HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 04/20/2016
Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Meeting 04.20.16
5:30-8:10 pm
Agenda
1. Changes or additions to the agenda
5 minutes 5:30
2. Approval of minutes from the last meeting
5 minutes 5:35
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda
10 minutes 5:40
4. Discussion:
Planning Commission questionnaire
25 minutes 5:50
5. Discussion: Committee priorities
60 minutes 6:15
6. Updates from City: Maggie Leugers
10 minutes 7:15
7. General matters
a. Discussion: Bob
Policy and Safety Recommendations Update
b. Talking Points: Dana
o Invite Councilman Tim Barritt to May mtg?
o Regional Bike/Ped Plan comment as committee or individually?
c. Discussion: Cathy
o 2016 VT Walk/Bike Summit
d. Discussion: Amanda
o 2016 VT Walk/Bike Summit
10 minutes
10 minutes
10 minutes
10 minutes
7:25
7:35
7:45
7:55
8. Confirmation: Next meeting- Wednesday, May 11 at 5:30 pm.
3 minutes 8:05
9. Adjourn 2 minutes 8:08
8:10
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE
MINUTES 3-9-2016
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at
5:30 pm in the small conference room at the city office building.
Members Present: Cathy Frank (dial-in), Vice-Chair; Jamieson Goodwin, Clerk; Amanda Holland; Bob Britt;
Acting-Chair, Donna Leban, Roy Neuer
Members Absent: Dana Farr
City Representative: Holly Baker, Assistant Director of Recreation & Parks
Also Present: Justin Rabidoux Department of Public Works Director
Meeting began at 5:30 pm.
1. Changes to Agenda – Addition of discussions on the following topics: Bob Britt’s meeting with Tom
H, whether the committee should extend an invitation to Tim Barritt, and a brief overview of
coming City discussions over South Burlington scenic vista preservation.
2. Approval of minutes from last meeting – Motion, Jamieson – Donna second. Unanimous.
3. Comments from public not related to Agenda – None
4. Discussion with Justin Rabidoux (DPW Director) – Discussion followed about the Impact Ordinance
Fee (IFO) and it’s use in Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Justin has been working with Paul Conner
in relation to use of the fee(s) and their description. Specifically the Impact Fee description outlines
very specific projects, some of which have been completed. Per Justin, any ordinance changes
required to update potential projects, requires council hearings to change the definition; namely an
involved project. Justin and Paul are working to use the CIP to direct IFO. The IFO is specifically
used to develop a measure of # of people per unit of land (active recreation, sewage, etc.), as a way
to develop a baseline for identified service and create a means to maintain service as growth in
areas within the city grow or expand. Impact fees can only be used for capital, not equipment,
maintenance, etc. City departments would contribute plans or projects into a Fee description along
with capital requirements that would then be included in CIP. Quick example is the forthcoming
South Village soccer field, which should be completed within the next year is receiving at least
partial funding from Recreation Impact Fee as a means to increase the number of similar facilities
within South Burlington. Justin outlined the general process in which some of the Impact Fees can
be utilized. For example, to advance our recommended projects there should be feasibility studies,
or are these projects a worthwhile expenditure of effort before cost and effort estimating. Cost
estimation is eased by use of calculator and published guidelines with which DPW is familiar. Justin
or available staff can assist in this process for our purposes. Second is constructability – how much
effort may be needed. Followed by permit-ability – which would highlight any potential roadblocks
in completion of the proposed project.
a. Discussion: Recent Williston Rd public hearing – Justin offered some very unique and
helpful perspective for many within the meeting, in that Williston Rd serves more than just
the city of South Burlington. The city and it’s citizens should help determine the desired
use case for proposed changes to the Williston Rd corridor, which will aid in the planning
and then eventual build out of what the community wants, not just what other stake
holders request (commuters through South Burlington, etc).
b. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Update – All batteries changed/upgraded and
timings reflective of MUTCD required timings (crosswalk standard for protected phase 3.5
ft/sec). Additionally, and as a result of citizen input, the City Council has requested a
scheduled yearly update on identified issues, like crosswalk and RRFB issues, which Justin
will provide as well. This update meeting would include topics such as the addition of lights
to both sides of each RRFB.
c. Crosswalks timings – No real update, as discussed previously, this issue is largely a
perception and community level issue. Any proposed changes are the result of input from
various stakeholders and the community with careful determination as to the desired
impact for pedestrian safety or traffic flow. A big picture view would also include studying
the affects in a larger area in which a single change would impart (overall traffic flow in a
neighborhood, for example). Some potential middle ground, leading pedestrian phase
before a concurrent phase begins. Justin recommended that a matrix or formal policy
should be written and recommended to council/commission. With some upcoming
projects (Swift/Spear specifically), it is likely an appropriate time to produce a new study
examining traffic patterns/usage. Potential for committee to provide input to study, which
is likely to happen late this summer.
d. Striping machine – Justin indicated that DPW anticipate the receipt of the new striping
machine this summer. This new equipment opens possibility for future improvements to
areas of issue (i.e. expansion of bike lanes where lane width allows). Justin and team are
developing their own list and are certainly open to input. Increase of seasonal labor force
will help to address items like worn cross walk restriping at the end of the season.
e. Bollards – Justin indicated a large order was made for additional Bollards. He also indicated
that there is some possibility for leaving bollards in place year round as a low cost study to
determine feasibility in various areas. Currently, there haven’t been any further studies for
replacing bollards with more permanent fixtures.
f. Recommendations to CCRPC – Justin believes that, currently, there is no expectation for
those prioritizations sent from the city to the Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission to get funded for feasibility study.
g. Current high priority projects: Justin gave the following brief summary of current City/DPW
high priority projects: Tilley drive phase 2 study is at conceptual phase. Umall/89 bridge
study is half funded. Brief updates on study for pedestrian facility gaps (Allen rd, Dorset
path extension, airport pkwy, N Spear st jug handle and athletic field area).
5. Discussion: Determination of priority for issues from community feedback identified by the
committee – Discussion ensued about best method to prioritize identified issues. Ways to shorten
list, like striping projects vs more intense items. Level of impact, best address the gaps between
high traffic areas. For example, Shelburne Rd vs lower use areas. Safety concerns (like along spear
st between swift and UVM). Committee recommended doing a quick personal assessment of
priorities, providing a general high/med/low rank to Amanda by Mar 31.
6. Updates from City: Holly Baker– No significant updates.
7. General Matters
a. Discussion: Bob – Policy & Safety recommendation updates – This topic was largely
covered in various areas of discussion with Justin Rabidoux earlier in the meeting. Items
included Impact Fee Ordinance, Crosswalk timings, etc.
b. Discussion: Use and implementation of R. Hubbard’s committee model – Current items
that the committee feels should be monitored:
i. DRB meetings - Jamieson and Amanda to review and attend as needed.
ii. Planning Commission meetings – Donna to review and attend as needed.
iii. Monitor City Council meeting agenda for items of interest: Cathy to monitor.
iv. Community public outreach: Bob will continue efforts on this front.
v. Monitor City website for new items – Roy to monitor.
vi. Review of ongoing projects – Donna to monitor and notify committee of items
requiring attention by the committee.
c. Report: Williston Road Transportation Study Meeting - Item from Talking points – this
discussion was largely held while Justin Rubidoux was in attendance.
d. Report: Colchester/Riverside Ave Intersection study – No current insight or known impact.
Will need further review.
e. Discussion: Bob’s meeting with Tom Hubbard – The outcome of Bob’s meeting identifies
that this committee needs to be more assertive and forthright in providing feedback to
other city departments and committees. As previously identified, the committee has no
fiscal input or methods in which to provide direction/focus for the city. Tom identified the
potential for fiscal progress through the implementation of ordinances or land
development regulations and fees.
f. Discussion: Question to extend invitation to Tim Barritt to attend a committee meeting.
Committee proposed to invite Councilman Barritt to attend ASAP. Dana to extend
invitation.
g. Discussion of scenic vistas – Topic provided by Donna, and was largely just a review of
some new and ongoing attempts which may have some impact on areas of committee
interest. The city is attempting to define scenic view corridors. This was brought about as
the city is currently reviewing land within the view corridor from Wheeler Nature Park and
the Dorset St recreation path for future development. It is felt that these are important
topics specifically as usage for recreation can be impacted if scenic views are obstructed.
Donna to follow-up and provide more information for next committee meeting.
8. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday April 20 @ 5:30 PM.
Motion to adjourn – Cathy, Roy second. All approve.
Meeting ended at 8:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jamieson Goodwin, Clerk
All,
Results are in. Please take a look at the results spreadsheet before our next meeting.
We may need to think of another way to rank things as with this first go we have a mix
of opinions. Some of you put a ranking in the Safety/connection/popn served; I merged
some of this to get a starting point for these fields based on our perceptions.
I'm also attaching the updated map with each site numbered.
This is our new working draft file. I will upload both of these to the gmail account later
this week and remove the older drafts.
