HomeMy WebLinkAboutLexington Town-Wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2024) C°C' t y t �' C°t f' �i �
i
Ye
����
��,
�� ������
���� ``��
�'r �. °�
�I� fY I ,��,�
�
�l ,� � � ro ^ ��
it J s T s�s� � s� (�ln ��t �; �,
��� , � �� �,
April 2024 � � � ��`
�
����� ,
°�������������`,
�,� �,�,.m�....w,..
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
���'��4�����
�
� ;. ;,��'
��j �r�f, , �' ��
� �� ,e
The Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan team would like to thank the `���K;�,kry�'"'�
following individuals who helped make this plan a reality:
Lexington Select Board TSG+ Advisory Group
> Joe Pato, Chair
All of the TSG above plus:
> Suzie Barry,Vice-chair
> Melissa Battite, Recreation &
> Jill Hai
Community Programs
> Doug Lucente
> Karen Mullins, Conservation Office
> Mark Sandeen
> Amber Carr, Conservation Office
Town Manager James J. Malloy > Maggie Peard, Sustainability &
Resiliency Office
Transportation Safety Group (TSG) > lonathan Schwarz, Transportation
TSG Staff Advisory Committee
> Mike O'Connor, Bicycle Advisory
> Sheila Page, Planning Office Committee
> Ross Morrow, Engineering Division > Bob Moshiri, Greenways Corridor
> Matt Weisman, Engineering Committee
Division > Mark Andersen, Transportation
> Chris Barry, Police Department Advisory Committee
> Susan Barrett, Transportation
Services Consultant Team
> Mary Canavan, School > Patricia Domigan P.E., Principal
Transportation (VHB)
> Elaine Celi, School Transportation > Phil Goff AICP, Project Manager
> David Coelho, School Department (VHB)
> Daniel Amstutz AICP, Project
TSGAdvisor's Planner (VHB)
> Peggy Enders, Greenways Corridor > Jim Tasse (James Tasse Consulting)
Committee
> John Rossi, Commission on
Disability
> Pamela Lyons, Transportation
Advisory Committee
> Ram Reddy, Bicycle Advisory
Committee
i Acknowledgements
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................i
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................2
ES.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................2
ES.2 Summary of Key Recommendations.....................................................................................................3
ES.3 Project Prioritization..................................................................................................................................10
E5.4 Implementation Strategy.........................................................................................................................12
1 I ntroduction.........................................................................................................................................7
1.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Overview.................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Summary of Public Engagement............................................................................................................2
1.3 Existing Lexington Plans and Reports..................................................................................................5
2 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................................10
2.1 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs........................................................................................10
2.2 Existing Active Transportation Network............................................................................................15
2.3 Planned or Funded Transportation Projects with Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Elements.22
2.4 Existing Transit Network..........................................................................................................................23
2.5 Destinations, Amenities, and Activity Centers.................................................................................25
2.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes.............................................................................................................27
3 Network Recommendations...........................................................................................................30
3.1 Developing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network...........................................................................30
3.2 Bicycle Network Recommendations...................................................................................................33
3.3 Pedestrian Network Recommendations............................................................................................39
3.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Recommendations....................................................................46
3.5 Policy Recommendations Related to E-bikes and E-Micromobility.......................................58
4 Prioritization...................................................•••••--••••••-----.....................-----------------------------------.........61
4.1 Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................................................................61
4.2 Methodology and Weighting................................................................................................................62
4.3 Prioritized Table of Bicycle Recommendations..............................................................................62
4.4 Prioritized Table of Pedestrian Recommendations.......................................................................68
4.5 Prioritized Table of Trail Recommendations....................................................................................72
5 Implementation Strategy................................................................................................................75
5.1 Table of Prioritized Projects...................................................................................................................75
5.2 Performance Measures.............................................................................................................................75
5.3 Next Steps and Conclusion.....................................................................................................................77
ii Table of Contents
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Appendix A Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Online Survey Results.......................80
Appendix B Policy Analysis and Recommendations for Electric Powered Micromobility Devices
Memorandum............................................................................................................................................81
Appendix C Project Prioritization Criteria and Scoring Rubric Memorandum.......................................110
Appendix D Table of Prioritized Projects..........................................................................................118
iii Table of Contents
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
I
Table No. Description Page
TableES-1 Evaluation Criteria..................................................................................................................................10
Table ES-2 Performance Measures........................................................................................................................12
Table 1 Summary of Recommendations by Category...............................................................................2
Table2 Planned Projects.....................................................................................................................................22
Table 3 Draft Evaluation Criteria.......................................................................................................................62
Table 4 Bicycle Facility Recommendations...................................................................................................63
Table 5 Intersection Recommendations........................................................................................................66
Table 6 Sidewalk Recommendations..............................................................................................................69
Table 7 Crosswalk Recommendations............................................................................................................71
Table 8 Trail/Shared Use Path Recommendations....................................................................................73
Table9 Performance Measures........................................................................................................................76
I
Figure No. Description Page
Figure ES-1 Bicycle Facility Recommendations.....................................................................................................5
Figure ES-2 Pedestrian Facility Recommendations.............................................................................................9
Figure 3 Sidewalk Condition Index Map...........................................................................................................8
Figure 4 Sidewalk Request Program Sidewalk Prioritization Map.......................................................13
Figure 5 Existing Bicycle Facilities......................................................................................................................17
Figure 6 Existing Paths and Pedestrian Facilities.........................................................................................19
Figure 7 Existing Pedestrian Routes to School.............................................................................................21
Figure 8 Existing Transit Network......................................................................................................................24
Figure 9 Existing Paths and Destinations........................................................................................................26
Figure 10 Bicycle Crashes (2016— 2021)...........................................................................................................28
Figure 11 Pedestrian Crashes (2016—2021)....................................................................................................29
iv Table of Contents
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 12 Bicycle Facility Recommendations...................................................................................................34
Figure 13 Pedestrian Facility Recommendations...........................................................................................40
v Table of Contents
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�
����
�
��S��II� �����IV�C�IV��
I p
Lexington seeks to encourage and support walking and bicycling f'or recreation and
as attractive alternatives to automobile-basec�transportation to improve access for
all ages and abilities and to inaprove the experience and qtrality of life for residents
and visitors.
Recognizing that walking and bicycling face significarat challenges within today's
infrastrzccture, the Town is committed to a process of evaluation., investment, and
change that will�nake alter�ative transportation inoYe att�^active, accessible, and
inclusive. This plan is the first step in taking concrete steps to realize this vision. It
will be constrained by resou�ces a�d budget, but represents a�i irnpoYtaht
commitment to th�e ongoing p�ocess. It is the fiNst step of many.
I�x������� �� �I��u� I�����
The Townwide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (TBPP) is an extension of recently
developed plans which have cited that a well-connected walking and
bicycling network is key for these plans' success. Implementing this TBPP is
also part of implementing the plans referenced below.
The Lexinc�tonNext Comp Plan:Transpartation &Circulatian Gaal states:
"To make traveling into, out of, and within Lexington safe, p(easant, and
efficient with sustainable and equitable mobility options for all ages and
abi(ities."with the specific objective: "Expand opgions for walking, biking and
micro-mobility."
One of the Clim�te Action and Resilience Plan's go�l states: "Lexington
residents take fewer car�rips because there are sustainab(e and accessib(e
mobility options for a((ages and abilities"with the specific objective:
"Expand safe options for wa(king, biking and ro((ing through road,
streetscape and bicyc(e trai(improvements".
One of the Oaen S�ace and Recreation Plan's goals states: Expand upan
and create new opportunities for bicyc(ing and wallcing thraughaut
Lexington.
Addition�lly, t�re�c��-friendl�t Initi�tiv� s�ys "�ei�a�cable tc�ge�where r�r�e
wcrrrts ancf�reecfs�� c�v hel�s�eople mainfcrin s�cscrl ties, a�it�ir� raeecfed
goods crr�cf s��vic�es, access locaf arrt�rtities aract be�ragcagecf vvitir the
er�rnrnearaity Ensuring td�at pecap(e hcrrae c�cc�ss to cad�qucate trcrvel ca�ticans
withira crrtd crr�uracl th�ir corrarrruraity, inclucfir�g walkir�g, bicyclirrg, dri�rfrrg,
crncl tcrkir�g�cabfic t�canspr�rtcrticarr, is�cart c�f crea�ing a fi�rab(e cc�r�rrr�urrity„
1 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
.
The Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies current and desired
conditions for bicycling, walking, and rolling in Lexington. The first of its kind
for Lexington, the plan is an action-oriented document designed to help
bridge the gap between current conditions and what residents envision for
safe, comfortable, and connected bicycle and pedestrian network and the
policies and programs that support them.
IIII ����� IIII iiii��iiii�������iiii�iiii�
Development of the Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (TBPP) involved an assessment of
existing conditions for walking and bicycling, analysis of crash locations, and a review of the Town's
current plans, policies, and reports. In aggregate, these helped the consultant team to develop the
TBPP that is consistent with, and complements, the current Comprehensive Plan,the Open Space and
Recreation Plan, the Vision Zero Action Plan, the Lexington Age-Friendly Report, and others. The
nearly year-long planning process included a robust public engagement effort that strongly informed
the TBPP's recommendations.
�u�iir�ir�m�iir� ���" Ilf��,�I�III ii� Ilf;',i��� �iir�mc�iim��:
The plan's public outreach and engagement featured interviews with key stakeholders, bi-monthly
meetings with the pre-established Transportation Safety Group "+",three public meetings, and an
on-line survey which included a community-input mapping tool.
> Stakeholder Outreach included meetings with the Transportation and Bicycle Advisory
Committees, Friends of the Lexington Bikeways, Safe Routes to School advocates, the
Conservation Commission, the Greenways Corridor Committee, the Council on Aging,
Commission on Disability, Sustainable Lexington, and high school students.
> The Transportation Safety Group+ included Town staff, committee representatives,
and advocates and met bi-monthly to help guide the public process and the
consultant's technical work.
> Public Meetings drew roughly 100 people to the three events held on April 4
(Lexington Community Center),June 8 (Cary Hall), and November 1 (Estabrook Hall);
the resulting discussions were critical for the formulation of the project and program
recommendations, and the subsequent prioritization.
2 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> The Online Survey garnered 374 ��t�" � �;,�„�,,,,-„,� ��
responses to the 17 questions � � � � ,,, �
relating to walking/bicycling habits, �„x,,, n '� �
perceived barriers, desired � � '� ����� � "°
� � r ��,,� ��,�r�r�r�� �
� �, � ^�+�,������������
improvements, and priorities to „�� �� ��
improve bicycling,walking, and � �' � ��� �„� '� � ��
.� ������, �..,
rolling. � �'���� � t�„� �� ��
' � � „��
> The Online Input Map Po � �� � � � �""�
�,,, �,.° � �r�>�,
supplemented the survey and roti . �
induced hundreds of suggested ��
�
. � �,<,e��,;�
locations for new and improved �� `"":
� ,,,;,�ir�,
faCilities Coded by projeCt type: Portion of the Online lnput Map focused on Lexington
new/improved crosswalk, Center, Worthen Road,and LHS
new/improved path or trail, and
new/improved sidewalk.
�°r��u�-�rv��� ��; �°�� ���' I���'�s��r��� I���u� �����
Fie�� gc�aUs vv�r� us�d tca guid� the T�PP's n�tvvc�rk-pU�r7r7ir�g, bicycU�/ ��d�stri�r' f�ciUity
��r�e�p�ts, �nd �he prog��rrro r�cr�rr�rr��nd��icans, Th�y ver��� �Usc� us�d �s th� f�undati�r� ��F
th� ��r�Uu�ti�r' erit�ri� �s�d tc� pric�riti�� �rc�j��t r�eo��r7�r�d�tic�nso
> S�FETY: i�c�r��s� bicy�Uist �r�d pec9�stri�� saf�ty with prc�gr�rrrs �r�c9 ir�frastr�u�tu��
prraj��ts
} �C� �IE�TV�/�Tl'd Uir�k r��ighbc�nc�ar�ds �ith s�hoc�Us, busir��ss districts, bus str�ps,
parks, pU�yg�caur�ds� �c�r�ser�r�tic�n �nd c��er� s���� �r�d �dj�c�^r�t cc�rr�rrr�uni�ties �r�d
t��� Tr��r�'s ��istir�g r��t�c�rlc �f p�tr�s, bik�vv�ys, �rrd sid�v��Uks
> C�ESV��I: �rr�c�u��g� bicycUir�g �r�d waUlcirrg �vith s�p�r�t�dJprc�t�ct�d f��iUiti�s
d�sig��d fcar �UU ages �nd abiUiti�s
} E�C?f�C} Y� prc���t� Uc�caU b�sin�ss�s �r�d s�ustai��bU� tc�urisrn �vith str�t�gi�
biey�U� ��d p�d�stri�n inor�s�trr��r�ts
> FE�SV�VLVTY: pU�� �c�r prc�j�ct r�cc�rr7rr7�ndatic�ns th�t rryir�irni�e �ngin��ri�g
�h�UU�ng�s, ��n U���r�g� fur�ding �ppc�rtu�ities, �r�d buiUd corr�rr7unity suppo�t
,�� �. ���
�� ����iiii�m�iiir��iiii IIII���� iiii���iiii��m� �m iiii������Vii iiii��
IIII � �� � � IIII��� .
The evaluation of current conditions, review of existing policies, plans, and reports, and community
feedback from multiple sources, helped the planning team identify bicycle and pedestrian safety and
connectivity needs in Lexington.The most critical needs include:
3 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Better connected trails with emphasis � "
on the gaps along the Lower Vine Brook �°'��fi `��� � "��`'
route and missing links to the �'�� ��� ' � °�� ����
� � �, 4+r�,
Minuteman Bikeway �
> Mitigating fragmentation of the on-
street bicycle network, especially along
Marrett Road, Mass Ave, and near LHS �� ,���ii%'
�j//%�,�j i ,
/����%�i� ✓i a Vrurc;,,
�� ����� ����
> Reducing speed of traffic on roadways ����/ ���� ,
���///�%i�% //�i ,�/� m
well used b edestrians and bic clists %� ���%������%'�0��%���' �� °"'�"
Y p Y ��/1��%i���%���!;;
�i� ,� i/%�//�l///%!"ii��
. . . r��l,�����������i�/i�i��. :.
and in some residential areas
> Fixing well-worn sidewalks and Lack of bike lanes on parts of Mass Ave form
critical gaps in the Lexington's bicyc(e network
eliminating gaps in the network
> Improving and striping new crosswalks near schools, parks, conservation lands, and in
retail business districts
Accommodating bicycle and pedestrian safety and connectivity needs requires improvements to the
bicycle, pedestrian, and trail networks in Lexington. The TBPP includes hundreds of recommendations
that eliminate network gaps, improve safety, and provide links to destinations such as schools,
business districts, parks, transit stops, places of employment, and historic sites.
Ill�ii���lll� �ii�� �Il��iir�� ��� III����III� Il�����u�irlk S�uu�u��u�y o� u�������<
The recommended bicycle network as shown in Figure 1 V����u�u���u�C��'�uC�u�s
features shared use paths (through open space and within � 23 miles of new standard
road rights of way), roadways with shared lanes (some with and separated bike lanes
traffic calming measures) and striped bicycle lanes. The
latter features separated bicycle lanes, standard 5-foot-wide > 11.5 miles of shared
lanes in both directions, and one-way uphill climbing lanes. roadways with traffic calming
In most cases, the one-way bike lanes are intended to be > 34 improved intersections
short-term improvements where roadway width precludes > 10 miles of new and
bike lanes on both sides of the roadway, e.g., Concord improved trails and paths
Avenue or Woburn Street. Many of the bike lane
> 20.5 miles of new and
recommendations can be incorporated into scheduled
roadway maintenance and/or repaving projects with improved sidewalks
minimal additional funding. > 60 new and improved
crosswal ks
The network recommendations include several discrete
improvements at intersections intended to improve safety and access for bicyclists and pedestrians.
This ranges from tightening corner turning radii to slow traffic, to striping green bike crossings
adjacent to crosswalks, to a full reconstruction to simplify the intersection geometry and/or
dramatically reduce bicycle/pedestrian crossing distances.
4 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure ESm1 iey�le F�cility R�e�rrrrrr�ndati�ns
� , ,i _;��i�=
m
�o��
� iry �
�
„� �
M/ �� .�. �If��,rJ��
y � /
ld
MryY �
�
� ,�Q��y, i���� I .
W r I"' �„���� ` �
1
�Y�G r,����� /%/j� �1 ��� , R.
� w R
/i # V �
�/ii rvkb / . �/ .. N
r
. / '1� lh l/ Q� 4
l f �y,�
�� � Y,
/ /� � �j,� ,� p�/' `''�
i%/� i '� �" J „ � �i�;''�'ti�,d�i',I��
� , �' , � � t S� �
� �
r
� � Yry w
�u, � � �
l � � � ,y'�i �n ���1 µ p .� /
�� ., ��,eJ� � ,v e ��
� �
� �k "�� � /; ' �✓J r
�,��i s � I �t � � °w
o� i �
�; �� w � �OI� ma 'M � d' .,
r � � �
����� � �r^ � � � %��iUy � � .. . , ,
��4v n ,,. , � 6lr� ,,,
/; ",� . . �.,,� ..y�.�,e � µ'�' �y� ,✓,�ari ��N� ,�,
"^�,�.,; � ..�,.w..�° , .. � ;� °" .,m. "" '. ;,
��6.. � r ��, � ,.W� �� ar � ,� �� �.y���,-�,
,�„��� F.� �� iw � , ,��«,
""un ', ' „�"�u d' � °,� ,,,
�� • „
� � � ,, %., , �� ' ',
ti �� � , .d
/ �
w�� I � Y � � A4 ,,, �� � r„'
. m
N �� . H d �
y
�
� N� i, „ f��/% r r .
Y
X
������� ^M ro�r+.w�I /��j �h d
� w
�6��j j ��✓ "i � �4%, m .� un (� ,
� aY�
J
�%/ii 6 �� Mp � �� � ///�������// 91'tl'
� U�� ,�" "' i
// ' � � i�J'j` 'J � i i/
rr,'� g
f i� � � �
,tf I�//% A�r"� i�;/;; , �W re%, *,.�, ,�„�� ' ,/,,�.
, ^
' , ,"�
��i%// �,n � , 'nu ��„��W�b .
.
i
�p `",-^,.�" � 9� "+' ,
""�, �,��,�.�„�.�""`"` -'' '" .
� �
�P ',
�- � � .� m -- ; �
i,� e,_
m " � ,a �� � C,l,'.k�l�, I��y�y
w r
i� ' ��r���.,�y"'� d� i , �., �„�
�
� .
� �q�r . �� "m
//- 9u �,/`"°" I� �
� „i "TM.
� ���
_,
�
„'r�Y✓�, I �,,il � ������rve,
� J � �r, �
J � � �_,_4r/r�Is�I
�"
�I. ��Y� �1 ;�&MO@"6
-...._.C ur�^�reuoui�p��iuk�G,�u�ovp,�^� � 'a���a�;��l�� �'u��ad����`rYii�R�w��uunm�uad�t�m��
—A,�ur�rru��r�q����,rm��fl,�+r'u�tr� "� Vpokn�hl'o�"��P�&� �"���°� �bu4L4,ua�'�N;4�
.... �.�ooiuoilmn�r�un��nrs6Suk,r„�w��6N!� a� �i�a�N�a;��prr�t�p4rs�aok�F+krn�#IWr9��7W�'t.�d.� �.,..�., I�bukre�IL.��Muvo-��od'�nuti•'b`�,':�,»
.. k��ogrv�m�oty"'M@°ru��d�;961,uvtl��tl°r� "`;Nsu��ull'„�o;�.¢�I�:G �.���"u�^�wm�wmlraFx,�k��,k�^k�ro�^maA�a��i�
� �+��eB�ui��s'Y'�r�o��� ..., �M�o�cd,v'�"�'[�w,r,��Pbs��'I'�fiwP,d,���ru�iQ�o�
��tl�....,�uw�ra4d.�Ivlar��:gt�;kwr�a!�� ^�w �is��u^�bqti�,'�tlC.Msa Yaurvq��ar.;v�w�,��rc�:�4
'�irm�b/'�"hmrtri.�i�Ysu�!'��a�C9e��+c�ccurr7eirnc��fii�rss�
� s , , ����R� �u�������k�'7
a�
.�,..�.�wp,rnre�^��'�'E��r�;�4N'm
, . .. ,,, , _ ��.,M�,w�, a� ,�, ;�u���o.��,���auo.�b „�,,���.0
5 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Ilf���'����iirii�ir� �ii��' ����Ilf�i��iilll II�����° �i�ll�
The recommended pedestrian network as shown in Figure 2 is comprised of walking trails and paths
through public open space—primarily managed by the Lexington Conservation Commission—new
and improved sidewalks, new and improved crosswalks, and various intersection improvements.The
latter includes tightening corner turning radii to slow traffic, adding corner bump outs, or a full
reconstruction to square off intersections, simplify the intersection geometry, and/or dramatically
reduce pedestrian crossing distances.Although final designs are left open to engineering evaluation
and public safety needs, crosswalk-related recommendations include anticipated pedestrian safety
countermeasures' such as �� r � ��„ ,; ���,� ��d ��;
ti' Clr r'" ��,��i�� ��- ,,,.,„ r� �ie�r��,
> Raised crosswalks (or speed humps ~�; �' � �
immediately adjacent) �
> Curb extensions/bump outs
�
> Median refuge islands �� "%i�� "" �� ' � �;
,������� " � ��, �
f/� ur�iV1N i i0// i ��� %��/II���f���� �
��l/Gl///i �//'
> Rectangular rapid flashing beacons ���������1����i����,,�������
, �� ��ii � �
(RRFBs)
����� ��
. . �, ���1 ,«,„�«�«�������rrl�`�Ij������
> Enhanced lighting
Examp(e of crosswalk recently improved with a
median island, bump outs, and RRFBs in Medford
III�ii���III�/I���������i�°iii�iir� Ill�iir�a i��irm��
The TBPP includes recommendations for improved and new policies and programs that support
access and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Based on the six "E's"—Engineering, Encouragement,
Education, Enforcement, Equity, and Evaluation—the following policy and program recommendations
are to be implemented.by
> Engineering (Design and Maintenance)
o Maintain safe pedestrian and bicycle access through construction zones
o Provide warning signs and pavement markings at discontinuous bike lanes and
some intersections
o Create a mobile app for reporting maintenance issues
o Enhance winter maintenance policy to prioritize demand by all modes, notjust
d rivers
o Expand winter maintenance beyond the Minuteman Bikeway to other Town path
particularly nears schools
o Consider requiring abutters to remove snow and ice from sidewalks
> Encouragement
o Promote walking and bicycling locally with more online information and maps
o Initiate a roadway user courtesy program
' Selection of the appropriate treatments is based on a variety of factors induding the land use context,street width,number of travel lanes,
and the speed and volume of roadway traffic.See also:htt�s;[�s�fety.fhyu�r..clot,qov{prr�ver7ca�antermear;ures�
6 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
o Designate a family-friendly bicycle loop within Lexington through signage
o Provide incentives for Town staff to use active transportation modes to work
o Ensure plentiful and covered bicycle parking is available at all public schools
o Require minimum bike parking for all new development projects
o Create modern bicycle parking guidelines that include e-bikes and charging
o Encourage artistic bike rack designs within the public ROW
> Education
o Continue to foster school-based walk-to-school and bike-to-school programs
o Continue to promote free giveaways for bicycle safety equipment at community
events
o Continue to promote bicycle maintenance courses for adults
o Create additional roadway safety education materials for all road users
o Install pedestrian and bicycle wayfinding signage to local destinations
> Enforcement
o Consider decoy operations to promote crosswalk stopping compliance
o Consider decoy operations to enforce motor vehicles laws near schools
o Require side guards and enhanced mirrors on Town trucks to improve safety
o Implement traffic calming in key locations
> Equity
o Encourage developers to create more pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure for
projects in the new multi-family residential zones.
o Connect all neighborhoods to the Center and transit opportunities
> Evaluation
o Develop performance metrics appropriate to Lexington.
o Develop regularly scheduled pedestrian and bicycle counts beyond the Minuteman
Bikeway to include other paths, roadways such as Mass Ave and at schools
o Conduct walk/bike safety audits with students and staff at all schools.
