be goal based, such as WMATA has developed for each Red Line
station. For smaller transit stations such as those on the Corridor Cities Transitway, bike stations are
likely to serve multiple transit stations.

1058
1059
1060
1061

4.1.3.2 Bicycle Parking at Residential, Commercial and Office Developments

In 2014, Montgomery County completed a major overhaul to the bicycle parking required of new
developments in its zoning ordinance. Whereas the previous ordinance calculated bicycle parking
requirements as a percentage of automobile parking with a maximum of 20 bicycle parking spaces,
DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

52

1062
1063
1064
1065
1066

the new ordinance calculates bicycle parking requirements based on land use category with a
maximum of 100 bicycle parking spaces. While the revisions to the zoning code made a big
improvement in the quantity of long-term bicycle parking, the improvements to the quality of longterm bicycle parking were limited. The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will include
recommendations about how to improve the quality of bicycle parking in the zoning code.

1067
1068
1069

4.2 Programs

1070

For example, to encourage bicycling among children, programs could target the public school system:

The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will identify a number of events, services, opportunities
and projects that encourage bicycling in Montgomery County.

1071
1072
1073
1074

Bicycle education in the public school curriculum. (MCPS)

Provide bike racks at all public schools. (MCPS)
Bike to School Day. (MCPS)

Other programs include:

1075

Prepare a monitoring report for the Bicycle Master Plan (M-NCPPC)

1076
1077

A more detailed list of programs will be recommended in the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan
to advance the goals of the plan.

1078
1079

4.3 Policies
Policies are actions that are intended to guide decisions that affect bicycling. A few examples include:

1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085

Making separated bike lanes the default form of bike lane in urban areas. (MCDOT)
Making protected intersections the default form of intersection to improve the safety of
crossings for bicycles4. (MCDOT)
Updating the Countys road design standards to include all of the bikeway facility types
included in the Bicycle Master Plan and remove or replace road design standards with wide
outside lanes. (MCDOT)

1086
1087

A more detailed list of policies will be recommended in the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan
to advance the goals of the plan.

1088
1089
1090
1091

4.4 Prioritization
Since bicycle network and parking projects, and bicycle-supportive programs and policies take time
to implement, the plan will Prioritize those that contribute most to the vision of the plan as measured
by the goals and objectives. The prioritization approach is under development.

Protected intersections are a way to extend the protection of separated bike lanes to the intersection. They
will be described in greater detailed in the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan. For more information on
protected bike lanes, see http://www.protectedintersection.com.
4

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

53

1092

5 Monitoring the Vision

1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098

An essential third step for the Bicycle Master Plan is to establish a monitoring program that enables
transparency and accountability in plan implementation. While regular monitoring would occur
every one or two years after the Bicycle Master Plan is adopted, target values and a baseline
evaluation will be conducted as part of the plan. The monitoring template below reflects each of the
plans objectives and includes target values for the plan to achieve in 2022 and 2027, 5 and 10 years
after the plan is adopted.

1099

5.1 Potential Monitoring Report Template

Objective Metric

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)

Goal 1: Increase bicycling trips in Montgomery County

1.1

1100

Percent of residents who commute by bicycle.

Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of

their commute to the Silver Spring TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of
their commute to the Bethesda TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of
their commute to the North Bethesda TMD.
1.2
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of
their commute to the Friendship Heights TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of
their commute to the Greater Shady Grove TMD.
Percent of commuters who bicycle as part of
their commute to the White Oak TMD.
Percent of boardings at Red Line stations that
access the station by bicycle.
Percent of boardings at MARC Brunswick Line
1.3*
stations that access the station by bicycle.
Percent of boardings at Purple Line stations that
access the station by bicycle.
Percent of elementary school students who
travel to school by bicycle.
Percent of middle school students who travel to
1.4*
school by bicycle.
Percent of high school students who travel to
school by bicycle.
* Travel to individual schools and transit stations is detailed below.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

54

Objective Metric

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)