Reminder - Green/High, Red/Low
BobCathyDana Donna Jamieson Roy Amanda Quad #Street Start EndProposed Facility Type Existing Conditions Proposed Facility DetailSafety (L/M/H)H H H M M H HSW 1aSpear Street USFS buildingSongbird Road (stop at Songbird or "Past Songbird Road, continuing up to Bike laneCurrent shoulder inadequate. Used by cyclists and runners to connect to Dorset facilitiesMarked bicycle lane on east side of Spear St. under I-189 crossing.HM H H M H H HSW 1bSpear Street USFS building Songbird RoadRec path?Current shoulder inadequate. Used by cyclists and runners to connect to Dorset facilitiesHH H M/L M L H MSW 2Spear Street Swift StreetQuarry Hill Road (or Route 2 in CIP)Bike lane3 ft bike lanes added in 2008.Parallel shared use path exists for half the length.Pedestrian signals under 4 ft. bike lanes with pedestrian signals at Swift St. and Quarry Hill Rd.HH H M H L H MSW 3aSpear Street Swift Street Shelburne lineBike laneBike lane wider southbound vs northbound5 ft. bicycle lane from Swift St. to meet Shelburne lane.HH M L H L L LSW 3bSpear StreetNowland Farm RoadS Jefferson Road/ Shelburne lineBike laneBike lane on west side of street Bike lane on east side of streetML H M H M L MSW 4Spear Street Allen Road EastS Jefferson Road/ Shelburne lineShared Use PathBike lane on west side of streetShared use path on east side of street built by developer from south end of South Village to north end of South Village propertyHLMM LHLHSW5aSwift StreetShelburne RoadSpear StreetShared Use PathNarrow shoulderMM L M L M M MSW 5bSwift Street Shelburne Road Spear StreetBike laneNarrow shoulderMH H H L M H MSW 6Swift Street and Spear Street Crossing Swift Street Spear StreetCrosswalkIntersection has Retangular Rapid Flashing BeaconsNeeds to have a "traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossing light"HHLLLMLLSW7Joy DriveSidewalkSmall section of sidewalk missingLM H H H H H HSW 8Route 7 & Queen City CrossingLindenwood Drive Queen City ParkwayCrossingcrosswalk does not line up and does not provide efficient crossing for peds or bikesIncrease curb radius and relocate signal activation point and crossing markerHM H M M M L MSW 9Route 7 Imperial Drive Burlington lineShared Use PathSidewalks in both directions; no bike lane; Share the road??? Shared Use PathHM L M M L L MSW 10Route 7 Imperial Drive McIntosh AveShared Use PathSidewalks in both directions; no bike lane; Share the road???Convert exist sidewalk to shared use path to provide more direct route to Burlington Bike Path system through Fayette Dr. and K Mart parking complex.M H H L M H MSW 11Fayette Drive to Queen City Park Road Shelburne Road Queen City Park RoadShared Use PathFayette Drive and Hannaford Drive have sidewalksHMLMHMMMSW12Queen City Park Roadtransfer stationbridgeSidewalkmissing link and lacking lightingMM L L L M L LSW 13Shoreline south of Red Rocks Red Rocks Homes RoadShared Use Pathprivate propertyLMLLLMLLSW14Homes RoadShelburne Roadend of Homes RoadBike laneno infrastructureLH M H H H H HSW 15Allen Road Baycrest Road Spear StreetShared Use Pathno infrastructure Shared Use PathMH M H H H M HSW 16Allen Road Shelburne RoadAllenwood Senior CommunitySidewalkno infrastructure Sidewalk or Shared Use PathMMLLLMLLSW17Bartlett Bay Shelburne Roadend of Bartlett BayBike laneno infrastructureLM L L L M L LSW 18Farrell St Swift Street to?Safety improvementsResident noted corridor felt unsafe (Nov/15)LM M L L M M MSW 19Eastwood and Farrel St Crossing Farrel St Eastwood StCrosswalkHave to go past intersection for crossing
M L L M M M LSW 20Inn Road Shelburne Road Inn RoadUse this road to help facilitate additional connections along Shelburne Road and the lake/BurlingtonHSW 21*Shelburne Road - East sideSwift StreetPast three I-89 ramps down to Chipotle shopping areaCrosswalks Needs to have Retangular Rapid Flashing Beacons added to crosswalks at a minimumHHSW 22*Shelburne Road - West sideShelburne Road across from the end of Swift St.Past I-89 on ramp Crosswalks Entering traffic does not need to stop - crosswalk Needs to have a Retangular Rapid Flashing Beacon added to crosswalkM
Connection (Y/N)# of people Identified in Existing Plan In Capital Plan (If Y, FYs) NOTESY HY HY HSpear Street Corridor Study 2004Similar to "Spear Street Reconstruction" FY21-23Y HSpear Street Corridor Study 2004Similar to "Spear Street Reconstruction" FY21-23Y MY MYMY MLow probability as completed paving overlay in 2015?Y HCars can take a right on red from Swift Street west bound onto Spear St southbound and, since the crosswalk is pushed south about 30 to 40 feet on Spear, cars don't see the bicyclists or pedestriansYLFY20-22Y H FY19-20Main crosswalk to access Red Rocks and Bike Path from east side of Shelburne RoadY HNFY20-21HMap 6 Notes Shared Use Path but bike lane better?YMN LNLY L FY19-20The lack of a connection as it presently exists places pedestrians and bicyclists on the road, creating an unsafe situation. This project will improve the delivery of public services and the quality of existing Y LFY19-21; ConceptualServes muliple apartment buildings. Ascension Lutheran Church provides meeting space for many community organizations, inviting people to travel there on foot and by car. Connects entire Allen Road corridor to bus stop on Shelburne Rd.NY M
Y HY H
Costs for
Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Infrastructure
Improvements
A Resource for Researchers,
Engineers, Planners, and the
General Public
Authors: Max A. Bushell, Bryan W. Poole,
Charles V. Zegeer, Daniel A. Rodriguez
UNC Highway Safety Research Center
Prepared for the Federal Highway
Administration and supported by the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation through its Active
Living Research program
October, 2013
Page 1 of 45
Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Authors .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
The Highway Safety Research Center ........................................................................................................... 4
Cover Page Photo Credits ..................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Making the Case for Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure ......................................................................... 6
Walking/Bicycling and Public Health ............................................................................................................ 7
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Key Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Infrastructure Cost Tables ........................................................................................................................... 10
Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Bicycle Parking .................................................................................................................................... 12
Bikeway ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Bikeway Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 13
Traffic Calming Measures ....................................................................................................................... 13
Chicanes .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Curb Extensions ................................................................................................................................... 14
Diverters .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Island ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Median ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Raised Crossing ................................................................................................................................... 16
Roundabout/Traffic Circle ................................................................................................................... 16
Speed Treatments ............................................................................................................................... 17
Pedestrian Accommodations .................................................................................................................. 18
Bollard ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Curb Ramp........................................................................................................................................... 18
Fence/Gate .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Gateway .............................................................................................................................................. 19
Lighting ................................................................................................................................................ 20
Overpass/Underpass ........................................................................................................................... 20
Railing .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Street Furniture ................................................................................................................................... 21
Page 2 of 45
Street Closures .................................................................................................................................... 22
Pedestrian Crossings and Paths .......................................................................................................... 23
Crosswalks ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Sidewalks ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Paths.................................................................................................................................................... 25
Mid-Block Crossings ............................................................................................................................ 25
Signals ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Flashing Beacon .................................................................................................................................. 26
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon ................................................................................................................... 26
Pedestrian and Bicycle Detection ....................................................................................................... 27
Signals for Drivers and Pedestrians ..................................................................................................... 27
Speed Trailer ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Signs ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
Striping .................................................................................................................................................... 29
Pavement Marking .............................................................................................................................. 29
Pavement Marking Symbols ............................................................................................................... 30
Curb and Gutter .................................................................................................................................. 30
Summary of Results .................................................................................................................................... 31
References .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure References ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A – Database ............................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix B – Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................. 36
Appendix C – Cost Information by State ..................................................................................................... 41
Appendix D - Complete Table of Infrastructure Costs ................................................................................ 43
Page 3 of 45
Acknowledgements
This project was made possible through funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, through its Active Living Research program and the University of
North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (UNC HSRC). The authors would like to particularly
acknowledge the support of Gabe Rousseau and Tamara Redmon of FHWA and James Sallis, the
Program Director of Active Living Research at UCSD, as well as David Harkey of UNC HSRC. Ann
McGrane, a graduate student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dan Gelinne, a Program Associate with the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Information Center (PBIC), also contributed to this project.
Authors
Max A. Bushell was a Research Assistant and Junior Pedestrian and Bicycle Professional for the FHWA-
sponsored Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) at the time that this paper was originally
written. He is now Transportation Planner at Stantec Consulting Services, Ltd. He holds a Bachelor’s
Degree from Cornell University and a Master’s Degree in City and Regional Planning from the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. At the PBIC, Mr. Bushell has provided project support to the
development of the Pedestrian Safety Strategic Plan and Strategic Plan Background Report, updated the
Highway Safety Manual to include Pedestrian and Bicycle research, performed ArcGIS analysis work,
been involved in data collection work, drafted sections to update the PEDSAFE Countermeasure
Selection System tool, served as a Walk Friendly Communities Reviewer, and worked as a Project
Manager for the development of a Bike to Work Event Website.
Bryan W. Poole is a current graduate student at the Department of City and Regional Planning at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is also a Graduate Research Assistant with the PBIC and
HSRC. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree from Point Loma Nazarene University and a graduate degree from
Duke Divinity School. Mr. Poole has previously drafted description and cost information updates to
PEDSAFE, assisted with the Watch For Me NC Campaign, and recently completed a paper on the
implications of automated enforcement systems for pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Charlie V. Zegeer is the Associate Director of Engineering and Planning for HSRC, where he has worked
from 1986 to present. He is also currently the Director of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center
(PBIC), the existing FHWA-sponsored National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse. In all, he has
authored more than 150 reports and publications, mostly dealing with pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
He has also received several international awards, including those from Transportation Research Board
(TRB) and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Mr. Zegeer is a registered Professional Engineer
and an Emeritus Member of the TRB Pedestrian Committee. He received his Bachelor’s Degree in Civil
Engineering (Virginia Tech) in 1972 and a Master’s Degree in Civil Engineering (Transportation) from the
University of Kentucky in 1974.
Daniel A. Rodríguez is Director of the Carolina Transportation Program (ctp.unc.edu), Associate
Professor in City and Regional Planning and Adjunct Associate Professor of Epidemiology at University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Rodríguez received a Master’s Degree in Transportation from MIT and a
Ph.D. in Urban, Technological, and Environmental Planning from The University of Michigan in 2000. Dr.
Rodriguez’s research focuses on the reciprocal relationship between the built environment, including
bus rapid transit, and the behavior of travelers. He is the author of more than 60-peer reviewed
publications and a co-author of the book Urban Land Use Planning (University of Illinois Press). Dr.
Page 4 of 45
Rodríguez’s research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, among others.
The Highway Safety Research Center
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Highway Safety Research Center has been a leading
research institute that has helped shape the field of transportation safety. The Center’s mission is to
improve the safety, security, access, and efficiency of all surface transportation modes through a
balanced, interdisciplinary program of research, evaluation and information dissemination.
Today, HSRC research stretches across multiple disciplines, from social and behavioral sciences to
engineering and planning, and addresses many of the new challenging concerns of the North Carolina
and American public. Among other things, HSRC researchers are exploring ways of making roads safer
for pedestrians and bicyclists, researching the effects of aging on driver performance, studying how
driver distractions such as cell phone use affect transportation safety, researching how fatigue and
sleep-deprivation affect driver performance, and examining how changes in roadway design and traffic
operations can make travel safer for all road users.
Cover Page Photo Credits
www.pedbikeimages.org / Dan Burden
Page 5 of 45
Executive Summary
Costs for pedestrian and bicycle safety infrastructure often vary greatly from city to city and state to
state. This document (and associated database) is intended to provide meaningful estimates of
infrastructure costs by collecting up-to-date cost information for pedestrian and bicycle treatments from
states and cities across the country. Using this information, researchers, engineers, planners, and the
general public can better understand the cost of pedestrian and bicycle treatments in their communities
and make informed decisions about which infrastructure enhancements are best suited for
implementation. By collecting countrywide cost information, this database should contain useful
information for any state or city, even if costs from that particular state or city are not included for a
given treatment.
A better understanding of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure costs will hopefully ensure that funding
is allocated to pedestrian and bicycle improvements more efficiently. The goal is to encourage more
communities to enhance facilities for non-motorized users and increase the safety of those choosing to
walk and bike. Building a new roadway for automobiles can cost tens of millions of dollars to construct,
and many of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects and facilities are extremely low-cost in
comparison. This infrastructure can also serve to improve safety for all road users, while also promoting
healthier lifestyles through more bicycling and walking. The tables provided in this document provide
general estimates and cost ranges for 77 pedestrian and bicycle facilities using more than 1,700 cost
observations, and are presented with a median and average price, the minimum and maximum cost,
and the number of sources. By making more informed decisions about the costs of pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure treatments, decision-makers will be able to dedicate funds to those treatments
secure in the knowledge that these investments are often affordable as well as determine which
treatment is the most cost-effective.
It must be noted that costs can vary widely from state to state and also from site to site. Therefore, the
cost information contained in this report should be used only for estimating purposes and not
necessarily for determining actual bid prices for a specific infrastructure project.
Page 6 of 45
Making the Case for Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
Walking and bicycling have both been frequently overlooked as city, state, and federal governments
focus their effort and funds on building sophisticated transportation systems. Yet there are a growing
percentage of people that want to change the common notion of transportation and mobility. They
want livable communities where they can commute to work, socialize and recreate by foot and bicycle.
Recent socio-economic and cultural trends highlight the desire for walkable and bikeable communities.
The 15-Year Report on Walking and Biking determined that 12 percent of all trips are now made by
bicycle or foot in 2009, a 25 percent increase from 2001, even though there are often not adequate
facilities for safe walking or bicycling. Bicyclists and pedestrians make up 14 percent of traffic fatalities,
although federal funding for biking and walking projects is approximately 2 percent of the federal
transportation budget (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center [PBIC], 2010).
While new national initiatives, such as Complete Streets and Safe Routes to School, are examples of
programs that support pedestrian facility development, problems persist. In 2010, 4,280 pedestrians
and 618 bicyclists were killed and roughly 59,000 pedestrians and 52,000 bicyclists were injured
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2012). Though these totals have decreased somewhat
in recent years, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is an ongoing problem that should continue to be
comprehensively addressed at all levels of government.
Creating a walkable and bikeable community starts with the built environment: having destinations
close to each other; siting schools, parks, and public spaces appropriately; allowing mixed-use
developments; having sufficient densities to support transit; creating commercial districts that people
can access by bicycle, foot and wheelchair; etc. Most walking trips are less than .5 mi (0.8 km), so having
a compact environment is essential. Similarly, while half of all household trips are three miles or less,
fewer than 2 percent of those trips are made by bicycle (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, 2009). Finally, a recent study found bicyclists will go out of their way to use
bicycle infrastructure, highlighting the importance of having sufficient facilities (Dill, 2009). The
connection between land-use planning and transportation planning is critical to safely and effectively
accommodate trips by foot and bicycle.