As part of the TBPP, the planning team also explored ways for the Town of Lexington to address
challenges related to the increasing use of electric-assist bicycles and scooters (aka E-micromobility).
A summary of potential policies to promote safety for both E-micromobility users and those who
interact with them—i.e., pedestrians on the Minuteman Bikeway—include these recommendations:
> Since E-bikes and E-scooters are already regulated under Massachusetts state law, they
should be allowed on all public ways open to bicycles including the Minuteman
Bikeway.
> Creating educational signs, handouts, stickers,web assets, etc.will highlight behaviors
the Town of Lexington would like to see practiced by E-micromobility users.
7 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Continue to foster an expectation of reasonable behavior and speeds on the
Minuteman Bikeway through the practice of community engagement and good riding
behavior.
> Revise the current "No Motor Vehicles" signs at trailheads and intersections along the
Minuteman Bikeway to explicitly allow for E-micromobility.
> Explore additional ways to regulate E-micromobility through coordination with other
Minuteman Bikeway communities, the State and by looking at what other U.S. cities
such as Boulder, CO have done to improve interactions between E-micromobility users
and pedestrians and bicyclists.
8 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure ESm2 Pedestrian Facility Ree��rrrendations
�;i >>,�,� ;; �.
;w�
�
�ry
� m
u
�
� � �
��� �f ��
` �I� ��� ��� �� zl'11„ r.�'.% ,,t t r-�
�,���� � u,
. i �., �a�r�� � �
�; �u*"��°M wJ�� � -'
w
�v"� �� '� ���
� � � �� ��
�p w
� ��� �� „ �� �� , ��
��,� , /�/� ,�N. ✓Y k���� .��Nl
�" �
�% � �h, ��� ,I�� , �Fu°`�V� IS
�1�° „ �• �� ��� � ° �
„ �� µ !N'b V /l /' �,� �� f%(
yor .��L/ /�/ �,� � �" '' /, ,,, , , .��
�Gi� ��%�'� �� Ar �� u`��+x' 1�
� „
�� ,� �k �' �,
u
� "� ,. :�, �,'�``'� �y� i� ,
:� ��.�' m�� ; „ � �'^. ,����,,� �„ �
i �? � w �b ��� .
� q;°�° ` ., '�I By, y � 6� �"^ '� ��
� � ��, �""� �!�dN � ,�r� '�'°"� 1�� �"/'� ��a� �S
�a �� . , ��, � �,a��c r�`^y y°�
� w"""'�m r ^� '�4 ��;'
,
�m, y
M �,d�`" a � ;,,��� � ,'� ,
,�m� u „� ,�,� A � � �i
� "'�
� � < � i � , �" �� �� � " �
: w 1 -� �'+ .��° . . �u� �' ,
� "��r �0.""W� �., ;,
r
5 � '� �. ��� ��
�� w
r � - •, �" i ��
,r- �� ?1 '�i '� _ � e�ih� � ;,. �o���l '��r , ij�, , . . ,_
P�,4/ �tl�` � , "� m c� �l" � � ,,t �,
� .
,ar�' �,;, �� ��t< �m� �� �
�, ��� w� �� � ""Y� �
� wi �
�, f
��,
,
��� , � �� ,� � �r� '� h�.�i�
� � �
! "��,�w,a�� �/ , � �� � „�� f,4 �
�
, �
� �, y �
u� M k �� i
r�„ � „�-, �, �., i
r �" �ro�
� � �. ,� ,� � �� , �
„ �
� � , , r �.�y w
� N�,
� „ �
� � � �� „�, ��� ��` � �r ������r,�....,, � ��t� ., "��iM �� ,;� ,,,,;;iiii,,,,i ,��^"���`� , � ,,
�/ �//� �, ,� ��ry w""v`�... �Qu, ,,;��%��� �,�"w�"' �;; ,�/i�ii ,�� .'
���/%/ /%//; , �. . '� ,m'�""'
. �
�
� i
1j /1 �.., � �N-��u bo,��;���fJ�r�n '� ..d� _d ���/i ��,�iiiii
'-I�'; �. � � �t% �" °�� '��^� � / ° �� �/
,,�
� I� " � � f � r�
�// ' %,,,,,,/� ,: � � I u��
w
r �r s
`,
��;,,,,r�� W� � r.4 �N N���.
ww
e
� ;
� ",.. ,.,
, , ,��
� ° ��,
�
� r;����- ,�,
„... •�
. , � ,
° �- m�.,,� � ���,�.M�,�� ��. � m� ..
� ��� � "..m �.,� ,
� � �y �e, � �" � �
�/ „ � r '� +.� � .,, ,Ji'�d
,
,
� �,
�
�,_ �
� y'
� r� � � �M�, �,
°:� ,i . 1 , .,��
.;
; „ ., � � ��i�
r,�l,�,'r,.��f if �-uE �
�; .
lY � I ' I;P ;,,,f
� ��
� �
1
�
�I^,; � ��,�,;
�x�sl;a�r��p'iordn�u���il�:� � '��:la�AnaV�,�� ;, a o��bs°�;�tl1W��tlr�e�,ar;�w���r��dro��a�f,
��ia°��wlr,rosry�wrr ISu���;�,�' �`� 'T'�V�d°f�r M�ie�t�,�tl o����`.r�N>m�a�^�qk�;u✓„Rro�� �'a �S�,wu��v',a�:w�nuid�k
�;am�C't�ud��"vls�r��;�iV�¢d"i�'�+klVir� ,,,�%/. IU���twl�PNfi�I,Yur;� '`" f�itrHr����Niao:oa��Y�ri��r��rm�e•d°A�e�:•r��9�,
'w�ky f!;oi sup�N s w rB� �"r�4�P'�M��r��Y 9;f��'���ls Fk���nrnmr�c�mrc�s���dmr��
�mwa��ra�m�r�am���Utti�I�ww�aus��mn�aukiw��
1.�ai�rY'i�raN�`ar�n�,��°eN�:,; �.,�� e,�r����7xmKpu
�.o�fie:��d���IIW.Vs�wid»wr.riw���rdi�+�nl
�,�7������rc�or.°aJ I�axSn���l�rrr��,'r °�"�rv�,��°�Sw���w�a�w�'�, �.�.iwlre�m�ud"61 6�&'w�P'o
w.��i���,�f�wr I��i u��i����l i u wa�wn�r w��rNw�°:hrs�v�wrwmn¢1!���irtK t A�.�r�if��rwm wru��u i,w�a°�
,,,,, ,,, , ; , ,, r , :,-;.,, , , , �,,=� i
�� -_ ���.�a�'v�la�F�swu�l'��.M���:rtrprow�s:��Vw���R rs��r�':�hllrMwr��R�dA��.k.�a�wK�
, . ,. :.s;'i^ 'W y omr�v,elleiaN� p � x��etivR mu Nr uw,w.��wn�M p�la�vw N Yey a� ,ui e ul.ui:o-'�
: . , .; ; >, r ,. r.
� �
� e , . ., . . rAJ�^ !�o"RQ Y r/@ gw-0�?��,;IIyJNYA�S_
9 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
IIII ��� 1114�iiii� ��w�� IIII � iiii�iiii�iiii�iiii�iiii����iiii�iiii� ° �� q��
� ���m � ���� ���
. ,
To help the Town of Lexington prioritize the 298 �`�'���' � �
; ��<
bicycle, pedestrian, and trail facility recommendations, '
the TBPP used 12 criteria to score and rank them. The
results of the Prioritization process should inform
ro�ect fundin and future im lementation of the ��' ��� , ' "
p J 9 P o���� „��� ���' ��iq,i ����oi� ° , ' p�'
facility recommendations. Coordination with Public �
Works' regular repaving and repair program and Mass Ave in East Lexington included a handfu(of
roadway corridor projects programmed into the high-ranking recommendations for both
Town's Capital Budget should be noted. pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Ilf;�',��Ill����:ii�i�m I ���II����III���
The methodology used included a multi-step process:
> Establishment of 12 evaluation criteria—both quantitative and qualitative—based on
the TBPP's five goals (see Table 1)
> Each criterion was "weighted" based on the Town's priorities
> Scores from 0-15 were provided for project recommendations based on the
quantitative (per geographic data) and qualitative (per planning teamjudgment)
scoring rubric
T�bl� ESm1 Ev�lu�tion �riteria
Plan Goals Criteria (up to 5 points each) Weighting Max.
Note:gualitative criteria shown in Italia Weighted
Point Total
Proximity to reported bicycle/pedestrian crashes 2 10
1:SAFETY
Motor vehicle volume alon roadwa 2 10
Addresses a ke a in the trail/bic c(e/ edestrian network 1 5
Proximit to ublic or rivate school (K-12) 3 15
2:CONNECTIVITY
Proximit to ublic ark or conservation(and entrance 2 10
Proximit to transit line(MBTA or Lex ress) 2 10
3: DESIGN Recommendation promotes "all ages and abilities"by 2 10
rovidin se aration from motor vehic(es
Proximit to retail districts 2 10
4: ECONOMY
Proximit to tourist/cultural destination 1 5
Level of engineering complexity 2 10
5: FEASIBILITY lm act to existin on-street arkin 2 10
Level of ex ressed communit su ort 1 5
TOTAL 110
Using this prioritization methodology, scores were given to all 298 bicycle and pedestrian facility
recommendations in the TBPP. The ranked order of recommendations broken into five categories—
10 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
on-road bicycle facilities, intersections, sidewalks, crosswalk, and trail/shared use path
recommendations can be found in the full report.
11 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
IIII �� „ � „ °��
„ �
.�
�������� iiii��IIII� iiii���iiii�����iiii��iiii� ��iiii������
The recommendations developed for the TBPP represent a major investment in active transportation
infrastructure in Lexington that could not happen without a strong implementation strategy that includes
high-level cost estimates, performance measures,and the individuals and groups—including MassDOT
for the state roads in Lexingtor�who will take the lead on implementation.
Ill��iir���irmiirm��irm�� I ����,�iir��
Performance Measures are data-driven benchmarks intended to help the Town gauge progress
towards the TBPP's five goals. They also help the Town departments and commissions communicate
successes and challenges and motivate community and political leaders to take further action. By
nature, they are aspirational and intended to 'push the envelope'to encourage moving ahead more
aggressively to improve active transportation safety and accessibility in Lexington. To achieve
success, serious consideration of additional funding for implementation and maintenance will be
needed, affecting the five-year Capital Plans for a handful of departments, especially Public Works.
Table ESm2 Perf�rrnanee ea�ur�sz
Plan Goals Performance Measure 3-and-8 Year Lead Agencies/
Tar ets Groups
2027 2032
Reduction in bicycle and pedestrian-involved 25% 50% Planning Department,
crashes. *This metric does not account for how safe Police and TSG.
people feel
1: SAFETY Number of crosswalks enhanced with pedestrian 6 16 Public Works, Planning
safety countermeasures (new or existing) Department,and TAC
Reduction of reports of nears misses(This data set 25% 50% TSG/Police
can be created through online mapping.Will need
to develop baseline)
Number of lane miles of new bike lanes(either 4 mi. 20 mi. Public Works, Planning
standard or separated) Department and TAC/
LBAC
Total miles of connected bike lanes increasin 2 10 En ineerin , DPW,TSG
Z:CONNECTIVITY Number of new bicycle or pedestrian safety projects 6 24 Public Works, Planning
(of any type)within�/z mile of a public or private K- Department, and Lex.
12 school Public Schools
Number of new sidewalk projects that eliminate 10% 50% Engineering, DPW,TSG,
a s in the network Commission on Disabilit
Number of lane miles of new separated bike lanes 1 mi. 6 mi. Public Works, Planning
3: DESIGN and/or new side paths Department,TAC/LBAC
Increased percentage of commuters who report 2.5% 3%walk Planning Department
4: ECONOMY walking or bicycling to work as their primary means walk 2% 3%bike and Economic
bike Development
Z Note that meeting these benchmarks could have significant impact on budget and staff capacity.Five-year Capital Plans among various
departments will need to be coordinated so the Town can seize upon small and large opportunities to improve the bicycle and pedestrian
network in Lexington.
12 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
of transportation (per current ACS data,2.2%and
1.2%, respectively)
The number of Lexington students riding buses to 60% 80%
school. Currently 50%of the student body
purchases bus passes
Annual number of temporary/pilot projects to 1 demo 1 demo Public Works, Planning
5: FEASIBILITY demonstrate the effectiveness of bicycle or per year per year Department,and TSG/
pedestrian improvements on a roadway TAC/LBAC
TSG =Transportation Safety Group/TAC=Transportation Advisory Committee/LBAC = Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee
13 Executive Summary
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�����
�
p
�
This report highlights the existing conditions assessment, network analysis,
bicycle and pedestrian network recommendations, and prioritization
methodology to improve bicycling, walking, rolling, and using micromobility
in Lexington. It also summarizes Lexington's safety and promotion programs
for bicyclists and pedestrians and provides an implementation strategy to
encourage a phased approach to improving active transportation in the
town.
� � Iu� ��, �
� ���'� IIII I�iiii� � � ��iiii� Illf �� �° ��� iiii iiii����iiii� IIII� �iiii� iiii� iiii
The Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and ,����� ,�;,,�f�t�G���������f��;,���� ,��,������
/ /,f�,/,,,, //0// ' i///%//%/%//////////�% ;���j�
Pedestrian Plan (TBPP) identifies ` '� � °, ,,
� �� ,,�� ,�, ,,,i��/
current and future desired conditions ' t��r � � ����'��`'
for bicycling, walking, and rolling in
Lexington. It serves as a guide for the
Select Board, Town staff, the
Transportation Safety Group (TSG), y ����������/�i� ifl�/ '�° " �
��/i��/�i //// �����i � i
various committees, residents, and r��Nn��»f���i�'11���������//����uis�� ,,, ���
ff���'m' �/� ��° a� �d �,�„ � r� � f,
local advocates to work together to � ������;,`�'�"� "-��.
accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, '
and other active transportation users
in a coordinated and holistic manner.
Striped bike lanes,crosswalk and ffashing beacon on P(easant Street
The Plan is an action-oriented
document designed to help bridge
the gap between current conditions and what residents and visitors envision for safe, comfortable,
and connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the policies and programs that support them.
This is the Town's first town-wide bicycle and pedestrian plan and provides an opportunity to
enhance walking and bicycling safety and connectivity throughout Lexington.
1 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
In aggregate, the TBPP includes nearly 300 distinct recommendations.
T�ble 1 5umrnary af R�cam�endatior�s by Categ�ry
: � � � � �
New Trails 15 2.6
Trails Improved Trails 12 3.5
Shared-use Paths (in Road ROW) 8 3.7
Separated Bicycle Lanes ; 9 4.5
Bicycle Facilities Standar�i &icycle Lanes 38 18.6
Shared Lanes w/Traffic Calmin� 3a 11.5
, , , � ;;,
/ / „ �
,��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ,,,,,,,, ;;;;;;,
Ir���r��e i� „rru ;�< ;; _ �
,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiioiiiiiii ;,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;,;,;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,;�;,,,,,,,;,,;:,,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,,
,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i � � � , ,
New Sidewalks 79 15.7
Sidewalks
Improved Sidewalks 13 4.9
New Crosswalks 29 NA
Crosswalks
Improved Crosswalks 31 NA
� i w "� ���� �
� �� ���iiii��iiii�° iiii � Illf��1114��IIII iiii� Illf iiii���° �iiii� iiii��
�
Throughout the year-long process, the planning team provided a series of opportunities to
understand the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians and the preferred outcomes for the Lexington
TBPP.The outreach and engagement included interviewing key stakeholders, bi-monthly meetings
with the pre-established Transportation Safety Group "+" (i.e., the TSG plus additional members),
three public meetings, and an on-line survey which included a community-input mapping tool.
����Ilk�lll��lll��i� ���iir���ll�
Primarily in the early phases of the planning effort, Town staff and the consultant team met with a
variety of stakeholders with a keen interest in pedestrian/bike safety, safe routes to school, trails, and
accessibility issues. Input from the following groups and committees helped with the assessment of
existing conditions and informed recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian programs and
infrastructure projects:
> Bicycle Advisory Committee
> Transportation Advisory Committee
> Safe Routes to School advocates
2 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Greenways Corridor Committee
> Representatives of the Conservation Commission and Greenways Corridor Committee
> High school students from LHS and elsewhere
> Council on Aging
> Commission on Disability
> Sustainable Lexington
,,,,Ilf�ir�iir�����ir����iii�iim �������� �ir��Il� ,,,�,.
The Transportation Safety Group (TSG) is a Town Manager appointed group that focuses on concerns
and ideas related to traffic safety, public transit, and bicycle/pedestrian accessibility and safety. For
the TBPP, additional stakeholders were invited to attend bi-monthly meetings of the renamed TSG+
to help guide the consultant team's analysis and planning work.The group's input influenced the
format of the public meetings, the plan's goals,weighting of the evaluation criteria, and the nature of
some of the bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations.
Ilf��llblll6� I �����iiiir�„ �
Throughout 2023, the Town hosted three public meetings to inform the community of the planning
work, to receive input on concerns and ideas, and to present the initial draft recommendations and
prioritization. Meetings included: � ��i� Y aa uuuui.���� �����-
+9�� �
� � �
> April 4 at the Lexington ��� ���� ��� ��
.. ���� �
��, , �
Community Center. After an � � ��� ,�,;�
���
introductory presentation,the 40- � ���i' � W�` f
45 attendees broke into smaller ,� � � �� � "� � � �
� ��,1 ����+ um ° �
groups and focused on bicycle and � ���� �` " �� ����'���' ''�"'��"'���
�ii�,��r �� �� �I
pedestrian issues within four �/ ,�, �l�„�c" i �r�
,�i a l
quadrants of the town. Dozens of % ,,,�,,�
comments and ideas were ' �
incor orated into the draft set of tr'�l (� � �� �
p � „�r����r� �,, i� I ,�
facility recommendations and the VHB project manager Phil Goff presenting at the
TBPP's draft goals. Apri(4 meeting at the Lexington Community Center
> June 8 at Cary Hall's main �
auditorium. Following a slide „ , , ,, , ,, �,
presentation related to the initial �"��� `�'�� °��
network recommendations, the
roughly 25 meeting attendees � '°��
gathered at three "theme"tables.
The stations allowed for feedback ��' � �� ����, �'����,��� ��
� �
and detailed comments related to i�� �'1���,� ,� �
�f/; � ,����,,r �� �f�
the draft bicycle, pedestrian, and L�� �' , ,,,�»
���
� �,i� �1rruG i,�,,, ���//. a i t
safe routes to school-related ��, ��,,; �i li,,, � ,��j�����
� ii< r L
recommendations, respectively. June 8 meeting attendees at Cary Ha((gather around
Attendees also provided input on the maps to discuss dra{t network recommendations
3 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
the highest priority corridors and answered a series of policy-based questions related
to the trade-offs between bike and pedestrian facilities and on-street parking along
constrained road corridors.
> September 14 at the Community Center Lunch with Council on Aging.Town staff solicited
opinions on issues of concern, how to prioritize improvements and how we should consider
trade-offs.
> November 1 at Estabrook Hall within Cary Hall.The presentation included the final draft
bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations,the methodology used within the
prioritization process,and the"top 10"highest scoring projects within each category.The 25
attendees then asked questions about the overall plan, clarification on the highest-scoring
recommendations,and expectations for implementation over time.
�iir�III ii iir�� ��iir�r�� �irm� III irm����� I ���� Ilf����III��:�
From April to late June, an online survey was made available to community members.The 17-question
survey garnered 374 responses, 91%of which came from Lexington residents. Questions related to how
often they walk and bike locally,the barriers they experience as pedestrians and bicyclists (and for
children getting to school), potential counter measures to improve access and safety, current use of e-
bikes and e-scooters, and how they would prioritize funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements
in the town. For the latter question, the survey asked respondents how they would like to spend $1.00
(100 pennies) on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and programs in Lexington. Results included:
> Improve connections to public transit: $0.09 •�� ,,,, =
F�����,���,r� � ,
t,rr � c������,F Frf�r�'
> Education and safety training programs �, , ��,
$0.04 ° , i„� �
� ��
l0kCl1 Y5
> More trails and multi-use paths: $0.20 � ��
� �
� ,, �
�, �6 i����,rr„ I�IPry4fi. i
> Striped bike lanes/protected bike lanes: %' �a �� � ° �.�����
� � ,�.
$0.20 � � ' ° � ��� m �. �
� ^��� '�� �
> Improving or adding new sidewalks: $0.18 � � ���' � �������
� � � � � � ��
> Winter maintenance of paths,trails and � � �;� ����
��,�� � ,��,.
sidewalks: $0.11 �"�'" �� � �
,,
�
> Safer intersections and road crossings: $0.16 ��
.
, �,�:E„��
> Programs to promote alternatives to driving: `""
Lu i�(t kd II
��.�2 �Y�,. �711Gr , �
�.
Two of the survey questions gave participants � ��,, �����
% � �
the opportunity to provide responses onto an ��"° ,,, ��`` � � � ,,,,��� ������
interactive, online input map. Comments for �, � � �'�''���
desired facilities were able to be coded by '�' � '� �, � --� � �"� �� ����
project type: new bike lanes, intersection safety �
improvements, new/improved crosswalk, � ��� �- �� ���
new/improved path or trail, and new/improved Portion of the online survey's interactive map
sidewalk. Many of the hundreds of online map highlighting input in Lexington Center, around LHS and
a(ong Marreff Road/Rt.2A
comments—along with those made in person
including the public meetings and the
4 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Community Center lunch meeting with seniors—received provided the foundation for the first
iteration of bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations made by the planning team.
Full results from the survey are available in Appendix A.
� ��� �
�� IIII ��iiii��liii iiii� IIII ���iiii iiii� � iiii� Illf� � iiii�� ��iiii� Illf� IIII��iiii���
The Town has already established momentum in improving bicycling,walking, and rolling with
planning work such as the Complete Streets Prioritization Plan in 2016,the Climate Change
Resolution in 2017, the Sustainability Action Plan in 2018, Open Space and Recreation Plan in 2023,
the Comprehensive Plan in 2022, and the Vision Zero Action Plan in 2022.The Town-wide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan builds from these efforts to ensure a level of continuity.
I III�""III"" ��iir�ir�rmm�uirmiir�ii�� ��� ������
In early 2023, Lexington Town Meeting approved a rezoning effort as part of the Commonwealth's
MBTA Communities Act legislation.Approval amended the Town's Zoning Bylaw and Zoning map to
allow multi-family housing "by right" in newly created Village and Multi-family Overlay Districts.
Town Meeting's approval also included specific parameters for future projects related to permit
process, permitted uses, maximum heights, minimum parking requirements, minimum setbacks, and
inclusionary housing requirements. By approving the changes to the Zoning Bylaw, the Town retains
eligibility for MassWorks Infrastructure and Capital Project Fund State Grant Programs Areas. The
new overlay districts include areas in East Lexington along Mass Ave,various parts of Bedford Street,
Concord Ave at Waltham Street, parts of Marrett Road, and nodes along Hartwell Avenue (at Bedford
Street, Maguire Road, and at Wood Street). Because new multi-family housing will bring higher
population density to some parts of Lexington, demand for bicycling and walking facilities in these
areas is likely to increase.
iii�iii�ir� ��ir°� ���ii�iir� III�III�ir� �����,�
The August 2022 Vision Zero Action Plan explains the goals of Vision Zero and provides context as to
why those goals are important for the Town of Lexington.The Plan contains town-wide graphics
showing comprehensive reviews of the numbers of crashes, their severity, and which crashes involved
non-motorists between 2015 and 2019. The plan was developed by the firm Environmental Partners.
