Attachment A - Active Transportation Plan 2023.pdf

ACTIVE 
TRANSPORTATION 
PLAN
APRIL 2023

ATTACHMENT A

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ii
City Council
Mayor Kate Gallego
Councilmember Ann O’Brien, District 1
Councilmember Jim Waring, District 2
Councilmember Debra Stark, District 3
Councilmember Laura Pastor, District 4
Councilmember Betty Guardado, District 5
Councilmember Kevin Robinson, District 6
Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari, District 7
Councilmember Kesha Hodge Washington, 
District 8
Previous Council Members
Councilmember Sal DiCiccio, District 6
Councilmember Carlos Garcia, District 8
Active Transportation Advisory Committee
Jordan Feld, Deputy Aviation Director, Aviation 
Department
Sheldon Daisley, Former Airport Planner, Aviation 
Department
Samantha Keating, Deputy Director, Housing 
Department
Lynda Lee, Former Deputy Director, Neighborhood 
Services Department
Yvette Roeder, Deputy Director, Neighborhood 
Services Department
Gregory Gonzales, Economic Development Program 
Manager, Neighborhood Services Department
Mark Hartman, Chief Sustainability Officer, Office of 
Sustainability
Darice Ellis, Environmental Quality Specialist, Office 
of Sustainability
Aaron Jensen, Landscape Architect II, Parks and 
Recreation Department
Natasha Hughes, Planner I, Parks and Recreation 
Department
Joshua Bednarek, Director of Planning and 
Development Department
Joél Carrasco, Special Projects Administrator, 
Planning and Development Department
Racelle Escolar, Principal Planner, Planning and 
Development Department
Albert Crespo, Deputy Director, Public Transit 
Department
Markus Coleman, Light Rail Administrator, Public 
Transit Department
Briiana Velez, Assistant Director, Street Transportation 
Department
Mark Glock, Former Deputy Director, Street 
Transportation Department
Matthew Wilson, Former Deputy Director, Street 
Transportation Department
Rubben Lolly, Deputy Director, Street Transportation 
Department
Carl Langford, Traffic Operations Engineering 
Supervisor, Street Transportation Department
Bruce Littleton, Traffic Engineering Supervisor, Street 
Transportation Department
Leticia Vargas, Special Projects Administrator, Street 
Transportation Department
Mailén Pankiewicz, Pedestrian Safety Coordinator, 
Street Transportation Department
Additional staff acknowledgments
Kini Knudson, Director, Street Transportation 
Department
Mark Melnychenko, Former Deputy Director, Street 
Transportation Department
Marielle Brown, Active Transportation Principal 
Planner, Street Transportation Department
Brian Fellows, Principal Planner, Street Transportation 
Department
Maja Brkovic, Principal Planner, Street Transportation 
Department
Al Zubi, Traffic Engineer III, Street Transportation 
Department
Joseph Perez, Former Bicycle Coordinator, Street 
Transportation Department
Brandy Ruark, Civil Engineer II, Street Transportation 
Department
Maricopa Association of Governments
Kay Bork, Transportation Planning Project Manager 
Consultants 
Alta
Mike Rose
Brandon Gonzalez
Krista Flynt
Community Equity Partners
Sarah Gonzalez
Sharifa Rowe
Stephanie Luz Cordel
Special thanks to the Maricopa Association of Governments for providing funding 
for this project through the Active Transportation Design Assistance Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
01	
BACKGROUND 	 	
Background	
1
02	
BENEFITS OF ACTIVE 	 	
	
	
TRANSPORTATION
Benefits of walking & biking	
7
03	
COMMUNITY INPUT 
	
& PRINCIPLES
Input Themes	
13
Guiding principles	
15
04	
REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS
Review of Existing Plans	
17
05	
ACTION & ACCOUNTABILITY
Action & Accountability	
21
	
PLAN ELEMENTS
Community Active Transportation Network 
Program Element
Policy Recommendations Element
Bicycle & Pedestrian Design Guidance Element
	
APPENDIX A
Public Outreach Summary	
	
TABLE OF 
CONTENTS
Table Of Contents
iii

Equitable 
Safe
Connected
Enjoyable 
Guiding Principles 
The plan includes guiding principles that are based on what Phoenicians said were important during 
outreach.  These principles guided recommendations developed in the plan, and they will guide how 
Phoenix builds its active transportation network.
RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE:
streets with sidewalks, specifically 
detached sidewalks with shade
midblock crossings
bike infrastructure, specifically bike lanes 
that are protected or separated from 
vehicle travel lanes.
Neighborhood bicycle routes should 
be a higher priority than regional 
routes.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
The City should prioritize Comfortable 
and safe Bicycle facilities over lower-cost 
facilities.
Prevent injury-causing collisions.
Everyone should have a 
comfortable and safe option for 
using the street.
Public Input Major Takeaways
What is active 
transportation? 
When we walk, bike, and roll around Phoenix, we 
are using active transportation.  
By designing our streets to be inclusive of active 
travel, and improve safety and connectivity for 
active transportation infrastructure, Phoenix can 
give people choices on how they move around the 
community.   
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
iv
THE CITY OF PHOENIX 
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
Executive Summary

Analyze
Existing
Conditions
STEP 1
Identify
Destinations
and Gaps
STEP 2
Identify
Network
STEP 3
Prioritize
Projects
STEP 4
Implement 
Projects
STEP 5
Village 
Assessment 
Process
Community Active Transportation 
Network Program
Community feedback indicated that 
short, local connections within people’s 
neighborhoods were a high priority. 
The Community Active Transportation 
Network Program will work with 
community members to recommend 
biking and walking connections. The 
program will focus on bike lanes and 
street crossings to help people get 
to local destinations. The program 
will gather community input through 
community task forces, surveys, meetings, 
and attending community events. 
A cornerstone of the Network 
Development Program is neighborhood 
engagement.  Local connections to 
parks, schools, transit, community 
centers, and other neighborhood 
destinations will be identified and 
prioritized by neighborhood residents 
themselves.  This community-driven 
approach will allow the Network 
Development Program to account for 
diverse needs and priorities across the 
city of Phoenix, and will help lead to 
projects that can make an impact on 
residents’ daily lives. 
The Network Program will individually 
assess two of Phoenix’s 15 Urban 
Villages, every year. Priority projects will 
be implemented the following two years 
after the assessment is completed.  
What are the Plan’s Primary Recommendations? 
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Network 
Assessment
Village 1
Village 2
Village 3
Village 4
Village 5
Village 6
Village 7
Village 8
Village 9
Village 10
Village 11
Village 12
Village 13
Village 14
Village 15
Project 
Implementation
Villages 1
and 2
Villages 1
through 4
Villages 3
through 6
Villages 5
through 8
Villages 7
through 10
Villages 9
through 12
Villages 11
through 15
Villages 13
through 15
Implementation Schedule
The City Of Phoenix 
i

Policy Recommendations
The policy recommendations direct staff to update 
internal policies and programs to better support 
active transportation. Under each objective, there are 
specific recommendations to advance existing plans 
and to support the guiding principles of the plan. The 
recommendations are prioritized as short-term, medium-
term, and long-term to create a feasible work plan. The 
policy recommendations represent a continued shift 
towards a more multimodal future in Phoenix where 
active transportation plays an important role alongside 
other ways of travel. 
Objective 1: Advance Complete 
Streets Policy Implementation
Objective 2: Support the Goals of the 
Climate Action Plan
Objective 3: Support the Vision Zero 
Road Safety Action Plan
Objective 4: Share Opportunities 
for Integrating Active Transportation 
Policies and Guidance into the 
General Plan
Objective 5: Build Safe Active 
Transportation Networks
Objective 6: Build Connected Active 
Transportation Networks
Objective 7: Build Enjoyable Active 
Transportation Networks
Objective 8: Build Equitable Active 
Transportation Networks
Policy Objectives
Shared Use Paths
Design-37
A
B
SHARED USE PATHS
Typical Use
• In waterway corridors, such as along canals, 
drainage ditches, rivers, and creeks.
• In abandoned rail corridors (commonly 
referred to as Rails-to-Trails or Rail-Trails.)
• In active rail corridors, trails can be built 
adjacent to active railroads (referred to as 
Rails-with-Trails.)
• In utility corridors, such as power line and 
sewer corridors.
• Along roadways.
A shared use path provides a travel area separate from motorized traffic for bicyclists, pedestrians, 
skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other users. Shared use paths are desirable for bicyclists of all skill 
levels preferring separation from traffic. These facilities should generally provide travel opportunities not 
provided by existing roadways. 
Sidewalk Zones & Widths
Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an area for 
pedestrian travel separated from vehicle traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to 
increased numbers of people walking, improved accessibility, and the creation of social space.
Building Frontage Zone
Pedestrian Access 
Route (PAR)
Amenity Zone
Enhancement 
Zone
The pedestrian access 
route is the area intended 
for pedestrian travel. This 
zone should be entirely 
free of permanent and 
temporary objects 
while fully meeting 
the requirements for 
pedestrian accessibility.
Wide pedestrian zones 
are needed in areas or 
where pedestrian flows 
are high.
The building frontage zone 
allows pedestrians a comfortable 
“shy” distance from the building 
fronts, fencing, walls and 
vertical landscaping. It provides 
opportunities for window 
shopping, to place signs, planters, 
or chairs.
The amenity zone, also 
called the furnishing 
or landscaping zone, 
buffers pedestrians from 
the adjacent roadway, 
and is also the area 
where elements such as 
street trees, signal poles, 
signs, and other street 
furniture are properly 
located. 
The curbside 
lane can act as 
a flexible space 
to further buffer 
the sidewalk from 
moving traffic, and 
may be used for a 
bike facility. Curb 
extensions and bike 
corrals may occupy 
this space where 
appropriate.
Suburban Sidewalk
Design Features
SIDEWALKS
SIDEWALKS
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-12
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-20
Facility Selection: Comfort
In order to provide a bikeway network that meets the needs of the Phoenix’s “Interested but Concerned” 
residents (who comprise the majority of the population), bikeways must be low-stress and comfortable. 
By using a metric called Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), specific facility types can be matched to the needs of 
people who bicycle in Phoenix. Generally, “Interested but Concerned,” users will only bicycle on LTS 1 or 
LTS 2 facilities.
 
 
LTS 1 
 
LTS2
 
 
LTS3
 
LTS4
 
 
LTS LEVEL
DESCRIPTION
Presents the lowest level of  traffic stress; demands 
less attention from people riding bicycles, and 
attractive enough for a relaxing bicycle ride. Suitable 
for almost all people riding bicycles, including children 
trained to ride in the street and to safety cross 
intersections.
Presents little traffic stress and therefore suitable to 
most adults riding bicycles, but demandsmore 
attention than might be expected from children.
More traffic stress than LTS2, yet significantly less than 
the stress of integrating with multilane traffic.
A level of stress beyond LTS 3. Includes roadways that 
have no dedicated bicycle facilities and moderate to 
higher vehicle speeds and volumes OR high speed 
and high volume roadways WITH an exclusive riding 
zone (lane) where there is a significant speed 
differential with vehicles.
WHAT TYPE OF BICYCLISTS WILL RIDE ON 
THIS LTS FACILITY?
STRONG & 
FEARLESS
ENTHUSIASTIC & 
CONFIDENT
INTERESTED BUT 
CONCERNED
 
 
YES
YES
YES
YES
 
YES
YES
SOMETIMES
NO
 
YES
SOMETIMES
NO
NO
Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Enhanced Crossing Treatments
Design-47
A Toucan signal in Tucson, AZ. Motorists must turn right onto Stone Avenue, the major roadway (from either direction). 
Bicyclists can turn left, right, or go straight. Bicyclists turning left or going straight can push a button to activate a green 
bicycle signal indication. Photo credit: Steven Vance.
TOUCAN SIGNAL
“Toucan” signalized crossings of streets are a special signal configuration at minor street crossings 
of a major street, exclusively for people walking and biking, so that “two can” cross the major street 
concurrently. Vehicles on the minor street do not have a signal, and are instead forced to turn right at 
a stop sign. This does function as a half signal since vehicles are not allowed to turn left or proceed 
through. The placement of the Toucan can vary within a given intersection, depending on the overall 
roadway width, and whether one-way vs. two-way operations are contained fully within the median in the 
middle of the minor street.
Typical Use
• Appropriate at carefully designed intersection 
locations
• Across higher traffic streets where people 
walking and biking both require safe and 
comfortable crossings, such as along Bike 
Boulevards. 
 Design Features
• A toucan signal assembly may be created 
by pairing a bicycle and pedestrian signal 
heads. The bicycle signal must comply with 
requirement from FHWA Interim Approval 16. 
• The major street faces a standard traffic signal 
(red, amber, and green indications) for the 
major road. When located at an intersection, 
the minor cross street has Stop sign to control 
minor street motor vehicle traffic. 
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-32
Design Features
• Signs and pavement markings are the 
minimum treatments necessary to designate a 
street as a bike boulevard. 
• Implement volume control treatments based 
on the context of the bike boulevard, using 
engineering judgment. While motor vehicle 
volumes should not exceed 3,000 vehicles per 
day, ideal conditions are 1,500 vehicles per 
day or less.
• Intersection crossings should be designed 
to enhance comfort and minimize delay for 
bicyclists of diverse skills and abilities. 
BIKE BOULEVARD OVERVIEW
A Bike Boulevard is a low-speed, low-volume roadway that is designed to enhance comfort and 
convenience for people bicycling. It provides better conditions for bicycling while improving the 
neighborhood character and maintaining emergency vehicle access. Bike Boulevards are intended to 
serve as a low-stress bikeway network, providing direct, and convenient routes across Phoenix. Key 
elements of Bike Boulevards are unique signage and pavement markings, traffic calming and diversion 
features to maintain low vehicle volumes, and convenient major street crossings.  
Typical Use
• Parallel with and in close proximity to major 
thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less) on low-volume, 
low-speed streets.
• Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that is 
ideally long and relatively continuous (2-5 
miles).
• Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag or 
circuitous routing. The bikeway should have 
less than 10% out of direction travel compared 
to shortest path of primary corridor.
• Local streets with traffic volumes of fewer 
than 1,500 vehicles per day (for the majority 
of their length) and with average operating 
speeds below 25 mph. Utilize traffic calming 
to maintain or establish low volumes and 
discourage vehicle cut through / speeding.
Treatments depicted may vary per roadway segment or location. 
BIKE BOULEVARDS
Bicycle Toolbox
Design-21
Facility Selection: Bikeways 
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (1,000 veh/day or 100 veh/peak hr)
BIKE BOULEVARD
BIKE LANE WITH PARKING LANE
BUFFERED BIKE LANE
SEPARATED BIKE LANE
SHARED-USE TRAIL
FACILITY TYPE
PHOENIX BICYCLE FACILITY 
CONTEXTUAL GUIDANCE
20
30
40
50
25
35
45
15
10
5
10
6
2
15+
25+
4
8
0
20+
30+
Speed
Volume
Speed
Volume
Speed
Volume
Speed
Volume
Speed
Volume
LEGEND 
Desired
LTS 1
Acceptable
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 2
LTS 1*
LTS 2
Speed
Volume
POSTED TRAVEL SPEED (mph)
BIKE LANE WITHOUT PARKING LANE
On-road basic bike lane (without 
buffers or barriers).  
Speed
Volume
LTS 2
LTS 1
* Depending on turns across path and their treatment. If in the 45 mph range, more treatment is needed to be LTS 1. 
LTS ratings based on Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis Methods 
Comfortable local street environment 
without utilizing physical separation; 
typically employs techniques to ensure 
speeds are slow enough for safe 
shared street. 
Basic bike lane separated by painted 
buffer to separate bike lane from 
vehicle travel lanes and/or parking 
lanes.
Physically separated bikeway. Could 
be one or two way and protected by a 
variety of techniques.
Completely separated from roadway, 
typically shared with pedestrians 
On-road basic bike lane (without 
buffers or barriers).  
LTS 2
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 1
As a starting point to identify a preferred facility, the chart below can be used to determine the 
recommended type of bikeway to be provided in particular roadway speed and volume situations. To use 
this chart, identify the appropriate daily traffic volume on the existing or proposed roadway, and locate 
the facility types indicated by those key variables. Other factors beyond volume which affect facility 
selection include traffic mix of including heavy vehicles, the presence of on-street parking, intersection 
density, surrounding land use, and roadway sight distance. These factors are not included in the facility 
selection chart below, but should always be considered in the facility selection and design process.
This chart can be used to identify a preferred bicycle facility, or facilities, that would provide an LTS 1 or 2 experience at a selected location. For street segments, desired and acceptable 
vehicular volumes for each facility are shown. These are the motor vehicle volume ranges that are appropriate for that facility. The correspondence between motor vehicle speed on the 
street and the LTS score for each facility are also shown. The speed entries determine the LTS scores for the facility. A facility should only be chosen when both the street volumes and LTS 
scores are appropriate. Since ranges overlap, it is important to allow more than one facility type to meet the desired LTS. Other factors should be considered when selecting a treatment, 
such as proximity to schools, parks, or trailheads. 
Phoenix’s new design guidance for active transportation is based on 
best practices and focuses on safety and comfort of people walking 
and biking. The guidance provides an overview of how we should be 
designing our active transportation facilities and includes important 
design considerations that will raise the standard for bike and 
pedestrian design in Phoenix.  The new design guidance is an exciting 
step forward for the City and will be an important guide as each new 
facility is design and built. 
In particular, the Bikeway Facility Selection Matrix is an important 
milestone for bikeway design in Phoenix. Contextual factors, such as 
posted speeds and volumes, will help determine levels of bikeway 
separation for enhanced user comfort and safety.  
Design Guidance
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ii

Project 
Project 
1
1
2
Discovery
Discovery
Stakeholder 
mapping
Current 
Practice 
Mapping
2a
2b
3
Internal 
Strategizing
Internal
Strategizing
3
4
Outreach 
Prep
Outreach
Outreach
Outreach
4a
4b
5
Recommended 
Strategies
Recommended 
Strategies
5
6
Public Review
Public 
Review
6
7
Final Plan 
& Closeout
Final Plan 
& Closeout
7
What was the process for creating the Plan?  
Planning Process
Accountability
The two-year process to create this plan involved 
a thorough assessment of internal barriers to 
implementing active transportation, numerous 
meetings with the Active Transportation Advisory 
Team (ATAT), and community engagement through 
interviews with community leaders, surveys, tabling 
events, advocacy group interviews, and a virtual 
public meeting introducing the draft plan.  A final 
community survey on the draft plan helped identify 
final revisions.   
The City will continue tracking and reporting on 
bicycle infrastructure progress, including on-street 
and canal path facilities.  Additionally, after each 
urban village priority projects are selected, they 
will be included as an addendum to the plan for 
implementation accountability.  Finally, the City will 
apply for Bicycle Friendly Community Status each 
two years to benchmark progress towards Platinum 
status.
The City Of Phoenix 
iii
City of Phoenix Streets Department
Active Transportation Program
Email: bike@phoenix.gov

01
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
iv
BACKGROUND

1
2
3
BACKGROUND
Purpose & Need
The City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan (ATP) 
establishes a framework to guide decision-making—
through policies, programs, and infrastructure—to 
make walking, biking, and rolling* more safe and 
enjoyable in Phoenix. This plan is a policy-level plan 
that highlights collaborative opportunities to advance 
active transportation through partnerships with other city 
initiatives, and also provides a neighborhood-centered 
approach to building active transportation priorities at 
the neighborhood scale. 
This plan’s recommendations are organized into 
three main assessment areas of 1) Policy Framework, 
2) Network Development guidance, and 3) Design 
Guidance. An overview of all three of these areas is 
contained within this document, which is guided by an 
overarching set of principles—to create an active 
transportation network in Phoenix that is 
safe, connected, enjoyable, and equitable. 
Each year, the City installs new bikeways, crossings, 
and pedestrian infrastructure in coordination with capital 
projects and the ongoing resurfacing program. This 
plan aims to accelerate active transportation progress 
by prioritizing neighborhood-scale and neighborhood-
identified improvements and provides design guidance 
to create the next generation of bicycle and pedestrian 
infrastructure in Phoenix. 
While the city aims to continue improving city-wide 
networks, a major focus of this plan is helping to create 
linkages and connections to everyday destinations within 
neighborhoods and urban villages with facilities that 
are designed to be safe and enjoyable for everyone. 
Many of these local destinations - including grocery 
stores, restaurants, schools, and parks - are set up 
for travel through walking and biking as short trips 
within neighborhoods. This plan focuses on helping 
Three Plan Assessment Areas:
POLICY FRAMEWORK: 
Review policies and internal 
practices that influence 
active transportation 
design. 
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT: 
Develop a network framework 
that is not map-based. 
DESIGN GUIDANCE: 
Create updated design 
guidance for how to design 
bicycle and pedestrian 
facilities. 
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
residents access and connect to these important local 
destinations.
Safe and connected active transportation networks 
should meet the needs of all Phoenicians. This plan 
provides an assessment framework that helps to 
prioritize highest need areas and the neighborhood-
* Rolling refers to those using wheelchairs, scooters, and 
other mobility devices, whether powered or unpowered.
Background
ATP-1

specific approach speaks to Phoenix’s large 
geographic demographic diversity, allowing residents 
to identify projects and needs that are most impactful to 
their neighborhoods. 
Advancing Existing Plans
Phoenix is the 5th largest city and the fastest growing 
large city in the United States at this time. Many 
previous and existing planning efforts have contributed 
to and guided this growth to support Phoenix 
transitioning into a world class city. These plans, and 
this active transportation plan, build upon and support 
the cultural shift of designing roadways to be inclusive 
and safe for a variety of ways of travel and directly 
impact the lives, experiences, and quality of life of 
Phoenix’s residents. This ATP is an opportunity to build 
upon other planning efforts, like those highlighted 
below, to make biking and walking key components of 
the City’s transportation network as it continues to grow 
and evolve in the future. 
Existing Plans Supported by This Plan
Existing plans and policies across Phoenix that this plan supports are: Road Safety Action Plan: Moving to 
Vision Zero (2022); City of Phoenix Complete Streets Policy; City of Phoenix Climate Action Plan (2021); the 
Maricopa Association of Governments Active Transportation Plan (2020); and the City of Phoenix Transit 
Oriented Development (TOD) Strategic Policy Framework (2018).
The City of Phoenix Complete 
Streets Policy provides 
support and direction around 
designing Phoenix’s streets to 
accommodate many different 
forms of travel, and to prioritize 
safe and comfortable facilities 
for people walking and biking. 
The Phoenix Road Safety 
Action Plan: Moving to Vision 
Zero (2022) adopted by City 
Council in September 2022 
with the goal of reducing traffic 
fatalities and serious injuries 
to zero in Phoenix by 2050. 
The City of Phoenix Transit 
Oriented Development (TOD) 
Strategic Policy Framework 
(2018) prioritizes higher 
density land use around high 
capacity transit and provides 
opportunities for active 
transportation connections. 
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-2

Advancing Active 
Transportation 
While the City of Phoenix first began planning for bikes 
when the Council adopted a proposed bike system in 
1987, bikeway implementation and momentum for safe 
and comfortable facilities only recently began with the 
adoption of the City’s first bicycle master plan in 2014. 
Since then, the City has made significant progress in 
expanding the bicycle network. To date, the City has 
implemented 183 miles of buffered bike lanes, 8 miles 
of protected bike lanes, and 974 miles of traditional 
bike lanes. In recent years, as national best practices 
have evolved, the City has begun planning and 
implementing bicycle facilities that are considered more 
comfortable for all ages and abilities. This includes 
bike boulevards, which are low stress routes along 
neighborhood streets, as well as protected bike lanes, 
which are on-street bicycle facilities that are physically 
separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical 
element or barrier, such as a curb, flexible delineators, 
or vehicle parking aisle. 
2017 
The City installed its first protected bike lane along 15th Avenue 
between Van Buren and Jefferson streets.
The Evolution of Protected Bikeways in Phoenix:
2019 
The City installed its first parking-protected bike lanes along 39th 
Avenue from Encanto Boulevard to Edgemont Avenue and Earll Drive 
from Sixth to Third Avenues.
2021 
The City installed its first two-way protected bike lane along 3rd 
Avenue between Roosevelt Street and McDowell Road.
2022 
The City installed protected bike lanes on Fillmore Street from 
Central Avenue to 7th Street, and 3rd Street from Roosevelt Street to 
Indian School Road. 
Background
ATP-3

Another exciting milestone is the current design of a bike 
boulevard that includes significant traffic calming and 
traffic diverters along Fillmore Street from 7th to 16th 
Streets. This corridor will reflect current best practices 
in bike boulevard design and has been envisioned for 
over a decade. 
Phoenix has made significant progress and the work 
by various departments, advocates, and community 
input have helped make each of these projects a reality 
for our community. The next 10 years will bring more 
opportunities to create safe and enjoyable roadways 
that provide space for different forms of travel.
Streets for All 
The way we think about and design our streets in 
Phoenix and across the country is changing. We have 
made large strides as a community, and have invested 
significant resources, in building a transportation 
network that provides choices for how to travel, 
including not just driving, but walking, rolling, biking, 
transit, and other emerging types of mobility options. 
The extension of our light rail system, continued 
advancement of Bus Rapid Transit and the building of 
canal trails are all testaments to this commitment. 
Walking, biking, and rolling are critical pieces of this 
network. These modes are not just about providing 
a variety of options, but are about including and 
accommodating people of all ages and abilities (see 
the Design Guidance Element for more information 
on designing for different users). They provide safe 
connections for children to walk or bike to school 
and connect people to work, transit, and places they 
want or need to go. In many cases, walking, biking, 
and rolling are also primary ways of moving around 
Phoenix. Many residents use walking and biking to 
access transit and other modes of transportation, 
and an increasing number of people are reducing 
household vehicle ownership for a variety of different 
reasons. 
Building our active transportation network serves these 
purposes, among many others, and helps to guide how 
and where safe critical infrastructure investments can 
and should be made within our community. 
Active Transportation accounts for a variety of different 
ways of travel, including walking, rolling, biking, and 
many emerging types of mobility options.  But it’s not 
just about being inclusive of multiple types of travel 
modes, it’s about ensuring the accommodation of 
people with different abilities, including people with 
a disability and children. This means creating facilities 
that are comfortable for people of all abilities and 
confidence levels.
* Rolling refers to those using wheelchairs, scooters, and 
other mobility devices, whether powered or unpowered.
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-4

3rd Avenue Protected Bike Lanes with the use of a buffer strip and vertical posts to separate bicyclists from traffic. 
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Background
ATP-5

02
BENEFITS OF ACTIVE 
TRANSPORTATION
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-6

BENEFITS OF 
WALKING & 
BIKING
Economic Benefits 
Active transportation can benefit the bottom line of 
households, businesses, and cities. The economic 
benefits of walking and biking include lower 
transportation costs for individuals and families, savings 
to cities from less wear and tear on streets, greater 
neighborhood and community vibrancy, boosts in retail 
sales, and more young job seekers being attracted and 
retained.1 
Vehicle ownership and maintenance are expensive. 
On average, households in Phoenix spend 
$10,900 a year ($908 per month)on vehicle 
ownership costs2. These costs are especially 
burdensome for lower-earning households. National 
research from 2019 shows that lower-earning American 
households proportionately spend roughly twice 
as much of their income as the average-earning 
household on transportation. In 2016, the lowest 
earning 20 percent of the population spent almost 
30 percent of their income on transportation costs3. 
Having more transportation choices, including biking, 
walking, and transit, presents important opportunities 
for individuals and families to be more financially stable 
and self-reliant. 
Research suggests that active transportation also has 
the potential to contribute to the general economic 
vitality of the community, and in more specific ways as 
shown in the graphics at right.
DRIVING 4 MILES/DAY COSTS
/ year
IN FUEL AND VEHICLE WEAR AND TEAR
AAA, 2019
$905
WALKING AND BICYCLING COSTS
$0-350
while...
Your driving Costs: How Much are you really Paying to 
Drive? (2019). https://exchange.aaa.com/wp-content/
uploads/2019/09/AAA-Your-Driving-Costs-2019.pdf
/ year
$
Increased EMPLOYMENT AND 
SALES for businesses facing 
STREETS WITH IMPROVED 
WALKING & BIKING 
INFRASTRUCTURE4, 5 
Proximity to BICYCLE 
INFRASTRUCTURE 
is associated with 
INCREASING 
RESIDENTIAL 
PROPERTY VALUES6
1.     Railyards Blog. https://railyards.com/blog/7-benefits-of-bike-friendly-communities   
2.   The Housing and Transportation (H+T®) Affordability Index. https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/
3.   ITDP (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy). The High Cost of Transportation in the 
United States. 2019. https://www.itdp.org/2019/05/23/high-cost-transportation-united-states/
4.   Garrett-Peltier, H. (2011). Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: A National Study of Employment 
Impacts. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Political Economy Research Institute. 
5.   Liu, J. H., & Shi, W. (2020). Understanding Economic and Business Impacts of Street Improvements for Bicycle and Mobility– A 
Multicity Multiapproach Exploration (NITC-RR-1031). National Institute for Transportation and Communities, Portland State University.
6.   Liu, J. H., & Shi, W. (2017). Impact of Bike Facilities on Residential Property Prices. Transportation Research 
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2662, pp 50–58. https://doi.org/10.3141/2662-06
Benefits Of Active Transportation
ATP-7

Safety Benefits
Dedicated infrastructure for walking and biking, 
combined with measures to reduce vehicle speeds, 
helps prevent crashes and saves lives. Many bicycle 
and pedestrian-involved crashes are preventable. 
While education and other efforts are important, 
the design of safe infrastructure that is designed for 
slower vehicle speeds and separation between 
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians is the most 
effective way to reduce crashes and crash severity. 
Speed management is important in preventing both 
crash instances and crash severity. Research shows 
that driver behavior, especially speed, is largely 
driven by roadway design, more so than posted 
speed limits or enforcement, and that streets designed 
for slower speeds result in fewer crashes.6 
Bicycling infrastructure 
(specifically separated and 
protected bike lanes) significantly 
reduce fatalities and improve road-
safety outcomes for all road users, 
not just cyclists.7
6.  Ewing, Reid and Dumbaugh, Eric. 2009. The Built Environment and Traffic 
Safety. Journal of Planning Literature. Volume 23 Number 4.
7.  Marshall, W. and Ferenchak, N. 2019 - Why cities with high bicycling rates 
are safer for all road users, Journal of Transport & Health
8.  National Traffic Safety Board (2017) Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger 
Vehicles. Available from: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf
SURVIVABILITY
has a 
has a 
has an 
35%
68%
89%
chance of survival
chance of survival
chance of survival
SURVIVABILITY
SURVIVABILITY
A pedestrian hit by a vehicle 
traveling at 25 MPH
A pedestrian hit by a vehicle 
traveling at 35 MPH
A pedestrian hit by a vehicle 
traveling at 45 MPH8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
“Communities designed 
to be walkable can 
improve safety not only 
for people who walk 
but for all community 
members.” 
– Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon 
General, 2015
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-8

Health Benefits 
Active transportation supports mental and physical 
well-being through reduced stress, reduced anxiety, 
and numerous health benefits associated with higher 
levels of activity.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
recommends that adults get 150 minutes of moderate-
intensity physical activity every week (e.g., 30 minutes 
a day for five days) to reduce chances of chronic 
diseases, such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. 
Most recent data shows that roughly 80 percent of 
American adults do not achieve this.9 Communities 
that make walking and bicycling safe and convenient 
ways to travel enable residents to incorporate physical 
activity into their daily routines. 
Despite the inherent risks tied to bicycling in car-
oriented cities, studies have shown that the health 
benefits of bicycling to an individual outweigh the risks 
9 to 1, even when accounting for higher exposure to air 
pollution and risk of traffic collisions.10 
9.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/index.html
10.  de Hartog, Jeroen Johan; Boogaard, Hanna; 
Nijland, Hans; Hoek, Gerard. 2010. Do the 
Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks? 
Environmental Health Perspectives. https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/
11.  Boyd, H., Hillman, M., Nevill, A., Pearce, A. 
and Tuxworth, B. (1998). Health-related effects 
of regular cycling on a sample of previous non-
exercisers, Resume of main findings 
Those who are PHYSICALLY ACTIVE generally 
LIVE LONGER and have a LOWER RISK FOR 
HEART DISEASE, STROKE, TYPE 2 DIABETES, 
DEPRESSION, AND SOME CANCERS.
CDC, 2015
Nationally, those who bike 
report
11: 
20 MINUTES WALKING OR BIKING
each day is associated with a
LOWER RISK OF HEART 
FAILURE FOR MEN
LOWER RISK FOR WOMEN
Rahman, 2014 and 2015
&
A BETTER MOOD
HIGHER SELF- 
CONFIDENCE
HIGH TOLERANCE 
TO STRESS
HEALTHIER SLEEP 
PATTERNS
Benefits Of Active Transportation
ATP-9

Environmental Benefits
By enabling people to make short trips on foot or 
bicycle instead of a car, active transportation can 
help communities address several environmental 
challenges. The most discussed, and perhaps most 
critical, environmental benefits of active transportation 
are reduced air pollution and emissions of greenhouse 
gases. Other environmental benefits include energy 
savings, less noise pollution, less water pollution, and 
even reduced pressure to develop agricultural and 
open space.
Replacing automobile trips with walking and bicycling 
trips can reduce particulate matter, nitrous oxide, sulfur 
oxide, volatile organic compounds and carbon dioxide 
that a typical motor vehicle emits.
By 2050, if 7% of American commute trips were
ANNUAL GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS 
EMISSIONS would be reduced by approximately 
If
MORE children 
living within
2 miles of a 
school
to school, air pollution reduced from 
not taking a car would =
84%
14%
8%
Those who BICYCLE 
EVERYDAY had 84% 
LOWER CARBON 
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS 
from all daily travel than 
non-bicyclists.13 
from the road FOR 1 YEAR, 
nationally.14 
OR
OR
REMOVING
60,000
x
Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In 2021, Phoenix adopted a climate action plan 
with the goal of reaching net-zero as a city by 2050 
while also reducing 50% of emissions by 2030. Our 
active transportation network will be a key partnership 
opportunity in achieving these goals. 
Key opportunities identified by the climate action plan 
that advance active transportation include: 
•	Creating a connected and comfortable bicycle 
network that is designed for all ages and abilities 
•	Expanding the network of multi-use pathways 
•	Linking active transportation connections with high 
capacity transit
•	Creating walkable and bikeable neighborhood 
connections 
12
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-10

Accessibility and 
Mobility Benefits 
Active transportation provides more options for how 
people get around, regardless of their reason for travel. 
Improved infrastructure that provides comfortable and 
safe routes of travel can encourage more people to use 
active modes and increase connections to educational, 
economic, and recreational opportunities.
For those who are unable to drive or lack access to a 
vehicle, increasing the range of safe walking, biking, 
and rolling facilities  creates large improvements 
in quality of life - accessing more destinations and 
opening the door to new possibilities. A robust active 
transportation network can capture a high percentage 
of 0-5 mile trips, helping to maximize transportation 
efficiency, and provide greater choice for residents and 
visitors.
On average, 40% OF ALL TRIPS we make are for a distance of TWO MILES OR LESS—a distance that can 
easily be covered by a 10 MINUTE BICYCLE RIDE or a 30 MINUTE WALK.15
12.  European Cyclists’ Federations. (2016). Cycle More Often 2 Cool Down the Planet! Quantifying 
CO2 savings of cycling.ast Company https://medium.com/fast-company/as-we-discuss-big-
solutions-to-climate-change-dont-forget-people-friendly-streets-18514fe56a43
13.  Brand, C. et al., 2021, The climate change mitigation effects of daily active travel 
in cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
14.  Pedroso, M, 2008, Safe Routes to School Steps to a Greener Future: How walking and bicycling to 
school reduces carbon emissions and air pollutants. Safe Routes to School National Partnership
15.  NHTS 2009, FHWA Office of Policy
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Benefits Of Active Transportation
ATP-11

03
COMMUNITY INPUT & 
PRINCIPLES
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-12

Community outreach for the plan was conducted through an online 
survey, poster polls at neighborhood and community events, and 
interviews with local leaders and advocacy organizations. This input 
guided the overall plan goals. Here is a snapshot of what we heard. 
The full engagement summary can be found in Appendix A. 
INPUT THEMES 
Online Survey
665
65%
53%
71%
70%
Survey Participants
for daily transportation
streets with sidewalks, specifically 
detached sidewalks with shade
midblock crossings
preventing injury-
causing collisions
expanded 
bikeway network
comfortable over 
low-cost
neighborhood routes 
over regional
shade
safety over upgrading/
adding paths
everyone has a comfortable 
option for using the street
The highest percentage of respondents rate current 
conditions in Phoenix as UNSAFE for
Most common BARRIERS to WALKING:
Most common BARRIERS to BIKING:
would like to
more often.
walking
agree
distance between 
places
lack of connected 
facilities
unsafe driving 
behavior
unsafe driving 
behavior
heat/lack of 
shade
bike lane/road 
proximity
biking
Who Participated?
What we heard:
DAILY TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION DESIRES
PRIORITIES
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
Respondents would LIKE TO SEE MORE:
GENERAL TRANSPORTATION:
STREET-SPECIFIC
58% of residents agree with “I would 
support lowering speed limits in 
exchange for making streets more 
comfortable for walking and biking” 
with 37% saying they strongly agree.
of respondents feel unable to find 
information and ways to provide 
input on local bicycle and pedestrian projects 
in their neighborhood. 
58%
65%
bike infrastructure, specifically bike lanes that 
are protected or separated from vehicle travel 
lanes.
Community Input & Principles
ATP-13

Poster Polls
Interviews with Local 
Leaders and Advocacy 
Organizations
•	Need for increased awareness/education about 
city projects; better messaging when relating 
neighborhood projects to overall city goals. 
•	Concerns about traffic, speeding, and lack of 
infrastructure to make walking and biking safe.
•	City should work to improve the culture with the 
streets department. In addition, there are concerns 
about internal politics, turnover, and a lack of strong 
advocates within the department. 
79
4
7
Poster Poll 
Participants
Who Participated?
Who Participated?
What we heard:
What we heard:
NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE ROUTES 
should be a higher priority than regional 
routes
The City should prioritize COMFORTABLE 
BICYCLE FACILITIES over lower-cost 
facilities
SPECIFIC PRIORITIES
BICYCLE ADVOCATES
COMMUNITY LEADERS IN 
HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED 
AREAS
GENERAL PRIORITIES
SAFETY
TRANSIT ACCESS
EQUITY
Representatives from two education and 
advocacy organizations
Community leaders from the 6 marginalized 
zip codes identified in the equity map
•	Concerns about safety; lack of sidewalks in some 
residential communities (particularly West & 
South Phoenix), inconsistent bike paths, speeding, 
homeless encampments, violent crimes, drug use, 
and stray dogs.
•	Need for more accountability and transparency 
from the city. In addition, they are not confident the 
city will show up for their communities; supportive 
of additional street infrastructure if it supported their 
current safety needs.
Draft Plan Feedback
PROTECTION AND SEPARATION 
between vehicles and cyclists / pedestrians 
is important
Heat and LACK OF SHADE are a 
deterrent to walking and biking 
BETTER PROTECTION for cyclists and 
pedestrians AT INTERSECTIONS
More ACCOUNTABILITY AND 
TRANSPARENCY on project delivery 
More FREQUENT ARTERIAL 
CROSSINGS
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-14

GUIDING 
PRINCIPLES 
Developing an intentional active transportation network 
that is responsive to the community must be driven by 
key guiding principles. The future active transportation 
network in Phoenix should be one that is safe, 
connected, enjoyable, and equitable. These principles 
should guide future decision-making around facility 
selection and design and work together to create a 
better environment for people walking and biking in 
Phoenix. 
Safe
The City will develop active transportation networks that eliminate bicycle and pedestrian 
fatalities and serious injuries. People walking and biking in Phoenix should be able to travel to 
their destination without fear or the undue risk of being killed or seriously injured in traffic. 
Equitable 
The City will develop active transportation networks that meet the needs of all Phoenicians 
and will prioritize improvements for areas with the highest need and vulnerable and 
disadvantaged populations. Your identity, ability, and/or where you live should not determine 
your ability to safely and enjoyably travel around Phoenix. 
Connected
The City will develop active transportation networks that connect people to where they want 
and need to go. People in Phoenix should be able to walk and bike to destinations within 
their urban villages that allow them to meet their daily needs such as to school, work, parks 
and trails, attractions, healthcare, transit, and more. 
Enjoyable 
Travel along Phoenix’s bikeways and pedestrian corridors should be an enjoyable 
experience. Routes that support people of all ages and abilities will include separation from 
motor vehicles, reduce exposure to high speed and high volume traffic, provide shade for 
heat resiliency, and encourage more people to walk and bike to nearby destinations.
Community Input & Principles
ATP-15

04
REVIEW OF 
EXISTING PLANS
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-16

Recommendation
Existing Plan
Summary
Theme 1: Improve Safety & Comfort for Pedestrians and Enhance the Pedestrian Experience 
Cores, centers and corridors will have pedestrian and bicycle 
connections to the surrounding community
Phoenix General Plan 
There is an opportunity to better 
define pedestrian planning in 
Phoenix by building on policies 
and objectives in other city plans. 
The ATP should focus on pedestrian 
comfort and safety through policy 
development and design guideline 
updates. Factors influencing the 
pedestrian experience include safe 
crossings, lighting, visibility, shade, 
and separation from traffic, among 
others. 
Plan, design, develop, and maintain green infrastructure, such 
as interconnected trail systems that increase shade canopy 
coverage and promote pedestrian mobility
Phoenix Strategic Plan
Less traffic and more crosswalks are the future 
Reinvent Phoenix 
Build more high comfort (safer, better-connected) networks
Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG) Active 
Transportation Plan 
The City of Phoenix’s transportation system is guided 
by a number of different local and regional plans 
and initiatives. Many of these completed plans 
and initiatives directly or indirectly address active 
transportation as part of their implementation priorities, 
which highlights the important role active transportation 
plays in achieving a variety of different objectives.  The 
policies, design guidelines, and network development 
program outlined in this plan were drafted with this in 
mind, and are an attempt to build upon and advance 
many of the active transportation objectives already 
outlined in other plans.  
Citywide plans reviewed included the Phoenix General 
Plan (2015), the Phoenix Strategic Plan, City of Phoenix 
Complete Streets Policy, the Transportation 2050 Plan 
(T2050), and the Climate Action Plan (2021). Other 
plans reviewed included the 2014 Comprehensive 
Bicycle Master Plan, Sustainability Transportation 
Goals, Shifting Gears Five Year Bicycle Program 
(2018), the Downtown Phoenix Comprehensive 
Transportation Study, Reinvent Phoenix, and the 
Mobility Improvements Program.  
This section is a summary of some of the key themes 
that came out of the existing plan review, and includes 
some specific policies and goals related to active 
transportation from those plans.  These themes provided 
the foundation for policy and design guidance 
recommendations. 
REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS
Review Of Existing Plans
ATP-17

Recommendation
Existing Plan
Summary
Theme 2: Prioritize Active Transportation Improvements Around First/Last Mile Transit 
Connectivity
Create more walkable corridors to connect to station areas
Reinvent Phoenix
First/last mile connectivity to 
transit is an important intersect 
between public transit and active 
transportation; the provision of 
comfortable and safe bicycle and 
pedestrian facilities makes people 
more likely to walk or bike to transit. 
The provision of quality active 
transportation infrastructure around 
transit has the added benefit of 
increasing transit ridership.
Conduct additional project assessments for major street 
sidewalk improvements for ADA non-accessible bus stops
Mobility Improvement 
Programs 
A particular emphasis on improving connectivity and access to 
major transportation and transit corridors
Transportation 2050 Plan 
Encourage bike integration with the overall transit system
Phoenix Comprehensive 
Bicycle Master Plan
Provide first-mile/last-mile connections that complement and 
even supplement transit during disruptions
Shared Mobility Program 
Theme 3: Improve Coordination Between Departments & Agencies on Active Transportation 
Implementation 
Phoenix street environment to be more inclusive of pedestrians, 
cyclists, and transit-users will require coordination with and 
support of many City departments and adjacent landowners
City of Phoenix Complete 
Streets Policy 
Many plans, agencies, and 
departments reference active 
transportation as an objective, and 
while many positive references 
to active transportation in other 
plans exist, it’s important to 
understand whether they are being 
implemented and what barriers to 
implementation might exist. 
Street Transportation Department will lead implementation of 
Complete Streets for projects
Phoenix Strategic Plan
Build off the agency partnerships that developed the plan to 
implement the TOD vision
Reinvent Phoenix
Strengthen regional transportation planning coordination with 
state and regional governmental agencies and public service 
providers
Phoenix Comprehensive 
Bicycle Master Plan
Theme 4: Understand and Assess Funding Sources 
The Planning and Development Department will provide 
guidance for privately funded projects to implement the Policy
City of Phoenix Complete 
Streets Policy 
Understand what funding exists, 
how funding is being used and 
allocated, and understand public 
support and priorities in terms of 
funding.
T2050 dedicates nearly 14% of its total transportation funding 
towards improvements that expand bicycle and pedestrian 
connectivity
Transportation 2050 Plan 
The Street Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement 
Program (CIP), the five-year program provides over $750 
million in improvements to street transportation infrastructure
Shifting Gears Five Year 
Bicycle Plan 
Seek State and Federal funding through the Maricopa 
Association of Governments (MAG) to assist with 
implementation of large and difficult projects
Phoenix Comprehensive 
Bicycle Master Plan
Theme 5: Design Guidelines and Standards 
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-18

Recommendation
Existing Plan
Summary
Complete Streets principles will be included into the General 
Plan and other relevant plans, manuals, rules, regulations, 
ordinances and programs as determined by staff and the 
Complete Streets Advisory Board
City of Phoenix Complete 
Streets Policy 
Developing Design Guidance that 
follow best practices allow for 
the implementation bicycle and 
pedestrian facilities that can attract 
users of all ages and abilities. This 
guidance can improve safety, 
functionality, and comfort for 
users. They are a tool for the Street 
Department for installation and can 
provide context sensitive designs 
that will help achieve mode shift 
goals and safety goals. 
Potential improvement strategies should be “context sensitive” 
solutions.
Transportation 2050 Plan 
Update City of Phoenix guidelines addressing bicycle facility 
design and traffic control
Phoenix Comprehensive 
Bicycle Master Plan
Building out a regional active transportation network for all 
ages and abilities
Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG) Active 
Transportation Plan 
Theme 6: Sustainability 
Create a network of shared-use trails and pathways that are 
safe, convenient and connected within preserves and parks
Phoenix General Plan 
Active transportation is one main 
component in creating a sustainable 
future. Vehicular transportation is 
one of the largest contributors to 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
and contributes to climate change. 
The ATP will be the key planning 
document to reduce dependency 
on driving. Additionally, the ATP 
will provide recommendations 
for landscaping that could have 
benefits to water and urban heat 
issues.
Reducing energy usage from street lights while improve visibility 
by replacing 100,000 street lights with new LEDs
Shifting Gears Five Year 
Bicycle Plan 
Allowing 90% of the population to be a 10-minute walk from 
transit through the expansion of routes and service frequency 
(and shaded bus stops)
Environmental Sustainability 
Goals – Transportation
Increase the active transportation mode share to 30 percent by 
2040
Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG) Active 
Transportation Plan 
Continue to implement the Tree & Shade Master Plan to 
establish 25% tree and shade canopy in streets and pedestrian 
areas by 2030 (medium term 2030-2035)
Climate Action Plan 
Increase bike lane mileage in the City of Phoenix and ensure 
the bicycle network is connected and comfortable for riders of 
all ages and abilities. (long term 2040-2050)
Climate Action Plan 
Create a network of multi-use paths along the existing canal 
network in Phoenix (long term 2040-2050)
Climate Action Plan 
Develop a series of corridors with a strong emphasis on 
active transportation and connections to high-capacity transit 
corridors (long term 2040-2050) 
Climate Action Plan 
Review Of Existing Plans
ATP-19

05
ACTION & 
ACCOUNTABILITY
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-20

Translating Community 
Input into Action 
The Active Transportation outreach approach was 
designed to capture community priorities, desired 
outcomes, and process approaches in order to draft 
plan recommendations aligned with community priorities. 
The initial round of community outreach focused on 
soliciting input that could form the basis of the plan 
guiding principles, priorities, and the general direction for 
recommendations.
The first round of outreach included an online survey, 
poster polls, and targeted outreach to neighborhood 
leaders and active transportation advocates. Each method 
of outreach was able to reach different populations; the 
poster polls at community events and targeted outreach to 
neighborhood leaders were a way to get feedback from 
residents that may not normally opt into online polls. 
As City staff will be responsible for implementing the plan, 
stakeholder interviews with City staff were conducted to 
better understand challenges and feasibility as part of the 
initial outreach. The internal Active Transportation Advisory 
Team provided further information on opportunities and 
challenges from several departments, including: 
•	Streets & Transportation
•	Parks & Recreation 
•	Office of Sustainability 
•	Planning & Development
•	Public Transit
•	Aviation
•	Neighborhood Services
•	Community & Economic Development 
The internal staff outreach ensured recommendations were 
feasible by identifying what could be achieved within 
the twenty-year planning horizon while also highlighting 
opportunity areas with potential for rapid actions.
ACTION & ACCOUNTABILITY
Input from outreach is reflected in the plan guiding 
principles, network development program, design 
guidance, and the policy recommendations, as follows. 
Plan Guiding Principles 
Across each outreach method, respondents were 
asked about their big picture priorities and guiding 
principles when it comes to transportation. The survey 
and poster polls focused on tradeoffs to ensure plan 
recommendations and prioritization were grounded in 
community priorities. 
In the online survey, respondents most frequently identified 
safety as their top priority, followed by canals, equity, 
high comfort facilities, and gap closure. Poster poll 
participants had largely similar priorities. At the Laveen 
BBQ, respondents ranked safety first, followed by parks 
and community centers, transit access, canals, and equity. 
At First Friday in downtown, respondents selected transit 
access as their top priority followed by safety, access to 
population and employment centers, equity, and canals. 
These priorities are captured in the plan guiding 
principles of safe, connected, enjoyable, and equitable 
active transportation networks. Though each group 
of respondents had different top priorities for where 
active transportation networks should connect to, 
the neighborhood-scale planning recommendations 
in the Community Active Transportation Network 
Program will allow different communities to identify the 
important destinations for their neighborhoods. Policy 
recommendations on canal paths are also included in the 
plan. 
Policy Recommendations
Active transportation infrastructure is part of the city 
fabric, usually sharing the same streets as cars, and 
connecting to the same places. In the survey and through 
targeted outreach, the planning team asked about 
Action & Accountability
ATP-21

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
overall transportation priorities to better understand 
how Phoenicians would like to see active transportation 
integrated into the city. Interconnected transportation 
and land use issues, along with the tradeoffs inherent 
to creating truly multimodal streets, were mentioned in 
targeted outreach and in survey comments. 
While survey respondents overwhelmingly expressed 
interest in walking and biking more, features of the car-
oriented built environment were consistently identified 
as the major barriers to active transportation in Phoenix. 
Unsafe driving and distances between places were most 
frequently identified as the top barriers to walking, while 
unsafe driving and bike lanes too close to traffic were 
the top barriers to biking. To meaningfully address these 
barriers, the policy recommendations include potential 
updates to policies and procedures that impact land use 
and street design.
Through the current General Plan, Complete Streets 
Policy, and Transit-Oriented Development planning 
the City of Phoenix already has strong policy support 
for multimodal street design and supportive land use. 
However, in conversations with internal City staff, a 
recurring theme was the need to translate high level 
policy recommendations into updates for existing 
procedures and practices. 
The need to match high level policies with day-to-day 
practices was echoed in targeted outreach as well. 
Representatives of advocacy groups, who had been 
involved in campaigns to adopt these policies and 
plans, felt the recommendations had not always resulted 
in implementation. Neighborhood leaders representing 
historically marginalized communities doubted the city 
could follow through on delivering their stated vision, 
based on direct experience with previous planning 
processes.
Carrying overarching policy recommendations into 
implementation is particularly important for active 
transportation as it is both a desired outcome in city 
plans and a means to achieving other outcomes, such as 
reducing carbon emissions reductions and improving air 
quality. As a result, the policy recommendations include 
specific recommendations for implementing existing plans 
through an active transportation lens. Recommendations 
for consideration in the upcoming General Plan 
update are also included to further link land use and 
transportation in Phoenix. 
Overcoming Existing Active 
Transportation Barriers
While active transportation barriers exist, the 
new design guidance, policies, and network 
development approach, in conjunction with 
the work of other plans/initiatives, will continue 
to advance active transportation in Phoenix. 
Expanding active transportation culture will not 
happen overnight, it will happen incrementally. 
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-22