Developing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure has economic benefits also. Studies have found that
bicycle infrastructure improvements can have a positive overall impact on business, and that people
who walk or bike to a commercial area spend more money per month than those who accessed the area
by automobile (Flusche, 2012). The removal of on-street parking is often thought to negatively impact
business, but reports show adding facilities such as bicycle racks and bicycle lanes can actually increase
economic activity, and also help create a buffer from moving traffic that aides both pedestrian and
bicyclist activity (Clifton, Morrissey & Ritter, 2012). Finally, improving bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure can lead to positively impacting real estate values. Homes near bicycle paths have been
found to support higher sales prices, and areas that facilitate walkability and attract pedestrians sustain
higher rents, revenues and resale values (Lindsey, Man, Payton & Dickson, 2004).
Pedestrian and bicycle- specific infrastructure improvements can also improve conditions for all road
users. The 2011 Sustainable Streets Index, published by New York City’s Department of Transportation,
found that improvements such as pedestrian islands and bicycle paths led to an overall reduction in
motorist crashes as well as injury crashes, a decrease in speeding, and an increase in pedestrian and
bicycle activities (New York City Department of Transportation, 2011).
Page 7 of 45
Finally, new roadway projects can cost tens of millions of dollars to construct, depending on location
and type of road. Many of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects and facilities highlighted in
this paper are extremely low-cost in comparison.
Walking/Bicycling and Public Health
The health benefits of walking and bicycling have been well-documented by public health and medical
professionals. Current CDC recommendations suggest that adults ages 18 and up should get 150 minutes
of moderate-intensity exercise throughout the week to experience the health benefits of physical
activity. Brisk 10 minute walks or short trips by bicycle to work can both help contribute to this overall
goal. Health benefits of undertaking these activities include weight management, increased bone and
muscle strength, improved mental health and mood, and increased coordination. As the focus of
healthcare transitions from focusing on the treatment to the prevention of disease, walking and biking
are being promoted as an accessible and easy way to improve both our current and future well-being.
As a result, urban planners, engineers, and public health professionals are increasingly working together
to create pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environments that promote these activities for both leisure
and transportation purposes. Researchers who study the effect of the built environment on walking and
biking have discovered that numerous variables affect such decisions. The proximity of destinations, the
presence and quality of sidewalks or bicycle lanes, perceptions of safety and security, the steepness of
grades, the presence of other people, separation from traffic, and aesthetics are all factors that can
encourage or discourage people from walking or biking. Policies and roadway features can also help
promote active transportation, such as the use of wayfinding signage and pedestrian and bicyclist-
oriented crossing signals. Studies have shown that facilities such as separated paths, bike boxes,
sidewalks and benches are associated with enhanced safety and/or activity (Sandt, Pullen-Seufert,
Lajeunesse & Gelinne, 2012). Through the design or redesign of environments to make walking and
biking safer or more pleasant, planners and engineers can help people of all ages get the exercise they
need to live longer, healthier lives. The infrastructure costs summarized in this document are intended
to aide and encourage improvements to these environments.
Methodology
Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) staff began work on a database of general engineering in late
2011. Using this as a basis and with additional support from the Federal Highway Administration and
Active Living Research, HSRC researchers developed a pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure cost
database for use by planners, engineers, and others. A summary of costs from that database is provided
herein with a direct link to the full infrastructure cost database.
Beginning with bid-letting summaries or price indices from states across the country, infrastructure
costs were identified and entered into a database. Bid-letting sheets were usually available from State
Departments of Transportation web sites, which contain a range of costs based on local contractor bids.
In some cases, however, only one bid – or an average of all bids – is listed. In this situation, either the
range of bids or the single bid is included in the database. While staff attempted to use the most up-to-
date bid-letting and pricing sheets available, the availability of bid-letting summaries varies from state to
state. As such, some information in the database dates from 2009 or earlier. Most of the costs, however,
Page 8 of 45
are from 2010, 2011, or 2012. All costs have been updated to 2012 US Dollar equivalents using the
United States Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012).
HSRC researchers also subscribed to the Bid Express service, an online resource that facilitates secure
online project bidding for city and state agencies and contractors. Using Bid Tabulation sheets
downloaded from the website with the permission of the service and relevant agencies, Bid Express cost
data were added into the database. Data from the Bid Express service is mostly from 2011, but may also
include 2010 information (Bid Express 2012). Special approval was obtained from Bid Express for
inclusion of cost information from selected states to be used in the database and this report.
For some treatments, particularly newer innovative treatments, cost information was not included in
bid-letting sheets. To ensure that costs were included for as many treatments as possible, HSRC
researchers also conducted targeted searches of selected infrastructure measures, using conventional
search engines as well as searching state and city websites. The source of data as well as a hyperlink is
included in each of the more than 1,700 cost entries in the database. Drawing from city plans,
manufacturer pricing information, and other sources, these targeted searches provided information that
was otherwise unavailable from other sources. By using search terms such as “pedestrian”, “bicycle”,
“sidewalk”, “bike lane”, and many others and by conducting a general scan of each document, costs
pertaining specifically to pedestrian and bicyclist-related infrastructure improvements were identified,
entered into the database, and included in the following cost summaries.
After costs were compiled, interviews were conducted with Department of Transportation employees in
various states to validate the cost averages. HSRC researchers contacted the safety, engineering, or
construction divisions of State Departments of Transportation (DOT) in North Carolina, Tennessee,
Florida, Nebraska, Wyoming, Ohio, and California to determine what information is included in the
costs. According to these State DOTs, the costs found in Bid Letting or Bid Tabulation Sheets include
labor, materials, mobilization costs (though mobilization costs were often bid separately as well), and
contractor profits, effectively making the treatment cost a complete “in the ground” cost.
The database includes the following categories of information for each cost item:
Infrastructure Name – the title of the treatment (e.g. Sidewalk)
Infrastructure Description – the details of the treatment (e.g. Portland Cement)
o Specifics/Classes – specific identifying details (e.g. 4 inch patterned)
Initial (Total) Cost – if a total cost is provided, it is included here
Revised Cost – the costs modified to the standard unit
Revised Unit – the unit of infrastructure treatment, if it was modified
Information Source Year – the year of the cost information
Inflation Year – the year used to calculate the inflation factor
Cost with Inflation – the cost indexed to 2012 dollars
Annual (Maintenance) Cost – if provided, how much the treatment costs to maintain, usually per
year
Low Cost– if a range of costs is provided, the lowest cost
Revised Low – the unit of infrastructure treatment, if it was modified
Low with Inflation – the low cost indexed to 2012 dollars
High Cost Estimate – if a range of costs is provided, the highest cost
Revised High – the unit of infrastructure treatment, if it was modified
Page 9 of 45
High with Inflation – the high cost indexed to 2012 dollars
Cost Unit – the unit to which the cost is linked (e.g. lump sum, each, per mile, per linear foot,
per square yard, etc.)
State Name – the state name in postal code format
Information Source Citation – the title of the information source, usually a bid-letting sheet or
specific research paper
Page Number within Document – the page within the information source that contains this cost
Sample Size – the number of bids and/or instances of treatment implementation
Link to Source – the reference URL for the source of the treatment cost
Notes – Any other relevant information or caveats that are important to consider in relation to
the specific cost
Only infrastructure costs that are specifically pedestrian or bicycle related are entered into the
database. Other documents containing infrastructure cost information such as spot safety evaluations,
city plans, government agency reports, guidebooks, and cost reports among others are also included in
this database. In order to present a useable database, costs were eliminated if they were extreme
outliers, that is, generally greater or less than two standard deviations away from the mean cost.1 Costs
were also removed if they did not appear to include complete cost information (i.e. only the cost of the
unit without the cost to install).
Database users should understand that these costs were taken from various sources across the country
and that costs may vary between states and also by the quantity purchased. Generally, costs per unit
(square yard, linear foot, each, etc.) may vary widely depending on the size of the order, with larger
quantities usually leading to lower per unit costs.
Also, there are non-geographic factors that influence variability of costs, and which could not be
adequately addressed in this database due to the lack of information in the source data. One of these is
the issue of economies of scale and resulting non-linearity of costs. A small project may require a fixed
cost such as access to a cement truck or engineering services. The costs of these services unsurprisingly
would decline with increasing project scale. Another limitation is related to economies of scope, as it
would be more cost effective to add a bicycle lane along with a sidewalk rather than doing both projects
separately. There can also be price differences if the project is for a new development versus a retrofit
project, with retrofit projects often having higher costs. Finally, differences in contracts and negotiations
over the length of time a project will take can also influence cost information. Faster completion times
can lower the inconvenience to non-active commuters, but can also raise the price of installation. All of
these issues inevitably influence the costs captured in this database. The assumption, however, is that
the range of costs will help mitigate these factors and allows for a useful database. In order to obtain a
more detailed estimate, however, both geographic and non-geographic factors must be considered.
Key Assumptions
In order to provide cost estimates for some treatments, HSRC researchers made certain assumptions,
given in the bulleted list below.
1 Due to large cost variances and insufficient data, judgment had to be made concerning certain treatments apart
from the standard deviation criteria.
Page 10 of 45
General assumptions:
o If cost information included multiple years, i.e. 2002-2003, the earliest year was used for
the purposes of determining the inflation factor.
o All costs are updated to 2012 dollars.
o Costs are assumed to include engineering, design, mobilization, and furnish and
installation costs.
Specific assumptions for estimating purposes (where linear length of sidewalk, bikeway, bike
lane, etc. are used):
o All bike lanes are five feet in width.
o Wide curb lanes are four feet in width.
o Separated bikeways are eight feet in width.
o Multi-use paths, whether paved or unpaved are eight feet in width.
o All sidewalks are five feet in width and have a thickness of four inches.
Sources
This database is based mostly on bid letting sheets and costs summaries from State Departments of
Transportation. As a result, the potential exists that the cost information is skewed toward state-funded
transportation projects rather than local jurisdictions. In order to offset this factor, information was
obtained through targeted searches, yielding data from research reports, pedestrian/bicycle guides, and
city and county websites. While some states have available and easily obtainable information, others do
not have any easily accessible information for specific treatments or do not provide this information
publicly. As such, some state information sources supplied a large amount of information to this
database, while for others, little or no data has been included. If no cost information was available for a
certain state, however, efforts were made to include information from a nearby state or a city within
that state. In total, 1,747 costs were obtained from 40 states to create this database. The states with the
most cost information include Ohio (161), California (146), Minnesota (115), Massachusetts (104), and
Wisconsin (101). The states for which no information was included in the database are Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and
West Virginia. For a complete listing of cost frequency by state, see Appendix D.
It is useful to note that while these infrastructure costs constitute, in most cases, the most up-to-date
information available, these are cost estimates. The capricious nature of estimating infrastructure costs
means that these data only provide a general idea of what any treatment may cost for a specific
location.
Infrastructure Cost Tables
The following tables summarize information from the larger database of infrastructure costs. The
average cost, median cost, and the absolute low and high cost ranges are provided to create both a
price estimate and price range for each infrastructure element. The median and average infrastructure
treatment costs are both presented since the “average” cost value may be misleading (i.e. it may be
influenced heavily by one or two outliers). The tables only include cost information with a minimum of
four sources.
Page 11 of 45
The paragraphs under each subheading provide information regarding what is included in the table and
any caveats associated with using this cost information, while the tables provide the finalized cost
estimates and ranges. For some treatments, there was not enough information to create a table. In
these cases, cost information is provided in the paragraphs. In terms of units, some treatments were
presented in different units, such as “each” and “per square feet”. If there were four or more treatment
costs per unit, the treatment is presented in the following table by both units to provide more detail.
Additionally, a column indicating the number of sources, defined as the number of
agencies/organizations, and observations, which represent the actual number of costs included from all
sources, is included in the tables. In some cases, the authors have provided examples, usually as a “per
intersection” or “per unit” basis, of how this cost information can be used by practitioners to create a
complete cost estimate for a treatment in the paragraphs as well.
Generally, infrastructure cost information in this document will include engineering, design,
mobilization, and furnish and installation costs. However, these costs are likely to vary based on site
conditions, choice of contractor, and other factors. In some cases, such as for bikeways, site preparation
costs have been presented in this document in a separate section in order for database users to get a
better sense of what types of actions are necessary to prepare a site and what actions may be necessary
to retrofit a site.