The Vision Zero Action Plan collected data from Town residents who were invited to use an
interactive mapping tool to pinpoint locations where they have experienced a near-miss, were
involved in a crash, or witnessed dangerous behavior.Another map collected information on
locations where the public believed there was missing pedestrian or bike accommodations such as
sidewalks, crosswalks, or bike lanes.
The Vision Zero Action Plan with a full description of all proposed objectives can be found at
Ir�tt.Fas.���r�ry�r.�nrollexir7. tr�irnir�rn�. a�r I[7�:rcurn�inrt��ir�Ger i��ry 7tJ�C1 ?0.?...?..C}�...3� I...�xirr toim..Odisiic�r7..��ir�..
�ctiic�r7--C�Il�ir�
.....................................................
No specific locations for pedestrian or bike infrastructure improvements were explicitly stated but the
plan describes high-level objectives that ranged from making intersections safer to creating an
inventory of existing mid-block crossings, to implementation of a low-stress bicycle network.
5 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The Vision Zero Team intends to plan infrastructure improvements throughout the Town in the next
few years and expectation are that the Town will coordinate recommendations within the Town-wide
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Ill,,,,,��iiiir� ���i�Il�Ilf;°; � ��irm�Il�ir�lll��iim�iii�r� III�III�iir� (� ��,�
The LexingtonNEXT Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Planning Board on September 28tn
2022, replacing previous Comp Plans from 2002 and 2003.The plan states the following goals (with
Objectives 4.3 and 7 call for an inclusive, multi-modal community coinciding with the goals of the
Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan):
1. To promote the diversity, equity, and inclusion of people visiting, living, and working in Lexington
2. To promote a wide range of housing options that respond to the needs of households, regardless
of the income and life stage
3. To promote a vital economy, including small and large businesses that contribute to the tax base
and provide goods and services to meet the needs of residents, employees, and visitors
4. To enhance quality of life, health, and safety by implementing practices and policies that enhance
sustainability and resiliency in our community
s 4.3 Reduce transportation emissions by improving sustainable transportation options and
reducing single occupancy vehicle trips
0 4.3.1 Increase public transit options and passenger miles traveled
0 4.3.2 Advocate for Transportation Improvement Districts at the state level
0 4.3.3 Enhance safety of walking and bicycling and increase micro mobility options
5. To protect open spaces and natural resources and to enhance their connections
6. To protect, preserve, and promote awareness and appreciation of Lexington's historic and cultural
resources from throughout its history
7. To make traveling into, out of, and within Lexington safe, pleasant, and efficient with sustainable
and equitable mobility options for all ages and abilities
• 7.1 Improve traffic management policies to increase safety and enhance quality of life
• 7.2 Expand options for walking, biking, and micro-mobility
0 7.2.1 Develop and implement a town-wide bicycle and pedestrian plan
s 7.3 Improve parking strategies to achieve transportation and economic development goals
• 7.4 Expand transit options
• 7.5 Adopt land use polices that advance the town's transportation goals
• 7.6 Increase public awareness and community pride in use of alternative modes of travel
8. To improve and expand facilities for recreation and community gathering to support holistic
wellbeing, a sense of belonging, enhance community connections, fun, and to build community
through social engagement
9. To provide well-maintained, updated, inclusive and sustainable public facilities to serve and meet
community needs.
10.To support and advance Goals 1-9 of LexingtonNEXT through appropriate land use planning
6 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Il��iir� �II���� �ii��' I���iir�����°ii�iir� Ilf�lll�iir� ����,��
The Open Space and Recreation Plan's (OSRP) was prepared for the Town of Lexington by Activas
Architecture and Engineering in 2023.The OSRP's primary objective is to expand, maintain and
protect open space and other recreation assets in the Town.The OSRP provides a comprehensive
review of the natural resources of the town, from its waterways and geology to its vegetation and
wildlife. The OSRP also conducted a community survey which asked residents to determine their
priorities for the open space in Lexington. Hiking trails, restrooms and paved multi-use paths were
determined to be high or medium priority goals for the OSRP.
The Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will consider the environmental effects and impacts of
additional or wider paths through open spaces within Lexington. The Plan team will consider
coordination with the OSRP team to better manage the goals of both projects.
��iirmm�ll�lll���� ���:iir����,,� Ill��lllii�� �iir�� ��ir�r���lll���� ���,i�����,� Ilf�iir�,p���� Ill�ir°iii�iiriir�ii����,ii�iir�
Il�lll�iim ���"���
The Complete Streets Policy was approved in March 2016 with the goal to implement Complete
Streets elements into the planning and design of all capital projects so that they are safe for all ages
and abilities in Lexington.
This policy helps to integrate complete streets principles in all transportation projects. The Town will
use existing infrastructure planning tools including a pavement management plan (covering all Town
streets), a pedestrian facility condition index, a five-year capital plan, and various GIS transit related
maps.
Supplementing the Complete Streets Policy, the Complete Streets Project Prioritization Plan (CSPPP)
was submitted to MassDOT for future Tier 3 Complete Streets Program funding. The CSPPP included
50 projects focused on safety, ADA accessibility, pedestrian mobility, bicycle mobility, and vehicular
operations.
��u���ll� Ill,,,,,��iiiiir����,�iir� ,,,,Ilf„iir�irm�ll��iir����ii�ir� ����uc�� (��"�",��
The South Lexington Transportation study was completed in January 2015 by Fay, Spofford &
Thorndike (FST)with RKG Associates. The purpose of this study was to identify the potential traffic
impacts of proposed redevelopment project in South Lexington, determine if any additional
transportation improvements should be implemented (beyond what has already been proposed),
identify priorities for implementation, and provide preliminary cost estimates for the proposed
improvements.
The Study provided recommendations for additional pedestrian and bike improvements, many of
which lie on state roads (and therefore would require close coordination with MassDOT).
Recommendations included:
7 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Marrett Road (Route 2A) at Lincoln and School Street: new signalization, additional greenspace
replacing the north leg of Lincoln Street, driveway adjustments, and a re-orientation of School
Street to reduce pedestrian/bike/vehicle conflicts.
> Marrett Road (Route 2A) at Carey Street and Middle Street: re-alignment of the two closely
spaced intersections into a single intersection, more usable greenspace, pedestrian-actuated
flashing beacons (installed in 2021), and improved maintenance of overgrown vegetation.
> Hayden Avenue at Route 2 Interchange: replace slip lanes for westbound Rt. 2 off ramp and EB
Hayden Avenue access to Waltham Street with three new signalized intersections.
> Concord Avenue at Walnut Street and Pleasant Street: new ADA landings and sidewalk
improvements at Pleasant Street (insta(led in 2019), and a new crosswalk,sidewalk landings, and
potential RRFB at west leg of Concord/Walnut intersection.
> Lincoln Street at Middle Street: square the intersection with stop control for west bound traffic
on Middle Street. (installed in 2022)
> Shade Street at Spring Street: consider a new crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection.
Ilf���'����°iirii�irm
Figur� 3 Sidew�lk Conditi�n Index �p
�����iillbiiilllii��y ����u��
��,���� �� �
"� �� ��� ; . .
The Pedestrian Accessibility � �,� � �
r ���� 58+i�awelkCrondVklan Irrdex,
study was prepared by FST ���� � ;��, �,���a ���r � ��
and submitted to the Town of u.�� ���"�,�'�,, � ad �m ��'"���� ,„� ,� r���,m�„�,G;���A��
Lexington in December 2014. �`��,�"��'� �, �� .'� � � _ �� `� ���""��"���'°""'�
The oal of this stud was to ��� � �,;,�a�� � �� � �������� ' ��� �,
� ,� ��" � r �
g Y x � � �.,
��m ....
� ,� +*� i�� � � � �
create a comprehensive GIS � , ,,,m "� ti �` ` � ° »�
database of all sidewalks and ���Y����'����� � �� �' ��" w"w, �"���"�
curb ramps, and their current �'� � ��� � ��-���� � p � � '� �,
� �� � � . �
��"
quality.Additional data such �����k ���� ���' , � �� �'� � �4
�" � � �' „ �� � o
� , �
as trip hazards and pinch �`� �� ° d'���,� � w������M`�� w "" "' �" , ��� ���'R� ,
� ,a� � � � �� � �"�� �
� � � ��,� ���, � '��
points were also �� � :�� � �� � �� �" � °^~�
,� � ,�
documented. Based on the � �"�°���� �� ����" � " � �`� �� � a� ,�"��°
� . �� ��, .., � �� ,
� � e
. . � � � ��.
sidewalk condition index, it � ' w �� �� `��r�" °����
� � ��:.�., � B � � � �`r ,
.. ��� . � ��� ���
a�� �., � , , � a �� m��, � ,
was determined that the p � � y � ��., ,,
n � ��,.,,. �_� � �"� "�,���" ` �
backlog of repainng and �� �� ',,�, � , �� � � h ��`��
�� ��, °��F �o,. ��
sidewalk network was ��M �,,,� �' ����� � �,.�' � ��� �;� �
�,,,, ��
maintainin Lexin ton's �� � w
.��
$7,037,124 at the time of the ��� ���� ����"���� � � , �� �� �� � �w�F,� �
��� � �� � � � � � � �
$tUC��/3. AS a Y2SUIt Of th2 � � '� � �'� ���,� b °���,��`����x�zy"�
study each year $800,000 is F ��•��� �,
appropriated on sidewalk ��w �.''q � ' �
maintenance. � �,,,','
3 Since the completion of the 2014 study,the Town has since established a roughly$800,000 annual budget for regular sidewalk maintenance.
8 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
��Il���alll ��ir°�iir�miir����� ����Ilf�i�����ii� �������� �iir��' Il�iir�°ii����iii�irm Ilf��lllii�� �������
The School Committee is responsible for traffic safety and mitigation on school property. The
purpose of the Policy is to improve safety by affecting driver behavior and the quality of life for
residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. In addition, it is to ensure that school traffic plans do
not hinder quick response time for emergency service vehicles including fire trucks, police cars,
ambulances, and large vehicles such as school buses and trucks used for providing essential
municipal, school, and resident services.Any changes to posted traffic plans for each school building
must be reviewed by the Transportation Safety Group before being approved by the School
Committee and implemented by the building Principal.
""III'°ir�����iii� ��Illir�iiiir�� Ilf��lllii�y ��,����
The Town of Lexington Traffic Calming Policy was created in 2009 to assist the Town in defining what
constitutes Traffic Calming and how residents can request measures be taken on their street.The
Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) is responsible for reviewing and approving traffic calming
measures. If traffic calming is determined to be needed,the TSAC develops conceptual plans and
after a public meeting the preferred traffic calming measures will be implemented and monitored.
The TSAC was replaced with the Transportation Safety Group in 2014.
���� Il,,,,,�xiiii� ���ii� �iir��iir���� I �����ir Ill�lll�i�m (�����
The West Lexington Greenway Master Plan was prepared by VHB and submitted to the Town of
Lexington in May 2009.The Master Plan was created in conjunction with the West Lexington
Greenway Task Force to "create a detailed picture of the entire area in order to conduct an informed
planning process for trail alignment and improvement". A network of trails and paths through open
space and conservation lands connect West Lexington and beyond. Environmental and political
constraints make further development of these trails and paths extremely difficult. The established
network will help to inform potential improvement recommendations in the Town-wide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan. More information on the specific trails can be found at:
Ir�tt.�s;��w�nr.w,:lle�xin. tr�ir�irm��.�C?..:�11��raill�.
9 I ntroduction
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�
����
� "` ��� ��
a,
. . . .
The planning team reviewed existing pedestrian and bicycle programs in
Lexington, as well as existing conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists
throughout the Town.
������������� IIII�IIIIIII'����iiii��������,iiii iiii�������� IIII��������� �,�������iiii�'iiii� iiii���� ��iiii� �� IIII��'�'�'�������iiii ���� �IIII ������ IIII���������iiii� � ������ iiii���iiii�°��
Ilf���'����iirii�irm �ii��' Ilf�ii�y�lll� ��������� Ilf;�',��w����fi�iir�M �ir�� Ilf;�;iir����ir�g�ir��i���
Ilf�ir� iir�iir�m�
The Town of Lexington provides safety, education, and encouragement programs for bicycling and
walking4.These range from year-round programming such as Safe Routes to School walking buses
and bike trains, and seasonal events typically held in May such as Bike Rodeos and Bike Walk'N Bus
Week.
Other seasonal or recurring promotional activities include tabling at events with informational and
educational resources, conducting bike lights giveaways, coordinating group bike rides during the
year, and helmet distributions.
Lexbikewalkbus.org Web Page
The Town currently hosts a web page that promotes walking, � "
_"� ���
bicycling, and using transit as transportation options within �, � �"� , N
,� � w ,.� �
beXLegin� t naTeans o tlatio�nikswvllicle�s��see Acknowled ement s� ��' e��
.. .. .. � � 9
Y g P ( J �� "�
page for contact).The site provides a convenient "one stop" � �....... ......... ...... ........ �� �
location for resources related to walking, bicycling, and public „,
transit with an emphasis on the promotion of Safe Routes to � �
School. Other programs—typically held between April and October—promoted on the site include
4 More information can be found at:Vrttps:/�wrwrwr.lexine�Icrn.iYra.e�ov/1.,3FSh�Piking.:::R�sour:ces
10 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Smart Cycling Adults, Smart Cycling Teens, Smart Cycling Women, Bike Smart Youth, Bike Rodeos,
Flat Tire Clinics, Bike Maintenance Clinics, and family-friendly bike rides.
Safe Routes to School
The Town of Lexington coordinates a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Programs, as part of a larger state,
national, and international initiative. The goal of the program is to encourage students to walk or
bike to school on selected safe routes by providing route maps and coordinating walking and biking
groups.
SRTS route maps6 for walking and biking to school are published by the Town and MassDOT and
provide detail on crosswalk locations, seasonal routes, and the Minuteman Bikeway where applicable.
They include the following schools:
> Elementary Schools: Harrington Elementary, Maria Hastings Elementary, Fiske
Elementary, Estabrook Elementary, Bridge Elementary, and Bowman Elementary
> Middle Schools:Jonas Clarke and William Diamond Middle Schools
> Lexington High School was recently included under the MassDOT's decision to allow
high schools to participate in the program. The Town's Transportation Services
department recently created a High School Ambassador program to help promote
active transportation options at LHS.
Walking buses and bike trains are parent- 1� ����������'�'1 ' � � '�������
�� � ff1����D/ /�/�� �`y,,
chaperoned groups for walking or biking to �'//��� � ��!�l/�, �'��
� „ ���//////,/„�; I,% ,�
school to encourage physical activity, social ��� �;l;i� ,,
�� ;l
connections, and more environmentally �� � "
friendly trips to school. The SRTS groups � � ��
coordinate student drop-off and pickup points
� d� a ,� II���
along the specified routes. Lexington provides �""� � a�� II� �',�,«,i�
an online interest form'for new participants to ,1 I�� ` �� ��,,�'�; � �li�l
� �
connect with others tojoin or lead a group, or �� �
to request more information. MassDOT ��� �,,n,l�,
supports SRTS activities such as walking school �»„ , �aj
l.i����ii�°' „�` �
buses and bike train programs by providing '� � ���' �„ �°' `�r°�� ,�'„ � ,"� �
informational resources$ and walking school Hastings School bike trains have become a popu(ar
pragram to promote bicycling for young chifdren.
bus kits which include supplies910
5 Lexington SRTS website:Nitt�-rs:���nruvuv.lexir� tara nrr��a.c��7Q7�Safe-Routes�ta-Schcral
6 Lexington SRTS maps can be found at this link:rilt s: c�rive. c�o le.corri drive falciers 1 Us'r_C>lJXll-11�e�IS.1W�RRekY. eEsr
7 Walking School Bus/Bike Train Interest(google.com)
8 download(mass.govl
9 Safe Routes To School-Encouragement� Mass.gov
10 Safe Routes to school Request(state.ma.us)
11 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Bike Rodeos
Lexington hosts Bike Rodeo events" each spring for grades K through 8, to teach students bicycling
skills and bike safety through an obstacle course format. Bike Rodeos feature group instruction on
the rules of the road, a test as part of the 30-minute obstacle course, and also safety services such as
checking the fit of helmets1z and bikes. The events also offer informational stations to provide
education and encouragement of bicycling. Helmets are typically provided by donation from Boston
Children's Hospital Injury Prevention Program.Volunteers from the Lexington Bicycle Advisory
Committee frequently help with helmet fitting for the young recipients. Bicycle lights and reflective
arm bands/ankle straps have also been distributed.
Bike Walk N' Bus Week/Month
Each May, Lexington hosts an annual week of events each May, "Bike Walk N' Bus Week"13 t0
encourage walking, bicycling, and riding transit.The events included historic walks, guided bike rides,
bike commuter breakfasts at the Depot, free Lexpress bus rides to promote the Town's various
alternative transportation resources. The Town staff organize the event week, along with the Bicycle
Advisory Committee, Greenways Corridor Committee, and Safe Routes to School Committee.
�u��iirm�ir�m�iir� ��� �iii����III II� IR��,u������; Ilf�iir�g ir�iir�m �iir��' Ilf��iirii�iirii��;iii����ii�i� ""III""��III
The Town created the Sidewalk Request Process in 2017 to facilitate the review/design/installation of
sidewalks in locations where residents request them. First, residents must submit a "New Sidewalk
Request Form"to the Transportation Safety Group (TSG) which outlines the specific sidewalk location
need, as well as the signatures of neighbors.After a staff review and additional data collection from
the Town (including reviewing the Pedestrian Accessibility Study— see section 1.3), the Town will also
review the Sidewalk Prioritization Tool which accounts for land use mix, proximity to local
destinations, and the density of nearby development to create a Sidewalk Priority Score. Comments
from the public are then considered along with a full engineering analysis to provide more
information on the feasibility of the project. This process is currently on hold pending the results of
this plan.
11 Recreation&Communitv Programs� Human Services Department:Bike Rodeo(K-81 fmyrec.com)
12 How to Fit a Bicycle Helmet(helmets.orql
13 N�tt�r.,:��www.tourlexincgt:arr.us�hore7e�ever�tsl6�46:3
12 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 4 Sidewalk �equ�st Prmgr� Sid�walk Pri�ritizatimn ap
r-
° S��e�r��k F��i�+ritV���dcar�h���r�r�lf��p ----- -------------
�������
� �� �d h .� �IIY3�„YIbyY„�I'f„YY�J J% efarm�wu �".�:erw
�
w A 9� 1
, 4 �t H k�� ., � ..�
. �� ��. � � .J V ��"� "y" �
...,,.,....`�..°° � . 4p . '
� ry � � ��
^. y ^^"',v J bVtl.%Yi,NN�d _
M'NI �r � � �f Y �4 � ] �e
/ " � (
� �
J �;� :'� � N. � .,m1 n!aw
f � x. ��
r
J� e.. R�l� �� � � � � x � f A
� �r
, 4. �� � ���.,,. ��.�1� i ,� w _
; � w�, � y.
� ^
a µ
� � � i � " � ���
� �,,,,s
� ��„ � � � � P����•����r��
VNY'G"�('.��9tlYA� b � 1.
�^y � ..... ,,,,,,.
I // �� � '" �� �Iq �r..mI ) �M�
,✓ d � � .,i� F �Y l
� �" I� �
4 �� �
� ..,..e �
.�. e M � �,.0 '��, n ,Y
II yy'' � �.�X� �m., � w„`�� � '^�'� ��. � r � �,
�, �
; �V � � � � �,�, '"m
� � �
' �
'u{ /pp� � �
� Y ��'�V�;�� ���� fl ( � �� � I �, ...W ���.. 7 .�
, r ..
� ,i �"��� �� '��� �d" d
� � " ��*� -��°�� �� �,� �
� a.. ,
� ,� � � ,
� ��.e�TM, � /� �" � i �i d��'���, �` ;, ''��,���� � w,w� �
�� x � i � � � � i � � ,
� � t'r � '��° '�,` � �'�� � � � �� `�V " '� "��P'� �''r°'y �l
trDrxtrre�A �d"w r y, ,� E o. ,� / `� « �d R
P � �� '�"!' 1 , � � nin.ro�i�r�;'am�
..,..,; � .....,� ' , � � .m�� �tiu�� .• � ��, ...,.���� � ��
� u A1 r
�h �,Q �t' � � " 'hI�' �� �h
I � k �+ &� �Y '�^ �° sw/" � � „rf
T.+,m�au'w �p�"M1µ �� P h IfI ��� �,� � ,� �`�' ��
Pr�','µ fli��... p 'k ✓' l �¶ ..��A�f� °
A` tt ,y- �., �, � � f �1
'� �•,`. .'"� h
� ��.�m,����«. ��, -��' �. � � ��
� `" ' �Ta
a
F r+ � �
i
� � i � �, .. � � P � ��" 1
� ���
� ���� �,, _ �� � ;
.� r ��� � ��� M ' , � .� � � � P
tniwrp"tehi �f' .�.� ��� � �r � ���
f, (°- � �,,y,
y'� � ��
,� �d.,, �,,.�..,,.,, �� ...,..� "�l"��"���.I,,- j I I:IV'IM(';'�MT
!��M1 h4
q . �! .Y � b �} u µ IT,�
/� �....,,i.-�:�,:'��. �d"" ��.�
"� a1 i�dw rv.:� fl ..r� '', w"� � ". !
6 � ��
,,,,,,,ry � ,,,,,�,,.,,, ........,,,
._, f, „.,,...,
.. hr�IV"5 .,,,,,,,.._ „.. ..._..r„ �'. .„' ....
.� 4N849.rcV9/MIM ...
Lexington has a structured program for reviewing and prioritizing requests from residents to build
new sidewalks throughout the Town14.The Town's 2017 Sidewalk Request Program and Prioritization
Tool outlines the steps for residents to officially request a sidewalk, the Town's review process, and
the method for approving, funding, and prioritizing construction of feasible sidewalk locations, given
the Town's limited resources.The process can typically take several years to complete, depending on
the scale and the scope of the request.
The prioritization tool, released in 2017, seeks to prioritize requests with quantitative metrics to
address areas with the highest existing needs and potential for pedestrian traffic.The tool takes into
account various pedestrian trip generators and provides a prioritization score, screening out
locations such as state-owned roadways, streets with existing sidewalks, cul-de-sacs, and dead ends.
The process for a sidewalk request includes the following phases and steps:
> Phase 1 - Initial Review
• Request Form Submitted by Petitioner's
• Transportation Safety Group (TSG) Staff Review
• Initial Meeting with Petitioner
14 aid�wrall<Ra...uest� I.exin.,qton,MA(le>cin 4r�r� r�ma.r�}.
15 New Sidewalk Request Form(lexingtonma.govl
13 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Phase 2 - Evaluation
• TSG Staff Evaluation & Data Collection
• Collection of Signatures by Petitioner
• Public Meeting with Direct Abutters and Petitioner
• Presentation to the Board of Selectmen
• Town Meeting Request for survey and other evaluation funding, if needed
> Phase 3 - Further Engineering Analysis
• Procure Consultant
• TSG Reviews Results and Makes Recommendation
• Public Meeting
• Board of Selectmen Meeting
s Town Meeting for design and construction funding
> Phase 4 - Design & Installation
• Because the sidewalk program is resident initiated and then needs a project champion to
shepherd the project through the lengthy process, sidewalks were being built in locations that
may not be the most effective equitable use of Town resources. The program did provide a
clear path to requesting sidewalks but may miss areas that would have a bigger impact on the
entire pedestrian and multimodal network.
14 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
����� IIII��'�'�'�'�'�'�'�'����iiii�������iiii iiii� ���������,iiii �� ���������������iiii������iiii��IIII� ���w��� iiii��������iiii ���� iiii� IIII����������� iiii�llll�
� ,
The existing bicycling and pedestrian network in
So .