Community Active Transportation 
Network Program
During outreach, respondents were asked directly 
about tradeoffs in the planning and design process, 
specifically, whether they would prefer planning to 
focus on regional or local networks and whether 
they would prefer safer, more expensive infrastructure 
or more miles of lower-cost infrastructure. Across all 
outreach methods, respondents preferred to focus on 
connections to local destinations and higher-quality 
infrastructure, even if the increased cost resulted in less 
mileage overall. These preferences were particularly 
pronounced for poster poll participants.
Direct conversations with community leaders from 
historically marginalized neighborhoods helped the 
planning team to better understand needs and desires 
from communities that often do not get prioritized in 
citywide plans. Many community leaders expressed 
concerns about personal safety in addition to traffic 
safety. They mentioned the lack of sidewalks in 
some residential communities (particularly West & 
South Phoenix), inconsistent bike paths, speeding, 
homeless encampments, violent crimes, drug use in 
neighborhoods, and stray dogs. 
The preference for local network connections 
tailored to neighborhood level concerns shaped 
the recommendations for network development. The 
Community Active Transportation Network Program 
is designed to provide an opportunity for the Street 
Transportation Department to work with communities 
at a scale that allows for careful consideration 
of community destinations and connections. The 
program’s focus on equity, safety, and tying together 
existing connections will allow for the identification of 
projects that are driven by neighborhoods themselves, 
beginning with urban villages that have the greatest 
need. It will be a way for the department to create 
stronger relationships with communities, share 
information, and be more transparent about decisions.
The program will assess two urban villages per year and 
will immediately implement the priority projects that can 
be quickly built in the next two years. The program will 
operate from 2023 through 2031, and funding for the 
network development program has been allocated by the 
City.
In addition to the priority projects that can be quickly 
implemented, the outreach is anticipated to identify 
maintenance issues and potential Capital Improvement 
Projects. The program will help guide available 
resources to high priority community projects, even 
outside of the quick-build projects envisioned for the 
THE PROGRAM WILL IDENTIFY 
AND IMPLEMENT: 
•	 Neighborhood-scale bicycle facilities 
•	 Safe crossings of major roadways 
•	 Enhanced accessibility to transit 
•	 Safe routes to schools, community 
centers, and activity centers 
•	 Connections to trails and parks 
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Network 
Assessment
Village 1
Village 2
Village 3
Village 4
Village 5
Village 6
Village 7
Village 8
Village 9
Village 10
Village 11
Village 12
Village 13
Village 14
Village 15
Project 
Implementation
Villages 1
and 2
Villages 1
through 4
Villages 3
through 6
Villages 5
through 8
Villages 7
through 10
Villages 9
through 12
Villages 11
through 15
Villages 13
through 15
Community Active Transportation Network Program Schedule
Action & Accountability
ATP-23

program. When the program has worked with every 
urban village in Phoenix, the Street Transportation 
Department will work with Phoenix residents and 
City leadership to determine the next steps for further 
building out the network and how to best continue the 
work of the program. 
Design Guidance
The design guidance provides information on safe 
and comfortable active transportation infrastructure. 
The guidance is intended to support the design and 
implementation of infrastructure types that respondents 
prioritized during the outreach process. 
In the online survey, respondents were asked more 
specific questions about infrastructure types and 
tradeoffs around speed limits. They were also asked 
whether they supported lowering speed limits in some 
cases. Respondents consistently supported safe, 
enjoyable, and connected infrastructure designs even if 
they added congestion. The preference for separation 
from motor vehicles and slower speeds informed policy 
recommendations in addition to the design guidance.
When asked about whether they would like to see 
more of a given type of infrastructure in Phoenix, 
respondents were most enthusiastic about infrastructure 
types that provided greater separation and shade. A 
detached sidewalk with shade was the single most 
popular picture, with 94% of respondents agreeing to 
some degree they would like to see more in Phoenix, 
and 74% strongly agreeing. For bike infrastructure, 
designs with more separation (e.g. curb protected 
bike lanes) received the most enthusiastic support 
while designs with no separation (e.g. Bike Boulevard) 
received the least enthusiasm. In all cases, the majority 
of respondents at least slightly agreed they would be 
willing to accept increased rush hour congestion as a 
trade off.
Roadway Reallocation
Space reallocation projects involve reallocating street 
space through the use of roadway paint and modular 
infrastructure, such as flexposts.  Roadway reallocation 
projects are less costly than roadway reconstruction 
projects, are able to react to community input, and can be 
installed quickly.  
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-24

Implementation and 
Tracking 
The plan has three assessment areas, with three distinct 
paths to implementation. Additionally, the plan builds on 
previous plans, policies, and initiatives. Implementation 
timelines for each of these areas are detailed below. 
Progress on metrics will be included in an annual 
update to the Citizens Transportation Commission 
along with bike mile tracking. 
Ongoing Commitments
The Street Transportation Department will prioritize 
maintaining momentum on active transportation 
initiatives already underway. The department will 
continue to deliver on the following programs and 
project types:
•	Pavement projects and other striping projects: The 
department will continue to add bike lanes and 
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
upgrade bike lanes identified through pavement 
projects where there is space on the street
•	Maricopa Association of Governments Active 
Transportation Plan Regional Routes: The 
department will continue to seek funding from the 
Maricopa Association of Governments to build out 
routes in the regional Active Transportation Plan
•	Complete Streets: The department will continue 
to review development projects and Capital 
Improvement Plan projects to recommend bike lanes, 
sidewalks, street crossings, and other Complete 
Streets design features
•	Canalscape projects: The department will continue 
to seek funding to build out the canal path network 
Action & Accountability
ATP-25

Existing plan 
or initiative
Goal
Evaluation Metrics
Transportation 2050
Add 1,080 bike lane miles 
from 2015 to 2050
•	 Target of 30.9 new bike lane miles per year, reported annually to the 
Citizens Transportation Commission
Climate Action Plan
Multi-use paths along 90% of 
canals in Phoenix by 2050
•	 New miles of paths included in the annual T2050 reports
2014 Comprehensive 
Bicycle 
Master Plan
Achieve Platinum level Bicycle 
Friendly Community Status
•	 Apply for Bicycle Friendly Community Status every two years to 
benchmark progress
•	 Work continuously towards Platinum status (note- the previous timeline 
for achieving different levels of bicycle friendliness has been updated to 
emphasize more frequent applications rather than specific milestones as 
the Bicycle Friendly Community Status standards are regularly updated)
Plan 
Assessment 
Areas
Timeframe
Evaluation Metrics
Design Guidance
The design guidance will be used as a 
reference tool by internal staff and design 
teams as soon as it is finalized. The 
document is deliberately designed as a 
standalone piece in order for the PDF to 
be easily distributed and printed. 
•	 Design guidance internally distributed
•	 .Design guidance posted on Street Transportation Department 
website
•	 .Internal staff survey to check whether it is being used one year 
after adoption
Network 
Development
Staff will begin work on the Community 
Active Transportation Program as soon as 
the Active Transportation Plan is adopted. 
Outreach for the first two villages is 
anticipated to start in the fall of 2023.
•	 .Network planning conducted with two villages per year until 
all villages are completed.
•	 % of recommended quick-build projects within two years 
of finalizing Community Active Transportation Network 
recommendations
Policy 
Recommendations
Implementation priorities and 
timeframe are detailed in the Policy 
Recommendations chapter.
•	 .% of policy recommendations initiated within the recommended 
timeframe
New Tracking Metrics
Ongoing Tracking Metrics
The Street Transportation Department will continue to 
report on active transportation metrics set by previous 
plans. Delivering on ongoing commitments and metrics 
is a key component of the Active Transportation Plan. 
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-26

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Action & Accountability
ATP-27

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan
ATP-28

COMMUNITY ACTIVE 
TRANSPORTATION 
NETWORK PROGRAM 
ELEMENT
APRIL 2023

TABLE OF 
CONTENTS

COMMUNITY ACTIVE 
TRANSPORTATION 
NETWORK PROGRAM
Introduction	
1
Community Active Transportation Network 
Program	
2

01
COMMUNITY ACTIVE 
TRANSPORTATION 
NETWORK PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION
The City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan establishes a framework for advancing walking and biking 
infrastructure, programs, and policies in the City. While this plan does not explicitly analyze the existing 
network or recommend specific projects, it does propose a framework for how the City can advance 
these efforts in accordance with the Plan’s vision, goals, and priorities. The following document outlines 
a program that would implement this framework, including recommended analyses, planning areas and 
priorities, and processes for translating analysis results and public input into a comprehensive network.
Responding to Plan Goals
This framework responds to the plan’s goals and 
addresses the following: 
•	 Safe Networks: Phoenix’s walking and 
biking networks should facilitate safe travel to 
destinations across the city. People traveling in 
Phoenix should not experience undue risk of 
seriouis injury or death. The City will develop 
transportation networks that reduce conflict 
points and eliminate serious injuries and 
fatalities. 
•	 Equitable Networks: Safe and connected 
active transportaton networks should meet the 
needs of all Phoenicians. This plan provides an 
opportunity to invest in Phoenix’s highest need 
areas and help remove barriers to access for 
vulnerable and disadvantaged populations in 
the city.
•	 Connected Networks: A functional and 
effective network will connect people to 
where they want and need to go. Bicycle and 
pedestrian network will support access to 
school, work, parks and trails, attractions, 
healthcare, transit, and more. The City will 
create a complete and connected bicycle and 
pedestrian network that supports travel wtihin 
neighborhoods and across the city. 
•	 Enjoyable Networks: Travel along Phoenix’s 
bikeways and pedestrian corridors should be 
an enjoyable experience. Routes that support 
people of all ages and abilities will include 
separation from motor vehicles, reduce 
exposure to high speed and high volume 
traffic, provide shade for heat resilency, and 
encourage more people to walk and bike to 
nearby destinations. 
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-1

The City of Phoenix covers nearly 520 square miles 
and is home to more than one million people. 
Today, 4,863 miles of roadway and 183 miles 
of shared use paths support travel across the 
city. Each year, the City installs news bikeways, 
crossings, and pedestrian infrastructure in 
coordination with capital projects and the ongoing 
resurfacing program. While this provides a method 
to advance active transportation networks in the 
city—and will continue to do so in the future—it 
does not directly consider opportunities to develop 
a complete and connected network by closing 
network gaps, improving safety at intersections, 
and connecting people to where they want to go, 
particularly at the neighborhood scale, a priority 
identified in the project outreach.  
Improving routes across the whole city will require 
significant investment both in terms of funding as 
well as staff time. Phoenix covers more than 500 
square miles, with varying levels of both need 
and opportunity in different areas of the city. To 
support development of high-quality networks in 
an organized and efficient manner, Phoenix can 
focus planning and implementation efforts by 
Urban Village. Urban Villages in Phoenix provide 
a manageable scale for assessing network 
opportunities while still being large enough to 
result in tangible improvements for how people 
get around both within their neighborhood and 
across the city.  Focusing on assessment by 
Urban Village also creates an opportunity for an 
intentional neighborhood-focused engagement 
process where neighborhood residents can help 
identify and prioritize which local projects are 
most needed and most relevant to their daily lives. 
The program till assess two villages per year, and 
then implement priority projects that can be quickly 
built in the next two years. All told, the program 
will run from 2023 through 2031. The schedule of 
assessments and project implementation are limited 
by the availability of funding for assessments each 
year, and the existing schedule/speed of roadway 
restriping. Funding for the transportation network 
program and the priority projects will be allocated 
from those earmarked for the Bicycle Master Plan.
The sections that follow outline the process, 
starting from selecting which Urban Villages 
to plan for first through analysis and project 
development. It includes the following steps: 
Pre-work: Prioritize Urban Villages 
1.	Analyze Existing Conditions
2.	Identify Destinations
3.	Identify Network
4.	Prioritize Projects
5.	Implement Projects
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Network 
Assessment
Village 1
Village 2
Village 3
Village 4
Village 5
Village 6
Village 7
Village 8
Village 9
Village 10
Village 11
Village 12
Village 13
Village 14
Village 15
Project 
Implementation
Villages 1
and 2
Villages 1
through 4
Villages 3
through 6
Villages 5
through 8
Villages 7
through 10
Villages 9
through 12
Villages 11
through 15
Villages 13
through 15
Community Active Transportation Network Program Schedule
City of Phoenix Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-2
COMMUNITY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION 
NETWORK PROGRAM

STEP 1
Analyze 
Existing
Conditions
STEP 2
Identify 
Destinations 
and Gaps
STEP 3
Identify 
Network
STEP 4
Prioritize 
Projects
STEP 5
Implement
Projects
= PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Form Community Active
Transportation Task Force
Tabling at community events
Community survey
Online Interactive Map
Community Survey
Public Meeting
Network 
Development 
Approach
Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-3

Community engagement is a critical element 
of the process, and needs to be incorporated 
in order to achieve the neighborhood-driven 
project identification and prioritization outcomes 
being recommended by this plan.  Respondents 
to the project survey and input at outreach 
events identified the desire and need for better 
neighborhood-focused connectivity that allows 
residents to walk, bike, and roll around their local 
neighborhoods more safely and enjoyably. This 
Urban Village assessment process is intended to 
address that feedback and allow the city to better 
understand and react to active transportation 
needs at the neighborhood scale. Each urban 
village in Phoenix has different contexts and 
the engagement process is a way to help drive 
neighborhood-identified projects that truly make 
an impact. 
The sections that follow identify recommended 
approaches for engagement to provide a more 
comprehensive understanding of local community 
priorities and conditions.
City of Phoenix Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-4
Pre-Work: Prioritize Urban Villages
Identification of priority Urban Villages (Figure 1) for network planning and implementation should 
consider the location of historically disadvantaged and vulnerable populations as well as existing 
infrastructure deficiencies. The results of the Equity Analysis (Figure 2) will inform identification of focus 
populations, while data capturing existing active transportation facility locations should be used to 
identify network deficiencies.  
As the geographic coverage of Urban Villages varies, the City should combine smaller areas with 
comparable characteristics to facilitate network connections. For example, Encanto and Central City 
cover relatively small areas in comparison to other Villages and may be considered together. 
Recommended Urban Village Assessment Prioritization Strategy:
Equity: Using the equity analysis, prioritize Urban Villages for assessment based on the percentage of the 
Village scoring as high need based on demographic and environmental justice factors. 
Equity: Rank Urban Villages based on existing facility presence. Evaluate the ratio of miles of bikeways to 
miles of roadway centerline, as well as ratio of miles of sidewalk to miles of centerline miles. The City will 
need to obtain sidewalk data to support this assessment.
Safety: Rank Urban Villages based on active transportation related serious injuries and fatalities. 
Coordinate with Maricopa County Public Health to obtain hospital data on pedestrian and bicycle 
serious injuries and fatalities. Identify Urban Villages with highest numbers of pedestrian and bicycle 
serious injuries and fatalities.
Source: City of Phoenix

Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-5
BASELINE
WARNER
CAMELBACK
THOMAS
CENTRAL
MUNICIPAL
PLANNING
AREA
NORTERRA
I-17
SR-51
SR-101
SR-101
SR-202
I-10
I-10
SR-51
I-17
VAN BUREN
FUTURE
S A L T
19TH AVE
GUADALUPE
MCDOWELL
LIGHT RAIL
SR-303
44TH ST
NORTHERN
SONORAN
DESERT
99TH AVE
16TH ST
17TH AVE
ELLIOT
ANTHEM WAY
NEW RIVER
JOMAX
RAY
CHANDLER
27TH AVE
INDIAN SCHOOL
PEORIA
BROADWAY
7TH ST
GLENDALE
75TH AVE
BASELINE
CACTUS
BELL
32ND ST
91ST AVE
ESTRELLA
PIONEER
LINCOLN
CAVE CREEK
MAYO
7TH ST
DIXILETA
JOMAX
52ND ST
51ST AVE
67TH AVE
19TH AVE
64TH ST
DOVE VALLEY
TATUM
PINNACLE PEAK
40TH ST
DIXILETA
51ST AVE
UNIVERSITY
SOUTHERN
32ND ST
UNION HILLS
DEER VALLEY
35TH AVE
83RD AVE
LOWER BUCKEYE
BEARDSLEY
BROADWAY
DOBBINS
VAN BUREN
7TH AVE
67TH AVE
24TH ST
7TH ST
CAMELBACK
43RD AVE
32ND ST
BUCKEYE
GREENWAY
MCDOWELL
27TH AVE
THUNDERBIRD
GREENWAY
SCOTTSDALE
CENTRAL
SOUTHERN
CACTUS
BETHANY HOME
7TH AVE
40TH ST
107TH AVE
43RD AVE
INDIAN SCHOOL
DYNAMITE
48TH ST
48TH ST
THOMAS
DUNLAP
SHEA
THUNDERBIRD
59TH AVE
PINNACLE PEAK
BELL
HAPPY VALLEY
GRAND
LONE MOUNTAIN
WASHINGTON
CAREFREE HWY
PECOS
HAPPY VALLEY
CAREFREE HWY
ELLIOT
Rio
Vista
North
Gateway
Desert
View
Deer
Valley
Paradise
Valley
North
Mountain
Camelback
East
Alhambra
Maryvale
Encanto
Central
City
Estrella
South
Mountain
Laveen
Ahwatukee
Foothills
p
URBAN
VILLAGES
FIGURE __
URBAN
VILLAGE
& VILLAGE
CORES
Ahwatukee Foothills
Alhambra
Camelback East
Central City
Deer Valley
Desert View
Encanto
Estrella
Laveen
Maryvale
North Gateway
North Mountain
Paradise Valley
Rio Vista
South Mountain
Primary Core
Secondary Core

City of Phoenix Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-6
Equity Analysis Results
The equity analysis in Phoenix is shown on the 
next page and is broken down at the Census 
Block Group level.  Generally, south and west 
Phoenix are shown as areas of highest need, with 
other pockets of need also shown along the I-17 
corridor.  Urban Villages with the highest need 
based on this analysis include South Mountain, 
Maryvale, Estrella, Alhambra, and North 
Mountain.  
Source: Alta Planning + Design
What is an Equity Analysis?
An equity analysis utilizes demographic and 
environmental metrics to help identify areas of the 
community with higher need.  Generally, areas 
that also score high on the equity analysis area 
also areas that have been historically underserved 
and where infrastructure can be lacking behind 
other parts of the community.   For the Phoenix 
ATP, The United States Environmental Protection 
Agencies Demographic and Environmental EJ 
Screen factors were used to help identify areas of 
need at the Census Block Group level in Phoenix.  
The results of this analysis are shown on the next 
page.

Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-7

City of Phoenix Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-8
Step 1: Analyze Existing Conditions
For each Urban Village, analyze the existing network conditions. The results of this step will provide 
baseline information that will guide project identification in subsequent steps. This process begins with 
mapping existing bikeways, sidewalks, and supporting infrastructure. Table 1 identifies the recommended 
analyses, based on plan goals, that can support the planning process. For each analysis, the table 
includes the following information: 
•	 Analysis Name and Description, including what the analysis will accomplish and the information it 
provides for the planning process;
•	 Required Data, which can guide the City’s identification of new datasets that may be required;
•	 Anticipated Baseline Measurements, which identify the metrics that will result from the analysis; 
•	 Recommended Metric, or an identified standard to use as a point of comparison or for goal setting 
and progress tracking; and
•	 Resources, which link to available documentation or informational resources to learn more. 
For the Recommended Metric, or identified standard, it is important to note that in many cases, specific 
standards or absolute rules are not available. Instead, the City of Phoenix should both track progress 
based on improving the metric (e.g., reduction of crashes annually) as well as identify standards that are 
appropriate for various contexts in the City based on considerations like existing level of service, land 
use and roadway context, and coordination across departments. For example, safety metrics should 
correspond with the policies and actions identified In the City’s Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan and 
in coordination with the Action Plan’s goals. FHWA’s Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle 
Performance Measures can help further guide the City in this effort.
Community Engagement
COMMUNITY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE
A Community Task Force will guide decision-making and oversee the selection of neighborhood 
priorities.  The Task Force will be neighborhood-focused and representatives will include residents, 
businesses, community-based organizations, and neighborhood leaders. It is imperative that the 
Task Force represent a cross-section of the urban village to better identify neighborhood-specific 
needs. 
The role of the Task Force will be to review the survey to help establish neighborhood-specific needs 
and challenges, engage their neighbors as routes are developed, and help prioritize facilities for 
implementation.

Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-9
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments

Plan 
Goal
Analysis 
Name
Analysis Description
Required 
Data
Anticicapted 
Baseline 
Measurements
Recommended 
Performance 
Measure / 
Outcome
Resources
Crash 
Analysis
Identify crash trends, 
hotspots, and characteristics 
through an analysis of 
bicycle- and pedestrian-
involved crashes. Consider 
both frequency of crashes 
as well as severity. Areas 
with high frequencies of 
crashes or severe/fatal 
crashes can guide further 
analysis to identify relevant 
countermeasures.
•	Bicycle- and 
pedestrian-
involved 
crashes for the 
last 5 years
•	Annual trends crashes 
numbers, separated by 
severity
•	Proportion of crashes 
involving bicyclists 
and/or pedestrians 
compared to all 
collisions
•	Relationship of crashes 
locations to existing 
active transportation 
facilities
Annual reduction in 
crashes. Zero traffic 
deaths
Safety 
Review
Analyze crash data to 
determine patterns in 
crash locations. Consider 
roadway characteristics, 
such as speed or 
number of lanes, and 
evaluate available crash 
characteristics, such as 
contributing factors. Identify 
factors that are associated 
with high crash locations. 
This step may also utilize 
existing crash profiles, as 
available and applicable.
•	Bicycle- and 
pedestrian-
involved 
crashes for the 
last 5 years; 
•	Roadway 
Characteristics
Summary of crash 
location trends and 
associated roadway 
characteristics. 
Develop corresponding 
countermeasures, 
review and revise 
design requirements as 
needed
FHWA Safe 
System 
Approach
Destination 
Density
Identify activity centers 
and other destinations 
that active transportation 
networks will connect. 
Destinations will include 
schools by type; transit 
stops and hubs; parks; 
trails; shopping centers; 
employment centers; 
attractions; and other 
destinations as determined 
by the City of Phoenix. 
The results of this exercise 
will inform identification 
of key routes that connect 
destinations within an 
Urban Village.
•	Schools by 
type; 
•	Transit stops 
and hubs;
•	Parks and 
trails;
•	Employment 
Centers;
•	Attractions;
•	Other 
destinations 
as determined 
by the City of 
Phoenix. 
N/A. This analysis 
visualizes data to serve as 
a reference layer for gap 
identification and route 
development. 
Establish minimum 
network spacing 
standards and 
connectivity 
requirements based 
on land use context 
and associated 
destinations.
Crosswalk 
Spacing
Evaluate the distance 
between signalized, 
marked crosswalks along 
major roadways, including 
arterials and collectors. 
The results of this analysis 
will provide insight into 
locations where crossing 
improvements are needed 
to support safer, more 
comfortable travel.
•	Traffic Signals, 
Pedestrian 
Hybrid 
Beacons, 
RRFBs
Percent of roadways with 
crossing opportunities 
less than 800 ft apart; 
between 800 ft and ¼ 
mile; between ¼ mile 
and ½ mile; between ½ 
mile and 1 mile; greater 
than 1 mile
No absolute rule exists 
for crosswalk spacing. 
Recommended 
standard should 
consider land use 
context, desire lines 
and building entrances, 
and potential out 
of direction travel 
required to access a 
crossing
FHWA STEP 
STUDIO: Tools 
for Selecting and 
implementing 
countermeasures 
for improving 
pedestrian 
crossing safety,
NACTO
Safe Network
Connected Network
City of Phoenix Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-10

Plan 
Goal
Analysis 
Name
Analysis Description
Required 
Data
Anticicapted 
Baseline 
Measurements
Recommended 
Performance 
Measure / 
Outcome
Resources
Level of 
Traffic Stress 
Evaluation of the relative 
stress level associated 
with a roadway, based on 
roadway characteristics as 
well as provision of bicycle 
or pedestrian infrastructure. 
Network should be 
evaluated using both a 
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 
and Pedestrian Level of 
Traffic Stress approach.
•	Roadway 
centerline, 
including 
number of 
lanes, posted 
speed limit 
Alternatively, 
functional 
class could be 
used.
•	Bicycle 
facilities, 
including 
location, type, 
and width
•	Pedestrian 
facilities, 
including 
location, type, 
and width
•	Percentage of roadways 
by LTS score
•	Relationship of LTS 
score and existing 
bikeways
•	Percentage of network 
within specified 
distance of destination 
types (e.g., schools) 
that are low stress
Designated bikeways 
should meet 
requirements for LTS 2. 
This assessment should 
consider impact of 
roadway crossings.
Mineta 
Transportation 
Institute Low-
Stress Bicycling 
and Network 
Connectivity
Oregon 
Department of 
Transportation 
Analysis 
Procedures 
Manual
Connectivity 
Islands
Using the results of the Level 
of Traffic Stress, symbolize 
data to identify areas 
of connected low-stress 
corridors. This analysis 
helps to identify barriers to 
enjoyable travel and provide 
an early assessment of out-
of-direction travel.
•	Results of the 
Level of Traffic 
Stress Analysis
N/A. This analysis 
visualizes Level of Traffic 
Stress data to facilitate 
identification of barriers 
to comfortable travel in 
the Urban Village. 
N/A Use this analysis 
to support visualization 
of out of direction 
travel, network gaps, 
and barriers.
Mineta 
Transportation 
Institute Low-
Stress Bicycling 
and Network 
Connectivity
Heat 
Assessment
Conduct a heat assessment 
to understand heat exposure 
on the network for purposes 
of assessing project design 
features, particularly when 
the key network segments 
and linkages are shown 
to have high levels of heat 
exposure.
•	Tree Equity 
Score map 
and Heat 
Vulnerability 
Index Map
Percentage of network 
experiencing high heat 
exposure.
Reduction in heat 
along network 
corridor; increased 
tree canopy/vegetation 
coverage
Planning for 
Urban Heat 
Resilience, PAS 
Report 600;
Pima Association 
of Governments 
Resiliency 
Planning Maps
Enjoyable Network
Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-11

Step 2: Identify Destinations and Gaps
Following analysis of existing conditions, the results of each analysis should be considered together to 
identify key trends and gaps in the existing network. While the characteristics and context of each Urban 
Village may require unique considerations for identifying project opportunities, the following can be used 
as a preliminary guide.
Connections to Destinations: 
Utilizing the results of the Destination Density mapping exercise and community input, explore where 
connections are missing in the existing network. Some questions to ask are: 
•	 How does the existing network connect to elementary schools or transit stops? Does the current 
network support direct access? 
•	 Are there gaps that result in travel along high stress routes? For larger scale destinations, such as 
shopping centers or city parks, evaluate how neighborhoods are able to safely and enjoyably connect 
to the location.  
It is expected that local networks should be denser to support access to local destinations by the greatest 
number of residents, so assess the availability of low-stress connections in relationship to different 
destination types. 
Further, evaluate existing crossing opportunities, particularly in relationship to destinations. Using the 
results of the Crosswalk Spacing Analysis, identify roadway segments with limited crossings. Dedicated 
crosswalks and bike crossings with signals can support low-stress routes, improve access to destinations, 
and encourage crossings at designated locations. 
City of Phoenix Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-12
Source: Alta Planning + Design

Enjoyable Networks: 
What is the relative comfort of existing 
connections? For example, although a bike 
lane may provide direct access to a local 
elementary school, it’s location along a higher 
speed road identifies this as a high stress (LTS 
3 or 4) connection. Scenarios such as this may 
still be considered a network gap and project 
opportunity. 
Further, consider the impact of high stress 
roadway crossings and if these corridors result 
in difficult connections along an otherwise 
enjoyable route. High stress roadway crossings 
are candidates for intersection improvements in 
the next step. 
Safe Networks: 
Are collision hotspots located along existing active 
transportation routes?  Are key routes consistent 
with high crash locations, or do they have 
characteristics similar to those associated with 
high crash locations? Evaluate the relationship 
among analysis results in coordination with safety 
analysis results to identify both opportunities 
to advance safe and comfortable routes as 
well as opportunities to improve safety for all 
modes of travel through development of active 
transportation routes. 
Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-13
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Community Engagement
During Step 2, the planning team will 
attend existing community events and 
conduct a survey to ask residents about 
destinations and gaps. 
COMMUNITY SURVEY 
An online and community survey will be 
conducted for residents and employees 
of the Urban Village. This survey will 
focus on identifying important community 
destinations, and establish an Urban 
Village-specific vision for network 
priorities.

Step 3: Identify Network
Within each Urban 
Village, identify 
new connections 
of improvements to 
existing facilities to 
improve connections to 
destinations, support 
enjoyable networks, and 
proactively develop safe 
networks. This process is 
informed by the results of 
the Existing Conditions 
analysis (Step 1) and the 
identification of Network 
Gaps (Step 2). This 
process should include 
the following:
•	 Fill Gaps in Existing 
Network: For existing low-stress routes, fill any gaps in the network by identifying new low-stress 
bikeways and key intersection improvements. Low-stress bike routes should provide as direct of a route 
as possible while supporting enjoyable travel through increased separation from motor vehicles, traffic 
calmed routes, and complete and connected network links. 
•	 Develop Local Connections: Create new connections that support access to schools, parks, transit 
stops, and other high priority destinations. For destinations along major roadways, such as transit 
stops or shopping centers, consider nearby crossing opportunities as well as sidewalk completeness to 
support direct access. 
•	 Develop Regional Connections: Identify connections to nearby neighborhoods, Urban Villages, 
and regional destinations. Regional connections may be less dense than the local network and rely on 
high-quality facilities along larger corridors in some locations. Local networks should connect to the 
regional route to support a connected system.  
For each corridor or intersection identified as a potential project, be sure to consider the associated 
facility selection and design guidance provided by this plan. Additionally, consider the heat assessment 
and opportunities for green infrastructure or shade features if the project is identified in an area of high 
heat exposure. If roadway characteristics require a more separated facility, but space does not allow for 
implementation, consider adjacent and parallel routes. 
City of Phoenix Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-14
Source: Alta Planning + Design

Step 4: Prioritize Projects
Within the planning process, prioritization helps us 
understand which projects should be implemented 
first. Specifically, the goal is to identify which 
projects are most needed and can provide the 
greatest community benefit. A successful process 
will have three key characteristics: 
•	 Aligned with local value and needs: 
Prioritization should also be rooted in 
community values and needs, captured 
through a data-driven evaluation process. 
While infrastructure quality, economic 
conditions, and growth patterns may change 
over time, a prioritization process based on 
community values can help guide new project 
priorities that best reflect a shared community 
vision.
•	 Practical and actionable: By focusing on the 
necessary timeline and funding for projects, 
prioritization can identify a local network that 
can be quickly implemented. 
Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-15
Source: Alta Planning + Design
Community Engagement
The Street Transportation Department will 
host a community meeting to get feedback 
on proposed projects and prioritization. A 
community survey with a map of proposed 
routes will also be used to gather 
community feedback.

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
City of Phoenix Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-16
Creating an Effective Prioritization Process
The planning team will work with the task force to identify a network of projects that can be quickly 
built within 1 to 2 years. More complex projects that require additional funding and outreach will be 
prioritized in collaboration with the task force. The following are examples of how the prioritization 
process may utilize project goals:
•	 .Connected Networks: Do projects support connections to key neighborhood areas and/or regional 
destinations? This can be assessed overall or separately for unique location types (e.g., connections to 
schools, parks, transit, neighborhood centers, etc.)
•	 Safe Networks: Does a project address an identified or evaluated roadway safety concern 
identified by the neighborhood residents, the safety assessment, or another plan? Project will include 
countermeasures that respond to crash history of location or the characteristics of a location that are 
consistent with city crash profiles. 
•	 Enjoyable Networks: Project improves an existing high stress corridor or improves crossing 
conditions along a low stress route. 
•	 Community Input: Project is supported by the residents, workers, and patrons within the Urban 
Village. This should be assessed through a focused survey/outreach effort within each Urban Village 
as part of its respective prioritization process. 
•	 Equitable Networks:  Project is community-driven and provides a connection for those with the 
greatest need.

Step 5: Implement Projects
Using the priority projects developed in Step 4 and verified by the public, the Street Transportation 
Department will seek to implement projects that can be quickly implemented, such as installing bike lanes 
that do not require major street redesigns as a top priority. The goal will be to install these projects within 
one to two years. 
The Street Transportation Department will create a map of the prioritized recommendations. The map will 
be appended to the Active Transportation Plan and considered part of the plan. It will also be shared on 
the Street Transportation Department’s website.
For larger projects that are better suited for the Capital Improvement Plan, the Street Transportation 
Department will seek funding opportunities, including external grants. For projects identified by the 
community that do not fit within the Active Transportation Program, staff will refer the projects to the 
appropriate program teams. When the program has worked with every urban village in Phoenix, the 
Street Transportation Department will work with Phoenix residents and City leadership to determine the 
next steps for further building out the network and how to best continue the work of the program. 
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Community Active Transportation Network Program
Network-17

POLICY 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
ELEMENT
APRIL 2023

TABLE OF 
CONTENTS

01	
CONTEXT & 	
	
	
	
	
COLLABORATION
Introduction	
1
Issues Influencing Walking & Biking in Phoenix	 1
02	
POLICY 	 	
	
	
	
	
RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy Recommendations for Active 
Transportation	
7 
Section 1	
   8 
Section 2	
   11
Section 3	
   12

CONTEXT & 
COLLABORATION
01

ISSUES INFLUENCING WALKING 
& BIKING IN PHOENIX 
INTRODUCTION
Policy recommendations are one of the three key 
focus areas of this planning process, the other 
two being a Community Active Transportation 
Network Program and Design Guidance.  The 
Policy recommendations are intended to guide 
city actions towards continuing to build an 
equitable, safe, connected, and enjoyable active 
transportation network.  
The policy recommendations found within this 
section are guided by a number of different 
Physical and cultural context is one of the most 
important factors influencing the planning 
and design of active transportation facilities.  
For Phoenix, the two most significant factors 
contributing to this context are the city’s historic 
development patterns and the warm summer 
climate.  The city’s development patterns have 
contributed to the reliance on a personal vehicle 
to travel, which is manifested in the way roadways 
are design and built for vehicular travel.  This has 
led to safety concerns and issues, particularly for 
people walking and biking.  
Additionally, despite an overall temperate climate 
that is conducive for walking and biking, the City’s 
warm summer months present unique challenges 
for people walking and biking, particularly the 
dangers of heat exposure and heat related illness. 
The following section is a summary of these 
factors, all of which directly inform the policy 
recommendations found later in this section.  
factors, including the city’s physical and cultural 
context, common objectives found as part of 
the existing plan review of other city documents, 
and community outreach themes.  The policy 
recommendations are a continuation of areas 
of success, but also represent a continued shift 
towards a more multimodal future in Phoenix 
where active transportation plays an important 
role alongside other ways of travel. 
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Context & Collaboration
Policy-1

Development Patterns 
Issue: Phoenix has seen rapid growth both in terms of land and population since the second half of 
the 20th Century. Much of that growth, however, has developed around the automobile characterized 
by single family homes, highways and high speed roadways, and a separation of land uses. 
Businesses and other community destinations are often located along these major roadways, and our 
community’s design has influenced our reliance on a vehicle even for short trips. 
Positive: This history of sprawling, low-density development has begun to change as the city aims 
to grow more sustainably by concentrating growth in Downtown, near high-capacity transit, and in 
transit oriented development areas. Greater access and shorter distances to destinations, creates more 
demand and opportunities for walking and biking. 
Opportunity: Short trips are 
important to consider because they 
can be good candidates for replacing 
a motor vehicle trip with an active 
trip, such as by walking, biking, or 
rolling. While Phoenix has been adding 
density and creating more short trips 
by focusing growth near community 
destinations, many people in Phoenix 
already take many short car trips. 
Studies have shown that nearly 50% 
of all car trips in the United States are 
three miles or less18, a distance that 
could be supported by bicycling. In 
Phoenix, the grid system, particularly 
prevalent in central parts of the city, 
provides walkable connections between 
residential and commercial areas that 
can be leveraged.
18.  Curry, Melanie, et al. “Bikes and Scooters Could Replace a Lot of Car Trips in U.S. Cities.” 
Streetsblog California, 17 Sept. 2019, ht  tps://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/09/16/bikes-and-
scooters-could-replace-a-lot-of  -car-trips-in -u-s-cities/. Accessed 5 July 2022.  
Source: Alta Planning + Design
City of Phoenix Policy Recommendations
Policy-2

Car Culture 
Issue: For decades, Phoenix has excelled at building car-oriented places; internal policies and 
practices have been created with the primary goal of moving cars and limiting vehicle congestion 
during peak commuting hours. Decades of auto-oriented development has created barriers to walking 
and biking such as: limited street connections between neighborhoods, major roadways that are wide 
and have high speeds, destinations that are far apart, and highways that separate neighborhoods. 
Positive: The City of Phoenix has made progress, especially over the last decade, in expanding 
the walking, bicycling, and the transit network as options for travel. For example, the City has 
implemented the following planning and policy initiatives that increase multimodal options: 
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan (2014), ReinventPHX (2015), the Walkable Urban Code (2015), 
City of Phoenix Complete Streets Policy (2017); the City of Phoenix Transit Oriented Development 
(TOD) Strategic Policy Framework (2018 ), the Key Corridors Master Plan (2020), and the Road 
Safety Action Plan: Moving to Vision Zero (2022). Transit options are improving through the continued 
expansion of the Valley Metro Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit will soon provide Pheonicians with 
another high-capacity transit option. The City is also expanding and improving bicycle and pedestrian 
connections to and from transit. 
Opportunity: This ATP is an
opportunity to collaborate with and 
build upon the momentum from 
these various planning and policy 
initiatives to ensure biking and 
walking are a key component of the 
City’s transportation network as it 
continues to grow and evolve in the 
future. The transportation system 
needs to work holistically across all 
modes, not just for motor vehicles.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Context & Collaboration
Policy-3

Safety 
Issue: Decades of car-oriented development and streets designed to efficiently move motor vehicles 
through them, has led to an increasing number of traffic crashes resulting in fatalities and serious 
injuries on Phoenix streets. A disproportionate number of traffic fatalities and serious injuries in 
Phoenix involve people biking and walking. People traveling outside of motor vehicles are particularly 
vulnerable roadways users, particularly people biking and walking. More specifically, data across the 
country has shown that traffic fatalities and serious injuries are disproportionately impacting children, 
seniors, people with low and no income, unhoused residents, and people of color .
Streets designed for the movement of cars typically leads to cars traveling at high speeds. Speed 
is one of the most important factors in determining how severe a crash is, especially for people 
walking, biking or relying on transit. The faster a car is traveling, the less likely a person’s chances are 
of surviving the crash. In addition to high speeds, car-oriented major roadways also typically have 
dangerous conditions for people walking and biking such as long crossing distances, incomplete 
sidewalks, a lack of bicycle facilities, and general lack of separation from motor vehicles. 
Positive: To combat the growing number of people dying in traffic crashes, the City of Phoenix 
approved the Phoenix Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan (2022), which establishes strategies and 
objectives to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries in Phoenix. Vision Zero represents a cultural 
shift in Phoenix, and policies and practices directly support active transportation objectives.
Opportunity: With the 
momentum of various policy and 
planning initiatives, specifically the 
Complete Streets Policy (2017), 
Complete Streets Design Guidelines 
(2018), the Phoenix Vision Zero Road 
Safety Action Plan (2022), and this 
updated active transportation plan, 
the City has set the plans, policies, 
and design standards in place to 
proactively create streets safe for all 
roadway users. 
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
City of Phoenix Policy Recommendations
Policy-4

Climate
Issue: Temperatures in Phoenix have been rising over the past few decades and are expected to 
continue rising. Phoenix averages over 100 days per year where temperatures are over 100 degrees 
Fahrenheit. Heat can be a major barrier (as identified through public input in the previous section) 
to walking and biking in Phoenix. Heat is also experienced inequitably, with historically marginalized 
areas of Phoenix having less shade and being hotter than wealthier areas of the community.
Positive: Phoenix has been taking steps to lower temperatures that are magnified by the urban heat 
island effect, which makes already hot temperatures hotter due to surfaces that retain and absorb 
heat such as pavement. In 2020, the City began Cool Pavement Pilot Program, which has successfully 
lowered surface temperatures on the city’s streets through a coating applied over the existing asphalt. 
In addition to cool pavement, the City has also developed a Cool Corridors Program in 2020 that 
aims to “create a network of cool corridors,” primarily through planting trees, “across its communities 
to encourage movement from residential homes to various areas across the city that is safe and 
environmentally-conscious.”19 
Opportunity: The City has 
the opportunity to build upon the 
Cool Pavement and Cool Corridors 
program by providing facilities that 
are safe and enjoyable to walk 
and bike. Bicycle and pedestrian 
infrastructure should be prioritized 
and implemented in coordination 
with the Cool Pavement and 
Cool Corridors Programs—along 
streets with trees, shade, and cool 
pavement—to reduce the barrier that 
heat provides to walking and biking 
in Phoenix. 
19.  https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/Pages/Cool-Corridors.aspx
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
Context & Collaboration
Policy-5

POLICY 
RECOMMENDATIONS
02

The Active Transportation Plan provides 
an opportunity for the City of Phoenix to 
support existing city policies, related plan 
recommendations, and ongoing programs and 
efforts that seek to improve the quality of life for 
all residents. The policy recommendations that 
follow identify specific opportunities to implement 
existing plans and policies, including the Road 
Safety Action Plan, Complete Streets Policy, and 
the Climate Action Plan, while advancing walking 
and biking in Phoenix. 
The recommendations are focused on actions 
the Street Transportation Department can 
initiate, in collaboration with other City 
departments, agencies, and community groups. 
The prioritization takes into account community 
feedback, existing opportunities, and Street 
Transportation Department capacity. Throughout 
the 20 year planning horizon, the Street 
Transportation Department should seek new 
opportunities to update policies to support active 
transportation or adjust recommended priorities 
based on changing conditions and public input. 
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 
FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Policy Recommendations
Policy-7

Support Implementation Of Existing Plans
SECTION 1
Objective 1: Advance Complete Streets 
Policy Implementation
City of Phoenix adopted a Complete Streets Policy 
in 2017, followed by Complete Streets Design 
Guidelines in 2018. The Street Transportation 
Department has been working to implement 
the Complete Streets priorities and designs by 
identifying appropriate streets and contexts for 
complete street transitions, updating procedures, 
and building additional active transportation 
infrastructure.  Complete street designs have 
also been emphasized with new projects and 
development across the City.
Identifying appropriate contexts and designing 
streets for all modes remains a high priority for 
Phoenicians. In the community survey, respondents 
were asked to rank priorities for overall 
transportation in Phoenix; “Giving everyone a 
comfortable option for using streets, whether they 
are driving, walking, biking, or taking transit” was 
the top priority for 29% of respondents, second 
only to “Preventing collisions that could injure 
people.” In survey comments and survey questions 
about specific types of infrastructure, respondents 
repeatedly showed support for street design 
that prioritizes comfortable and safe multimodal 
options above all. 
Recommendation
Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
1.1
Conduct a Complete Streets information and professional education campaign internally to 
improve awareness of active transportation best practices and Complete Streets design. 
Continue ongoing 
work
1.2
Create internal guidance that documents existing policies and processes relevant to 
Complete Streets design elements for retrofits and new projects developed as part of the 
active transportation network
Prioritize resources
Medium term (2027 - 2032)
1.3
Review and update project documentation and handoff process in the Capital Improvement 
Project process to incorporate Complete Streets goals and support Active Transportation.
Update existing 
procedures
1.4
Compile and report on information about Complete Streets compliance captured via the 
development process. 
Prioritize resources
1.5
Create a policy and define a methodology for evaluating multi-modal impacts and 
mitigation of development in high-activity areas
Update existing 
policies
Long term (2032 - 2043)
1.6
Update traffic impact analysis guidance and standards in the City of Phoenix Street 
Planning and Design Guidelines Manual to incorporate safe systems and complete streets 
tradeoffs in future updates to the manual
Update existing 
procedures
1.7
Review internal documentation of Complete Streets elements and collaborate internally 
to update policies and processes where appropriate to streamline implementation of 
Complete Streets design elements in support of Active Transportation.
Update existing 
policies
1.8
Establish a methodology for determining active transportation demand for Capital 
Improvement and development projects in order to ensure appropriate facilities are built. 
Update existing 
policies
City of Phoenix Policy Recommendations
Policy-8

Objective 2: Support the Goals of the 
Climate Action Plan
The Climate Action Plan set a goal to shift 
how people get around Phoenix towards lower 
carbon modes of transportation, including 
active transportation. Building out the canal 
path network was one of the supporting goals 
for the plan as it increases opportunities for 
safe and comfortable biking and walking. The 
Street Transportation Department is committed 
to supporting the Climate Action Plan and the 
following recommendations provide concrete steps 
for achieving the overarching goals. 
Expanding and connecting canal paths was 
a recurring theme in the first round of public 
outreach. In the online survey respondents were 
asked to rank bicycle-specific improvements; 
“Canals – Adding and upgrading paths along 
existing canals” was the second most frequent top 
priority (19%), second only to safety.   
Recommendation
Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
2.1
Support electric vehicle adoption by continuing to manage the Micromobility Program and 
seek to expand the program boundaries and types of vehicles based on demand and future 
infrastructure expansion.
Continue ongoing 
work
2.2
Support electric vehicle adoption by revising Motorized Play Vehicle Ordinance to better 
regulate modern micromobility vehicles for safety and transportation options. 
Update existing code
2.3
Collect data on existing shared use paths along canals, assess needs, and create a plan for 
building out 90% of the network by 2050.
Prioritize resources
2.4
Continue to build canal paths in line with the goal of paths along 90% of the canal network 
by 2050.
Continue ongoing 
work
Medium term (2027 - 2032)
2.5
Support mode shift target by creating an anticipatory warrant process that provides an 
opportunity to install pedestrian and bicycle crossings proactively.
Update existing 
policies
2.6
Support mode shift target by integrating Benefits of Complete Streets Tool into CIP project 
evaluation to capture latent demand and mode shift potential as one of the evaluation 
criteria when assessing potential project impacts (i.e., Complete Streets Toolkit).   
Update existing 
procedures
2.7
Initiate research into opportunities for safe and legal usage of micromobility along canal 
paths.
Outside agency 
would need to update 
existing policies
Long term (2033 - 2043)
2.8
Support mode shift goals by seeking to collaborate with the Public Transit Department to 
identify last-mile sidewalk connections and crossings and seek funding for adding sidewalk.
Prioritize resources
Policy Recommendations
Policy-9

Objective 3: Support the Vision Zero Road 
Safety Action Plan
The Road Safety Action Plan was adopted 
by Council in 2022 with strong support from 
Phoenicians. Safety was the top priority in the 
initial round of public outreach for this plan. It 
was the most frequently identified top priority for 
transportation overall and for improvements to the 
bicycle network. The following recommendations 
address how active transportation can support the 
implementation of the Road Safety Action Plan.
Recommendation
Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
3.1
Integrate the High Injury Network and identified priority locations from the RSAP into the 
Community Active Transportation Network Program as part of the existing conditions 
analysis.
Update existing 
procedures
3.2
Integrate the High Injury Network and rebalancing recommendations from the RSAP into 
pavement project reviews for potential bike lanes. 
Update existing 
procedures
3.3
Establish internal processes to integrate the Active Transportation Team in to the RSAP 
implementation process, specifically for the RSAP goals to review of mid-block crossings at 
priority arterial road locations, the development of checklist or toolkit to improve safety for 
pedestrians and bicyclists in project design, and the analysis of the transportation network 
to identify locations with risk-factors and countermeasures.
Prioritize resources
3.4
Advance school safety measures identified in the RSAP, including expanding education and 
awareness programs, developing Safe Routes to School Plans, and implementing school 
zone safety measures.
Prioritize resources
3.5
Develop and promote driver education programs, campaigns, and materials to increase 
awareness of safe driving behavior around people walking and biking.
Prioritize resources
City of Phoenix Policy Recommendations
Policy-10

Objective 4: Share Opportunities for Integrating 
Active Transportation Policies and Guidance into 
the General Plan
The City of Phoenix will be updating its General 
Plan in 2025, in accordance with state law 
requirements that an update be performed 
every ten years. The upcoming General Plan 
update presents a significant opportunity for the 
Planning and Development Department to make 
recommendations, set priorities, and identify 
the process for procedural changes on land use 
and transportation policy in the City of Phoenix. 
The following recommendations are general 
guidance the Street Transportation Department 
can provide as opportunities to better support 
Complete Streets implementation and integrate 
active transportation, safety, and design into the 
General Plan. 
Recommendation
Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
4.1
In the Connect People and Places Core Value, update the Bicycle Goal to Active 
Transportation goal to reflect updated program name.
Update existing 
policies
4.2
Include the Active Transportation Plans’ Network Development Program as a key bicycle 
implementation mechanism within the Active Transportation Goal section.  
Update existing 
policies
4.3
Integrate the importance of protected bicycle infrastructure as a design consideration within 
the Active Transportation Goal section.
Update existing 
policies
4.4
Include the Active Transportation Plan as an implementation policy or plan within the 
General Plan’s Complete Streets Goal section.
Update existing 
policies
4.5
Integrate first and last mile connectivity through bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure as a 
design principle within the Transit Oriented Development Goal section.
Update existing 
policies
4.6
Include bicycle infrastructure and accessibility as a key design principle, in addition to 
pedestrian infrastructure, within the Cores, Centers, and Corridors Goal section.  
Update existing 
policies
Informing Future Plans
SECTION 2
During targeted outreach and in survey 
comments, a recurring theme was the need to 
link land use and transportation. The community 
survey asked respondents to identify the single 
biggest barrier to walking in Phoenix; the most 
frequent response was “Distance between places” 
(24%). Creating neighborhoods with walkable 
destinations requires land use policies that 
support a mix of uses within a walkable distance. 
The General Plan update also impacts policies 
that directly impact street design, including 
regulations around requirements for providing 
parking, mitigating traffic impacts, and street 
cross-section design.  
Policy Recommendations
Policy-11

Recommendation
Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
5.1
Use the FHWA Bikeway Facility Guide, which provides facility selection criteria based on 
roadway characteristics and user considerations, as a baseline for facility selection and 
design on all bikeway projects.
Update existing 
procedures
5.2
Pilot the use of NACTO City Speed Limit Guide as a baseline for consideration on 
targeted, high-priority active transportation corridors. 
Pilot
Medium term (2027 - 2032)
5.3
In future updates of the City's Street Planning and Design Guidelines, reference and 
integrate best practice facility designs and treatments for bicycle and pedestrian facilities 
include in the Plan's Design Guidance section as well as emergent best practices.
Update existing 
policies
5.4
Evaluate the potential use of stop bars in high priority bicycle and pedestrian intersections. 
Update existing 
procedures
Objective 5: Build Safe Active 
Transportation Networks
Safety was identified as a plan value as it was 
a consistent theme throughout public outreach. 
The following recommendations support 
Phoenix’s Vision Zero goal and offer specific 
recommendations for developing safe active 
transportation networks.  
Align Internal Standards And Practices With Active Transportation Plan Values
SECTION 3
City of Phoenix Policy Recommendations
Policy-12

Objective 6: Build Connected Active 
Transportation Networks
Connectivity was identified as a plan value 
as a network is only as strong as its weakest 
link. Connecting existing and future facilities 
is essential for creating a viable active 
transportation network. Adding crossings for 
people walking and biking along major streets 
can effectively shorten walking and biking 
distances, as it reduces the chance of people 
walking out of their way to cross safely. The 
following recommendations identify specific 
opportunities to reduce gaps in the network and 
create safe and comfortable connections for 
people walking and biking.
Recommendation
Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
6.1
Initiate a feasibility study for a pilot protected intersection in Phoenix. 
Continue ongoing 
work
6.2
Pilot implementation of intersection treatments that elevate visibility, shorten crossing 
distances, and provide greater protection to people walking and biking at high-priority 
biking and walking intersections. 
Pilot 
Medium term (2027 - 2032)
6.3
Document location of all bike lanes that allow time of day parking. Prioritize locations to 
work with the community on potential alternative designs with the goal of eliminating bike 
lanes that allow parking. 
Prioritize resources
6.4
Establish standard intersection design practices that raise the visibility of people biking on 
approaches and through intersections, as recommended in the Plan's Design Guidance 
section. 
Update existing 
policies
6.5
Create and implement consistent wayfinding on high priority active transportation corridors 
throughout Phoenix
Prioritize Resources
Long term (2033 - 2040)
6.6
Seek to collaborate with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning and 
Development Department to identify opportunities for coordinated development of an 
interconnected, low-stress Multi-Use Path network in Phoenix.
Prioritize resources 
Policy Recommendations
Policy-13

Objective 7: Build Enjoyable Active 
Transportation Networks
Enjoyability was identified as a plan value as 
people will not use infrastructure they do not 
enjoy. The need for comfortable and enjoyable 
networks was a recurring theme in the initial 
round of public outreach. The following 
Recommendation
Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
7.1
Establish outreach guidelines for including traffic calming in Capital Improvement Projects, 
including speed humps and speed bumps. 
Update existing 
procedures
7.2
Collect data that will enable evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian Level of Transportation 
Stress (LTS). Data should specifically include: length, location, and number of travel lanes; 
parking signs; landscaping strips; and sidewalk location and width. This assessment informs 
facilities selection and design by evaluating the relative comfort and safety of someone 
walking or biking along a corridor. 
Prioritize resources
7.3
Conduct a pilot project of various roadway surface materials that act as heat reflectants 
to reduce the stress and impact of heat. Use the pilot to select preferred materials and use 
cases and create implementation guidelines.
Pilot
Medium term (2027 - 2032)
7.4
Seek to collaborate across departments to streamline permit process for structural shade in 
the ROW, specifically awnings. 
Update existing 
policies
7.5
Seek to collaborate across departments to review the existing traffic calming design 
standards for horizontal and vertical traffic calming for potential updates to ensure designs 
effectively calm traffic while supporting emergency operations.
Update existing 
policies
recommendations offer specific guidance on 
building infrastructure that will attract new users 
and allow every Phoenician interested in walking 
and biking to be able to do so comfortably. 
City of Phoenix Policy Recommendations
Policy-14