Goal 2: Create a highly-connected, convenient and low-stress bicycling network

Percent of potential bicycle trips that can be
made on a low-stress bicycle network.
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of Red
Line stations that can access the station on a
low-stress bicycling network.
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of
2.2**
MARC Brunswick Line stations that can access
the station on a low-stress bicycling network.
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of
Purple Line stations that can access the station
on a low-stress bicycling network.
Percent of dwelling units that are connected to
elementary schools on a low-stress bicycle
network.
Percent of dwelling units that are connected to
2.3**
middle schools on a low-stress bicycle network.
Percent of dwelling units that are connected to
high schools on a low-stress bicycle network.
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of a
2.4**
public library that can access the library on a
low-stress bicycling network.
Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of a
2.5**
recreation center that can access the recreation
center on a low-stress bicycling network.
Number of Red Line stations in Montgomery
County with a bike station.
2.6
Number of Purple Line stations in Montgomery
County with a bike station.
Percent of Montgomery County elementary
schools with public bicycle parking.
Percent of Montgomery County middle schools
2.7
with public bicycle parking.
Percent of Montgomery County high schools
with public bicycle parking.
Percent of blocks in commercial areas with a
2.8
public bike rack or a bike corral.
Percent of Montgomery County libraries with
2.9
public bicycle parking.
Percent of Montgomery County recreation
2.10
centers with public bicycle parking.
** Access to individual transit stations, schools, libraries and recreation centers is detailed below.
2.1

1101

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

55

Objective Metric

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)

Goal 3: Provide equal access to low-stress bicycling for all members of the community
3.1***

3.2***

Percent of potential bicycle trips that can be

made on a low-stress bicycle network in lowincome and majority-minority areas.
Percent of dwelling units that can access a bus
stop on a low-stress bicycling network in lowincome and majority-minority areas.

See detail

Goal 4: Improve the safety of bicycling

4.1****
4.2

The ratio of bicycle crashes to bicycle trips at the

## highest crash locations in the County

See detail

The number of bicyclists killed per year.

1102

*** Access to individual low-income / majority-minority areas is detailed below.

1103

****Crashes at specific locations is detailed below.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

56

1104

5.2 Monitoring Report Detail for Goal 1

1105

Percent of boardings at Red Line stations that access the station by bicycle.
Red Line Stations

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)

Glenmont
Wheaton
Forest Glen
Silver Spring
Takoma
Friendship Heights
Bethesda
Medical Center
White Flint
Twinbrook
Rockville
Shady Grove
1106

Percent of boardings at MARC Brunswick Line stations that access the station by bicycle.
Brunswick Line Stations

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Dickerson
Barnesville
Boyds
Germantown
Metropolitan Grove
Gaithersburg
Washington Grove
Rockville
Garrett Park
Kensington
Silver Spring
1107

Percent of boardings at Purple Line stations that access the station by bicycle.
Purple Line Stations

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Bethesda
Chevy Chase Lake
Lyttonsville
16th Street
Silver Spring Transit Center
Silver Spring Library
Dale Drive
DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

57

Manchester Place
Long Branch
Piney Branch Road
Takoma / Langley
1108

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

58

1109

Percent of elementary school students who travel to school by bicycle.

Elementary School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Arcola
Ashburton
Bannockburn
Barnsley
Beall
Bel Pre
Bells Mill
Belmont
Bethesda
Beverly Farms
Bradley Hills
Brooke Grove
Brookhaven
Brown Station
Burning Tree
Burnt Mills
Burtonsville
Candlewood
Cannon Road
Carderock Springs
Carson
Cashell
Cedar Grove
Chevy Chase
Clarksburg
Clearspring
Clopper Mill
Cloverly
Cold Spring
College Gardens
Cresthaven
Daly
Damascus
Darnestown
Diamond
Drew
DuFief
East Silver Spring
Fairland
Fallsmead
Farmland