Lexington includes sidewalks, curb ramps, r �,,���;` '�r��p,��� � �' �
crosswalks, walking trails, paved shared use paths, � �'�",� ��� � ��
bicycle lanes, and streets designated for bicycle � '�` �
and vehicle mixing with shared-lane markings.
The core of the Town's active transportation16
network is the spine formed by the Minuteman
Bikeway with the secondary paths and trails that •_
`«•;�,�oa
lace through the Town's open spaces.While the
Minuteman is a mostly seamless experience for '
bicyclists and pedestrians, some road crossings Naturaf surface shared-use path through Wiflard
still require enhancements to further improve the Woods
level of comfort for pedestrians and the many novice bike riders and families. The secondary paths
further support bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in Lexington and offer non-motorized
opportunities to travel through different neighborhoods. Many of these paths:
> Require widening to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians
> Lack seamless connections to other on-street bikeways and sidewalks
> Require upgrades to road crossings to improve safety and comfort
16 Active transportation refers to walking,bicycling(both standard and e-bikes),using micromobility devices such as an e-scooter,and
operating a wheelchair or other mobility device.
15 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Ilf;°;�ii���iiii�� IC�iii���lll� IIf����6illlii���;iii��
Bicycle facilities in Lexington include shared use
paths, conventional bike lanes, and buffered bike Lea ue of eriean icyclists
lanes. Some streets where people bicycling and �ike�Friendly Community Program
drivers must share the road are also designated with Given the current network of on-street
shared-lane markings (SLM), aka "sharrows", bike facilities and off-road paths, along
although this is not in itself a bike facility. Figure 5 with the Town's current policies and
shows locations of existing bike facilities including programs towards bicycling, the Town
shared lanes,which are streets striped with sharrows. was recognized in 2014, 2018, and 2022
Although many major roads have some type of as a bronze-level Bicycle Friendly
facility or treatment, facilities are disconnected, lack Community(BFC) by the League of
a clear path of travel through intersections, and lack American Bicyclists (LAB). The LAB
important connections to schools, recreation areas, recognizes cities and towns that have a
and business areas. strong bicycling culture. In this
P; � „ � category, Lexington's formal advisory
,..�, � ��
4
committees, trail enthusiasts, and safe
'; routes to school advocates—especially
I ' those who run the bike trains—help the
, Town to achieve its BFC recognition.
� . Points are also given for previous and
ongoing bicycle planning efforts.The
;;ii � „
��ii������� � �%%��� / %;,��/�� �%% com letion of the TBPP at the end of
a�/6`i� %%% //%iiiiiiai� �� �j� i��///,//%%i/ p
1f����/;0��j�� / / %`�� �����1,�//�/i „��
�,i/i�������%/j/���%%/�i %,r% �j` 2023 can be used to bolster the Town's
�%�i������� G�� � � � �%j� - next application to achieve the next
� ��� f��� ����� / � , ��,,;�.
�,� � � � r ��� �P k�,�����,��1� ��1����1��(frl(r�,,�„ highest designation: Silver.
Some segments of Mass Ave feature 5-foot-wide,striped
bike lanes ' `°v"�"�'�
w
w:,��. f� �"� �
r��, �'� �
u��l��,���i'�%
I ,�
����
76 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 5 Existing �icy�le Facilities
� ��p ��;�,, � ��
�� ��.�.�r �
t 1 l,i��,,�1 k� ��� � � � �
� V���
,��'� �"��1 � �, �;�h,�� Bike Shops
�� � �-� �- c��
,
/��'� �� °� ;'�a ^� ���; Schoals ,���
,: �� � °"
� �
l `" `'� �11.� a�w �� ..�
/ � � `' � "��"�..`� � Shared Lenes
�h: Q �" n
I � r
���..:���`��"�"��rv� � ���ir��a��'���'��;`� I%`,�I�„�L'�<'��t�,�I �
� " � �� `� Bike �anes
�. �"' � � �� �,._i '� �n� '�
, �-�� �
/"� r � � �aai��� ""�„.� ^��m�� Minuter�an Bikewey
////,r
/ �,
���4� % "�� ��, '`` �������������� Shared IJse Paths
� / � ii/ r .� ��. '?k
�
� �� ;,���i /, � ..... .. Iki g rails
��� �` f � d� �"��"� "wu�v� V1d8 �r� T
� ���� � �* �
�1.�"�°au % /a'r� ; �,a�4�(� ��/VG�'� � "� � ,�
i i �i �T ��W�l]�� ��� �� � � �� �o-� \ 1 ��, ��
/�/ ,�� � �.
i�� I1! � `�
' ' �,;��°' / •�L�r� �", �y, �,,///�r�i„ �;;� {N �.,��ii , .A'`���� !I�1,,:i� ,,,..,�
�, �"�� �""��� �����l;i,, �� ��� 4�v� �� �e�.�` I�,
,
/�� �
t ' i
f '� � \
��" "� �'�p` .% ,g, " �„ � �;�
� �
w� � � � '°+9"y. �� ,�' "� ' F6_ "a "+
h i � �, � >
. � � �r � , �
�
a(i p , ��� �" Gu���
� � � �� i�
�
,,.�„ , � . � „ �ir�r. �,yy �� �� � ,
� ,. �� ry�� '� ��
� i �
�.,
"y,.� �% A �"�' ���t4 '�*
�;h
. , � /' �" >��' a". "�`� �� ,,,'"ni+� ���im a, „ � � ,.
._
h �!ti �'° C r .�
� jr r . � ,�� � �,��, � � e,�" u ,. �`�..
y; „ � „ � Cy �4v�„�, .,� �
1 � 4� � "
� � I� i �L �" �"�� a�Ny�� i
/ � � �' � �� � � �� i'xi�m'�`,�,n� �e �W` ,
F/ ��a� � �"iJ����� M Y' / ��WWy� is� �
/
� ���uwn��' � � � .L 1/ L ��.�
°'`.'y/
('2pJ �„ , < '�n�� ���'C��;. �� � ��y`$�� C �o��� i , :�" �,�i�° , r2'
� , �
�
�� ^� ^� u �V"� � ��f° ��M1d ��� � p�t 1�f�
°" "?� C R,�l �`�"�x� � � �' �" / , � ��� �k�
9 �
�/ d�9/�Sr�,� �� " �� p� � �,,,,, �`i�, �r ��a�� l% ��� � ��
� � � �h(t ��, "^rr" � � �1 �` /�/'�� d-d�
" ^G/ i ,�rr
� r � y �g a
� , q �ry yry��f y� F � �h
f f F f , � R ;, "'"i"a /�'7A�1���"� �� � ..
� .,. � y�� . fi��� -
b' f �j ' � l",�� ., � �A� i//d
;
( " r� �N�
�� � , � � � � w.
l, �l , �°���= �� '' � �� ' � µr "�„�,� � �
�
�� � �� � , r � � ;, � � f��
{ /�'� �.; :.-.�� " i."�� � ' ; �// .�.l p , �;��Po�„„,� y
� ' i tl���` " � .�,�,5�"�u'�'F� � Q Cu"�"� °°y'��� >, ' :�,y�.:���, �^�..;,�'.� ;��"�,�;�,,,„.„���*'.. ,,,�.� . �.
j ''/,' w+�
4%/j��i ���� ,�:� � �
' ,��, %1 l zA ���
1 __� �� � � _�
/� � � � ; � , , R a -f'' y % � � = ���/��' , ��
b
� ��M� � ,�. � , �. �,, . �� ��� �� �
� �,. � � �� "�, / �'
� 's,,,J , '�r,P'J,;���� �.��"1 �qa„.�, ���,..,,, � �.... i , �-� l�,,��"� ,� c�'�f� �/i`� %, ��iiii� ,,r^.�h,^��
�j f� m �),:` ��'"�"w„w�.. /�'� il ����//% �2,��„' n�y"p�^+�✓ �'m,
�� �
�%% � � �
�: � � ,��:
� i%- �
� �' , � �
i i�/�,� �' �,� � � �
� "' �•..
"� ��1�"/� w�, ,, .�>� �7i�. """^^"q � „��'»,, �' �;",ti'�Ur ��%IN�
� % p� �f, rr, �� �, 4``} �� „��
� .�
„� r i � '�*4,
� k
ee ' �
� , ' � �°
� ,�r � �r�F� r r���a � , ,� >� ;. ,� ���'
� o -s,
~ �e �>
� � � „ � ��z��
� , ` � � �� �� ,,��
�
� � "^� � �4 �°.� "'`�?���L';��r���l;;
ry,
� ^^" �,���/l� � r�"�� cv p �
� r,� �
�
r� � �"*..,����" � �%ii%/ �^� .
w
, �c, i i � �
, �.
G� % ��
,� �,; r �� ""° ' j , j �
� �,1 a�%,�,,.� ;�lr,�/f � '"^� �'' � � �4�E��`"�a '?�//ii/i/ij �, .
�� ,,, � �, ,
� � , ����
� ��� ���,� �� � ,.w�.
��.�M �`��,.;�`�� � � �L�L,��l'r.,,i 1; ('
�„��� .�
�� �:
0 0.� , ��i�5
`;r,artrr r Mr�s��r(:��FS,h�����rS(�(�J'7�,�?�tf"'i", lr7�nrr7 c�j f��xrri�Por'4
17 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Ilf;°;�ii���iiii�� I������°II�� �iirm�' Ilf���'����iriii�iir� I���iiilllii��°iii��
As a historic town with compact residential neighborhoods, an established path network, and a
central business district with a strong sense of place, Lexington in general is a very walkable
community. Challenges persist, however, as the popular historic sites and auto-oriented culture
induce significant motor vehicle traffic. Promoting slower traffic speeds, eliminating sidewalk gaps,
and improving pedestrian facilities at intersections are all critical to enhancing both safety and
quality of life for residents. A map of existing trails,walking paths, and pedestrian facilities is shown
in Figure 6. The pedestrian network includes on-street sidewalks and curb ramps for ADA access, as
well as crosswalks to assist pedestrians to cross major roads or reach significant destinations.
�,�
; ��,
,� ��,�
,r;
�.
�,;,,,
�rr�
.�
?kE
�` �� � �����M
�� �� 19� ,� q���� ,� ,,,,: ;- m����J�✓�.���{���l�l/��i6,u6,r,�!�
, i��iri , ` i
i � �"
t ,,,,,,,- i
i i
r d /� . �i a���
� /�/ii
/ i � � / � i i% /i/i/ 1 ri/
fiii f �%���� // %/��,//�%i // i/ i i i
//�ri j/i/i//��� /r////i/�r
i���/�����r �% �%///Ir��/ri ���/%�i�ij�/��i�i/�i�%i���� � �
�����i�iii���i��i i�/r ��i���i�J i/ / i r/ ✓�r .
������G%�/�������f%ji ��%/� // �ifi��l�llsi� s � i i i/ i//l
"��/ // n i r�q �i �/i �i/ i/�� r . /Ir ���
f ���r✓fj/i�f � ii . /� / ��/��rij/i/l/i l�fr i /1�/f.
y�/��� J� i // / i rt�0 %l il rr iiii
//�i ��1 � �1�/l�i�i�//f ir / . /1 y
��/%%?�cdl�ii�/i/r i � � �J�%J%r��/�ti�j��X'���ir 4i���%
�n� r ✓�/rr���G���lr'�;�t r, r�i�,1 1 1 i��1✓��lv o i���y�i/ii���
r,r�; l�Cl�3�,.�ryj%//rj;��,7r��/.�t�r��;������j�y������1��ii����iy�t��%��'l��y��/,if�i����?�j;,%°�
,,,o,ra.�r01 i,,rrr(,�1������41 i/�1/Ip,i������,rrriv�l��%i���)�i�/R���J'//e�///I!!i,r���Yl%���/,G�c,�v�/F��,w�f/6z,i�i�f��/f;,
Some crosswalks in Lexingtan include pedestrian actuated
flashing beacons,such as the Marrett Road crossing at Midd(e
Sfreet to the Vine Brook Path
18 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 6 Existing Paths and edestriar� F�ciliti�s
B� bp
a
� �,
✓"
���„��i1.l�I�!r�a / �` � �
� 7"� � �^^^^ ^^^^ �Wlinuterarar�Eikeway
✓ ��
�, � �`� �f��,�` �"m""���"������ Shaced Use PeYhs .
�,� � �
✓���,.� y� �� ,� „ .� �.�w..
�' � ° ' �� � �°, �6C�2W8��5
� ,� , , � ��"� �� _
� �'+ � ao- � �`,.
�.
� � � �. �PV� ���� � ��a✓, �� °�c r � r r a ��.v ,�� ..., . .
,�, �,, �, � . �� �� ,� � I �1 I,�� I,,op� ��i J< Welkirug Trails
�, . F���, �� � �''rj� �
�,.�' �� �� '� �I f��"� � i Schools
Di <�_ �r' C I �4V�� ,�„ -~' "�
�"� w
�, ��,`��'� �;r�� � � ��" ���� Crosswalks
� W�, 4 �� ,R � � �
'��, � .....:. �° � � � � ��� � � ,,��
� �� iiiii ��i � f� �pC^N``b �,CiI�C)Cs�'�'� �, ��� �, � � ��,
� �
� � � � ��qf3C��6�-, ��� ;, w"�"� ay"`�4 .r�°;�'"� ,""" �
�� .� �,^��� jr��. ��' rC _ w ,� :
�
� // ������", �� �� ...,, � ��"'�� �� �� � �+
ii/O/i/ri �a� „�y
///ii / �r' .
�. � °°
� "�
/� �e"����, � �, �� ��r �a i� ti � r � � c�v��1�i��G��'��
i
„
�' >' e� ��� � 4�pi�" � �
✓ �� l� �w �,�^�f � ' �;„- ,��, �{��'i ,% l ,�
�� . .., i �`�'�
�
, , . �
�, < � ��� 1y �w^,�� OI�I �" "�pwy�'� 'tv�� r �� �, "'� ... ... �
� �^ ��
„
� �� J � ,,, ti�. � C"�`'� � ��+`I o�
I,� , � ,- � � f� �� i
�i ���,. � ; � o,I,,. �� ��,, �r� � ,,, � ��``"�
� �" W „ r , /,.,,�~ 1/�'� �f�"' � / i��
0
� �
` � �7 �
% r��
� , �i��" �� �t��� � ��.� �"�r �' ( �,, �
4 � � � � �� � ��'�� `"� �" � y���� i�*y l � l �y�� ��—� �`� .�
�„
r
�.�' n� � � � ��, �"� � �� � � � �<°�Cy � �, w�^���" ""�
a, ,�
�� � �� � , �( � / ��" � 4 w����f s��x A"4 � �`` ,,
� � � �� � � � ��� �' �
d'1�.7 � ' "r""" , � "'"u'�"" 5y,,� `�' p `"'. .
,�� � ) r' L, I,.
�2A �� ��� �� ��� � z'�� _�" F',?i'"���'��� �"�����i ���'�` � ���� ���_ �z��'�d�r�'' ���ll�l'ar a��,� :��
u. "� �<,,�
�� ���� �� � �p,�,�� ��'�' � ,f �^ � � k�`6"��' � �";�`��� �"+1 �,�i��d� �
��s � � � � ���
�. " i �,� �� � � aa 1 /' � �� '� �G�'(.���1��1�`+EY i`� ; +��4N^�����Sl�`�r��,
4� �„�,�
1 '� � � � � � r��`� � � �' � � C, t � �� �'
u � �� � , �ca� �," � .
�V.,. r �� i y�� ���Wwm �� �
�� �� lf- � ,(�� �,� r � �^� ?' �� �J �:N ra��,,����I E I�"� � ���,t o,a. �C��J� „fy�� �*- "'�y,
�� �� Y�
„
� r� / � �" � � �� � (�� / � �+���w �,�
J' � �` � , ,/�.�k 1 / /� rd`, 1 ii, � ��»..�,� �%✓"
� �!},�R,,,�J�'! y�^�r�,��,. uw � ��t „��fi ���q '�� ,' ' ,�^�^� � h �w�t
������� �� � �� �
�
r , . � °"�,� �" � ��
� ���%/ 1 / � � �� � ��l �"�``��� ���''A"y . �� 0 1Y � ..,�"�'�'qj�� �� � �°°. ..w_.
�%<�°ii���,� ","6�Y J � "� � y�,�,�;J,>' li � �� � � d�
�,,, r / ,�
i//o r r �, � „�h
� T J 1 � �,
�,` //�/ � P� t,�ti � � g� � '� ,�,!� � , �� � . r ;, �;,A�` .
� � �
�( � ,��� "�"�^ ; f"`ir<'a. , , � � ,A..t;,„�y ,,,,, . N"a��., � '"�� e� ''`^�'b ,� �� � „��y�, '/'i�� ,
�Cy
4 �, � � ,� ���i,� �� � �� � ,i A�.' �:c„��/�%�4,
�,�, `" ,� o "k�' 1
(eG;,l rt�f p ` � � �,ti' �� � �r���� .� �j� � � � / ;� I � l� � i �...
/��� � � � '�'
'��,/
��9 � �
� ��� �� � � �� �� ��.��' �� � � �,�,�„ ` v � �;,� �
�;j ,l//��/ir� � �J � ���r� ,�w� ,,.�.�w� � a�n"�k "�. F �'y'�', � r � � s .'� �.
y E �' �^ �
� � � �, �,� "��;: Il�,,' � �7`�9�zf�ry 61V�''��'�.�'� �.,, �� ��"l�� 74 � �� "��,'"����`�
,
� J ,.
� ,,, , � � �' ��� � � � , , � '��.�
� � � �, �,� �' !�1, , ;� ��,��� �� � , I�;,,,,,��,f f�,�,,f
� � �,;, l ; H,�,���"�,�� ��� � ' '�
,
� �'� �'� �,r� "��� �
x /ai//% � .��„��°�,r`�;�,�r �� �� , �`
� �,, ,�� .r �
� , , � ,�, � ,�
� �,. /Y '� ��" �� � R��� „ �� � .�.�
r �
�.,��" r. ���� ; �'���� �
� /,f� I�t t ,/,,I ft �` �� � ��h�� �4�� � �s � �"! ,�.
,� �er� .a,
d ""'�, �, �" �C�ry�'� � "�r�,�"� ",
ti� ` � �Aei,aor':�C�„�, x ..„ .�
�
���,��', �
� �
fJ a.5 1 Miles •�„
� �� ,�°�n �
`>e��irr� l�cr�sC�,;`fS, Iw1ra�';s'C'7�r1;h?�f��, �r.>w�r r�(`It�xrrir��(�ur�
19 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Ilf;°;�ii���iiii�� IC�iii���lll� �irm�' Ilf�������iriii�iir� IV�����°�� ��°� ��III���III
Arguably, the highest mobility priority for any '�``"
community is to provide safe and accessible
��
routes for children.With a relatively complete
network of sidewalks in many neighborhoods,
many hundreds of Lexington students walk or
roll to school throughout the year. Even with
discontinuous bike facilities near many schools, �r,�,E ,-��� `�°�:��� �
, W,
� ...
hundreds of students' bike to school as well. � ,�� �"�,�'��'',,
Conditions have gradually improved with Safe �`��
��,.�� ��°' � ; "� 'I� ' i
�`
Routes to School planning efforts and the work ������,I'+ � '� , � ``
,r ,d�, �'� �
of Town staff, school officials, advocates, the "
Transportation and Bicycle Advisory On p(easant weather days in spring and fall,dozens of
bicyc(es are typically parked at the Clarke MiddLe School
Committees, and the Greenways Corridor
Committee.
Secure bike parking is lacking at many schools in Lexington. More bicycle parking is needed
particularly at LHS and the two middle schools. In some places the racks are well designed while
others don't meet industry standards to allow two points of contact so bikes don't tip over. Racks
that don't meet industry standards should be replaced. Covered bike parking—ideal to promote
year-round and all-weather riding to school—is lacking at most schools as well.
Figure 7 shows existing pedestrian infrastructure as it relates to access to schools. This includes
public and private schools, which are shown with quarter-mile and half-mile buffers around them to
identify areas where walking to school is most feasible. The Minuteman Bikeway and other shared-
use paths and walking trails are also displayed, as these are other ways for students to access schools
beyond the street network. Students frequently use trails and off-road paths to access schools when
streets lack sidewalks or when a shortcut is the most direct route from home to school. However,
many of these trails are unpaved and narrow, which can get muddy in wet seasons and icy or snow-
covered in the winter, forcing students to use alternate paths or be driven to school. In addition, lack
of sidewalks and comfortable crossings also discourage parents from letting their children walk to
school.
20 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 7 Existing Pedestri�n Routes t� Seh��l
;%, r��
�" �,� �,
t,��m�i ,% �,,.1 ��s „„����
�
�,�
�, � ��a �, �
� 7' � Y ; �;,- �� �ch�uala
��
�° .^, 1, ���� y � ',,„;u �
� � � `�� � � ' � ';,�,�,;� ;� � �,� �� �u����:��P�'�if�f��c�iuua�
� y�
�'
� � �' � � "h � „ __..,
*- � `� ,'� � ro 1 ,o,�� �,....�,,.....0 � '
I� � �� ����y�� � �uuuu�m I��I�'�4J�I���{���I'1'Ja _
�w,''� � ui �� "� ��I�'�P��1�
x." "' ' i' u� rr i�� u � i i u�
, „
%� r � � � � •��n..
� i � Bu u,�v I . ,m���,.,� �I±����"�i��;�
� y °'� ru '�r r�, �1�1��
�` � ���� �r ' �"�
� �" � „ ...
� �°i//��j n� � "��>��11r1�4�f�i�_N
�� �''i����,i�////i, � �� �
�� �
r i i v... �� ; � �u;��,� � ��;�, � ���,
�� �w � � d � � �I��i'��V L����P��t�r�
r �
�r� � � �� , � k °
� ,/„�„ �� � , ,
� i//,,,����o J�,�'W', ���" , �� �,/���j��, ��' �;
ii/i o�'� �� r „ � � f ����/ d'hi V �� � ��� �?y��� � r � r 1.. 1 i ,
�" ifi/� � � i i ° � ' v��°, �i i � � a � � ��
.�"� 1 ��l i/%i �� ;� U , V.y� i j ��/ .
� � fl �� � ,+ r r'wu
/ � ��i �C .. / � ' � ��` i �
�'" � u 1 u „ � � F'e���i 7�v i �r� � r� ��
a �� i f � � , r y� �� � M �
rr. p 1 ;��t�� �� r �»�-��r � �i� ° � i
� � ' � � 1�, � P ,, �
U :u �� , n� `��i d'i r� �iN f� . F /i(V ( .) ;
p �y r/�1!U F r ux ,i�P l � � � '�,
� II �Vt ,y fn�� f `� �' r�k�l u�i ll�r���� ����� i r,�/�` � ,�'�a.