A brief description of each treatment and external issues that can dramatically alter facility costs is given
before each listed cost. For more specific information about each of the following treatments, please
consult the Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Guide (PEDSAFE) (2004) or
the Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (BIKESAFE) (2006), which were
developed for FHWA by HSRC. Most of the definitions provided below for pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure improvements were based on information from PEDSAFE and/or BIKESAFE.
Page 12 of 45
Bicycle Facilities
From various types of bicycle parking to bicycle lanes and
separated paths, this category encompasses most bicycle
infrastructure costs identified in this project.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle Parking includes bicycle racks (see Figure 1), bicycle
lockers (see Figure 2), and bicycle stations. Bicycle racks are
fixed objects, usually constructed out of metal, to which
bicycles can be securely locked, while bicycle lockers are used
to securely store a single bicycle. Depending on bike parking
design and materials, cost may vary widely. For example, a
bicycle rack may be as simple as an inverted U rack designed for two bikes, but may also include more
elaborate designs, such as wave design or ornamental
bike racks that hold multiple bikes. Bike Stations are
buildings or structures designed to provide secure
bicycle parking and often incorporate other amenities
such as showers or bike maintenance services. Due to
insufficient data, cost ranges were obtained for the
following bicycle parking facilities: bicycle stations
(approximately $250,000) and bus racks (approximately
$730). Removing a bicycle rack costs approximately
$1,000. The costs below are presented in terms of the
cost per unit.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle
Locker $2,140 $2,090 $1,280 $2,680 Each 4 (5)
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle
Rack $540 $660 $64 $3,610 Each 19 (21)
Table 1: Costs for Bicycle Parking
Bikeway
The Bikeway category contains bicycle lanes,
bicycle paths, and signed bicycle routes. The
cost of separated multi-use paths designed for
bicyclists and pedestrians can be found in the
“Path” section below on page 25. For the
purposes of standardizing the units, bicycle
lanes are assumed to be five feet in width and
bicycle paths 8 feet, with costs given in miles.
Additionally bicycle boulevards, streets
designed to give priority to bicyclists as
through-going traffic, typically range from approximately $200,000 to $650,000 each. Bikeways, or bike
paths, are separated facilities designed specifically for bicycles (see Figure 3), while bicycle lanes are
designated travel lanes for bicyclists. Separated bikeway projects typically cost between $536,664 and
$4,293,320 per mile, depending on site conditions, path width, and materials used. Indicated by bike
route signs, signed bike routes are used to direct bicyclists to safer facilities and/or are located on lightly
Figure 2: Bicycle Locker
Figure 1: Bike Parking
Figure 3: Bikeway (Concrete Bicycle Path)
Page 13 of 45
trafficked roads. These types of large-scale bicycle treatments will vary greatly due to differences in
project specifications and the scale and length of the treatment.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Bikeway Bicycle Lane $89,470 $133,170 $5,360 $536,680 Mile 6 (6)
Bikeway
Signed Bicycle
Route $27,240 $25,070 $5,360 $64,330 Mile 3 (6)
Bikeway
Signed Bicycle
Route with
Improvements $241,230 $239,440 $42,890 $536,070 Mile 1 (6)
Table 2: Costs for Bikeway
Bikeway Preparation
The costs for bikeways shown above are assumed to include all costs including bikeway preparation, if
applicable. However, costs were also identified for specific actions related to preparing a site for a
separated bikeway, including excavation, grading, curb/gutter removal, and clearing and grubbing
(removing vegetation and roots). Though cost information was limited, the following individual costs
were obtained (all costs are approximate): excavation ($55 per foot); grading ($2,000 per acre);
curb/gutter removal ($5 per linear foot); and clearing and grubbing ($2,000 to $15,500 per acre,
depending on the width of the road and whether it is done on one or both sides of the road).
Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic calming measures are engineering tools used with the goal of reducing vehicle speed and
improving the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Common traffic calming measures include
chicanes, chokers, curb extensions (neckdowns/bulb-outs), median islands, and raised crossings among
others. In this section, cost information will be provided per unit, though certain traffic calming
measures may also be given in linear or square feet. Any users of the database will, in cases when a
treatment is provided in linear of square feet, need to calculate a cost based on the project
specifications.
Chicanes
Chicanes are concrete islands that offset traffic, and
create a horizontal diversion of traffic used to reduce
the speed of vehicular traffic on local streets.
Landscaped chicanes have the added benefit of adding
more green landscaping to a street. Figure 3 illustrates
how chicanes can be combined with a median island to
ensure motorists do not disregard roadway markings.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Chicanes Chicane $8,050 $9,960 $2,140 $25,730 Each 8 (9)
Table 3: Cost for Chicanes
Figure 4 - Chicane
Page 14 of 45
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions (see Figure 5),
alternatively called chokers or
bulb-outs, extend the sidewalk
or curb line out into the parking
lane, which reduces the
effective street width and
creates a pinch point along the
street. They can be created by
bringing both curbs in, or by
more dramatically widening
one side at a midblock location.
They can also be used at
intersections, creating a gateway effect. Costs can vary depending on drainage, the addition of street
furnishings/landscaping/special paving, and whether utilities must be relocated.
The cost to retrofit a four-leg intersection with curb extensions would be approximately $100,000 (8 X
$12,620), though costs will likely vary based on site conditions, drainage, and curb extension design.
Diverters
A diverter is an island built at a residential street intersection that prevents certain through and/or
turning movements. They can be placed across both lanes of traffic as a full diverter or across one lane
of traffic as a semi-diverter. There are four primary types of diverters: diagonal, star, forced turn, and
truncated diverters (see Figure 6). A diagonal diverter breaks up cut-through movements and forces
right or left turns in certain directions. A star diverter consists of a star-shaped island placed at the
intersection, which forces right turns from each approach. A forced turn diverter is an island that forces
drivers in one or more lanes of an intersection to turn in only direction. A truncated diagonal diverter,
also known as a semi-diverter, has one end open to allow additional turning movements (5). The costs
presented in the table below are limited to full diverters and truncated diagonal, or semi-, diverters. The
cost of installations will vary based on the amount of material needed and the drainage needs at the
site.
Figure 5: Diverters
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Curb Extension
Curb Extension/
Choker/ Bulb-Out $10,150 $13,000 $1,070 $41,170 Each 19 (28)
Table 4: Cost of Curb Extension
Figure 4: Curb Extension
Page 15 of 45
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Diverter Diverter $22,790 $26,040 $10,000 $51,460 Each 5 (6)
Diverter
Partial/Semi
Diverter $15,000 $15,060 $5,000 $35,000 Each 3 (4)
Table 5: Diverter Cost
Island
Crossing islands — also known as center islands,
refuge islands, pedestrian islands, or median slow
points — are raised islands placed in the center of
the street at intersections or midblock crossings to
help protect crossing pedestrians from motor
vehicles (see Figure 7). They allow pedestrians to
deal with only one direction of traffic at a time, and
enable pedestrians to stop partway across the street
and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before
crossing the second half of the street. Crossing
islands can be constructed at an angle to the right so
that crossing pedestrians are forced to the right to
view oncoming traffic as they are halfway through
the crossing.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Island Median Island $10,460 $13,520 $2,140 $41,170 Each 17 (19)
Island Median Island $9.80 $10 $2.28 $26
Square
Foot 6 (15)
Table 6: Island Cost
Median
Medians are raised islands that separate opposing
streams of traffic and limit turning movements (see
Figure 8). They are typically narrower than islands, are
placed in the center of a roadway, and are separated
from the travel lanes by a curb. Medians facilitate
pedestrian crossings, improve pedestrian visibility to
motorists, slow motor vehicle speeds, and provide
space for lighting and landscaping. The costs for
installing a median can vary based on the type of
median, the materials, and the scope of the project.
Medians will often require grading, excavation,
grubbing, and other site preparation activities. These
costs are included in the cost information above, but
may vary based on site conditions and the type of
median.
Figure 6: Crossing Island
Figure 8: Raised Median
Page 16 of 45
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum Cost Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Median Median $6.00 $7.26 $1.86 $44 Square Foot 9 (30)
Table 7: Median Cost
Raised Crossing
A raised intersection is essentially a speed table for
the entire intersection.2 Construction involves
providing ramps on each vehicle approach, which
elevates the entire intersection to the level of the
sidewalk. A raised pedestrian crossing is similar to a
raised intersection, but it is only the width of a
crosswalk, usually 10 to 15 ft. (see Figure 9). Raised
intersections and crosswalks encourage motorists
to yield to pedestrians because the raised
crosswalk increases pedestrian visibility and forces
motorists to slow down before going over the
speed table. Costs will vary based on the width of
the road, as well as drainage conditions and the
type of material used.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Raised Crossing
Raised
Crosswalk $7,110 $8,170 $1,290 $30,880 Each 14 (14)
Raised Crossing
Raised
Intersection $59,160 $50,540 $12,500 $114,150 Each 5 (5)
Table 8: Raised Crossing Cost
Roundabout/Traffic Circle
Traffic circles can include anything from small mini-circles to large roundabouts (see Figures 10 and 11).
Costs for these items were not specified in enough detail to differentiate design details of each cost
estimate. Roundabouts are circular intersections designed to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to
2 For a description of speed tables, see p. 17.
Figure 10: Mini-Circle
Figure 11: Roundabout
Figure 9: Raised Crossing
Page 17 of 45
exit to the right of the circle. Roundabouts are installed to reduce vehicular speeds, improve safety at
intersections through eliminating angle collisions, help traffic flow more efficiently, reduce operation
costs when converting from signalized intersections, and help create gateway treatments to signify the
entrance of a special district or area. Costs will vary widely, depending on the size, site conditions, and
whether right-of-way acquisitions are needed. Roundabouts usually have lower ongoing maintenance
costs than traffic signals, depending on whether the roundabout is landscaped.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Roundabout/
Traffic Circle
Roundabout/
Traffic Circle $27,190 $85,370 $5,000 $523,080 Each 11 (14)
Table 9: Roundabout/ Traffic Circle Cost
Speed Treatments
Speed humps are vertical traffic control measures that
tend to have the most predictable speed reduction
impacts. Speed humps are paved (usually asphalt) and
approximately 3 to 4 inches-high at their center, and
extend the full width of the street with height tapering
near the drain gutter to allow unimpeded bicycle
travel (see Figure 12). Speed bumps are typically
smaller with a more extreme grade, which forces
automobiles to more significantly reduce speeds but
can more significantly impede bicyclists.
A speed table is a term used to describe a very long
and broad speed hump, or a flat-topped speed hump,
where sometimes a pedestrian crossing is provided in
the flat portion of the speed table. The speed table can
either be parabolic, making it more like a speed hump, or trapezoidal. Speed tables can be used in
combination with curb extensions where parking exists. Costs can vary depending on the drainage needs
of each site, the width of the road, and the specific design used.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Speed Bump/Hump
/Cushion/Table Speed Hump $2,130 $2,640 $690 $6,860 Each 14 (14)
Speed Bump/Hump
/Cushion/Table Speed Bump $1,670 $1,550 $540 $2,300 Each 4 (4)
Speed Bump/Hump
/Cushion/Table Speed Table $2,090 $2,400 $2,000 $4,180 Each 5 (5)
Table 10: Speed Hump/ Cushion/ Table Cost
Speed treatments are usually installed as sets, typically in groups of three. For instance, assume that a
two mile residential road has speeding issues and citizens petition to install speed humps. After
examining the feasibility of the installation, the city decides to install three speed humps to ameliorate
the issue, at a cost of $7,500 ($2,500 X 3).
Figure 12: Speed Hump
Page 18 of 45
Pedestrian Accommodations
Pedestrian accommodation treatment costs are presented in this section. In this case, pedestrian
accommodation refers to infrastructure provided to enhance the pedestrian environment that may
include improving pedestrian safety, mobility and/or access. In many cases, treatment costs in this
section will be presented as lump sums, though in some instances, the cost information may be
provided in linear feet or square feet.