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

59

Elementary School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Fields Road
Flower Hill
Flower Valley
Forest Knolls
Fox Chapel
Gaithersburg
Galway
Garrett Park
Georgian Forest
Germantown
Glen Haven
Glenallan
Goshen
Great Seneca Creek
Greencastle
Greenwood
Harmony Hills
Highland
Highland View
Jackson Road
JoAnn Leleck
Jones Lane
Kemp Mill
Kensington Parkwood
Lake Seneca
Lakewood
Laytonsville
Little Bennett
Luxmanor
Marshall
Maryvale
Matsunaga
McAuliffe
McNair
Meadow Hall
Mill Creek Towne
Monocacy
Montgomery Knolls
New Hampshiretates
North Chevy Chase
Oak View
Oakland Terrace
Olney

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

60

Elementary School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Page
Pine Crest
Piney Branch
Poolesville
Potomac
Resnik
Ride
Ritchie Park
Rock Creek Forest
Rock Creek Valley
Rock View
Rockwell
Rolling Terrace
Roscoe Nix
Rosemary Hills
Rosemont
Sargent Shriver
Sequoyah
Seven Locks
Sherwood
Singer
Sligo Creek
Somerset
South Lake
Stedwick
Stone Mill
Stonegate
Strathmore
Strawberry Knoll
Summit Hall
Takoma Park
Travilah
Twinbrook
Viers Mill
Washington Grove
Waters Landing
Watkins Mill
Wayside
Weller Road
Westbrook
Westover
Wheaton Woods
Whetstone

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

61

Elementary School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

William B. Gibbs Jr.

Wilson Wims
Wood Acres
Woodfield
Woodlin
Wyngate
1110
1111

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

62

1112

Percent of middle school students who travel to school by bicycle.

Middle School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Argyle
John T. Baker
Benjamin Banneker
Cabin John
Roberto W. Clemente
Eastern
William H. Farquhar
Forest Oak
Robert Frost
Gaithersburg
Herbert Hoover
Francis Scott Key
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Kingsview
Lakelands Park
Col. E. Brooke Lee
A. Mario Loiederman
Montgomery Village
Neelsville
Newport Mill
North Bethesda
Parkland
Rosa M. Parks
John Poole
Thomas W. Pyle
Redland
Ridgeview
Rocky Hill
Shady Grove
Silver Spring International
Sligo
Takoma Park
Tilden
Julius West
Westland
White Oak
Earle B. Wood
1113
1114

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

63

1115

Percent of high school students who travel to school by bicycle.

High School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Montgomery Blair
James Hubert Blake
Winston Churchill
Clarksburg
Damascus
Albert Einstein
Gaithersburg
Walter Johnson
John F. Kennedy
Col. Zadok Magruder
Richard Montgomery
Northwest
Northwood
Paint Branch
Poolesville
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Seneca Valley
Sherwood
Springbrook
Watkins Mill
Wheaton
Walt Whitman
Thomas S. Wootton
1116
1117
1118

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

64

1119

5.3 Monitoring Report Detail for Goal 2

1120
1121

Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each Red Line stations that can access the station on a
low-stress bicycling network:
Red Line Station

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Glenmont
Wheaton
Forest Glen
Silver Spring
Takoma
Friendship Heights
Bethesda
Medical Center
White Flint
Twinbrook
Rockville
Shady Grove
1122
1123

Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each MARC Brunswick Line stations that can access the
station on a low-stress bicycling network:
Brunswick Line Station

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Dickerson
Barnesville
Boyds
Germantown
Metropolitan Grove
Gaithersburg
Washington Grove
Rockville
Garrett Park
Kensington
Silver Spring
1124
1125

Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each Purple Line stations that can access the station on
a low-stress bicycling network:
Purple Line Station

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Bethesda
Chevy Chase Lake
Lyttonsville

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

65

16th Street
Silver Spring Transit Center
Silver Spring Library
Dale Drive
Manchester Place
Long Branch
Piney Branch Road
Takoma / Langley
1126
1127