�� � �, � � r , ,
�
r � �i i
r i � � �r � 'w
&'_ _ ��„� �,�� �"�� r/ r � � 1� � i �, ���,�.� � �I�'�" %7 b,� �' � �
��„��� � � � � i h � �1,� p��'� � "� '4r i %i r
��"� � � � �,� ✓ y,�� P ��� ��� �/ i �I:;d °: � � y� ?� 4
+ �a� IM � �+/ i� y �� M b
N� /f Il P +� � I � � � , . _ ,�
'�,�re� �`r�^�"�'�"��y� i i �+� �' �ui�" �J' �� J ,� ry� �� 1 u����IG� � ��yo,m , �f
� �;;r;
�o � i,���" � �� I� � � � rii�i� � /�y i�� i a"�`"if 1��Gi�i��� iM�� ��i�� �iq
i/1 � r � i a �u �� .� � �'� no r�
.� � iV � �� < t N� Jp � � (� �+� �� wii . 7 � ��,�, � n � o 'W
r°u�� �� IW � � % �f� l tl a i� l��� / �ilr b ri "m�� � �( ,�"' �i Ij� )� m �,
y ��� � � (f �� �i � r%i�� � ��� yir� �y 1i�� � ��%/ �� �n��
a�Iirie riuniri,��, ; ,� ����4�i u�r�t /��W;y'�� r� I i��: 6 ��r tr��arvrn�w �w F�r^u �° � ,�,
� ;'t"�v,ua��,;;� v II ✓�� jp�' Q ji � u 1 i � d� r u i
h��v w��� "���k��u u w ti""", ,� �w�u'���� l !�11' � ,✓� �ii �v r�p� � � i��r.ri �.�'�dy�� � °i
,r�"ro�� j W � 'r � i��p �uiw�,nizr� i� ,�, r i,'� i� . � �� r �
u ,��6 V �a ° or,rr ��� �� r "" —S�aVu °� i � 9�,m ��* � ,��%�
� ✓ uu. ry i � 'A �Fi�
� �1;,.y�rc i re,, '� � yry'`Yi y � i,r 1 „ U.�_.
� �i II� '�' ���'�� �y ''�'�E�, �� �.� i �l
�y,� u"� y� � ��,,, �Ilµ�lll�r,���,� r/ iv/ �ul���,, �g�r1 � �M� N�f ��^�4�� a 11� 0/ /��
�
—,;,� �i ° � � ,��r� r�Ifh � �, � � �i
�� �� ` W���i � w� ��rYO� y"�,9�% i �i �`�/ � � r�U ��'�`�(��_�_
� � �',�r�,� ,�';. �� ��'��r� � ��,� rr �w�W��i ���� �� ������,�(,/�/%���k� a��yr.i u � J� , .,
� /�ii%`/// r tU� M"a,. �� ,. ,,.,, / ��,�'�d�l �Ia % '��r �� ��/��� �x �� ii .. / .,..;�r"�G ..'via'�j�/��,i;,�dn�m.u�vuir�� � ���'�..
/ �ii V i � � � 1
/ y i i/ /J i/i/i � n
� �;; �, �f�n�,' � ; �ua � r ���� � �� ,u � f�����1 �/�llr�� _
�I �
i i �
�� ° � fi r�' a � a � � t�i � � � �� (, ��/y?:
i � � Po r �� J j � �, i �� � r�i U y���
�//ii� � � �' � i � ��,� ., d / � �' l„(� /,� .
m ��, � � / '' �G (� ,� '�9 dN';�I ii wr , �s ��
3 r,r ,,.. �� ' .' '�.� � a��" f� � �; 1 , .''� r �.��;� l� ?;,"'^+�
�
-�i: iiiiiii �� � ' „a �1 � i �/� '� roirlu a� V s�� � �� `� r��u ���i � � d,
���� � � �f 5� � ° �� ar � '�'^ ro'" °W ��
�i/�, �, r a� �� ii� ��lu�, �r ry� ��� jli J � �
, yJ ,
� �- i ���� � ��p� �wr a �� l �� �� � ����G ��
M, , � :. � i w�, � 1 i �`r �
s ,, i r ,- e u � D i, `a �k ,��
� �, i � � �: �o �� J VF r ,i � �i �
,r ,� ,
i . �v �m� r � ��� , P���� r rr�u uH t 0 � yi!� ,y ,��
�
I � � � u� �� �u� � '�" �'�r � � �`�"''"� �I�,�I ,�i� � � a��+� ..
.`� � J 1 �/ ;� �� �8 " Y�N �r IaiX ��/@��� .o i "� 1 �f%%;,.il i � l�Pi
„�f'�„�/%/ � � ! � � . 9 � „�,//i ���V'dg����i�r . �
�. ��r 1��a dl� ; I JIJPY"
�
� ��� ���iii 7-sru,j rg � �� � � �� w �� �
G
_� r'�%� `"�o�" w�����'���' „ 3 �ty"� " , .. �
/G� � � , � � ;��j �_ ,
� r�,. ,ae „ � ��` � �""„ m y i ,v� ,
('o- ✓,�a
r o�^ �
� IJ ��"I '1� 1� u+lY�e; � 9 `� o ��' �.
, c�,<„, (�i„„,/, �„ " "� � %ii//i `�"
� � ,, ��c�
�� 9g 'ii U � _
�
�,�a, �
k�� „ 1 r /, �
'h. � �` f .f��mC 1 dr {
,�; /�., m a�c,
°mfiu �� � < < �
7
� �� � �," "u ,M,�%��OY��"
#� ���
� f,���; I Mm��loW��� �
���N.nr, J�lip�M.r�F . I'R,��', � .i �d���° , � hir:v- r1 u��'Ig'o,w°t
21 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�� � Illf�IIIII�iiii�iiii� �� �iiii Illf ��iiii������ � iiii �iiii��Illf� iiii���,���liii ��
���������� �� ��� � � �� �° iiii� Illf����iiii������� ��������� iiii�����w�IIII�
������ � ����
����� � ��iiii��� ���� iiii� Illf�������������������iiii�iiii��iiii��������� IIII�'�'�'�'�'����'� ��iiii���� �����������iiii�������
Il�iiii�wm„ wn �
As part of the assessment of existing conditions, the consultant team reviewed planned or funded
projects in Lexington that include an active transportation component.
""III'°��ii� ��� Ill,,,,��ciiiiirm����iir� �iir��' I ���II��"'�'. Ilf�iir�������
T�bl� 2 Pl�nned Pr�j�cts
Current '
Project Name Project Type Stage Milestone Notes
Battle Green Streetscape, Construction April 2023 planned Sidewalk improvements,
Streetscape(Town of Roundabout construction start; resurfacing,shortened
Lexington) 2024 completion crossings
ta rg et
Lexington Bridge Bridge Replacement Construction Construction start The projectwill include
Replacement, L-10-010, 2023, completion pedestrian and bicycle
Route 2A/Marrett Road 2025 accommodations that feature a
over I-95 (MassDOT shared use path along the north
Project 603722) side of the bridge with tighter
turning radii to calm traffic going
to and coming from the ramps.
Resurfacing and related Resurfacing DOT Design Project delayed until MassDOT#608495
work on Route 2A(also Owned Non-Interstate 2026
in Concord-Lincoln)
Bedford/Hartwell Complete Street 25% Design MPO/LRTP The project will include
Complete Streets Reconstruction ' 2029-2033 pedestrian and bicycle
Reconstruction Project accommodations that feature a
shared use path
Cedar Street Sidewalk New Sidewalk Final Design Expected
Construction construction 2024
Pleasant Roundabout Final Design Expected The project creates a safer
Street/Watertown Street construction 2024 intersection geometry and
Intersection Redesign pedestrian accommodations.
Source:Town of Lexington P�destr:ian�nd._f�ike Projecl.s� I..exin�i:on,I�C�(lexin.�tanm_�: cr�i �nc�._IVI�ssC}tJ::�
22 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
��������������������� IIII�'�'�'�'�'�'�'�'�����iiii�������iiii iiii� ���������������iiii��iiii��liii����� IIII�������������� �iiii�llll�.
The existing transit network is shown in Figure 8. Bus service provided by the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority(MBTA) includes Bus Routes 62 (Bedford VA Hospital —Alewife Station),
76 (Lincoln Lab—Alewife Station), and the combined 62/76 (Bedford VA Hospital —Alewife Station
via Hanscom Airport). Local bus service is also provided by Lexpress, which is run by the Town and
operates primarily within the boundaries of Lexington; however, it also makes connections to
Arlington Heights in Arlington and the Burlington Mall and Lahey Hospital in Burlington.There are
routes A1/A2, B, and C,which originate at Depot Square in Lexington Center. Finally, shuttle service
to Alewife Station is provided by the 128 Business Council with pickups in Lexington. The Council's
REV Bus (Hartwell Area) picks up at Lexington Center while the ALE (Alewife Route A— North) Bus
picks up commuters near Spring Street and Route 2 (Takeda Pharmaceuticals) and 1050 Waltham
Street (Revolution Labs) in Lexington.
Although limited, the transit network in Lexington provides critical service for local residents traveling
throughout town or commuting in the region. Transit users often start and end their journeys on
foot, so safe and comfortable pedestrian infrastructure to transit is a key strategy to encouraging its
use. In addition, many transit buses have bike racks to allow cyclists to place their bike on the bus
and take it to their destination to extend the range of their journey.
23 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 8 Existing Transit et�nrork
��� ��, �a^e �
;;,
�� �� �,
� 1��,l�i�! ' l,%1� �"�� i i ��°r, MBTA Bus Ra�ifies
� ����a,
� .�� ��
� � ,�.-"���,��'�� �� �� LexPress Bus Rcrutes
�„ „�^ y �
0
� , s
�
/ �� � �.% � � ���; ' � �° A1/A2 �� �
�f ��,. ,'� �,�,� � ,,�1 J� f 1,I 1 m, ('„1�� �w��� � .
'; � � e.e, „ � r���
��q J � � �" `��` �������� �
i
��.... � ��"� � � �
, � �, . "` 128 Business Counci)
r'' "'�
/'O � ,� � � Rautes
, �
��� �uiV�� ° ALE(l�lewifie �s� ,
" � : ,,
j '�� ��r. %��''i� °° �� `' � � � �
� / �, %�,
J `%'%%///���i r, ' ' '�� ,� d�� Ro�ate A f�Jart ) ` ,
„ ,., � � � �
/ 1 ��� --�
,�,, ��, � „ '� -
/%ii,, � , � .� d � � f�EV(REV Bus ' /
/�. %���� '//i � � � � Hartwe Are y
✓ �a��%// < , „';', 'i��� � � '�p I I� �;�� ,I ;
�
I
/ ���j"�� l / / �� f , .,�,
� �
�, �a' � �, ,,4
�, � ,
,. „
� '.�.' �" ;� ��� !�`.�
-_. ,
r r� , � ',
„,,.. � . . � „
� , i� � � � � �, � � �
� �
a „
�,, , , �
� „ � �- „ - �
�
,
� , „
- �
� %' � ���" � �,fei �'��' (r�;.i ��-- �'�
� , ;
� � .,.� `�,
,
, „ ;� � ,
�; ��
�' �
�,,
1. ' � �� ,,, „ - ' �v r
„ �
�
,
,� � � a , . ,, � ,
- , �.
� e
, } ; , ,, � � ,� � '.,,' ����e r�l�lm.����ltl
„�� � � �
�,,`Ea.�� � ��� ; �� � , � , a k������'�"�� `�" � °
:�, ; . �c��� � �
�
_. , _
_� ..� ��"�������, ,� ,� � ��.
1 � � �� � i� �.
� ��",, � ,��� ' rrf �
�
4 r � � ' i/- �'� �'"� � j���� ", i � �1,�.
t. �,s `�
1y � �� �^� .y��f°j F„�a, �``�
� � �� �
� � � ... ��/ , -, � � , ��' �'�^ �^. '`� m e'� "�..
f i. /.� ; �.,� %�,� ...���� ,,,� . , /�k /��� "0�//,i, � a��
//
�
1 D. i ' , % " � �,.� ,� „ *�,
5'
,�, ,� , � ���
,� -, , J �� , �� ,� � '' �
�` / ,...,- / � ' `'2�, �i,'' �� �g�"�'�� r � f "�°�
� � �o, : , iiii�j N 4-rt �+ ' � ; � `��
l r � � � �""" � �, �, � � � � � � m ��.e ....
� � /
//////i �%iio � �/'9�Vt d,t��;� �
G%%//��� ; � � 4�2A�fl� �ia���� � � ,,�!
� � �i�i� , ���, ��... �� /i�%%%%%% ������� � "�;
,
� �,
� � '� ' �'�' % ��j�j �
� � i����������������� �
/, t i s
%i ?� �� '�� � ��
�����j; f �j �, �`
, � /
, � �a � � ��,"
,
�� �} `w` i, y. /" ��
ii } y�
.€�lt„ , 1_1''•.a �� � l ,� a'�� i� ii/i/ ' {��/ � ��
�%%//////� "�rG 7/ r��� iu."��.�'.` �
,, �
r
��j�/ �a
� �
� o;,
i� ; � '"+� �� ///i ;�"a� � .,,� �
�
�;�%� �a ,.„� �'�
�, ,,,,,,
/
�'^ ,,,, ; �� `�r` ,+�, ' . �t�., �'�° ,���r �r` 7 f �
�p ""„�% "' '^w� ', ,� � " �
�„ � r � du�.�+�� � � � , �r .
" � � � "�
e �. � ��?� ���P",? �� �
o �< ,,„ .,.� ` � e. ,"�� 7�,? � i I � ° � l�� f'1 i��
� �-� ia, � �«mm - �%���� � � q � �� �� � �—
e
^^,.i
,,� � � ���� ,,, ��„�y %
,
, � ,�����,��/ ��� �� J
r, j �
,
_ �. „,
�, �� .,, �,„� � �;� '"� , '��` �,
" /��;,�,, f �;�;.�/r �.,' ',. ' �%J � � %/iiii�/ �,�� �;
F j;� ��,, ��� ,,,� / r
� �, � � """° „ e�� :,/ '�il;e�, i('�I�.,�
i � � �.
� �
^��
;��r
�� � ��
,.:;�
0 �.5 1 Miles �. ,"`°
;r��rr� f�?n.�,f,Iti,1�1u� l)��1,P�I�f'i TiaiN�ri af t�,�,�rrn�nn
24 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�����'� IIII ����iiii iiii���iiii�iiii��� iiii��iiii�liii�iiii �� �iiii.�� ��liii iiii�� �� iiii���iiir��
�
There are many key destinations in Lexington that residents and visitors alike travel to visit. Some of
these destinations are easier to reach by walking and biking than others. Shown in Figure 9, key
destinations include Lexington Center, the Library, the Lexington Community Center, Town Hall, MIT
Lincoln Labs,Wilson Farms, and public and private schools. Parks and recreation areas are also
important destinations, including the Lincoln Park, Lower Vine Brook, Willard's Woods, Beaver Brook,
Whipple Hill, Minuteman National Historic Park, and the Arlington Reservoir and Great Meadow.
Pedestrian and bicycle facility recommendations considered access to and through these areas to
make it more comfortable for people to choose to bike or walk to these destinations.
... � � x � ����� ����� �%/� i�����iiiii�///i%' �ri� i i i ��,� �r� �f//oii�/ar ;:
� "a . '.�/ ��/���������/iii ,., �� �r� i J,,�////l� ///�i%%
��' ����%//,���� i, %%//�iii � �,ti ` ;� � /'
y � ��j%// ts�4��1{j ly ���1,��/ r (� ,� �`��/���%I/���%
� �//���///ll//������ ����%%/�� � � � � � � i ti�i%%��//��<
f f7 ���� ����/� F , p � %///��///�/ii%
�
� � �,� ����� / %�%//�� iii/a�� )a � iii���
/ �y,1�� � I � Gy
���� "i %//////�ii////.ii �% �.7 � �'f � �
� � � r7� ,��i 1 y�
y rr .�+� �
r, n�, +s� �,�� 11 T r
v " z' �. I(�,r �� qr
�� ��"� r � �^ ' �` ' �'; �
II 1' ��) �; `
�� i ,
�� ��
t
I�,i � (
1�1 �
i��
The shopping,eating, and cu(tural amenities in Lexington Center creates the pre-
eminent destinations for bicyclists and pedestrians in Lexington.
25 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figur� 9 Existing Paths and Destir��ti��s
l� °`��
� N
�� wr�ni"i a��n
i�L�U 11'1� i�I!�dt ,,r'���N�`� �
,%°` �,'%�'� � � Civic/Employmer�t
�.d, � ��� �
/� � i � y o,� � � � Conservatior�Are�s ,
1 i � � �� w�.
�y, Par�s/Recreatian
� T �� f � �i -.ai���� i
� a��V� Groce Stores
� /r �"^� � � d""���„� �,i�,�e i � ry
,� f w t Mn-u n . r�,,
,(, . �, � � �/i � ��'ryl,UF;l�i I Gt„� ('��i 1, f�} 5hc�pping Districts
� `� �
�",✓ � � � ��� '� � „`� � "' � �,: 5chaols
�,
i� �~ ,r G / ' � '� �� � � Mina�teman 6ikeway
�� d � f i�a�+<�i«.T�
W �`
�, H�it+(Invi, � � �e �, i ° �� �..o,.� �„� '� IfM��trl � ��'1dYE�'(.� �5i2 �r7Z�"19
i
., / � ��%/ �,,. "�, IA kdi ......., .
�f,rh�t ✓ .� 1 � �IC��Wd��fS
�+ ,.�"' ���/i/ �a�n� ��„� �� , -� Wd�kl g ra1�5
, � i,�,i.,,
iii �� ,,, '� �� '.a� .� � �� � 1'1 T
� �� � � �""� � �4` .
� �%�� i �^
i2 �� �"�w"",Val R I J�1ill�i S.��r�od� � �'
��iii, ro��//o�j���"� I�I t i ! �� //l��\,�':u„� ;,N`�� � ��'" .
/�� � � r�" .�i n t �,� v�'�� �
/ „ ///� /rrrr � P' ��� �Y
�' �"`ii I/wm*�,„ ��j/�! � , �'� wi .. � ..
'hK.t(alir.11 i � PAc�qh�wl(i , � � ;, M�"�i s� � � �j ,� ��` .
� N.u�l I��+� ��� i nhrlif I " ;� ' �"'+� �
/ �Ilin� lii�� ��� � � ��".�w� �f l�� � .
a , � ,, .,w ,„.,I n 6; �,� ��.// "�,.
�
� "�a • �� ,��� ��"�„°� // / �i �� ,,:. �� �� � �J� /1 `!�. ' .
r ��
(,�; � .,P,�r„ ,, f irk�r � � �� �_� ``�
� �/ e C
�
� i � �,,,� IA i x,�. ��� y ' � �� "�
t� 1 � �, � `0.� � �, � �� r � �l �� �J ° ��� ��`.� �l,l�„r���„) �;J
� y �" i ,l � � „
,„��r / ^ � �","& � .� t,e),��r���pF I i il i r ��� i �r � �y �yry���,,,�� . .,,�, ..
� � � �
�� '�/ � lN��1� II /l �(� ������� �g� M � 'X / �
'� ,�� �� � � �'«� (,� � ,�'w i i r�w�+�" °���� � „� � ,.
r e � � � t =
/ u ��iii r "/fi � '`I��Jni✓I t I I^ � ;� „ �, �
��"�' �° � f ; ,� r /� ni 1 � �� �'"� �!q � � / ,"�, �
� 14vuYiiirr N�Ti I�idl�s�� r�urr�a,,, �,�J,y IMiiH�ll � ��� �� ��Qfr' r�rrc�r�ri� rt,lr, � �b'.
�' �`'�� Iliirn fdr( �,a �� � i im""�f. / E1lfivflill "'��� � arylfdil � ,�� '" a
Ifl�'� ��
///i u, � i✓� �� s "�j( I)rp� I i i dm d ..
� �, �' Sw � , � i r ,� i oi� yiri� V?, i //�f = � � �
� �� a � ' y � r� � 0 i ,�f I� ,�..
� � r� ,:� !�l� � �i , lu >6��i������ //�6 ��, �l �' i IIII. t'O/i ���1� /;� . �..... �
�
�w� r r �a �, f ,< � ��,���� � d � � � �� �
�`
c���t�iu � �y � � �� �O � � �,ti �"�
� �� 4 �, r" / � � ���, ; r /
� �I i I��� � J �r. � l " I� j f r / ,. % �' / '"` ,r /�� , /� � � � . ���,'' �''A' .
�Hi�h Pi �k ���� „ _ � p */�� �� , '�� �. ,�� � ,-�,g �,,,V�`Irl'�il `I10 �'*^w- �
�j,,�,',�',��., � r,� /f ,,,,.;::,, f ������ F �f/ �II�iri V i�f3�r k�l(+iirua!il� � �i„ rr° J .,..�� "tti qF'�� �,; �
� �� �� ,� � „ J �
�i ` �� � . ' � �''� o / ��1 rrr , r � lM� ,���� �"� �� ��. ,.M� ,.
i//�i iii%% pg / . � ,� 1( . , /� 1r�c ��Idlci '"'^;� ��, "
� � ��//��%rP """'^ �,� ll�����f��� �Y; „� , , /�///aa � �„ f� r r.�lAr�I v q. " t � .t�
� ,� � V t cttui lai n �"., i
"%%�% ` � �I
} ,.,/�� k'�����'"4�p,,',� '',, 4"'� ,�„ � '� � �a`v��� "'v��; � ���� �(� �� %%%'lia///'ii��l�l k�4 n J,1�rl�i��loi��� .
�G�� 'M �, "� ; >,,,, /� ,/ ; ' ..:"�:���/ ,,, "i',..M a L��s �VJI r r L��ri�i/I// ,� ` �+�WF�� i-�ir
� lu i �,� � � � i
{ I�� 11 ��1%%%//r/ �l6 � � �/ � r�u Wla� � �
%ir/ ,�1C � �k � "�� ,,G /,���" � % ; ,� l� , �u�° � I�r��, ■
,
�tii%� y� q „6 /� ��j.o �°�,,: �pp �liniba,�k Pv( I �✓r � ( ,`� � ' �r
p/%�j���j/ 1 l� k� ��.�, �+' � aydiii4Vcui1 � ,^ � � ,.��1� � � �� �
' /�� ti i , i ',,, '�� i "'� �.., �Ir�x�1r i I'u�ti �
B;' �l �� � ��y .w., �1 ""^^„� F .� �� '`'�w f ./r d"� `� .,
„ �
�* � Mti, �� luru����� '� ,�'� ..� , F .�„� �� ��'G IS ain rr� ;� �� �fl aik �
^•,,, I{i�dei 1i r iti IiIIU.�
; �
� � l � �
6 � "^* '�. �i Ihl .. �s � �, 6fr irn�l `� �
�" J p p f .�Il irferiuil I
�F �",.,.*,,,„�i ry �"�iii ,p e;. �` ,, I V � A �'G �,.„ � � i �,,%i � Je �I.,eF I�„I�r,,,.�'f�,,,l, I,�„1 f'JG
� y �m i
•,^+,.� y� �P�
��
.. �� .. �
� �' ^�w„ ��� „
V � � � �r �
��,� � a
� oi l u �il �.p� � i � *� ...,
d � �'�` (% ��1� .� � � �� � / i�i0 �T�� � �.
� � � ' �4��ir,,���alzoi f aiK f� „Z m� i i/i�
'r. ,��� ! f, �"' „+�., ' b . , ' 1 » �, �A'
� �� � �li�,.,��
"'"'°+'������ L NG f GI C C/ ������
f , i i, � ^W�,.
�
✓
"^d. ". �, IJI)II r „.,,.
��
��" '""",.;,, �°j""�MM t ""�� � I �,m Um I�fl,�a<,(� ( ...
� �k
a�; A`
`*. %-, �
� �
.,,�, �
� p (1.5 1 Miles � �� �, � �
„
,.��E ��
'Snurc� N�ci H,i�l,,Nl�a�rC}ti Al, N?��'C:,7c�wn��(l rx�r�e��t�ean
26 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
����� Ilf� ��������iiii�iiii�iiii�.� ��iiii� IIII�iiii� IIII� �iiii���IIII����
Safety for people who ride bicycles, walk, operate a wheelchair, or use micromobility is a focus of the
Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Bicycle and pedestrian crash data over a five-year period
(2016-2021)was collected and analyzed as part of this project. The severity of those crashes was also
reviewed to determine where injury crashes—i.e., required medical treatment and/or a trip to the
emergency room—occurred. A total of 2,868 crashes (all modes) were recorded over the five-year
period in Lexington. Out of these crashes, 37 were pedestrian crashes and 79 were bicycle crashes,
accounting for 4.0%of all crashes.