Objective 8: Build Equitable Active 
Transportation Networks
Equity was identified as a plan value as it is a 
high priority for the City and for the community. 
Throughout the outreach process, residents 
asked for an equitable approach to developing 
infrastructure and planning processes that take 
Recommendation
Type of Change
Near term (2023 - 2026)
8.1
Create easy to share fliers and slides with information on how to contact the Street 
Transportation Department and how to report maintenance to share during future outreach 
opportunities. 
Prioritize resources
8.2
Track and incorporate publicly-submitted requests during the urban village assessment and 
project prioritization process.
Prioritize resources
Medium term (2027 - 2032)
8.3
In future updates to the Street Transportation Department's Public Engagement Plan 
consider opportunities to better include low-income, historically-marginalized, disabled, 
and limited English-speaking residents in the decision-making and implementation process.
Update procedures
8.4
In future updates to internal public outreach standard processes and materials consider 
opportunities to better reach historically marginalized communities and empower residents 
to be actively involved in the decision making and implementation process.
Update procedures
Long term (2033 - 2040)
8.5
Update existing program structures to support implementation of small projects that 
proactively support safe and enjoyable active transportation such as sidewalk infill, 
shade, street crossings, Low Impact Development/Green Infrastructure, ramps, and other 
Complete Streets design elements.
Update procedures
8.6
Evaluate Street Transportation Department programs that support active transportation, 
such as the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, for opportunities to update project 
selection criteria and outreach processes to better prioritize projects that reflect diverse 
needs and experiences.
Update procedures
different community needs into account. The 
following recommendations seek to address 
historic inequities and to ensure that all 
Phoenicians have a chance to participate in active 
transportation planning processes and benefit 
from infrastructure investments. 
Policy Recommendations
Policy-15

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN 
DESIGN GUIDANCE 
ELEMENT
APRIL 2023

TABLE OF 
CONTENTS

01	
INTRODUCTION
Context	
1
Guidance Basis	
3
Design Needs of Pedestrians	
4
Design Needs of Bicycle and Other 
Micromobility Devices	
8
02	
PEDESTRIAN TOOLBOX
Introduction	
11
Sidewalks	
Sidewalk Zones and Widths	
12
Curb Ramps	
14
Curb Extensions	
16
Corner Radii	
17
03	
BICYCLE TOOLBOX
Introduction	
19
Bike Lanes	
Standard Bike Lanes	
22
Buffered Bike Lanes	
24
Separated Bike Lanes: One-way	
26
Separated Bike Lanes: Two-way	
28
Separated Bike Lane Barriers	
30
Bike Boulevards	
Bike Boulevard Overview	
32
Traffic Calming	
34
04	
SHARED USE PATHS
Shared Use Trails	
37
Bollard Alternatives	
39
05	
ENHANCED CROSSING 	 	
	
TREATMENTS
Intersection Treatments	
Two Stage Turn Box	
41
Bike Box	
42
Driveway and Minor Street Crossings	
44
Signals and Beacons	
HAWKS	
45
Toucan Signal	
47
Bike Detection and Actuation	
49
Bicycle Signal Phase	
50
06	
NETWORK CONNECTIONS 	
	
AND SUPPORTING 		
	
	
FACILITIES
Short-term Bicycle Parking	
53
Long-term Bicycle Parking	
57
Transit Stop Design	
59
Shared Use Trails and On-Street Transitions	
60
Wayfinding	
62
07	
PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE 	
	
	
OPERATIONS AND 		
	
	
MAINTENANCE
Sidewalk Maintenance	
65
Parking, Loading, and Garbage Access	
66
Bike Facility Maintenance	
68
08	
ADDITIONAL DESIGN 
PARAMETERS & 
CONSIDERATIONS
Complete Streets	
71
High Activity Areas 	
72

01
INTRODUCTION

CONTEXT
This toolbox presents high-level guidance for local 
planners, engineers, and advocates to improve 
the walkability and bikability of Phoenix and 
create more comfortable streets for pedestrians 
and bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Planners 
and project designers should refer to these 
guidelines in shaping future infrastructure 
projects; however, these guidelines are not 
intended to guide detailed design as they do not 
constitute standards.
Future roadway planning, engineering, design 
and construction will continue to strive for a 
balanced transportation system that includes 
a seamless, accessible bicycle and pedestrian 
network and encourages bicycle and pedestrian 
travel wherever possible.
The goal of a transportation system is to better 
meet the needs of people - whether in vehicles, 
bicyclists or pedestrians - and to provide access to 
goods, services, and activities. 
Streets that include safe and inviting facilities 
for active modes provide users important 
transportation choices, whether it is to make 
trips entirely by walking or bicycling, or to access 
public transit. Often in urban or suburban areas, 
walking and bicycling are the fastest and most 
efficient ways to perform short trips. 
Convenient, active travel provides many benefits, 
including reduced traffic congestion, financial 
savings for users, road and parking facility 
savings, improved economic development, and 
a more attractive and healthier environment 
through reduced greenhouse gases.
The design guidelines and recommendations 
in this document are intended for use on City 
of Phoenix roadways. Projects on Arizona 
Department of Transportation, county, or other 
roadways in other cities may require additional 
considerations. 
Projects must not only be planned for their 
physical aspects as facilities serving specific 
transportation objectives; they must also consider 
effects on the aesthetic, social, economic and 
environmental values, needs, constraints and 
opportunities in a larger community setting.  
Design guidance in this document meets or 
exceeds the minimums set by the Americans with 
Disabilities Act Accessible Design Guidelines 
(ADAAG) and the Public Right of Way Accessibility 
Guidelines (PROWAG).
All traffic control devices, signs, pavement 
markings included in street projects must conform 
to the Arizona Supplement to the “Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD).
Introduction
Design-1

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-2

The sections that follow serve as an inventory of pedestrian and bicycle design treatments and provide 
guidelines for their development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they 
represent the tools for creating a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, accessible community. The guidelines 
are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a professional engineer prior to 
implementation of facility improvements. The following guidelines are incorporated in this Design Guide.
GUIDANCE BASIS
Multi-modal Guidance
The Federal Highway 
Administration’s Small Town 
and Rural Multimodal Networks 
Report (2016) offers resources 
and ideas to help small towns 
and rural communities support 
safe, accessible, comfortable, 
and active travel for people 
of all ages and abilities. It 
connects existing guidance 
to rural practice and includes 
examples of peer communities.
The National Association of 
City Transportation Officials’ 
(NACTO) Urban Street Design 
Guide (2013) is a collection of 
nationally recognized street 
design standards, and offers 
guidance on the current state 
of the practice designs.
Pedestrian Guidance



"		

""

	
"
""
 !!"
The Maricopa Association 
of Governments’ (MAG) 
Pedestrian Policies and 
Design Guidelines (2005) 
provides information and design 
assistance to better create
and redevelop pedestrian 
areas throughout the
region that integrate 
facilities for walking with
other transportation modes.
The American Association of 
State Highway Transportation 
Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide for the 
Planning, Design, and Operation 
of Pedestrian Facilities (2021)  
identifies effective measures for 
accommodating pedestrians on 
public rights-of-way, vary among 
roadway and facility types.
Separated Bike Lane Planning 
and Design Guide (2015) is the 
latest national guidance on the 
planning and design of separated 
bike lane facilities released by the 
Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA). The resource documents 
best practices as demonstrated 
around the U.S., and offers ideas 
on future areas of research, 
evaluation and design flexibility.
Bikeway Guidance
The National Association of 
City Transportation Officials’ 
(NACTO) Urban Bikeway 
Design Guide (2012) provides 
cities with state-of-the-practice 
solutions that can help create 
complete streets that are safe 
and enjoyable for bicyclists. 


v

v



v
vvvv

v
v
v!"v#$%v&'v()'*v+,-v..%$/0v
12345644789:;94v=52>4:62?@ABCDEFGDFFHv
IJKvMJNvOPQRSPTvUVWXYWZUXZvZX[\\[YVv]^_
`avcdecafghijakvacvkdilacmjknvedcojiidfvljipagivqjhdkrdvscaovtuv
wwxyxyxyxxyxyxxyxxxxxyxxxyxyxxxywxwxyyxyyxyxyyxwww
The American Association of 
State Highway Transportation 
Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide 
for the Development of 
Bicycle Facilities (2012) 
provides information on how 
to accommodate bicycle 
travel and operations in most
riding environments.
Introduction
Design-3

DESIGN NEEDS OF PEDESTRIANS 
Types of Pedestrians
Pedestrians have a variety of characteristics and 
the transportation network should accommodate 
a variety of needs, abilities, and possible 
impairments. Age is one major factor that affects 
pedestrians’ physical characteristics, walking 
speed, and environmental perception. Children 
have lower eye height and may walk slower 
than adults. They also perceive the environment 
differently at various stages of their cognitive 
development. Older adults walk more slowly and 
may require assistive devices for walking stability, 
sight, and hearing.
Impairment
Effect on Mobility
Design Solution
Physical Impairment 
Necessitating
Wheelchair and 
Scooter Use
Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft 
surfaces.
Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including 
ramps or beveled edges.
Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer 
downhill or tip sideways.
Cross-slopes of less than two percent.
Require wider path of travel.
Sufficient width and maneuvering space.
Physical Impairment 
Necessitating 
Walking Aid Use
Difficulty negotiating steep grades and cross 
slopes; decreased stability and tripping 
hazard.
Cross-slopes of less than two percent. 
Smooth, non-slippery travel surface.
Slower walking speed and reduced 
endurance; reduced ability to react.
Longer pedestrian signal cycles, shorter crossing 
distances, median refuges, and street furniture.
Hearing 
Impairment
Less able to detect oncoming hazards 
at locations with limited sight lines (e.g. 
driveways, angled intersections, channelized 
right turn lanes) and complex intersections. 
Longer pedestrian signal cycles, clear sight 
distances, highly visible pedestrian signals and 
markings.
Vision 
Impairment
Limited perception of path ahead and 
obstacles; reliance on memory; reliance 
on non-visual indicators (e.g. sound and 
texture).
Accessible text (larger print and raised text), 
accessible pedestrian signals (APS), guide strips 
and detectable warning surfaces, safety barriers, 
and lighting.
Cognitive 
Impairment
Varies greatly. Can affect ability to perceive, 
recognize, understand, interpret, and 
respond to information. 
Signs with pictures, universal symbols, and colors, 
rather than text.
Fatiguing Illnesses
Slower walking speed and reduced 
endurance; reduced ability to react. 
Increased chances of tripping or falling.
Longer pedestrian signal cycles, shorter crossing 
distances, median refuges, and street furniture. 
Smooth, non-slippery travel surface.
Disabled Pedestrian Design Considerations
Disabled Pedestrian 
Design Considerations
The table below summarizes common physical 
and cognitive impairments, how they affect 
personal mobility, and recommendations for 
improved pedestrian-friendly design.
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-4

Pedestrian Characteristics by Age
Source: AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, 
Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 
Facilities, Exhibit 2-1. 2021.
Age
Characteristics
0-4
Learning to walk
Requires constant adult supervision
Developing peripheral vision and depth 
perception
5-8
Increasing independence, but still requires 
supervision
Poor depth perception
9-13
Susceptible to “darting out” in roadways
Insufficient judgment
Sense of invulnerability
14-18
Improved awareness of traffic environment
Insufficient judgment
19-40
Active, aware of traffic environment
41-65
Slowing of reflexes
65+
Difficulty crossing street 
Vision loss
Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching from 
behind
Walking 
2’ 6” (0.75 m)
Minimum Accessible Width*  
3’ (0.9 m)
Preferred Operating Space
5’ (1.5 m)
Eye Level   
4’ 6” - 5’ 10”
(1.3 m - 1.7 m)
Shoulders 
1’ 10” (0.5 m)
*At point of contact
Introduction
Design-5

Design Needs of Runners
Running is an important recreation and fitness 
activity commonly performed on shared use 
paths. Many runners prefer softer surfaces (such 
as rubber, bare earth or crushed rock) to reduce 
impact. Runners can change their speed and 
direction frequently. If high volumes are expected, 
controlled interaction or separation of different 
types of users should be considered.
Preferred Operating Space
5’ (1.5 m)
Shoulders 
1’ 10” (0.5 m)
Sweep Width
4.3’ (1.3 m)
Runner Dimensions
Design Needs of Strollers
Strollers are wheeled devices pushed by 
pedestrians to transport babies or small children. 
Stroller models vary greatly in their design 
and capacity. Some strollers are designed to 
accommodate a single child, others can carry 3 
or more. Design needs of strollers depend on the 
wheel size, geometry and ability of the adult who 
is pushing the stroller. 
Strollers commonly have small pivoting front 
wheels for easy maneuverability, but these wheels 
may limit their use on unpaved surfaces or rough 
pavement. Curb ramps are valuable to these 
users. Lateral overturning is one main safety 
concern for stroller users.
Physical Length 
5’ (1.5 m)
Sweep Width 
3’ 6” (1.5 m)
Stroller Dimensions
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-6

Design Needs of 
Wheelchair Users
As the American population ages, the age 
demographics in Phoenix may also shift, and the 
number of people using mobility assistive devices 
(such as manual wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs) 
will increase.
Manual wheelchairs are self-propelled devices. 
Users propel themselves using push rims attached 
to the rear wheels. Braking is done through 
resisting wheel movement with the hands or arm.  
Alternatively, a second individual can control the 
wheelchair using handles attached to the back of 
the chair.
Power wheelchairs use battery power to move 
the wheelchair. The size and weight of power 
wheelchairs limit their ability to negotiate 
obstacles without a ramp. Various control units 
are available that enable users to control the 
wheelchair movement, based on their ability (e.g., 
joystick control, breath controlled, etc).
Maneuvering around a turn requires additional 
space for wheelchair devices. Providing adequate 
space for 180 degree turns at appropriate 
locations is an important element of accessible 
design.
Wheelchair User Design Considerations
Effect on Mobility
Design Solution
Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft surfaces.
Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including ramps or beveled edges.
Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer downhill.
Cross-slopes of less than two percent.
Require wider path of travel.
Sufficient width and maneuvering space.
Minimum Operating Width 
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum Width of Accessway*
4’ (1.2 m)
Minimum Operating Width 
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
5’ (1.5 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
5’ (1.5 m)
Physical Width 
2’6” (0.75 m)
Physical Width 
2’2” (0.7 m)
Armrest
2’5”  (0.75 m)
Handle    2’9” 
(0.9 m)
Eye Height 3’8” 
(1.1 m)
Wheelchair User Dimensions
*Provide 5’ x 5’ passing zone every 200’ if travel way width is less than 5 feet
Introduction
Design-7

The facility designer must have an understanding of how bicycles and scooters operate and how the devices 
themselves influence that operation. People who ride bicycles and other micromobility devices, by nature, are 
much more affected by poor facility design, construction and maintenance practices than motor vehicle drivers. 
By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bikes and micromobility devices, a facility designer 
can provide quality facilities that work for a wider spectrum of users and minimize user risk.
Bicycle as a Design Vehicle
Similar to motor vehicles, bicycles exist in a variety 
of sizes and configurations. These variations occur 
in the types of vehicle (such as a conventional 
bicycle, a recumbent bicycle or a tricycle), and 
behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort 
level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway 
should consider reasonably expected bicycle 
types on the facility and utilize the appropriate 
dimensions. 
The figure illustrates the operating space and 
physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist, 
which are the basis for typical facility design. 
Bicyclists require clear space to operate within 
a facility. This is why the minimum operating 
width is greater than the physical dimensions 
of the bicyclist. Bicyclists prefer five feet or 
more operating width, although four feet may 
be minimally acceptable if the pavement is 
continuous and there is no curbing present..
In addition to the design dimensions of a typical 
bicycle, there are many other commonly used 
pedal-driven cycles and accessories to consider 
when planning and designing bicycle facilities. 
The most common types include tandem bicycles, 
recumbent bicycles, and trailer accessories. 
Bicycle Rider - Typical Dimensions
Operating 
Envelope
8’ 4”
Eye Level
5’ to 6’
Handlebar 
Height
3’8”
Preferred Operating 
Width 6’
Minimum 
Operating 
Width 4’
Physical 
Operating 
Width 2’6”
DESIGN NEEDS OF BICYCLE & OTHER 
MICROMOBILITY DEVICE RIDERS
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-8

Other Micromobility Devices
Operating 
Envelope
8’ 4”
Eye Level
5’ to 6’
Handlebar 
Height
3’8”
Preferred Operating 
Width 5’
Minimum 
Operating 
Width 4’
Physical 
Operating 
Width 2’6”
Scooter Rider - Typical Dimensions
Scooters, skateboards, and other similar 
micromobility devices, both human-powered 
and battery-powered are low-speed mobility 
devices that are typically operated in on-street 
bike facilities. These devices can be entirely 
human-powered, powered by an electric motor, 
or a combination of the two. They typically have 
an operating speed of 20 mph or less, but this 
can vary widely depending on whether manually-
powered or motor driven, and other factors like 
hills. 
In general, these devices have similar design 
operating envelopes of bicycles, (in some cases 
even narrower), and can be operated by a wide 
range of users, including those who may not 
be able to operate a traditional bicycle. As the 
wheels are smaller than bicycle wheels, potholes 
and large cracks are more disruptive to these 
vehicles
These devices have seen a dramatic increase in 
use, and will likely only continue to be the case 
as they become more affordable, available, and 
accessible, for both personal devices and shared 
micromobility systems. 
BICYCLE TYPE
FEATURE
TYPICAL SPEED
Upright Adult Bicyclist
Paved level surfacing
8-12 mph
Crossing Intersections 
10 mph
Downhill
25-30 mph
Uphill
5-12 mph
Recumbent Bicyclist
Paved level surfacing
18 mph
E-bikes and E-scooters
Paved level surfacing
10-20 mph
Crossing Intersections
10-12 mph
Downhill
30 mph
Uphill
10-15mph
Design Speed Expectations
Introduction
Design-9

02
PEDESTRIAN 
TOOLBOX

INTRODUCTION
The Pedestrian Toolbox includes pedestrian-
oriented infrastructure elements that create 
a more comfortable and safe pedestrian 
experience.
In Phoenix, in addition to all elements listed in the 
Toolbox, designing for heat mitigation is essential. 
To mitigate heat, trees, shade structures, and 
building heights and setbacks should be designed 
to provide the maximum shade on sidewalks and 
streets - preventing the ground materials from 
absorbing too much heat from the sun. Surface 
materials and their respective UV reflective 
properties can also assist in reducing the effects 
of heat form the sun.
This toolbox will be helpful to in addressing 
pedestrian needs.
Pedestrian Toolbox
Design-11

Sidewalk Zones & Widths
Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an area for 
pedestrian travel separated from vehicle traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to 
increased numbers of people walking, improved accessibility, and the creation of social space.
Building Frontage Zone
Pedestrian Access 
Route (PAR)
Amenity Zone
Enhancement 
Zone
The pedestrian access 
route is the area intended 
for pedestrian travel. This 
zone should be entirely 
free of permanent and 
temporary objects 
while fully meeting 
the requirements for 
pedestrian accessibility.
Wide pedestrian zones 
are needed in areas or 
where pedestrian flows 
are high.
The building frontage zone 
allows pedestrians a comfortable 
“shy” distance from the building 
fronts, fencing, walls and 
vertical landscaping. It provides 
opportunities for window 
shopping, to place signs, planters, 
or chairs.
The amenity zone, also 
called the furnishing 
or landscaping zone, 
buffers pedestrians from 
the adjacent roadway, 
and is also the area 
where elements such as 
street trees, signal poles, 
signs, and other street 
furniture are properly 
located. 
The curbside 
lane can act as 
a flexible space 
to further buffer 
the sidewalk from 
moving traffic, and 
may be used for a 
bike facility. Curb 
extensions and bike 
corrals may occupy 
this space where 
appropriate.
Suburban Sidewalk
Design Features
SIDEWALKS
SIDEWALKS
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-12

Typical Application
•	 Wider sidewalks should be installed near 
schools, at transit stops, or anywhere high 
concentrations of pedestrians exist. 
•	 At transit stops, an 8 ft by 5 ft clear space is 
required for accessible passenger boarding/
alighting at the front door location per ADA 
requirements. 
•	 Sidewalks should be continuous on both sides 
of urban commercial streets, and should be 
required in areas of moderate residential 
density (1-4 dwelling units per acre). 
•	 When retrofitting gaps in the sidewalk network, 
locations near transit stops, schools, parks, 
public buildings, and other areas with high 
concentrations of pedestrians should be the 
highest priority.
Materials and 
Maintenance 
Sidewalks are typically constructed out of concrete 
and are separated from the roadway by a curb or 
gutter and sometimes a landscaped boulevard. 
Less expensive walkways constructed of asphalt, 
crushed stone, or other stabilized surfaces may 
be appropriate. Ensure accessibility and properly 
maintain all surfaces regularly. Surfaces must be 
firm, stable, and slip resistant. Colored, patterned, 
or stamped concrete can add distinctive visual 
appeal. See ‘Sidewalk Maintenance’ for more 
information. 
Street Classification
Parking Lane/
Enhancement 
Zone
Amenity 
Zone
Pedestrian 
Access Route 
(PAR)
Building 
Frontage 
Zone*
Local Streets
Varies
4 - 6 ft
6 - 8 ft
2 ft
Pedestrian Priority Areas
Varies
6 - 10 ft
8 ft
2 - 8 ft
Arterials and Collectors
Varies
4 - 6 ft
6 - 8 ft
4 - 6 ft
*Indicates ideal frontage zone space. Actual frontage zone is contingent 
upon the City’s development code and required set backs
Pedestrian Toolbox
Design-13

Design Features
•	 The level landing at the top of a ramp should 
be at least 4 feet long and at least the same 
width as the ramp itself. The slope of the ramp 
should be compliant to current standards.
•	 If the top landing is within the sidewalk or 
corner area where someone in a wheelchair 
may have to change direction, the landing 
must be a minimum of 4’-0” long (in the 
direction of the ramp run) and at least as 
wide as the ramp, although a width of 5’-0” is 
preferred.
(Crosswalk spacing not to scale. For illustration purposes only)
Perpendicular 
Curb Ramps
Parallel Curb Ramp
Diagonal Curb Ramp
  Diagonal ramps must include a 	
	
  Turning Space of at least 48” x 48" within 	
  the crosswalk for user maneuverability
Typical Application
Curb ramps must be installed at all intersections 
and midblock locations where pedestrian 
crossings exist, as mandated by federal legislation 
(1973 Rehabilitation Act and ADA 1990). All 
newly constructed and altered roadway projects 
must include compliant curb ramps. In addition, 
existing facilities must be upgraded to current 
standards when appropriate.
The edge of the Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) 
at the ADA Ramp opening, transitioning from the 
sidewalk to the street, is equipped with detectable 
warning surfaces (also known as truncated 
domes) to alert people with visual impairments 
to changes in the pedestrian environment. Visual 
contrast between the raised tactile device and 
the surrounding infrastructure is important so that 
the change is readily evident to partially sighted 
pedestrians. 
CURB RAMPS
Curb ramps are the design elements that allow all users to make the transition from the street to the 
sidewalk. A sidewalk without a curb ramp can be useless to someone in a wheelchair, forcing them back 
to a driveway and out into the street for access. There are a number of factors to be considered in the 
design and placement of curb ramps.
Curb ramps must be located so that they 
do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, 
the center of an intersection, parking 
spaces, or parking access aisles. Three 
configurations are illustrated below.
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-14

Further Considerations
Where feasible, separate directional curb 
ramps for each crosswalk at an intersection 
should be provided rather than having a single 
ramp at a corner for both crosswalks. Ramps 
dedicated to a single pedestrian travel direction 
orient pedestrians directly into the center of 
the intersection, which can be challenging for 
wheelchair users and pedestrians with visual 
impairments. Diagonal curb ramp configurations 
are not allowed during new construction and 
can only be installed as part of a maintenance 
activity or after a technical infeasibility study and 
approval by the city engineer.  
Curb radii need to be considered when designing 
directional ramps. While curb ramps are needed 
for use on all types of streets, the highest priority 
locations are on streets near transit stops, schools, 
parks, medical facilities, shopping areas.
Recommended: Directional curb ramps 
for crossing in both directions. 
Pedestrian Policies and Design Guidelines, pg 56. 
Maricopa Association of Governments, 2005
Materials and 
Maintenance
It is critical that the interface between a curb 
ramp and the street be maintained adequately. 
Asphalt street sections can develop vertical 
differentials where concrete meets asphalt at the 
foot of the ramp, which can catch the front wheels 
of a wheelchair.
Not recommended: Diagonal curb ramp configuration. 
Pedestrian Toolbox
Design-15

A
B
C
Typical Application
•	 For purposes of efficient street sweeping, the 
minimum radius for the reverse curves of the 
transition is 10 ft and the two radii should be 
balanced to be nearly equal.
•	 The curb extension width should terminate 
one foot short of the parking lane to maximize 
bicyclist safety when bicycle lanes are not 
present. This buffer is also preferred when 
bicycle lanes are present.
Design Features
•	 Where a bike lane runs adjacent to the curb 
extension, design with a 1‘ buffer from edge 
of parking lane (preferred).
•	 Crossing distance is shortened by 
approximately 6-8 feet with a parallel parking 
lane or 15 feet or more with an angled 
parking lane.
•	 Curb extension length can be adjusted to 
accommodate bus stops or street furniture.
Further Considerations
If there is no parking lane, adding curb extensions 
across a roadway shoulder may be a problem for 
bicycle travel and truck or bus turning movements.
Materials and Maintenance 
Planted curb extensions may be designed as a 
bioswale,  a vegetated system for stormwater 
management. To maintain proper stormwater 
drainage, curb extensions can be constructed as 
refuge islands offset by a drainage channel or 
feature a covered trench drain.
A
B
C
CURB EXTENSIONS
Curb extensions, also called curb bulbouts and neckdowns, minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing 
by shortening the crossing distance and giving pedestrians a better chance to see and be seen before 
beginning to cross. Curb extensions are appropriate for any crosswalk where it is desirable to shorten the 
crossing distance and there is a parking lane adjacent to the curb. 
City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-16

Typical Application
The curb radius may be as small as 3 ft where 
there are no turning movements, or 5 ft  where 
there are turning movements and adequate street 
width. Wide outside travel lanes, on-street parking 
and bike lanes create a larger effective turning 
radius and can therefore allow a smaller physical 
curb radius.
Design Features
Corners have two critical dimensions which must 
be considered together. 
•	 The physical radius controls the pedestrian 
experience.
•	 The effective radius is the widest turning arc 
that a vehicle can take through the corner and 
is larger than the physical radius. 
Further Considerations
Several factors govern the choice of curb radius 
in any given location. These include the desired 
pedestrian area of the corner, traffic turning 
movements, street classifications, design vehicle 
turning radius, intersection geometry, presence of 
a bus or other large vehicle route, and whether 
there is on-street parking or a bike lane (or both) 
between the travel lane and the curb. Dual radius 
corners with mountable aprons  or other corner 
hardening devices such as modular speed bumps 
can be used to accommodate larger design/
control vehicles while still effectively managing 
ordinary vehicular traffic.
Recommended: Bidirectional curb ramps 
for crossing in both directions. 
EF
FE
CT
IV
E R
AD
IU
S
P
H
Y
S
I
C
A
L
 
R
A
D
I
U
S
CORNER RADII
The size of a curb’s radius can have a significant impact on pedestrian comfort and safety.  A smaller 
curb radius provides more pedestrian area at the corner, allows more flexibility in the placement of 
curb ramps, results in a shorter crossing distance and requires vehicles to slow more on the intersection 
approach. During the design phase, the chosen radius should be the smallest possible for the 
circumstances and consider the effective radius in any design vehicle turning calculations. 
Pedestrian Toolbox
Design-17

03
BICYCLE 
TOOLBOX

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-19
Facility Selection: 
Bicycle User Type
The current AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities encourages designers to identify 
their rider type based on the trip purpose (Recreational vs Transportation) and on the level of comfort 
and skill of the rider (Causal vs Experienced). An alternate, and commonly used, user-type framework 
for understanding a potential rider’s willingness to bike is illustrated in the figure below. Developed by 
planners in Portland, OR* and supported by research**, this classification identifies four distinct types of 
bicyclists.
Strong and Fearless – This group is willing to ride 
a bicycle on any roadway regardless of traffic 
conditions. Comfortable taking the lane and 
riding in a vehicular manner on major streets 
without designated bicycle facilities.
Enthused and Confident - This group of people 
riding bicycles who are riding in most roadway 
situations but prefer  to have a designated facility. 
Comfortable riding on major streets with a bike 
lane.
Interested but Concerned – This group is more 
cautious and has some inclination towards 
bicycling, but are held back by concern over 
sharing the road with cars. Not very comfortable 
on major streets, even with a striped bike lane, 
and prefer separated pathways or low traffic 
neighborhood streets.
No Way, No How – This group comprises 
residents who simply aren’t interested at all in 
bicycling and may be physically unable or don’t 
know how to ride a bicycle, and they are unlikely 
to adopt bicycling in any way.
* Roger Geller, City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. 
Four Types of Cyclists. http://www.portlandonline.
com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=237507. 2009.
 ** Dill, J., McNeil, N. Four Types of Cyclists? 
Testing a Typology to Better Understand 
Bicycling Behavior and Potential. 2012.
Typical Distribution of 
Bicyclist Types
1%
60%
5-10%
30%
Interested but Concerned
No Way, No How
Enthused and Confident
Strong and Fearless
INTRODUCTION

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-20
Facility Selection: Comfort
In order to provide a bikeway network that meets the needs of the Phoenix’s “Interested but Concerned” 
residents (who comprise the majority of the population), bikeways must be low-stress and comfortable. 
By using a metric called Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), specific facility types can be matched to the needs of 
people who bicycle in Phoenix. Generally, “Interested but Concerned,” users will only bicycle on LTS 1 or 
LTS 2 facilities.
 
 
LTS 1 
 
LTS2
 
 
LTS3
 
LTS4
 
 
LTS LEVEL
DESCRIPTION
Presents the lowest level of  traffic stress; demands 
less attention from people riding bicycles, and 
attractive enough for a relaxing bicycle ride. Suitable 
for almost all people riding bicycles, including children 
trained to ride in the street and to safety cross 
intersections.
Presents little traffic stress and therefore suitable to 
most adults riding bicycles, but demandsmore 
attention than might be expected from children.
More traffic stress than LTS2, yet significantly less than 
the stress of integrating with multilane traffic.
A level of stress beyond LTS 3. Includes roadways that 
have no dedicated bicycle facilities and moderate to 
higher vehicle speeds and volumes OR high speed 
and high volume roadways WITH an exclusive riding 
zone (lane) where there is a significant speed 
differential with vehicles.
WHAT TYPE OF BICYCLISTS WILL RIDE ON 
THIS LTS FACILITY?
STRONG & 
FEARLESS
ENTHUSIASTIC & 
CONFIDENT
INTERESTED BUT 
CONCERNED
 
 
YES
YES
YES
YES
 
YES
YES
SOMETIMES
NO
 
YES
SOMETIMES
NO
NO
Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS)

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-21
Facility Selection: Bikeways 
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (1,000 veh/day or 100 veh/peak hr)
BIKE BOULEVARD
BIKE LANE WITH PARKING LANE
BUFFERED BIKE LANE
SEPARATED BIKE LANE
SHARED-USE TRAIL
FACILITY TYPE
PHOENIX BICYCLE FACILITY 
CONTEXTUAL GUIDANCE
20
30
40
50
25
35
45
15
10
5
10
6
2
15+
25+
4
8
0
20+
30+
Speed
Volume
Speed
Volume
Speed
Volume
Speed
Volume
Speed
Volume
LEGEND 
Desired
LTS 1
Acceptable
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 2
LTS 1*
LTS 2
Speed
Volume
POSTED TRAVEL SPEED (mph)
BIKE LANE WITHOUT PARKING LANE
On-road basic bike lane (without 
buffers or barriers).  
Speed
Volume
LTS 2
LTS 1
* Depending on turns across path and their treatment. If in the 45 mph range, more treatment is needed to be LTS 1. 
LTS ratings based on Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis Methods 
Comfortable local street environment 
without utilizing physical separation; 
typically employs techniques to ensure 
speeds are slow enough for safe 
shared street. 
Basic bike lane separated by painted 
buffer to separate bike lane from 
vehicle travel lanes and/or parking 
lanes.
Physically separated bikeway. Could 
be one or two way and protected by a 
variety of techniques.
Completely separated from roadway, 
typically shared with pedestrians 
On-road basic bike lane (without 
buffers or barriers).  
LTS 2
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 1
As a starting point to identify a preferred facility, the chart below can be used to determine the 
recommended type of bikeway to be provided in particular roadway speed and volume situations. To use 
this chart, identify the appropriate daily traffic volume on the existing or proposed roadway, and locate 
the facility types indicated by those key variables. Other factors beyond volume which affect facility 
selection include traffic mix of including heavy vehicles, the presence of on-street parking, intersection 
density, surrounding land use, and roadway sight distance. These factors are not included in the facility 
selection chart below, but should always be considered in the facility selection and design process.
This chart can be used to identify a preferred bicycle facility, or facilities, that would provide an LTS 1 or 2 experience at a selected location. For street segments, desired and acceptable 
vehicular volumes for each facility are shown. These are the motor vehicle volume ranges that are appropriate for that facility. The correspondence between motor vehicle speed on the 
street and the LTS score for each facility are also shown. The speed entries determine the LTS scores for the facility. A facility should only be chosen when both the street volumes and LTS 
scores are appropriate. Since ranges overlap, it is important to allow more than one facility type to meet the desired LTS. Other factors should be considered when selecting a treatment, 
such as proximity to schools, parks, or trailheads.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-22
STANDARD BIKE LANES
On-street bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings 
and signs. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same 
direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the 
adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane.
Typical Application
•	 Bike lanes may be used on any street with 
adequate space, but are most effective on 
streets with moderate traffic volumes ≤ 6,000 
ADT (≤ 4,000 preferred).
•	 Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets with 
lower to moderate speeds ≤ 30 mph. 
•	 Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most 
streets. 
•	 May be appropriate for children when 
configured as 6+ ft wide lanes on lower-
speed, lower-volume streets with one lane in 
each direction.
A
B
C
D
E
A
Design Features
•	 Mark inside line with 8" stripe. Mark 4" 
parking lane line or "Ts".
•	 Include a bicycle lane marking at the 
beginning of the bike lane, beginning and 
end of bike lane pockets, approaches and 
farside of arterial crossings, and major 
changes in direction. MUTCD recommends 
every 80 ft - 1,000 ft depending on land use 
context. 
•	 6 foot width preferred adjacent to on-street 
parking, (5 foot min.). Buffer preferred when 
parking has high turnover, see Buffered Bike 
Lanes.
A
B
BIKE LANES
C

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-23
•	 5.5–7 foot preferred adjacent to curb and 
gutter or 4 feet more than the gutter pan 
width.
•	 The R3-17 “Bike Lane” sign is optional, but 
recommended in most contexts.
Further Considerations
•	 On high speed streets (≥ 40 mph) the 
minimum bike lane should be 6 feet.
•	 It may be desirable to reduce the width of 
general purpose travel lanes in order to add or 
widen bicycle lanes.
•	 On multi-lane streets, the most appropriate 
bicycle facility to provide for user comfort 
may be buffered bicycle lanes or physically 
separated bicycle lanes. 
•	 Contraflow bike lanes are a special type of 
bike lane that can be implemented in specific 
locations where a dedicated bike lane is 
needed for a particular direction of travel, but 
the roadway is oriented for one-way travel in 
the opposite direction, and/or when space 
constraints preclude a bike facility on nearby 
parallel routes that would otherwise serve this 
need. Contraflow bike lanes are effective in 
providing short, critical connections along 
bikeways, and special attention needs to be 
paid to facility transitions to other bikeway 
types.
Manhole Covers and Grates:
•	 Manhole surfaces should be manufactured 
with a shallow surface texture in the form of a 
tight, nonlinear pattern.
•	 If manholes or other utility access boxes are 
to be located in bike lanes within 50 ft. of 
intersections or within 20 ft. of driveways 
or other bicycle access points, special 
manufactured permanent nonstick surfaces 
ensure a controlled travel surface for bicyclists 
breaking or turning.
•	 Manholes, drainage grates, or other obstacles 
should be set flush with the paved roadway. 
Roadway surface inconsistencies pose a 
threat to safe riding conditions for bicyclists. 
Construction of manholes, access panels or 
Bike lanes provided dedicated spaces 
for bicyclists to ride on the street.
other drainage elements should be constructed 
with no variation in the surface. The maximum 
allowable tolerance in vertical roadway surface 
will be 1/4 of an inch.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Bike lane striping and markings will require higher 
maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse 
over them at intersections, driveways, parking 
lanes, and along curved or constrained segments 
of roadway. 
Bike lanes should also be maintained so that 
there are no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or 
debris.
D
E

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-24
BUFFERED BIKE LANES
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the 
bike lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.
Typical Application 
•	 Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being 
considered.
•	 While conventional bike lanes are most 
appropriate on streets with lower to moderate 
speeds (≤ 30 mph), buffered bike lanes 
provide additional value on streets with higher 
speeds (+30 mph) and high volumes or high 
truck volumes (up to 6,000 ADT).
•	 On streets with extra lanes or lane width. 
•	 Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most 
streets. 
Design Features
•	 The minimum bicycle travel area (not 
including buffer) is 5 feet wide.
•	 Buffers should be at least 2.5 feet wide - but 
3 feet or more in width is preferred. Diagonal 
markings are used in buffers that are 2.5 to 
4 feet wide. Chevron markings are used in 
buffers over 4 feet wide.
•	 Buffers may be applied on the parking side, 
the travel side, both or alternating depending 
on the main source of concern.
 
A
B
A
B

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-25
Further Considerations
•	 On multi-lane streets with high vehicles 
speeds, the most appropriate bicycle facility 
to provide for user comfort may be physically 
separated bike lanes.
•	 NCHRP Report #766 recommends, when 
space is limited, installing a buffer space 
between the parking lane and bicycle lane 
where on-street parking is permitted rather 
than between the bicycle lane and vehicle 
travel lane.1 This buffer is particularly useful 
in commercial areas where parking turnover is 
higher.
1  National Cooperative Highway Research
Program. Report #766: Recommended Bicycle Lane
Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics.
Buffered bike lanes should include a striped buffer that is 
at least 2.5-3+ feet 
The use of additional pavement markings delineates 
space between vehicles and bicyclists.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Bike lane striping and markings will require 
higher maintenance where vehicles frequently 
traverse over them at intersections, driveways, 
parking lanes, and along curved or constrained 
segments of roadway. 
Bike lanes should be maintained so that there are 
no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-26
Typical Use
•	 Along streets on which conventional bicycle 
lanes would cause many bicyclists to feel stress 
because of factors such as multiple lanes, high 
bicycle volumes, high motor traffic volumes 
(9,000-30,000 ADT), higher traffic speeds 
(35+ mph), high incidence of double parking, 
higher truck traffic (10% of total ADT) and 
high parking turnover.
•	 Along streets for which conflicts at 
intersections can be effectively mitigated 
using parking lane setbacks, bicycle markings 
through the intersection, and other signalized 
intersection treatments.
Design Features
•	 Pavement markings, symbols and/or arrow 
markings must be placed at the beginning of 
the separated bikeway and at intervals along 
the facility based on engineering judgment 
to define the bike direction.
A
B
C
SEPARATED BIKE LANES: ONE-WAY
One-way separated bike lanes, also known as protected bikeways or cycle tracks, are on-street bikeway 
facilities that are separated from vehicle traffic. Physical separation is provided by a barrier between the 
bikeway and the vehicular travel lane. These barriers can include flexible posts, bollards, parking, planter 
strips, extruded curbs, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways using these barrier elements typically 
share the same elevation as adjacent travel lanes, but the bikeway could also be raised above street 
level, either below or equivalent to sidewalk level.
•	 8 feet or more in width preferred in areas 
with high bicycle volumes or uphill sections 
to facilitate safe passing behavior. Minimum 
width, 6 feet (5.5 feet as an absolute 
minimum).
•	 When placed adjacent to parking, the 
parking buffer should be 4 ft wide to allow 
for passenger loading and to prevent door 
collisions. 
•	 Buffers should be wide enough to support 
the type of separation provided without that 
separation creating a hazard for drivers or 
bicyclists using the roadway.
•	 When placed adjacent to a travel lane, one-
way raised cycle tracks may be configured 
with a mountable curb to allow entry and 
exit from the bicycle lane for passing other 
bicyclists or to access vehicular turn lanes.
•	 Include green elephant crossings marks at 
conflict points like intersections or driveways.
A
B
C

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-27
Parked cars serve as a barrier between bicyclists and the vehicle lane. Barriers could 
also include flexible posts, bollards, planters, or other design elements.
Further Considerations
•	 Diagonal markings are used in buffers that are 
2.5 to 4 feet wide. Chevron markings are used 
in buffers over 4 feet wide.
•	 Curbs may be used as a channeling device. 
Grade-separation provides an enhanced level 
of separation in addition to buffers and other 
barrier types.
•	 Where possible, physical barriers such as 
removable curbs should be oriented towards 
the inside edge of the buffer to provide as 
much extra width as possible for bicycle use.
•	 A retrofit separated bikeway has a relatively 
low implementation cost compared to road 
reconstruction by making use of existing 
pavement and drainage and using a parking 
lane as a barrier.
•	 Gutters, drainage outlets and utility covers 
should be designed and configured as not to 
impact bicycle travel.
•	 For clarity at major or minor street crossings, 
consider a dotted line for the buffer boundary 
where cars are expected to cross.
•	 Special consideration should be given at 
transit stops to manage bicycle and pedestrian 
interactions.
•	 Consideration should be given to ensuring 
that entrances to separated bike lanes do not 
look like car travel lanes by incorporating clear 
signage and pavement markings.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Bikeway striping and markings will require higher 
maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse 
over them at intersections, driveways, parking 
lanes, and along curved or constrained segments 
of roadway. Green conflict markings (if used) will 
also generally require higher maintenance due to 
vehicle wear.
Bikeways should be maintained so that there are 
no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris.  
Access points along the facility should be 
provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit 
the separated bikeway.
Install composite and reboundable delineator 
systems, which offer more durability.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-28
Typical Application
Works best on the left side of one-way streets.
•	 Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/
or speeds
•	 Streets with high bicycle volumes. 
•	 Streets with a high incidence of wrong-way 
bicycle riding.
•	 Streets with few conflicts such as driveways or 
cross-streets on one side of the street.
•	 Streets that connect to shared use trails.
SEPARATED BIKE LANES: TWO-WAY
Two-Way separated bike lanes are bicycle facilities that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one 
side of the road. Two-way separated bikeways share some of the same design characteristics as one-way 
separated bikeways, but often require additional considerations at driveway and side-street crossings, and 
intersections with other bikeways.
Design Features
•	 12 foot operating width preferred (10 ft 
minimum) width for two-way facility.
•	 In constrained locations an 8 foot minimum 
operating width may be considered for short 
intervals.
•	 Adjacent to on-street parking a 4 foot 
minimum width channelized buffer or 
island should be provided to accommodate 
opening doors. (NACTO, 2012).
•	 Additional signalization and signs may be 
necessary to manage conflicts. 
A
B
A
B

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-29
A two-way facility can accommodate bicyclists in two directions of travel.
Further Considerations
•	 A two-way separated bikeway on one way 
street should be located on the left side. 
•	 A two-way separated bikeway may be 
configured at street level or as a raised 
separated bikeway with vertical separation 
from the adjacent travel lane.
•	 Two-way separated bikeways should ideally be 
placed along streets with long blocks and few 
driveways or mid-block access points for motor 
vehicles. 
•	 Two-way separated bikeways may have 
implications for signalized and unsignalized 
intersections that put contra-flow bicyclists in 
increased levels of risk. This should be strongly 
considered with any project. Bicycle exclusive 
signals and other control elements are often 
recommended with two-way separated 
bikeways.
•	 Consideration should be given to ensuring 
that entrances to separated bike lanes do not 
look like car travel lanes by incorporating clear 
signage and pavement markings.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Bikeway striping and markings will require higher 
maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse 
over them at intersections, driveways, parking 
lanes, and along curved or constrained segments 
of roadway. Green conflict markings (if used) will 
also generally require higher maintenance due to 
vehicle wear.
Bikeways should be maintained so that there are 
no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris.  
Access points along the facility should be 
provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit 
the separated bikeway.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-30
Appropriate barriers for 
reconstruction projects:
•	 Curb separation
•	 Medians
•	 Landscaped medians
•	 Raised protected bike lane with vertical or 
mountable curb
•	 Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Typical Application
Appropriate barriers for retrofit 
projects:
•	 Parked cars
•	 Flexible delineators
•	 Planters
•	 Modular curbing
Barrier Separation
Median Separation
Elevation Separation
Parking Separation
P
3’ Buffer and Spatial
Envelope for Barriers
Flexible Delineators
(10’-40’ spacing)
Raised Curb
(2’ min. width, 
4' if plantings 
present)
Optional
Planting
Raised
Bike Facility
Buffered
Door Zone 
(3’ min. 4’ 
preferred. No 
vertical elements 
next to parking 
spaces.)
Modular curbing
(6’ spacing,
1’ from travel lane)
Planter Boxes
(Consistent spacing)
Jersey Barriers
(Consistent spacing)
SEPARATED BIKE LANE BARRIERS
Separated bike lanes may use a variety of vertical elements to physically separate the bikeway from 
adjacent travel lanes. Barriers may be robust constructed elements such as curbs, or may be more 
interim in nature, such as flexible delineator posts.

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-31
Raised separated bikeways are bicycle facilities that are vertically separated from motor vehicle traffic. 
Design Features
•	 Maximize effective operating space by placing 
curbs or delineator posts as far from the 
through bikeway space as practicable. 
•	 Allow for adequate shy distance of 1 to 5 
feet from vertical elements to maximize useful 
space.
•	 When next to parking allow for 3 feet of space 
in the buffer space to allow for opening doors 
and passenger unloading.
•	 The presences of landscaping in medians, 
planters and safety islands increases comfort 
for users and enhances the streetscape 
environment.
Further Considerations
•	 With new roadway construction, a raised 
separated bikeway can be less expensive to 
construct than a wide or buffered bicycle lane 
because of shoulder trenching and sub base 
requirements.
•	 Parking should be prohibited within 30 feet 
of intersections and driveways to improve 
visibility. Clearly indicate the parking 
prohibition through the use of a red curb, 
signs, or other tools.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Separated bikeways protected by concrete islands 
or other permanent physical separation, can 
be swept and plowed by smaller street sweeper 
vehicles.
Access points along the facility should be 
provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit 
the separated bikeway.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-32
Design Features
•	 Signs and pavement markings are the 
minimum treatments necessary to designate a 
street as a bike boulevard. 
•	 Implement volume control treatments based 
on the context of the bike boulevard, using 
engineering judgment. While motor vehicle 
volumes should not exceed 3,000 vehicles per 
day, ideal conditions are 1,500 vehicles per 
day or less.
•	 Intersection crossings should be designed 
to enhance comfort and minimize delay for 
bicyclists of diverse skills and abilities. 
BIKE BOULEVARD OVERVIEW
A Bike Boulevard is a low-speed, low-volume roadway that is designed to enhance comfort and 
convenience for people bicycling. It provides better conditions for bicycling while improving the 
neighborhood character and maintaining emergency vehicle access. Bike Boulevards are intended to 
serve as a low-stress bikeway network, providing direct, and convenient routes across Phoenix. Key 
elements of Bike Boulevards are unique signage and pavement markings, traffic calming and diversion 
features to maintain low vehicle volumes, and convenient major street crossings.  
Typical Use
•	 Parallel with and in close proximity to major 
thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less) on low-volume, 
low-speed streets.
•	 Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that is 
ideally long and relatively continuous (2-5 
miles).
•	 Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag or 
circuitous routing. The bikeway should have 
less than 10% out of direction travel compared 
to shortest path of primary corridor.
•	 Local streets with traffic volumes of fewer 
than 1,500 vehicles per day (for the majority 
of their length) and with average operating 
speeds below 25 mph. Utilize traffic calming 
to maintain or establish low volumes and 
discourage vehicle cut through / speeding.
Treatments depicted may vary per roadway segment or location. 
BIKE BOULEVARDS

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-33
Image Placeholder
Further Considerations
•	 Bike Boulevards are established on streets that 
improve connectivity to key destinations and 
provide a direct, low-stress route for bicyclists, 
with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, 
designated and designed to give bicycle travel 
priority over other modes. 
•	 Bike Boulevard retrofits to local streets are 
typically located on streets without existing 
signalized accommodation at crossings of 
collector and arterial roadways. Without 
treatments for bicyclists, these intersections 
can become major barriers along the Bike 
Boulevard.
•	 Traffic calming can deter motorists from driving 
on a street. Anticipate and monitor vehicle 
volumes on adjacent streets to determine 
whether traffic calming results in inappropriate 
volumes. Traffic calming can be implemented 
on a trial basis. 
An example of an large pavement marking to 
reinforce that the street is a Bike Boulevard.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Bike Boulevards require few additional 
maintenance requirements to local roadways. 
Signage, signals, and other traffic calming 
elements should be inspected and maintained 
according to local standards. 
A traffic circle included in an intersection along 
a Bike Boulevard calms traffic since vehicles 
are forced to slow down. Photo credit: Alta

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-34
TRAFFIC CALMING
Typical Application
•	 Traffic calming measures should be limited to 
placement along local streets, typically with a 
maximum posted speed of 30 mph. 
•	 Traffic calming measures should be 
implemented when the safety of all roadway 
users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists, is 
at risk due to high vehicular speeds. The risk 
can be determined by an engineering study.
•	 Traffic calming measures can be more 
applicable in areas with high potential for 
conflict between pedestrian/bicyclist and motor 
vehicles. 
•	 Traffic calming measures may be most 
appropriate in areas with predominantly 
residential or mixed-use land use. 
•	 If applicable, traffic calming measures should 
not infringe on bicycle space. Where possible, 
provide a bicycle route outside of the element 
so bicyclists can avoid having to merge into 
traffic at a narrow pinch point. 
•	 Traffic calming measures should always 
consider emergency vehicle response times 
and turning abilities. 
Design Features
•	 There are a variety of treatments and 
combinations of treatments that can be used 
for traffic calming. 
•	 Priority traffic calming measures include 
strategies and devices that are primarily 
focus on safety. They are meant to regulate, 
warn, inform, enforce, and educate motorists, 
cyclists, and pedestrians on the road. Examples 
include, radar signs, pavement markings, turn 
restrictions, temporary speed bumps.
•	 Secondary traffic calming devices and roadway 
design features are used primarily to reduce 
traffic speeds within residential areas. These 
measures are used when primary calming 
devices have not been effective. Examples 
Traffic calming devices can help mitigate speeding and cut-through traffic by changing driver behavior 
through a variety of visual or physical changes to the road environment. Such measures may reduce 
the design speed of a street and can be used in conjunction with reduced speed limits to reinforce the 
expectation of lowered speeds.

Bicycle Toolbox
Design-35
include, speed tables, chicanes, traffic circles, 
and tree planting.
•	 Traffic diversion may be employed to 
discourage cut-through traffic from utilizing 
residential streets designated as Bike 
Boulevards. Traffic diverters are often 
employed when traffic volumes in a particular 
area have been found to be significantly 
higher compared to similar streets in other 
areas. Examples include, diverters, partial 
street closures, and median barrier/forced turn 
islands.
Further Consideration
Benefits of speed management 
include:
•	 Improves conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians, 
and residents on local streets. 
•	 Reduced travel speeds decreases the exposure 
risks between bicyclists/pedestrians and motor 
vehicles. 
•	 Reduced travel speeds result in reduced injury 
severity in the event of a collision. 
•	 Helps achieve a safer and more livable 
neighborhood while balancing the 
transportation needs of the roadway. 
Bulb outs narrow the right-of way, creating visual friction 
and slowing cars.

04
SHARED USE 
PATHS

Shared Use Paths
Design-37
A
B
SHARED USE PATHS
Typical Use
•	 In waterway corridors, such as along canals, 
drainage ditches, rivers, and creeks.
•	 In abandoned rail corridors (commonly 
referred to as Rails-to-Trails or Rail-Trails.)
•	 In active rail corridors, trails can be built 
adjacent to active railroads (referred to as 
Rails-with-Trails.)
•	 In utility corridors, such as power line and 
sewer corridors.
•	 Along roadways.
A shared use path provides a travel area separate from motorized traffic for bicyclists, pedestrians, 
skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other users. Shared use paths are desirable for bicyclists of all skill 
levels preferring separation from traffic. These facilities should generally provide travel opportunities not 
provided by existing roadways.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-38
Further Considerations
•	 Under most conditions, centerline markings 
are not necessary. Centerline markings should 
only be used if necessary for clarifying user 
positioning or preferred operating procedure: 
Solid line = No Passing; Dashed line = Lane 
placement
•	 Paths with a high volume of bidirectional traffic 
should include a centerline. This can help 
communicate that users should expect traffic in 
both directions and encourage users to travel 
on the right and pass on the left. Wide trails 
will function better with higher levels of user 
traffic.
•	 Where there is a sharp blind curve, painting 
a solid yellow line with directional arrows 
reduces the risk of head-on collisions.
•	 Small scale signs should be used in trail 
environments.
•	 Terminate the path where it is easily accessible 
to and from the street system, preferably at 
a trailhead, controlled intersection, or at the 
beginning of a dead-end street. 
•	 Use of bollards should be avoided when 
possible. If bollards are used at intersections 
and access points, they should be colored 
brightly and/or supplemented with reflective 
materials to be visible at night.
 
Design Features
•	 12-14 ft is recommended for heavy use 
situations with high concentrations of multiple 
users. A separate track (5’ minimum) can be 
provided for pedestrian use.
•	 10 ft is recommended in most situations and 
will be adequate for moderate to heavy use.
Lateral Clearance
•	 A 2 ft or greater shoulder on both sides 
of the path should be provided if the trail 
is constructed from asphalt. If the trail is 
constructed out of concrete these clearances 
should be maintained, but no gravel shoulder 
is required.
•	 1-2 ft of clearance should be provided 
between the edge of path and barriers, such 
as walls or fences, or railing
Overhead Clearance
•	 Clearance to overhead obstructions should 
be 8 ft minimum, with 10 ft recommended.
Striping
•	 When striping is desired, use a 4 inch dashed 
yellow centerline stripe with 4 inch solid white 
edge lines. 
•	 Solid centerlines can be provided on tight 
or blind corners and transitions, and on the 
approaches to roadway crossings.
B
A

Shared Use Paths
Design-39
PATHWAY ENTRANCES
Bollards or other physical barriers are often used to restrict motor vehicle access to the shared use 
path. Unfortunately, physical barriers are often ineffective at preventing access, and create obstacles 
to legitimate path users. Alternative design strategies use signage, landscaping and curb cut design to 
reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle access.
Typical Application
•	 Bollards or other barriers should not be 
used unless there is a documented history of 
unauthorized intrusion by motor vehicles. 
•	 If unauthorized use persists, assess whether 
the problems posed by unauthorized access 
exceed the risks and issues posed by bollards 
and other barriers.
 