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

66

1128
1129

Percent of dwelling units within 1.0 miles of elementary schools that can access the school on a lowstress bicycling network

Elementary School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Arcola
Ashburton
Bannockburn
Barnsley
Beall
Bel Pre
Bells Mill
Belmont
Bethesda
Beverly Farms
Bradley Hills
Brooke Grove
Brookhaven
Brown Station
Burning Tree
Burnt Mills
Burtonsville
Candlewood
Cannon Road
Carderock Springs
Carson
Cashell
Cedar Grove
Chevy Chase
Clarksburg
Clearspring
Clopper Mill
Cloverly
Cold Spring
College Gardens
Cresthaven
Daly
Damascus
Darnestown
Diamond
Drew
DuFief
East Silver Spring
Fairland
Fallsmead

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

67

Elementary School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Farmland
Fields Road
Flower Hill
Flower Valley
Forest Knolls
Fox Chapel
Gaithersburg
Galway
Garrett Park
Georgian Forest
Germantown
Glen Haven
Glenallan
Goshen
Great Seneca Creek
Greencastle
Greenwood
Harmony Hills
Highland
Highland View
Jackson Road
JoAnn Leleck
Jones Lane
Kemp Mill
Kensington Parkwood
Lake Seneca
Lakewood
Laytonsville
Little Bennett
Luxmanor
Marshall
Maryvale
Matsunaga
McAuliffe
McNair
Meadow Hall
Mill Creek Towne
Monocacy
Montgomery Knolls
New Hampshiretates
North Chevy Chase
Oak View
Oakland Terrace

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

68

Elementary School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Olney
Page
Pine Crest
Piney Branch
Poolesville
Potomac
Resnik
Ride
Ritchie Park
Rock Creek Forest
Rock Creek Valley
Rock View
Rockwell
Rolling Terrace
Roscoe Nix
Rosemary Hills
Rosemont
Sargent Shriver
Sequoyah
Seven Locks
Sherwood
Singer
Sligo Creek
Somerset
South Lake
Stedwick
Stone Mill
Stonegate
Strathmore
Strawberry Knoll
Summit Hall
Takoma Park
Travilah
Twinbrook
Viers Mill
Washington Grove
Waters Landing
Watkins Mill
Wayside
Weller Road
Westbrook
Westover
Wheaton Woods

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

69

Elementary School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Whetstone
William B. Gibbs Jr.
Wilson Wims
Wood Acres
Woodfield
Woodlin
Wyngate
1130
1131

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

70

1132
1133

Percent of dwelling units within 1.5 miles of middle schools that can access the school on a lowstress bicycling network

Middle School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Argyle
John T. Baker
Benjamin Banneker
Cabin John
Roberto W. Clemente
Eastern
William H. Farquhar
Forest Oak
Robert Frost
Gaithersburg
Herbert Hoover
Francis Scott Key
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Kingsview
Lakelands Park
Col. E. Brooke Lee
A. Mario Loiederman
Montgomery Village
Neelsville
Newport Mill
North Bethesda
Parkland
Rosa M. Parks
John Poole
Thomas W. Pyle
Redland
Ridgeview
Rocky Hill
Shady Grove
Silver Spring International
Sligo
Takoma Park
Tilden
Julius West
Westland
White Oak
Earle B. Wood
1134
1135

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

71

1136
1137

Percent of dwelling units within 1.0 miles of high schools that can access the school on a low-stress
bicycling network

High School

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Montgomery Blair
James Hubert Blake
Winston Churchill
Clarksburg
Damascus
Albert Einstein
Gaithersburg
Walter Johnson
John F. Kennedy
Col. Zadok Magruder
Richard Montgomery
Northwest
Northwood
Paint Branch
Poolesville
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Seneca Valley
Sherwood
Springbrook
Watkins Mill
Wheaton
Walt Whitman
Thomas S. Wootton
1138
1139

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

72

1140
1141

Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each public library that can access the station on a lowstress bicycling network:
Public Library