Bicycle crashes are shown in Figure 10. Roughly 59% of the 79 crashes were injury crashes during the
five-year period. Bicycle crashes were concentrated along major roadways, especially Massachusetts
Avenue in Lexington Center, where 11 crashes occurred. A significant number of crashes also
occurred at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Pleasant Street. Bicycle crashes tend to
occur on major roads with shared lane markings or bike lanes, where increased bicyclists would be
expected. This includes Concord Avenue, Grove Street, Woburn Street, and Hartwell Avenue. There
were also several crashes along Marrett Road/Route 2A, which has no bicycle facilities. One fatal
crash was reported; occurring on the Minuteman Bikeway in 2019, when two cyclists collided.
Pedestrian crashes are shown in Figure 11. Per the pedestrian crash data collected, 78%were injury
crashes. Crashes were concentrated along major roadways and in high-traffic pedestrian areas, such
as Lexington Center.Another area with a significant number of pedestrian crashes is the intersection
of Massachusetts Avenue and Pleasant Street. Other crashes were generally scattered around the
town, mostly on major roads, but sometimes on local residential streets. There were no fatal
pedestrian crashes recorded over the analysis period.
27 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 10 icycle Crash�s (2016— 2021}
�
; p�,.
l °
� �, � „
1,�I,o����,,,J�' I,i ,,.""� �'� ^�^ Shared Lanes
.�',;� M�.
� "'"""� �� � ���"��+�``� � � Bfke Lanes
, �
^ �x ���` ,�
,����� �� �� �^^�^�^�^^�^�^�^^ Minuteman Bikeway �
� �.
�, ��� ����
s „ ,:�
� ✓ � ' ,"a�.'� �ro�""'� ���"""�" SMared Use PaChs
� �� �'w�����;Y:.�tNC����n t_+� "�" ���`�°:.�,�`` la t����Im f(�t. ,��'o t�''1, �
�' "�°;^�i��` � r"� . - !���, ,���„ � ;� "� "� � �. Walkir�g Trails
,,, „ �„ �;7° ``�
/' *�"�� '� � 3 � '
� ��� ' � �' � ���� � �� � � Pedestrian Signals
, •�
I � � ' � ' � �
� � � �! �.� �� �`�,�
� /,/;, :� � � N���� Crosswalk Beacons
ia/ �
/�� �°�° %%���/, '' � ' Traffic aBs
� � ��
r���p„� �� � R� /�;fC�"V��'� �� �„ "�S� �ig�
,d'� °,
� �� ��
� �fi �� y� ���`� � � � ' �` ° ��`� �icyclist Crash Severity
�,/ ///��j���, i �� ,,. .CA ���/%/% y""""�d'.�'� /,�� ��"+a.,ry'� 4'.
�j%� T'p� �� � ,J �� &'N tf�
�� �4, �d
r �///�1 / ,,,,i �<, �; �„�Dii, �.�..� ,�;�°' � Fatal Crash
� �� � � "�
�„r
�
✓, �` �°"� �J°���iiiii/// � y.V�r� � k�y h �'°l � � � � �
� " ��„ �'�� � �i � �,���� � �. ; � ,� �� � �a�, ,�� Nan-faYal injury
; „
m � �� z�.�� ���. �� � Ur�knawn
�.E p � �� �� � � �
, t
,
�
� 5
I � �" � �° � �k� �� "� ' �"� � ` � Property damage only
`a- ^� �� .
� � "�, � A, �
�
�"' "'
� ��� " %`r-� � `� �Ls�� �
��
a. ,� �h , .
� r
.
� � , u� �„� ����� x 4 � ��rw �� *w . �i�
, ,
�"'"� �q M �' �� � '�a"� � .,� �,
�l ,� `ti K �� y ������� � ,''� �w� � ,.�
F ^
D y�� �� � r�"� �� � °
� � � �y� r' � `'� °'
/ r � � ��� ��. � ,`t� ,,
� �, �,,
, ,
� � � .
J i, . l `� w,.�.� ,� Cr*y� ,i
��A����� �/ � �"� ��� � 4 Q�' r i��c � ������ �' Tlf�'"r I'I,'a(P�{�
�"�w ��* r � � �
,�� � � �� ��;"� �� � ������ �� w��k ���,� �� ;��w�,�c���, �
' �6 r�°„�J� cx � � � k^�
4:��` " '�r�s�" .� � � � ��� � � ���� �;� �, e
� � , � "' � ,��, �� .� � � �� �,,, � �
� � r� ,,,, d . � rr
� " �
� ,i, a �� ���, �� �`� ,����1� � � �
,, , , r ,.
� � &�i 7 �,?°^"� '�-i� ��A��� µ�C7j,w!` "�i.
� �
� � 1 �!� � � � w� " ��
l �i l �, / � �p i� �� �� ���
�' �1/% .�.� �, � � '��" "�IIIII '/ '��p�y �,r �"�'�� A°.
Np�, g � �'A�)(,� ., ��� �� � � ��� / ��",$� /�/ `� .,�� /��,�, �, ��� fl..."� ,� �"���, .
"'ya G '�l/ � M mti � %/// ,,, � � 4/" �,� �.
��
� � �7g�
��i��iiii�, „� i `�„,S, . „ � „�� ,,,,,,, ��� �� "2A,/„� ;i- �°��iia� ���'� �� � .�.,... :
iuu yyy ur '�. � �
i
u
�/ � �
� iii,,,' ' � ' � � � ; , „/ // l e
'" � , ; G � ����,� .� � .�
� ,��,,,,,,, �- �
�ii �� k�� nw /�, �."„� �.�n���' „ � �� iii�j�� �"au����i�`
/% b , �,, � i ": � .. � �.Axf,D � ,� �� �� //%/
:w±lJ,i, .de :7� � � a � � Q �
. ,�,„-� � , �
S, � � � �:,
f
�� � � i�r � a � � � � � � J1f r'�l �;�� �i �,
�� '� mru r
�i��/ii///o� � ,";, ,,.. .. � � �6�'� �'� ,, � ;r"� ��
� �ii � /i/% � a ( vk � �r ��� t �
f � i
i � �1 *� / ��
� 7-
, r/ � "i�'i
�;,,,;,//// � 1 � �" � ° ` ���. �' �'
�,�° � " ;� �`
ry
, �i °� ;�, w � , -� �", � � ,� ,
� „ �
� �..u� � ��� �'� ...� ,,, '� °�„„„,, ', 1 �@�����SI�"G���u"�����ltl���, mA�
�
.,, �� �- �
�, �," z �� i ^rk� � '�� �,,. ,. ,� �a �� �,; � � �
� � ���� t�'°ti ��� �"%� � � �'f�/W0�)"� ���1�1`� ��
� � N��M, � ' � �a a+
� v 4 �
�` �"` „�,r �n���� ' �, i , , � r� �� �� �
„��� ��'' ,��" �, , ; , �x �',
"� �,. ' `� � ` ��� �"� � �� � �w� " � � �%
� � ,
a y ^w� �Y%,,` q m ii �°' � a � i
� „��iii��� � �,� �y, ;� / �" � i�� u�i
� � `� �` ' r' '� � �
� � r r ii �.. � �P� <.�/ �, ��!,.� i�iii
n �r��� _
,
�' �e�a r,l I � ( ��� C't �`,� � � y ^3�r.
r��i �� / �'t1 *�`"' ^+� /^t'�,�/��'� ��� �4 k/� �'�'� � �
, • ' � �
. r �� �
i , >�,�,
� !� A��' f'�')
� .,,,�� �<�C� a�� /, '��
-�. � � � � �
� � �
�" ���:��; �� � ; /' i-�' ;.
� �
0 o.s 1 r��i�s �w.,...
�Fracirr r�.h�f<d.���r,l k,f�lrx.ss(7r;�7;�?�4f'C, 1�cxw�rr r�/1n��rr�t����rr
28 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 11 P�destri�n �rashe� (2016— 2021)
� ���
� �` ������ �� ��, "�� .
��
� I�r.%�I a f G.a� �� ,,,'" �°� � � ......... Walking�Tra�ls
9���
r �, ��
.�� , � � h� � 5idewalks
� � �� �.
1 �� ��°.,.
���^����, a � � � ���� Shared Use Paths�
/ �� °�,'`��� ,��.�, �
� � `�� � ���������
� �" ""� � `'�'q�.���� � I� Minute�man �ikeway
/' u� ,� P"V�'� �"��°�,v�7 i rt"� µ'� �,y �` I r�,�4��,�,i,aS ,�J f'f
� �� )
/'�� "�.��4"�'�N'�' �,N' � �""71 W�„��' � �,.� � I, .
� �� � „J�. { ��,„ �� �� T�"C�.�S�t��R$
� u,
���, � �� �`� '� r�ri� .��*, raffic Sigrrals
�� r M
��, � � �
/ , � ' iii/� � � �' �
� � / ��»�� - � � ��� Crasswalk Beacons
i ��
/ , �
� � �
�` � P�edestriarr Signals
f�� ,w�„�n i,�%� � + , � �",,, r�.
/ f� ii� � �" ��QN�S�� ^,1�a�CY�' -� � �
� � i," ,'iii�� i u,, � %//r � ��Qr�����,°� ��`��� . ��� � ����� �„n�. 1 r"`f �.�, ,�� �BC�@S'�fl�dlt��+�9�1'�@VIE.'1'I��/
` r, �W� o
� �" ����� � w,„��
'� ' � //%�'/'///;�%"""�""�'� ` � � N6n fatal J r�yr
m ,�,
�. ��,r.� �/%�� , ..� `��C'� l �� �� �`,.« �'�� �� 'r+`� .. I[1 6!
„�
� �� s+',A�„ 0 �� c, �� � �
��`� � Unknown
� , �� ""M p�°`" x`r r � �a � ^� �, �`�,�i � ,� �� �'
�� � � � � �1 �um�l I� �� ����
� �r �i� �� �
o � � , � ,, ,, �� 6���; �,�,��� ,����� � �r � � � ProperYy damage aniy
� � � ��' >� �� �.
,., ; r,, � .�� r� � � ,. 1
� � ` , �",� � < � a � ,�� �
r � � ��� � ��'�, � ��'��7 � , ��"��� ���� � �<,� � � ��p�.�1� � �l��,i1„i�"„i,'�"1 �
n ,M r,i w
.,.a ^�
f „ � . *cmg7by J f , a d-�� „r5, w yry 7 t�� /^
6,� „ �� �,� ,,;, o ws. ,i , y� , . .
� " .' '" ^y ' �B�a���r r ,a�
p��,,,;, �"' q Y,,, e"'"^R �^'� ��/� ��� �d'^ � � `�� ��X� ��"�•
N �<� �i �' � '. � , .
, �� � �h ` ��.s PP h i�., ��� ��"���%��� �������^ ', � 4�r � ��� �
� ^ � � f '"�' ,, �� ..„� . `4.
, ; �'�"�"�8 ��'��.
�� � � ��� �� , ,, ',��',��*'"' , i ,��" �� � N� �� ���, .
� p �
i
' � �� �� � � � � � ��`d°a r r� � � qk ` � '�I:1�(I��' f�_F�
p*2A�.!�� ��.�� �"*� �� � �a"�����,� �"'�;�'" � '��'�I �� �
,. � / � y� �� ti� � F���,��„ � �
a�'�� '� �V � ,ar u�',�` ` � ",��;.�.,;, u� " '�fNh� ww �,���`����,�� �`� yw'�,�9?h"tP1�/X �r,
,.� � �, ,�.� � t �
, p�' � �
� � �, � �, � � � � � U � � � G�k" �F e �G J�,'C��'f
� � � ���v fx �` ,r ����y�'+ �,,,a��� �^r ,�� J�F"u"��
"„�� ,��� .7 � � a" /w"�� �' �'"�� �.
,r
� � ,. ���"' �� a " � � � �
+� � �� � "� p
t F '�r ��� � �� �� �"��b,�?',„v .�M��9�y�`a�'' '��„�- �a;'� � � � � � �M�p
� ��. iy� "� p �� � ��.. °� '".�.� , ;��,, ../.+w"� � ��� ,,,.,, .i;� �����.'-,.�. o.i �y ;�e, "` �',' �"��;� ,���,A `.
�� � � 7�p , ,� .ry '��� ,< � � �.,,J ,���.,�� ,,, �pI nr /�� � � �� ...
��� � ���i� n„� �.�° ���� ',,� „�� ��'i�° ;6v, �" � � ir"� ��`�, ^��°N,� � .
� � � � �
� t ��� �i ��'VP� ,��"'��p�.' � �� � 6,�/ � ,� ����'y � ,�,o �.,p ,,.... .
� ,�.; r' / i, a�,��
�. �,
%%%a � " v�"'/ ". � � ���v��� " �II'w �T"
� ��� � �y��
� � � �� ^' ' �d"za`� l „ � �
a/��//� "" '"� � '�� ,� � � �,��' �
t ���i ,'� � x i ��, � � i � � ,�� � , �
� �
,� �
� �� � 4�g , � <,�, �° �� ` �� � �? ( �:. � I H �� f ,� i ,�
� � r ,�
� � � ���� �ro� � � m� �,� � � � � +�y.� �
f �� `�,,.�ro � 6��� �
i,1 , �d'fvf r �2 b`�� { i �; � , � � ��p oiiioi .
/i/D/ ' , x. ..�. � .; i,
�ii�% 1� � � � 'p� � �, ^� "r � R �!�
�
b ��
il � ,P ^� ✓ ��i,y4' 4�i � "�'�
� � i////i/�/rr � � ✓,,. �"r' � �" �„�w mµ"�� ���""�w-4„ � ,.,,„, � ��.���"��.�. � � ��,y.�,. Yiiw�u�'�
�/ � � � �
C,,,,i%/' ��)�, '
� � � �r,� ''�,, �,,,� �������
� � ��
� � r,q a i '�
F � �/ � � � ,„��:1,,;;,„ �w�� � w6,.k�,,�, �,. �`M� /� � ,'/q;,^,'�+�,�. 7/ i
� � � � i
� ,� � P�++��"�"DM�P��af"P`�",,,�� c �,, ,. "��, eY�."��� �,^'V"�� III �� tG
*,„.� � � `� �
�p � ;r� �z� ' � �� �� �iv, ,, °i
� � � � ; � � �� ��,� �p� � �� �� ����'
' �` ww� � �
�� '� � �,��� ! �r� � ��
� o.
� �,,�- � ��`,', / s� ^�� !i, ���
p *"" '�`a �%ii� '^� �����"7 i�T��� �' �"� ��� „ '" � „ f
*. /� � � � � � f°° ;, � F' �� ��`^) � ..
� »,"'�,„ I f � � �� �:��I
� i r � � � � �� �°� I
a,
�1�����,ol � i�;{�s � R
^,, �u ���*�'""�,
�,�" , `� � , �'�.,� ,.,�� �l j,';
�r
�,� ��*,.•.,
�° � ��� �F..� �,� �„�� �,� �w �"�x�
�
n.a � ,,,,, � ��i��� y o �g ��4�� � ru'� .,.
� �a.� �! ���� �,
. �
"""� f " ti ,, � i;� ,�� �i�
� `° � o�.
� �bom � � �
� 0 Q._`r I Milc�s
r�
�
w„� ,,,�,
`>,r�� ���W��r��(;f`,,1"�Frx-,�tJC7r,f�PAf'r; I,r�wrr r�f l r�,�rrr(ear�i
29 Existing Conditions
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�
����
� "` ��� ��
a,
.
This chapter highlights the stages of planning that have led to the final
compendium of prioritized bicycle-, trail-, and pedestrian-facility
recommendations and a strategy to help implement them. This includes
development of the plan's goals, incorporating the existing conditions
assessment (from the previous chapter), and consideration of stakeholder and
community input to form the basis of the bicycle and pedestrian network in
Lexington.
�
� ��� � , � � �iiir� IIII� m ° �iiii�iiii��iiii� IIII���� ��iiii� �.
��� IIII �� � �IIII�iiii iiii� � � IIII�iiii�°�
Development of the bicycle and pedestrian network requires a methodology that considers the Town
of Lexington's and stakeholders' goals for the plan, community input, an assessment of existing
conditions (including gaps), and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity needs. Helping to form the
network are the hundreds of bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations that eliminate gaps,
improve safety, and provide links to area destinations such as schools, business districts, parks, transit
stops, places of employment, and historic/cultural sites.
11136���111� �ii��' III���'�����iriii�iir� Ilf�lll�ii� ���III�
Through discussions with Town of Lexington staff, the TSG+, various stakeholders, and the general
public, the project team developed five goals for the TBPP. These were used to guide the network-
planning work, bicycle/pedestrian facility concepts, and the program-based recommendations. Goals
were also used as the foundation of the evaluation criteria used to prioritize project
recommendations. In aggregate,the goals support improved connectivity and safety for people
walking, bicycling, using micromobility, or operating a wheelchair throughout Lexington.The five
goals include:
30 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> SAFETY: increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety ��i���'��°�'��yr��� �� „�,
with programs and infrastructure projects ��� �' � � � �� '4,��"� � ���
> CONNECTIVITY: link nei hborhoods with schools, �� � ��° � �� " �„ x�m,
g �„,�,,�
�� � n*
business districts, bus stops, parks, playgrounds, �1�lii� c `� � VVVVVVVVIVIVVuuuiq�ii�i��������,���� ,, .
i�
conservation and open space and adjacent '��� ����11��,�aiiJJ,1����%a�;�„ V
communities an t e Town's existing networ o �'"`"°�'�� " �� � ����
paths, bikeways, and sidewalks �i�' � � � ����
��T ;����. � �
> DESIGN: encourage bicycling and walking with
separated/protected facilities designed for all
ages and abilities �`��� ����"����•�
��";'„///i�%��,r �,t�F�i��///9��!�/`//%//,' ''��`"'�
� 1 ' �,���� i/ �� ''0
> ECONOMY: promote local businesses and r�r �,� ✓�f� � �
sustainable tourism with strategic bicycle and ` �` �' �'�'`� �`��'
�� `��' ' ���;
pedestrian investments ,"� � � �`� `�r�"`
�� ��e �� s�(�'"
,r �r � �
> FEASIBILITY: plan for project recommendations ��,�����' ° l' �%� ��
���j�/I!i " / 1�, ���- � �
that minimize engineering challenges, can r � rl�� b �'
leverage funding opportunities, and build community support
Ill�ii���lll� �ii��' Ill��������i�iii�i�m II�����
Based on the documentation of current conditions for bicycling, walking, operating a wheelchair, or
using a micromobility device,the Town is well suited to expand the current network of trails, on-
street bike facilities, sidewalks, and road crossings to improve active transportation safety and access.
To do so requires an understanding of user needs and the gaps within the current network of paths
and trails, on-street bike routes, sidewalks, and road crossings, however.
Shared Use Paths and Trails
The Minuteman Bikeway spine forms the foundation of the off-road active transportation system in
Lexington. Supplementing the Minuteman Bikeway are the many shared-use paths, trails, and
walking paths that crisscross the Town with varying levels of connectivity. Combined, these off-road
routes provide options for many residents to walk, bike, or roll to school or work, for errands, or for
recreational trips. Elimination of the gaps between paths and trails is the primary need in Lexington:
> Gaps within the Lower Vine Brook trail itself(e.g., at Brookwood Road or at North
Street) and lack of seamless connectivity to the Minuteman Bikeway
> Missing link between the Lincoln Park/Old Reservoir path system and the Minuteman
Bikeway, especially for people riding bicycles
> Missing link of safe bicycle passage between the Minuteman Bikeway and Lexington
High School
> Lack of continuity between Minute Man National Park/Battle Road Trail and the Battle
Green and/or Minuteman Bikeway in Lexington Center
> Missing link between trails within Beaver Brook Reservation and Concord Road and the
neighborhoods to the north
31 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
On-street Bicycle Routes
Lexington's on-street bicycle network is currently � ����� ��`�° � '��'�
fragmented and features some routes that are not �� r
,;a,;
comfortable for novice bicyclists, children, or
families riding bikes. Additionally, members of the ' p� �°°;
public have said that streets with shared lane � �
,,,
markings are not an acceptable "facility"for ��"��
„ . ,,. _ . ��
,,;;, .. � � �. �w _ ,�
bicycling and need to be upgraded to dedicated � � �
�- .
.A, ,. _ ,�, ;
bike facilities. A well-connected bicycle network in �, �;� r� � ��n�'
Lexington will likely indude a mix of both on-road ������""" ��� �
and off-road facilities. Bike lanes—ideally separated
or buffered, but otherwise providing a dedicated Pleasant Street is an example of a busier road with
space for bicyding—are needed on roadways with needs for enhanced bicycle facilities but without
modest-to-high traffic volumes (>3,000 trips/day). space forstriped bike lanes.
On lower volume, lower speed streets, however,
shared lanes are possible with painted shared lane markings (aka sharrows) and signage. Also, many
roadways, including some major connecting routes, have narrow pavement widths and generally
preclude on-road bicycle facilities unless curb lines are moved.Widening streets will impact street
right-of-way and utilities, leading to significant project expense and complexity.These streets
typically have high speeds and volumes which make sharing the road with cars difficult and
uncomfortable.As such, traffic calming elements may be best for narrower, collector streets to
enhance comfort levels for bicyclists sharing the roadway with motor vehicles. In the long term,
however, the Town should consider widening the roadway to accommodate dedicated bike lanes.
Sidewalks
Needs for the sidewalk network were identified by reviewing public input through the online survey,
the map-markup activity at the first public meeting, discussions with stakeholder groups, and
documenting the apparent gaps in the network where sidewalks end mid-block and/or are
disconnected from sidewalks further into the network. Connections to key destinations are also
critical when considering sidewalk gaps, to allow safe and comfortable passage to places such as
commercial areas, parks, and schools. In addition to new sidewalks, sidewalk improvements are
needed in different places to address maintenance issues and narrow or ADA-deficient sidewalks.
Although some sidewalks are needed in residential areas, there are still major sidewalk needs on
some major roads, which have higher traffic volumes and speeds that making walking along them
unsafe without a separated pedestrian facility.
Crosswalks
The primary sources used to determine locations of new or improved crosswalks included public
input from the online survey and public meetings, and the intersections identified as needing new
crosswalks or improvements by the planning team.Another source was the ACROSS Lexington Trail
Network", which identified areas in the network where crosswalks exist to facilitate travel through
the network, and locations where crosswalks are still needed to assist with network connectivity.
17 See:htipr;:��www.lexin�le�rrre7a.:.yovll%�7lnCRC}SS.I..exin�tr�n.:::Pf:}F.:::f3rochurc:::�a�
32 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Crosswalk improvements were identified based on public input from the public survey and through
the map-markup activity from the first public meeting. Requested crosswalk improvements often
included locations where people are concerned about speeding, lack of motorist yielding, locations
where the crosswalks have not been updated to continental/zebra crosswalks, or there are sight
distance issues.
°�� � m �� �IIII� IIII�°���������� � iiii��llll� IIII��� iiii���iiii���iiii � ��iiii�iiii��
���� IIII�liii� � �
Based on the assessment of existing conditions, desired links to destinations, and the needs
described above, the planning team developed recommendations for a well-connected bicycle
network.The network is comprised of a mix of shared use paths (through open space and within
roadway ROWs), roadways with shared lanes (some with traffic calming measures) and striped bicycle
lanes.The latter features separated bicycle lanes (SBLs), standard 5-foot-wide bike lanes in both
directions, and one-way uphill climbing lanes. In most cases, the one-way bike lanes are intended to
be short-term improvements where current roadway width precludes bike lanes on both sides of the
roadway, e.g., Concord Avenue or Woburn Street. Many of the bike lane recommendations can be
incorporated into scheduled roadway maintenance and/or repaving projects with minimal additional
funding.
Bicycle network recommendations include several discrete improvements at intersections intended to
improve safety and access for bicyclists and pedestrians.This ranges from tightening corner turning
radii to slow traffic, to striping green bike crossings adjacent to crosswalks, to a full reconstruction to
square off intersections, simplify the intersection geometry, and/or dramatically reduce
bicycle/pedestrian crossing distances.