A
B
C
D
Design Features
•	 “No Motor Vehicles” signage (R5-3) may be 
used to reinforce access rules.
•	 At intersections, split the trail tread into two 
sections separated by low landscaping.
•	 Vertical curb cuts should be used to 
discourage motor vehicle access.
•	 Low landscaping preserves visibility and 
emergency access.
A
B
C
D

05
ENHANCED CROSSING 
TREATMENTS

Enhanced Crossing Treatments
Design-41
TWO-STAGE TURN BOXES 
Two-stage turn boxes offer bicyclists a safe way to make turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from 
a physically separated or conventional bike lane. On separated bike lanes, bicyclists are often unable to 
merge into traffic to turn due to physical separation, making the two-stage turning critical. This treatment 
received Interim Approval from FHWA in 2017 (IA-20).
Typical Application
•	 Streets with high vehicle speeds and/or traffic 
volumes.
•	 At intersections of multi-lane roads with 
signalized intersections.
•	 At signalized intersections with a high number 
of bicyclists making a left turn from a right side 
facility.
•	 Preferred treatment to assist turning maneuvers 
on bike lanes, instead of requiring bicyclists to 
merge to make a vehicular left turn.
•	 Required for protected bikeways to assist left turns 
from a right side facility, or right turns from a left 
side facility.
Design Features
•	 The two-stage turn box should be placed in a 
protected area. Typically this is within the shadow 
of an on-street parking lane or protected bike 
lane buffer area and should be placed in front of 
the crosswalk to avoid conflict with pedestrians. 
•	 10 foot x 6.5 foot preferred dimensions of bicycle 
storage area (6 foot x 3 foot minimum).
•	 Bicycle stencil and turn arrow pavement markings 
should be used to indicate proper bicycle 
direction and positioning. (NACTO, 2012)
Further Considerations
•	 Consider providing a “No Turn on Red” on 
the cross street to prevent motor vehicles from 
entering the turn box.
•	 This design formalizes a maneuver called a 
“box turn” or “pedestrian style turn.”
•	 Design guidance for two-stage turns apply to 
both bike lanes and separated bike lanes.
•	 Two-stage turn boxes reduce conflicts in 
multiple ways; from keeping bicyclists from 
queuing in a bike lane or crosswalk and by 
separating turning bicyclists from through 
bicyclists.
•	 Bicyclist capacity of a two-stage turn box is 
influenced by physical dimension (how many 
bicyclists it can contain) and signal phasing 
(how frequently the box clears.)
Materials and Maintenance
Turn boxes may subject to high vehicle wear, 
especially turning passenger vehicles, buses, and 
heavy trucks. As a result, bike boxes with green 
coloring will require more frequent replacement 
over time. The life of the green coloring 
will depend on vehicle volumes and turning 
movements, but Thermoplastic or MMA are 
generally more durable material than paint.
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-42
Typical Use
•	 At potential areas of conflict between
bicyclists and turning vehicles, such as a right 
or left turn locations.
•	 At signalized intersections with high bicycle 
volumes.
•	 At signalized intersections with high vehicle 
volumes. 
•	 Not to be used on downhill approaches to 
minimize the right hook threat potential during 
the extended green signal phase. 
BICYCLE BOX
A bicycle box is designed to provide bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get in front of queuing 
traffic during the red signal phase. Motor vehicles must queue behind the white stop line at the rear of 
the bike box. On a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear the intersection. This treatment received 
Interim Approval from the FHWA in 2016 (IA-18).
B
A
C
Design Features
•	 14 foot minimum depth from back of 
crosswalk to motor vehicle stop bar. 
(NACTO, 2012)
•	 A “No Turn on Red” sign should be installed 
overhead to prevent vehicles from entering 
the Bike Box. A “Stop Here on Red” sign 
should be post mounted at the stop line to 
reinforce observance of the stop line.
•	 A 50 foot ingress lane should be used to 
provide access to the box.
•	 Use of green colored pavement is 
recommended.
B
C
A

Enhanced Crossing Treatments
Design-43
A bike box allows for bicyclists to wait in front of queuing traffic, providing high visibility 
and a head start over motor vehicle traffic. Photo credit: Marin County.
Further Considerations
•	 This treatment positions bicycles together and 
on a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly 
clear the intersection, minimizing conflict and 
delay to transit or other traffic. 
•	 Pedestrian also benefit from bike boxes, as 
they experience reduced vehicle encroachment 
into the crosswalk.
•	 Bike boxes require permission from the FHWA 
to implement, and jurisdictions must receive 
approval prior to implementation. A State may 
request Interim Approval for all jurisdictions in 
that State.1 
•	 Bike boxes should not be used to 
accommodate bicyclist turns at intersections 
that have substantial parallel green time as 
bicyclists cannot safely occupy the box when 
arriving on green.
1  FHWA. Interim Approval for Optional Use of 
an Intersection Bicycle Box (IA-18). 2016.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Bike boxes are subject to high vehicle wear, 
especially turning passenger vehicles, buses, and 
heavy trucks. As a result, bike boxes with green 
coloring will require more frequent replacement 
over time. The life of the green coloring 
will depend on vehicle volumes and turning 
movements, but thermoplastic is generally a more 
durable material than paint.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-44
•	 Use colored pavement markings and/or 
shared line markings through conflict areas at 
intersections. 
•	 If a raised bikeway is used, the height of 
the lane should be maintained through the 
crossing, requiring automobiles to cross over.
•	 Motor vehicle traffic crossing the bikeway 
should be constrained or channelized to make 
turns at sharp angles to reduce travel speed 
prior to the crossing. 
•	 Driveway crossings may be configured as 
raised crossings to slow turning cars and assert 
physical priority of traveling bicyclists.
•	 Motor vehicle stop bar on cross-streets 
and major driveways is setback from the 
intersection to ensure that drivers slow down 
and scan for pedestrians and bicyclists before 
turning.
Typical Use
•	 Along streets with separated bikeway where 
there are intersections and driveways. 
•	 Higher frequency driveways or crossings may 
require additional treatment such as conflict 
markings and signs. 
 Design Features
•	 Remove parking to allow for the appropriate 
clear sight distance before driveways or 
intersections to improve visibility. The desirable 
no-parking area is at least 30 feet from each 
side of the crossing. 
DRIVEWAY & MINOR STREET 
CROSSINGS
The added separation provided by separated bikeways creates additional considerations at intersections 
and driveways when compared to conventional bicycle lanes. Special design guidelines are necessary to 
preserve sightlines and denote potential conflict areas between modes, especially in the case of a two-way 
bike lane when motorists turning into or out of driveways may not be expecting bicycle travel opposite to 
the main flow of traffic. 
At driveways and crossings of minor streets, bicyclists should not be expected to stop if the major street 
traffic does not stop.

Enhanced Crossing Treatments
Design-45
SIGNALS AND BEACONS
HIGH-INTENSITY ACTIVATED 
CROSSWALKS (HAWK)
High-Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWK) are used to improve non-motorized crossings of major 
streets. A hybrid beacon consists of a signal head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the 
major street, and a pedestrian signal head for the crosswalk. HAWKS are only used at marked mid-block 
crossings or unsignalized intersections. They are activated with a pedestrian pushbutton at each end. If a 
median refuge island is used at the crossing, another pedestrian pushbutton can be located on the island 
to create a two-stage crossing.
Typical Application
•	 Suitable for multi-lane streets where speeds are 
above 30-45 mph 
•	 Where off-street bicycle and pedestrian 
facilities intersect major streets without 
signalized intersections.
•	 At intersections or midblock crossings where 
there are high pedestrian volumes.
Design Features
•	 HAWKS may be installed without meeting 
traffic signal control warrants based on 
engineering judgment if roadway speed 
and volumes are excessive for comfortable 
pedestrian crossings.
•	 If installed within a signal system, signal 
engineers should evaluate the need for the 
HAWKs to be  coordinated with other signals.
•	 Parking and other sight obstructions shall be 
prohibited in advance of, and beyond, the 
marked crosswalk to provide adequate sight 
distance.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-46
Further Considerations
•	 HAWKs are normally activated by push 
buttons, but may also be triggered by infrared, 
microwave, or video detectors. If not on-
demand, the maximum delay for activation 
of the signal should be two minutes, with 
minimum crossing times determined by the 
width of the street, but a much shorter delay is 
strongly preferred.
•	 Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or 
volume, requires review  to identify sight lines, 
potential impacts on traffic progression, timing 
with adjacent signals, capacity, and safety. 
•	 The installation of HAWKs should also include 
public education and enforcement campaigns 
to ensure proper use and compliance. 
Materials and 
Maintenance
•	 HAWKs are subject to the same maintenance 
needs and requirements as standard traffic 
signals. Signing and striping need to be 
maintained to help users understand any 
unfamiliar traffic control.

Enhanced Crossing Treatments
Design-47
A Toucan signal in Tucson, AZ. Motorists must turn right onto Stone Avenue, the major roadway (from either direction). 
Bicyclists can turn left, right, or go straight. Bicyclists turning left or going straight can push a button to activate a green 
bicycle signal indication. Photo credit: Steven Vance.
TOUCAN SIGNAL
“Toucan” signalized crossings of streets are a special signal configuration at minor street crossings 
of a major street, exclusively for people walking and biking, so that “two can” cross the major street 
concurrently. Vehicles on the minor street do not have a signal, and are instead forced to turn right at 
a stop sign. This does function as a half signal since vehicles are not allowed to turn left or proceed 
through. The placement of the Toucan can vary within a given intersection, depending on the overall 
roadway width, and whether one-way vs. two-way operations are contained fully within the median in the 
middle of the minor street.
Typical Use
•	 Appropriate at carefully designed intersection 
locations
•	 Across higher traffic streets where people 
walking and biking both require safe and 
comfortable crossings, such as along Bike 
Boulevards. 
 Design Features
•	 A toucan signal assembly may be created 
by pairing a bicycle and pedestrian signal 
heads. The bicycle signal must comply with 
requirement from FHWA Interim Approval 16. 
•	 The major street faces a standard traffic signal 
(red, amber, and green indications) for the 
major road. When located at an intersection, 
the minor cross street has Stop sign to control 
minor street motor vehicle traffic.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-48
•	 The pedestrian/bike phase is typically activated 
actively by a pushbutton or passively using 
other detection devices.
•	 At street crossings, the design must be paired 
with access management or other measures 
to reduce potential conflicts. Such measures 
as turn restrictions with dynamic (blank-out) 
No Right turn/No Left Turn signs, or access 
management to limit conflicting motor vehicle 
movements into the and out of the intersection
•	 High visibility crosswalk markings and 
bicycle lane dotted lane line extensions 
(when connecting bike lanes) help to clarify 
pedestrian and bicyclist paths. 
Further Considerations
•	 The FHWA has been discouraging “half 
signals” for several decades because of the 
potential conflict issues caused when minor-
street drivers make a right turn onto the major 
street, in conflict with the crossing pedestrians 
(the center-running configuration shown in the 
photo to right eliminates this risk).
•	 The steady red signal indication provides 
a clear regulatory message that typically 
receives a more uniform control response than 
warning signs or flashing beacons. Red signal 
indications receive a high-degree of yielding 
with over 95% compliance (NCHRP 562). 
•	 Because this is not a common signal 
configuration at intersections, it is important to 
operate all toucan signals consistently across 
the jurisdiction for maximum understanding, 
compliance, and safety.
•	 FHWA has approved bicycle signals for use, 
if they comply with requirements from Interim 
Approval 16.
•	 Pedestrians typically need more time to travel 
through an intersection than bicyclists. Signal 
timing and recall phases should be responsive 
to the detection and actuation by different 
users. 
•	 Bicycle detection and actuation systems include 
user-activated buttons mounted on a pole, 
loop detectors that register a call to the bike 
signal when a bicycle is detected, microwave 
detectors, or video/thermal detection cameras 
that detect a change in the activity at the 
location.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Pedestrian and bicycle signal detection equipment 
should be inspected and maintained regularly, 
especially if detection relies on manual actuation. 
Pushbuttons and loop detectors will tend to have 
higher maintenance needs than other passive 
detection equipment.

Enhanced Crossing Treatments
Design-49
Pavement markings are paired with a sign to teach 
riders how to activate the bicycle loop detection
BIKE DETECTION AND ACTUATION
Bicycle detection and actuation is used to alert the signal controller of bicycle crossing demand on 
a particular approach. Proper bicycle detection should meet two primary criteria: accurately detects 
bicyclists and provides clear guidance to bicyclists on how to actuate detection (e.g., what button to 
push, where to stand). 
Typical Application
•	 At signalized intersections within bicycle lanes or 
general purpose travel lanes.
•	 At signalized intersections within left turn lanes 
used by bicyclists.
•	 At signalized intersections within separated bike 
lanes.
•	 In conjunction with active warning beacons and 
pedestrian hybrid beacons.
Design Features
Video Detection
•	 Video detection systems use digital image 
processing to detect a change in the image at 
a location. These systems can be calibrated to 
detect bicycle, although there may be detection 
issues during poor lighting and weather 
conditions. 
Thermal Detection
•	 Infrared detection systems typically consist of one 
or more thermal cameras, a microprocessor to 
process the thermal imagery, and software to 
interpret the traffic flow data and communicate 
with the traffic signal controller. These systems 
are typically able to extract a significant amount 
of data from the thermal imagery. 
Microwave Detection
•	 Microwave sensor detection is a system which 
uses frequency modulated continuous wave radio 
signals to detect objects in the roadway. This 
method marks the detected object with a time 
code to determine its distance from the sensor. 
•	 Microwave sensor detection is unaffected by 
temperature and lighting, which can affect 
standard video detection.
Materials and 
Maintenance
It is important to perform ongoing maintenance 
of traffic control equipment. Consider semi-
annual inspections of controller and signal 
equipment, intersection hardware, and detectors.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-50
Design Features
•	 An additional “Bicycle Signal” sign should be 
installed below the bicycle signal head. 
•	 Designs for bicycles at signalized crossings 
should allow bicyclists to trigger signals via 
pushbutton, loop detectors, or other passive 
detection, to navigate the crossing.
•	 On bikeways, signal timing and actuation 
shall be reviewed and adjusted to consider the 
needs of bicyclists.
Typical Use
•	 Two-way protected bikeways where contraflow 
bicycle movement or increased conflict points 
warrant protected operation.
•	 Bicyclists moving on a green or yellow signal 
indication in a bicycle signal shall not be in 
conflict with any simultaneous motor vehicle 
movement at the signalized location
•	 Right (or left) turns on red should be prohibited 
in locations where such operation would 
conflict with a green bicycle signal indication. 
BICYCLE SIGNAL PHASE
Separated bicycle lane crossings of signalized intersections can be accomplished through the use of a 
bicycle signal phase which reduces conflicts with motor vehicles by separating bicycle movements from 
any conflicting motor vehicle movements. Bicycle signals are traditional three lens signal heads with 
green, yellow and red bicycle stenciled lenses.
A
B
A
B

Enhanced Crossing Treatments
Design-51
A bicycle signal head at a signalized crossing 
creates a protected phase for cyclists to safely 
navigate an intersection. Photo credit: TREC
A bicycle detection system triggers a change in 
the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected.
Further Considerations
•	 A bicycle signal should be considered for use 
only when the volume/collision or volume/
geometric warrants have been met.
•	 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
has approved bicycle signals for use, if 
they comply with requirements from Interim 
Approval 16 (I.A. 16). Bicycle Signals are 
not approved for use in conjunction with 
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons.
•	 Bicyclists typically need more time to travel 
through an intersection than motor vehicles. 
Green light times should be determined using 
the bicycle crossing time for standing bicycles.
•	 Bicycle detection and actuation systems 
include user-activated buttons mounted on a 
pole, loop detectors that trigger a change in 
the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected 
and video detection cameras, that use digital 
image processing to detect a change in the 
image at a location.
Materials and 
Maintenance
Bicycle signal detection equipment should be 
inspected and maintained regularly, especially if 
detection relies on manual actuation. Pushbuttons 
and loop detectors will tend to have higher 
maintenance needs than other passive detection 
equipment.

06
NETWORK 
CONNECTIONS 
AND SUPPORTING 
FACILITIES

Network Connections And Supporting Facilities
Design-53
SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING
People need a safe, convenient place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination. This may 
be short-term parking of 2 hours or less, or long-term parking for employees, students, residents, and 
commuters.
Information on short- and long-term bike parking has been informed by the Association of Pedestrian 
and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) Bicycle Parking Guide, which is updated frequently and is available 
online at www.apbp.org.
Design Features
Bike Racks
•	 When placed on sidewalks, 2 feet minimum 
from the curb face to avoid ‘dooring.’
•	 4 feet between racks to provide maneuvering 
room.
•	 Locate close to destinations; 50
feet maximum distance from main building 
entrance.
•	 Minimum clear distance of 6 feet should be 
provided between the bicycle rack and the 
property line.
•	 While bike racks could be installed 
perpendicular or parallel to the curb, it is 
important to ensure there is sufficient room for 
pedestrian traffic, even when a bike is locked 
to the rack.
Bike Corrals
•	 Bicyclists should have an entrance width from 
the roadway of 5-6 feet.
•	 Can be used with parallel or angled parking.
•	 Parking stalls adjacent to curb extensions are 
good candidates for bicycle corrals since the 
concrete extension serves as delimitation on
one side.
Application
Bike Racks
•	 Bike racks provide short-term bicycle parking 
and are meant to accommodate visitors, 
customers, and others expected to depart 
within two hours. It should be an approved 
standard rack, appropriate location and 
placement.
Bike Corrals
•	 On-street bike corrals (also known as on-
street bicycle parking) consist of bicycle racks 
grouped together in a common area within 
the street traditionally used for automobile 
parking.
•	 Bicycle corrals are reserved exclusively for 
bicycle parking and provide a relatively 
inexpensive solution to providing high-
volume bicycle parking. Bicycle corrals can 
be implemented by converting one or two 
on-street motor vehicle parking spaces into on-
street bicycle parking.
•	 Each motor vehicle parking space can be 
replaced with approximately 6-10 bicycle 
parking spaces.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-54
Further Considerations
•	 Where the placement of racks on sidewalks 
is not possible (due to narrow sidewalk width, 
sidewalk obstructions, street trees, etc.), bicycle 
parking can be provided in the street where 
on-street vehicle parking is allowed in the form 
of on-street bicycle corrals.
•	 Some types of bicycle racks may meet design 
criteria, but are discouraged except in limited 
situations. This includes undulating “wave” 
racks, schoolyard racks, and spiral racks. 
These discouraged racks are illustrated on the 
following page.
•	 Bike racks should be made of thick stainless 
steel to reduce the chance of thieves cutting 
through the racks to take bicycles. Square 
tubing can provide further protection from 
cutting, as well.
•	 If a bike rack is installed as surface mount, 
countersink bolts or expansion bolts should 
be used to keep the rack in place. Covering 
the bolts with putty or epoxy can provide 
additional protection.
Inverted-U racks provide two points of contact.
Racks with square tubing, good spacing, and a 
concrete base likewise offer two points of contact.

Network Connections And Supporting Facilities
Design-55
Types of Bike Racks to Use
These racks provide two points of contact with 
the bicycle, accommodate varying styles of bike, 
allow for the frame of a bicycle and at least one 
wheel to be secured by most U-locks, and are 
intuitive to use.
INVERTED-U
POST & RING
WHEELWELL
SECURE
Graphics courtesy of Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle 
Professionals Essentials of Bike Parking report (2015).
Communities may consider purchasing branded 
U-racks for installation on sidewalks.
Types of Bike Racks to 
Avoid
These racks do not provide support at two 
places on the bike, can damage the wheel, 
do not provide an opportunity for the user to 
lock the frame of their bicycle easily, and are 
not intuitive to use. Because of performance 
concerns, the APBP Essentials of Bike Parking 
Report recommends selecting other racks instead 
of these.
WAVE
COATHANGER
BOLLARD
COMB
WHEELWELL

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-56
Space Requirements
Crosswalk
Crosswalk
When installing sidewalk racks, maintain 
the pedestrian through zone. Racks should 
be placed in line with existing sidewalk 
obstructions to maintain a clear line of 
travel for all sidewalk users.
Sidewalk racks adjacent 
to on-street auto 
parking should be placed 
between parking stalls 
to avoid conflicts with 
opening car doors.
96”
(72” min)
96”
(72” min)
60”
(48” min)
60”
72”
48”
120” recommended
48” (36” min)
48” (36” min)
16’ min
96” recommended
24”
(36” preferred when adjacent to auto parking)
24” min
36”
(24”min)
36”
36”
(24” min)i
appropriate. In areas with tight clearances, consider 
wheelwell-secure racks (page 6), which can be placed 
closer to walls and constrain the bicycle footprint more 
reliably than inverted-U and post-and-ring racks.  
The footprint of a typical bicycle is approximately 6’ x 2’. 
Cargo bikes and bikes with trailers can extend to 10’  
or longer.
The following minimum spacing requirements apply to some common installations of fixtures like 
inverted U or post and ring racks that park one bicycle roughly centered on each side of the rack. 
Recommended clearances are given first, with minimums in parentheses where appropriate. In areas with 
tight clearances, consider wheelwell-secure racks, which can be placed closer to walls and constrain the 
bicycle footprint more reliably than inverted U and post and ring racks. The footprint of a typical bicycle 
is approximately 6' x2'. Cargo bikes and bikes with trailers can extend to 10' or longer.
When installing sidewalk racks, 
maintain the pedestrian through 
zone. Racks should be placed 
in line with existing sidewalk 
obstructions to maintain a clear 
line of travel for all sidewalk 
users.
Sidewalk racks 
adjacent to on-street 
parking should be 
placed between 
parking stalls to avoid 
conflicts with opening 
car doors. 
Graphics courtesy of Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle 
Professionals Essentials of Bike Parking report (2015).

Network Connections And Supporting Facilities
Design-57
Users of long-term parking generally place high value on security and weather protection. Long-term 
parking is designed to meet the needs of employees, residents, public transit users, and others with 
similar needs.
Information on short and long term bike parking has been obtained from the APBP Bicycle Parking 
Guide, which is updated frequently and is available online at www.apbp.org.
LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING
Further Considerations
•	 As the APBP Bike Parking Guide notes, 
increasing density of bike racks in a long-term 
facility without careful attention to user needs 
can exclude users with less-common types of 
bicycles which may be essential  due to age, 
ability, or bicycle type.
•	 To accommodate trailers and long bikes, a 
portion of the racks should be on the ground 
and should have an additional 36” of in-line 
clearance.
Application
•	 At transit stops, bike lockers or a sheltered 
secure enclosure may be appropriate long 
term solutions.
•	 On public or private property where secure, 
long-term bike parking is desired.
•	 Near routine destinations, such as workplaces, 
universities, hospitals, etc.
Design Features
Bike Lockers
•	 Minimum dimensions: width (opening) 2.5 
feet; height 4 feet; depth 6 feet.
•	 4 foot side clearance and 6 foot end 
clearance.  7 foot minimum distance between 
facing lockers.
Secure Parking Area
•	 Closed-circuit television monitoring or on-site 
staff with secure access for users.
•	 Double high racks & cargo bike spaces.
•	 Bike repair station with bench and bike tube 
and maintenance item vending machine.
•	 Bike lock “hitching post” – allows people to 
leave bike locks.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-58
High Density Bike Racks
Racks may be used that increase bike parking 
density, like the ones below. While these types 
of racks provide more spaces, racks that require 
lifting should not be used exclusively.  People 
with heavier bikes (i.e. cargo bikes) or people 
with disabilities or people who are simply small in 
stature may be unable to lift their bikes easily.
Bike Parking Rooms
Long term bike parking may be available in 
dedicated rooms in residential and commercial 
buildings. Bicycle parking can be accommodated 
in 15 square feet per space or less. 
STAGGERED WHEELWELL-SECURE
VERTICAL
TWO-TIER
Bike lockers
Secured parking areas

Network Connections And Supporting Facilities
Design-59
TRANSIT STOP DESIGN
Bus platforms or waiting areas serve as the critical transition point for pedestrians as transit passengers. 
As such, bus platforms, shelters, and shelter amenities need to be designed to the benefit of people 
boarding, alighting, waiting, and passing through. Transit platforms and shelters should be designed to 
be comfortable and safe, accessible for people with disabilities, sized appropriately based on ridership 
and demand, use space efficiently, and to minimize delay and conflicts with other modes such as 
bicycles, and competing sidewalk uses.
Typical Application
•	 Bus stops can range from simple curbside 
stops with a pole and seating, to in-roadway 
platforms with shelters and other shelter 
amenities depending on demand, adjacent 
land use, and available right of way. 
•	 Typically, bus stop shelters and amenities 
occupy an area of the sidewalk, either in the 
furnishing zone, or a reserved space in the 
frontage zone. They can also be located on 
transit islands which accommodates bicycle 
through traffic, or in medians for center 
running alignments.
•	 Shelters can face toward the roadway or away 
from the roadway. Shelters facing toward the 
roadway provide better sightlines, but may 
compete with other sidewalk uses and adjacent 
property access and circulation.
Design Features
•	 Bus shelters should be designed to minimize 
potential for conflicts between the bus, and 
people walking and bicycling through the area. 
•	 Site visibility is a critical safety and security 
factor. The bus operator needs to be 
able to see waiting passengers, and 
waiting passengers need to be able to see 
approaching buses. The shelter, street trees, 
and other vertical elements must not obstruct 
visibility. The stop and shelter should be 
adequately illuminated at night for safety and 
security.
•	 The shelter should maximize use of materials 
that maximize visibility for waiting passengers, 
and minimize incentive for vandalism. 
•	 The shelter canopy should be sized to provide 
sufficient coverage based on stop demand.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-60
Typical Application
•	 Regional trail access points can take several 
different forms ranging from major trailheads, 
minor trailheads, and neighborhood entryways. 
These vary in the level of infrastructure and 
facility amenities.
•	 These access points are multimodal transition 
points; they serve as the transition between the 
on-street network and the off-street network 
for people walking, biking, riding transit, and 
driving.
•	 All trailheads should be open to the public. 
SHARED USE TRAILS AND 
ON-STREET TRANSITIONS
Transitions occur where the trail meets a roadway or railway, where one trail typology meets another, 
such as when an elevated trail transitions into an at-grade trail or where separated trail segments 
transition into shared environments. Transitions may also include horizontal shifts to avoid physical 
obstacles such as utility towers or other structures. Trail access means providing a formalized way for 
people to arrive and depart from the trail network by a variety of travel modes. 
Design Features
•	 Major trailheads feature convenient access 
to transit, parking for 10 or more vehicles, 
(including accessible spaces), short- and 
long-term bicycle parking, restrooms, trash/
recycling facilities, wayfinding/interpretive 
kiosks, benches/picnic tables, and other day 
use amenities.
•	 Minor trailheads include similar facilities 
as major trailheads but a lower provision 
of vehicle and bike parking and day use 
amenities, and may be further from major 
transit and bike connection points. 
•	 Neighborhood entry points are the most basic 
form of local accessways that do not provide 
many of the amenities of trailheads due to 
space constraints, neighborhood context, and/
or proximity to other trailheads.

Network Connections And Supporting Facilities
Design-61
Typology Transitions
Design elements used to alert trail users include 
pavement markings such as optical speed 
bars or zebra stripe crosswalks with yield/stop 
markings. Other visual indications include bike 
and pedestrian directional markings, centerlane 
striping, and the use of colored pavement 
to visually narrow or indicate a change in 
environment. 
Tactile indications include speed humps, tactile 
speed bars, and the use of multiple surface types, 
such as concrete, asphalt, and pavers.
Advisory, regulatory, and/or wayfinding signage 
are should be considered at transition points.  
Physical treatments to alert and guide trail users 
include traffic calming measures such as vertical 
and horizontal deflection.
Trail illumination is an important design element 
that must be considered along the trail, but is 
especially important in transition zones. 
Mixing Zones
Mixing zones are necessary where physical space 
constraints do not allow for separated modes, 
or at locations along the trail where a high level 
of cross-traffic is expected. Mixing zones need 
to provide clear indication to all users that a 
transition is occurring in advance of the change, 
so that trail users can adjust their speeds and 
awareness appropriately to proceed carefully into 
the mixing zone.
Advanced warning can be accomplished with 
advisory signage, pavement markings, and the 
use of contrasting surface treatments (e.g. pavers/
inlays with contrasting tones/textures, striping, 
or a combination of these treatments). These 
design elements help to guide trail users safely 
through the mixing zone by alerting users to the 
change in conditions and thus reducing the speed 
differential.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-62
WAYFINDING
The ability to navigate across an urbanized area is informed by landmarks, natural features, and other 
visual cues. Signs throughout the city should indicate the direction of travel, the locations and travel 
time distances to those destinations. A pedestrian wayfinding system is similar to a transit, vehicular, or 
bike facility wayfinding system, in that it consists of comprehensive signing and/or pavement markings to 
guide pedestrians to their destination along routes that are safe, comfortable and attractive.  
Typical Application
Wayfinding signs will increase users’ comfort 
and accessibility to the pedestrian system in 
denser urbanized areas and connections to other 
destinations across the larger region.
Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety 
purposes including:
•	 Helping to familiarize users with the pedestrian 
network 
•	 Helping users identify the best routes to 
destinations within walking distance or 
connections to other modes.
•	 Helping to address misperceptions about time 
and distance.
•	 Helping overcome a “barrier to  entry” for 
people who are not frequent walkers.
Design Features
•	 Confirmation signs indicate to pedestrians that 
they are on the right trail to their destinations. 
They include destinations and distance/time, 
but not arrows
•	 Turn signs indicate where a route turns from 
one street onto another street. 
•	 Decision signs indicate the junction of two 
or more pedestrian routes to access key 
destinations. These include destinations, arrows 
and distances. Travel times are optional but 
recommended.
•	 A regional wayfinding sign plan would 
identify sign locations, sign type, destinations, 
and approximate distance and travel time 
to destinations, and highlight connections 
between urban and non-urbanized areas. 
•	 The Valley Path has existing branding and 
design guidance, see the Valley Path Brand & 
Wayfinding Signage Guidelines.
Decision
Sign
Turn
Sign
Confirmation
Sign
Destination 1
Destination 3
Destination 2
Decision sign
Sign types

Network Connections And Supporting Facilities
Design-63
Tactile navigation sign
Further Considerations
•	 Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue 
motorists that they are driving along a bicycle 
route and should use caution. Signs are 
typically placed at key locations leading to and 
along bicycle routes, including the intersection 
of multiple routes.
•	 Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-
of-way, and it is recommended that these signs 
be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists 
rather than per vehicle signage standards.
•	 Green is the color used for directional 
guidance and is the most common color of 
bicycle wayfinding signage in the US.
•	 Check wayfinding signage along bikeways for 
signs of vandalism, graffiti, or normal wear and 
replace signage along the bikeway network 
as-needed.

07
PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE 
OPERATIONS AND 
MAINTENANCE

Pedestrian-bicycle Operations And Maintenance
Design-65
SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE
The sidewalk is an essential space for people walking and using wheelchairs and other personal mobility 
devices, and it is also the location where many other important activities take place. Each of the zones 
described in ‘Sidewalk Zones’ needs to be maintained for the overall sidewalk space to function as 
intended. 
Maintaining Sidewalk Zones
•	 The Pedestrian Access Route must remain free 
and clear of obstacles and impediments. This is the 
primary accessway for people traveling along streets 
and to and from adjacent properties, and must be 
maintained to ADA standards. 
•	 .Property owners are responsible for maintaining 
all sidewalk zones abutting their property, not 
just the Building Frontage Zone. 
•	 Maintaining a firm, stable, and slip resistant 
surfaces is necessary for people walking or 
rolling to traverse the Pedestrian Access Route 
without risk of tripping, slipping or otherwise 
uneven footing.
•	 Regular sweeping ensures the Pedestrian Access 
Route and other sidewalk zones are kept free of 
natural debris and litter. 
•	 Routine maintenance of sidewalk damage 
due to tree roots, freeze-thaw, etc. is the 
responsibility of abutting property owners. 
•	 The Amenity Zone is where street furnishing are 
located, where people are often picked up and 
dropped off, where mail is delivered, and where 
other loading/unloading happens. It’s the space 
where trees and landscaping are planted, and 
where street lighting and other utilities are located. 
The Amenity Zone must be maintained properly to 
ensure access to this area and all of these curbside 
uses are possible.
•	 Vegetation in the Amenity zone should 
be regularly maintained by the City so as 
not to encroach on the pedestrian travel 
zone. Maintenance should be prioritized 
by plant species, high demand areas, and/
or narrow sidewalk corridors. When they are 
not maintained on schedule, the space for 
pedestrian travel becomes constrained, creating 
bottlenecks, and/or forcing pedestrians into the 
street. 
•	 The Building Frontage Zone is the area 
between the Pedestrian Access Route and the 
abutting property. Along commercial corridors 
this space may be utilized by businesses 
for outdoor cafe seating by permit, and in 
residential areas, this space may be occupied 
by landscaping or other natural screening. 
•	 Outdoor seating shall not occupy the 
Pedestrian Access Route or inhibit travel 
along the sidewalk. 
•	 Landscaping in the Building Frontage 
Zone should be maintained in a manner 
similar to landscaping in the Amenity 
Zone. Landscaping should be maintained 
by property owners so as not to encroach 
on the Pedestrian Access Route. 
•	 The Enhancement Zone must be maintained 
for the following uses: bike facilities, vehicle 
parking, curb extensions, and bike parking.
•	 Street sweeping should be conducted 
per maintenance schedule and following 
significant weather events to help to ensure 
intended use of this space.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-66
PARKING, LOADING, AND GARBAGE 
ACCESS
Where separated bikeways are adjacent to on-street parking, drop-off locations, freight loading zones, 
or designated garbage pick-up areas, the design of the separation at those locations should provide an 
accessible aisle and adequate landing area to allow for travel from the vehicle to the curb ramp.
Colored pavement within a bicycle lane may be used to increase the visibility of the bicycle facility, raise 
awareness of the potential to encounter bicyclists, and reinforce priority of bicyclists in conflict areas.
Typical Application
•	 Streets with on-street parking and a separated 
bikeway along the same block face.
•	 Where ADA-accessible spaces are desired, 
either due to proximity to nearby building 
entrances, street grades, or other factors.
•	 Where loading and garbage pick-up zones are 
desired along the same side of the street as a 
separated bikeway due to adjacent commercial 
users such as retail or hotels, and cannot be 
relocated to adjacent block faces or alleys.

Pedestrian-bicycle Operations And Maintenance
Design-67
A passenger loading zone allows pedestrians to cross the 
separated bike lane to access the loading island. These 
designs should also incorporate truncated domes to alert 
people walking with vision disabilities of the crossing.  
Further Considerations
•	 Garbage pick-up, freight loading, and drop-
off hours should be restricted to hours of the 
day when less bicycle traffic is expected, to 
minimize potential interactions.
•	 The City can provide guidance to both waste 
management operators and customers 
on desirable recycling/trash can and bin 
placement with respect to both walkways and 
bikeways to improve safety and use of these 
facilities.
 Design Features
•	 Accessible spaces should be located adjacent 
to intersections to simplify access to curb 
ramps.
•	 Accessible spaces must comply with all ADA 
requirements.
•	 To connect between the sidewalk and parking 
spaces, a crosswalk across the separated 
bikeway and curb ramp (6’ minimum width) 
must be provided.
•	 Place a YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS 
(MUTCD R1-5) sign where the separated 
bikeway crosses the parking access route 
to clearly establish a right-of-way. Yield line 
pavement marking may be placed prior to the 
crosswalk.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-68
BIKE FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Regular bicycle facility maintenance includes sweeping, maintaining a smooth roadway, trimming 
encroaching vegetation, ensuring that the gutter-to-pavement transition remains relatively flush, and 
installing bicycle friendly grates. Pavement overlays are a good opportunity to improve bicycling facilities. 
The following recommendations provide a menu of options to consider to enhance a maintenance 
regimen.
A
B
C
D
E
F
    Sweeping
Debris that is allowed to accumulate can become 
a hazard due to loss of control, inner tube blow 
outs, as well as service dog safety.
•	 Cover both on-road and off-road bikeways 
under the jurisdiction of the city. Can establish 
a seasonal sweeping schedule that allows 
for prioritization of routes. The schedule 
could prioritize facilities designated as major 
bikeways, before roadways designated as 
minor bikeways. 
•	 Sweep bikeways periodically to minimize 
accumulation on the facility to maintain safe 
surface conditions.
A
    Signage
•	 Include bikeway regulatory and wayfinding 
signing as part of the  roadway sign 
maintenance program, regularly checking 
for vandalism, graffiti, and wear. Schedule 
replacement/repair as needed.
B

Pedestrian-bicycle Operations And Maintenance
Design-69
   Roadway Surface
•	 Smooth pothole-free surfaces are especially 
critical for people on bikes. 
•	 The finished surface on bikeways does not vary 
more than 1/4” for new roadway construction.
•	 Pavement should be maintained so ridge buildup 
does not occur at the gutter-to-pavement 
transition or adjacent to railway crossings.
•	 Ensure pavement inspections occur after 
trenching activities are completed and if 
excessive settlement has occurred to require 
mitigation prior to the expiration of the project’s 
warranty period.
•	 To the extent possible, pavement markings and 
green-colored areas should be placed out of 
the vehicle path of travel to minimize wear. 
In general, striping, pavement markings, and 
green colored areas should be well maintained 
especially areas in the path of vehicle travel, and 
where high-turning movements occur.  
    Drainage Grates
•	 New drainage grates should be bicycle-friendly. 
Grates should have horizontal slats on them so 
that bicycle tires and assistive devices do not fall 
through any vertical slats.
•	 Create a program to inventory all existing 
drainage grates, and replace hazardous grates 
as necessary - temporary modifications such 
as installing rebar horizontally across the grate 
should not be an acceptable alternative to 
replacement.
    Gutter-to-Pavement 	
	
    Transition
•	 Gutter-to-pavement transitions should have no 
more than a 1/4” vertical transition.
•	 Pavement transitions should be examined 
during every roadway project for new 
construction, maintenance activities, and 
construction project activities that occur in 
streets. 
    Landscaping
•	 Vegetation on the edge of the roadway 
should not hang into or impede passage 
along bikeways.
•	 After storm events, remove fallen trees or 
other debris from bikeways as quickly as 
possible.
Coordination With 
Emergency Responders
•	 General roadway maintenance should be 
coordinated and prioritized on emergency 
response routes that overlap with major and 
minor bikeways. 
•	 Provide fire, police, and EMS services with a 
map of major and minor bikeway routes.
Recommended Bikeway 
Maintenance Activities
The City should ensure that each of these 
activities is addressed in City requirements, 
various operations plans, or emergency response 
plans. The frequency of each activity is at the 
discretion of the City Engineer. However, the 
activity should be done in a timely enough 
manner to ensure bikeways are operated in a safe 
manner for all users.
C
D
E
F

08
ADDITIONAL DESIGN 
PARAMETERS & 
CONSIDERATIONS

Additional Design Parameters & Considerations
Design-71
COMPLETE STREETS
The Complete Streets Policy (2017) 
supports the implementation of the 
General Plan by directing staff to ensure 
City’s rights-of-way serve a variety of 
transportation modes. Designing streets 
for safe and enjoyable walking, biking, 
and transit use helps Phoenix to achieve 
the goal of reducing single occupant 
vehicle trips set in the Climate Action 
Plan (2021). Additionally, streets that 
are designed with the safety of all users 
supports the goal of the Vision Zero Road 
Safety Action Plan to eliminate all serious 
injuries and fatalities on Phoenix streets. 
The Phoenix General Plan (2015) identifies Complete Streets as a 
key approach for enacting the core value of Connecting People 
and Places. The role of development is specified in the Land Use 
and Design Principle, “In order to balance a more sustainable 
transportation system, development should be designed to 
include increased amenities for transit, pedestrian and bicyclists 
such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider sidewalks, bike 
racks, pedestrian scale lighting and way-finding.”

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-72
In areas where active transportation is expected to 
be higher than typical, streets should be designed 
to ensure people using the street are comfortable 
and safe, whether they are walking, biking, 
using micromobility, driving, or taking transit. 
In Phoenix, planning processes have identified 
three types of areas where dense, mixed-use 
development should be concentrated and where 
walking, biking, and transit should be emphasized 
in street design. 
The downtown area was identified as a 
dense, multi-modal and mixed use area in the 
Downtown Strategic Plan (2004). One of the 
three planning principles was connectivity, with 
HIGH ACTIVITY AREAS
a specific emphasis on connecting walking, 
biking, and transit. In 2008, the Downtown 
Urban Form Project (2008) proposed a Form-
Based Code for downtown that calls for walkable 
development. The Circulation and Parking Plan 
in the document further emphasized the need for 
streets that support walking, biking, and transit 
as key for downtown circulation. The Downtown 
Code was adopted by Council and added to 
the Zoning Ordinance in 2010. The Downtown 
Transportation Plan Update (2020) updated the 
strategies for increasing multimodal transportation 
in Downtown Phoenix.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
50th Street 
Station Area
7TH AVE
16TH ST
THOMAS RD
35TH AVE
24TH ST
MCDOWELL RD
CAMELBACK RD
VAN BUREN ST
BASELINE RD
CENTRAL AVE
7TH ST
75TH AVE
SOUTHERN AVE
BUCKEYE RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
59TH AVE
GRAND AVE
GLENDALE AVE
NORTHERN AVE
19TH AVE
DUNLAP AVE
BROADWAY RD
51ST AVE
BETHANY HOME RD
32ND ST
LOWER BUCKEYE RD
52ND ST
64TH ST
48TH ST
43RD AVE
27TH AVE
99TH AVE
40TH ST
91ST AVE
67TH AVE
83RD AVE
PEORIA AVE
Capitol
Extension
I-10 West
Extension
Gateway
Eastlake
Garfield
Midtown
Uptown
Solano
Northwest
Extension
Phase II
19North
South Central
Downtown
§¨¦
17
§¨¦
10
£
¤
51
£
¤
143
£
¤
60
£
¤
30
v
w
202
0
1.5
3
0.75
Miles
.
Phoenix Transit
Oriented Communities
1/4 mile radius
(5 minute walk)
1/2 mile radius
(10 minute walk)
Existing Light
Rail
!
!
Existing Station
1/4 mile radius
(5 minute walk)
1/2 mile radius
(10 minute walk)
Planned-Under
Construction
Light Rail
Planned-Under
Construction
Station
1/4 mile radius
(5 minute walk)
1/2 mile radius
(10 minute walk)
Planned Light
Rail
Planned Station
M:\Projects\TOD_Area_Maps_Joel\MXD\All_TOD_Areas_Villages.mxd     MapDate: 11/1/2021
Transit Overlay District
(TOD-1)
Transit Overlay District
(TOD-2)
Transit Oriented
Development (TOD)
District Boundaries
Phoenix City Limits
Canals
Village
Ahwatukee Foothills
Alhambra
Camelback East
Central City
Encanto
Estrella
Laveen
Maryvale
North Mountain
Paradise Valley
South Mountain

Additional Design Parameters & Considerations
Design-73
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) areas 
have been specifically identified as areas for 
encouraging multimodal streets and denser 
development in order to foster access to transit. 
Currently every TOD area has adopted Walkable 
Urban Code. TOD areas will continue to be 
added as the high-capacity transit network in 
Phoenix develops. Policy plans for individual TOD 
areas have been developed through the Reinvent 
PHX planning effort and through 
individual TOD area plans. 
The City of Phoenix continues 
to develop plans for the most 
recently added TOD areas. 
Urban Village Cores have also 
been identified as areas for a 
concentration of people and 
activities. The Phoenix Urban 
Village Model (1994) identifies 
multi-modal transportation as 
a feature of village cores, with 
a strong emphasis on providing 
pedestrian amenities in urban 
cores. While it describes 
suburban village cores as auto-
oriented, it also notes that as 
villages build out over the next 
30-50 years suburban cores 
may become more urban. The 
plan was approved 29 years 
ago and Phoenix has seen this 
shift happening throughout its 
suburban cores.
In addition to three types of 
areas defined in the planning 
processes above, there are 
further places where connectivity 
for people walking, biking, and 
using micromobility should 
be emphasized based on 
surrounding land use. 
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
U
V
85
U
V
51
U
V
51
U
V
153
U
V
143
U
V
74
U
V
202
U
V
101
U
V
85
U
V
51
¡¢
60
¡¢
60
§¨¦
17
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
17
N CAVE CREEK
R
D
W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
E GLENDALE AVE
N 44TH ST
W GRAND AVE
S 7TH ST
S 19TH AVE
N 75TH AVE
N TATUM BLVD
W THUNDERBIRD RD
S 48TH ST
E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
W SONORAN DES
ERT
DR
W DUNLAP AVE
E
LINCOLN DR
E SHEA BLVD
W BELL RD
S 19TH AVE
E CACTUS RD
W BASELINE RD
S 24TH
S
T
E WASHINGTON ST
W GLENDALE AVE
N 24TH ST
E BASELINE RD
N 7TH ST
E DYNAMITE BLVD
N 51ST AVE
W DOVE VALLEY RD
N SCOTTSDALE RD
W HAPPY VALLEY RD
W BUCKEYE RD
E
THUNDERBIR
D
R
D
E BELL RD
E
DEER VA
LLEY DR
E PINNACLE PEAK RD
W CAREFREE
HWY
E MCDOWEL
L RD
E
D
EER
V
A
LLEY RD
S 75TH AVE
E
DOVE VA
LLEY RD
N
NEW RIVER RD
E SO
N
ORAN
D
E
SER
T
DR
N 19TH AVE
S 51ST AVE
N 35TH AVE
N 7TH ST
S 7TH ST
S
4
4
TH
ST
N
NORTH VALLEY
P
K
WY
N 7TH ST
Visualization Analysis | Y2K Engineering  |  2021 
0
1
2
3
4
0.5
mi
o
Data: City of Phoenix/ADOT/MCDOT/Y2K
Phoenix, AZ | High Injury Network Analysis 2021
High Injury Network
N o v e m b e r 
2 0 2 1 
v e r s i o n 
A
R
I
Z
O
N
A
P H O E N I X
!
Intersections >1.98 Std. Deviation
(KSI crashes)
Roadways > 2.6 Std. Deviation
(KSI crashes per mile)
Legend
Fatal and Serious Injury (KSI)
Crashes (2016 - 2020)
Large scale development, high-density 
multifamily/mixed-use Planned Unit Developments 
(PUDs), regional shopping centers and regional 
attractions (e.g. spring training facilities and 
event venues) are expected to increase active 
transportation. Street design and street crossings 
should be designed for safe and comfortable 
walking and biking.

City of Phoenix Design Guidance
Design-74
City of Phoenix Guidance
City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
Design Guidance Element (2023) 
City of Phoenix Crosswalk Guidance (2023) 
City of Phoenix Street Planning and Design 
Guidelines (2023)
City of Phoenix Complete Streets Design 
Guidelines (2018)
National guidance
Institute for Transportation and Development 
Policy (ITDP) Transit Oriented Development 
Standard (2017)
National Association of City Transportation 
Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide 
(2013)
Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) 
Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures 
at uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations 
(2018)
Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) 
Proven Safety Countermeasures (website)
Active transportation is expected to be 
high in recreation areas and near public 
facilities such as libraries, hospitals, schools. 
Streets near parks, preserves, trails, and 
public facilities should be designed with 
consideration for people accessing these 
amenities on foot or on bike. At entry points, 
appropriate street crossings are important 
for allowing people to access public facilities 
and recreation areas safely.  
Finally, the High Injury Network defined in 
the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan 
has identified corridors and intersections 
with the highest levels of serious injury 
and fatality crashes in the City of Phoenix. 
In 2022, people walking were 43% of 
the fatal and serious injury crashes in 
Phoenix, despite walking trips being a small 
percentage of overall trips. As such, streets 
and intersections along the High Injury 
Network should be designed with special 
consideration for people walking, biking, and 
taking transit. 
In the areas identified above, the following 
guidance should be considered when 
designing streets.

PUBLIC OUTREACH 
SUMMARY
APPENDIX A

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Phoenix Active Transportation Plan  
Public Outreach Report

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
2 
 
Table of Contents 
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 6 
Context............................................................................................................................................ 6 
Methods & Summary ..................................................................................................................... 6 
Online Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 9 
Demographics ................................................................................................................................. 9 
Zip codes (N=651) .............................................................................................................................. 9 
Age (N=527) ..................................................................................................................................... 10 
Gender (N=399) ............................................................................................................................... 10 
Race/Ethnicity (N=507) ................................................................................................................... 11 
Household Income (N=503) ............................................................................................................ 11 
Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 12 
Q1: Which of the following best describes you? ........................................................................... 12 
Q3: Which of the following do you own or have access to regularly? Please check all that apply: 
(N=657) ............................................................................................................................................ 13 
Q4: Please check how often you use each of these different ways of traveling. (N=639) .......... 14 
Q5: Please check how often you would like to use these different ways of traveling in the 
future. (N=636) ................................................................................................................................ 15 
Q6: If you were to walk and bike more often, which of the following would describe the 
purpose of doing so? Please check all that apply. (N=632) ........................................................... 16 
Q7: If you would like to provide more details, please use the space below. (N=95) ................... 16 
Q8: How would you rate the conditions in Phoenix for the following modes of travel? (N=599)
 .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 
Q9: Thinking about safety, how safe do you currently feel in Phoenix using the following modes 
of travel? (N=599) ............................................................................................................................ 25 
Q10: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each 
of the following statements. (N=601) ............................................................................................ 26 
Q11: Which of the following stops you from walking more? Please select all that apply. (N=600)
 .......................................................................................................................................................... 27

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
3 
Q12: Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier when it comes to walking? 
Please select one. (N=594) .............................................................................................................. 28 
Q13: Which of the following stops you from biking more? Please select all that apply. (N=591)
 .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 
Q14: Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier for you when it comes to 
bicycling? (N=587) ........................................................................................................................... 30 
Q15: For the following questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=584) ....................................................................................................... 31 
Q16: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=584) ....................................................................................................... 33 
Q17: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=585) ....................................................................................................... 35 
Q18: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=583) ....................................................................................................... 37 
Q19: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=582) ....................................................................................................... 39 
Q20: For the following questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=568) ....................................................................................................... 41 
Q21: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=568) ....................................................................................................... 43 
Q22: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=570) ....................................................................................................... 45 
Q23: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=569) ....................................................................................................... 47 
Q24: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the 
following statements. (N=570) ....................................................................................................... 49 
Q25: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each 
of the following statements. (N=536) ............................................................................................ 51 
Q26: What are your broader priorities for transportation in Phoenix? Please rank the following 
choices: Please prioritize the broader transportation objectives listed below from highest (1) to 
lowest (6) priority: (N=528) ............................................................................................................. 52 
Q27: The list before provides a number of different street-specific priorities. Please organize 
the list below from your highest (1) to lowest (10) priority. (N=522) .......................................... 53

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
4 
Q28: What types of improvements are most important for Phoenix's bicycle network? Please 
rank the following based on what you think is most important: (N=510) ................................... 54 
Q29: Which types of bicycle routes are most important? (N=523) .............................................. 55 
Q30: When thinking about the continued development, buildout, and improvement of the 
city's bicycle and pedestrian network, which of the following do you think is more important? 
(N=522) ............................................................................................................................................ 55 
Q31: Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us about your active 
transportation priorities for Phoenix? (N=143) ............................................................................. 56 
Q32: Do you know how to report street maintenance issues to the City of Phoenix? (N=531) . 67 
Q33: When there is a bicycle or pedestrian street project in my neighborhood, are you able to 
find information about the project and provide input? (N=524) ................................................. 68 
Q34: Have you ever reported a street issue to the City of Phoenix? (N=530) ............................. 68 
Q35: If yes, were you satisfied with the outcome? (N=226) ......................................................... 69 
Q36: Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us about our outreach and 
engagement process or your experience reporting/contacting the city about a street-related 
issue? (N=68) ................................................................................................................................... 69 
Additional Community Outreach ....................................................................................................... 75 
Laveen BBQ Results ...................................................................................................................... 75 
First Friday Results ....................................................................................................................... 78 
Targeted Outreach .............................................................................................................................. 81 
Bike Advocates ............................................................................................................................. 81 
Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 81 
Themes ......................................................................................................................................... 81 
Marginalized Zip Codes ................................................................................................................ 82 
Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 82 
Themes ......................................................................................................................................... 82 
Draft Plan Feedback Survey Results Summary .................................................................................. 84 
About the survey ............................................................................................................................. 84 
Q1) Did you participate in the original project survey or project interviews? ............................. 84 
Other: ............................................................................................................................................ 84 
Key takeaways: ............................................................................................................................. 84

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
5 
Q2) If you are interested in walking or biking more in Phoenix, what changes would encourage 
you walk or bike more? ................................................................................................................... 85 
Statistics: ....................................................................................................................................... 85 
Themes: ........................................................................................................................................ 85 
Insightful/Example Comments: ................................................................................................... 86 
Q3) What is your most important active transportation priority (i.e., more sidewalks, safer 
roadway crossings, protected bicycle facilities, etc.)?................................................................... 87 
Statistics: ....................................................................................................................................... 87 
Themes: ........................................................................................................................................ 87 
Insightful Comments: ................................................................................................................... 87 
Q4) How familiar are you with the Draft Plan and Plan Elements? .............................................. 88 
Q5) How do you feel about the current Draft Plan and Plan Elements? ...................................... 89 
Q6) Please share your comments on the Draft Plan and Plan Elements. For example, What do 
you like about the plan?  What concerns do you have?  What recommendations do you have?
 .......................................................................................................................................................... 89 
Themes: ........................................................................................................................................ 90 
Insightful/Example Comments: ................................................................................................... 90 
Appendix A: Survey Questions ........................................................................................................... 94 
English Version ............................................................................................................................. 94 
Spanish Version ..........................................................................................................................103 
Appendix B: Draft Plan Survey Responses .......................................................................................117

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
6 
Executive Summary 
Context 
For decades, Phoenix has excelled at building car-oriented places; internal policies and practices 
have been created with cars as the top priority. However, Phoenicians have shown increased 
interest in multimodal transportation. Therefore, the City of Phoenix responded by expanding 
the walking, bicycling, and transit network. The City implemented the following planning and 
policy initiatives to increase multimodal options: Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan (2014), 
Complete Streets Ordinance, Policy, and Guidelines, ReinventPHX, the Key Corridors Master Plan, 
and the Walkable Urban Code.  
 
