By Charles Pekow — How can planners figure out the best ways to close gaps in bicycle networks? A new guide from the National Highway Cooperative Research Program urges transportation agencies to replace traditional methods with approaches that reflect the rapid growth of e-bikes and scooters.
For years, planners have evaluated topography, mapped network gaps, and calculated the potential health, economic, and social benefits of closing them. In Estimating Benefits of Closing Gaps in Active Transportation Networks: A Guide, the program outlines how agencies have used those tools to justify bike lanes, trails, signage, and lower speed limits.
But the report makes clear that agencies must do more. It calls for additional research to better account for the differences among e-bikes, scooters, traditional bicycles, and other personal mobility devices. For example, e-bike riders may feel less deterred by hills than traditional cyclists, which changes how planners should assess barriers in a network.
The guide lays out practical ways to estimate how infrastructure changes will influence behavior. If a city builds a more attractive bike facility, will more people ride and reduce vehicle emissions? If officials lower speed limits, will they make streets safer for everyone?
Planners must start by pinpointing not only missing links but also weak spots in existing infrastructure. A painted bike lane on a busy arterial may offer little protection from traffic. Potholes or sewer grates may discourage riders. In some cases, a confusing route that zigzags through side streets to avoid steep grades may simply need clearer wayfinding to serve people walking, biking, or rolling.
The guide also pushes agencies to analyze how specific fixes will shift travel patterns. Will riders use a new route? Will it persuade drivers to switch to biking? Will it prompt people to make trips they previously avoided?
Finally, once planners settle on solutions, they must communicate them effectively. The public does not need every technical detail behind the analysis. Instead, planners should present clear, concise explanations tailored to each audience. That includes news media, community members, traffic engineers, grant administrators, and elected officials at every level. Federal and state lawmakers may sit one step removed from local transportation decisions, but their backing can prove critical when agencies seek funding. Officials have limited time, so planners must explain directly how proposed improvements will benefit constituents and advance policy goals.
The guide is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/29332.
(Visited 4 times, 4 visits today)