� I � �o ,f, ,. ;�e .,
�I�'I I', �,h ��,'� �" �f'.
e �I ,�
// ��r ,
fl f � r fl���irr�r�iJ/��,,,;/�i�ii i ' % �i I i� raii/Gil!�� �
�'/ � i . ,,//,�ii� .. t � � � ii� ., �t�ion riii mll."rJ�i�����Jl,l�i���
�i�„i�., i � i - �I
///���/�/�i�/�%/���%/lll ! /iy�id�/ii///,r%. %�,��i riii//i/%%i i
(' t,� � � � �f riflo/�� ; / /��i/!///��f(/�r11/r//����/l/!/�/��/nua/ i� J/�/i�/I/�m� �i�i", ,t
j1 H������� '��/��//` /%!///.rrii////����r:, / l�/�i�������/iiii�i/i/� i�;��.0�i��',.//„��� '// r �'
i i�� „fl%�������,/r,�%�����li%/��/ lri�l✓�yii�/ii/iip�oi/isiiiii,.//%�i�i�i�%l�%�i��!����y//'%� ��l/ �/.
,�1�)1J� Vii' //%/%%i,/////,�%%////%���,��//fii'i;iii;il%�ii�i�>iiiii/i ii���/,�(�r ir ������� ,�
I� ��III������� i iii�i/,/ri o�-l� � % � �// r
� 1�1�1�'11��/1ff(((Ofi�r�'r�rr�l,`��f�,���o//;/'/�//,////f%lJ%/�%��/j���/���� �
li , � ���� r /,/i � ,� ,� ,�f � ,/ri
������ Y ,�!%�� tJ l(�ri��j�� �� ,, ,�; �/��� �
�� ���i� �� �,����,; ��J,� �� �, �
nc��a���µN�����ti���'l�l � ����,��%1��� � r��������1�����' � ar �
The Mass Ave/VVaburn St/F(etcher Ave/Winthrop Rd intersection is very
complex and creates cha((enges for bicyclists and pedestrians to navigate one
of the keygateways to Lexington Center.
33 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 12 icycle F�cility Rec�mrn��d�ti�r�s
„, ,,fi, ,;,i,
�µ�
� '� °�
„,.mv +�d,,,,
, ,,
�- y
i , <
r ��
` i
w , - � i` ��„!, _l;;le., �,P'�
�
°� � �`�� �'�M
ro �
�
� � �y
i' � �,�� p j �.�
ifn� �k ., / // ��� i �i � '�W
q�
� � � a � �pf,
t
�� ��i/ y,i ?a nf ��/, ��1� �i �y
� / y � "'il$ � J �,�e����L
W L����/�� ry,b���IV 1 i' i i,i k i,
�.mr�'�'H,.,� % �Ni� �� M i.
� � � � w�y�l un ��"µ .a w�.��
G � pIp � � ( �uy�� %•� b ,
n /
� V
i ry� u �� �. . ' 'z�
)�i W `pY"a'�w m/�V �Y r .w. �1. ,. � �4
../�.�i. �� W .,T i.' �' ' I ��qf N6
� 4;,,
f , a � � : � �� ,i � � �� . �N .
'� i � . y,�y��, . I ,";�'r d , 'n Y . i
�� , �� �l , ! �
�� �� � � ' �� µ�, �
�`,� ',�p . ." wtw'1�', . tid � � d���.,���� �
y
y �'l44, ��P J� l yw. � �pP�i .,. ,. .
u� .n q �1� .� w "'� ,
° �,
. �
/ ��'W �� . y,�-�.,m '�," A � .. � � �dl !� ,,,
��uw W A �F ��p y�y�r o� �!� ��T
�Nn. ;%�'�d f �� � i// ��'Pr�
d
>,,,
r� w N
�
f �����wrw �� � ,'W� ,�, � ,� a
. 'W� r 1 i �r; � � M ; o�a w
1 �,
� a�
m / f `� � ;
„ w� .... ,�1 ��I. �,� �� , ,,�';" wq , "`M1 ;
� � 1°� y„ �
: tb i
,, � ,'iii '��m
m �� r a
� 5` �r�
� N� „i w�W �%i� � � µ �,r.mm�; / / � ,/ "'ilH
/
�y^^�m% n %i ., ���w ��,� ! ,� �'M�o � ,
an �
f�%/�� ,� ,. ��w. ��„�� �.w.
„
�„. � � �,
� � r , �'" ,.,. x i��%��� „ �i��� i �
j � „ r � �� ,,,s ,.� j%�i� � r j �
�� ,
� �Y!/� //�� i`
r
� ii�
„vJ, ; �, �r 4 . 4 i � " / ,
u , -. � -- �, ,r ; , � �� � �"y,�,w�w^ "^+�;^'^��
` �
(// iiii � p l/% �
i/
lr �� �✓' / �� r�iQ
I i � ° `"�`1�:�
, ��.
i �„.
„ ,� � �
� � �
� � � � �
� ��w�.--�.n _.
°�
,_, ,�, � �
n �: � � ar / � � I �1 �y
� %„ � �w e �, v _. .,.t.
� ��„� � ' `�^���
�
s
�� / � ��"'�`�. ��P�
.�/ .,.1� % ,� � �,�, � ��,
�.
--.
, ., w g ti � ,,, .
� , �-;,
� �u �
��n � � �`�y. d, �� .,'s,'',{„�„ .
,,
U
� �
" � a
,,.
., I,
���iY V 7 P.IItt✓-i,
-.. .C'rrr,re�'m�q,�I�rvk���u�ayM�,�.^r. a c,�,N�v�w,rra�9a�» �IF�;�¢������uYii����r��ram��d�4����
�A'�e,��,�'ir���o,�iom,^�I N���so�LR� "� V�or�tu(�w,Itrs�P':W. .�.� �gua4,4�lini�,,
.... p�9�i�uu9ft�7�rm�roaM���u4�«�ww�t�� � ho����'a���uu��rr��a@�C G aa�k��a��l�;9��tswaazr�p m . � ��'uk�IL d�^e���:;uo�u�r"�"���+�re
— Ruuhruo°�g'�:d",4uw7mm.�4��N,#��f+Y�aCY�u°% �iiii, q�n��aeml K'.�i�,�irtlr:t "��a���mo9c�ui�9+ib�r N.raru�aa��9.atl�a�d�
� ��"��I�ui�2w��fr'r�o�� ....�,hr�htrsl"�A�i�,Ar,�n�w+dVu�'�'���;'�,wi�rrcno'o,��
��at��,-�'rw�na�iJlv�M:'rwd��tir���r; ^�- �r�p���anMko��;rrref�c�u�p�ue:�wanrare��t
�r��b�"S1o�am�d�5�tl���a�a�w�wra��r�c�aari��e�.
_ , ,. - ,, ��� �G�Nr�����1'r
,. ,�,. .�xpkd�e����'E 9d����'w
,.. ..,,�.� °.Ff oNN�.gvan',�iwl.m�.�1Vzk�.V {�,ud�f�,td,�ll v�m.u.vn.i
34 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Ilf3ii���lll� I���iiillliir�iii�� ��11f����lllllkiir�
The TBPP includes a "toolkit" of facility categories that comprise the recommended bicycle network.
The toolkit is intended to help the Town of Lexington Public Works Department and Planning Office
staff create more bike-friendly roadways, and to provide consistency of bicycle facility design
treatments. The descriptions and images below are not intended to impose inflexible standards and
should be considered on roadways throughout the town where future improvements are
recommended. Note that the examples presented in the Bicycle Facilities Toolkit should not be
considered a substitute for more thorough evaluation by Town staff and/or their design consultants.
They may require further analysis and engineering judgement based on local conditions and
community concerns and are intended to complement other state and national design manuals,
including:
> Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD (2009)
> AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)
> Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design
Guide (2015)
> MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015)
> FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2016)
> Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), 2020
Bike Lanes
Bicycle lanes designate a lane for the exclusive use of , `�
� � � �
bicycles via roadway pavement markings and signage. "" �°� �
Reducing travel lane width to 10'-11' provides space for ' �:.-�
standard 5'-wide bicycle lanes. They typically are added to
roads with extra wide travel lanes or, in some cases,to -
replace parking where demand is low.When bike lanes lie "
adjacent to on-street parking, if space is available, a wide , �,�„ ,,, ��,
� ` iiiiiiit /,/ %���i
parking aisle or 2' buffer between the bicycle lane and the lt� �j""��,,,,, , ����''�" �
i /�Oi/ i��//iiliiiiiii/ii � � ��
r%���///�� //�,//iiii ��� /��� .
� �//
arkin aisle decreases the likelihood that bic clists will be �a���� �������/%���'� � �
s�truck b o ened car doors of arked vehicles. IGI'Y�',,,IIY�'��l,l��������� , �����ll�����%��;
Y P P �
Bike Lane, One Way
Similar to what is described above but only in a single r �,���� <� � ������ �t
direction due to constrained pavement width. Typically, the .. ��""'�`�' "`�''�
bike lane is incorporated in the uphill direction and used as ;
a climbing lane. In the downhill direction—where bicyclists ' �
riding at higher speeds can theoretically"keep up with , 1
traffic"—shared lane markings (aka sharrows) and signage p ��i'��������yl��'��� �u
' �V�u
�w��- � r°°°
� - ��a U�� � ���� �
are included.Along undulating roadways,the bike lane I �i; ��� �"���� � �
should be maintained in the direction that is �� ' " ��°~�w-
�� ii°, ,
predominantly in the uphill direction. Only where the �it '��' ���
/
slopes change direction for more than 1,000 linear feet �;�
r,,,
35 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
should the bike lane direction be reversed. This ensures more predictable and consistent treatment
for people both driving and riding a bicycle.
Separated Bike Lanes (Directional)
' ���'i r, �� ,ti���u,�� �ti,
Directional Separated Bike Lanes (SBLs) run on each side � � � �
of the roadway, at street-level, and use a variety of ��� q
methods for visual or physical separation from passing � "''���� ��� � �� �°
� �,,,;
� �
;
traffic.A striped buffer plus a motor vehicle parking aisle, ° ' - �
.. _ ..; � �
flexible delineator posts, or other vertical elements °
mr-
provide separation from motor vehicle traffic. SBL
treatment is one of the best ways to create an "all ages ' � ��� � �
and abilities" bicycling environment on busy streets such „" ".
as Mass Ave, Worthen Road, or Bedford Road. U
1�
Separated Bike Lanes (Bi-directional)
Bi-directional SBLs allow two-way travel for bicyclists on � ���, P���� � �� „� , ����"��
one side of the street. The bike lanes are typically 10'
wide (total)with an adjacent, 2'-3' wide buffer.Additional
design considerations at driveway and side-street
crossings are required to reduce conflicts. Bi-directional ^°� ��.� � ' �� "�h;� �� �'
� �i�ab�� r�r ��°,���t%�y
, ,,,�, ,, ����r�
SBLs work best on: „�✓%� ,��' �'r' `
� �rir�%%����i,ri��„���h,N�'
,�� �/ �%ii/G�
• one-way roads such as Muzzey Street, �//,/,,,'j����������1111��` �'
'/�%�, ��
• roads with long blocks and few curb cuts, and; ������� �
�.�,�h���� � ������ , � r�,���
• roads with destinations that lie primarily on one side of the street.
According to FHWA's Developing Crash Modification Factors for SBLs(FHWA HRT-23-078J report,
incidence of crashes can be reduced by SO% when delineator posts are also included within the
striped buffer and up to 64%when a more solid vertical elements such as a concrete barrier or
planter boxes are included. See: h�tt�s�Alhi�hvva�s.dot.�o�9r�search�public�ti�rrs6safet��FFi1f�l�-
H RT'-23-025
Shared Street with Traffic Calming
A shared street includes general purpose travel lanes marked frequently with shared lane markings
(SLM and aka sharrows) used to encourage bicycle travel ��9��'q��,�i ' ��,����������,�����'a�j�p�e�i u4a�� �'� �.r , �,"���
and proper bicyclist positioning within the lane. Under � �p�����,, ' �
,
many conditions, SLMs may be placed in the middle of
the lane to discourage unsafe passing by motor vehicles.
SLM's are ideally used on low-volume roads with
prevailing traffic speeds of <25 mph and are not to be `
used on roadways with posted speeds greater than 35 �� ,
�U�
mph. For collector roads with 30 mph posted speed �� �°
�� �
�� � Y�� u
i
limits, traffic calming measures such as speed humps or r�� ��'�� , ��
�����III��� ��
36 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
chicanes should be considered to create a more comfortable environment for less experienced
bicyclists.
Intersection Improvements
In the context of the TBPP, Intersection Improvements
include a variety of design revisions at an intersection to
improve access and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Options include:
��%�/�i�� -� �
> Green bike crossings (see photo) '" ��t�� ���,,,,�,�� �;K� �
����III�"n�rv„rv� C�a�iw� �u���,�,i�&lurm�� ��u����ni �'
> Reduction of corner radii to slow turning ��II�
traffic
> Bump outs, potentially with rain gardens ��
, Illlllllououuuuuuulllllllllllll
> Full intersection reconstruction/"T-ing' the
roadways
Sidepath
Whereas shared-use paths run within former rail corridors, ;���, � ���������
along rivers, and through parks, sidepaths are located ���
adjacent to and parallel with a roadway. Sidepaths can „ p-�,, � �F� �
offer a high-quality experience for pedestrians and
°;,, ;
bicyclists of all ages and abilities compared to on-road
facilities in busier traffic environments.Additional desi n � ���"' I�°"� / � % �"
g �1�i��� �� ����I� r�� i� / r
considerations at driveways and side street crossings are I �� ����� 1 � %� '�'r �r���,,,��
also needed for sidepaths to address conflicts between
� � ,-��;
bicycles going in two directions and motor vehicles. �. „�� ��„ �, � �,��; „ �, ,,� , ,�
��'ll�ll�lll��ir�m�ir����lll Ill�ii�y�;lll� IIP���� �i�lll� Ilf����ir�niirm��ir�����iii�iir��
To help implement and support the individual roadway recommendations that form Lexington's
future bicycle network, a handful of base-level recommendations should be considered.
> All local roadways should include 10' wide travel lanes. Along MBTA bus routes and/or
roadways with heavy truck traffic should be 10.5'-11' wide depending on available
space. These slightly narrower lane widths can provide additional space for striped bike
lanes and/or a wider road shoulder without impacting roadway capacity or safety.'$
> For roadways recommended for future bicycle lane treatment, green pavement
markings should be considered at locations where conflicts between bicyclists and
motor vehicles are more likely. This includes at all cross streets, at commercial driveway
curb cuts, such as Bedford Street approaching Worthen Road and at locations where
motor vehicles cross the bike lane to access a right turn lane such as the intersection of
Maguire Road and Hartwell Avenue.
18 There are a number of studies that indicate narrower traffic lanes—even as low as 9 feet—do not impact traffic flow or lead to increased
side swipe or other motor vehicle crashes.Many show 10'-wide lanes lead to slower speeds and enhanced safety for bicyclists.See:JHIJ:::.
�_U2.;i:-_Narrr�wi_n.y.-�ravel.I..anes.Re�ort.�df and N}ttp.a:��,leurnals.r;acge�-�ub.corrrldoil1�1.31�11l1011.00�
37 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Where bicycle lanes end, warning signs should be provided for both bicyclists and
drivers. Preferred direction of travel should be marked for inexperienced bicyclists,
especially near schools.
> According to FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide matrix below (see Figure 9, page 23 of
the C3.ii.lke��.�S�Il��kia�n Gu�i�� f�'�ate�_v�), standard 5'-wide bike lanes should be used on
roads with traffic speeds below 35 mph and/or with traffic volumes of less than 7,000
vehicles per day. As such,where bike lanes are recommended along roadways with
posted speed limits that exceed 35 mph (e.g., Waltham Street between Brookside Ave
and Marrett Road), consideration should be taken to either widen the roadway to
accommodate SBLs or a shared use path, or efforts should be made to slow traffic with
a lower posted speed limit and/or traffic calming measures.
'R C�k
�k
. e . _rl�, ��^.
�k
� J _� ,�i I
� 7k I
� �ik ! 'i
�� �� ; , h , s:. �I���������.
�� C��� ���,Y��r ����� ����'� ����
�����,������;�����,,,�1���
� �� �
�� sn���d ���� ;�
� �rr I�ike f ■r■r■
��� B�r�ll��rr�a�d ,�
,� �����
a
1.5 2� �� 3{� 3�� 4� 45 5f� 5�
� �„
� i�
38 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�
���������'��� Illf������� ������������iiii�iiii���������� iiii���.���� IIII�����������������; � �� iiii� �� Illf���°��„���iiii���.����iiii���.�� iiii������� ��� ������iiii�iiii��
�� i�o�i �f��y I i r�ir
Based on the assessment of existing conditions, desired p�id��,'I„i�@y,� � �, , '� � ;
�
M� � �I'��iUyr � /�r �l��i/f
links to destinations, and the needs described in section . ,�, � =
3.1, the planning team developed recommendations for a � �� � �;���
� �
well-connected pedestrian network.The network is � �` � `otr��a�pf�,���. ,,p�l`,,y�r,,�,li,l,�;o. "
comprised of a mix of shared use paths (through open h'��� '���'�'' � '�'��"`"��'������` �e�,;
space and within roadway ROWs),walking trails, new and ' �,' �"��'`��(a`�° �"�"`�� � �
improved sidewalks, new and improved crosswalks, and � � � ; � , , '�� � w� �
�� .� � ,�,
��,� ,,, „
the intersection improvements described in the Bicycle �,.; ,,,, ,,,, ��,�,,��,;,, � � ��
Network Recommendations.These include tightening �p�,'���,°�"'' '� ���� �� � �����
�
corner turning radii to slow traffic, adding corner bump � �� ��'��� ��; ��
� G V�;
outs, or a full reconstruction to square off intersections, , "
�, � -
simplify the intersection geometry, and/or dramatically �,, '°,�` ��, '��' � ,������ �� u ��
, � ,
reduce pedestrian crossing distances. ` �� � � �� ��`��`i y � � a � ����
39 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Figure 13 P�destrian Facility Reeorr�rner�dati�ns
`r;I;�����'-;% w,�
�
,�� �
�
�
, �
�� °�
g�w , ��;.
,,: �
� w�� �, ,
� �� � �� �w ° sf�;.. ��.� '%J°°�a
d, t"' ,,,'
°��,� F �� r�K
� �„
' �.���M,� $
��., ��, � ��„�
��`� � ��"� �z� ��"�
,��! �'�' �`' '` , "' �N� �
�°'v,�� ��til C a , �� i �w
"N� ��iii// "� ; � , .��
:�u�� /��� °IN� wytiw �,.
�, i� , . .r) � '°�.
� �i� '� � �Y
„ �� � � � i� �� � ,
I� �// �// ,�ao , �' ���ii%i �1 ,� , Q� �'�W1'� ,,,
� � //ii�� '� �" � � '�°''A � ;,, t'o'Re 1, vi; .
� �� i � S t �
„„o io / n� , I �
,X;,$ / �' , , ,� � �'� �x�^�`'T .
�^
M ,� "' %i, � `""m; �1�o;� ,� ; � ,� " �` .
« w� %' � � .��I �n j� '� .
W � � . ` � ��` !� r� , � ,,.� � �
� �
�"
�ti '� , � !�d' �� '� �"0�� � ,/ �'"� �;�Ni
d � "� �, a 1 w� ry"" ,
Y � ' " ^« 1 �' H
µ
� . � , �"n r �f r �� � y�,�
u r, w ,. „� �, / ��� ,� ��
� ��, �� � "� � �/ �� �
�
w,� r^' , ,r� '�
g ��a "�"� ir° %r
u.,� . �,,�G
w � ,
t :, w, ',,. '�* i , . . .
ti p��� <� ���rw��m
, d F"V� ';, ����.�W �ori�C', � ,n�, cr"��� �/'��arr��, i �,�^ '
+� n . . � � �
,;;s ... , . „ ,�;�� ,
� ,
�
�
`�d �.���}`"� l'r�^ °e�'/�f'�b� 6�' � � .,,
f' �
c �� ' � � ��W
� ��> � r
u , � � ; �
'��'��m�rm �I{ , ��ro J 1* � e� �M
� mmro n �� �
��n � � � �
4E� �"� M�� N'a, '�(�� C � , , . � f
�� �� �,�als. /� � ` �� �
/A � �� � Y�
� �
� ��ii
w�,n ' �l ii � %� m�'J" , �,,,� . .
!;/ �, �/ �' i� �
,„
����/ �/// ��^
�,�,iiiai�ij� '��'p ,,.. ,�Ilv`°y , .. 'ry�`;d � � �*w �„,
�� i� � �"° �'"f�, r� i f
,. / ��� " � t �� �, �� �„+ � � ��//////i/ii �� �,
� � ,a � �� �" / iiiii/
�� , "� °� ma� ry,� /uy� , '�? .,d'r /✓Do///�%�
i � m �� � � �� � / �m //
I1 � ' �
�;���� 4 ;.,�, _
�
` i/ y i�� , � r` � �,
� �>
�iii�' ° �G�,�r' , � � ��
�
�, �r,
��i�,�, �f� , „ �� �s.� r P p�E� �„
ar� � �;�
�, �
� „
° .,.� ��'"""�" °"�� � ' � "� �
�` i �`
�� � �, ^ � p � �'1,�� �..� 17i,r ,� , ,,.,t,G 1',�
�..,� /, F 4 .
!, e. '�rf.� lal 'u
i, '�... i .. . x
� i
��.� � �, .....
j i
J// r
y. l �....,. �.r
�� � �4 ii� �„ I� ,
� �n py�
!�'d� f,l lj-,,�„ �I� ,
7I` b'
� I�'r Ili �„o�
��
,�
�
�o� u w,:u�,.,,
N;au�.l,io,i�"roi�w°r�+,wll:Vsr3� "�x Irm�uN,�� t a orrb�r„�;�tl1Wr tlrh�e��„ra�rrv;,��roar,*�uf,
...- ����Aa.ulr�r�r'r��ie f�x!V,��wn+��ro�' �"�i N��mffsr'r W;a�y�r�aN u�oi��°:��rnmw�:e�tlk�O'R�a4,rr�a :� 4��;�wa+oe,r,�r��i1�k.
.,, 4 s���H'tlurr,����f,�la�rr•t����d',p i�7���lhe� �iii„ �dr�tu(tl���J!��Yer;� � N�n�Yrvr�a.��ao�oi��m B�.�r��rw���i��er•e��
� 'uM��u�uuw�'�eresB,� �"r�iql�#r��w�aY�X�s�a!���1t1����ma�bmr�emrd��qmm��
�wdarv��a�cu'��ae��V0.�F�aa��aua��nw�n�d;�#iwu�x
�m, 1..ai��ii�r��fiara�rcno�N�:r,� .�d e �� ��m m�r����R'Swu�po
� o�Ba��w��Wll�Vrrtid�rr;�w���n�or��rrY
���°i�v'.�wr�or eJ I�a�rot9rr,�Yu�a+��"'� �.��.�r .h�tlw�ur�Sw��lr�a��a���� �,w.,�6�E��rv,rud,r�&'�a�Rl^�
.