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) process was an opportunity to build upon these previous 
efforts and attempted to answer the following questions: 
• When it comes to transportation, what kind of city does Phoenix want to be?  
• How well do current policies and practices work to build that desired city? 
• What are the strategies for becoming the desired city when it comes to people riding 
bicycles? 
This process focused on understanding priorities, the impacts of decisions, and why they matter 
to better inform proposed solutions. Feedback from community residents was obtained through 
an online survey, poster polls, and interviews with local leaders and advocacy organizations.  
Methods & Summary 
Method 
Participation 
Online Survey 
• 665 participants submitted a survey response. Of these 
participants, 655 individuals chose to complete the English 
Version and 10 individuals chose to complete the Spanish version.  
 
Summary 
• Most participants reside in zip code 85013, were age 30-39, 
identified as male, identified as white, and reported a household 
income of $100K-$200K. 
 
• Most participants live and work in the City of Phoenix. In addition, 
most reported to own or have access to regularly, a car or truck.  
 
• The following themes were identified based on the individual 
comments: Design, Development & Infrastructure, City Website,

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
7 
Climate, Homelessness, Issues & Requests, Public Transportation, 
Routes, Safety & Speeding, Scooters, and Survey Feedback. 
 
Methods 
Participation 
Poster Polls 
• Staff from the City of Phoenix attended the 70th Annual Laveen 
BBQ (February 2022) and First Friday (March 2022) to conduct 
poster polls. In total 79 community members participate in the 
poster polls. 
 
Key Findings 
• Community members tended to either answer the dot poll 
posters or the open-ended questions, but usually not both.  
 
• Community members wanted to talk more than interact with 
posters. The conversations seemed to align with the poll data in 
that community members were interested in safer, local 
connections for walking and biking. 
 
• The following questions were asked at each event:  
o Should regional routes or neighborhood routes be 
priority? 
o Should the focus be on cost versus comfort?  
o What are your top three community priorities? 
o Where do you enjoy walking and biking in Phoenix?  
o What stops you from walking or biking more in Phoenix? 
 
Methods 
Participation 
Targeted Outreach  
• 4 representatives from two education and advocacy 
organizations 
 
• 7 community leaders from the 6 marginalized zip codes identified 
in the equity map  
 
Key Findings 
 
• Representatives from the advocacy organizations mentioned the 
need for increased awareness and education about city projects. 
In addition, they suggested better messaging when relating 
neighborhood projects to overall city goals.   
 
• Representatives from the advocacy organizations expressed 
concerns about traffic, speeding, and the lack of infrastructure to

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
8 
make walking and biking safe. In addition, they suggested the city 
work to improve the culture with the streets department.  
 
• Representatives from the advocacy organizations recommended 
the city work to improve the culture with the streets department. 
In addition, they expressed concerns about turnover and a lack of 
strong advocates within the department.   
 
• Many community leaders expressed concerns about safety. They 
mentioned the lack of sidewalks in some residential communities 
(particularly West & South Phoenix), inconsistent bike paths, 
speeding, homeless encampments, violent crimes, drug use in 
neighborhoods, and stray dogs. 
 
• Many community leaders expressed the need for more 
accountability and transparency from the city. In addition, they 
are not confident the city will show up for their communities. 
However, they seemed to be supportive of additional street 
infrastructure if it supported their current safety needs.

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
9 
Online Survey  
665 participants submitted a survey response. Of these participants, 655 individuals chose to 
complete the English Version and 10 individuals chose to complete the Spanish version. Both 
English and Spanish responses have been combined. The Spanish qualitative data has been 
translated to English.  
Demographics 
Zip codes (N=651) 
There were 651 responses to this question making the completion rate 98.05%. The zip code 
with the most respondents was 85013 (Midtown/Uptown), with 62 respondents.  
 
Zip Code 
# of 
Responses 
Zip Code  
# of 
Responses 
Zip Code 
# of 
Responses 
23235 
1 
85043 
3 
85282 
9 
84051 
1 
85044 
15 
85283 
10 
85001 
1 
85045 
1 
85286 
3 
85003 
25 
85048 
4 
85295 
2 
85004 
29 
85050 
9 
85296 
1 
85005 
1 
85051 
2 
85297 
1 
85006 
31 
85053 
9 
85301 
1 
85007 
24 
85054 
2 
85302 
4 
85008 
19 
85083 
3 
85303 
1 
85009 
11 
85085 
4 
85305 
1 
85012 
13 
85086 
1 
85306 
3 
85013 
62 
85142 
1 
85308 
4 
85014 
13 
85201 
5 
85309 
1 
85015 
27 
85202 
2 
85326 
1 
85016 
28 
85203 
3 
85331 
3 
85017 
6 
85204 
1 
85335 
1 
85018 
31 
85207 
1 
85338 
2 
85019 
4 
85208 
3 
85339 
15 
85020 
16 
85209 
1 
85345 
2 
85021 
7 
85212 
1 
85353 
1 
85022 
17 
85215 
1 
85374 
2 
85023 
4 
85224 
7 
85375 
1 
85024 
3 
85225 
1 
85377 
1

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
10 
85027 
6 
85226 
2 
85379 
2 
85028 
4 
85233 
1 
85381 
1 
85029 
5 
85234 
3 
85382 
1 
85031 
2 
85236 
1 
85383 
1 
85032 
10 
85248 
1 
85388 
1 
85033 
4 
85250 
1 
85395 
2 
85034 
4 
85251 
6 
85396 
1 
85035 
5 
85254 
6 
86018 
1 
85037 
6 
85255 
1 
86016 
1 
85040 
3 
85257 
8 
86281 
1 
85041 
13 
85280 
1 
 
 
85042 
8 
85281 
14 
 
 
Age (N=527) 
There were 527 responses to this question making the completion rate 79.25%. The largest age 
group was ages 30-39.  
 
 
Gender (N=399) 
There were 399 responses to this question making the completion rate 60%. Most participants 
identified as male. 
 
Under 18
19-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Responses
1.14%
26.57%
37.95%
15.37%
9.49%
5.88%
3.61%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
11 
 
Race/Ethnicity (N=507) 
There were 507 responses to this question making the completion rate 76.24%. Most 
participants identified as White. 
 
 
Household Income (N=503) 
There were 503 responses to this question making the completion rate 75.64%. The most 
frequent response was  a household income of $100K-$200K. 
 
Male
Female
Non-
Binary
Trans
We
Why do
you ask?
N/A
Don’t 
Know
Decline
Responses
63.16%
33.83%
1.00%
0.75%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
Black
Native American
White
Hispanic / Latino
of any race
Responses
4.93%
5.92%
0.99%
71.79%
16.37%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
12 
 
 
Questions 
Q1: Which of the following best describes you? 
There were 663 responses to this question making the completion rate 99.70%. The most 
frequent response was both living and working in the City of Phoenix. 
 
 
Under $35k
$36-65k
$66-100k
$100k - $200k
$200k+
Responses
8.95%
18.49%
25.65%
34.79%
12.13%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
I live in the City of
Phoenix -
I work in the City of
Phoenix -
I live and work in the
City of Phoenix -
I neither live nor work
in the City of Phoenix
-
Responses
38.16%
11.46%
43.29%
7.09%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
13 
Q3: Which of the following do you own or have access to regularly? Please 
check all that apply: (N=657) 
There were 657 responses to this question making the completion rate 98.80%. Most 
participants own or have access to regularly, a car or truck. 
 
 
Car or truck
Bicycle
E-scooter
Assistive device,
such as a
wheelchair or
motorized
scooter
Other
Responses
93.76%
65.14%
6.70%
1.83%
4.72%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
14 
Q4: Please check how often you use each of these different ways of traveling. (N=639) 
There were 639 responses to this question making the completion rate 96.09%. Highlighted below are the top responses for each way 
of traveling.  
 
Drive or ride in a
car
Take public transit
Use rideshare or a
taxi
Walk
Bike
Use an e-scooter
Use an assistive
device, like a
wheelchair or
mobility scooter
Daily
64.52%
5.49%
0.00%
46.65%
17.94%
1.14%
0.82%
Weekly
29.51%
8.56%
7.68%
19.17%
24.13%
3.26%
0.16%
Monthly
2.04%
10.82%
21.41%
7.03%
12.70%
3.43%
0.16%
Seldom
2.51%
36.03%
49.02%
17.89%
16.67%
13.70%
1.47%
Never
1.41%
39.10%
21.90%
9.27%
28.57%
73.57%
97.38%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
15 
Q5: Please check how often you would like to use these different ways of traveling in the future. (N=636) 
There were 636 responses to this question making the completion rate 95.64%. Highlighted below are the top responses for each way 
of traveling.   
 
Drive or ride
in a car
Take public
transit
Use rideshare
or a taxi
Walk
Bike
Use an E-
scooter
Use an
assistive
device, such as
a wheelchair
I would like to use this mode less often
75.28%
3.76%
25.85%
4.18%
1.60%
2.61%
2.32%
I would like to use this mode more often
2.85%
69.44%
10.73%
69.77%
69.65%
27.04%
0.83%
No Change
21.87%
26.80%
63.41%
26.05%
22.36%
70.36%
96.85%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
16 
Q6: If you were to walk and bike more often, which of the following would 
describe the purpose of doing so? Please check all that apply. (N=632) 
There were 632 responses to this question making the completion rate 95.04%. Most 
participants reported they would walk or bike for exercise or fun.  
 
 
 
Q7: If you would like to provide more details, please use the space below. 
(N=95) 
There were 95 responses to this question making the completion rate 14.29%. Based on the 
comments, the following themes were identified: Design, Development & Infrastructure, 
Climate, Public Transportation, Routes, Safety, and Scooters. Below are comments that align with 
each theme: 
 
Design, Development & Infrastructure 
• Phoenix needs to prioritize bicycles as transportation. I bought my home in an adjacent 
suburb because Phoenix's bicycle infrastructure is totally inadequate by any measure. 
• The more walkability, the better. Phoenix currently has a depressing amount of car 
centric design. 
• I dream of living in a city with real, people-centric infrastructure 
• Phoenix (and its metro region) is obviously car centric - I know it's unrealistic for that to 
change in the future but 15 minute walkable communities would do enormous good for 
Walk or bike to
complete a trip to
work, school,
shopping, or
socializing
Walk or bike for
exercise or fun
Walk or bike to access
transit (bus or light
rail)
I’m not interested in 
walking or biking
Responses
78.64%
85.60%
51.11%
3.48%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
17 
the general welfare of their residents. Walking and biking places is far superior to driving 
in most circumstances. 
• It's going to take more than bike lanes to fix this urban hellscape. We need a dense 
walkable city not based around cars. Downtown needs to be at least twice as dense as it 
is. 
• Need more grocery stores, pharmacies, hardware stores, and other amenities. Currently, 
none of these are walking distance for my neighborhood at 7th St & Osborn. 
• I would love to be in an area that is walkable or bikeable. My area currently requires a car 
to get around anywhere. 
• i would like to walk and bike more but the current landscape doesnt let me 
• I love biking where it is feasible. I appreciate the improvements the city is making and 
feel that better bike infrastructure, especially physically protected bike lanes, would go a 
long way.  
• If there were more walkable (walking only) spaces downtown, I would be interested in 
spending time in those areas. 
• I bike as much as possible. I use public transit when biking is not possible (weather, 
health etc). I want to drive as little as possible, but I still have to sometimes because of 
infrequent bus stops on McDowell and 44th, or because bike infrastructure is incomplete 
(like on 40th street where the bike lane ends suddenly) and sometimes feels unsafe. 
• Street Parking in my area is the real issue. Historic Downtown was not built for this many 
people and cars. 
• Some people don't have the choice and must walk, bike and use transit for daily living. 
We must consider these most vulnerable members of our community. 
• Rideshare would be an option in a self-driving model 
• I enjoy biking and taking the bus; it's my "gym" and "study" time. However, I would like it 
if traffic to Downtown Phoenix were more reliable, so that, on occasion, I could drive to 
Downtown in case if I have an appointment or need to leave earlier or to sort out logistics 
like picking something up. Using rideshare or some foldable personal electric transport 
could also work, but it'd be nice if it weren't so expensive. 
• This new project is not where I want my tax dollars going. The Government does not 
know how to do anything well. Just look at California who tried this plan. Unsuccessful. All 
forms of government need to get out of the people's lives. They work for us, not the 
other way around. 
• The more opportunity to walk or bike, the better. Even if it comes at the expense of cars, 
I say as primarily a car user. 
• I would also love to see bicycle symbols painted on city streets that are designated 
bikeways, such as Oak. There are some small street signs, but these can be easy to ignore 
or miss. Motorists should be aware of bikes and looking out for them on these streets, 
especially when there’s no designated bike lane and bikes have to use the main road. 
• We need a traffic light and safe sidewalk crossing at 43 rd Avenue and Dobbins. You need 
to hold your breath as you take your turn at the 4 way stop. Drivers are unkind and 
greedy when it comes to taking your turn at the 4 way stop. Children are biking and 
walking each day and school buses also have a challenging time at this intersection. There

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
18 
are 4 schools using this intersection = 2 charter and 2 public. Laveen is building 
approximately 8000 more homes and 2-3 more schools. What and when are the plans to 
install a traffic signal? 
• I drive home on cave creek road at night and the traffic lights will turn red when no one is 
there. It makes zero sense. 
 
Climate  
• We need more shade. The added heat to the city from all the concrete is substantial. I 
read an article from someone who lived here over 100 years ago, and they described 
Phoenix as having only 2 seasons, spring and fall since the temperature was always 
perfect. We need that back 
• The zip code 85004 should have more investment into green spaces, we need increased 
shade, more trees 
• I would much prefer to walk and bike, but the general lack of shade throughout most of 
Phoenix prevents this during the peak summer months. 
 
Public Transportation 
• I don't have good access to light rail. If I did, I'd use it more. 
• I would take the light rail but it smells of urine and filled with homeless. 
• I have mobility issues so walking to bus/light rail is difficult. I wish there were buses that 
went through the neighborhood. 
• The Metro is not an option in my area. I do use it occasionally for special events. 
• Please extend the light rail route. The current route mainly runs east and west between 
Mesa and Phoenix. There should be a north and south route as well between Chandler 
and Scottsdale. 
• I do not drive when possible. I use my electric skateboard or bike to go most everywhere 
I need to go in the city. I would like to be able to take my electric skateboard on the bus 
systems but it appears not allowed right now. I would also like better access to rail and 
bus systems on a more regular basis 
• I've been car-free in the Valley for more than 15 years and only drive in case of 
emergencies. Cars and trucks to me are too much of a danger. This city is a disaster for 
pedestrians, the light rail was a nice touch but why are buses still only every half-hour? 
They should cost less to use or be free at least during summer months.  
• I would love to walk to a bus or light rail stop, but it’s almost a full mile to the nearest 
stop that goes in a direction I frequent. 
• No light rail 
• I would love to see more transit options in Laveen. 
• I would like to use transit more, but the bus stops in my neighborhood are terrible—
some have no shade at all. 
• More bike racks for bus stops if there aren't any spaces on the bus. 
• Buses absolutely need to come every 15 minutes minumum. We're a major city. 
• Most of my car trips are short and only for bulky items. I'd love more separated bike 
lanes and easier access to public transport/have it go somewhere besides downtown and 
Tempe

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
19 
• Walking/biking/public Trans are my main means of transportation. I own a car, but try to 
not use it if I can help it. 
• I wouldn't want to drive to get to public transit 
• Trying to use public transport more 
 
Routes 
• Walking/Biking is an excellent way to get daily exercise in addition to getting to where 
you need to go in a quick way. What I believe we should still have a car for is longer 
trips/trips that involving hauling goods. However we should encourage at every 
opportunity the ability to choose different modes of transit. I live in Tempe, just east of 
the I-10, and I am sure that there are bike routes that connect swiftly and safely to 
Tempe; but I still wish I knew more about them prior. I would also love it if in general 
more pedestrian paths connected to other pedestrian paths. (Though a project like this is 
ensured to be expensive) I would love to see more pedestrian freeway overpasses 
connect to other freeway overpasses, thereby giving pedestrians multiple options of 
route across a freeway and allowing for a more efficient use of the space overall. 
• I hate having to get in the car for a quick trip to the market or even just grab coffee. 
Better / more walking and bike ways would make this possible 
• Would love to see bike paths through neighborhoods so I wouldn't have to ride on 7th 
Street to get to Thunderbird. 
• There are zero bike lakes on Thomas Ave, and there is zero consideration taken for 
pedestrians to establish that. 
• Use the canals for bike and walk paths! Use the large storm drain culverts and washes for 
bike and walk paths. Separate multi-use paths from traffic, too many stop lights for 
cyclists. Tie the paths into shopping areas. Make a huge effort to connect existing paths 
through power, drainage, canal easements. Get creative on the use of other rights-of-
way. Work with the flood control district and canal co. on using rights-of-way for trails. 
• I would love more multi use paths, separated from traffic by some sort of barrier. 
• I use the bike path along the Rio Salado and it's wonderful. I would like to have more and 
better bike lanes getting to and from that bike path from my office at 1300 W 
Washington St. 
• I would like to see more bike lanes on west to east streets and more bike routes without 
any vehicles, especially along canals. 
• 11th Ave and Bethany Rd to popular shopping areas like uptown plaza and routes into 
downtown from 7th Ave 
• More bike lanes to get around town on streets that are not too heavily used by motor 
vehicles 
• The 3rd/5th Ave bike lanes are fantastic 
• I bike to work in 85043 (7 miles from 85006) twice a week. Wish there were better 
East/west bike lanes especially away from downtown. Also, e scooters are the most 
goddamn annoying things people leave them everywhere. They need to have designated 
places to leave them. 
• Walking and biking are so much nicer to get around, especially midtown and downtown. 
Would love more protected bike lanes and shade for pedestrians.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
20 
• Many wide secondary streets do not have bike lanes. 
• I love long bike rides where I can just GO with friends or by myself to enjoy Phoenix and 
get exercise. The bikeways throughout the valley are exceptional, I'd love to have more 
BUT I wish they were like the other canal bike system where it goes under the roadways 
so I don't ever have to stop at a light. 
• I work from home and live a relatively walkable part of town (Melrose). However, I would 
love it if the city made the road more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, with improved 
walkways, crosswalks, parking strips etc. 
• I basically want the option to live without a car, weather permitting. I ride into Phoenix at 
least once per week. The canals are great but don't necessarily get me to the place I'm 
trying to go. Getting downtown should be easier, for example. 
 
Safety – Cars, Speeding & Traffic 
• I would love to be able to bike to the grocery store! I have 3 stores super close to me, but 
everyone drives so crazily that I can’t. :( 
• 82 years old so walk is better than bike. Seeing the way MORE DRIVERS with different 
backgrounds (country upbringing) drive I'm afraid there is going to be more people on 
bikes or walking getting killed. 
• I am interested in walking and biking more, but the speed at which drivers drive through 
the downtown Phoenix area is outrageous. We need more investment in bicycle and 
pedestrian infrastructure downtown and drivers need to be held accountable for 
speeding and driving recklessly. Too many people die in our streets. 
• Even with bike lanes, I do not feel safe riding in traffic. There aren't enough safeguards 
for cyclists. When walking, I often feel unsafe because the sidewalk is very often right 
next to the traffic lanes vs. having a parkway space giving space between the street and 
the sidewalk. 
• Would walk more from my house downtown if there was more shade and safety 
projection from the fast cars. Walking along an arterial is suicide. This is why no one 
walks, the cars drive too fast and its scary. 
• Phoenix is pretty pedestrian hostile. I live near some walkable amenities (the intersection 
of Bethany Home and 16th St), but I don't feel safe walking around this intersection with 
the volume of traffic it experiences. I especially don't feel safe taking my young daughter 
there. And safety aside, walking a few feet from cars going 40+ mph is not a PLEASANT 
experience to say the least, which I think also dissuades people from walking. I think it 
would be great if the city had things like dedicated bus lanes, protected bike lanes (more 
than one!) and separated, shaded sidewalks. Such things would go a long way to 
promoting more walkability and pedestrian safety. 
• I'd like to bike more, but Phoenix has some of the most unsafe drivers I've ever seen in 
my life. 
• I want to walk and bike as much as I can, but it's so dangerous because of cars and street 
design. I live within walking distance to the grocery store, but I feel like my life is at risk if I 
try to walk or bike there. Pedestrians don't have priority anywhere, speeds are super high 
on roadways, and drivers are very aggressive against pedestrians and cyclists.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
21 
• Cars are noisy and dangerous and it would be nice to have zones that were exclusively 
pedestrian. 
• I would love to be able to bike to work. But crossing streets like 7th St and Central is a 
death wish during rush hour. There is a single HAWK light I can use at 7th St but I would 
love to have more options. Also, I would like to express my frustration at the pitiful bike 
lane along Roosevelt Avenue, specifically near 7th Avenue. It is discontinuous and 
automobile drivers treat it like part of their own lane instead of a dedicated lane. That 
intersection also does not provide a protected left turn (dedicated turning green arrow) 
for cars turning left off of 7th Avenue which means people rush to turn as fast as they 
can, making the pedestrian crossing from Nortenos to the Circle K extremely dangerous 
 
Safety – Infrastructure & Road Conditions 
• Painted lines on the road are not bike infrastructure, not one vehicle respects them and 
they do nothing for safety. I've lost too many cycling friends over the years, enough is 
enough. 
• If there was safe, shaded routes that are easy to access I would love to have biking as an 
easy alt. to take from work to surrounding areas. Both as a form of excercise & to enjoy 
the view outside. 
• I would like to have to option to commute via public transit and walk /bike safely for daily 
needs. This would require road overhaul and increased pedestrian safety near my work 
place. 
• Construction of effective and safe alternative travel is paramount to strong city design. 
Although not your exclusive jurisdiction, consider talking the Cities of Surprise, Sun City, 
and Deer Valley into improving bicycle infrastructure. 
• I would like improved infrastructure to allow myself and other citizens to safely walk and 
bike around the city. 
• I think if we had more viable alternatives to individual car trips fewer trips would be taken 
by cars and congestion would get better. Personally, I would like to take every trip by bike 
or on foot, especially if it was safer. Practically speaking bikes are already better for some 
trips in Phoenix. For instance, if it's busier downtown/on Roosevelt Row cycling can 
sometimes actually be faster because of the parking time. The problem is that cycling *is 
not safe enough*. Our roads are designed for speed, and that's why we have these racing 
problems now. We need to use engineering to reduce the natural speed, not just the 
speed limit, on our roads. Some of our roads that kind of act like arterial roads, like 15th 
ave, should have two-way bike lines, narrower car lanes, and lower speed limits. Please 
resist the temptation to plan bike infrastructure based on how many people currently 
cycle; this is like planning bridges based on how many people are swimming across a 
river. Infrastructure induces demand. Don't just put bike lines around downtown like it's 
some kind of novelty tourism activity like so many cities do. That's setting us up for 
failure. Spread our *from* downtown and the canal paths that already exist and make it 
progressively easier for people to get to the more central parts of the city by bicycle. And 
do it with *protected* two-way bike paths. These could be utilized by bicycles, class 1 
and 2 e-bikes, e-scooters, and eventually perhaps even microcars for disabled people like

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
22 
they have in cities with better bike infrastructure. Lean on Valley Metro to improve the 
fare system and the bus routes. Phoenix is way behind in public transit right now. 
• I do not feel safe biking to and from work and home. Another good alternative would be 
for me to bike from my home to the light right, unfortunately there is no safe route to do 
so. 
• I don't feel that biking or walking is safe in Phoenix, and public transit is so unreliable that 
I do not take it even though I work downtown and would love to not pay for parking. 
• Create more safe ways for bikes to cross streets or more bike lanes in high volume areas 
• I would like to walk and bike more often however the streets in Phoenix are often very 
dangerous so my wife worries about me biking. We need better and wider sidewalks and 
buffered bike lanes so my kids and I have a place to walk and bike safely. 
• I already use a bicycle for my daily work commute and am thankful that the route is 
relatively safe. If I needed to go in another direction, the routes would be much less safe. 
In much of Phoenix, I am not comfortable riding, especially with my wife and young child. 
In much of Phoenix, I would not be comfortable walking (even to transit or a nearby park) 
because the sidewalks are non-existent, uncomfortable due to their proximity to travel 
lanes, or are unsafe. 
• I’m a virtual employee so no drives to an office. But I do go to the grocery store every 
other day. Being able to safely traverse the Phoenix roadways would make me much 
more likely to walk or bike. 
• Paint is not a sufficient barrier. Both bicyclists and drivers are safer when there is a 
physical barrier between the road and the bike path. Specifically, there should be a 
barrier that would meaningfully impede progress, such as a curb or a wall- collapsible 
reflectors are insufficient. 
• Our public transportation system isn't safe and makes it a difficult option to use. 
• I would like short distance public transit to access other areas of downtown, to Tempe, 
etc. Biking is not currently ideal given the general lack of safety in terms of bike lanes, 
cars, and aggressive people. 
• I live relatively close to my work and would love to bike there, but I do not feel safe with 
the bike infrastructure that currently exists. I would love protected bike lanes around the 
city. I would definitely bike more places. Walking can also be a challenge because of how 
close to cars they are. Walking with my young daughter in a stroller sometimes even feels 
dangerous. We live close to 16th street and Bethany Home where there are great 
restaurants and cafes, but walking to them is not fun, nor safe. 
• I have a car I never use because I like to ride my bike BUT the bike lanes here are on 
uneven terrible roads, covered in glass, blocked by city of Phoenix street workers. It’s 
very unsafe. For such a flat city it would be nice to utilize my bike outside of the 2 streets 
that are someone rideable. 
 
Safety – Other  
• I have no driver's license. I'd like to be able to reach mostly the same places as someone 
with a license. Currently, that is not possible safely. 
• If biking were safer, and public transit biking options were better, I would see a significant 
increase in my bike usage for various errands and enjoyment.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
23 
• It is very dangerous to drive with bikes on the road. These questions are a set up to push 
biking. This is not an honest survey. 
 
Scooters 
• Missing escooters in the warehouse district (around Maricopa County government 
center) 
• More scooters available for rent would be helpful. Scooters are always hard to find 
downtown 
• Prefer to use escooter for going to work, school, or shopping. 
• I would also like to see e-scooters permitted on sidewalks. I don’t think it’s safe to ride an 
e-scooter on most streets in Phoenix, and this is a great transit mode for short distances 
and connecting to the light rail. 
 
Additional Comments 
• More people should bike and walk more and get out of their gas guzzlers. 
• Gasoline is steadily going up and it would help the budget. 
• I ride my bike daily to work because I enjoy it plus I dont enjoy sitting in traffic or dealing 
with the idiot drivers 
• Primarily bicycle for purpose (no place for casual/enjoyable bike riding nearby). Walk for 
pleasure or for purpose if close. 
• Walk dog more often 
• I only bike for exercise and recreation 
• Deseo hacer cambios en mi vida diaria , para estar más saludable(bajar colesterol y 
ayudar a mi presión arterial) 
 
Translation: I want to make changes in my daily life, to be healthier (lower cholesterol 
and help my blood pressure).

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
24 
Q8: How would you rate the conditions in Phoenix for the following modes of travel? (N=599) 
There were 599 responses to this question making the completion rate 90.08%. Highlighted below are the top responses for each 
mode of travel.  
 
Walking
Biking
Using an assistive device, such as a
wheelchair
Very safe
3.18%
1.34%
0.88%
Safe
10.70%
3.51%
0.88%
Somewhat safe
21.40%
15.55%
3.89%
Neutral
11.37%
8.36%
43.54%
Somewhat unsafe
23.08%
22.74%
15.75%
Unsafe
16.56%
24.08%
16.81%
Very unsafe
13.71%
24.41%
18.23%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
25 
Q9: Thinking about safety, how safe do you currently feel in Phoenix using the following modes of travel? 
(N=599) 
There were 599 responses to this question making the completion rate 90.08. Highlighted below are the top responses for each mode 
of travel.  
Walking
Biking
Using an assistive device, such as a
wheelchair
Very safe
3.34%
1.18%
0.74%
Safe
12.71%
5.89%
0.93%
Somewhat safe
21.74%
14.81%
2.59%
Neutral
11.20%
11.28%
52.96%
Somewhat unsafe
24.58%
22.05%
11.30%
Unsafe
14.21%
21.38%
15.00%
Very unsafe
12.21%
23.40%
16.48%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
26 
Q10: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the 
following statements. (N=601) 
There were 601 responses to this question making the completion rate 90.38%. Highlighted below are the top responses for reach 
statement. Note: Due to an error in the survey format, several participants did not response to every statement.  
 
 
My neighborhood
would be a better
place to live if it
were more
enjoyable for
people to walk or
bike.
My neighborhood
would be a better
place to live if it
were more
enjoyable for
people to bike.
I am comfortable
with my friends
and family using
the streets in
Phoenix to walk
or bike.
Many of the
places I need to
get to regularly
are within biking
distance of my
home.
My neighborhood
would be a better
place to live if it
were more
enjoyable for
people to take
public transit.
I like walking.
I like biking.
Strongly agree
50.59%
50.00%
50.00%
0.00%
36.55%
50.00%
50.00%
Agree
7.73%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11.51%
0.00%
0.00%
Somewhat agree
4.37%
0.00%
50.00%
50.00%
7.45%
0.00%
0.00%
Neutral
3.87%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
13.87%
0.00%
0.00%
Somewhat disagree
3.87%
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
5.08%
0.00%
0.00%
Disagree
6.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.60%
0.00%
0.00%
Strongly disagree
24.54%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
19.97%
50.00%
50.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
27 
Q11: Which of the following stops you from walking more? Please select all that apply. (N=600) 
There were 600 responses to this question making the completion rate 90.23%. Most participants selected not enough shade as the 
reason for why they do not walk more.  
 
 
 
 
Not
enough
shade
People
driving in
unsafe
ways
Crossings
at major
streets do
not feel
safe
Too hot
People
driving
fast
Distances
between
places
No
sidewalks
Narrow
sidewalks
Bad
sidewalk
conditions
Crosswalk
s spaced
too far
apart
Gaps in
sidewalks
Crossing
signals
take too
long
Other
(please
specify)
Responses
66.67%
64.83%
64.00%
61.50%
58.50%
57.50%
51.50%
46.00%
45.50%
35.67%
33.83%
19.17%
13.83%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
28 
Q12: Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier when it comes to walking? Please select 
one. (N=594) 
There were 594 responses to this question making the completion rate 89.32%. Most participants selected distance between places as 
the biggest barrier when it comes to walking.  
 
 
 
Distances
between
places
People
driving in
unsafe
ways
Too hot
Not
enough
shade
Crossings
at major
streets do
not feel
safe
No
sidewalks
People
driving
fast
Other
(please
specify)
Crosswalk
s spaced
too far
apart
Bad
sidewalk
condition
s
Narrow
sidewalks
Gaps in
sidewalks
Crossing
signals
take too
long
Responses
24.07%
17.85%
11.95%
11.62%
8.59%
6.23%
6.06%
4.71%
3.87%
2.02%
1.85%
0.67%
0.51%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
29 
Q13: Which of the following stops you from biking more? Please select all that apply. (N=591) 
There were 591 responses to this question making the completion rate 88.87%. Most participants selected people driving in unsafe 
ways as the reason for what stops them from biking more.  
 
 
 
People
driving
in unsafe
ways
Bike
lanes are
too close
to traffic
lanes
Feeling
unsafe
People
driving
fast
Bike
lanes do
not
connect
Bike
lanes
disappea
r near
intersect
ions
Hard to
find a
clear
biking
route
Too hot
Lack of
bike
parking
Not
enough
shade
Distance
s
between
places
Crosswal
ks
spaced
too far
apart
Crossing
signals
take too
long
Other
(please
specify)
Responses
70.73%
63.11%
59.39%
57.02%
54.48%
52.62%
50.25%
34.01%
29.78%
28.26%
22.50%
10.66%
9.64%
9.64%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
AXIS TITLE

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
30 
Q14: Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier for you when it comes to bicycling? 
(N=587) 
There were 587 responses to this question making the completion rate 88.27%. Most participants selected people driving in unsafe 
ways as the biggest barrier when it comes to bicycling.  
 
People
driving in
unsafe
ways
Bike
lanes too
close to
traffic
lanes
Feeling
unsafe
Bike
lanes do
not
connect
Hard to
find a
clear
biking
route
Too hot
Other
(please
specify)
Distances
between
places
People
driving
fast
Bike
lanes
disappea
r near
intersecti
ons
Not
enough
shade
Lack of
bike
parking
Crossing
signals
take too
long
Crosswal
ks spaced
too far
apart
Responses
21.47%
21.29%
15.33%
9.88%
7.67%
6.64%
5.79%
4.94%
2.39%
1.87%
1.87%
0.85%
0.17%
0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
31 
Q15: For the following questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=584) 
There were 584 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.82%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement. 
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
31.96%
36.03%
Agree
23.54%
21.72%
Somewhat agree
18.38%
15.69%
Neither agree nor disagree
7.39%
9.48%
Somewhat disagree
6.87%
4.48%
Disagree
5.50%
5.52%
Strongly disagree
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
32 
Image: Major Street with a Buffered Bike Lane

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
33 
Q16: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=584) 
There were 584 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.82%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement. 
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
58.08%
54.50%
Agree
23.88%
20.93%
Somewhat agree
8.08%
12.28%
Neither agree nor disagree
2.75%
3.98%
Somewhat disagree
2.92%
2.08%
Disagree
1.37%
2.42%
Strongly disagree
2.92%
4.15%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
34 
Image: Major Street with a Protected Bike Lan (Bollards Guideposts)

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
35 
Q17: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=585) 
There were 585 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.97%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement.  
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
71.40%
65.92%
Agree
12.67%
14.71%
Somewhat agree
6.68%
6.40%
Neither agree nor disagree
3.42%
4.15%
Somewhat disagree
1.71%
2.08%
Disagree
1.71%
1.73%
Strongly disagree
2.40%
5.02%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
36 
Image: Street with a Protected Bike Lane (Two-way Protected Bike Lane with Curb)

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
37 
Q18: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=583) 
There were 583 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.67%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement.  
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
60.55%
58.32%
Agree
16.12%
15.61%
Somewhat agree
8.40%
8.23%
Neither agree nor disagree
7.55%
7.89%
Somewhat disagree
1.54%
2.40%
Disagree
2.40%
2.40%
Strongly disagree
3.43%
4.97%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
38 
Image: Protected Intersection on Major Street

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
39 
Q19: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=582) 
There were 582 responses to this question making the completion rate 87.52%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement.  
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
39.93%
43.28%
Agree
19.79%
16.21%
Somewhat agree
13.43%
12.41%
Neither agree nor disagree
13.08%
12.59%
Somewhat disagree
4.82%
5.00%
Disagree
4.82%
4.48%
Strongly disagree
4.13%
6.03%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
40 
Image: Local street with sharrows and traffic calming (Bike Boulevard)

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
41 
Q20: For the following questions, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=568) 
There were 568 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.41%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement.  
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
17.25%
22.97%
Agree
18.13%
16.96%
Somewhat agree
17.61%
11.84%
Neither agree nor disagree
18.31%
19.61%
Somewhat disagree
7.04%
6.01%
Disagree
11.27%
10.95%
Strongly disagree
10.39%
11.66%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
42 
Image: Major street and sidewalk without separation from the roadway (not detached)

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
43 
Q21: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=568) 
There were 568 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.41%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement.  
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
37.15%
39.61%
Agree
34.51%
27.46%
Somewhat agree
14.96%
13.91%
Neither agree nor disagree
6.87%
10.21%
Somewhat disagree
3.17%
3.52%
Disagree
1.76%
1.94%
Strongly disagree
1.58%
3.35%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
44 
Image: Major street with detached sidewalk

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
45 
Q22: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=570) 
There were 570 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.71%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement.  
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
73.04%
67.77%
Agree
18.26%
17.07%
Somewhat agree
3.48%
5.75%
Neither agree nor disagree
2.78%
4.53%
Somewhat disagree
0.70%
1.92%
Disagree
0.70%
0.70%
Strongly disagree
1.04%
2.26%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
46 
Image: Street with detached sidewalk and shade

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
47 
Q23: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=569) 
There were 569 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.56%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement.  
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
36.44%
39.19%
Agree
27.29%
23.20%
Somewhat agree
15.85%
12.83%
Neither agree nor disagree
7.92%
11.25%
Somewhat disagree
4.23%
4.04%
Disagree
3.87%
3.51%
Strongly disagree
4.40%
5.80%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
48 
Image: Mid-block crossing with flashing beacon and island

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
49 
Q24: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following 
statements. (N=570) 
There were 570 responses to this question making the completion rate 85.71%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement.  
 
 
I would like to see more streets that look like this in
Phoenix.
I would be interested in this street design even if it added a
few minutes to driving times during the rush hour.
Strongly agree
51.14%
50.88%
Agree
22.85%
21.30%
Somewhat agree
10.37%
5.46%
Neither agree nor disagree
7.21%
8.63%
Somewhat disagree
2.28%
2.64%
Disagree
2.81%
2.64%
Strongly disagree
3.34%
4.93%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
50 
Image: Mid-black crossing with HAWK signal

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
51 
Q25: For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the 
following statements. (N=536) 
There were 536 responses to this question making the completion rate 80.60%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
statement. 
 
 
I would not support any project that would lower speeds for
driving or make driving trips longer.
I would support lowering speed limits in exchange for making
streets more comfortable for walking and biking
Strongly agree
21.50%
37.01%
Agree
8.79%
13.83%
Somewhat agree
8.04%
7.29%
Neutral
6.54%
4.86%
Somewhat disagree
6.54%
7.10%
Disagree
15.14%
8.79%
Strongly disagree
33.27%
20.93%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
52 
Q26: What are your broader priorities for transportation in Phoenix? Please rank the following choices: 
Please prioritize the broader transportation objectives listed below from highest (1) to lowest (6) 
priority: (N=528) 
There were 528 responses to this question making the completion rate 79.40%. Highlighted below is the top response for each 
transportation objective. 
 
 
Preventing collisions
that could injure
people
Giving everyone a
comfortable option for
using streets, whether
they are driving,
walking, biking, or
taking transit
Building a green and
sustainable
transportation system
Reducing vehicle
congestion during rush
hour
Designing streets to
match the atmosphere
of the neighborhood
Minimizing the cost of
building and
maintaining streets
1
32.00%
28.52%
20.11%
13.17%
4.56%
1.90%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
AXIS TITLE

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
53 
Q27: The list before provides a number of different street-specific priorities. Please organize the list below 
from your highest (1) to lowest (10) priority. (N=522) 
There were 522 responses to this question making the completion rate 78.50%. Highlighted below is the top response for each street-
specific priority. 
 
 
Expand the
bikeway
network
Add shade
along
sidewalks
Expand street
network for
cars
Improve
pedestrian
crossings
Expand the
sidewalk
network
Improve
traffic signals
for cars
Improve
bicycle
crossings
Fill in
sidewalk gaps
Maintain
existing
sidewalks
Maintain
existing
bikeways
1
26.74%
23.55%
11.73%
10.02%
9.46%
6.96%
4.05%
3.64%
2.69%
1.93%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
AXIS TITLE

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
54 
Q28: What types of improvements are most important for Phoenix's bicycle network? Please rank the 
following based on what you think is most important: (N=510) 
There were 510 responses to this question making the completion rate 76.69%. Highlighted below is the top response for each type of 
improvement.  
 
 
Safety –
Address areas 
with a history 
of serious 
collisions 
and/or 
fatalities
Canals –
Adding and 
upgrading 
paths along 
existing 
canals
Equity –
Invest in 
historically 
marginalized 
areas
High comfort
facilities -
Increasing
separation of
bike facilities
to improve
network
comfort
Gap Closure –
Fill in missing 
links in 
network
Connections 
to Population 
& 
Employment 
Centers –
Connect 
within to 
areas where 
there are a lot 
of people 
working and 
living
Low-cost 
opportunities 
– Adding bike 
lanes after 
pavement / 
roadway 
resurfacing 
project is 
completed
Transit 
Access –
Build links 
with bus and 
light rail 
stations
Connections
to Parks &
Community
Centers -
Build links to
recreation
Most Important
30.30%
18.89%
15.35%
10.85%
9.86%
7.14%
4.34%
2.95%
1.18%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
AXIS TITLE

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
55 
Q29: Which types of bicycle routes are most important? (N=523) 
There were 523 responses to this question making the completion rate 78.65%. Most 
participants chose neighborhood routes as being most important. 
 
 
Q30: When thinking about the continued development, buildout, and 
improvement of the city's bicycle and pedestrian network, which of the 
following do you think is more important? (N=522) 
There were 522 responses to this question making the completion rate 78.50%. Most 
participants chose comfort as being most important. 
 
Neighborhood routes – Local roads 
and routes that guide people to 
neighborhood destinations
Regional routes - Canal paths and
major streets that support longer
trips and travel across the city
Responses
53.73%
46.27%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
AXIS TITLE

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
56 
 
 
Q31: Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us about 
your active transportation priorities for Phoenix? (N=143) 
There were 143 responses to this question making the completion rate 21.50%. Based on the 
comments, the following themes were identified: Design, Development & Infrastructure, 
Climate, Homelessness, Public Transportation, Routes, Safety, and Survey Feedback. Below are 
the comments that align with each theme.  
 
Design, Development & Infrastructure 
• Phoenix and surrounding cities have way too many parking lots and drive through fast 
food 
• The lack of biking infrastructure makes this a pretty bad place to live, honestly. 
• Transportation policy should have as its goal reducing congestion and travel time. For 
vehicles. Not cars, and not pedestrians. This is about how we move people from point A 
to point B as efficiently as possible. You people are trying to make driving undesirable 
through bad transportation planning that increases congestion to force people into your 
Green New Deal pipe dream of forcing people out of their cars. It won’t work. Prioritize 
real transportation policy that benefits 99% of the population by reducing congestion. 
Add lane miles, not bike lanes that remove vehicle lanes. Ridiculous polling, for ridiculous 
ideas. 
• The focus should overwhelming be on figuring out how to make Phoenix a more bike-
able and walkable city. Car traffic should not be the priority. Part of that is a roadway 
concern, but it is also a development concern, and the City should prioritize in-fill 
projects that bring housing and businesses to the heart of the city. 
• More focus on active trans projects and less focus on auto centric projects. 
Cost – Focus on adding stripes and signs to 
make sure the City can add as many miles of 
bike lanes as possible
Comfort – Focus on building projects that 
make bicycling more comfortable, even if it 
means fewer projects
Responses
32.76%
67.24%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
57 
• More density and mixed-use zoning to make walking and biking easier 
• Infrastructure for physical and mental health and environmental benefits. 
• More density everywhere makes it easier to afford and scale bicycle/pedestrian 
infrastructure 
• Any amount of bicycle network additions are worthless if the construction zoning isn't 
conducive to walkable neighborhoods. 
• Thanks for doing this survey. Phoenix could be an amazing bike city if we invest in the 
infrastructure. Please do as many bike and pedestrian projects as possible. We need to 
stop relying solely on cars, and we need to make our city more walkable and bikable to 
improve safety, tourism, satisfaction and equity. 
• If we invest heavily up front in making non-car transportation viable, it will help with our 
car priorities as well by minimizing car-dependence and thus congestion, wear on roads, 
etc. 
• We know bike infrastructure is way cheaper to construct and maintain that car 
infrastructure. Start being honest with the public please. 
• Keep building bike lanes and shading sidewalks. We need road diets whenever possible. 
• Design a course on respecting active transportation users required at any stage of getting 
a driving license. 
• Cost for bicycle infrastructure wouldn't be an issue if sufficient funds were diverted from 
car infrastructure. 
• You can't do any of this without addressing zoning and upzoning to mixed use multiple 
story buildings instead of the obsession with single family homes. Increase density and 
transit options and stop the sprawl. Separate vehicle traffic from every other mode of 
traffic to keep people safe. 
• I live and bike in a 2 mi radius downtown. Continue to make micro-neighborhood hubs, 
like Roosevelt row, and switching from cars will be easier for the local people. 
• Design streets for people. Cars are not people. People shouldn’t need to own a car to 
thrive in PHX - many people don’t have a vehicle and are disadvantaged by our street 
design 
• The city needs to focus on building upwards and reducing the distance between places 
before address sidewalks or bicycle routes. A well built system of sidewalks and bike 
paths will be useless if everything is still far apart and impossible to get to in the summer. 
• Bikes and pedestrians deserve infostructure as much as cars do, and should not be 
treated as less important. 
• How about Phoenix Greenbelt Division completely separate from Phoenix Street 
Division!! People could bike commute 9 months a year if the canals were bike routes. 
Separate the multi-use trails from streets. Get creative with other rights-of-way. Involve 
parks department, flood control, power, and canal easements for multi-use trails 
throughout the city. Make trail connections from existing parks and shopping centers 
using GIS. Bike commutes and shopping would reduce road traffic considerably. Bikes and 
walkers don't want to smell like exhaust. 
• I would prioritize comfort, but in reality I want coverage to be established & a bike 
network to be adequately linked, then from there focus on enhancing the areas. I would 
have put comfort, but am also concerned that it would be invested in major routes that

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
58 
would serve only a certain population & leave out other disadvantaged areas. So 
transportation relies on having reliable connections first, then quality can come second. If 
better design could be implemented as roads & bikelanes are placed (such as shade) that 
would be the ideal. Both are so important. 
• Are there not any win-win solutions where speed/time do not have to decrease for 
vehicles and where bikes/peds can have better travel conditions without much cost? 
Perhaps even widening the sidewalk and leveling the driveways so biking on the sidewalk 
is safer (e.g. Baseline Rd near Recker Rd in Gilbert). Can a protected bike lane be 
combined with a sidewalk and could cars be slowed down (e.g. square sidewalk 
connections and less rounding/sidewalk deviation) only when making turns into 
driveways or right turns where the slow down is splitting hairs (like tens of seconds rather 
than minutes)? A lot of these questions assume tradeoffs that matter, but are there 
tradeoffs that don't matter and where we are splitting hairs? Can we trend in investing in 
cars while also investing in bikes? 
• 2. The last question for me isn’t about cost v. comfort. It’s a question of quantity v. 
quality. For a bike network to add real value to a population, it needs to connect across 
the region it serves — at a bare minimum. I chose my response because I think a 
functional, connected biking network that joins Phoenix with surrounding metro areas in 
all directions should be a first priority (quantity). When this groundwork is laid, more 
people will be able to effectively use the system to get where they need to go, making 
demand and support for future upgrades in quality possible. I want both! But quantity 
first3. The canals are interesting. I’d love to use them for transit but a lot of them are 
essentially just alleys. They are sparsely populated and unpatrolled. They don’t feel 
particularly safe. Can we make room for appropriate development, maintenance and 
even attractions, food, or retail along the canalways in some areas? And make the areas 
that are more peaceful, like nature reserves or residential areas, more well lit and 
secure? 
• Focus on making a state of the art bike network for recreation and exercise. 
• When cars were first introduced, pedestrians always had the right of way. Somewhere 
along the line those switches places and it has become impossible to live in a lot of cities 
without a car. That is ridiculous. 
• We need more transit oriented development and to stop the endless sprawl and urban 
heat island effect 
• Investing in Public transportation/biking/walking will reduce traffic. Consider induced 
demand: if you build the infrastructure people will use it. This is why adding more lanes 
doesn’t decrease rush hour traffic. The only traffic solution is to have less people on the 
road. This means getting rid of euclidean zoning and parking lot minimums. 
• Everything phoenix does should have a focus on equity 
• We shouldn’t have to choose between cost and comfort when it comes to prioritizing 
peoples low cost access to living in a city. We should be able to get both. This is especially 
when the city continues to overfund a police department infested with crime, corruption, 
resignations. 
• Convenience is key- if it's more convenient to ride a bike, car traffic will lessen as more 
people ride bikes.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
59 
• Implement "superblocks" (i.e. Barcelona, Spain model) where car traffic is restricted. 
• Allow active transport through gated communities. Sometimes it takes much, much 
longer to go somewhere because of the barriers. 
• People primarily ride bikes for recreation so I think emphasizing and investing in the 
canals and connecting trails is key. Traffic can be awful here so I don’t think reducing 
driving lanes for cyclists makes sense when peoples commutes are already pretty bad. 
• We dont have the funds to make these improvements. Dont print any more money. Our 
current government has killed the US dollar 
• Incentivize and educate people to use bikeways and ensure that commuters in 
historically marginalized areas have access to bicycles 
• Street diets everywhere 
• Id like to see more accessibility and incentives for Phoenix area residents to use 
alternative methods of transport than cars 
• Traffic lights that monitor traffic flow. Mid city traffic lights don't manage traffic and 
congestion, they're so badly managed they actually create traffic and congestion. Indian 
School from 16th Street to 33rd avenue is one of the worst stretches of road for that in 
the country, especially between 12th St and 15th Ave. It's truly the worst thing I've ever 
seen day on y and day out year over year. 
• Hawks are only effective if cars stop for them--and they don't. Bike lanes only function as 
bike lanes if cars are not parked in them--and they are parked in them. 
• Traffic signal needed at 43 rd avenue and Dobbins ASAP!! 
• Please put speed cameras at major intersections (ex. McDowell and 7th St). Drivers in this 
city are completely irresponsible wrt red lights and speed limits. It's one of the worst 
aspects of Phoenix. 
• Put sharrows on Desert Foothills Parkway, please. Tons of people ride there and the 
locals speed and ride in the right lane. 
• I'm all for adding bike access to marginalized communities if we have evidence that it will 
improve equity. Sharrows are useless. Please do not imitate so many other worthless bike 
projects by using the sharrow option. Car drivers are always texting and they don't see 
the sharrows. Car drivers don't think bicycles belong in the street. It doesn't matter if 
they're wrong if they keep hitting pedestrians and cyclists. I have a ton of hope for how 
forward-thinking the bike plan is in Phoenix. 
• 27th ave and baseline, has a school on the SE corner and cars speed by during school 
hours due to lack of speed sign, baseline near that area is missing sidewalk so kids walk 
on dirt paths 
• Badly need hawk signal at Tatum and Berneil - popular route for bikers but crossing 
Tatum is dangerous. No easy way to get to a light. 
• There seems to be a new problem at "HAWK" crossing locations where drivers proceed 
through the flashing red without stopping or yielding. This could be due to 
misunderstanding on recently-added signs. The city should perform a formal study of this 
behavior and share the results.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
60 
Climate 
• Increasing shade throughout the city to help combat the intolerable heat would make 
biking and walking much more accessible for all communities. When it’s nice out, you see 
Phoenicians out walking everywhere. Heat and lack of shade are the biggest barriers. 
Then the roads and everything else follow 
• Adding bike lanes is nice, but again, won't fix the urban hellscape of terrible city planning 
that is Phoenix. No one wants to bike or walk miles through 115 degree heat, even in the 
shade, even on nice paths. The only way to fix this problem is building a dense city, not 
an endless sea of single family homes. 
• Phoenix would be less hot with less asphalt streets and more alternative transportation 
options 
• Too hot for long distance 
• Phoenix is never going to be a bike commuter town a la Seattle or San Francisco. It's not 
dense enough and it's too hot in the summer.  
• We live in the desert, we can’t afford to ignore climate change. If more people could 
comfortably walk or bike it would be better for all of us.  
• Increasing shade cover across sidewalks and bike lanes will lead to more biking and 
demand for lanes creating positive feedback loop 
• If doing protected bike lanes please don't just add more asphalt and curbing and call it a 
day. This is an opportunity to provide shade, even if it's on the sidewalk side of the 
protected lane.  
• Consider alternatives to asphalt for streets. There are cooler, and over the long term, 
cheaper alternatives. 
• 1. Shade! There’s no way this city can support walking or bicycling without it. I’d like to 
see the percentage of sidewalks without shade in Phoenix today, and in 5-10 years to see 
it at 100% over sidewalks and bikeways across the full transit network. 
 
Homelessness 
• Reduce roadside areas for homeless to camp. Increase traffic handling capabilities. 
• None of this matters if we still have wave after wave of homeless people sleeping in 
underpasses, and places where I want to ride my bike or walk. 
• On existing bike paths, clear out the homeless from under passes; not at all safe. 
• I don't use canal paths anymore because the underpasses are trashed - used by 
homeless. I have compassion for homeless and would like more services for them, but 
this is a problem that needs to be addressed to improve biking in Phoenix. 
 