Bollard
Traffic bollards are posts embedded in the ground, which
are used to keep pedestrians safer, by slowing vehicle
speeds and separating pedestrian from motor vehicle
traffic, and/or limiting vehicle access either temporarily
or permanently (see Figure 13). There are multiple types
of bollards available for use (fixed, rising, security,
removable, breakaway, decorative, flexible, etc.). The
cost below combines these various types into one set of
costs, and thus the costs will vary depending on the
specific bollard type and material used.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum Cost Unit Number of Sources
Bollard Bollard $650 $730 $62 $4,130 Each 28 (42)
Table 11: Bollard Cost
Curb Ramp
Curb ramps provide access between the sidewalk and
roadway for people using wheelchairs, strollers, walkers,
crutches, handcarts, bicycles, or who have mobility
impairments that make it difficult to step up and down
the curbs (see Figure 14). While curb ramps are needed
for use on all types of streets, priority locations are
streets in downtown areas and near transit stops,
schools, parks, medical facilities, shopping areas, and
residences with people who use wheelchairs. Truncated
domes/ detectable warning surfaces provide a distinctive
surface pattern that is detectable underfoot as a warning
to those who are visually impaired of an approaching
street and are required at all intersections with sidewalks
in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990.
As many cities include truncated domes/detectable warnings as part of their curb ramp installations,
combining the cost per square foot for detectable warnings and the wheelchair ramps in accordance
with local design standards and multiplying by eight will provide a per intersection cost for providing
ADA-compliant curb ramps.
Figure 13: Bollards
Figure 14: Curb Ramp
Page 19 of 45
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Curb Ramp
Truncated Dome/
Detectable Warning $37 $42 $6.18 $260
Square
Foot 9 (15)
Curb Ramp Wheelchair Ramp $740 $810 $89 $3,600 Each 16 (31)
Curb Ramp Wheelchair Ramp $12 $12 $3.37 $76
Square
Foot 10 (43)
Table 12: Curb Ramp Cost
Fence/Gate
Fencing and gating can help separate pedestrians and cyclists from
roadways and railroad tracks, and can also be used in the
construction of pedestrian/bicyclist paths, bridges, and overpasses
(see Figure 15). The cost of pedestrian fencing and gates will vary
depending on the location, type, design, material, height, etc. used.
For instance, fencing may include chain link, ornamental or other
fence types. The median and average costs provided below provide
a range of estimates of what fencing is likely to cost.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Fence/Gate Fence $120 $130 $17 $370
Linear
Foot 7 (7)
Fence/Gate Gate $510 $910 $330 $1,710 Each 5 (5)
Table 13: Fence/ Gate Cost
Gateway
A gateway is a physical or geometric landmark
that indicates a change in environment from a
higher speed arterial or collector road to a
lower speed residential, mixed-use, or
commercial district (see Figure 16). They often
place a higher emphasis on aesthetics and are
frequently used to identify neighborhood and
commercial areas within a larger urban setting.
Sign costs below reflect a variety of materials,
including plastic ($500), metal (approximately
$200), and wood (approximately $530).
The cost of gateway structures can range
greatly depending on the specific type of items
chosen. The costs below combine a variety of gateway structure treatments, such as: monument signs
(approximately $19,000), street spanning arches supported by metal posts within bulb-outs
(approximately $64,000), and gateway columns ($10,000).
Figure 15: Fencing
Figure 16: Gateway Treatment
Page 20 of 45
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum Cost Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Gateway
Gateway
Sign $350 $340 $130 $520 Each 3 (4)
Gateway Structure $15,350 $22,750 $5,000 $64,330 Each 5 (6)
Table 14: Gateway Cost
Lighting
Adequate roadway lighting enhances the safety of all roadway
users, while pedestrian-scale lighting improves nighttime security
and enhances commercial districts (see Figure 17). These costs can
vary depending on the fixture type and service agreement with
local utility, as well as if other improvements are made to the
streetscape at the same time. Also, though not included below,
average approximate underpass lighting costs can range from $350
to $3,400 each, and crosswalk lighting can range from
approximately $10,750 to $42,000 per crosswalk.
The cost range for in-pavement lights is very broad, based on
manufacturer differences, roadway widths, and project-specific
factors. Usually, in-pavement lights are installed as a system, which
is the reason the total cost of installing lights at a location is
included here, as opposed to an individual light cost.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Lighting
In-pavement
Lighting $18,250 $17,620 $6,480 $40,000 Total 4 (4)
Lighting Streetlight $3,600 $4,880 $310 $13,900 Each 12 (17)
Table 15: Lighting Cost
Overpass/Underpass
Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses
completely separate pedestrians from vehicular
traffic and provide safe pedestrian
accommodation over often impassable barriers,
such as highways, railways, and natural barriers
such as rivers (see Figures 18 and 19). Over-
and Underpasses are generally very expensive,
though some cost savings can be realized
depending on the materials used. Cost
information is typically provided as a lump sum
cost, but can also be presented as a cost per
square foot.
Underpasses (not included in the table below) Figure 18: Pedestrian Overpass
Figure 17: Lighting
Page 21 of 45
range from slightly less than $1,609,000 to
$10,733,000 in total or around $120 per square
foot. Overpasses (also not included below) have
a range from $150 to $250 per square foot or
$1,073,000 to $5,366,000 per complete
installation, depending on site conditions.
The cost for specific types of bridges can vary
substantially, based on the specific situation,
materials, and other factors, as demonstrated in
the table above for wooden and pre-fab steel
bridges.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Overpass/Underpass
Wooden
Bridge $122,610 $124,670 $91,010 $165,710 Each 1 (8)
Overpass/Underpass
Pre-Fab Steel
Bridge $191,400 $206,290 $41,850 $653,840 Each 5 (5)
Table 16: Overpass/ Underpass Cost
Railing
Pedestrian railings provide an important safety benefit on walkways, and are required for ADA
compliance on ramps with steep inclines and along stairways.3 They also buffer the pedestrian path
from vehicular traffic. Pedestrian railing materials range from aluminum and steel to wood and chain
link fence. All of these costs are aggregated in the table below.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Railing Pedestrian Rail $95 $100 $7.20 $690
Linear
Foot 29 (83)
Table 17: Railing Cost
Street Furniture
Street furniture often serves as a buffer between the sidewalk and the roadway, providing an important
safety benefit to pedestrians. Including trees, benches, bus shelters, newspaper racks, kiosks, and other
pedestrian amenities, street furniture also serves to create a more pleasant and attractive environment
for pedestrians.
The cost of street furniture will vary depending on the design, style, and manufacturer for benches, bus
shelters, and other street furniture, while trees will also vary in cost based on the type and size of tree
(see Figure 20). The costs that follow and provided in the table below assume to include installation,
which can vary based on the number of items installed at one time.
3 Handrails are required for ADA accessibility on both sides of paths with rise greater than 6 inches or a horizontal
projection greater than 72 inches, as well as all stairways.
Figure 19: Pedestrian Underpass
Page 22 of 45
More substantial structures tend to be more expensive, with
gazebos averaging at nearly $53,000, with a range of $36,600 to
$71,600; information kiosks averaging at slightly less than
$16,000; and shade shelters averaging at $30,000, with a range
of $29,290 to $41,850.
Historical markers average at $3,498 with a range of $1,230 to
$4,700, while newspaper racks typically cost slightly less than
$6,500. Picnic tables cost around $1,683 on average with a
range of $530 to $4,180 based on materials and manufacturer.
Lastly, tree grates cost an average of $1,340 or between $1,400
and $3,500 (not including the tree), while shrubs cost between
$55 and $80. Street furniture removal costs are also available.
Bench removal costs around $910 with a range of costs from
$80 to $3,140, while bus shelter removal averages at $3,690
with a range of as low as $720 to $10,460. Costs for removing
trash cans ($320 average, $130 to $520 range) and tree grates
($250 average, $52 to $890 range) are also available.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Street Furniture Street Trees $460 $430 $54 $940 Each 7(7)
Street Furniture Bench $1,660 $1,550 $220 $5,750 Each 15 (17)
Street Furniture Bus Shelter $11,490 $11,560 $5,230 $41,850 Each 4 (4)
Street Furniture
Trash/ Recycling
Receptacle $1,330 $1,420 $310 $3,220 Each 12 (13)
Table 18: Street Furniture Cost
Street Closures
Full and partial (half) street closures are the ultimate way of discouraging automobile through traffic,
while still allowing pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Typically, full street closures close the street entirely to
vehicles, while partial street closures
restrict turning movements onto streets,
without having to create one-way streets.
Depending on the street closure strategy,
which could use bollards, islands, or other
measures, the costs are likely to vary
substantially. Full street closures can cost
from less than $500 to $120,000, while
partial street closures usually cost around
$37,500, but can cost as low as $10,290 or
as high as $41,170.
The wide ranges in price for full and
partial street closures are related to the
strategies used to complete the street
closure. For instance, a full street closure
can be accomplished by only adding a few
Figure 20: Bench
Figure 21: Full Street Closure
Page 23 of 45
bollards, but under a different strategy might involve altering roadway design by installing new concrete
islands, restriping, and adding channelizer cones and signage. Depending on the site conditions, either
strategy might be appropriate. More information about exact street closure costs can be found in the
full database.
Pedestrian Crossings and Paths
This section provides information
about the cost of facilities for
pedestrians and includes
information about sidewalks,
crosswalks, and paths. Treatment
information for sidewalks is
presented in miles or square feet,
while crosswalks are included as a
cost per unit. Path costs are
presented in either miles or linear
feet. For some infrastructure
treatments, such as paths, cost
information was presented using a
variety of different units. Assuming
that a standard multi-use path is
eight feet wide, the authors converted cost information for paths to linear feet and miles.
Crosswalks
Striped crosswalks indicate a legal and preferred crossing for pedestrians, and may be installed at
intersections or midblock locations. Motorists often fail to yield to pedestrians at these crossing points
so marked crosswalks (see Figure 8) are often installed to warn motorists to expect pedestrians
crossings ahead and also to indicate a preferred crossing location to pedestrians. A wide variety of
crosswalk marking patterns exist, including parallel lines (standard crosswalk marking) and high visibility
types, which include ladder, transverse lines, and zebra among others (see Figure 9). Cost information
for striped crosswalks of all varieties as well as for high visibility crosswalks is given in the table below.
However, some of the bid prices for striped crosswalks may include some high visibility crosswalks,
though it was not specified.
Figure 22: Crosswalk
Figure 23: Optional Crosswalk Marking Patterns
Page 24 of 45
For other crosswalk types, costs tend to vary by a large amount. For instance, for crosswalks using other
materials such as brick or pavement scoring, costs range from $7.25 to $15 per square foot, or
approximately $2,500 to $5,000 each. Ladder crosswalks cost range from $350 to $1,000 each and
patterned concrete crosswalks cost $3,470 each or $9.68 per square foot on average.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Crosswalk
High Visibility
Crosswalk $3,070 $2,540 $600 $5,710 Each 4(4)
Crosswalk Striped Crosswalk $340 $770 $110 $2,090 Each 8 (8)
Crosswalk Striped Crosswalk $5.87 $8.51 $1.03 $26
Linear
Foot 12 (48)
Crosswalk Striped Crosswalk $6.32 $7.38 $1.06 $31
Square
Foot 5 (15)
Table 19: Crosswalk Cost
Since street widths vary a large amount depending on the situation, it is difficult to estimate the cost to
provide crosswalks at every intersection. However, if a high visibility crosswalk costs approximately
$3,000 per crossing, the cost for the entire intersection would be $12,000 ($3,000 X 4).