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

1142
1143

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Percent of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each recreation center that can access the station on a
low-stress bicycling network:
Recreation Center

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

1144

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

73

1145

5.4 Monitoring Report Detail for Goal 3

1146
1147

Percent of potential bicycle trips that can be made on a low-stress bicycle network in low-income
and majority-minority areas.
Area

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

1148
1149
1150

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

Percent of dwelling units within 0.5 miles of the nearest Metrobus or RideOn bus stop that will be
able to access the bus stop on a low-stress bicycling network in low-income and majority-minority
areas.
Area

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

1151
1152

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

74

1153

5.5 Monitoring Report Detail for Goal 4

1154

The ratio of bicycle crashes to bicycle trips at the ## highest crash locations in the County.
Crash Location

Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)

(10-year
target)

Actual
2017
2022
(baseline)

(5-year target)

1155
1156
1157

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

75

1158

6 Implementation

1159
1160

The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will include an implementation section that includes
the following items:

1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168

6.1 Approach to Phasing Separated Bike Lane Implementation

1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176

In a desire to implement a low-stress bicycling network quickly, many jurisdictions are installing
separated bike lanes through lower cost improvements such as flexible delineator posts. While flex
posts discourage automobiles from stopping or waiting in the bike lane, they do not create a bikeway
that is comfortable for all users, require frequent maintenance and are not aesthetically pleasing. The
Bicycle Master Plan will investigate how these lower-cost bikeways can transition to more
permanent separation, such as raised separated bike lanes, with aesthetics treatments and
stormwater management facilities.

Cesar Chavez Street, San Francisco, CA (source: PeopleForBikes.org)

6.2 Approach to Implementing On-Road Bicycle Facilities Incrementally

Like many jurisdictions, Montgomery County implements bicycle facilities as part of facility planning
projects and through the development approval process. There is a long history of constructing
discontinuous sections of sidepaths along the frontage of development projects, with the idea that
over time continuous facilities are completed at a lower cost and with less impact to the community.
While this is a reasonable approach for off-road bikeways, it creates challenges when using the

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

76

1177
1178
1179

approach for on-road facilities. The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will develop an
incremental approach to implementing on-road facilities, such as separated bike lanes, buffered bike
lanes, and conventional bike lanes, as part of the development review process.

1180
1181
1182
1183

6.3 Higher Quality Sidepaths

1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189

Sidepaths need to be designed to withstand vehicle loading since maintenance trucks will use them.
That may result in different designs for subgrade and pavement thicknesses based on soil
conditions. Per the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, at a minimum, a 6-inch
minimum total pavement depth including the surface course (asphalt or Portland cement concrete)
and the base course (typically an aggregate rock base). This needs to be placed over a compacted
subgrade.

1190
1191

As discussed previously, the working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will recommend higher design
standards for sidepaths.

1192
1193

6.4 Typical Sections for New Bikeway Facility Types

1194

Separated bike lanes:

1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213

Sidepath surfaces in Montgomery County tend to become a rough bicycling surface over time as they
develop cracks at the edges from use by maintenance vehicles and bumps due to the growth of tree
roots.

The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will prepare typical sections for:

One-way and two-way separated bike lanes at sidewalk level

One-way and two-way separated bike lanes at a vertical level between the street and
sidewalk
One-way and two-way separated bike lanes at sidewalk level at street level without on-street
parking
One-way and two-way separated bike lanes at sidewalk level at street level with on-street
parking

Buffered bike lanes:

With and without on-street parking

Others as recommended by the consultant

Advisory bike lanes:

With and without on-street parking

Others as recommended by the consultant

6.5 Intersection Templates

The working draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will prepare typical sections for:

Protected intersections with and without on-street parking.

Bike boulevard treatments (such as diverters and refuges).
Transition from one-way to two-way bikeways.
Facilitating left turns, such as with two-stage bike boxes and left turn pockets, etc.

DRAFT Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan Methodology Report

77