Public Transportation 
• I want fully separated bike lanes, better sidewalks for pedestrians, and easier access to 
transit, specifically the light rail. The light rail expansion will help but it has very little use 
right now.  
• Given the heat biking and walking are often hostile, so supporting networks of bike lanes 
and sidewalks that lead to other public transit makes more sense to me. And thus public 
transit needs support of bikes etc.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
61 
• I wish the light rail went more places especially the west valley. Also I wish it weren’t a 
part of the traffic like above or below. 
• I would love to see the various cities in the valley continue working together to make it 
less car centric! The light rail is a great start but it needs to be supported by other 
efficient options to facilitate inter-city travel 
• I think any transportation plan has to address the abysmal bus and light rail service. 
• Expanding the light rail, improving sidewalks & pedestrian crossings 
• Prioritize railways 
• I would love to see a high speed rail system like other metros have- something that can 
keep cars and people off the streets to make our beautiful city greener and safer. We 
have very minimal weather to prevent a rail system, our layout is already a grid, and 
there are few land features to prevent rail access/construction. 
• Bus bays for all stops are needed. When busses are not able to pull out of the lane of 
moving traffic, it's a problem 
• There should be a renewed emphasis on street car expansion 
• More crossing on major streets, more bike racks 
 
Routes 
• Enforce crosswalk etiquette/rules rather than force hawk lights onto traffic. 
• Creating more miles of bike paths would bring out more people on bikes. 
• In general I think most streets in Phoenix could be narrowed to make room for additional 
bike paths (and potentially tax-generating parcels). 
• More bike lanes. Wider shoulders. 
• Buffered and wider bike lanes would make bicycling with the high volume of car traffic in 
the Phoenix metropolitan area much more comfortable for both the motorist and cyclist. 
• Protections are needed for the bike lanes whether those are truly costly or not. 
• painted bike lanes in the gutters are not bike lanes and should not be counted. Especially 
on Major and Collector roads. 
• We desperately need more, longer, and more comfortable bike lanes - especially lanes 
that have a curb or other physical barrier. We especially need longer routes that connect 
businesses and parks. For example, we need a long, buffered bike lane from Steele Indian 
School Park to downtown, and from the Grand Canal to Downtown. 
• Protect existing bike lanes with low cost options like flexible bollards (i.e crashing a car 
into them won’t cause a major accident, but they should prevent parking in or passing 
using bike lanes) 
• Painted lanes unfortunately don’t work. Slow cars down and provide protected lanes 
throughout the city. Maybe focus on central Phoenix to start. We bear the brunt of heavy 
traffic in the region during week days when many of us would like active transit and a 
small portion of our streets back 
• Both neighborhood and regional routes are important. I think something as simple as 
painting in the bike lane to be a solid color (ie green) would even help tremendously in 
defining that is a bike specific space and path

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
62 
• There is no clear bike route from southwest Phoenix to downtown. The salt river used to 
suffice, but it's been closed. We need more access to southwest Phoenix via bicycle to 
downtown. 
• Some bike lane options, such as those with physical separation between bike and traffic 
lanes, do not allow for regular sweeping. 
• 56th St and Indian School has AZ Falls what a cool spot but yet in either direction theres 
no pavement on the canal? Why???? So many people travel there, seems dumb this has 
been overlooked for so long. 
• I love using the bike route between glendale and mcdowell along the az51 
• The canal system is great and I think that's in a good spot now to where the focus can 
shift to other regional connections or figuring out where those gaps are. 
 
Safety – Cars, Speeding & Traffic 
• Reduce space for cars, make drivers go slower and pay attention. Neighborhood routes 
would feel safer but they still need to connect to destinations along major streets.. 
• Safety should be the highest priority and that will require taking space away from cars 
and slowing them down to make room for pedestrians, bikes and such. Our 
transportation network needs to focus on moving people, not just cars. 
• Making the sidewalks and bikepaths safer for pedestrians is so necessary. It makes me 
nervous walking on a narrow sidewalk right against the street, when drivers regularly go 
10-15 miles over the speed limit. When riding a bike, drivers often straddle the street and 
the bike lane and do not check for bikers when turning at an intersection. I fully support 
separations between sidewalks and streets, and protected bike paths and bike 
intersections. Traffic calming measures would do a lot as well, even if it’s just narrowing 
the street lanes so drivers slow down and drive with more caution. 
• Please, please do something to improve this! I hate being in the car, it’s terrifying, 
especially because everyone drives super fast and super recklessly! I want to be able to 
safely bike to the store and to the light rail without sharing a street with cars; I’ve seen 
too many cyclists and pedestrians get run down to feel safe, but I hate being in the car. 
so I usually just don’t go anywhere. If I could safely leave my house and go somewhere by 
walking or biking or taking transit, the city would be better off because I’d be more 
willing to spend money at local businesses and I’d be connected to the community and 
not want to leave here; as it stands, I’m counting down the end of my lease so I can move 
somewhere cars are unnecessary, like NYC or somewhere in Europe, and I’ll be taking my 
software engineering salary and spending with me. It hurts, though; this is home, I want 
to stay, but all the traffic and cars are making it impossible for me. :( 
• Safety from cars is the biggest issue for bikers and walkers in our city. A huge overhaul 
needs to occur to make Phoenix a biker/walker friendly city and to encourage people to 
use alternate modes of transportation other than a car. 
• My weekly ride is 50% safe with great paths and 50% hair raising white knuckle in an area 
that is mostly people in big trucks who could care less about me. It sucks. 
• Speeding and safety and NOISE

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
63 
• Walking and biking along an Arterial is scary. Street trees and on-street parking that 
buffer bikes and sidewalks are preferred. The trees and cars protect the pedestrians from 
the cars. Its actually safer to bike and walk when traffic is congestted and moving slowly. 
• The biggest problem is the lawlessness of some of the driving population. Too fast, too 
crazy. We need red light cameras back to tamp down on that. 
• Please make sure that all bike lanes are as seperated from this high speed traffic! nobody 
wants to ride next to 2 ton cars going 55mph, it poses a serious saftey concern 
• Stop high speed cut through traffic near I-17. Cars exit freeway and cut through 
neighborhood streets to avoid major intersections and put others at risk. Look at Simpson 
neighborhood as an example. 
• Personally Owned Vehicle operators cannot be trusted whatsoever. They drive fast, 
reckless, and without regard for their surroundings and people. I've only survived this far 
by pretending no one can ever see me. People do not pay attention and speeds are too 
fast. 
• Love to bicycle and I've had several close calls with vehicles. My spouse no longer bicycles 
with me after an SUV ran a red light and missed her by inches. City of Phoenix & Streets 
department has valued cars over our lives for years, we hope that changes. 
 
Safety – Infrastructure & Road Conditions 
• For bicyclists feeling safe is the key. It seems that with the new infrastructure bill, we 
ought to be able to build more comfortable and safe biking projects. Safe intersection 
crossings need to be improved on streets with stripes and signs. 
• I selected comfort because I think we need high-quality infrastructure to make biking and 
walking more accessible, but ideally there would be a balance of cost and comfort. More 
bikers means it's safer for everyone out there biking so the biggest goal should be to 
break down the barriers to cycling and that means infrastructure that brings more 
visibility to cycling, helps people feel safe, and signals to drivers that they don't own the 
road. 
• I live near 27th Ave and northern. I want investment in my area. Why can't my 
neighborhood walkways and bike ways look like downtown? Underserved, lower income 
communities need these things more than other communities because they often don't 
have other choice s. Stop trying to appeal to wealthy people to be green and start making 
working people feel safe on their commute. 
• Add as many miles of protected bike lanes as possible and improve safety at street 
crossings. 
• You’ve made some good progress in the last 30 years, but, the bike network is a 
shambles that often goes nowhere, signals regularly ignore bikes, and drivers are often 
very unsafe sharing space with bikes. 
• Bike lanes are worthless if they are not protected from out-of-control Phoenix drivers 
• A dangerous bike lane is worse than no bike lane. See w Maryland westbound by central! 
• My biggest concern is bike and walk crosswalks at intersections. We need more emphasis 
on traffic light control, biker and pedestrian safety at our intersections. (especially 56th 
street and Indian School).

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
64 
• Allow bikes and scooters on sidewalks. Would be much safer. 
• I do not consider non-protected bike lanes to be functional infrastructure, more of a 
"surprise me, theres no rush" method of suicide waiting for the right texting driv 
• Maybe making the crossing of major street light more accessible for those who are blind 
such as traffic light sound when safe to go 
• I feel quite strongly that quality of infrastructure should take precedence over quantity. 
The safer and more comfortable people feel, the more they'll bike, walk and use transit, 
and the less they'll confine themselves to the relative safety of a private vehicle, which 
contributes to congestion, road maintenance and climate change. 
• Our city's grid layout is hazardous if we "just add lane lines and try adding as many as 
possible". We need to separate the street from the bike lane so both can be safe 
• Put bike lanes where people will use them (i.e., connect important locations) and make 
them safe so people actually will use them. A focused approach will yield more benefit 
than adding as many miles of bike lanes as possible 
• Suicide lanes are too confusing to new drivers in the area 
• Paint is not infrastructure, separate cars and bikes/peds and make the streets safer for 
all. It costs less to create and maintain infrastructure for humans than it does for vehicles 
and it should be prioritized. I hope to see a greener, safer Phoenix for all of us who 
choose to not pollute and drive vehicles the size of tanks. Less stuff for cars and more 
stuff for humans please 
• Safety is number one issue. Bike lanes need to be separated from the road or else it is not 
completely safe 
• Very small % of residents use biks - why spend the $$$ for these few people - we need 
more $$$ for full community safety not just a very small % of population. More $$$ for 
police to provide safety for walkers & Bikers 
• As a bike commuter, painted bike lanes are terrifying: cars pass too close at too high of a 
speed and there are conflicts with people making turns. The Dutch have already figured 
out how to build safe bike infrastructure. Look at CROW. I want to live in a place that is 
built at the human scale not for cars. Our urban planning prioritizes cars which is bullshit. 
Public space like streets cannot only be available for people who can afford to spend 
money on cars. Also, the design of streets causes people to speed, decrease the width of 
lanes and the road as well as blocking sight lines are great ways to reduce speeds. 
Changing speed limit signs is not enough. If pedestrians/bicyclists are dying bc of 
dangerous intersections or cars driving too fast, it is the engineers fault. 
• It would be helpful if more decision makers (Traffic Engineers and City Council Officials) 
were to try walking down a busy arterial street (I suggest 7th Avenue) or bicycling down a 
unseparated bike facility (I suggest Central). If this happened, none would say they felt 
safe and hopefully some would change the way they design these public spaces. These 
are public spaces and should be treated as such, not freeways. I stated that I would like 
to see more bike boulevards in Phoenix but not as a substitute for actual bike facilities. 
Local streets should be narrow and tree lined to reduce vehicle speeds. HAWK and RRFB 
crossing islands are better than nothing but do not solve the problem. The problem is 
that our streets are hostile to people outside of vehicles.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
65 
• The bike and pedestrian networks are only as strong as their weakest links. The path 
could be fine, but it becomes super dangerous at street crossings--this will also prevent 
new people from biking and walking. 
• The southwest portion of Phoenix not only lacks in bicycle infrastructure, we face the real 
dilemma of large distribution trucks that sometimes outnumber cars. This makes for a 
very dangerous situations sometimes when biking on major streets. 
• I would cycle more but getting from North Phoenix and around North and Shadow 
Mountain is impossible. No way would go on 7th Street. The Mountain pass is a 
incredibly dangerous. Once you get to Sunnyslope it is always dangerous with traffic and 
homeless to get downtown. 
• New bike lanes are near useless unless they are 100% physically separated and 
protected. Far more phoenicians would start utilizing them and give the city more 
momentuum to continue building out a truly protected system. Cars go wayy too fast in 
phoenix downtown. 
• I skate. Some sidewalks are just plain dangerous! Cobblestones are deadly and cracks 
that run lengthwise along the sidewalk or path can break bones and make you blead. Like 
the path next to the zoo. You spent a lot of money to make it pretty, but you made it very 
dangerous to skate on. We call it the death path! And stop making paths serpentine 
through the landscape. If you are trying to get somewhere yo want to go straight. 
• At the end of the day, a bike lane is pointless and can not be used if it is on a bumpy, 
glass and trash covered lane/road. We need a team that maintains this. 
• The city does a poor job of maintaining existing bicycle facilities, especially physically-
separated ones. Nearly all separated facilities have a lot of loose sand/gravel, glass, 
thorns, and other hazards. Adding more separated facilities will likely make the situation 
worse.  
• Bicycle punctures (flat tires) are a concern and road debris always accumlates near the 
curb. 
 
Safety – Laws 
• I would like to see stiffer penalties for harming pedestrians and cyclists (even if it was an 
"accident") as well as more public education awareness on laws for motorists. Today, you 
can basically murder someone on a bicycle on purpose and get away with a small fine. 
 
Safety – People 
• I wish I felt safe walking along the streets in my neighborhood, but there is a lot of 
violence on the streets. Beggars harassing pedestrians is also concerning, as is the 
homeless population that sleeps on the sidewalks. I would walk all the time if the crime 
rate wasn't so concerning. (85015) 
• My feeling of safety is not only determined by those driving on the road but by those I 
encounter on my walking trip that create fear with unpredictable behavior.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
66 
Safety - Other 
• More so we want to protect the lives of those not choosing to get within a car. Why are 
peoples lives in cars being valued more than those outside of them? 
• I am concerned that some of the questions in this survey present driver convenience as 
something to be traded off against safety. This is inconsistent with vision zero. You should 
be focussing on maximizing safety and reducing conflicts. 
• Do you ask motorists if safety is a priority? I suspect not. Also, why does every option ask 
whether we are willing to slow commutes? Many of these should not impact motorist 
total drive times. The 2014 Bicycle Plan has over 100 pages of ideas for which you already 
paid a consultant. The city is clearly dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Common 
sense indicates this. You can have a city with safe places for bicyclists, pedestrians and 
cars. 
• When riding a bike in Phoenix is line riding on the road with a big target on your back. If 
the cars don't hit you, then your a target for the homeless. Phoenix is not safe for biking 
or walking. Fix that 
• I wish there was a middle ground between cost and comfort. But the reality is that paint 
doesn't save lives, it just provides a false sense of security. 
• Implementar la seguridad para los que usan la bicicleta ayudará a la reducción de jumó 
en la ciudad y también gente más saludable. 
 
Translation: Implementing safety for those who use a bicycle will help reduce pollution in 
the city and also make people healthier. 
 
Survey Feedback 
• There's too much industry language in this survey. Last ranking question-- what is a 
comfort facility? What is meant by 'gap closure'? Missing links in what network? What 
does "Connect within to areas.." mean? It doesn't indicate 1=? and 9=?. Lastly, on the last 
question. Comfort doesn't have to be more costly. 
• You changed the lowest and highest above, that was a trick to get more pluses for bikes. 
Most important is to train cyclists and make them get insurance. As it is only the driver 
spends for insurance, and cyclist pays nothing for the collisions he causes. It is not fair. 
• We need more (any is an improvement) enforcement of speed limits and stop sign 
violations by motorists. 
• Ranking questions too long. 
• Thanks for doing the survey and the chance to give input. 
 
Additional Comments 
• Look to city of Minneapolis bike highway system! 
• Please watch NotJustBikes and read up on Strongtowns for inspiration. 
https://www.youtube.com/c/notjustbikes and https://www.strongtowns.org/ 
• This city is great for bike commuting. Even in summer, the mornings are good for cycling. 
The improvements to the canals have been outstanding. The light rail pairs well with

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
67 
cycling if you are close to it. Thank you for making the city more friendly to non-car 
transit. Keep going! 
• none 
• While I no longer ride a bike, I have many friends and relatives who do. My answers are 
based upon their needs as expressed to me. 
• The less attractive driving is as a transportation mode (relatively speaking), the better our 
city will be 
• Go bikes! 
• Either make obtaining a driver's license more in depth and harder or start punishing 
people for bad illegal habits. 
• It’s great as is. 
• Las personas tomando decisiones con respecto al diseno de las calles deberian como 
minimo caminar y usar el transporte publico. La gente que toma estas decisiones solo 
piensa en la movilidad vehicular. 
 
Translation: People making decisions regarding street design should at minimum walk 
and use public transportation. They people who make these decisions only think about 
vehicular mobility. 
Q32: Do you know how to report street maintenance issues to the City of 
Phoenix? (N=531) 
There were 531 responses to this question making the completion rate 79.85%. Most 
participants reported they do not know how to report street maintenance issues to the City of 
Phoenix.  
 
 
 
Yes
No
Responses
34.27%
65.73%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
68 
Q33: When there is a bicycle or pedestrian street project in my neighborhood, 
are you able to find information about the project and provide input? (N=524) 
There were 524 responses to this question making the completion rate 78.80%. Most 
participants reported they do not know how to find more information about the project and 
provide input.  
 
 
Q34: Have you ever reported a street issue to the City of Phoenix? (N=530) 
There were 530 responses to this question making the completion rate 79.70%. Most 
participants reported they have never reported a street issue to the City of Phoenix. 
 
 
Yes
No
Responses
34.73%
65.27%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Yes
No
Responses
23.21%
76.79%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
69 
Q35: If yes, were you satisfied with the outcome? (N=226) 
There were 226 responses to this question making the completion rate 33.98%. Most 
participants reported they were not satisfied when they reported an issue to the City of Phoenix. 
 
 
Q36: Is there any additional information you'd like to share with us about our 
outreach and engagement process or your experience reporting/contacting 
the city about a street-related issue? (N=68) 
There were 68 responses to this question making the completion rate 10.23%. Design, 
Development & Infrastructure, City Website, Homelessness, Issues & Request, and Safety. Below 
are the comments that align with each theme. 
 
Design, Development & Infrastructure 
• Adopt the Key Corridors Master Plan.  
• I hope The streets department begins to gradually think of our streets as public space for 
all, not simply sewers for cars during rush hour  
• Very dissapointed in the final outcome of the Oak Street improvements. The 
improvement was minimal and cars seem to drive faster now that its better paved. None 
of the community suggestions were implemented to slow down cars. The lighting within 
the neighborhood seems most appropriate for a freeway. Should have been more 
pedestrian poles similar to Tempe. A lot of money was spent for minimal impact. Cars are 
the priority with the design and it shows.  
• Bike lanes and paths should be planned comprehensively as a long route not piecemeal 
as the City does it now. The City currently only plans out and executes bike lanes at 1/4 or 
Yes
No
Responses
37.61%
62.39%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
70 
1/2 mile at a time, which is not how people travel or use bike lanes. It is fine for Vin 
Diesel from Fast and Furious to live his life 1/4 mile at a time, but we need the City to be 
planning and executing bike lanes at several miles at a time to facilitate people having a 
safe option to commute to work via bike.  
• Pavers, gravel and permeable pavement are better for bikes and feet than asphalt and 
cement  
• You could put QR codes on project signs to learn more about them.  
• Every business needs to also have bike racking. Why is it a requirement to have specifics 
for vehicle parking, yet there's nothing for cycles. In South Phoenix, there's practically no 
where in official in public to lock up bicycles. Sometimes have to utilize objects not meant 
to be used for bike parking and therefore comes with increased risks for theft and 
vandalism.  
• If engaging with a community it is critical to research and consult any efforts they have 
already invested time in. Referencing their past efforts as a starting point is an effective 
way to continue dialogue and install a design that is context sensitive to the 
neighborhood. In other words, something that is designed and accepted by the 
community will be used by the community.  
• Investing in media may improve general knowledge about transportation resources. 
Billboards, signs, or even digital geofence ads are great tools for increasing awareness 
and reach.  
• Downtown is becoming more attractive. I've even looked at houses downtown to be 
closer to transit. However, I'll continue to spend my time/money in the East Valley & 
Tucson until Phoenix steps it up and shows that they truly value any activity besides 
driving. Committees/surveys are not action. I type this as a driver with two cars.  
• I've heard of the City doing green efforts & tree/shade programs, but one issue I've heard 
brought up is that maintenance cuts almost all of the branches off that it defeats the 
purpose. I understand the costs of maintaining & it may be suitable to have more 
aggressive measures, but ensuring that it doesn't take away the value is important. In 
terms of outreach, glad this is being done! I only wish (as with many plan updates) that it 
was more accessible such as on social media pages or in neighborhood newsletters so it's 
not only focused on people who are focusing on transportation topics, but everyday 
citizens.  
• Dobbins at 70th Ave right before GRIR is really awful to travel on.  
• I sometimes commute by bike from Ahwatukee to downtown and there is currently no 
good way to get there. But you could fix that. 
• Adding a crosswalk to the canal crossing at 44th street and Campbell is a great example 
of a project that supporting cyclists and pedestrians but doesn’t eat into lanes for cars. 
Projects like this seem like a win win for the community!!

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
71 
City Website 
• I think, as a city/gov website,’ it’s naturally hard to find the info on certain topics because 
there is so much info to sort through in general. Maybe if there were a simpler landing 
page that simply explains / breaks down the category or project and how u can provide 
input or report street issues would be very helpful in simplifying the user experience. 
• I can generally find city info pretty quickly on the web page. It's very helpful. 
• I find everything online, so do not know what opportunities are available for those 
without internet access to get information about city issues.  
• The City website is very user friendly. 
• Now that I have been on this website and know my way around, I can provide more 
input. However, this is a recent development.  
 
Homelessness 
• Homeless are encamping on the sidewalk/bikeroute just north of mcdowell and SR51. 
And I have reported it. I have to take a different route now.  
• Again, clear out the homeless from underpasses on existing bike paths. not very safe for 
riders, walkers, joggers.  
• I wish we could get the homeless people some help so they stop having sex and doing 
drugs and Thunderbird Park against the wall my house is up against.  
 
Issues & Requests 
• Specifically I have raised several issues with bicycle detection not working or being 
absent, which is especially frustrating on streets having a bike lane.  
• I reported the lack of a crossing on 19th Ave. Years later, a needed hawk light was 
installed in place of bridge. I was happy with the outcome and use the hawk light often to 
cross. In two other recent cases, I was told the striped section of the road wasn't in the 
cue for repair and in the other recent report, I was told there was no money to complete 
the bike lane to the intersection (roadway too narrow).  
• Desert Ridge, Tatum Blvd and 101 interchange needs pavement rehab BADLY. Pavement 
on 56th Street and Mayo is in too poor of condition for cycling. No bike lanes on Pinnacle 
Peak between Cave Creek Rd and Scottsdale Rd and you just repaved and didn't even add 
a bike lane. Why spend money on pavement and not add a bike lane? When will Pinnacle 
Peak Road be widen between Cave Creek and Scottsdale Rd? How many fatalities and 
crashes occur at Pinnacle Peak Rd/Scottsdale Rd intersection? Team with Scottsdale to 
make this intersection safer.  
• There are oleander bushes blocking the view for see oncoming cars, pedestrians or bikers 
at 7th Ave and Clarendon. Between the bush and the large metal street light it's a blind 
spot every day...every car...

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
72 
• Traffic signal needed at 43 rd avenue and Dobbins ASAP!! 
• I have reported street issues in the past, at least 3, and I have never heard of the 
resolution. Other cities I have lived in open a ticket and keep the reporter up to date with 
resolutions.  
• I reported it to our City Councilman, Sal Diciccio and never had a reply back  
• I have reported 2 street issues to the COP. I was satisfied with one. Unsatisfied with the 
other.  
• The police won’t even look into my stolen bike  
• Add more shade to Tempe!! 
• My mobile phone number is not answered when I call the non emergency number. 
• Still need sidewalk on Rubicon near Hopi Elementary in East Phoenix.  
• Would love some more civic engagement opportunities!  
• I ride around a lot of Phoenix area streets and would love to have a convenient option to 
report issues with them.  
• The above question, when i reported a street issue to the city, it was months later i got 
an email but they did not have the information i sent. Quit pretending, the city is not 
interested in knowing what people think, this is just all fakery and you are pushing bikes 
that have not earned the right to ride with motorists. But you must please the bike lobby 
which may pay your substantial salaries.  
• Never saw my complaint resolved or heard back from streets  
• I don't really know who I should contact. There's been times I've seen dangerous debris 
on the road, but I had no idea if I should call someone or if someone is already coming to 
fix it.  
• I want to be able to report trash, weeds, downed trees, over grown grasses along roads 
and sidewalks.  
• I reported a low visibility corner and while the reporting process was simple, the neighbor 
still has hedges which prevent you from seeing cross traffic  
• Had 15 years of knowing a streets dept staff members who we could report problems to - 
he has transferred and no one has been hired in his place/. We now have problem 
reporting streets / public works problems 
• I've heard discussions of the ability to report/contact the city about street-related issue, 
but didn't know it was possible.  
• I have been repeatedly told by working staff at the city Street Transportation Department 
that it is official city policy to refuse to make bicycle-specific improvements to any street 
that has not been officially-designated as a "bicycle facility". This is in stark contrast to 
the responsiveness that the department showed in the past under a City Council not 
dominated by one political party.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
73 
 
Safety –  Cars, Speeding & Traffic  
• We have a traffic calming circle in the neighborhood that should not have been put in. 
There were no safety or speed concerns. There’s a house nearby (15th Ave/Bethany 
Home Rd) that has cars drive through their block wall regularly. It’s almost like the traffic 
calming circle has made things more dangerous. Doesn’t help make bike riding feel safe 
either.  
• There needs to be accountability for unsafe driving, including red light runners and 
speeding. Changing speed limits will do nothing if no one is ever ticketed for speeding.  
• speed limits should be addressed as part of this effort.  
• More traffic enforcement  
• Speed is a problem in our neighborhood. Too few speed bumps. Too many entitled 
drivers passing thru  
• Surface street speed limits (45 mph) are too high knowing that motorists rarely obey 
speed limits. Speed limits should be reduced to 35 mph.  
• Canal crossing at 40th st and camelback is a death trap for pedestrians and cyclists 
 
Safety – Law Enforcement 
• Defund the police and place more money into alternatives that provide more safety to 
people such as increased green spaces, creating more sustainable ways of living for 
people. Pour more money into communities of color that are the way they are because 
of white supremacy and a city that continually neglects their needs.  
 
Safety – Road Conditions 
• Broken glass at a busy sidewalk intersection for weeks. 
 
Additional Comments 
• I’d like to be more informed about potential projects; I want to be able to advocate for 
safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists. :)  
• Thank you for this question. Hoping we will have a way of knowing the results of our 
effort of taking the survey. Even when reaching out to the City regarding neighborhood 
traffic issues the answer is always no. And we have to be the ones to ask what the 
decision is. Some current staff are not doing a good job at building relationships.  
• Takes too long  
• I was surprised by the attention given to the issue. Well done!  
• Thank you and please keep connecting routes.   
• The recent street maintenance program has been doing a great job!

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
74 
• i dont live in phoenix, but i hope that innovations taken in other parts of the country will 
motivate my local government to take action  
• I'm really appreciate to contribute my thoughts on these important issues to the city, and 
I would love more opportunities to do so. I understand that the wheels of change turn 
slowly and bureaucracy can be labyrinthine, but I have hope that Phoenix can move 
things in the right direction and create a more sustainable, healthy and equitable urban 
environment.  
• Road closures for events are not communicated well, I live on 7th ave and often get stuck 
and take much longer to get home after being rerouted. Construction closures are well 
communicated though.  
• Parking in mixed residential/business zoned areas is bad  
• It's sporadic and often depends on just how engaged the councilmember is.  
• Be less concerned with biking and more with driving 
• N/A  
• Kind of satisfied with the outcome. Closer to yes than to no.  
• Mas transparencia con los residentes con respecto a como los proyectos son elegidos y 
construidos. Mas presupuesto y consideracion para la mobilidad comoda y segura de 
 
Translation: More transparency with residents regarding how projects are chosen and 
built. More budget and consideration for comfortable mobility and safe mobility.

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
75 
Additional Community Outreach 
Laveen BBQ Results 
On Saturday February 26, 2022, staff from the City of Phoenix attended the 70th Annual Laveen BBQ to conduct poster polls. 
Community members were asked to provide feedback on four separate posters using sticky dots. On the first poster, community 
members were asked if regional routes or neighborhood routes should be priority and if the focus should be on cost versus comfort. 
63 people answered those two questions. On the second poster, community members were asked to rank their top 3 community 
priorities. 185 responses were received for this question.  
 
On the third poster, community members were asked to write down where they enjoyed walking and biking in Phoenix. 29 comments 
were received for this question. Lastly, on the fourth poster, community members were asked to write down what stops them from 
walking or biking more in Phoenix. 34 comments were received for this question.  
 
Poster 1 Data 
 
        
 
38%
62%
Highest Priority of 
Routes
Regional Routes
Neighborhood
Routes
44%
56%
Cost Versus Comfort
Focus on Cost
Focus on Comfort

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
76 
Poster 2 Data 
 
 
 
Posters 3 & 4 Data  
 
Where do you enjoy walking or biking in Phoenix? 
What stops you from walking or biking more in Phoenix? 
 
Hiking trails are great 
Sidewalks falling apart 
South Mtn, hiking trails, conveyance channel in Laveen 
The litering; people leave trash 
Tempe Lake 
Safety; I don’t feel safe anymore in Laveen walking or biking 
Canals 
The high rate of collision between vehicles and cyclists; Safety 
Walking and biking along the canals and South Mountain 
Safety 
South Mountain Park 
Unsafe roads or drivers 
South/Carver Mtn 
51st & Estrella; lots of crashes 
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
Community Priorities
Canals
Equity
Gap Closure
Low Cost Opportunities
Parks & Community Centers
Population & Employment Centers
Safety
Transit Access

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
77 
More lights 
Nothing 
Canals 
Safety; traffic makes walk dangerous 
Community canal trails 
Ease of access 
Bodies of water; pretty sitting areas; flowers; statues 
More lighting on paths 
All of the city parks 
No time 
Prado Park 
Cars 
Canal paths; parks 
Getting to trails involves driving and parking 
Parks and neighborhood trails 
Scary high speed dangerous traffic! Speed limit too high! 
Laveen Channel Trail 
There are not enough sidewalks/safe biking paths and 
everything is very spread out 
Canals - Rogers Ranch 
I'm fat 
Road biking on major streets 
Traffic; unsafe areas to walk 
Need sidewalks on Estrella Drive 
Getto areas; safty; homeless ppl 
Parks 
We need more sidewalks! 
Cesar Chavez Hiking trail 
Risk of accidents 
Shade 
Cars/safety 
Along trails 
Distance between nice looking areas 
Estrella & 51st Ave to 43rd Ave 
Lack of shade 
I like biking through the canals 
Lack of interconnectivity b/n sidewalks and trails 
Cesar Chavez Park 
Dog poop 
Stores 
Lack of restaurants 
Canals and Parks 
Heat 
South Phoenix 
Road safety 
 
Having more walking paths off Dobbins 
 
Racist comments 
 
Putting shade along canals and biking paths 
 
Crime 
 
Safty

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
78 
First Friday Results 
On Friday March 4th, 2022 staff from the City of Phoenix attended the First Friday to conduct poster polls. Community members were 
asked to provide feedback on 3 separate posters using sticky dots. On the first poster, community members were asked if regional 
routes or neighborhood routes should be priority and if the focus should be on cost versus comfort. 16 people answered those two 
questions. On the second poster, community members were asked to rank their top 3 community priorities. 48 responses were 
received for this question.  
 
On the third poster, community members were asked to write down where they enjoyed walking and biking in Phoenix and what 
stops them from walking or biking more in Phoenix.  8 comments were received for the first question and 9 comments were received 
for the second question.  
 
Poster 1 Data 
 
       
 
 
 
 
 
25%
75%
Highest Priority of 
Routes
Regional Routes
Neighborhood
Routes
19%
81%
Cost Versus Comfort
Focus on Cost
Focus on Comfort

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
79 
Poster 2 Data 
 
 
 
Poster 3 Data 
 
Where do you enjoy walking or biking in Phoenix? 
What stops you from walking or biking more in Phoenix? 
Park paths 
Proximity to parks 
Park paths 
Bike lanes/safety 
Gym 
Safety 
Neighborhood 
Safety 
Park 
Homeless 
Parks 
Wild animals 
Park 
dangers 
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
Community Priorities
Canals
Equity
Gap Closure
Low Cost Opportunities
Parks & Community Centers
Population & Employment Centers
Safety
Transit Access

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
80 
Canal, preserve, main streets 
loose dogs 
  
safety

City of Phoenix Transportation Plan 
81 
Targeted Outreach 
Bike Advocates  
To gather information about how the City of Phoenix can become more bike friendly, 
conversations were held with representatives from advocacy organizations that are working to 
make The City a better place to bike, walk and commute. Phoenix Spokes People and Urban 
Phoenix Project were the two organizations engaged.  
Questions 
The following questions were asked of the representatives: 
 
1. How does your organization advance active transportation? 
2. What is going well and where have you seen change improvement? 
3. What are our biggest challenges moving forward? 
4. What are some opportunities moving forward? 
5. Additional comments 
Themes 
The following themes were identified from the conversations: 
 
• Public Education – Representatives from the advocacy organizations mentioned the need 
for increased awareness and education about city projects. In addition, they suggested 
better messaging when relating neighborhood projects to overall city goals.   
 
• Safety – Representatives from the advocacy organizations expressed concerns about 
traffic, speeding, and the lack of infrastructure to make walking and biking safe. 
 
• City of Phoenix – Representatives from the advocacy organizations recommended the 
city work to improve the culture with the streets department. In addition, they expressed 
concerns about internal politics, turnover, and a lack of strong advocates within the 
department.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
82 
Marginalized Zip Codes  
To expand outreach and better understand the needs of historically marginalized areas, the 
project team reached out directly to community leaders in the following zip codes: 85004, 
85006, 85007, 85009, 85034 and 85040. The zip codes were selected based on the poverty 
percentage.  
Questions 
The following questions were asked of the community leaders: 
 
1. What is the biggest challenge/issue when you walk in your community?  
2. If there were more frequent crossings placed in streets (crossing before major street 
crossings), would you consider walking out of your way to use them?  
3. What are some of the attitudes or feelings in your community around biking? What are 
some of the fears or concerns? Do people want to bike?  
a. What is a biking economy and what does it mean? What is the walking/biking 
experience for homeless individuals? (Homeless shelter).  
4. Do you walk or bike in your neighborhood? Where are you walking/biking to?  
a. If yes how often, if no why not? 
5. Do you feel safe walking or riding bikes in your neighborhood?  
a. If yes, why, if no why not?  
6. If you bike, what is your experience and where are you biking to?  
7. Is there anything that would make you consider walking or biking more?  
8. If you could prioritize sidewalks over bike facilities, which would you choose?  
9. When you are walking or biking and you witness an issue, do you address it? With whom? 
If it is with the city, how has your experience been trying to resolve it? If you need 
something in your neighborhood connected to streets or ATP do you know who to 
contact or the process to get support? 
10. If there was one thing to make walking and biking better, what would it be?  
11. Is there anything you would celebrate connected to active transportation? 
Themes 
The following themes were identified from the interviews:  
 
• Safety – Many community leaders expressed concerns about safety. They mentioned the 
lack of sidewalks in some residential communities (particularly West & South Phoenix), 
inconsistent bike paths, speeding, homeless encampments, violent crimes, drug use in 
neighborhoods, and stray dogs.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
83 
 
• City of Phoenix’s Role – Many community leaders expressed the need for more 
accountability and transparency from the city. In addition, they are not confident the city 
will show up for their communities. However, they seemed to be supportive of additional 
street infrastructure if it supported their current safety needs.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
84 
Draft Plan Feedback Survey Results Summary 
About the survey 
The survey was provided through an online web platform. The survey received 182 individual 
responses which were received between November 28th, 2022 and January 16th, 2023. 
Q1) Did you participate in the original project survey or project interviews? 
Other: 
•
I do not think so.
•
I was not aware of the survey previously.
•
It happened so fast I didn’t an opportunity.
Key takeaways: 
•
The majority of survey respondents (71.5%) have not previously participated in public
outreach for the plan. The majority (3 out of 5) of those responding “Other” also
indicated they have not participated in previous public outreach through the
comments they provided.
•
Of those who have participated previously, a large majority (86%) indicated their
participation was through a previous survey.
Community
Leader
Interviews
No, I did not
participate in the
past.
Booth at either
Roosevelt Row
First Friday or
Laveen BBQ
Project Survey in
Winter/Spring
2022
Bicycle
Community
Interviews
Other
Responses
0.6%
71.5%
1.1%
24.6%
2.2%
1.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
PERCENT OF RESPONSES
Q1) Did you participate in the original project survey or 
project interviews?

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
85 
Q2) If you are interested in walking or biking more in Phoenix, what changes 
would encourage you walk or bike more? 
This question received 159 responses. 
Statistics: 
•
85 comments were related to biking (53%).
•
63 comments were related to walking and sidewalks (40%).
•
39 comments requested protection and/or separation between vehicles and
cyclists/pedestrians (25%).
•
32 comments indicated that heat and lack of shade were a deterrent to walking or
biking (20%).
•
21 comments requested the mitigation of dangerous driver behavior and speeding
through speed reduction, traffic enforcement, and driver education (13%).
•
18 comments said that “no,” “nothing,” or “not interested” – indicating nothing would
make them walk or bike more and no changes were desired (11%).
•
12 comments were related to the unhoused (homeless) population (8%).
Themes: 
•
Desire for improved (and continuous) sidewalks through better maintained surfaces,
additional width, and detachment from vehicular lanes. Respondents indicated that
many areas lack sidewalks altogether.
•
Desire for more and safer bike infrastructure. Cyclist respondents desire
separation/protection from vehicles.
•
A need for better-connected routes with continuous facilities that don’t dead-end.
•
Improved safety infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians at intersections.
•
Want protection from the sun and heat mitigation.
•
Reduced interaction with the homeless population on the streets by providing
housing/space/facilities/treatment for the homeless.
•
Vehicle drivers dislike bicyclists intermixed with vehicle traffic.
•
There is a need for driver education and increased traffic enforcement to deter unsafe
driving behavior and speeds.
•
Lack of destinations within walkable distance.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
86 
Insightful/Example Comments: 
•
Completion of Colter Street bike lanes to provide a safe east/west alternative route;
Improved safety at the canal crossing at 40th & Camelback; Improvements to overpass
bridges such as at Campbell to make them more bicycle friendly; Enforcement of no
loitering/homeless in underground tunnels and bridges - (this is very expensive
infrastructure and not the place for this/creates safety concerns for users); Paved
multi-use path or bike lane on Lincoln from 24th to 32nd Street; Connecting the
uptown area to the 3rd/5th Ave bike lanes to create a safe route all the way through to
downtown.
•
Consistent sidewalks - there are a lot of spots that randomly end or are in bad
condition. Same goes for bike lanes. Also, additional trees for shade and lighting for
night time.
•
Definitely interested in biking more, as I’m an avid road cyclist.  The city needs more
cycling infrastructure like protected lanes, but we also need to educate drivers on the
rights of cyclists.  Not a day goes by that I don’t have some motorist try to run me off
the road or scream at me for NOT riding on the sidewalk.
•
Develop inclusivity of safety, addressing barriers for people on wheelchairs, timing of
street crossing lights, pavement condition on streets at crosswalks, transition of
pavement at crosswalks (bulked), impose violation fees for the hundreds of rental
scooters just left blocking on sidewalks. A new problem is the tents being installed by
the homeless on sidewalks.
•
I want low-level, easy routes where I know there will consistently safe ways to cross big
streets, shade, etc. There’s a lot of changes I would like to see, but the thing that would
make the biggest difference for both biking and walking is tons more HAWK crosswalks.
•
The danger from cars is such a big risk, I find myself driving embarrassingly short
distances because there is no way to safely cross the 6-lane road that separates me
from the drug store or convenience store, etc. I used to love walking with my kids
before we lived in Phoenix, but now our routes are very limited thanks to the car
danger. Cars do not stop in marked crosswalks here, especially not on arterial roads.
They also generally block the crosswalk at intersections and don’t seem to look for
pedestrians before turning on red. It is not physically possible to cross 6 lanes of traffic
with small children during a gap in traffic. If there were those boulevard-style islands in
the middle of the road at more places, it would give us a more protected place to wait
for all the cars speeding through the crosswalk while we stand in the middle of the
road and wait for another break in traffic. More access points and water crossings over
the wash/canal trails would make them a more practical option for traveling safely

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
87 
while on bike or on foot too. Also, I would love to see traffic lights give pedestrians that 
2 second head start before any car traffic lanes get the green, since that seems to 
make pedestrians slightly more visible.  
•
Unfortunately, there is not much I can walk to in my area. The newest business about
to be added nearby is a used car dealership on McDowell near 41st Place, which the
zoning will be changed to accommodate if the project is approved. So, I would say that
part of the larger picture is what zoning changes the city is approving. There’s very
little to walk to near me.
Q3) What is your most important active transportation priority (i.e., more 
sidewalks, safer roadway crossings, protected bicycle facilities, etc.)? 
This comment received 164 responses, summarized below.  
Statistics: 
•
66 comments mention bicycles or bikes (40%).
•
44 comments request protected bicycle lanes (27%).
•
33 comments relate to intersections and safer crossings (20%).
•
31 comments mention sidewalks (19%).
Themes: 
•
Respondents indicated a desire for the following:
o
Protected Bike lanes and safer bike routes
o
More and safer sidewalks
o
Safer Crossings
o
Better roadways, more driving lanes for cars
o
More shade and trees
Insightful Comments: 
•
Protected cycling lanes and paved, maintained, improved greenway/canal paths.
•
I love the canal pathways.  I think they should be paved/improved and if we can go
UNDER the roadways instead doing HAWKS to cross, I can really get moving across

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
88 
town.  For example, Biltmore to Sun city is 1 hour on my bike.  Thats a lot of ground in 
a short amount of time because of those canal tunnels. 
•
Better roads, more lanes and separated bike lanes.
•
Frequent crossing points for pedestrians and bicyclists. It’s not a system safe for us if
we have to walk or bike a mile out of our way to go anywhere.
•
Safer roadway crossings is most important for saving lives.
Q4) How familiar are you with the Draft Plan and Plan Elements? 
This question received 180 responses and did not provide an open-ended response option.  The 
results of the question are shown below, and indicate a general familiarity with the Draft Plan 
and the Plan Elements by survey respondents.  
Have not Reviewed
Somewhat Familiar
Very Familiar
Responses
13.3%
64.4%
22.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
PERCENT OF RESPONSES
Q4) How familiar are you with the Draft Plan and Plan 
Elements?

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
89 
Q5) How do you feel about the current Draft Plan and Plan Elements? 
This question received a total of 180 responses and did not provide an open-ended response 
option.  In total, 49.5 percent of respondents indicated a disapproving feeling towards the Draft 
Plan, while 40.5 percent of respondents indicated a positive feeling towards the Draft Plan.  Ten 
percent indicated that they had not reviewed the Draft Plan.  While this question did not include 
an open-ended response option, Question 6 below provides a summary of responses that 
provide insight into the results of Question 5.   
Q6) Please share your comments on the Draft Plan and Plan Elements. For 
example, What do you like about the plan?  What concerns do you have?  What 
recommendations do you have?  
This question received 141 comments. However, the amount written for this question far 
exceeded that of the other questions. Most respondents provided answers in detailed 
explanatory paragraphs that included a diverse array of topics. As such, comments were not 
easily encapsulated into statistics about subject matter frequency similar to what was completed 
in prior questions. Instead, the themes below have been put in rough order of 
Strongly
Approve
Approve
Slightly
Approve
Slightly
Disapprove
Disapprove
Strongly
Disapprove
I have not
reviewed the
Draft Plan and
Plan Elements
Responses
5.0%
23.3%
12.2%
5.6%
10.0%
33.9%
10.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
PERCENT OF RESPONSES
Q5) How do you feel about the current Draft Plan and Plan 
Elements?

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
90 
frequency/prominence. Additionally, more Insightful/example comments have been included 
below to capture the feeling and message of commenters.  
Themes: 
•
Commentators predominantly express support for the overall plan and its content,
followed by varied caveats and suggestions.
•
Don’t remove car lanes and maintain the priority of vehicles.
•
The implementation timeline is too slow and there is a desire for faster
improvements/implementation.
•
There needs to be increased accountability and concrete goals/actions on the part of
the city and in this plan to implement (well) active transportation infrastructure and
safety improvements.
•
Concerns about traffic speeds and bad driver behavior and the need for additional
content around enforcement.
•
Road diets and deprioritizing cars is a necessity to fully create space for pedestrian and
cyclist infrastructure.
•
Many specific locational recommendations for infrastructure and connections.
•
A desire to see more bike infrastructure - specifically protected and separated.
•
Public transit improvements are needed to connect the distant parts of Phoenix in
order to make walking and biking feasible.
•
Support for the urban villages and neighborhood approach to implementation.
•
Appreciation for the plan’s recognition of Phoenix as a car-centric/car-culture city and
how that is a barrier to active transportation.
•
Content needs to be added discussing the use of roadway and surface materials that
reflect instead of absorb heat.
•
The city needs to address land use and zoning in order to make a city fabric that is
more walkable and bikeable with destinations close by.
Insightful/Example Comments: 
•
Glad there is an emphasis on equity and underserved communities. Glad there are
sections about evaluating progress and the results of the plan.  Our Subdivision Code
Ch. 32 needs to be redesigned to encourage development in a grid, which increases
accessibility to important destinations. We should also re-evaluate our street cross-
sections to see if we can build smaller to reduce speeds driven, which would make
alternative modes of transportation feel safer.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
91 
•
Any reduction to the number of lanes for vehicular traffic would have a negative effect
on overall transportation.
•
Need to use surfaces that do not absorb heat to be re-radiated at night creating a
bigger heat island.
•
Substituting asphalt, chip seal or tarmac with alternatives like concrete is conspicuously
absent from the plan. A reduction in vehicle speed from traffic calming could make
concrete a viable alternative. This would save the city tons of money on road
maintenance.
•
From my brief review, it appears that most of the improvements appear to be in
central Phoenix. Tatum Rd from Pinnacle Peak to Cave Creek needs protective bike
lanes so people can ride bikes to library from Desert Ridge.
•
I am concerned that the plan does not address the root causes of danger to
pedestrians but attempts to shoehorn pedestrian infrastructure onto poorly designed,
dangerous streets. Real change would require road diets. I still appreciate the effort
and the proposed improvements.
•
I don’t like the idea of making roads smaller and creating “speed diets” or usage diets.
The roads are congested enough and enough people will not bike, walk, take a bus or
train to make these changes sustainable, to grow the city, nor encourage a healthy
lifestyle. I drive around the city and vary rarely see anyone using any of the bike lanes.
•
HIN criteria too narrow and thus missing many areas of the city where accidents occur.
•
My main concern is the need for more transparency and accountability from the city.
Despite an accountability section being a part of the plan, I do not have a good sense
of how the plan will address this issue.
•
One of my primary concerns is that the city will continue to paint bike lanes and call it a
victory for active transportation. Look, a bike lane is better than nothing, but at the end
of the day paint is just paint and it’s not infrastructure. I speak from experience —
paint does not prohibit a car from veering into a bike lake or turning into a cyclist. I
appreciate the thought and work that has gone into this plan, but it would be a shame
to see it squandered by “good enough” thinking. As for recommendations, I really do
think enforcement — which is not mentioned as a pillar of this plan — needs to be
considered. Speed and traffic enforcement could go a long way in curbing the worst
motorist behaviors and ensuring road safety for all users.
•
I like the direction. Need more beautification points.
•
I like the focus on prioritizing historically marginalized communities, and the
acknowledgement that car culture is a prohibitive factor in making Phoenix more
sustainable. I wonder how bus and light rail systems could better support cyclists and
pedestrians.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
92 
•
I’m concerned about only focusing on two neighborhoods at a time, does that mean
the other neighborhoods are just neglected or no action is taken on those?   What
happens when you get to a neighborhood like Central and Bethany Home and they just
decide they don’t care about bike lanes or walkability? Basically, how they made a big
fuss about re-striping that very low traffic section of Central because they’d have to
“look for bikes when turning out of the neighborhood”. How do we ensure that we
have a wholistic vision and common voice for the city and it’s not left up to the
privileged in that neighborhood to ignore the program and recommendations?
•
I think more traffic calming measures are needed in general. I wish that turn lanes that
serve no purpose (i.e., in areas where there’s no place to physically turn in either
direction for 100s of yards) could be replaced with islands.
•
My concern is that sharrows or bike lanes next to car parking (where the door could
open into a biker) are mentioned at all. I initially don’t love the bike boulevard idea,
because it’s assuming that drivers will be fully attentive and respectful of sharing the
road, which is often not the case.   I recommend focusing on developing an
interconnected network of protected bike lanes with safe crossings especially in
downtown/Roosevelt Row where there is so much foot/bike traffic.
•
I think that the timeline for some of the recommended changes is way too long. It
should not be a 3–10-year process to evaluate the potential to implement a stop bar
(changing where the line on the ground is) at SOME intersections. This is something
that has already been studied. Why do we need another 3 years of evaluation. To
decide on its potential.   Overall, I think the framework is good. The network program
seems like a step in the right direction. I have lots of doubts on the implementation.
•
My one other recommendation is that the city should view HAWK signals as not only
pedestrian infrastructure, but bicycle infrastructure. This can be a great tool to allow
cyclists to bike through neighborhoods and then be able to cross major streets.
•
I think the plan will do a lot for the city and making transportation for all safer. I am
concerned on some of the choices in focusing on a small area for overkill projects while
neglecting other less “showy” concerns (i.e., a huge bike lane with bollards on 3rd
avenue with little traffic but super thin bike lanes on cave creek with cars traveling at
60+)
•
I’m extremely pleased that we are acknowledging the benefits and need for facilitating
other forms of transportation that is not driving. Cars create noise pollution, air
pollution, social isolation, and literal death. They might be good for intercity travel, but
we need to focus on neighborhood-centric transportation and I loved seeing that in the
plan. Another aspect to consider is working with city zoning to enable more multi-use

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
93 
zone construction that integrates residential and small-business spaces. Doing this will 
make the transportation plan much more feasible. 
•
In your report, you indicate that 2.5% of crashes involve pedestrians, but are 46% of
fatalities. On the same page you indicate 21% of KSIs are speed related. Why, then, are
you indicating on page 37 that you are going to apply equal behavioral enforcement to
both drivers and pedestrians/cyclists (both segments will see 12x/year targeted
enforcement)? I would like to see significantly more driver enforcement considering
the outcomes of driver-related behavior.
•
There is missing inclusion of the wheelchair user population who depend on their
devices as mode of transportation.
•
Over all I think it’s a good plan. I’d like to see benchmarks and goals made more
concrete but it’s a good start.
•
More protected bike infrastructure, with hard protection, bollards, make the tough
choices to actually make it safer instead of always bowing to cars instead of safety.
•
My concerns are the reduction in vehicular lanes to accommodate bike lanes. The
reduction of those lanes increases traffic throughout the neighborhood. For the
amount of disruption the bike lanes cause, there are not of bicycle riders who use
them compared to cars. It would be wise to have a corridor for bicycles that do not
take away vehicular lanes or parking spots (as those are also becoming hard
downtown).
•
Please do not replace traffic lanes. Look for ways to implement bicycle lanes only
where there is unused space. This will be a nightmare otherwise.
•
The City must commit to studying the removal of single-family zoning and minimum
parking requirements in order to make Phoenix more walkable and stop exacerbating
the urban heat island effect, which this plan identifies as a key barrier to active
transportation. Collaborate across departments and get things done.
•
The issue is that Phoenix is so hostile in its design toward pedestrians and bicyclists
that stronger action is required.  Anticipatory warrants should be a short-term action
and we should be actively designing our streets to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists
instead of reacting to their deaths. There is no reason this shouldn’t be a short-term
goal.  When Phoenix for instance allows parking in bike lanes, it is clear who the city
prefers. The success of this plan is entirely dependent on the rollout of quickbuild
plans. This is not enough to say that Phoenix should be a multimodal city. The metric of
success is the deployment of concrete protected bicycle infrastructure and frequent,
safe pedestrian crossings.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
94 
Appendix A: Survey Questions 
English Version 
•
Which of the following best describes you?
a. I live in the City of Phoenix
b. I work in the City of Phoenix
c.
I live and work in the City of Phoenix
d. I neither live nor work in the City of Phoenix
•
What is your zip code?
•
Which of the following do you own or have access to regularly? Please check all that apply:
a. Car or truck
b. Bicycle
c.
E-scooter
d. Assistive device, such as a wheelchair or motorized scooter
e. Other (open text)
•
Please check how often you use each of these different ways of traveling.
Daily 
Weekly 
Monthly 
Seldom 
Never 
Drive or ride in a car 
Take public transit 
Use rideshare or a 
taxi 
Walk 
Bike 
Use an e-scooter 
Use an assistive 
device, like a 
wheelchair or 
mobility scooter 
•
Which of the following types of transportation would you like to use more in the future?
Please check all that apply.
a. Car
b. Public transit
c.
Rideshare or a taxi
d. Walking
e. Bicycle

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
95 
f. E-scooter 
g. An assistive device, like a wheelchair or mobility scooter 
h. None of the above 
 
• Which of the following types of transportation would you like to use less in the future? 
Please check all that apply. 
i. Car 
j. Public transit 
k. Rideshare or a taxi 
l. Walking 
m. Bicycle 
n. E-scooter 
o. An assistive device, like a wheelchair or mobility scooter 
p. None of the above 
 
• In the last two months, have you walked or biked for any of the following reasons? 
a. Walk or bike to complete a trip to work, school, shopping, or socializing 
b. Walk or bike for exercise or fun 
c. Walk or bike to access transit (bus or light rail)  
d. I’m not interested in walking or biking  
 
• If you were to walk and bike more often, which of the following would describe the purpose 
of doing so? Please check all that apply. 
a. Walk or bike to complete a trip to work, school, shopping, or socializing 
b. Walk or bike for exercise or fun 
c. Walk or bike to access transit (bus or light rail)  
d. I’m not interested in walking or biking  
 
• How would you describe yourself from the options below, based on how often or 
comfortable you are with biking?  
a. Not interested in biking – I do not want to bike 
b. Interested in biking – I’m interested in biking more if there are more comfortable and 
safe bike facilities 
c. Casual bike rider – I’m comfortable using bike lanes and bike paths 
d. Assertive bike rider – I’m very comfortable biking on streets, even if they don’t have 
bike lanes 
 
• If you would like to provide more details, please use the space below (open text)

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
96 
• How would you rate the current bicycling conditions in Phoenix?  
a. Very good 
b. Good  
c. Somewhat good 
d. Neutral 
e. Somewhat poor 
f. Poor  
g. Very Poor  
 
• How would you rate the current walking conditions in Phoenix?  
a. Very good 
b. Good  
c. Somewhat good 
d. Neutral 
e. Somewhat poor 
f. Poor  
g. Very Poor  
 
• How would you rate the current conditions for assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, in 
Phoenix?  
a. Very good 
b. Good  
c. Somewhat good 
d. Neutral 
e. Somewhat poor 
f. Poor  
g. Very Poor  
 
• Thinking about traffic safety, how safe do you currently feel walking in Phoenix?  
a. Very Safe 
b. Safe 
c. Somewhat safe 
d. Neutral  
e. Somewhat unsafe 
f. Unsafe 
g. Very Unsafe  
 
 
• Thinking about traffic safety, how safe do you currently feel biking in Phoenix?  
a. Very Safe

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
97 
b. Safe 
c. Somewhat safe 
d. Neutral 
e. Somewhat unsafe 
f. Unsafe 
g. Very Unsafe 
 
• Thinking about traffic safety, how safe do you feel using an assistive device, such as a 
wheelchair, in Phoenix?  
a. Very Safe 
b. Safe 
c. Somewhat safe 
d. Neutral 
e. Somewhat unsafe 
f. Unsafe 
g. Very Unsafe 
 
• For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of 
the following statements. 
 