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are the most basic pedestrian facility and
provide an area within the public right-of-way for
pedestrian travel (see Figure 24). Sidewalk materials
can vary substantially, including concrete, asphalt,
brick, or other materials. In some cases, sidewalk costs
are presented as a combination of both sidewalks and
curbs, though it is important to note that the costs
presented in the table below represent the cost of the
sidewalk “in the ground” and may or may not include
curb and gutter. All sidewalk costs are presented
either by linear foot or by square foot with all unit
conversion assuming that sidewalks are five feet in
width. Sidewalk costs without sufficient details to
include in the table are included in the following
paragraphs.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum Cost Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Sidewalk
Asphalt Paved
Shoulder $5.81 $5.56 $2.96 $7.65
Square
Foot 1 (4)
Sidewalk Asphalt Sidewalk $16 $35 $6.02 $150
Linear
Foot 7 (11)
Sidewalk Brick Sidewalk $60 $60 $12 $160
Linear
Foot 9 (9)
Sidewalk
Concrete Paved
Shoulder $6.10 $6.64 $2.79 $58
Square
Foot 1 (11)
Figure 24: Sidewalk
Page 25 of 45
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum Cost Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Sidewalk Concrete Sidewalk $27 $32 $2.09 $410
Linear
Foot 46 (164)
Sidewalk
Concrete Sidewalk -
Patterned $38 $36 $11 $170
Linear
Foot 4 (5)
Sidewalk
Concrete Sidewalk -
Stamped $45 $45 $4.66 $160
Linear
Foot 12 (17)
Sidewalk
Concrete Sidewalk +
Curb $170 $150 $23 $230
Linear
Foot 4 (7)
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Unspecified $34 $45 $14 $150
Linear
Foot 17 (24)
Sidewalk Sidewalk Pavers $70 $80 $54 $200
Linear
Foot 3 (4)
Table 20: Sidewalk Cost
Paths
Multi-use paths are the safest facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, providing mobility options away
from the roadway. Often accommodating both pedestrians and bikes, multi-use paths are usually at
least eight feet in width, can be both paved and unpaved, and are used for both recreation and
transportation purposes. Costs will vary substantially for multi-use paths, based on the materials used,
right-of-way costs, and other factors.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Path Boardwalk $1,957,040 $2,219,470 $789,390 $4,288,520 Mile 5 (5)
Path Multi-Use Trail - Paved $261,000 $481,140 $64,710 $4,288,520 Mile 11 (42)
Path Multi-Use Trail - Unpaved $83,870 $121,390 $29,520 $412,720 Mile 3 (7)
Table 21: Path Cost
Mid-Block Crossings
Mid-block crossings can be necessary on major roads with few intersections or in areas with
documented pedestrian crash problems. Often installed in conjunction with other safety and traffic
calming features, particularly advance yield lines, in-pavement yield/stop signs, raised pedestrian
crossings, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons or High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) signals,
mid-block crossings can make substantial improvements in pedestrian safety, while also having traffic
calming effects. Mid-block crossings are striped crosswalks away from intersections and are very helpful
in the vicinity of transit stops or in other areas where pedestrians are likely to cross the road often.
Mid-block crossings are typically much more expensive than standard crosswalk treatments, with costs
ranging from approximately $2,700 to more than $71,000 if bulb-outs, trees, landscaping, crosswalks,
etc. are included. It is a good idea to consider the context of the situation in order to apply a tailored
solution, usually a combination of infrastructure treatments, to ensure that pedestrians are
accommodated in the safest possible way.
Signals
Signals for both pedestrians and bicyclists are included in this section. Pedestrian and bicycle detectors
and speed trailers are included in this section as well. New signal types have become more prevalent in
Page 26 of 45
the last ten years, including the Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon and the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon,
formerly known as a High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) signal. These are included here. Efforts
will be made to include any new signals as they become more prevalent.
Flashing Beacon
Flashing beacons are typically used in conjunction
with pedestrian crossings to provide an enhanced
warning for vehicles to yield to pedestrians.
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) differ
from regular flashing beacons in that RRFBs have a
rapid strobe-like warning flash, are brighter, and can
be specifically aimed (see Figure 25). As a relatively
new treatment, RRFBs have not been implemented
extensively throughout this country, but are now
becoming more prevalent in certain states and cities.
The cost to furnish and install a flashing beacon can
vary widely, depending on site conditions and the
type of device used. The costs shown in the table
include the complete system installation with labor
and materials.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Flashing Beacon Flashing Beacon $5,170 $10,010 $360 $59,100 Each 16 (25)
Flashing Beacon RRFB $14,160 $22,250 $4,520 $52,310 Each 3 (4)
Table 22: Flashing Beacon Cost
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
The Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, otherwise known as the
High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) signal, is a
special type of beacon to warn and control vehicles to
allow pedestrians to safely cross a road or highway at a
marked midblock crossing location (see Figure 26).
Developed by the City of Tucson, Arizona in the 1990s,
the pedestrian hybrid beacon is comprised of three
signal sections, overhead pedestrian crosswalk signs,
pedestrian detectors, and countdown pedestrian signal
heads. According to a FHWA study, pedestrian hybrid
beacons have a large impact on vehicle yielding rates
(6). As with RRFBs, pedestrian hybrid beacons are
typically more expensive to implement and maintain
than some devices, but less expensive than full traffic signals.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon $51,460 $57,680 $21,440 $128,660 Each 9 (9)
Table 23: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Cost
Figure 25: Rapid Flash Beacon
Figure 26: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Page 27 of 45
Pedestrian and Bicycle Detection
Pedestrian and bicycle detection devices are used to determine if a pedestrian or bicyclist is waiting for
the signal. There are many different ways that these devices detect pedestrians and bicyclists. For
instance, bicycle detectors ($1,920 on average, $1,070 to $2,680 range) are usually loop detectors
embedded in the pavement, while pedestrian detectors use video and other strategies to detect the
presence of pedestrians waiting to cross.
Actuated pedestrian detectors provide dynamic recognition of pedestrians and signal to motorists to
stop once a pedestrian approaches a crosswalk. The cost to retrofit a signal with a pushbutton at an
existing pedestrian signal averages around $350. The cost to remove a pushbutton installation is slightly
more than $45 on average, with a range of $21 to $92.
Infrastructure Description
Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Pedestrian/Bike
Detection
Furnish and Install
Pedestrian Detector $180 $390 $68 $1,330 Each 7 (14)
Pedestrian/Bike
Detection Push Button $230 $350 $61 $2,510 Each 22 (34)
Table 24: Pedestrian/ Bike Detection Cost
Signals for Drivers and Pedestrians
Signals serve the important function of guiding
and regulating traffic and help reduce conflicts
between different road users. Many of the
costs in the table below are representative of
various components of a signal and are not
representative of the complete cost of a signal.
Some information about signals is not included
in the table, namely bicycle signals, which have
an average cost of $12,800. In the table,
“Signal Face” refers to the cost of a signal’s
front display visible to pedestrians, while
“Signal Head” refers to the entire unit. The
adjacent image displays a pedestrian
countdown timer signal (see Figure 27).
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Signal
Audible Pedestrian
Signal $810 $800 $550 $990 Each 4 (4)
Signal
Countdown Timer
Module $600 $740 $190 $1,930 Each 14 (18)
Signal Pedestrian Signal $980 $1,480 $130 $10,000 Each 22 (33)
Signal Signal Face $490 $430 $130 $800 Each 3 (6)
Signal Signal Head $570 $550 $100 $1,450 Each 12 (26)
Signal Signal Pedestal $640 $800 $490 $1,160 Each 3 (5)
Table 25: Signal Cost
Figure 277: Pedestrian Signal
Page 28 of 45
Speed Trailer
Speeding in neighborhoods can create
dangerous situations for pedestrians, particularly
children. Speed trailers, which display the
motorist speed and provide a warning if the
speed limit is exceeded, as well as signs and
reader boards can help education and
awareness efforts and can be especially effective
when coupled with enforcement efforts.
Speed trailers are sign boards that display the
speed or passing vehicles and typically range in
cost from $7,000 to $12,410 with an average
cost of $9,510 (see Figure 28). Speed reader
boards are similar to speed trailers, but are
typically permanently installed.
Signs
Signs can provide important information that can improve road safety.
By letting people know what to expect, there is a greater chance that
they will react and behave appropriately. Regulatory signs, such as
STOP (see Figure 29), YIELD, or turn restriction signs such as NO TURN
ON RED require compliant driver actions and can be enforced. Sign
use and movement should be done judiciously, as overuse may breed
noncompliance and disrespect.
Signs not included in the table but pertinent to pedestrian and
bicyclists include (all costs are approximated and per unit): bike route
signage ($160), “no turn on red” signage ($220 for a metal sign or
$3,200 for an electronic sign), in-pavement yield paddles ($240), trail
regulation sign ($160), and trail wayfinding/information sign (range
from $530 to $2,150).
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Sign Stop/Yield Signs $220 $300 $210 $560 Each 4 (4)
Table 27: Sign Cost
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Speed Trailer Speed Trailer $9,480 $9,510 $7,000 $12,410 Each 6 (6)
Table 26: Speed Trailer Cost
Figure 29: Stop Sign
Figure 28: Speed Trailer
Page 29 of 45
Striping
Striping costs, in this case, include bicycle and pedestrian
symbols, textured pavement, yield/stop lines, and painted
island/curb/sidewalks. For symbols, cost information is provided
per unit, while striping and painted surfaces are given as linear
and square feet, respectively.
Pavement Marking
Pavement markings cover a variety of pedestrian and bicycle
treatment costs. Advance stop/yield lines (see Figure 30) improve
the visibility of pedestrians to motorists and prevent multiple-
threat crashes.4 They also encourage drivers to stop back far
enough so a pedestrian can see if a second motor vehicle is not
stopping and be able to take evasive action.
The advance stop or yield line should be supplemented
with "Stop Here For Pedestrians" signs to alert drivers
where to stop to let a pedestrian cross. The price will
range depending on the material used and the type of
line selected. Having island markings and painted
curbs/sidewalks can alert pedestrians, bicyclists, and
drivers of the presence of these items, and also help
restrict parking. Painting a “bicycle box” (see Figure 31)
will cost approximately $11.50 per square foot.
“Striping” combines a number of related costs, such
as: contraflow lanes, broken/solid white or yellow
stripe, bicycle lanes, and bikeway centerlines. It also
combines the wide assortment of widths and materials
used for striping.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Pavement
Marking Advance Stop/Yield Line $380 $320 $77 $570 Each 3 (5)
Pavement
Marking Advance Stop/Yield Line $10 $10 $4.46 $100
Square
Foot 1 (4)
Pavement
Marking Island Marking $1.49 $1.94 $0.41 $11
Square
Foot 1 (4)
Pavement
Marking Painted Curb/Sidewalk $1.21 $3.40 $0.44 $12
Square
Foot 4 (5)
Pavement
Marking Painted Curb/Sidewalk $2.57 $3.06 $1.05 $10
Linear
Foot 2 (5)
Table 28: Pavement Marking Cost
4 A multiple-threat crash involves a driver stopping in one lane of a multilane road to permit pedestrians to cross,
blocking the view of oncoming vehicles travelling in the same direction and causing a collision between the
motorist and pedestrian.
Figure 30: Advance Stop/Yield Lines
Figure 31: Bicycle Box
Page 30 of 45
Pavement Marking Symbols
Pavement marking symbol costs have been separated by
the type of symbol. “Pedestrian Crossing” symbols notify
pedestrians and/or motorists of places where pedestrians
cross the street. “Shared Lane/Bicycle” symbols identify
bicycle lanes and/or shared-lanes (see Figure 32). School
crossing symbols highlight areas where motorists should be
aware of children and increased pedestrian activity.
Costs will vary due to the type of paint used and the size of
the symbol, as well as whether the symbol is added at the
same time as other road treatments.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum
Cost
Unit
Number of Sources
(Observations)
Pavement
Marking Symbol Pedestrian Crossing $310 $360 $240 $1,240 Each 4 (6)
Pavement
Marking Symbol
Shared Lane/Bicycle
Marking $160 $180 $22 $600 Each 15 (39)
Pavement
Marking Symbol School Crossing $520 $470 $100 $1,150 Each 4 (18)
Table 29: Pavement Marking Symbol Cost
Curb and Gutter
Curb and Gutters are used in conjunction with a number of other bicycle and pedestrian facility
improvements, such as: sidewalks, bikeways, medians, islands, paths, curb extensions, bikeways,
diverters, chicanes, and bulb-outs, among others. The cost can vary widely based on the scale of the
project and whether the curb and/or gutter installation is in conjunction with other road treatments.