Strongly 
disagree 
Disagree Somewhat 
disagree 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
agree 
Agree 
Strongly 
agree 
My 
neighborhood 
would be a 
better place to 
live if it were 
more enjoyable 
for people to 
walk. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
My 
neighborhood 
would be a 
better place to 
live if it were 
more enjoyable 
for people to 
bike. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I am 
comfortable 
with my friends 
and family

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
98 
using the 
streets in 
Phoenix to walk 
or bike. 
Many of the 
places I need to 
get to regularly 
are within 
biking distance 
of my home 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I would use 
public transit 
more often if it 
was convenient 
and safe to 
walk and bike 
to  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I like walking. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I like biking.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• Which of the following stop you from walking more? Please select all that apply 
a. People driving in unsafe ways 
b. People driving fast 
c. Narrow sidewalks 
d. Bad sidewalk conditions  
e. Gaps in sidewalks  
f. No sidewalks  
g. Crossings at major streets do not feel safe 
h. Crossing signals take too long  
i. Crosswalks spaced too far apart   
j. Not enough shade  
k. Too hot 
l. Distances between places 
m. Other (open text) 
 
• Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier for when it comes to walking? 
(Repeat list from above, single selection only to prioritize) 
 
• Which of the following stop you from biking more? Please select all that apply 
a. Bike lanes too close to traffic lanes 
b. Bike lanes do not connect

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
99 
c. Bike lanes disappear near intersections 
d. Hard to find a clear biking route 
e. Lack of bike parking  
f. Crosswalks spaced too far apart 
g. Crossing signals take too long 
h. Feeling unsafe  
i. People driving in unsafe ways 
j. People driving fast 
k. Not enough shade 
l. Too hot 
m. Distances between places 
n. Other (open text) 
 
• Thinking of the list above, what is the single biggest barrier for you when it comes to 
bicycling? (repeat list, single selection only to prioritize) 
 
• Below are descriptions and pictures of different types of bicycle infrastructure.  For each 
photo, please indicate whether you’d like to see more of that type of street in Phoenix and 
whether you’d support the design even if it added a few minutes to driving times during rush 
hour.   (for setup, list each of the two questions on a 1-7 scale from strongly agree to strongly 
disagree.  Question 1:  I would like to see more streets that look like this in Phoenix.  Question 
2:  I would be interested in this street design even if it added a few minutes to driving times 
during rush hour).   
 
a. Major street with  5 or 6 lanes / no bike lane   
b. Major street with bike lane 
c. Major street with buffered bike lane 
d. Major street with protected bike lane (bollards / guideposts) 
e. Major street with protected bike lane (cycletrack w/ curb)  
f. Major street with wide sidewalk (10’)  
g. Secondary street with bike lane 
h. Secondary street with buffered bike lane  
i. Local street with sharrows and traffic calming (bike blvd) 
j. Local street with no bike infrastructure 
 
• Below are descriptions and pictures of different types of sidewalk infrastructure.  For each 
photo, please indicate whether you’d like to see more of that type of street in Phoenix and 
whether you’d support the design even if it added a few minutes to driving times during rush 
hour.   (for setup, list each of the two questions on a 1-7 scale from strongly agree to strongly 
disagree.  Question 1:  I would like to see more streets that look like this in Phoenix.  Question

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
100 
2:  I would be interested in this street design even if it added a few minutes to driving times 
during rush hour).   
a. Major Street and sidewalk with no buffer (flush with curb)  
b. Major Street with buffer and shade  
c. Secondary Street and sidewalk with no buffer 
d. Secondary Street with buffer and shade  
e. Mid-block crossing with HAWK signal on 6 or 7 lane arterial 
f. Mid-block crossing with HAWK signal on a collector street (3 lanes) 
g. Mid-block crossing without HAWK signal on a collector street 
h. Mid-block crossing without HAWK with pedestrian refuge island  
i. Major intersection with pedestrian enhancements  
 
• For the following question, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of 
the following statements. 
 
Strongly 
disagree 
Disagree Somewhat 
disagree 
Neutral Somewhat 
agree 
Agree Strongly 
agree 
I would not 
support any 
project that would 
lower speeds for 
driving or make 
driving trips 
longer. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I would support 
lowering speed 
limits in exchange 
for making streets 
more comfortable 
for walking and 
biking  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• Thinking about transportation overall in the City of Phoenix, please rank your priorities: 
a. Reducing vehicle congestion during rush hour 
b. Preventing collisions that could injure people 
c. Minimizing the cost of building and maintaining streets 
d. Giving everyone a comfortable option for using streets, whether they are driving, 
walking, biking, or taking transit 
e. Designing streets to match the atmosphere of the neighborhood 
f. Building a green and sustainable transportation system

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
101 
 
• Thinking of streets in Phoenix, what are your top five priorities? Please rank them with 1 
being highest. (setup to allow for items to be dragged to prioritize)  
a. Expand street network for cars 
b. Improve traffic signals for cars 
c. Maintain existing sidewalks 
d. Expand the sidewalk network  
e. Fill in sidewalk gaps 
f. Improve pedestrian crossings   
g. Add shade along sidewalks  
h. Maintain existing bikeways 
i. Expand the bikeway network 
j. Improve bicycle crossings  
 
• When thinking about how to add to Phoenix’s bicycle network, the City has to identify 
priorities and make decisions on where and how to invest. When we look at adding 
connections to the bicycle network, we have to prioritize where to connect to first.  Please 
rank the following based on what you think is most important:  
a. Canals – Adding and upgrading paths along existing canals 
b. Equity – Invest in historically marginalized areas 
c. Gap Closure – Fill in missing links in network  
d. Low cost opportunities – Adding bike lanes after pavement projects  
e. Parks & Community Centers – Build links to recreation 
f. Population & Employment Centers – Connect within to areas where there are a lot of 
people working and living  
g. Safety – Address areas with a history of serious collisions and/or fatalities  
h. Transit Access – Build links with bus and light rail stations 
 
• When thinking about how to add to Phoenix’s bicycle network, the City has to identify 
priorities and make decisions on where and how to invest. Regional routes usually use 
through streets and canals to guide people across the city. Neighborhood routes are focused 
on guiding people to destinations in their neighborhood. Which do you think is a higher 
priority? 
a. Neighborhood routes – Focus on local routes to neighborhood destinations 
b. Regional routes – Focus on citywide routes for people to make longer trips 
 
• Usually the most comfortable bicycle facilities also cost more money to build and maintain. 
Thinking about new bicycle facilities, which do you think is more important? 
c. Cost – Focus on adding stripes and signs to make sure the City can add as many miles 
of bike lanes as possible

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
102 
d. Comfort – Focus on building projects that make bicycling more comfortable, even if it 
means fewer projects 
 
• What other comments would you like to share with us?  (open-ended)  
The following questions are meant to help the City of Phoenix understand if it is sharing 
information. Please answer honestly.  
• Do you know how to report street maintenance issues to the City of Phoenix?  
a. Yes 
b. No 
 
• When there is a bicycle or pedestrian street project in my neighborhood, are you able to find 
information about the project and provide input? 
a. Yes 
b. No 
 
• Have you ever reported a street issue to the City of Phoenix? 
a. Yes 
b. No 
 
• If yes, were you satisfied with the outcome? 
a. Yes 
b. No 
 
Please tell us a little more about you… 
• Age: 
a. 18 and under 
b. 19-29 
c. 30-39 
d. 40-49 
e. 50-59 
f. 60-69 
g. 70+ 
 
• Race & Ethnicity  
a. Asian / Pacific Islander  
b. Black 
c. Native American  
d. White 
e. Hispanic / Latino of any race

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
103 
• Gender 
a. _________________________ 
 
• Household Income  
a. Under $35k 
b. $36-65k 
c. $66-100k 
d. $100k - $200k 
e. $200k+ 
Spanish Version 
• ¿Cuál de las siguientes te describe mejor? 
a. Yo vivo en la ciudad de Phoenix 
b. Trabajo en la ciudad de Phoenix 
c. Vivo y trabajo en la ciudad de Phoenix 
d. No vivo ni trabajo en la Ciudad de Phoenix 
 
• ¿Cuál es su código postal?  
 
• ¿Cuál de los siguientes posee o tiene acceso regularmente? Por favor marque todos los que 
apliquen: 
a. Coche o camión 
b. Bicicleta 
c. Scooter eléctrico 
d. Dispositivo de asistencia, como una silla de ruedas o un scooter motorizado 
e. Otro (texto abierto) 
 
• Marque la frecuencia con la que usa cada una de estas diferentes formas de viajar. 
 
  
A diario Semanal Mensual 
Raramente Nunca 
Conducir o viajar en un automóvil   
  
  
  
  
Toma transporte público 
  
  
  
  
  
Usa viajes compartidos o un taxi

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
104 
Camina 
  
  
  
  
  
Usa bicicleta 
  
  
  
  
  
Usa un scooter eléctrico 
  
  
  
  
  
Usa un dispositivo de asistencia, 
como una silla de ruedas o un 
scooter de movilidad 
  
  
  
  
  
• ¿Cuál de los siguientes tipos de transporte le gustaría usar más en el futuro? Por favor 
marque todos los que apliquen. 
a. Coche 
b. Tránsito público 
c. Viaje compartido o un taxi 
d. Caminando 
e. Bicicleta 
f. Scooter eléctrico 
g.  Un dispositivo de asistencia, como una silla de ruedas o un scooter de movilidad. 
h. Ninguna de las anteriores 
• ¿Cuál de los siguientes tipos de transporte le gustaría usar menos en el futuro? Por favor 
marque todos los que apliquen. 
a. Coche 
b. Tránsito público 
c. Viaje compartido o un taxi 
d. Caminando 
e. Bicicleta 
f. Scooter eléctrico 
g. Un dispositivo de asistencia, como una silla de ruedas o un scooter de movilidad. 
h. Ninguna de las anteriores 
 
• ¿Cuál de los siguientes tipos de transporte le gustaría usar menos en el futuro? Por favor 
marque todos los que apliquen 
a. Coche

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
105 
b. Tránsito público 
c. Viaje compartido o un taxi 
d. Caminando 
e. Bicicleta 
f. Scooter eléctrico 
g. Un dispositivo de asistencia, como una silla de ruedas o un scooter de movilidad. 
h. Ninguna de las anteriores 
• En los últimos dos meses, ¿ha caminado o andando en bicicleta por alguna de las siguientes 
razones? 
a. Camine o ande en bicicleta para completar un viaje al trabajo, la escuela, ir de 
compras o socializar 
b. Camine o ande en bicicleta para hacer ejercicio o divertirme 
c. Camine o ande en bicicleta para acceder al transporte público (autobús o tren 
ligero) 
d. No estoy interesado en caminar o andar en bicicleta. 
• Si tuviera que caminar y andar en bicicleta con más frecuencia, ¿cuál de las siguientes 
describiría el propósito de hacerlo? Por favor marque todos los que apliquen. 
a. Camine o ande en bicicleta para completar un viaje al trabajo, la escuela, ir de 
compras o socializar 
b. Camine o ande en bicicleta para hacer ejercicio o divertirme 
c. Camine o ande en bicicleta para acceder al transporte público (autobús o tren 
ligero) 
d. No estoy interesado en caminar o andar en bicicleta. 
• ¿Cómo se describiría a sí mismo a partir de las siguientes opciones, según la frecuencia o la 
comodidad con la que se siente andando en bicicleta? 
a. No me interesa andar en bicicleta - No quiero andar en bicicleta 
b. Interesado en andar en bicicleta: estoy interesado en andar en bicicleta más si 
hay instalaciones para bicicletas más cómodas y seguras 
c. Ciclista ocasional: me siento cómodo usando carriles para bicicletas y senderos 
para bicicletas 
d. Ciclista asertivo: me siento muy cómodo andando en bicicleta en las calles, 
incluso si no tienen carriles para bicicletas 
 
• Si desea proporcionar más detalles, utilice el espacio a continuación (texto abierto)

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
106 
 
• ¿Cómo calificaría las condiciones actuales para andar en bicicleta en Phoenix? 
a. Muy bien 
b. Bien 
c. algo bueno 
d. Neutral 
e. Algo pobre 
f. Pobre 
g. Muy pobre 
• ¿Cómo calificaría las condiciones actuales para caminar en Phoenix? 
a. Muy bien 
b. Bien 
c. algo bueno 
d. Neutral 
e. Algo pobre 
f. Pobre 
g. Muy pobre 
• ¿Cómo calificaría las condiciones actuales de los dispositivos de asistencia, como las sillas 
de ruedas, en Phoenix? 
a. Muy bien 
b. Bien 
c. algo bueno 
d. Neutral 
e. Algo pobre 
f. Pobre 
g. Muy pobre 
• Pensando en la seguridad del tráfico, ¿qué tan seguro se siente actualmente caminando 
en Phoenix? 
a. Muy seguro 
b. A salvo 
c. Algo seguro 
d. Neutral 
e. Algo inseguro 
f. Inseguro 
g. muy inseguro

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
107 
• Pensando en la seguridad del tráfico, ¿qué tan seguro se siente actualmente al andar en 
bicicleta en Phoenix? 
a. Muy seguro 
b. A salvo 
c. Algo seguro 
d. Neutral 
e. Algo inseguro 
f. Inseguro 
g. muy inseguro 
• Pensando en la seguridad vial, ¿qué tan seguro se siente usando un dispositivo de 
asistencia, como una silla de ruedas, en Phoenix? 
a. Muy seguro 
b. A salvo 
c. Algo seguro 
d. Neutral 
e. Algo inseguro 
f. Inseguro 
g. muy inseguro 
• Para la siguiente pregunta, indique qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo está con cada 
una de las siguientes afirmaciones. 
  
Muy en 
desacuerd
o 
 
Discrepar 
 
Algo en 
desacuerdo 
 
Neutra
l 
 
Parcialment
e de 
acuerdo 
 
Estar 
de 
acuer
do 
Totalment
e de 
acuerdo 
Mi vecindario 
sería un 
mejor lugar 
para vivir si 
fuera más 
agradable 
para la gente 
caminar.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
108 
Mi vecindario 
sería un 
mejor lugar 
para vivir si 
fuera más 
agradable 
para la gente 
andar en 
bicicleta. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Me siento 
cómodo con 
mis amigos y 
familiares 
usando las 
calles de 
Phoenix para 
caminar o 
andar en 
bicicleta. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Muchos de 
los lugares a 
los que 
necesito ir 
regularmente 
están a una 
distancia en 
bicicleta de 
mi casa.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
109 
Usaría el 
transporte 
público con 
más 
frecuencia si 
fuera 
conveniente y 
seguro 
caminar y 
andar en 
bicicleta para 
llegar. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Me gusta 
caminar. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Me gusta 
andar en 
bicicleta 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• ¿Cuál de los siguientes le impide caminar más? Por favor seleccione todas las respuestas 
válidas 
h. Personas que conducen de manera insegura 
i. Gente manejando rápido 
j. Aceras angostas 
k. Malas condiciones de la acera 
l. Huecos en las aceras 
m. no hay aceras 
n. Los cruces en las calles principales no se sienten seguros 
o. Las señales de cruce tardan demasiado 
p. Pasos de peatones espaciados demasiado lejos 
q. No hay suficiente sombra 
r. Demasiado caliente 
s. Distancias entre lugares 
t. Otro (texto abierto) 
• Pensando en la lista anterior, ¿cuál es la barrera más grande para caminar?

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
110 
a. Personas que conducen de manera insegura 
b. Gente manejando rápido 
c. Aceras angostas 
d. Malas condiciones de la acera 
e. Huecos en las aceras 
f. no hay aceras 
g. Los cruces en las calles principales no se sienten seguros 
h. Las señales de cruce tardan demasiado 
i. Pasos de peatones espaciados demasiado lejos 
j. No hay suficiente sombra 
k. Demasiado caliente 
l. Distancias entre lugares 
m. Otro (texto abierto) 
 
• ¿Cuál de los siguientes le impide andar en bicicleta más? Por favor seleccione todas las 
respuestas válidas 
a. Carriles para bicicletas demasiado cerca de los carriles de tráfico 
b. Los carriles para bicicletas no se conectan 
c. Los carriles para bicicletas desaparecen cerca de las intersecciones. 
d. Difícil de encontrar una ruta clara para andar en bicicleta. 
e. Falta de estacionamiento para bicicletas. 
f. Pasos de peatones espaciados demasiado lejos 
g. Las señales de cruce tardan demasiado 
h. Sintiéndome inseguro 
i. Personas que conducen de manera insegura 
j. Gente manejando rápido 
k. No hay suficiente sombra 
l. Demasiado caliente 
m. Distancias entre lugares 
n. Otro (texto abierto) 
 
• Pensando en la lista anterior, ¿cuál es la barrera más grande para usted cuando se trata 
de andar en bicicleta? 
a. Carriles para bicicletas demasiado cerca de los carriles de tráfico 
b. Los carriles para bicicletas no se conectan 
c. Los carriles para bicicletas desaparecen cerca de las intersecciones. 
d. Difícil de encontrar una ruta clara para andar en bicicleta.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
111 
e. Falta de estacionamiento para bicicletas. 
f. Pasos de peatones espaciados demasiado lejos 
g. Las señales de cruce tardan demasiado 
h. Sintiéndome inseguro 
i. Personas que conducen de manera insegura 
j. Gente manejando rápido 
k. No hay suficiente sombra 
l. Demasiado caliente 
m. Distancias entre lugares 
n. Otro (texto abierto) 
• A continuación se encuentran descripciones e imágenes de diferentes tipos de 
infraestructura para bicicletas. Para cada foto, indique si le gustaría ver más de ese tipo 
de calle en Phoenix y si apoyaría el diseño incluso si agregara unos minutos al tiempo de 
conducción durante las horas pico.  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
desde 
totalment
e de 
acuerdo 
(Totally 
Agree) 
 
 
 
 
 
totalmente 
en 
desacuerd
o 
(Totally 
Disagree) 
Pregunta 1: Me gustaría ver más calles que se vean así en Phoenix.  
Pregunta 2: Estaría interesado en esta calle diseño incluso si añadía unos minutos a los 
tiempos de conducción durante las horas pico). 
1. Calle principal con 5 o 6 carriles / sin carril para bicicletas 
2. Calle principal con carril bici 
3. Calle principal con carril bici protegido 
4. Calle principal con carril bici protegido (pilonas / postes indicadores) 
5. Calle principal con carril para bicicletas protegido (pista para bicicletas con 
bordillo) 
6. Calle principal con acera ancha (10’)

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
112 
7. Calle secundaria con carril bici 
8. Calle secundaria con carril bici amortiguado 
9. Calle local con sharrows y control de tráfico (bike blvd) 
10. Calle local sin infraestructura para bicicletas 
• A continuación se encuentran descripciones e imágenes de diferentes tipos de 
infraestructura de aceras. Para cada foto, indique si le gustaría ver más de ese tipo de 
calle en Phoenix y si apoyaría el diseño incluso si agregara unos minutos a los tiempos de 
conducción durante las horas pico.  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
desde 
totalment
e de 
acuerdo 
(Totally 
Agree) 
 
 
 
 
 
totalmente 
en 
desacuerd
o 
(Totally 
Disagree) 
 
Pregunta 1: Me gustaría ver más calles que se vean así en Phoenix.  
Pregunta 2: Estaría interesado en esta calle diseño incluso si añadía unos minutos a los 
tiempos de conducción durante las horas pico).  
1. Calle principal y acera sin barrera (al ras del bordillo) 
2. Calle Mayor con tope y sombra 
3. Calle secundaria y acera sin amortiguador 
4. Calle Secundaria con amortiguador y sombra 
5. Cruce a mitad de cuadra con señal HAWK en arterial de 6 o 7 carriles 
6. Cruce a mitad de cuadra con señal HAWK en una calle colectora (3 carriles) 
7. Cruce a mitad de cuadra sin señal HAWK en una calle colectora 
8. Cruce a mitad de cuadra sin HAWK con isla de refugio para peatones 
9. Intersección principal con mejoras para peatones 
• Para la siguiente pregunta, indique qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo está con cada 
una de las siguientes afirmaciones.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
113 
2. las siguientes afirmaciones. 
  
Muy en 
desacuerd
o 
 
Discrepar 
 
Algo en 
desacuerdo 
 
Neutra
l 
 
Parcialment
e de 
acuerdo 
 
Estar de 
acuerdo 
Totalment
e de 
acuerdo 
No apoyaría 
ningún 
proyecto que 
reduzca la 
velocidad 
para conducir 
o haga que 
los viajes en 
automóvil 
sean más 
largos. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Apoyaría la 
reducción de 
los límites de 
velocidad a 
cambio de 
hacer las 
calles más 
cómodas 
para caminar 
y andar en 
bicicleta. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Pensando en el transporte en general en la Ciudad de Phoenix, clasifique sus prioridades: 
a. Reducción de la congestión vehicular durante las horas pico 
b. Prevención de colisiones que podrían lesionar a las personas 
c. Minimizar el costo de construcción y mantenimiento de calles.

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
114 
d. Brindar a todos una opción cómoda para usar las calles, ya sea que conduzcan, 
caminen, anden en bicicleta o tomen el transporte público. 
e. Diseño de calles para que coincida con la atmósfera de la vecindad. 
f. Construyendo un sistema de transporte verde y sostenible 
• Pensando en las calles de Phoenix, ¿cuáles son sus cinco prioridades principales? Por 
favor clasifíquelos con 1 siendo el más alto.  
a. Ampliar la red de calles para automóviles 
b. Mejorar las señales de tráfico para los automóviles 
c. Mantenimiento de las aceras existentes. 
d. Ampliar la red de aceras 
e. Rellene los huecos de la acera 
f. Mejorar los pasos de peatones 
g. Agregar sombra a lo largo de las aceras 
h. Mantener los carriles para bicicletas existentes 
i. Ampliar la red de ciclovías 
j. Mejorar los cruces de bicicletas 
• Al pensar en cómo agregar a la red de bicicletas de Phoenix, la Ciudad tiene que 
identificar prioridades y tomar decisiones sobre dónde y cómo invertir. Cuando 
buscamos agregar conexiones a la red de bicicletas, debemos priorizar dónde 
conectarnos primero. Clasifica lo siguiente según lo que creas que es más importante: 
a. Canales: agregar y mejorar caminos a lo largo de canales existentes 
b. Equidad: invertir en áreas históricamente marginadas 
c. Cierre de brecha: complete los enlaces que faltan en la red 
d. Oportunidades de bajo costo: Agregar carriles para bicicletas después de los 
proyectos de pavimento 
e. Parques y centros comunitarios: construya vínculos con la recreación 
f. Centros de población y empleo: conéctese con áreas donde hay mucha gente 
trabajando y viviendo. 
g. Seguridad: aborde las áreas con un historial de colisiones graves y/o muertes 
h. Acceso al tránsito: construya enlaces con estaciones de autobús y tren ligero 
• Al pensar en cómo agregar a la red de bicicletas de Phoenix, la Ciudad tiene que 
identificar prioridades y tomar decisiones sobre dónde y cómo invertir. Las rutas 
regionales generalmente usan calles y canales para guiar a las personas por la ciudad. Las 
rutas de vecindario se enfocan en guiar a las personas a destinos en su vecindario. ¿Cuál 
crees que es una prioridad más alta? 
a. Rutas vecinales: concéntrese en rutas locales a destinos vecinales

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
115 
b. Rutas regionales: concéntrese en las rutas de toda la ciudad para que las personas 
hagan viajes más largos 
• Por lo general, las instalaciones para bicicletas más cómodas también cuestan más dinero 
para construir y mantener. Pensando en nuevas instalaciones para bicicletas, ¿cuál crees 
que es más importante? 
g. Costo: concéntrese en agregar rayas y letreros para asegurarse de que la ciudad 
pueda agregar tantas millas de carriles para bicicletas como sea posible 
h. Comodidad: concéntrese en construir proyectos que hagan que andar en bicicleta 
sea más cómodo, incluso si eso significa menos proyectos. 
• ¿Qué otros comentarios le gustaría compartir con nosotros? (Abierto) 
 
• Las siguientes preguntas están destinadas a ayudar a la ciudad de Phoenix a comprender 
si está compartiendo información. Por favor responda honestamente. 
1. ¿Sabe cómo reportar problemas de mantenimiento de calles a la Ciudad de Phoenix? 
a. Sí 
b. No 
2. Cuando hay un proyecto de calles para bicicletas o peatones en mi vecindario, 
¿pueden encontrar información sobre el proyecto y dar su opinión? 
a. Sí 
b. No 
3. ¿Ha informado alguna vez sobre un problema de la calle a la ciudad de Phoenix? 
a. Sí 
b. No 
4. Si la respuesta es afirmativa, ¿Estuvo satisfecho con el resultado? 
a. Sí 
b. No 
Cuéntanos un poco más sobre ti… 
1. Edad 
a. 18 and under 
b.  19-29 
c. 30-39 
d. 40-49 
e. 50-59 
f. 60-69

City of Phoenix Active Transportation Plan 
116 
g. 70+ 
 
2. Raza y etnicidad 
a. Asiático / Isleño del Pacífico 
b. Negro 
c. Nativo americano 
d. Blanco 
e. Hispano/Latino de cualquier raza 
 
3. Género 
a. _________________ 
 
4. Ingresos del hogar 
a. 
 Under $35k 
b.  $36-65k 
c. $66-100k 
d. $100k - $200k 
e. $200k+

1 / 36
24.44%
44
2.22%
4
0.56%
1
1.11%
2
71.11%
128
1.67%
3
Q1
Did you participate in the original project survey or project interviews?
Answered: 180
Skipped: 0
Total Respondents: 180
#
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
DATE
1
I was not aware of the survey previously.
1/5/2023 6:02 PM
2
It happened so fast I didn't an opportunity.
1/5/2023 6:00 PM
3
I do not think so.
12/14/2022 3:19 PM
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Project Survey
in...
Bicycle
Community...
Community
Leader...
Booth at
either...
No, I did not
participate ...
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Project Survey in Winter/Spring 2022
Bicycle Community Interviews
Community Leader Interviews
Booth at either Roosevelt Row First Friday or Laveen BBQ
No, I did not participate in the past.
Other (please specify)
Appendix B: Draft Plan Survey Responses

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
2 / 36
Q2
If you are interested in walking or biking more in Phoenix, what
changes would encourage you walk or bike more?
Answered: 159
Skipped: 21
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
less hostile traffic conditions. slower vehicles. More shade
1/16/2023 12:25 PM
2
Slower auto traffic. More dedicated bus and bike lanes. Signal priority at lights and
intersections for non motor vehicles.
1/8/2023 10:54 AM
3
None
1/8/2023 7:51 AM
4
If you actually built good infrastructure instead of saying cars are more important than human
lives
1/7/2023 1:16 PM
5
Elevated bike paths, roundabouts for 2 lane streets
1/6/2023 6:56 PM
6
It is fine the way it is.
1/6/2023 4:30 PM
7
N/A
1/6/2023 4:05 PM
8
Not
1/6/2023 3:36 PM
9
N/A
1/6/2023 3:10 PM
10
As a handicap walker sudden dips in sidewalks and uneven pavement make it hard to
walk/navigate
1/6/2023 2:33 PM
11
None
1/6/2023 1:24 PM
12
I am interested in safer streets for driving.
1/6/2023 1:22 PM
13
No. Get rid of homeless squatters in city parks.
1/6/2023 10:12 AM
14
Face it, MAJORITY of people will not use bikes as their primary transportation. Money could
be better spent finding a solution to the HOMELESS crisis in the valley. (Our streets look like
garbage cans, worse than the poor parts of Mexico, it's an embarrassment and disappointment
to tax paying citizens.)
1/6/2023 8:30 AM
15
Nothing.
1/5/2023 9:49 PM
16
None. We don’t need anymore for the amount of people who use bicycles as their mode of
transportation to work etc.
1/5/2023 9:40 PM
17
No.
1/5/2023 9:18 PM
18
Water stations.
1/5/2023 8:51 PM
19
Parks with walkways and bike paths not on the road
1/5/2023 8:39 PM
20
Safer biking
1/5/2023 7:18 PM
21
Not interested in adding any bike lanes and less streets are actively widened. I do not want
any car lanes taken away.
1/5/2023 6:47 PM
22
None of these changes would cause me to walk more than I already do.
1/5/2023 6:02 PM
23
We already walk when we can. Many other people do not. Changing the streets doesn't change
people.
1/5/2023 6:00 PM
24
Fewer abandoned mental patients living homeless in outdoor bus shelters and the proposed
shade structures. I drive because I can lock my car. I'd kive to know why the City pours
money into bike lanes that rarely carry a single cyclist but cannot scrape up ten cents to find
housing for the mentally ill. I sense a prejudice against the disabled in this mis-prioritization of
resources. Overbuilding facilities for healthy people while abandoning a huge disabled
1/5/2023 4:47 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
3 / 36
population to remain homeless may actually violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, under
which the City is liable for damages.
25
Lower the temperature. I'm not biking when it's 100 degrees.
1/5/2023 3:20 PM
26
None, the current lanes are adequate
1/5/2023 3:19 PM
27
Protected bike lines, space between sidewalks and high-speed roads, lower speed limits
1/5/2023 3:02 PM
28
More physically separated bike lanes (with medians) in downtown. Turn Roosevelt Row into a
public walkway and close the street to cars
1/5/2023 1:58 PM
29
Safer streets. More help with homeless population.
1/5/2023 11:22 AM
30
Safe places to ride a bike that is away from traffic.
1/5/2023 11:08 AM
31
Lowering speed limits on ALL streets, more bike lanes throughout the city not just downtown
1/5/2023 8:37 AM
32
More and better sidewalks. Riding on any road with distracted drivers is suicidal.
1/5/2023 7:28 AM
33
Current configuration is fine
1/5/2023 6:18 AM
34
None. Leave us alone. You quit driving if that’s what you want.
1/5/2023 6:12 AM
35
This is more of a seasonal activity in Phoenix.
1/4/2023 11:44 PM
36
Reduce crime and homelessness
1/4/2023 11:38 PM
37
Congested cities are not safe for biking and it is too hot to bike at least 4 months of the year.
1/4/2023 10:27 PM
38
More shade covering sidewalks, protected bike lanes, more bike parking.
1/4/2023 9:29 PM
39
I do not want to bike or walk. The weather is tooooo hot in Phoenix. This is a very BAD idea.
Plus, it will create unnecessary traffic jams for features that will be minimally used.
1/4/2023 9:28 PM
40
More shade for pedestrians and more curb protected bike lanes all over the city
1/4/2023 8:36 PM
41
More Euro style bike/pedestrian protection. More public education regarding pedestrian and
cyclists rights. Serious penalties for hitting/killing pedestrians cyclists.
1/4/2023 8:31 PM
42
I bike the canals and find them amply sufficient
1/4/2023 8:24 PM
43
Safer walk/bike routes with proper hygiene facilities available.
1/4/2023 8:07 PM
44
None
1/4/2023 8:06 PM
45
We need more paths/trails that aren’t connected to roads. Like the trail around the Arizona
Canal.
1/4/2023 8:00 PM
46
Make the streets more safe. Intersections typically house homeless encampments where drug
use and other dangerous activities occur.
1/4/2023 7:24 PM
47
There are enough trails already without taking away from roads
1/4/2023 7:17 PM
48
Not to spend money on this project, if you do, reduce it. This was a mess In Seattle made
traffic and accidents worse, and was not used due to hills and weather. It is too hot most of the
year to safely bike.
1/4/2023 6:56 PM
49
Less mileage.
1/4/2023 6:52 PM
50
I am not interested in either of these. I walk and bike plenty as weather permits but it's too
damn hot here for anything but driving at least six months out of the year.
1/4/2023 6:45 PM
51
More local and affordable businesses along the 32nd St corridor.
1/4/2023 6:37 PM
52
N/A
1/4/2023 6:33 PM
53
Clean up the homeless Street people problem, so we will feel safer to walk the streets
1/4/2023 6:30 PM
54
Parks, definitely not to work.
1/4/2023 6:19 PM
55
None. I can walk and bike fine as is.
1/4/2023 6:18 PM
56
I don’t agree with this plan.
1/4/2023 6:18 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
4 / 36
57
Get homeless out of underpasses and tunnels.
1/4/2023 5:59 PM
58
I’m not. Nobody is. We are a sprawling, spread out city. Not a congested communist pit you
desire is to be.
1/4/2023 5:57 PM
59
Clean up the homeless population
1/4/2023 5:50 PM
60
More trails.
1/4/2023 5:46 PM
61
None
1/4/2023 5:39 PM
62
No
1/4/2023 5:35 PM
63
more convenient businesses
1/4/2023 5:31 PM
64
More parks to walk or bike to
1/4/2023 5:22 PM
65
To hot for walking and riding a bike!
1/4/2023 5:12 PM
66
Give them designated areas to operate and prioritize motor vehicle traffic in high density areas.
1/4/2023 5:11 PM
67
consistent sidewalks- there are a lot of spots that randomly end or are in bad condition. Same
goes for bike lanes. Also, additional trees for shade and lighting for night time.
1/4/2023 5:11 PM
68
Not interested
1/4/2023 5:08 PM
69
Most interested in getting to my destination in my automobile!
1/4/2023 5:06 PM
70
It’s fine how it is.
1/4/2023 5:05 PM
71
Lower taxes so fewer work hours would be necessary to pay bills
1/4/2023 5:00 PM
72
Republicans in office
1/4/2023 4:57 PM
73
If people want to bike more they can move back to CA.
1/4/2023 4:54 PM
74
Having more trains or some of train-like specific transportation, so that walking and biking
would be a realistic and accessible approach. Doing all of these city wide improvements that
focus on bike and pedestrian safety only work so well when you can't get to other parts of the
city due to how expansive Phoenix is
1/4/2023 8:44 AM
75
More trees and more bicycling infrastructure
1/3/2023 11:16 AM
76
no
1/2/2023 5:29 PM
77
Protected bicycle infrastructure including solidly separated bike lanes like in Salt Lake City or
at the very least flex delineators on major corridors.
Additionally I walk a lot and the need for
HAWKs or just anything to slow down drivers is critical. I also would like more shade
especially in the summer, but the bigger threat to my life is drivers who do not think they have
to stop for pedestrians.
12/29/2022 7:13 PM
78
Sidewalks
12/29/2022 1:40 PM
79
Improve intersection signals, many do not have a bicycle/pedestrian interface. Focus on the
current users and what significant gaps they see in the infrastructure. /there are large safety
gaps that currently exist that are not being addressed by this plan or other current
processes/projects
12/29/2022 10:49 AM
80
Buffered lanes with shade
12/26/2022 8:00 AM
81
Slower speed limits and off street paths
12/21/2022 10:04 PM
82
Access to retail with Shaded sidewalks on streets with slower traffic.
12/17/2022 7:55 AM
83
Protected bike lanes, better connectivity, and improvements at intersections. Visibility isn’t
enough, cars NEED to be slowed down.
12/16/2022 6:03 PM
84
Better-connected routes, slower car traffic
12/15/2022 4:02 PM
85
Dedicated bike lanes that are protected.
12/14/2022 3:19 PM
86
Shaded walkways and fully protected bike lanes
12/13/2022 8:43 PM
87
More sidewalks (many areas do not have sidewalks or the sidewalks suddenly end)
Greater
12/12/2022 7:54 AM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
5 / 36
separation between sidewalks and streets (I’m originally from Milwaukee. The streets there
follow this layout: traffic lanes, parked cars, 4ft strip of grass (berm/verge), sidewalk. When I
first moved to Phoenix I was surprised to see that the sidewalks here are right up against fast,
high traffic streets.
More crosswalks Protected bike lanes
Clearly marked bike lanes
Lower
speed limit in residential areas ( the neighborhood I live in has 5 lanes of busy traffic. Walking
along a narrow sidewalk with cars speeding past at 50 mph make me feel unsafe)
Speed limit
enforced with cameras and fines
88
The danger from cars is such a big risk, I find myself driving embarrassingly short distances
because there is no way to safely cross the 6 lane stroad that separates me from the drug
store or convenience store, etc. I used to love walking with my kids before we lived in
Phoenix, but now our routes are very limited thanks to the car danger. Cars do not stop in
marked crosswalks here, especially not on arterial roads. They also generally block the
crosswalk at intersections and don't seem to look for pedestrians before turning on red. It is
not physically possible to cross 6 lanes of traffic with small children during a gap in traffic. If
there were those boulevard-style islands in the middle of the road at more places, it would give
us a more protected place to wait for all the cars speeding through the crosswalk while we
stand in the middle of the road and wait for another break in traffic. More access points and
water crossings over the wash/canal trails would make them a more practical option for
traveling safely while on bike or on foot too. Also I would love to see traffic lights give
pedestrians that 2 second head start before any car traffic lanes get the green, since that
seems to make pedestrians slightly more visible.
12/11/2022 6:34 PM
89
Sidewalks! My neighborhood for whatever reason doesn't have them. I would get out more with
the kids, walk
12/8/2022 1:21 PM
90
More protected bike lanes, more sidewalks, more shaded sidewalks, beautification of walls
with murals from local muralists, more street facing retail shops
12/8/2022 1:06 PM
91
Reduced speed. Increased education for drivers, bikers, and walkers. Enforcement.
12/8/2022 12:50 PM
92
More HAWKs and bike lanes.
12/8/2022 11:56 AM
93
Upgrade existing bicycle lanes; add new bicycle lanes where feasible.
12/8/2022 6:30 AM
94
Protected bike lanes, water stations on bike paths.
12/7/2022 2:27 PM
95
Safer, more abundant infrastructure for pedestrians and biking. Auto lane reductions and
controlling traffic through better street design.
12/6/2022 4:02 PM
96
Definitely interested in biking more, as I’m an avid road cyclist. The city needs more cycling
infrastructure like protected lanes, but we also need to educate drivers on the rights of
cyclists. Not a day goes by that I don’t have some motorist try to run me off the road or
scream at me for NOT riding on the sidewalk.
12/6/2022 3:46 PM
97
More protected lanes and slower vehicle speed limits
12/6/2022 2:27 PM
98
Less emphasis on accommodating cars, stricter policing on cars for blowing stop lights, rolling
through stop signs, etc. more designated bike lanes and safer pedestrian crossings.
12/6/2022 10:49 AM
99
Bicyclists are a hazard to motorists
12/6/2022 7:31 AM
100
more green space to make commuting paths cooler in the summer months
12/6/2022 4:05 AM
101
protected bike lanes, safer bike parking,
12/5/2022 10:46 PM
102
safe paths that are blocked off from cars. Stoplights that allow for fast crossing. Paths that
have appropriate tree coverage so the path stays cool.
12/5/2022 9:35 PM
103
cycling paths AWAY from traffic
12/5/2022 8:03 PM
104
Better/more bike infrastructure.
12/5/2022 5:59 PM
105
I want low-level, easy routes where I know there will consistently by safe ways to cross big
streets, shade, etc. There's a lot of changes I would like to see, but the thing that would make
the biggest difference for both biking and walking is tons more HAWK crosswalks.
12/5/2022 4:06 PM
106
Walking. More Rapid/Express Transit to get me places where I don't need my car. Rapid transit
to downtown Phoenix is great and it would be great to take it other places beyond DTPHX and
not only during rush hour.
12/5/2022 2:58 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
6 / 36
107
I'm more a cyclist than a walker. Cars remain my biggest concern on a bicycle - too many
distracted drivers and too many disrespectful drivers (those that intentionally intimidate
cyclists with their cars) remain primary blockers to my cycling more for transportation than for
fitness/fun.
12/5/2022 1:33 PM
108
Develop inclusivity of safety, addressing barriers for people on wheelchairs, timing of street
crossing lights, pavement condition on streets at crosswalks, transition of pavement at
crosswalks (bulked), impose violation fees for the hundreds of rental scooters just left blocking
on sidewalks. A new problem too is the tents being installed by the homeless on sidewalks.
12/5/2022 7:26 AM
109
More zebra painted cross walks, speed bumps through newer neighborhoods, multi purpose
buildings (retail on bottom, living space above); have bus stops closer together
12/5/2022 12:46 AM
110
reduced speed limits in pedestrian areas
12/4/2022 8:15 PM
111
more protected bike lanes, or at least more buffered bike lanes. lower speed limits for motor
vehicles on streets with just bike lanes or no bike lanes. Better signage fir existing bike
infrastructure. Overall more protection for cyclists and pedestrians, stronger enforcement of
motor vehicle speed limits.
12/4/2022 7:40 PM
112
More shade and improvements in safety infrastructure
12/4/2022 7:09 PM
113
Less interaction with motorized vehicles is required as Scottsdale has done with underpasses
so bikers are not hit by vehicles.
12/4/2022 3:47 PM
114
Real bike lanes with a barrier between car traffic lanes and the bike lane, not just a painted
line. More no right on red restrictions at intersections. More sidewalks that are kept in better
condition.
12/4/2022 10:35 AM
115
Protected bike/walking lanes along major roads
12/3/2022 3:40 PM
116
I walk more than I bike. My neighborhood has people parking on the sidewalk. Children going
to school and others walking have to go out in the street to get past vehicle’s parked on the
sidewalk.
12/3/2022 8:54 AM
117
More protected bike paths and more shade on side walks
12/3/2022 7:51 AM
118
There needs to be more of an incentive to walk. I live 10 minutes away from a Walgreens and
would love to walk there, but I always choose to drive. Walking is not only dangerous, but also
very uncomfortable. I can't have conversations during my walk, I have to use the same route
as the cars, and there is no shade or barriers to protect me from danger. I recommend having
seperate walking/biking paths that pedestrians can use to get where they are going. These
paths would prioritize pedestrians and allow a comforting experience to travel or to just hang
out.
12/3/2022 7:38 AM
119
Protected infrastructure, as long as there is a physical and immovable barrier I will feel safer
walking (add STRONG, IMMOVABLE bollards) or cycling (add jersey barriers to test routes or
separate with plants/shade trees). I think road's need to go on diets and make it so people
don't feel free to go as fast as possible just because the width of the road tricks their minds
into thinking "it's ok because it's like a freeway" Central Ave needs a diet from the very south
to the very north.
12/2/2022 9:18 PM
120
Safer street crossings, more bike lanes, smarter bike lanes connecting residential to
businesses and commercial, otherwise where are we biking? More RED LIGHT CAMERAS.
12/2/2022 2:46 PM
121
Continue detached sidewalks. Have more safe ways across freeways.
12/2/2022 1:17 PM
122
Lower enforced speeds, speed cameras, traffic light cameras, total ban on right turn on red,
bike parking facilities, and protected bike lanes.
12/2/2022 1:08 PM
123
Enforce traffic laws for cars. Speeding. Red light running. Driving in bike lanes. Running
through HAWKs. Ignoring stop signs. I never see traffic stops, and there is no camera
enforcement.
12/2/2022 1:04 PM
124
Bikers act as if they own the road rather than sharing with cars - bikers on central Avenue
make rush hour impossible and yet they are struggling to bike up the road, get some practice
in and attempt to keep up with the flow of traffic rather than crawling along and swerving
around in the lane so that cars cannot pass through
12/2/2022 8:17 AM
125
Protected Bike Lanes and Safer Road Crossings.
12/2/2022 6:46 AM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
7 / 36
126
car-free roads
12/2/2022 12:53 AM
127
I am very interested in both when temps are acceptable. Shaded buffered bike and bed paths.
I think they are called multi use pathways.
12/1/2022 9:34 PM
128
I am interested in walking more than biking. I would like more shaded sidewalks. I would rather
drive than ride a bicycle
12/1/2022 9:22 PM
129
Shaded pedestrian walkways, or, at the very least, shade structures or trees placed on the
corners of the busiest intersections, where pedestrians often have to wait for long periods while
they wait for the traffic lights to cycle through.
Protected bike lines are the single most
effective option for encouraging more biking.
12/1/2022 8:50 PM
130
Biking more, where safer side streets are used. Walking more if there were more shade
walking to and from Light Rail or bus stops.
12/1/2022 6:34 PM
131
protected bike lanes where I bike
12/1/2022 3:35 PM
132
Completion of Colter Street bike lanes to provide a safe east/west alternative route; Improved
safety at the canal crossing at 40th & Camelback; Improvements to overpass bridges such as
at Campbell to make them more bicycle friendly; Enforcement of no loitering/homeless in
underground tunnels and bridges - (this is very expensive infrastructure and not the place for
this/creates safety concerns for users); Paved multi-use path or bike lane on Lincoln from 24th
to 32nd Street; Connecting the uptown area to the 3rd/5th Ave bike lanes to create a safe route
all the way through to downtown.
12/1/2022 3:20 PM
133
Protected bike lanes, consistent cleaning of debris from bike lanes
12/1/2022 2:57 PM
134
More protected bike lanes, traffic calming, safer pedestrian/bike crossings.
12/1/2022 2:45 PM
135
be less hot outside
12/1/2022 2:17 PM
136
Protected Bike/Pedestrian Lanes
Ped/bike bridges
Bike paths
12/1/2022 12:32 PM
137
Protected bike infrastructure, lowered speed limits, protected crossings — and
ENFORCEMENT. I cannot stress how important enforcement is to making changes such as
these work. If people can park in bike lanes with impunity, speed with no consequences and
place pedestrians in danger without repercussions
12/1/2022 12:11 PM
138
Real traffic enforcement, lower speed limits, red light cameras. Literally everything is needed.
12/1/2022 12:10 PM
139
Protected Bike lanes, wider sidewalks, MORE SHADE, traffic calming
12/1/2022 11:53 AM
140
Protected, separate bike lanes are the absolute biggest thing preventing me from cycling more
in Phoenix. After that shade and drainage would be a priority as well, as well improvements to
the existing trails, the canal trails in particular, they could really use more lighting and paved
routes.
12/1/2022 11:15 AM
141
Lower driving speed limits, fewer car lanes, and barriers between lanes.
12/1/2022 9:58 AM
142
more efficient light rail, established protected bike lane network, more shade for walking
12/1/2022 1:11 AM
143
Protected bike lanes, more public transit, less priority of cars in the city
11/30/2022 11:31 PM
144
i wish there was less noise and air pollution and it was less hostile to be outside without being
in a car
11/30/2022 9:57 PM
145
Safety. Too many criminal transients and drug addicts to safely walk or ride
11/30/2022 9:35 PM
146
walking, separation barriers between cars and pedestrians/bikers
11/30/2022 6:45 PM
147
Decrease homelessness so streets are safe and bikes don’t keep getting stolen. Expand
sidewalks so they aren’t only big enough for a single person at a time. Enforce traffic rules in
high density areas.
11/30/2022 6:23 PM
148
More interested in biking because everything is so far apart for walking in a lot of phoenix.
11/30/2022 6:06 PM
149
More continuous bike lanes, we have a lot of forgotten lanes where they just randomly end,
how can we contribute and report these? Sometimes it seems like there's such a disconnect
between our bike lanes and people that actually ride bikes, that's not a blanket statement, we
have some great routes but we also have some weird ones that could use a little help.
More
11/30/2022 3:16 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
8 / 36
guarded bike lanes and buffered bike lanes, the 15th ave buffered addition is great, the
Fillmore addition is lovely, the 3/5th additions are great. Better routes on quieter streets, there's
no business having a bike lane on 16th, invest in 12th st. and the related lower vehicular traffic
routes. The major through streets are always going to have higher speed limits which I know is
hard to reduce or get people to comply with, invest the streets that'll work instead of trying to
bend the major streets to work.
150
Protected bike lanes! Sharrows and bike lanes next to street parking are even more dangerous
than having nothing at all. They give newer riders false confidence and can lead to more
accidents. The priority NEEDS to be on protected bike lanes.
11/30/2022 1:54 PM
151
Road Diets, Reducing Speed Limits Citywide, Reducing traffic lanes and utilizing them for
buffered bike lanes and/or extend curbs and widen sidewalks to create raised protected bike
lanes which improve safety, reduce accidents and ensure accessibility for everyone. Lane
conversion allows for additional area for shade trees or shade structures, increased public
transportation, and economic benefits all while improving traffic, not adding to it.
11/30/2022 11:49 AM
152
Have you heard of Sunday Parkways in Portland, OR? Community events like that!
11/30/2022 11:47 AM
153
Separated/protected bike lanes, and bike crossing signals. I use the bike lane traveling west
on Oak St to 3rd St, and I'm not sure how to safely turn south onto 3rd Street. There's no bike
signal or stop sign for oncoming 2-way traffic. Luckily traffic has been light the times I was
there but it makes me wary of biking there in the future. Also, the 3rd/5th Ave bike lanes were
full of debris from cars running into/over the barriers and breaking them.
11/30/2022 11:42 AM
154
Road diets, protected bike lanes, speed enforcement, improved pedestrian crossing (i.e.
delayed left turn arrows, no turns on red).
11/30/2022 9:11 AM
155
Unfortunately there is not much I can walk to in my area. The newest business about to be
added nearby is a used car dealership on McDowell near 41st Place, which the zoning will be
changed to accommodate if the project is approved. So I would say that part of the larger
picture is what zoning changes the city is approving. There's very little to walk to near me,
including all along McDowell (which has lots of car washes, tire shops, etc.), and this zoning
change will likely have a negative effect for many years to come, as I don't think restaurants,
coffee shops, etc. will be eager to place themselves near something like a car dealership that
doesn't draw in any pedestrians or neighbors. This is obviously a larger conversation beyond
the active transportation plan. Additionally, McDowell Road from 40th Street to 44th Street
(which is the closest area to my home) appears to be one of the worst stretches of road in the
area for traffic fatalities/serious injuries (9 in the last 5 years based on city data), so it doesn't
feel like a great area to walk around. Two other stretches of McDowell west of me (before you
reach downtown) are also hot points. Overall, McDowell could use some improvement when it
comes to safety and also zoning/development.
I do very much enjoy walking when I'm able to
do so! Particularly when visiting Downtown Phoenix, where I feel safe getting around on foot. I
find that cars are more likely to be looking for pedestrians than cyclists. And because as a
pedestrian I am grade-separated from cars, it feels much safer.
I love biking and now get
around primarily by e-bike. The biggest hurdles to biking are the lack of safe
infrastructure/necessity to ride close to fast-moving traffic, dominant car culture/aggressive
attitude towards cyclists, and also lack of shade (especially May to September). I try to
choose the best routes but there aren't always great options. Commuting all around town, I'd
say my least favorite stretch of road I have to use regularly is 40th Street between McDowell
and Camelback, as it has about 7,000 cars per day (according to data from 2015) and the bike
lane is narrow and unprotected, with most cars driving over 40mph. I don't feel super safe on
this route but try to reassure myself that only 3% of car/bike crashes happen in bike lanes
(based on 2019 city data).
11/29/2022 11:21 PM
156
More safe routes to destinations that I actually want to go to
11/29/2022 9:21 PM
157
More infrastructure for safe and wide enough bike lanes through popularly ridden streets. Also,
for the lanes to remain clear of debris.
11/29/2022 6:35 PM
158
For walking - more shaded sidewalks. More sidewalks in general. And more shops and
restaurants in walking distance to my home.
For biking - I am scared to bike because drivers
in Phoenix are fast and aggressive.
11/29/2022 4:46 PM
159
Vegetation barriers between cars and pedestrians/cyclists would make the streets much more
walker/biker friendly while trees could provide shade and better air quality.
11/29/2022 4:10 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
9 / 36
Q3
What is your most important active transportation priority  (i.e., more
sidewalks, safer roadway crossings, protected bicycle facilities, etc.)? 
Answered: 164
Skipped: 16
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
safer roadway crossings, protected bicycle lanes, road bollards to discourage 4-wheeled
vehicle operations and increase pedestrian confidence
1/16/2023 12:25 PM
2
Safety, convenience, accessibility
1/8/2023 6:17 PM
3
How about maintaining the sidewalks and protected bike lane we have now? And attached
sidewalks on arterial roads is unacceptable. More of the same isn't getting us anywhere to
vision zero goals.
1/8/2023 10:54 AM
4
Wider lanes for automobiles, traffic laws enforced for bicycles
1/8/2023 7:51 AM
5
Make driving a car in Phoenix more difficult
1/7/2023 1:16 PM
6
More busses, bus stops, wheelchair access in bike paths
1/6/2023 6:56 PM
7
N/A
1/6/2023 4:05 PM
8
Better roads
1/6/2023 3:36 PM
9
Better public transportation
More police presence at crosswalks to arrest drivers who don't
yield to pedestrians
1/6/2023 3:10 PM
10
Safer sidewalks
1/6/2023 2:33 PM
11
More sidewalks
1/6/2023 1:24 PM
12
Fix the damn roads you currently have.
1/6/2023 1:22 PM
13
Repair existing streets . Reduce light rail funding
1/6/2023 10:12 AM
14
Keep existing sidewalks clear of debris (rocks, plants, garbage)
1/6/2023 8:30 AM
15
Putting these recreational uses in other places that don’t interfere with roads.
1/5/2023 9:49 PM
16
N/A
1/5/2023 9:40 PM
17
Traffic lights synched for vehicles and more pull out lanes for buses
1/5/2023 9:18 PM
18
Driving a vehicle
1/5/2023 8:51 PM
19
Street repairs for auto transportation
1/5/2023 8:39 PM
20
Safer roadway crossings
1/5/2023 7:18 PM
21
My most important, active transportation priority is being able to drive where I want without
excessive traffic
1/5/2023 6:47 PM
22
Phoenix has a great layout of sidewalks and bike paths that are already very underutilized. It is
very hot here in the summer months and we rarely see people walking or biking. “Safer” bike
paths will not increase usage and will be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
1/5/2023 6:02 PM
23
I think Phoenix is already well structured and the existing walking paths and bike lanes don't
see that much activity. Adding more is nothing but a waste of tax dollars.
1/5/2023 6:00 PM
24
Crosswalk safety is vitally important. Many intersections are poorly lit and motorists enter
crosswalks, not seeing pedestrians attempting to cross.
1/5/2023 4:47 PM
25
More sidewalks.
1/5/2023 3:20 PM
26
Protected bike lanes would make it safer for bikers and walkers alike
1/5/2023 3:02 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
10 / 36
27
Safer bike routes
1/5/2023 1:58 PM
28
Do not restrict car lanes. It will achieve only congestion and more smog.
1/5/2023 1:44 PM
29
Safer crossings
1/5/2023 11:22 AM
30
Safer Roadway Crossings
1/5/2023 11:08 AM
31
More car lanes
1/5/2023 8:55 AM
32
Lowering speed limits
1/5/2023 8:37 AM
33
Sidewalks sidewalks sidewalks
1/5/2023 7:28 AM
34
Protected bike facilities
1/5/2023 6:18 AM
35
Actual streets. For driving.
1/5/2023 6:12 AM
36
Less traffic. So if this is something that will influence traffic in a negative way then we need to
circle back and think when this would be utilized. An example would be it will be utilized more
in fall and winter.
1/4/2023 11:44 PM
37
Increase number of lanes for cars. Build sidewalks. Bicycles are for spandex wearing chumps!
1/4/2023 11:38 PM
38
Repair Phx highways, too many pot holes, it’s worse than ever. Bike lanes are a WASTE of
taxpayer dollars, invest in electric car charging stations instead.
1/4/2023 10:27 PM
39
Protected bine lanes
1/4/2023 9:29 PM
40
Safer roadway for vehicles
1/4/2023 9:28 PM
41
Protected bike lanes
1/4/2023 8:36 PM
42
more sidewalks with integrated bike path
I would also like to see the heat level lowered by
painting streets and roof tops white
1/4/2023 8:31 PM
43
More lanes for cars
1/4/2023 8:24 PM
44
Cost and usage effectiveness
1/4/2023 8:07 PM
45
No traffic
1/4/2023 8:06 PM
46
More lanes for cars. Almost no one bikes. There is already a serious traffic issue in the
Phoenix area. Are you seriously considering CLOSING vehicle lanes?!?
1/4/2023 7:44 PM
47
Updating & expanding infrastructure to accommodate growth in the valley and the fact that
people are having to move further out for affordability. Our roads and highways are already
congested, fix that, not complicate a system that cannot handle current conditions.
1/4/2023 7:26 PM
48
N/A
1/4/2023 7:24 PM
49
Efficient and sufficient roadway space to handle car traffic
1/4/2023 7:17 PM
50
Safe road crossings in areas with high accident rates
1/4/2023 6:56 PM
51
Timed red lights.
1/4/2023 6:52 PM
52
Driving lanes.
1/4/2023 6:45 PM
53
Safer roadway crossings
1/4/2023 6:37 PM
54
Easy, unimpeded and well-managed flow of traffic and bikes/pedestrians
1/4/2023 6:33 PM
55
More sidewalks
1/4/2023 6:30 PM
56
More expressways, more sidewalks, more traffic lanes.
1/4/2023 6:26 PM
57
Better roads, more lanes and separated bike lanes
1/4/2023 6:19 PM
58
None
1/4/2023 6:18 PM
59
Please leave the roads alone.
1/4/2023 6:18 PM
60
None. We don’t need to waste money on this stuff. There are higher properties such as
homelessness etc
1/4/2023 5:59 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
11 / 36
61
Less vehicle traffic.
1/4/2023 5:57 PM
62
Safer better maintained roadways and crossings
1/4/2023 5:51 PM
63
Trying to get around the homeless camps
1/4/2023 5:50 PM
64
Safe roads.
1/4/2023 5:46 PM
65
Mone
1/4/2023 5:39 PM
66
Avoiding do gooder efforts that only further ensnarl traffic so people can feel good about
themselves while harming the greater mass of commuters
1/4/2023 5:35 PM
67
more courteous drivers - nothing that involves any expenditure
1/4/2023 5:31 PM
68
More diving lanes for cars. Rush hour congestion is ridiculous. How can such a new city have
such bad traffic?
1/4/2023 5:22 PM
69
Safer roadways better street surfaces!
1/4/2023 5:12 PM
70
Less motor vehicle congestion.
1/4/2023 5:11 PM
71
more, and wider, sidewalks
1/4/2023 5:11 PM
72
Better roadways
1/4/2023 5:09 PM
73
Safer roads for vehicles. There's almost no bicycle travel. This will cause congestion, angry
motorists, and more accidents.
1/4/2023 5:08 PM
74
Available motor vehicle lanes
1/4/2023 5:06 PM
75
Most interested in getting to my destination in my automobile!
1/4/2023 5:06 PM
76
More sidewalks are fine.
1/4/2023 5:05 PM
77
Less homelessness and crime around light rail stops
1/4/2023 5:00 PM
78
Less traffic not more
1/4/2023 4:57 PM
79
Stop the building in metro Phoenix.
1/4/2023 4:54 PM
80
Trains; Our city is expanding at a rapid rate that cannot be sustained by adding lanes on
roads. If Phoenix wants a realistic and active transportation strategy that can be easily
accessible to all while still cutting down on congestion and pollution then some form of train
transport needs to be considered. Whether that be trolley/street car, and/or a high speed
commuter train that runs in the median between freeways. Ultimately less cars on the road
means a more pedestrian and bike friendly city as it means safer sidewalks and bicycle lanes.
Especially when in 2020 AZ had the 6th highest pedestrian fatality rate in the country. We are
not a pedestrian friendly city, because we do not offer an effective public transit system that
works throughout the city.
1/4/2023 8:44 AM
81
Less money towards car-centric roads and more money towards tree shade and bicycle
infrastructure
1/3/2023 11:16 AM
82
none
1/2/2023 5:29 PM
83
Frequent crossing points for pedestrians and bicyclists. It's not a system safe for us if we
have to walk or bike a mile out of our way to go anywhere.
12/29/2022 7:13 PM
84
More sidewalks
12/29/2022 1:40 PM
85
Updating current roadways that have no sidewalk or bike lanes.
12/29/2022 10:49 AM
86
Crossings
12/26/2022 8:00 AM
87
Safer roadways
12/21/2022 10:04 PM
88
Safer sidewalks with shade and slower traffic.
12/17/2022 7:55 AM
89
Safer roadway crossings is most important for saving lives.
12/16/2022 6:03 PM
90
Protected bicycle facilities, more shade
12/15/2022 4:02 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
12 / 36
91
Protected sidewalks, bike paths, and parallel parking to be a buffer for restaurants on 7th
street from Mcdowell to Thomas.
12/14/2022 3:19 PM
92
Protected bike lanes
12/13/2022 8:43 PM
93
My greatest priority is safety, such as safer sidewalks and bike lanes.
12/12/2022 7:54 AM
94
Safer crosswalks
12/11/2022 6:34 PM
95
Sidewalks
12/8/2022 1:21 PM
96
Protected bicycle paths
12/8/2022 1:06 PM
97
Speed reduction. Cushion space between sidewalks and roads. Travel safety education.
12/8/2022 12:50 PM
98
Safer crossings
12/8/2022 11:56 AM
99
Protected bicycle lanes
12/8/2022 6:30 AM
100
Protected bike lanes, bike cages or lockers.
12/7/2022 2:27 PM
101
Bike facilities accessible for all ages and abilities.
12/6/2022 4:02 PM
102
More bike lanes.
12/6/2022 3:46 PM
103
Slower vehicle speed limits and improved bicycle/pedestrian crossings at intersections
12/6/2022 2:27 PM
104
Safer roadway crossings and protected bike lanes
12/6/2022 10:49 AM
105
police enforcement of traffic laws
12/6/2022 7:31 AM
106
actions that promote bicycle commuting
12/6/2022 4:05 AM
107
protected bike lanes
12/5/2022 10:46 PM
108
protected bike lanes and favorable crossings
12/5/2022 9:35 PM
109
shade spots and protected cycling paths
12/5/2022 8:03 PM
110
protected bike infrastructure
12/5/2022 5:59 PM
111
HAWK crosswalks. They would be most useful if we designed them thoughtfully to form
consistent routes to walk on small neighborhood streets.
12/5/2022 4:06 PM
112
Safer roadway crossings
12/5/2022 2:58 PM
113
Protected cycling lanes and paved, maintained, improved greenway/canal paths.
12/5/2022 1:33 PM
114
All of the above mentioned as part of question.
12/5/2022 7:26 AM
115
All of it!!
12/5/2022 12:46 AM
116
pedestrian safety
12/4/2022 8:15 PM
117
Protected bike lanes—separate bicycles and pedestrians from high speed motor vehicles.
12/4/2022 7:40 PM
118
more sideways and scenic walks, safer roadway crossings and intersections.
12/4/2022 7:20 PM
119
Safer roadway crossings and protected bicycle facilities
12/4/2022 7:09 PM
120
Safer crossings, protected right of use.
12/4/2022 3:47 PM
121
safer roadway crossings
12/4/2022 10:35 AM
122
Safer roadway crossings
12/3/2022 11:19 PM
123
Protected bike/walking lanes for safe transportation
12/3/2022 3:40 PM
124
Safer roadway crossings.
12/3/2022 8:54 AM
125
Bike paths
12/3/2022 7:51 AM
126
Not just more sidewalks, but also wider sidewalks. Sidewalks with beautiful trees between
pedestrians and cars to not only protect pedestrians but to beautify the roads/ streets. I see
aggressive driver on the road every day. Many of them run through red light intersections. Red
12/3/2022 7:38 AM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
13 / 36
light cameras are good but there needs to be better infrastructure to not allow cars to reach
fast speeds in the first place. And definitely protected bike lanes. Not just space or cones but
an actual barrier to deincentivise cars from driving where bikes are.
127
Safer road crossings, I see too many oversized trucks ride the curb while turning which can be
deadly to pedestrians waiting for a light change. Ban right on red.
12/2/2022 9:18 PM
128
Protected bike lanes, then red light cameras and safer roadways.
12/2/2022 2:46 PM
129
safer roadway crossings
12/2/2022 1:17 PM
130
Protected bike facilities.
12/2/2022 1:08 PM
131
Slower cars. I avoid some bike lanes because the cars are faster there. For example, 11st in
Garfield and the new Oak Street in Coronado. The side roads are safer because the cars are
slower. The infrastructure doesn't matter until we slow the cars and get motorists to obey the
traffic laws.
12/2/2022 1:04 PM
132
Protected Bike Lanes and Safer Road Crossings.
12/2/2022 6:46 AM
133
Zoning reform to encourage mixed use nearby dense residential shifting focus away from car-
dependency
12/2/2022 12:53 AM
134
I love the canal pathways. I think they should be paved/improved and if we can go UNDER the
roadways instead doing HAWKS to cross, I can really get moving across town. For example
Biltmore to Sun city is 1 hour on my bike. Thats a lot of ground in a short amount of time
because of those canal tunnels.
12/1/2022 9:34 PM
135
More sidewalks, safe roadway crossings.
12/1/2022 9:22 PM
136
Pedestrian improvements, including more sidewalks and pedestrian bridges, more signaled
crosswalks and more shade structures/trees.
12/1/2022 8:50 PM
137
Protected bike facilities and safer crosswalk sites that do not recall a pedestrian to walk half a
mile or more to the next stoplight.
12/1/2022 6:34 PM
138
protected bike lanes, safer roadway crossings and less stupidity and rushing on the part of
automobile drivers!
12/1/2022 3:35 PM
139
Improved bicycle infrastructure - bike lanes and protected bike lanes - in the central
city/uptown area. Connect the Uptown area to the 3rd/5th Ave bicycle improvements to allow a
safe commute all the way downtown.
12/1/2022 3:20 PM
140
Sidewalks AND protected bike lanes
12/1/2022 2:57 PM
141
Safer crossings and more protected bike lanes.
12/1/2022 2:45 PM
142
Safe Cycling Infrustructure
12/1/2022 2:17 PM
143
protected bicycle facilities
12/1/2022 12:32 PM
144
1.) Wider sidewalks, better insulated from traffic. I live on 16th Street, near a commercial node
on Bethany Home and can walk to a lot of amenities. It's not a pleasant walk, nor does it feel
particularly safe (especially with my child) because there's near-highway speed traffic mere
feet away whipping by us on the sidewalk. 2.) Protected bike lanes are a close second for all
the reasons above. If I had a dollar for every time a driver cut me off to get ahead or nearly hit
me because they didn't see (or didn't care), drinks would be on me.
12/1/2022 12:11 PM
145
Increase reliability and scheduling of transit intervals 15 minutes, not 30 minutes. Also, ensure
all buses are equipped with 3 bike rack slots, not 2 (you never know if you're going to work and
will get a slot on the bus as it could be a two racker or a three racker, no uniformity)
12/1/2022 12:10 PM
146
protected bike facilities
12/1/2022 11:53 AM
147
Protected bicycle facilities, protected bicycle lanes, and safer roadway crossings.
12/1/2022 11:15 AM
148
Fewer and narrower car lanes that share space with protected, wider bike lanes and sidewalks.
12/1/2022 9:58 AM
149
safer roadway crossings and more traffic lights downtown for local residents
12/1/2022 1:11 AM
150
Protected bike lanes
11/30/2022 11:31 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
14 / 36
151
all of the above: fewer cars
11/30/2022 9:57 PM
152
Safer area without mentally Ill, criminal transients and drug pushers on the right of ways
11/30/2022 9:35 PM
153
Wider sidewalks
11/30/2022 6:23 PM
154
More sidewalks and safer bicycle facilities. A big reason I don’t bike more places is because I
had a bike stolen and it’s really common here. Obviously there’s a bigger problem of economic
inequality and homelessness, but in the mean time some sort of protected bike racks with
codes or something would be cool. Just an idea not sure how it would work- I would be willing
to pay a small fee for that like a parking monitor
11/30/2022 6:06 PM
155
Protected bicycle routes and facilities
11/30/2022 3:16 PM
156
Protected bicycle facilities, safer crossings, bike boxes, less parking by mixed-use
developments. It's not just about the bikes, all other forms of transportation benefit from better
bike infrastructure.
11/30/2022 1:54 PM
157
Protected Bicycle facilities and a truly connected network, especially in Southwest Phoenix
(estrella & laveen villages)
11/30/2022 11:49 AM
158
Community awareness and participation in active transportation
11/30/2022 11:47 AM
159
protected bicycle facilities
11/30/2022 11:42 AM
160
Protected bicycle facilities, roadway crossings, road diets, lower speed limits + enforcement.
11/30/2022 9:11 AM
161
protected bicycle facilities - whether that's a buffered lane or something safer
11/29/2022 11:21 PM
162
More sidewalks and protected bicycle lanes.
11/29/2022 6:35 PM
163
More sidewalks and shaded sidewalks.
11/29/2022 4:46 PM
164
Shaded sidewalks are very important. Especially in the summer months. Without shade, the
heat can make it unbearable to walk.
11/29/2022 4:10 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
15 / 36
13.33%
24
64.44%
116
22.22%
40
Q4
How familiar are you with the Draft Plan and Plan Elements?
Answered: 180
Skipped: 0
TOTAL
180
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Have not
Reviewed
Somewhat
Familiar
Very Familiar
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Have not Reviewed
Somewhat Familiar
Very Familiar

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
16 / 36
33.89%
61
10.00%
18
5.56%
10
12.22%
22
23.33%
42
5.00%
9
10.00%
18
Q5
How do you feel about the current Draft Plan and Plan Elements?
Answered: 180
Skipped: 0
TOTAL
180
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Strongly
Disapprove
Disapprove
Slightly
Disapprove
Slightly
Approve
Approve
Strongly
Approve
I have not
reviewed the...
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Strongly Disapprove
Disapprove
Slightly Disapprove
Slightly Approve
Approve
Strongly Approve
I have not reviewed the Draft Plan and Plan Elements

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
17 / 36
Q6
Please share your comments on the Draft Plan and Plan Elements. For
example, What do you like about the plan?  What concerns do you have? 
What recommendations do you have?  
Answered: 139
Skipped: 41
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
hi, substituting asphalt, chip seal or tarmac with alternatives like concrete is conspicuously
absent from the plan. A reduction in vehicle speed from traffic calming could make concrete a
viable alternative. This would save the city tons of money on road maintenance.
1/16/2023 12:25 PM
2
I don’t like the idea of making roads smaller and creating “speed Diets” or usage diets. The
roads are congested enough and enough people will not bike, walk, take a bus or train to make
these changes sustainable, to grow the city, nor encourage a healthy lifestyle. I drive around
the city and vary rarely see anyone using any of the bike lanes.
1/8/2023 6:20 PM
3
Section 3 Objective 5 - YES to recommendation 5.2 – pilot use of NACTO city speed limit
guide. Failing to slow cars down is malfeasance. Additionally, education is crucial to explain
speed-related dangers and the proven benefits of lowering speeds. School crossing speed
limits are 15mph with generally high compliance; drivers know slowing down is crucial for
safety, and need to apply this knowledge to all streets.
Section 3 Objective 7 – YES to
recommendation 7.1 – process to include traffic calming in capital improvement projects. The
Streets Department must also consider broad toolkit of self-enforcing design features/traffic
calming beyond just speed humps and speed bumps (see West 5th Street in Tempe between
Hardy and Farmer for an example of effective traffic calming). Recommendation 7.4 must be
moved to medium or near term; we cannot afford to wait a decade on this when our city has so
much ground to make up.
Section 3 Objective 8 - Innovative and thorough community
engagement is critical. Over 100,000 Phoenix households do not own a car. A few hundred out
of 1.6 million people responded to the initial Active Transportation Plan survey. How will
marginalized and vulnerable residents, such as busy working poor people, homeless
constituents and non-English-speaking residents be sought out and included in network
development? Posting a survey link on City social media accounts is not sufficient.
The City
must commit to studying the removal of single-family zoning and minimum parking
requirements in order to make Phoenix more walkable and stop exacerbating the urban heat
island effect, which this plan identifies as a key barrier to active transportation. Collaborate
across departments and get things done.
Appendix A page 5 - 85103/85013 zip code typo
1/8/2023 6:17 PM
4
It doesn't go far enough to really encourage people to replace motor vehicle trips in their
everyday routines.
1/8/2023 10:54 AM
5
The draft plan focuses too much on non-automobile transportation, at the cost of making
driving less safe.
1/8/2023 7:51 AM
6
More protected bike infrastructure, with hard protection, bollards, make the tough choices to
actually make it safer instead of always bowing to cars instead of safety
1/7/2023 1:16 PM
7
Traffic maker, kills bikers, destroys businesses. Waste of money and lives
1/6/2023 6:56 PM
8
Will create too much vehicle traffic.
1/6/2023 4:30 PM
9
Not to move forward with this plan
1/6/2023 4:05 PM
10
Don’t like taking away car lanes.
1/6/2023 1:24 PM
11
No one rides bikes for six months in the summer to commute. Less $ on bike lanes, more $ for
street maintenance.
1/6/2023 10:12 AM
12
My concern is this is a waste of money for a minority of the population, it will bottleneck traffic
(even more than current). As it is I loathe driving in downtown Phx because of light rail
confusion, one way streets etc. Use the money somewhere else like homeless transition
1/6/2023 8:30 AM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
18 / 36
services and supporting our Police Department that are overloaded because of the terrible
border enforcement.
13
The city should stop trying to manipulate behavior to force people out of their cars. People love
their freedom of mobility and unencumbered ability to choose to access a number of
destinations. Stop foisting your anti-car agenda on residents and taxpayers - cars are the
greatest asset to the democratization of the freedom to mobility.
1/5/2023 9:49 PM
14
It’s a ridiculous waste of money. It isn’t complicated to figure out what problems this will cause
with traffic etc. there aren’t enough bicyclists that use this as their main mode of transportation
to work etc. in Phoenix to warrant this, and you know it.
1/5/2023 9:40 PM
15
Phoenix is not laid out to be walkable or bikeable.
1/5/2023 9:18 PM
16
This will make traffic unbearable.
1/5/2023 8:51 PM
17
Repair roadways stop wasting money
1/5/2023 8:39 PM
18
I feel the current plan would back up traffic actually making biking more dangerous
1/5/2023 7:18 PM
19
I am not interested in adding anything to our transportation system that causes more traffic
that gets backed up
1/5/2023 6:47 PM
20
My biggest concern is what a waste of money this will be. We have yet to see any significant
use of the light rail system. Creating these specific lanes will reduce vehicle lanes an could
cause even greater vehicle emissions.
1/5/2023 6:02 PM
21
The roads are well set up to manage traffic loads. Restricting them with the proposed
modifications would be foolish. In the hot summer months, in particular, people will not want to
walk or bike. By decreasing traffic lanes you will cause more traffic backups and increased
emissions.
1/5/2023 6:00 PM
22
I recommend the City give tax incentives to landlords who take in at least one Section 8
recipient, and fund it by delaying the Active Transportation Plan implementation. Our existing
investment in light rail and bus transportation is underutilized because of abandoned mental
patients using them in place of housing. AHCCS can provide continuing care for the mentally
ill, if those peoplw have a home address somewhere. But keeping on a medication schedule
and attending therapy is nearly impossible if one lives on the streets. This increases costs for
AHCCS because patients are re-hospitalized in emergencies but are discharged right back to
the condition of homelessness that interferes with their therapy and recovery. A plan to expand
light rail service across Mesa, through Gilbert, and into developing communities southeast of
the city met opposition this election season, specifically because voters understood that
abandoned mental patients would come into their cities and live homelesa along the route.
Active transit and mass transit will remain underutilized and the capital already invested in
those assets will appear to be a poor investment. The City must solve the problem of patient
abandonment by working with landlords and charitable groups, to see that patients with serious
mental illness have a safe place to live.
1/5/2023 4:47 PM
23
The answer is NOT to make life more difficult for drivers. We live in a desert! People need
cars...not more bike lanes. Anything that causes more traffic congestion (like one lane roads
bc you want to put in useless bike lanes) will cause MORE accidents. Also, bicyclists are
often reckless and ignore traffic laws and cause most accidents. We need more enforcement
and harsher penalties when they don't follow the laws. We also need to prosecute them when
they injure pedestrians.
1/5/2023 3:20 PM
24
We do NOT need to take away car lanes. It is important that people can move about in cars
and by wanting to remove car lanes is dangerous to the future of our city
1/5/2023 3:19 PM
25
I love that it takes a neighborhood approach and considers all types of active transportation
users. My biggest hesitation to biking is that I don't want to ride down arterials like 7th Ave - it
is so scary! It is also scary to walk on those sidewalks. Small measures will make a big
difference.
1/5/2023 3:02 PM
26
I like that it calls out car culture in Phoenix. We need to stop seeing EVs as the solution
(which only add to more cars on the road), and start incentivizing more public transportation
and safer bikeways.
1/5/2023 1:58 PM
27
Ignores the need for easier flow of inevitable auto traffic.
1/5/2023 1:44 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
19 / 36
28
We do not need smaller roadways. We don't need single lanes. We have enough traffic and it
is only getting worse as more people move to AZ.
1/5/2023 11:22 AM
29
I would like to see Skunk Creek be connected in Phoenix to Glendale at the intersection of
51st Ave South of Beardsley. Let's take advantage of the Skunk Creek Riparian from 43rd Ave
all the way to 51st Ave.
1/5/2023 11:08 AM
30
We have cars. Build more car lanes.
1/5/2023 8:55 AM
31
I think the plan will do a lot for the city and making transportation for all safer. I am concerned
on some of the choices in focusing on a small area for overkill projects while neglecting other
less “showy” concerns (ie., a huge bike lane with bollards on 3rd avenue with little traffic but
super thin bike lanes on cave creek with cars traveling at 60+)
1/5/2023 8:37 AM
32
Stop destroying car travel lanes for less used bike lanes. I want a sidewalk to ride my bike on.
1/5/2023 7:28 AM
33
Any reduction to the number of lanes for vehicular traffic would have a negative effect on
overall transportation
1/5/2023 6:18 AM
34
I want to see all public officials ride their bikes as a test program for 1 year and report back on
how they like it. They can not drive anywhere. Not once!
1/5/2023 6:12 AM
35
Typical green new BS. This will increase traffic dramatically and the few who use the bike
lanes will be harassed by vagrants and crime.
1/4/2023 11:38 PM
36
It is not realistic, will cause significant increase in traffic congestion and biking in the city is a
hobby, not a viable mode of daily transportation, especially once temps are above 100
degrees.
1/4/2023 10:27 PM
37
Do not implement this.
1/4/2023 9:28 PM
38
Over all I think it’s a good plan. I’d like to see benchmarks and goals made more concrete but
it’s a good start
1/4/2023 8:36 PM
39
I love the tree/shade Master plan.
1/4/2023 8:31 PM
40
It’s been problematic in other cities, squeezing cars into bumper to bumper single lanes
1/4/2023 8:24 PM
41
Plan is lacking in any actionable detail. Costs, locations, priorities, public safety while using
public transportation, racists and sexist prioritization through equity initiatives.
1/4/2023 8:07 PM
42
Trying to move a large metropolitan center away from a “car-centered culture” can have
problems. Taking away lanes of roads to make metro-rail lanes or bike lanes can increase car
congestion on streets. This will lead to increased traffic and increased idling in high traffic
areas. Which in turn, will lead to MORE carbon emissions. Since part of the goal of the action
plan is to REDUCE carbon emissions, such a result would be counterproductive. The board
and the plan need to balance car travel with active travel, not just focus on active travel. Even
with active travel improvements, many people in Phoenix will still have to trace by car to far
away places (distance was a large barrier to active travel as mentioned in the plan). The Plan
needs to recognize this and focus some of its funds to improving car travel. Also the plan
needs to realize that Phoenicians who live in the “suburbs” will not receive the same benefit
from this program as will those living in high populous places. Any benefits of this plan will
highly favor those living in highly populated neighborhoods of Phoenix.
1/4/2023 8:00 PM
43
There is already a VERY serious traffic issue around Phoenix. Currently there aren't enough
roads for all the vehicles. Traffic is a nightmare! PLEASE DO NOT close any vehicle
lanes!!!!!!!! Do you understand that you will directly affect the increase in driver's rage and
most likely push people to leave Phoenix because of this horrible proposal?!?
1/4/2023 7:44 PM
44
Shared bike lanes impede auto traffic in high use roadways downtown. They result in safety
issues and will make cycle less safe and auto travel less effective.
1/4/2023 7:24 PM
45
Don't do it, quit pushing agenda 2030 at taxpayers expense, for things not highly utilized.
1/4/2023 6:56 PM
46
You're idiots. You can't walk or ride bike 5-6 months out of the year!
1/4/2023 6:52 PM
47
I work downtown. Stop turning driving lanes into anything other than driving lanes!
1/4/2023 6:45 PM
48
Similar plans have been implemented in cities such as Washington DC, and the result has
been clogged streets with bumper-to-bumper traffic. Phoenix is a commuter city and people are
not going to give up their cars. This plan will only cause congestion and frustration. As a
1/4/2023 6:33 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
20 / 36
commuter who lives in the suburbs but is frequently downtown for both work and recreation, I
am against this plan.
49
Streets are congested enough
1/4/2023 6:31 PM
50
The bike lanes that were put in on third Street going towards downtown. Phoenix are unsafe
and confusing. They are just as confusing as the suicide lanes on seventh Street and seventh
Avenue. Furthermore, the confusion mix traffic backed up.
1/4/2023 6:30 PM
51
Please do not replace traffic lanes. Look for ways to implement bicycle lanes only where there
is unused space. This will be a nightmare otherwise.
1/4/2023 6:26 PM
52
It will ruin our roads and create crazy congestion to focus more on biking and walking.
1/4/2023 6:19 PM
53
Please don’t impede in traffic flow for walking and bicycles. There is ample other ways.
1/4/2023 6:18 PM
54
Money could be used for more urgent proposes. Very small percentage of population would
benefit. I’m an avid cyclist and don’t see the need
1/4/2023 5:59 PM
55
This will make vehicle traffic significantly worse, as it has everywhere else.
1/4/2023 5:57 PM
56
Don't need to increase the width of bike right of ways on the streets and reduce area for
vehicles. Need to use surfaces that do not absorb heat to be re-radiated at night creating a
bigger heat island.
1/4/2023 5:51 PM
57
Phoenix is too densely populated to give up traffic lanes. It made Washington DC a mess.
1/4/2023 5:51 PM
58
Please do not reduce the number of vehicle lanes, AT ALL.
1/4/2023 5:46 PM
59
There are not enough bicyclists to enact this policy. It will cause more wrecks and congestion.
I recommend making a bike lane on the sidewalks and more bicycle trails.
1/4/2023 5:46 PM
60
These efforts make things worse in American cities. Just stop.
1/4/2023 5:35 PM
61
I don't like the idea of creating traffic bottlenecks to create bike paths
1/4/2023 5:31 PM
62
I have many concerns with how adding more bike lanes will impede traffic further and increase
traffic accidents and first responder times.
1/4/2023 5:22 PM
63
Better streets!
1/4/2023 5:12 PM
64
I think the City is trying to minimize motor vehicle traffic under the agenda of inclusiveness. If
a proper study was done, one would find that bicyclists rarely stay in their bike lanes.
Removing traffic lanes in what the draft states as the 5th largest and fastest growing city is
inane. The City needs to improve traffic flow for motor vehicles and spend less time worrying
about pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
1/4/2023 5:11 PM
65
The plan will clog up the ability for people to move around in vehicles
1/4/2023 5:09 PM
66
Stop spending my money on this idiocy.
1/4/2023 5:08 PM
67
It lacks insight and a basic understanding of the vastness of the metro area and commuter
needs
1/4/2023 5:06 PM
68
Don't reduce lanes on our streets. I pay taxes for streets to drive on, not to dodge bicycles.
Consider us "old folks" that need to go to the doctor or lawyer. Downtown is already a maze to
navigate with homeless camping on the streets and crapping there, too. Focus our dollars on
cleaning the city, not making more room for "campers".
1/4/2023 5:06 PM
69
This is going to make commuting by vehicle take longer and create more traffic jams.
1/4/2023 5:05 PM
70
Taking traffic lanes away is idiotic
1/4/2023 4:57 PM
71
Do not implement it.
1/4/2023 4:54 PM
72
I like increasing of width of bike lanes and sidewalks. And adding more parking and loading
zones. However, I'm worried that these improvements are only going to affect a small
subsection of the population, and mostly for leisure rather than for accessibility and regular
use.
1/4/2023 8:44 AM
73
The plan is good. But it's yet another plan and the City has put forth plans for more than a
decade, which the streets department ignores. From the Shade Master (2010) to Complete
1/3/2023 11:16 AM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
21 / 36
Streets (2017), it is clear that the streets department leadership is hostile to shifting its focus
from car-centric culture. If the City wants real change on this point, city management needs to
change leadership in streets. It needs personnel that will actively shift the priority and budget
requests from car-centric streets to tree shade and bicycle infrastructure. Until that happens,
I'm afraid this plan that builds on years of other plans, will have as much to show 10 years
from now as we currently have to show for the plans of the last 20 years.
74
The money is being wasted and could be used in better housing for the homeless I do not live
in Phoenix but my tax dollars are being used.
1/2/2023 5:29 PM
75
There is a lot of good in the plan and I won't go into detail on that for the sake of time but know
that it is passable. The issue is that Phoenix is so hostile in its design toward pedestrians and
bicyclists that stronger action is required.
Anticipatory warrants should be a short term action
and we should be actively designing our streets to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists instead
of reacting to their deaths. There is no reason this shouldn't be a short term goal.
When
Phoenix for instance allows parking in bike lanes, it is clear who the city prefers. The city has
bent over backwards to make every aspect of life convenient for motorists while at the same
time endangering the lives of cyclists and pedestrians throughout the city.
The success of this
plan is entirely dependent on the rollout of quickbuild plans. This is not enough to say that
Phoenix should be a multimodal city. That has been done time and time again. The metric of
success is the deployment of concrete protected bicycle infrastructure and frequent, safe
pedestrian crossings. Protected intersections should be the norm. And the irony is while we
have done a somewhat better job at the basics with Complete Streets in the exurban villages
due to the new builds, it is still not enough as those are largely rural roads that still encourage
speeding and dangerous driving behaviors.
12/29/2022 7:13 PM
76
More sidewalks
12/29/2022 1:40 PM
77
The timeline and scope is completely unacceptable and it does very little to address current
safety issues. This plan does very little to close gaps. I appreciate the effort, but it doesn’t
even bring Phoenix to the same level as Scottsdale is already at.
12/29/2022 10:49 AM
78
Enhance and build on existing plans
12/26/2022 8:00 AM
79
Too long for laypeople to read, implementation will take too long.
12/15/2022 4:02 PM
80
Get as many urban designers on board as possible.
12/14/2022 3:19 PM
81
I like the focus on creating urban villages.
12/12/2022 7:54 AM
82
I love everything that's included so far. Although I think more traffic calming measures are
needed in general. I wish that turn lanes that serve no purpose (ie in areas where there's no
place to physically turn in either direction for 100s of yards) could be replaced with islands. It
would calm traffic by reducing the perception that the roads are wide enough for extreme
speeds, it could give pedestrians a place shelter from cars in crosswalks, and you could even
plant some trees to reduce the heat island effect -- it's a win all around, at least in my opinion
:)
12/11/2022 6:34 PM
83
I like the direction. Need more beautification points
12/8/2022 1:06 PM
84
HIN criteria too narrow and thus missing many areas of the city where accidents occur.
12/8/2022 12:50 PM
85
I believe the plan is well developed and comprehensive.
12/8/2022 6:30 AM
86
I am very encouraged by some improvements and plans for the Central Avenue light rail and
pedestrian/bike bridge near central. I commute from west Mesa to downtown and can get most
of the way safely by bicycle. This will allow a complete trip without encountering much auto
traffic, if any.
12/7/2022 2:27 PM
87
The plan timeline is way too long. People are dying on the streets of our city due to poor
infrastructure and street design. We can afford to wait any longer on improvements. Please
prioritize people’s lives and do it as soon as possible.
12/6/2022 4:02 PM
88
Need more bike lanes on major streets to encourage cycling.
12/6/2022 3:46 PM
89
In your report, you indicate that 2.5% of crashes involve pedestrians, but are 46% of fatalities.
On the same page you indicate 21% of KSIs are speed related. Why, then, are you indicating
on page 37 that you are going to apply equal behavioral enforcement to both drivers and
12/6/2022 2:27 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
22 / 36
pedestrians/cyclists (both segments will see 12x/year targeted enforcement)? I would like to
see significantly more driver enforcement considering the outcomes of driver-related behavior.
90
I like the emphasis on improving safety! I’d take it a step further and honestly start shrinking
road sizes and creating more bike lanes.
12/6/2022 10:49 AM
91
I like the focus on prioritizing historically marginalized communities, and the acknowledgement
that car culture is a prohibitive factor in making Phoenix more sustainable. I wonder how bus
and light rail systems could better support cyclists and pedestrians.
12/6/2022 4:05 AM
92
Please build more bike lanes, specifically connecting central phoenix to south phoenix. There
are no safe ways to ride south
12/5/2022 10:46 PM
93
Faster implementation
12/5/2022 9:35 PM
94
I was hoping to discuss the pathway along the Salt Water River from around Central going east
into Tempe. It's away from traffic which is wonderful but need lights for night use. And
homeless prevention under bridges please.
12/5/2022 8:03 PM
95
Painted bike gutters are not safe. Eliminate that 3 feet of asphalt, bring the curb out to the
motor vehicle lanes, and make the bike paths grade separated from the roadway.
12/5/2022 5:59 PM
96
I think the plan would be more impactful if it included more specificity, particularly with regard
to cost and funding sources.
12/5/2022 4:06 PM
97
It would be great to separate more bike lanes from driving lanes, possibly off roads all together
12/5/2022 2:58 PM
98
Yes, we need to make facilities better for carless households, but relying too much on "equity"
as a focus for areas of improvement, and not taking into account those most likely to utilize
those improvements isn't appropriate.
12/5/2022 1:33 PM
99
Just learned of the Draft Plan, a quick scan shows great plans and improvements needed for
our City to encourage people to seek alternative methods of transportation for work and leisure.
But there is missing inclusion of the wheelchair user population who depend on their devices
as mode of transportation.
12/5/2022 7:26 AM
100
N/A
12/5/2022 12:46 AM
101
concerns that funds will not be utilized with high infrastructural impact
12/4/2022 8:15 PM
102
I’m a new bike commuter in Phoenix and appreciate the goals of the plan. I feel like high motor
vehicle speed and lots of interaction between cyclists and motor vehicles are a major hazard in
the Phoenix area. I really appreciate areas with improved safety measures.
12/4/2022 7:40 PM
103
I'm concerned about the protected bike lanes and how they will affect travel by automobiles.
Particularly in downtown and crowded areas, traffic is already a challenge.
12/4/2022 7:20 PM
104
Speed limits should be lowered in most places and no more funding for wide roads or
highways. Let's focus on mass transportation and walking and biking. Offer monetary
incentives to builders to infill closer into the city center to curtail urban sprawl.
12/4/2022 10:35 AM
105
The changes that have been made and want to be made benefit very few people while
negatively impacting thousands. While the principle of making Phoenix a more walkable city is
desirable, the reality is that these changes don't impact very much. It is too hot for most of the
year to walk or bike outdoors, and the rest of the time only a few people take advantage of the
streets and sidewalks. These changes largely benefit only the nearby residents while
thousands of people all over the valley commute to and from central Phoenix. Traffic has been
made worse by these changes, and as the covid pandemic winds down more people will be out
driving. Another point is that only 665 people were surveyed. Over a million people live and
work in the Phoenix metro area, 665 people is not enough to be an accurate reflection on the
desires of all Phoenicians who are impacted by these changes. There were also already
options to safely bike and walk, there is no need to add even more that will only be utilized by
very few. The elimination of lanes of traffic are a detriment to society. Emissions from cars will
be greater as cars must spend more time in traffic; these changes will not make people
change their mode of transportation, the demand of cars will always be there especially as
electric vehicles become more prevalent. Overall, these changes benefit a very very small
fraction of the people who live here at the detriment of all commuters and drivers. These
changes should be reversed and these plans scrapped entirely.
12/3/2022 3:50 PM
106
More focus on traffic lights. So many vehicles run red lights. More speed humps on
12/3/2022 8:54 AM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
23 / 36
neighborhood streets. Traffic control around schools.
The increase in bike lanes has been a
huge improvement.
107
Public transportation is terrible in Phoenix. It needs to be more accessible to all parts of the
valley. I would love tonbuke to work, but its too dangerous. I would love to take the bus to go
eat out, but a bus stop is too far away from my house and the wait for a bus is unbearably
long. I would love tonjust walk around outside and get some fresh air, but the cars on the street
are loud, fast, and wreckless. Phoenix is built for the car, and I would like to see it transition to
favor more pedestrians. Cars and people can coexist comfortably.
12/3/2022 7:38 AM
108
Painted lines and plastic poles are not infrastructure, you need to physically separate modes
of transportation or ban cars on certain roads all together. I think the plan is a joke and will
never get people to leave their cars behind if there is no real change to the roads because
there will always be a chance of death if vehicles are allowed to cross a paint stripe. I think
there is a lot of emphasis on first mile/last mile connectivity but why bother with that when
there aren't near enough buses moving every hour? Make BUS LANES, make it so you don't
need to look at a schedule and get people moving... Phoenix's population is only going to rise
more in the near future before it's starts dropping off drastically, that means either more cars or
more transit to move those people. You increase transit ridership by increasing how many
buses/trains there are moving. Have you Heard of Induced Demand? That also works for
transit.
If this city even has water in future years and there are people still living here with
climate change happening, they will probably not be riding in cars because they won't be able
to afford the gas/energy AND their rent, so stop allowing cars to dictate how this city burns and
start removing privileges they've stolen from pedestrians. Ban cars from Downtown. Make it
safe and people will start moving themselves without any encouragement.
12/2/2022 9:18 PM
109
I'd like to see more concrete examples of locations that the city is looking at through this plans
lens.
12/2/2022 2:46 PM
110
More money needs to be allocated to the elements.
12/2/2022 1:17 PM
111
Pay particular attention to school zones. Parents picking up their kids are an environmental
and traffic nightmare. Sidewalks full of irrigation water are dangerous for pedestrians and
bikers. Car drivers still park on bike lanes. Didn't they try to use a protected bike lane?
12/2/2022 1:08 PM
112
Lack of emphasis on motorist traffic enforcement, preferably through ticketing via traffic
cameras. Traffic calming is recommended in the report--but I think it needs to be a higher
priority. For me a bike lane is less important than much slower auto traffic.
12/2/2022 1:04 PM
113
I’m glad there is an initiative at all. Most bike lanes in my zip are “standard” and rarely used
which is no surprise given how dangerous it’d be. Obviously the best lanes are entirely
separate from the road but that’s not usually possible. There are many roads lined with
businesses and small parking lots. Perfect places to be more walkable and yet the car traffic
is so violent that if you can’t grab a spot in their small lot you’d just leave. Bad for business
and a shame they have to use all that space for parking.
12/2/2022 6:46 AM
114
Wi-Fi on transit is a cost-sink with very little pay off. Build transit around libraries and third
places to bring passengers to places with Wi-Fi should they want it. As much funding as soon
as possible should be in Bus Rapid Transit. Suburbs like Scottsdale and Glendale need to
allow light rail into their communities and every effort should be made to encourage or force
them to allow it.
12/2/2022 12:53 AM
115
That plan took me forever to get through it's like 100 pages! I just want more bike and shared
use roads in PHX. I also would prefer multi use paths instead of dedicated bike or ped paths.
12/1/2022 9:34 PM
116
My concerns are the reduction in vehicular lanes to accommodate bike lanes. The reduction of
those nike lanes increase traffic throughout the neighborhood. For the amount of disruption the
bike lanes cause, there are not of bicycle riders who use them compared to cars. It would be
wise to have a corridor for bicycles that do not take away vehicular lanes or parking spots (as
those are also becoming hard downtown). I am a resident downtown. 3rd avenue should remain
a one lane street with the separate bike lane. Making 3rd street one lane from Indian School
Park to Roosevelt was downright stupid. Also there seems to be a lack of a bicycle, walking
path for South Mountain Village and Laveen Village.
12/1/2022 9:22 PM
117
I generally like everything about the plan, and understand that some initiatives may be limited
due to funding.
My main concern is the need for more transparency and accountability from the
city. Despite an accountability section being a part of the plan, I do not have a good sense of
how the plan will address this issue.
12/1/2022 8:50 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
24 / 36
118
This plan seems like a grab for federal money, while doing very little to improve Phoenix roads
or the driving experience.
12/1/2022 7:14 PM
119
Under types of changes, the Words are absolutely meaningless: "update" "Continue"
"Prioritize" - - - In other words the City is committing to nothing, no deadlines, no goals to fully
achieve. BE MORE SPECIFIC. Complete a plan and goal. Green poles on heavily trafficked
arterial streets are not sufficient to be safe. Address width and shading of sidewalks for
wheelchairs, motorized wheelchairs or scooters, strollers, etc. Address more e-bikes and
motorized scooters, that are becoming more common, plus skateboards or the like esp near
college campus and other schools. Address electric charging stations. Bike storage areas.
12/1/2022 6:34 PM
120
From my brief review, it appears that most of the improvements appear to be in central
Phoenix. Tatum Rd from Pinnacle Peak to Cave Creek needs protective bike lanes so people
can ride bikes to library from Desert Ridge... or build a branch library in the empty lot at the
corner of 40th and Deer Valley!!!
12/1/2022 3:35 PM
121
I love the changes that were made to the 3rd Ave/5th Ave bike lanes and bikeways and use
them regularly!
12/1/2022 3:20 PM
122
Have not reviewed
12/1/2022 2:17 PM
123
I like a lot of what I see in this document. It gives the impression that the city is taking active
transportation seriously and that is very promising. I think the appetite for active transportation
is out there, people just need to feel empowered and safe to pursue it. One of my primary
concerns is that the city will continue to paint bike lanes and call it a victory for active
transportation. Look, a bike lane is better than nothing, but at the end of the day paint is just
paint and it's not infrastructure. I speak from experience — paint does not prohibit a car from
veering into a bike lake or turning into a cyclist. I appreciate the thought and work that has
gone into this plan, but it would be a shame to see it squandered by "good enough" thinking.
As for recommendations, I really do think enforcement — which is not mentioned as a pillar of
this plan — needs to be considered. Speed and traffic enforcement could go a long way in
curbing the worst motorist behaviors and ensuring road safety for all users. With ebikes
becoming more and more accessible, I think the city needs to really prioritize safe cycling and
getting people out of cars. I would love to feel safe enough to bike to the grocery store instead
of driving the 1 mile there.
Furthermore, I think this plan needs to be upfront and bold about
one thing: deprioritizing cars is a necessity for a healthy, vibrant city. Phoenix has so far to go
before one can feasibly be car free here, but I think that should be the goal. If someone wants
to drive, great. The option to walk, bike or use transit should be just as reasonable and
attainable for non-motorists. Thank you for all the hard work!
12/1/2022 12:11 PM
124
I want Phoenix to not be such a lawless, demolition derby with a heap of road rage, daily. I am
terrified to drive here. I choose to cycle/walk/transit as much as possible, I feel like I have
more control of the situation around me. Lower the speed limits EVERYWHERE. Install many
red light/speed on green camera systems for police officer safety, allowing them to focus on
other policing work. Install bike racks at EVERY bus stop, every business.
12/1/2022 12:10 PM
125
This is all excellent, but I'm tired of the streets department constantly prioritizing cars. All of
this is hot air unless the department ACTUALLY works towards implementation. We need
better follow through. The more recent bike improvements on 3rd Ave and 3rd St are an
excellent example of what should be prioritized and implemented. I appreciate Equity was
evaluated as part of this effort as well.
12/1/2022 11:53 AM
126
I'm extremely pleased that we are acknowledging the benefits and need for facilitating other
forms of transportation that is not driving. Cars create noise pollution, air pollution, social
isolation, and literal death. They might be good for intercity travel, but we need to focus on
neighborhood-centric transportation and I loved seeing that in the plan. Another aspect to
consider is working with city zoning to enable more multi-use zone construction that integrates
residential and small-business spaces. Doing this will make the transportation plan much more
feasible.
12/1/2022 9:58 AM
127
concerned about speed of construction for improvements. we need effective but rapid
improvements.
12/1/2022 1:11 AM
128
asphalt, markings and signage may be helpful if they inconvenience cars. but the important
part is the inconvenience of cars, it would be just as good to simply remove some asphalt and
let us have a little bit of space back as dirt
11/30/2022 9:57 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
25 / 36
129
We have to keep our roads safer so people are able to walk or ride without being harassed by
drug users. This is not addressed in the plan
11/30/2022 9:35 PM
130
It ignores any mention of enforcement for poor drivers. We don’t need more e scooters. Who
will maintain the bike lanes? The bollards are hit all the time and the city never replaces them
11/30/2022 6:23 PM
131
N/a
11/30/2022 6:06 PM
132
I like the parts in the plan that outline all of the specifics around making intersections and
streets more walkable and bikeable, it looks like a great reference doc that can be utilized at
meetings and to explain to the various neighborhoods.
I'm concerned about only focusing on
two neighborhoods at a time, does that mean the other neighborhoods are just neglected or no
action is taken on those? What happens when you get to a neighborhood like Central and
Bethany Home and they just decide they don't care about bike lanes or walkability? Basically
how they made a big fuss about re-striping that very low traffic section of Central because
they'd have to "look for bikes when turning out of the neighborhood". How do we ensure that we
have a wholistic vision and common voice for the city and it's not left up to the privileged in
that neighborhood to ignore the program and recommendations?
How do we get better about
leaning into how cheap biking and walking infrastructure is over vehicular? In talking with other
advocacy groups I know they explained about the expensive bike lane "paint" but we're talking
pennies compared to what it takes to build a road or add a lane for a vehicle.
How we get a
stipend/grant/discount/rebate on active transportation purchases? Denver for instance provided
up to $1200 to residents that purchased e-bike and e-cargo options for themselves last year
and they're doing it again in 2023 because of how successful it was. Do we need a sponsor?
Do we need a petition? https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-
Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Climate-Action-Sustainability-
Resiliency/Sustainable-Transportation/Electric-Bikes-E-Bikes-
Rebates#:~:text=Denver's%20e%2Dbike%20rebate%20program,please%20subscribe%20to%
20our%20newsletter.
11/30/2022 3:16 PM
133
I love that the draft recognizes the problems with how we've developed a car-centric
infrastructure in the past. My concern is that sharrows or bike lanes next to car parking (where
the door could open into a biker) are mentioned at all. I initially don't love the bike boulevard
idea, because it's assuming that drivers will be fully attentive and respectful of sharing the
road, which is often not the case. I recommend focusing on developing an interconnected
network of protected bike lanes with safe crossings especially in downtown/roosevelt row
where there is so much foot/bike traffic.
11/30/2022 1:54 PM
134
I am supportive of any improvements, which this plan is. Create a sense of place Allow Transit
Oriented Development along streets with bicycle lanes, even in areas like Laveen and Estrella.
Public Outreach and Community Education is vital to success. Eliminate Parking Minimums to
allow for more pedestrian and bicycle facilities
Attract new walkers/riders
Strengthen bicycle
policies
Form a denser bikeway network
Increase bicycle parking
Expand programs to support
bicycling
Increase funding for bicycle facilities
Allow for innovative public transportation
programs
Create a more pedestrian oriented environment. Close existing streets and alleys
with historically low traffic volume to vehicle traffic, and create multi-modal districts that allow
for pedestrians and micro-mobility options within a residential/commercial area or corridor. I'm
thinking Monton Trail in Carmel, Indiana
11/30/2022 11:49 AM
135
Glad there is an emphasis on equity and underserved communities. Glad there are sections
about evaluating progress and the results of the plan. Our Subdivision Code Ch. 32 needs to
be redesigned to encourage development in a grid, which increases accessibility to important
destinations. We should also re-evaluate our street cross-sections to see if we can build
smaller to reduce speeds driven, which would make alternative modes of transportation feel
safer.
11/30/2022 11:42 AM
136
I am concerned that the plan does not address the root causes of danger to pedestrians but
attempts to shoehorn pedestrian infrastructure onto poorly designed, dangerous streets. Real
change would require road diets. I still appreciate the effort and the proposed improvements.
11/30/2022 9:11 AM
137
I think the plan is great and am very excited to see the city making this a priority! The plan is
very comprehensive and is clearly working towards a lot of solutions for different users. I also
think that splitting this up by village is ideal as well.
My main concern is that I expect change
to be quite slow and still having a lot of gaps in the road network when it comes to cycling.
One specific recommendation I have is that e-bike 'typical speed' [page 93] should be noted as
10-20mph, not 10-15 mph. My average is 15mph, and I am biking at 20mph for significant
portions of each ride. I'm doing that with a Class I e-bike (pedal assist only), so those with
11/29/2022 11:21 PM

Phoenix Active Transportation Plan: DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
26 / 36
Class II e-bikes (with throttles) will be riding at 20mph even more often than I do. This speed is
actually a huge advantage as it makes biking more practical for longer commutes and during
hotter weather since it takes less time to get from place to place.
My one other
recommendation is that the city should view HAWK signals as not only pedestrian
infrastructure, but bicycle infrastructure. This can be a great tool to allow cyclists to bike
through neighborhoods and then be able to cross major streets. For example, I can leave my
home on Almeria Road and bike north on 42nd Street to avoid biking on busy 40th Street, but
there's no way to cross Thomas Road at 42nd Street (or Indian School at 42nd Street - but I
know a HAWK is in the works there). A HAWK signal would essentially convert a mile of
neighborhood street into solid bike infrastructure (just because the street is low-speed and low-
traffic, even though there are no bike signs/lanes) with no cost along the route, just the cost of
the HAWK signal at the intersection (which would also benefit pedestrians). I should also note,
Thomas Road & 42nd Street used to have a crosswalk (not a safe one as there were no
signals), but the road was repaved and now there is very little sign of a crosswalk.
138
I think that the timeline for some of the recommended changes is way to long. It should not be
a 3-10 year process to evaluate the potential to implement a stop bar (changing where the line
on the ground is) at SOME intersections. This is something that has already been studied.
Why do we need another 3 years of evaluation. To decide on its potential. Overall I think the
framework is good. The network program seems like a step in the right direction. I have lots of
doubts on the implementation.
11/29/2022 9:21 PM
139
I like how nuanced and detailed the plan is - it takes many different aspects into account.
Also, it's nice to see an emphasis on walking and biking in such a car-dominant city.
I am
concerned of its ambition, and how much is feasible and obtainable.
11/29/2022 4:46 PM