Infrastructure Description Median Average Minimum Maximum Cost Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Curb/Gutter Curb $18 $21 $1.05 $110 Linear Foot 16 (68)
Curb/Gutter Curb and Gutter $20 $21 $1.05 $120 Linear Foot 16 (108)
Curb/Gutter Gutter $23 $23 $10 $78 Linear Foot 4 (4)
Table 30: Curb/ Gutter Cost
Figure 32: Shared Lane Marking
Page 31 of 45
Summary of Results
These tables and associated database provide up-to-date information on pedestrian and bicycle
treatments. It is important to remember that the tables above are estimates of pedestrian and bicycle-
related infrastructure costs and that infrastructure costs will likely differ substantially between
communities and between states. Additionally, these costs may not always accurately reflect the current
market price of materials, labor, mobilization, and other costs included in all situations. More detailed
infrastructure cost information can be found in the larger database, located at bit.ly/pedbikecosts.
This database of costs is presented here for use by city planners, engineers, and other city officials. The
ultimate goal of the database is to encourage bicycling and walking and to make bicycling and walking
safer through the provision of relevant infrastructure. HSRC researchers hope that this cost database is
used to simplify the process for implementing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and will help
decision-makers understand the costs involved in sustaining and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle
transportation. By making more informed decisions about the costs of pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure treatments, decision-makers will be able to dedicate funds to those treatments secure in
the knowledge that a) these investments are often affordable and b) which treatment is the most cost-
effective.
Additionally, this database will be available to both city transportation officials as well the general
public, allowing anyone with an interest in non-motorized transportation the chance to research cost
information.
Page 32 of 45
References
1. Bid Express Secure Internet Bidding. (2012). Bid Tabulation Sheets [Data File]. Retrieved from
https://www.bidx.com/. Accessed June 15, 2012.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers [Data File].
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. Accessed July 20, 2012.
3. Clifton, Kelly; Morrissey, Sara; Ritter, Chloe. (2012). Business Cycles: Catering to the Bicycling
Market. TR News 280, pp. 26-32.
4. Dill, Jennifer. (2009). Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure. Journal
of Public Health Policy 30, pp. S95-S110.
5. Federal Highway Administration. (2011). 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Retrieved from
http://nhts.ornl.gov. Accessed May 7, 2013.
6. Federal Highway Administration. (2006). BIKESAFE: Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasures
Selection System. (FHWA-SA-05-006). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7. Federal Highway Administration. (2004). PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasures Selection System. (FHWA-SA-04-003). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
8. Federal Highway Administration. (2010). Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing
Treatment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9. Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Traffic Management: Diverters. Retrieved from
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney/library/countermeasures/36.htm. Accessed August 10,
2012.
10. Flusche, Darren. (2012). Bicycling Means Business: The Economic Benefits of Bicycle
Infrastructure. League of American Bicyclists; Alliance for Biking & Walking.
11. Lindsey, Greg; Man, Joyce; Payton, Seth; Dickson, Kelly. (2004). “Property Values, Recreation
Values, and Urban Greenways.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration V22(3), pp.69-90.
12. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). Traffic Safety Facts 2010 Data: Bicyclists
and Other Cyclists. (DOT-HS-811-624). Washington D.C.: NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics
and Analysis.
13. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). Traffic Safety Facts 2010 Data:
Pedestrians. (DOT-HS-811-625). Washington D.C.: NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and
Analysis.
14. New York City Department of Transportation. (2011). 2011 Sustainable Streets Index. Retrieved
from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/ssi.shtml. Accessed May 12, 2013.
15. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2010). National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15
Year Status Report. Washington D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
16. Sandt, Laura; Pullen-Seufert, Nancy; Lajeunesse, Seth; Gelinne, Dan. (2012). “Leveraging the
Health Benefits of Active Transportation: Creating an Actionable Agenda for Transportation
Professionals.” TR News 280, pp. 18-25.
17. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2009). 2009 National
Household Travel Survey. Retrieved from http://nhts.ornl.gov. Accessed May 15, 2013.
Page 33 of 45
Figure References
Figure 1: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 2: Nate Baird / www.flickr.com
Figure 3: Reed Huegerich / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 4: “Chicanes,” sfbetterstreets / www.sfbetterstreets.org
Figure 5: Thisisbossi / www.flickr.com
Figure 6: Federal Highway Administration /
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney/library/countermeasures/36.htm
Figure 7: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 8: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 9: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 10: Designing for Pedestrian Safety / www.walkinginfo.org
Figure 11: Heather Bowden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 12: Austin Brown / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 13: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 14: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 15: Jennifer Wampler / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 16: LA Wad / www.flickr.com
Figure 17: Ron Bloomquist / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 18: Laura Sandt / www.pedbikeimages.com
Figure 19: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.com
Figure 20: BazzaDaRambler / www.flickr.com
Figure 21: City of Los Altos / www.ci.los-altos.ca.us/
Figure 22: CompleteStreets / www.flickr.com
Figure 23: FHWA-HRT-04-100. 2005.
Figure 24: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 25: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Page 34 of 45
Figure 26: Mike Cynecki / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 27: James Wagner / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 28: Town of Warrenton, VA / http://www.warrentonva.gov/
Figure 29: Mike Cynecki / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 30: Dan Burden / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 31: Laura Sandt / www.pedbikeimages.org
Figure 32: Lyubov Zuyeva / www.pedbikeimages.org
Page 35 of 45
Appendix A – Database
The final database, including more detailed information about the data source, is located at the
following URL: http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/Costs-for-Pedestrian-Bicycle-Infrastructure-
Improvements.xlsx. In addition, more information, such as materials, classes, and types of treatments, is
also included in the final database.
Page 36 of 45
Appendix B – Glossary of Terms
Bicycle Boulevard
A bicycle boulevard is a low-speed street that has been designed to give priority to bicyclists as through-
going traffic. They discourage non-local vehicular traffic and provide right-of-way and traffic control to
bicyclists. A variety of traffic calming elements can be used to create these streets, such as diverters,
curb extensions, and partial or full road closures.
Bicycle Lane
Bicycle lanes are designated travel lanes for bicyclists, separated from vehicular traffic by striping. For
this database, the width is assumed to be five feet.
Bicycle Locker
A bicycle locker is a box or locker used to store a single bicycle. They are typically used in areas where
parking is needed for an extended period of time yet where otherwise the bicycles could be damaged or
stolen.
Bicycle Parking Stations
Bicycle parking stations are buildings or structures designed to provide secure bicycle parking, with
sheltered bike racks secured by having on-site staff or a gate/door controlled by key or electronic card
access. Facility designs range from a simple cage or shed to multi-level structures. Some also include
other facilities, such as bicycle repair workstation, showers, and/or lockers.
Bicycle Racks
Bicycle racks are devices to which bicycles can be securely attached in order to prevent theft. General
styles include: the Inverted U, Serpentine, Bollard, Grid and Decorative.
Bicycle Stairway Channel
A bicycle stairway channel is a pedestrian stairway with an included channel, which helps facilitate
walking a bicycle up or down the stairs.
Bikeway Preparation
Bikeway preparation is what is required to prepare a site for a separated bicycle route, including
excavation, grading, curb/gutter removal, and clearing and grubbing.
Bollard
Traffic bollards are used to keep pedestrians safe, slow and separate traffic, and limit vehicle access
either temporarily or permanently.
Bus Racks
Bus racks are typically attached to the front of a bus to facilitate the transportation of bicycles for bus
riders.
Chicanes
Chicanes are concrete islands that offset traffic, and create a horizontal diversion of traffic used to
reduce the speed of vehicular traffic on local streets. Landscaped chicanes have the added benefit of
adding more green landscaping to a street.
Page 37 of 45
Chokers
Chokers are curb extensions that narrow a street by widening the sidewalks or planting strips, effectively
creating a pinch point along the street. They can be created by bringing both curbs in, or by more
dramatically widening one side at a midblock location.
Crossing Islands
Also known as center islands, refuge islands, pedestrian islands, or median slow points, crossing islands
are raised islands placed in the center of the street at intersections or midblock crossings to help protect
crossing pedestrians from motor vehicles.
Crosswalk
Striped crosswalks indicate a legal crossing for pedestrians, while natural unmarked crosswalks occur at
the intersection of any two streets. Motorists often fail to yield to pedestrians at these crossing points
and marked crosswalks are often installed to warn motorists to expect pedestrians and to indicate safe
and comfortable crossing locations for pedestrians.
Curb and Gutter
Curb and Gutters are used in conjunction with a number of other bicycle and pedestrian facility
improvements, such as: sidewalks, bikeways, medians, islands, paths, curb extensions, bikeways,
diverters, chicanes, and bulb-outs, among others.
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions extend the sidewalk or curb line out into the parking lane, which reduces the effective
street width. They are often also known as chokers or bulb-outs.
Curb Ramp
Curb ramps provide access between the sidewalk and roadway for people using wheelchairs, strollers,
walkers, crutches, handcarts, bicycles, or who have mobility impairments that make it difficult to step up
and down high curbs.
Diverter
A diverter is an island built at a residential street intersection that prevents certain through and/or
turning movements. There are four primary types of diverters, namely diagonal, star, forced turn, and
truncated diverters. A diagonal diverter breaks up cut-through movements and forces right or left turns
in certain directions. A star diverter consists of a star-shaped island placed at the intersection, which
forces right turns from each approach. A truncated diagonal diverter is a diverter with one end open to
allow additional turning movements.
Fence/Gate
Fencing and gating can help separate pedestrians and cyclists from roadways and railroad tracks, and
can also be used in the construction of pedestrian/bicyclist paths, bridges, and overpasses.
Flashing Beacons
Flashing beacons are typically used in conjunction with pedestrian crossings to provide an enhanced
warning for vehicles to yield to pedestrians. Rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) differ from regular
flashing beacons in that RRFBs have a rapid strobe-like warning flash, are brighter, and can be
specifically aimed.
Page 38 of 45
Gateway
A gateway is a physical or geometric landmark that indicates a change in environment from a higher
speed arterial or collector road to a lower speed residential or commercial district. They often place a
higher emphasis on aesthetics and are frequently used to identify neighborhood and commercial areas
within a larger urban setting.
Lighting
Adequate roadway lighting enhances the safety of all roadway users, while pedestrian-scale lighting
improves nighttime security and enhances commercial districts.
Median
Medians are defined as raised islands placed in the center of a roadway in order to separates opposing
streams of traffic and limit turning movements. Medians facilitate pedestrian crossings, improve
pedestrian visibility to motorists, slow motor vehicle speeds, and provide space for lighting and
landscaping.
Mid-Block Crossing
Often installed in conjunction with other safety and traffic calming features, particularly advance yield
lines, in-pavement yield/stop signs, raised pedestrian crossings, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons or
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, mid-block crossings can affect substantial improvements in pedestrian
safety, while also having traffic calming effects. Mid-block crossings are striped crosswalks away from
intersections and are very helpful in the vicinity of transit stops or in other areas where pedestrians are
likely to cross the road often.
Overpass/Underpass
Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses completely separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic and
provide safe pedestrian accommodation over often impassable barriers, such as highways, railways, and
natural barriers such as rivers.
Path
Multi-use paths are the safest pedestrian facilities and provide pedestrian mobility options away from
the roadway. Often accommodating both pedestrians and bikes, multi-use paths are usually at least
eight feet in width, can be both paved and unpaved, and are used for both recreation and
transportation purposes.
Pavement Marking
Pavement markings cover a variety of pedestrian and bicycle treatment costs, including advance
stop/yield lines, island markings, painted curbs/sidewalks, and symbols.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
The Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, otherwise known as the High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK)
signal, is a special type of beacon to warn and control vehicles to allow pedestrians to safely cross a road
or highway at a marked midblock crossing location. Developed by the City of Tucson, Arizona in the
1990s, the pedestrian hybrid beacon is comprised of three signal sections, overhead pedestrian
crosswalk signs, pedestrian detectors, and countdown pedestrian signal heads.
Page 39 of 45
Railing
Pedestrian railings provide an important safety benefit on walkways with steep inclines or on stairs and
also buffer the pedestrian path from vehicular traffic.
Raised Crosswalk
Raised crosswalks are similar to a raised intersection, with ramps on each side elevating the road to the
level of the sidewalk, though only the width of a crosswalk, usually 10 – 15 ft.
Raised Intersection
Raised intersections are essentially speed tables for the entire intersection, with ramps on each vehicle
approach, which elevate the entire intersection to the level of the sidewalk.
Roundabout
Roundabouts are circular intersections designed to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to exit to the
right of the circle. They are usually installed to reduce vehicular speeds, improve safety at intersections
through eliminating angle collisions, help traffic flow more efficiently, reduce operation costs when
converting from signalized intersections, and help create gateway treatments to signify the entrance of
a special district or area.
Separated Bikeway
Separated bikeways are paths completely separated from vehicular traffic and used exclusively by
pedestrians and bicyclists, with crossflow minimized. For this database, the path width is assumed to be
eight feet.
Sidewalk
Sidewalks are the most basic pedestrian facility and provide a safe area within the public right-of-way
for pedestrian travel.
Signed Bicycle Routes
Signed bicycle routes are roads where bicyclists and motor vehicles are not separated. Shared-use of the
street is indicated with signing.
Signals for Drivers and Pedestrians
Signals serve the important function of guiding and regulating traffic and help reduce conflicts between
different road users.
Signs
Signs can provide important information that can improve road safety. By letting people know what to
expect, there is a greater chance that they will react and behave appropriately. Regulatory signs, such as
STOP, YIELD, or turn restriction signs such as NO TURN ON RED require compliant driver actions and can
be enforced.
Speed Bumps
Speed bumps are typically smaller than speed humps with a more extreme grade, which forces
automobiles to more significantly reduce speeds.
Page 40 of 45
Speed Humps
Speed humps are paved (usually asphalt) and are approximately 3 to 4 in. high at their center. They are
used to slow traffic in neighborhoods and extend the full width of the street with height tapering near
the drain gutter to allow unimpeded bicycle travel.
Speed Table
Speed tables are very long and broad speed humps, or flat-topped speed humps, where sometimes a
pedestrian crossing is provided in the flat portion of the speed table. The primary use of speed tables is
to calm traffic in neighborhoods.
Speed Trailer
Speed trailers, which display the motorist speed and provide a warning if the speed limit is exceeded, as
well as signs and reader boards can help education and awareness efforts and can be especially effective
when coupled with enforcement efforts.
Street Closure
Full and partial (half) street closures are the ultimate way of discouraging automobile through traffic,
while still allowing pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Typically, full street closures close the street entirely to
vehicles, while partial street closures restrict turning movements onto streets, without having to create
one-way streets.
Street Furniture
Street furniture often serves as a buffer between the sidewalk and the roadway, providing an important
safety benefit to pedestrians. Including trees, benches, bus shelters, newspaper racks, kiosks, and other
pedestrian amenities, street furniture also serves to create a more pleasant and attractive environment
for pedestrians.
Page 41 of 45
Appendix C – Cost Information by State
Table 21: Cost Information Frequency by State
State
Number of
Treatments
AL 30
AK 6
AZ 1
AR 21
CA 146
CO 80
CT 1
DE 0
DC 0
FL 75
GA 44
HI 0
ID 5
IL 4
IN 24
IA 63
KS 38
KY 41
LA 21
ME 11
MD 1
MA 104
MI 29
MN 115
MS 0
MO 16
MT 15
NE 86
NV 0
NH 1
NJ 26
NM 57
NY 24
NC 68
ND 9
OH 161
Page 42 of 45
State
Number of
Treatments
OK 33
OR 78
PA 0
RI 21
SC 49
SD 0
TN 0
TX 24
UT 0
VT 60
VA 32
WA 13
WV 0
WI 101
WY 2
National 5
Unknown 6
Total 1747
Page 43 of 45
Appendix D - Complete Table of Infrastructure Costs
The tables presented in this paper are summarized in the table below.
Infrastructure Description Median Average
Minimum
Low
Maximum
High Cost Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Bicycle Parking Bicycle Locker $2,140 $2,090 $1,280 $2,680 Each 4 (5)
Bicycle Parking Bicycle Rack $540 $660 $64 $3,610 Each 19 (21)
Bikeway Bicycle Lane $89,470 $133,170 $5,360 $536,680 Mile 6 (6)
Bikeway Concrete Bicycle
Path $182,870 $179,340 $91,420 $343,700 Mile 2 (6)
Bikeway Signed Bicycle
Route $27,240 $25,070 $5,360 $64,330 Mile 3 (6)
Bikeway
Signed Bicycle
Route with
Improvements
$241,230 $239,440 $42,890 $536,070 Mile 1 (6)
Bollard Bollard $650 $730 $62 $4,130 Each 28 (42)
Chicanes Chicane $8,050 $9,960 $2,140 $25,730 Each 8 (9)
Crosswalk High Visibility
Crosswalk $3,070 $2,540 $600 $5,710 Each 4(4)
Crosswalk Striped Crosswalk $340 $770 $110 $2,090 Each 8 (8)
Crosswalk Striped Crosswalk $5.87 $8.51 $1.03 $26 Linear Foot 12 (48)
Crosswalk Striped Crosswalk $6.32 $7.38 $1.06 $31 Square Foot 5 (15)
Curb/Gutter Curb $18 $21 $1.05 $110 Linear Foot 16 (68)
Curb/Gutter Curb and Gutter $20 $21 $1.05 $120 Linear Foot 16 (108)
Curb/Gutter Gutter $23 $23 $10 $78 Linear Foot 4 (4)
Curb Extension Curb Extension/
Choker/ Bulb-Out $10,150 $13,000 $1,070 $41,170 Each 19(28)
Curb Ramp
Truncated
Dome/Detectable
Warning
$37 $42 $6.18 $260 Square Foot 9 (15)
Curb Ramp Wheelchair Ramp $740 $810 $89 $3,600 Each 16 (31)
Curb Ramp Wheelchair Ramp $12 $12 $3.37 $76 Square Foot 10 (43)
Diverter Diverter $22,790 $26,040 $10,000 $51,460 Each 5 (6)
Diverter Partial/Semi
Diverter $15,000 $15,060 $5,000 $35,000 Each 3 (4)
Fence/Gate Fence $120 $130 $17 $370 Linear Foot 7 (7)
Fence/Gate Gate $510 $910 $330 $1,710 Each 5 (5)
Flashing Beacon Flashing Beacon $5,170 $10,010 $360 $59,100 Each 16 (25)
Flashing Beacon RRFB $14,160 $22,250 $4,520 $52,310 Each 3 (4)
Gateway Gateway Sign $350 $340 $130 $520 Each 3 (4)
Gateway Structure $15,350 $22,750 $5,000 $64,330 Each 5 (6)
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon $51,460 $57,680 $21,440 $128,660 Each 9 (9)
Island Median Island $10,460 $13,520 $2,140 $41,170 Each 17 (19)
Page 44 of 45
Infrastructure Description Median Average
Minimum
Low
Maximum
High Cost Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Island Median Island $9.80 $10 $2.28 $26 Square Foot 6 (15)
Lighting In-pavement
Lighting $18,250 $17,620 $6,480 $40,000 Total 4 (4)
Lighting Streetlight $3,600 $4,880 $310 $13,900 Each 12 (17)
Median Median $6.00 $7.26 $1.86 $44 Square Foot 9 (30)
Overpass/
Underpass Wooden Bridge $122,610 $124,670 $91,010 $165,710 Each 1 (8)
Overpass/
Underpass
Pre-Fab Steel
Bridge $191,400 $206,290 $41,850 $653,840 Each 5 (5)
Path Boardwalk $1,957,040 $2,219,470 $789,390 $4,288,520 Mile 5 (5)
Path Multi-Use Trail -
Paved $261,000 $481,140 $64,710 $4,288,520 Mile 11 (42)
Path Multi-Use Trail -
Unpaved $83,870 $121,390 $29,520 $412,720 Mile 3 (7)
Pavement
Marking
Advance
Stop/Yield Line $380 $320 $77 $570 Each 3 (5)
Pavement
Marking
Advance
Stop/Yield Line $10 $10 $4.46 $100 Square Foot 1 (4)
Pavement
Marking Island Marking $1.49 $1.94 $0.41 $11 Square Foot 1 (4)
Pavement
Marking
Painted
Curb/Sidewalk $1.21 $3.40 $0.44 $12 Square Foot 4 (5)
Pavement
Marking
Painted
Curb/Sidewalk $2.57 $3.06 $1.05 $10 Linear Foot 2 (5)
Pavement
Marking Symbol
Pedestrian
Crossing $310 $360 $240 $1,240 Each 4 (6)
Pavement
Marking Symbol
Shared
Lane/Bicycle
Marking
$160 $180 $22 $600 Each 15 (39)
Pavement
Marking Symbol School Crossing $520 $470 $100 $1,150 Each 4 (18)
Signal Audible
Pedestrian Signal $810 $800 $550 $990 Each 4 (4)
Signal Countdown
Timer Module $600 $740 $190 $1,930 Each 14 (18)
Signal Pedestrian Signal $980 $1,480 $130 $10,000 Each 22 (33)
Signal Signal Face $490 $430 $130 $800 Each 3 (6)
Signal Signal Head $570 $550 $100 $1,450 Each 12 (26)
Signal Signal Pedestal $640 $800 $490 $1,160 Each 3 (5)
Pedestrian/Bike
Detection
Furnish and
Install Pedestrian
Detector
$180 $390 $68 $1,330 Each 7 (14)
Pedestrian/Bike
Detection Push Button $230 $350 $61 $2,510 Each 22 (34)
Railing Pedestrian Rail $95 $100 $7.20 $690 Linear Foot 29 (83)
Raised Crossing Raised Crosswalk $7,110 $8,170 $1,290 $30,880 Each 14 (14)
Page 45 of 45
Infrastructure Description Median Average
Minimum
Low
Maximum
High Cost Unit
Number of
Sources
(Observations)
Raised Crossing Raised
Intersection $59,160 $50,540 $12,500 $114,150 Each 5 (5)
Roundabout/
Traffic Circle
Roundabout/
Traffic Circle $27,190 $85,370 $5,000 $523,080 Each 11 (14)
Sidewalk Asphalt Paved
Shoulder $5.81 $5.56 $2.96 $7.65 Square Foot 1 (4)
Sidewalk Asphalt Sidewalk $16 $35 $6.02 $150 Linear Foot 7 (11)
Sidewalk Brick Sidewalk $60 $60 $12 $160 Linear Foot 9 (9)
Sidewalk Concrete Paved
Shoulder $6.10 $6.64 $2.79 $58 Square Foot 1 (11)
Sidewalk Concrete
Sidewalk $27 $32 $2.09 $410 Linear Foot 46 (164)
Sidewalk
Concrete
Sidewalk -
Patterned
$38 $36 $11 $170 Linear Foot 4 (5)
Sidewalk
Concrete
Sidewalk -
Stamped
$45 $45 $4.66 $160 Linear Foot 12 (17)
Sidewalk Concrete
Sidewalk + Curb $170 $150 $23 $230 Linear Foot 4 (7)
Sidewalk Sidewalk $34 $45 $14 $150 Linear Foot 17 (24)
Sidewalk Sidewalk Pavers $70 $80 $54 $200 Linear Foot 3 (4)
Sign Stop/Yield Signs $220 $300 $210 $560 Each 4 (4)
Speed Trailer Speed Trailer $9,480 $9,510 $7,000 $12,410 Each 6 (6)
Speed
Bump/Hump
/Cushion/Table
Speed Hump $2,130 $2,640 $690 $6,860 Each 14 (14)
Speed
Bump/Hump
/Cushion/Table
Speed Bump $1,670 $1,550 $540 $2,300 Each 4 (4)
Speed
Bump/Hump
/Cushion/Table
Speed Table $2,090 $2,400 $2,000 $4,180 Each 5 (5)
Street Furniture Street Trees $460 $430 $54 $940 Each 7(7)
Street Furniture Bench $1,660 $1,550 $220 $5,750 Each 15 (17)
Street Furniture Bus Shelter $11,490 $11,560 $5,230 $41,850 Each 4 (4)
Street Furniture Trash/Recycling
Receptacle $1,330 $1,420 $310 $3,220 Each 12 (13)