��a.» �ar�I��m��.��q��inslR�u�mi���a�,ru�E.x�sx�s�'¢��anu�a�i��.���rra��ir�,Y�ulCs:wu�r�as�tlui�ce�"�
, r�. „ ,, � ; , �� ; �;.,: •,�a.,, ,,� .r¢
�� ,,, . ; _ mm,.,��'�w1��R��i�uc�IB��,M�(�"e�pro�wu��lw���a�^�rw�r��ilh�nK,ror��lp�ir ����M��l
, . ,. , .. ,.. . ,,., �w�ry�ulnH r,u�.i„�pu.��. r�n W�nwr�.ww.w v�.,a mv,r��.¢r+u ny��„�-�,�A.���»�..�w�+
�, , a , . . . ,�mrir i✓�vli wmv�Yv Bw�l k Jr�vrf�a,
40 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Ilf���'����iirii�ir� I���iiilllii��°iii�� ��11f����lllll�ii��
The TBPP includes a "toolkit" of facility categories that comprise the recommended pedestrian
network.The toolkit is intended to help the Town of Lexington Public Works and Planning
Department staff improve pedestrian comfort and safety on Town roads, especially near schools,
parks and senior centers. Many of these improvements can be incorporated into scheduled roadway
maintenance and/or repaving projects without a high level of additional funding.
The descriptions and images below are not intended to impose inflexible standards and should be
considered on roadways throughout the town where future improvements are recommended. Note
that the examples presented in the Pedestrian Facilities Toolkit should not be considered a substitute
for more thorough evaluation by Town staff and/or their design consultants.They may require
further analysis and engineering judgement based on local conditions and community concerns and
are intended to complement other state and national design manuals, including:
> Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD (2009)
> AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2021)
> ITE Resource Guide to Traffic Calming Measures19
Walking Paths and Trails
a�� �-�.� M ���,. ,,
The path and trail recommendations within the Lexington � �'° � �' �� .
,
, �
, ,,
TBPP range from rustic walking paths-2'-5'wide dirt or , ;�"�, �u �� ��
r" � ' � � �+�,� ,
woodchip paths—to 8'-10' wide stonedust paths that are '�,� �����"
fully accessible and can accommodate both pedestrians and
"��',"'�„�
bicyclists.Although the precise alignments for these future
paths and trails are not fully articulated in this plan, high- �
level recommendations are made for improved and new
trails through public properties managed by the Lexington
Conservation Commission, Lexington Public Schools,the � '
I IJ�p U6�ii!� i�a �� �,� , '��,u,
Recreation Department, Select Board and otherTown- ��� � i �,�� E�,�r4��r ��,rr'���,�d��Nu�e
fr������� ���;��I�i�9���ri i I�
owned parcels.
19 See:https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/traffic-calming/traffic-calming-measures/
41 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Sidewalks (Improved and New)
Sidewalks in residential neighborhoods should be at a
minimum of 5 feet wide but can be 4 feet wide in °° � '� '"
a�
constrained areas. A 4'-8' wide planted buffer should be
planned between the sidewalk and the roadway where
possible. This buffer improves the walking environment, �,, �'�;� �rr;�»%ii, ;��(''���� �
�, . . ,
enhances livability of the neighborhood, and can act as a � �� '" �� �
���„
��� � v
furniture zone for utility poles, benches, and mailboxes.
�;, ,��. .. ;�,
Where off-street parking sits at or near the edge of a parcel li
adjacent to a sidewalk, a landscaped buffer should be ��
considered.20 Per the photo at right, this provides a more
welcoming environment for pedestrians and ensures that '
car bumpers do not encroach into the sidewalk space.
Crosswalks (Improved and New)
Where they aren't already in use, hi-visibility crosswalks I�
should be striped at key pedestrian crossing locations
and at signalized intersections.They should not strand
pedestrians, however, and should lead to sidewalks on ,, a
— �e Vru����;��
both sides or at least pedestrian safety around the G�
corner if a sidewalk is not present.A piano key(aka ��`���;
"continental") or striping pattern enhances visibility of
the crosswalk relative to a simple pair of perpendicular
lines which are difficult for drivers to perceive. Except at ��' �� r ;
signalized intersections, crosswalks should be signed ����-v' � �
with a double sided W11-2 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN and W16-7p ARROWS assembly
supplemented with R1-6 IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN which increase drivers' awareness
of the crosswalk, especially at night (as clearly displayed in the photo of a crosswalk on Adams Street
at Hathaway).
Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures
The treatments included in the Pedestrian Facilities Toolkit illustrate the variety of design treatments
for use along roadways, at intersections, and at pedestrian crossing locations in Lexington. Selection
of the appropriate treatments is based on a variety of factors including the land use context, street
width, number of travel lanes, and the speed and volume of roadway traffic. Most treatments have
been shown to improve pedestrian safety as suggested in the FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
report from 2008 and 201721.
As Town staff seek the appropriate pedestrian facility for the improved and new crosswalks within the
Pedestrian Network, they should focus on 1) motor vehicle traffic volume, 2) traffic speeds, and 3) the
number of travel lanes on a given roadway.
20 Made need to be explored as an amendment to Lexington's Zoning Bylaw since these buffers would likely sit outside of the public right of way
21 See:https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/
42 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Options for determining the appropriate pedestrian facility treatment at road crossings—either
raised crosswalk, curb extensions, median refuge island, RRFB, or others—is presented in the table on
the following page. "Table 1" is pulled from FHWA's 2018 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontro(led Crossing Locations (aka the "STEP Guide"). The STEP Guide's table includes a matrix
broken down by the four roadway conditions including traffic volume, speed, number of lanes, and
presence of a raised median. Note that Table 1 below should be considered guidance only;the
professional judgment of a licensed transportation engineer is required before the pedestrian
treatment is formally selected and implemented.
�C'r��tC�d I �'�E.,��f���dYc��i� �Fi r�;,r1e �,�ir�aC� r.,i�.7 {�f��.,�a<<fr������l�w�f��«��s� fa; �e:�R°���If�r�°�°,� ����r:4Y�ss�r°��
��as����ga�c� L�r�����d AAC�T
.. W�hwctl� f�°�»(D�&4� � W��tio���,�R�J�9.0�-1,a,�� W���cu�6� ."6��5u0� _I,
� r I
..1�C�pWd1Wt��,C�111�IgU�"�t�t�&�, ,,,�,�3Cb c��kaJ„�5 r���u,,,,,,,4tD rrt��j ��V�at�a�� 3a a���hu 4�1 a�m�h J �4J,r�p�,l„�5 uttpWa,,,,,,,��„���.
+�M �' 1� 'C� +�M +�M � +�M � �
2 Ga�re� � � � 5 � � Ca a � b � b ;a 6 � � �a � 6 � C� '
�1 �aaan��rro��sa;�N�a6d�r���6a��p
3 5� '�" �► 7 '9 ���Q '}�' 7 � � �? �' � '���
_ �.� 3 !� !���}... �,.€� .. ..��..��. _�,� ..._.��� ..... .... .,,� . _. ....�
�bfSp"M�S�V�v��lu N`Cp��N�Cq'9��dt�tp ,.. ._,..
� � � � � '
�1 ��acv�saru��a�q��tld�r�t�aaa� '� �" 5 �a � � 5 �a �4 �r
� �1 '� � 7 "� �M f� �1 � � +� � �', i� ',
eeeee eeeeee eeeeeee,,,,,,,,, � � �,�.,,, , ., �„ o,� � � � �,e,
�a�a��,���A�r ra���rn+��an �'! � � 1�► �► � �f � � G> +�1 � +�► � �! C� �►���� � ''���
�I �a�u�����a�ro�.����a3drta�G¢��w�6�aa d� �a � 5 b I � �S � �, � � � '��� � d� � 5� fa � b� �� 6
h�a�o w�uryr&e9�..��u�ua d�z��� 7` � 7 9 ' (� 7 9 Q ie�' � T � +CA �d" ,
_,.....,.._................... . „�� �e � ,,, . ,�,,,,� .,..., � .,�, ���,,,,� � ��,,,,� ,e ,,,�� �,,, .M�„
�4+��rne�rs��� ��Is�d rnu�dda�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
���ar sa��ar���a���ua��c�s����dr���u��) I
7 � Sa � � � I 8 �D 7 &� 4 �iM � i� � �? 6� E� !6� � f�1 � �1
_ „,,,,�,ti,�.��__„ _�
o,..�„ �,w� I
,o� ,� � +�! C�} , ��� , ,+� C� ._�► t� ,�� � � C� � � +�
a���r��s w��o rc�ms�d��d��r� � � � C� � c� � �► � � � +�► � � � C� � �► '
�2 crou��ma�aK��a Oa�r���E�u��rc�u u�a�t��c������
� � � T � � ', 9 � 7 � 9 �P � +�A � '�► � � �? � �11 � i� '
��w��u t���A�t���wd�bA�n��u��a��BV, "R �!u���•w�w���Mu��y��r�ro���r�sl�rm�a����a��s,�c��������.w��ra���a����w
� ���auqC�����u�at�C����u.ra�t�������u���u�����u��a���� ��� d��q��r���l�,���pus���ruug�uT�tl�n�p'��h�6u��0�.���s�
�c��r��ma��ro ca�a��a����a����r��m�r�a�9�d c��a�sa���d�ti6a�o mr�a�a�x��sd�m�v��u�u���sa�garr�
� 5�����tE�����t tit����aa�u���r����.�ar�s�m�asflc���r��b� � ��ds��cr���aur¢slk
c���������»�uf u���w�����d����o��u���.&�u�������� � �a���w���aY��qa�1��e�'C'������ap���re��F���)P���s�����g��
e�u��r���c�ur����r�'���a��c���r���k�E nac�s��ror�dkcd cam�a���Va������a�fla��
��a��xG��Ic:���fif�mu�� � ��.5����t���^stl�h�ob C�rc���us�a��b�r�
� ���r�s�a�C��a��aa�
C7 �6�������t�w�ro�rr���»�sa6�w��dka��o��¢�s��u�c�s��qs s�mrc��d �y P�9������a������g�a�ls�aa��
����€�o�ou��¢��bA�tm��&��rp��k�u�a@��r I�t���tatl���
���au�a����sr�c�� 7' �������r��p��������ad���a��e������
TPp�a�s�m��c^�4 a���rar���r�d�s�l����t���C�����ma��P���u����� � �e�¢�C���d
����a��r�a9���a����r���a�as�����tio��C�����a�d b�a��x���tN��us mcu�� 9 ��,�.��remra���^��n���s���w(',i��9�y;�,�
����wspa����;>d t�Gq�ww�t����ud����mm�p��d��w����.
"tlN�iArP¢rG.�r�ttps�;rr�.Ulaoii��"�a',� f r,�r.9T�,rt,,�ur,,�r,r�"�to�r�Wuar�,urf,d�rir�nsr��r, tl�.rrir��iEforr r^;ricNiaianre�rYr�.�Fr�twr�iv7r,�i��/uri,rr�rrfi-nwr�raw a��ur�.
""�mPm,�„6tFkruv a'ur��e 9 N�`m;�"�'��G"W��^kr�niC:'Y7r�'�t;v�c r�err.6�°�sr w�rS�rwU.4rtt n�r^�r'avr�t caw�dra�q���1,���;�"�r:Wi..
43 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�����a���"��y���^��ks
Raised crosswalks (aka speed tables) place the pedestrian ��,,iy'(��+�� �' �<
crossing at the same grade as the adjacent sidewalks and �. ��j��
1P���� �� ���. -� "
should incorporate the high-visibility striping described ����� ., l,
above. With painted chevrons on the ramp up, raised ' �" ��'���� �'� `��?�
t
crosswalks create a visual cue that forces drivers to slow .� ��, ��� ,ri
down on the approach and function similarly to a speed
w ��
�� �
hump. �� ���
"���'��� ,uu�.
�y,V!'v�i� ��
" �p..m.0 � �I� �r"' �n �9�� , . -�„
� I '��,� `�(�� ��'� �
Gw`��.�su�a����u+����a�S ������..���� �ri �,
r ,�,/ J �
In lieu of a raised crosswalk, a similarly-effective ��ti ����
treatment could include a pair of speed humps that flank �" ��
an existing or recommended new crosswalk. This design ��� � , � �r r
��y ,�,� � r ; 1
ve effectivel slows motor vehicle traffic on Middleb � �"' � �`���' ���
rY Y Y �� J�( 1f'��fJ�� �no� , � �,�/�
r
Road at the Vine Brook Path crossing to Bridge ' , ���1��,,,�i„1��� � ,i;;,,,,,
Elementary School. �� i ��������, ����� �����
,�x���,���� ,� �
�"�aa�Ea�������a���s���������e�� " ���,, �� � � II ��i� i p,j d �,�/)
�����
�i ����
Curb extensions improve visibility for those waiting to - p �
cross a roadway and reduce the crossing distance for � � °�'' � "���'�� ' �r � ���%%
pedestrians.They also help to calm traffic by creating a �„�.� -�� u���� ��"��''
, � M � � M .. �o
� • • u�o�vw IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIII II uu� II G� �"
visual 'pinch point' in the roadway and reducing the ��� � ��'��,�,�„wqF� � ��
��
typical turning radius for motor vehicles. They are most I
.mnnNl� F,-�'
typically used in conjunction with on-street parking lanes. ,�;PSh � r,
, ,��
���a�a�a����a�,ga���Cti��a�C.s
�� � �:� ��u���ors ,�., ,;
Median refuge islands are protected spaces for '�� �, a ��,������ ' �i '°��
pedestrians in the center of a street, especially critical for '��" �
4 or 6-lane roads. They provide an opportunity for
pedestrians to pause between directions of traffic, � ��
y6�� ii �il16��1,JG+�1� m�� li"'nmilw�ii r �`
obviating the need to wait for traffic to stop in both ���� � ,
jl/G/% ,., , „ ra ead(!A iJ � % ,U/%/ii������.
�1�� /i ii%a%���
directions before crossing a street. According to FHWA's , „ // ii,���;,,, �;�rr��,���,��,,„�
ii rJ � ,�irr�i%%,%//% /�� ��r�� �
�l� ��i����/�r��i��j/��//r
U t� f/ �/� ��� ���
Proven Safety Countermeasures report, they reduce ���'�'�r ����f�/���y/�//�0��;r�t���
crosswalk-related crashes involvin edestrians b 56%. �����'� � ;�� ����„�,������ r���(��������,
9 P Y �� ��, �f���4r.`������u���`����1�1�1 �),�,�lr>>�
��������a��a�r�"a���c���'�da.sFuF�����a��¢���
� � ,�
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are �` /�,'� � �'�"'
pedestrian-actuated warning beacons located at
unsignalized intersections or mid-block crossings.The � � +c°�r��
�,
increase motorists' awareness of pedestrians and work
well in conjunction with curb extensions and high-
visibility crosswalks. According to FHWA's Proven Safety '
Countermeasures report, they reduce crosswalk-related
crashes involving pedestrians by 69%.
44 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
��'ll�ll�lll�ir�m�i����lll IIf����s��iir6�i�m IIP������irll� Ilf����iir�mir��ir�����iii�ii��
To help implement and support the individual roadway and intersection recommendations that form
Lexington's future pedestrian network, the Pedestrian Facility Toolkit should be supplemented by a
handful of base-level recommendations for both infrastructure and maintenance.
> All crosswalks at signalized intersections should include
pedestrian countdown signals with an audible crossing
beacon and lead pedestrian interval (LPI). Countdown ��; ,,��
signals with audible beacons help pedestrians know ���`�`�
when it is safe to cross and how much time remains for 'w � `���� ��
w��� � ,�;
the crossing interval.With the countdown signal heads f
installed, an LPI (see photo) can be incorporated easily , - � ����� �� "�U� ���"
����� '�� , �,�
into the signal cycle. The LPI provides a 3-5 second ����, ��
��" w,,; i ����„�,
j�i i „I �����kW
interval prior to a green light so that pedestrians can 9`
begin their crossing movement before turning motor �,, ',��
vehicles. According to FHWA's Proven Safety
Countermeasures report, countdown signals with LPI's reduce crosswalk-related crashes
involving pedestrians by 60%.
> All crosswalk locations should be well lit so pedestrians are visible at night. It is estimated
that roughly 75% of ped fatalities in the US occur after dark22. Crosswalk lighting not only
increases conspicuity of pedestrians but allows them to avoid uneven or broken areas of
pavement and increases the sense of comfort and security. Good lighting, at crosswalks
and along sidewalks can improve the sense of place in a residential or commercial area.
> All crosswalks should be signed with,where appropriate, advanced warning signs; in
addition, all crosswalks across or running parallel to/adjacent to collector and arterial
roads with a minimum of 1,000 vehicle trips per day should be painted.
> Crosswalk signs as described above should be mounted on both sides of the sign pole so
motorists have visual warning at each end of the crosswalk ahead from both directions of
travel.Where crosswalks lie at stop-controlled intersections, a minimum 12"wide stop
bar should be striped 4 feet in front of the crosswalk, ideally in line with the adjacent
pole-mounted stop sign.
> A significant portion of pedestrian traffic is generated by those wishing to access public
transit. During winter, pedestrian access to MBTA or Lexpress bus stops must be kept
clear of snow and ice to ensure access.When reaching the bus stop in any weather
condition, bus riders—especially seniors or those with a disability—deserve the
opportunity to sit and be free from rain or snow. Shelters with benches should be
considered at bus stops.
22 Gov's Hwy Assoc,Ped Traffic Fatalities by State:2021 Prelim Data(Jan-Dec);see:https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians22
45 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
���� ���������� Illf������III � ������ ,���
����
�������� ����� ��� � ����� �������� , � � � iiii��iiii� Illf���°°�. � �� iiii�������iiii�� ����������iiii�� ����� ����������iiii iiii���.�����
i� �' �iiii.� Illf ����iiii iiii�iiii� Illf iiii �� �
As part of the process for developing the plan,
the planning team reviewed existing policies �•���, ��� QQ�„��gp
and programs in the areas of Engineering,
Encouragement, Education, Enforcement, > Er�gin��ringe Creating safe and connected
Equity, and Evaluation, frequently called "the six on-street and off-road infrastructure far
E's".Where gaps exist in the six E's, walking and bicycling in Lexington
recommendations were developed in each > � r� e tm Fostering a culture�hat
category. Besides gaps in existing policies and supparts and encaurages walking and
programs, the team identified potential bicycling to work or school, far recreation,
additions or improvements. The tables below and to da errands
contain the policy and program > ��ti� o Providing people with
recommendations for the Town—along with I<nowledge abaut legal and safe walking �r�d
key stakeholders and regional partners—to bicycling and to build confid�nc�
consider in the short, medium, and long term. , f�rce ente Pramoting safe�nd
Lexington benefits from a wealth of knowledge responsible behaviors on the road and build
and skill from the volunteers that participate in respect among �II users
the Town's various advisory committees. Many
were instrumental in starting programs and , Ityo Ensuring that investments in active
initiatives concerning pedestrian and bicycle transportation infrastructure and programs
mobility.The Town should continue to leverage reach all corners of the town, with emphasis
their expertise as a resource. in areas with law-income populations or
those with high numbers of children and/or
seniors.
> val ati� m Monitoring effarts to increase
wall<ing and bicycling in Lexingtan and
adjusting when necessary.
46 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Note on Staff and Budget Constraints
In recent years, maintaining staff capacity has been a challenge. Department of Public Works is often
understaffed, as positions go unfilled and retirements leave gaps in experience and institutional
knowledge. Unfortunately, this staffing difficulty extends into the private sector. Hiring consulting
contractors has also been a challenge as they have similar staffing issues and often need extensive
quality control.
Note on Budget Impacts
As we develop our bicycle and pedestrian network, the impact to the budget is not just the
implementation; it is also the ongoing maintenance. Lexington will need to add to it capacity to its
maintenance budget and staffing. The idea of a formula was discussed but not determined.
Engineering Policies and Programs (Design)
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Construction-related ' On occasion, street Continue to incorporate Public Works, Bicyde
impacts to pedestrian ' maintenance or construction temporary access into design Advisory Committee,
and bicycle facilities ' operations can create plans for the construction phase and Commission on
' hazardous conditions and/or for most projects. There are Disability
' block access for pedestrians, situations in certain areas that
' bicyclists, and people with prohibit the ability to provide
' disabilities. these accommodations
Warning signs and/or ' Instances where dedicated bike Provide an advanced warning Public Works,
pavement markings at ' lanes terminate typically leave sign so both bicyclists and Transportation Safety
discontinuous bike lanes ' bicyclists with no advanced motorists know that a bicyclist Group,and Bicycle
' warning. Some riders may merge is expected into the travel Advisory Committee,
' abruptly swerve into the nearby lane.To improve merging Safe Routes to Schools
' travel lane rather than carefully conditions, MUTCD W9-XX signs
' merge, creating a hazard.This indicating °(Bike) LANE ENDS"
' transition is difficult for younger with a "150 FT" plaque should be
' riders installed in all conditions where
' bike lanes terminate, e.g., Mass
' Ave westbound between Woburn
' and Grant Street or westbound at
' Hollow Lane. In areas near
' schools where inexperienced
' riders are present, sharrows or
' other guidance should be
' provided.
Green painted bike lanes ' At intersections with bike lanes, Similar to above, signs and green Lexington Public Works,
in areas of high vehicle ' cars often take up space paint will help to alert both Engineering and Bicycle
maneuverings ' designated for bicycles. cyclists and driver. Advisory�ommittee
Integrate TBPP into ' Each year the town maintains Similar to the Integrated Building Public Works,
Complete Street Policy the streets and sidewalks.The Design and Construction Policy, a Conservation,
and Workplans to create ' scheduled maintenance walking biking policy would guide Recreation
a biking and walking ' presents an opportunity to infrastructure and maintenance to Departments,
infrastructure policy. ' improve the bicycle and consider opportunities for Transportation Safety
47 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
' pedestrian level of comfort with implementation such reducing Group,and Bicycle
' easy adjustments. Sometimes turning radii and crossing Advisory�ommittee,
' these opportunities are over distances, placing accessible Safe Routes to Schools,
' looked. ramps in the direction of travel, Commission on
' and create safe landing zones for Disability,
peds and bil<es where practicable. Transportation Advisory
' This policy could also be used by Committee
' developers proposing work
Engineering Policies and Programs (Public Works Department Efforts)
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Mobile App for Reporting ' When out and about, residents Development of a mobile phone Lexington Public Works
Maintenance Issues(to ' don't always have a convenient app allows residents to report Department and IT
supplement the online ' method to report problems damaged sidewalks, pavement Department
reporting system) ' within the public right of way defects in bike lanes, and other
' that impact people walking, potential hazards so that the
' bicycling and those with Town can track work orders and
' disabilities. maintenance requests to Public
' Works. Development is in
' progress and will be in place in
' the near future.
Repaving of the ' Although not a focus of this In areas that are not constrained Lexington Public Works
Minuteman Bikeway ' study, public input expressed by adjacent wetlands, steep Department,
(MMBV1n ' concern that the increasing slopes or natural/cultural Conservation
' popularity of the Minuteman resources,the practice is to add a Commission,and the
' Bikeway, the paved 10-foot- 2-foot-wide stone dust shoulders Bicyde Advisory
' width can feel constrained for on one or both sides of the Committee
' users, especially on weekends Bikeway during scheduled
' and in areas near Lexington repaving projects. In the
' Center. alternative a safer Mass Ave
' could provide a second option
' for experienced bicydists.
Clearing snow and ice ' In current practice, all roads are The timing of snow clearance Lexington Public Works
from sidewalks, bike ' cleared first and then the from roads(especially roads with Department, Human
lanes and bus stops ' sidewalks.While the timing of bike lanes) and sidewalks could Services
' dearing the roads and be based on demand and user
' sidewalks depends on the safety. However, prioritizing
' duration and intensity of winter needs to be done with efficiency
' storms,typically sidewalks are in mind as moving the
' cleared within 48 hours. In equipment arounds wastes time
' addition, many network and resources.—.
' sidewalks are cleared by other
' agencies such as MassDOT on
' Marrett Road.
Clearing snow and ice There is a desire for sidewalks Reconsider a bylaw that compels Transportation Safety
from sidewalks ' to be cleared quickly after a adjacent property owners to clear Group, Police, Lexington
48 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
' storm. Lexington plows more their sidewalk frontage. This will Public Works
' sidewalks than many need to be a coordinated effort Department, Human
' surrounding communities. involving town staff, the Services
' Currently, the general bylaw community and community *a by law was tried
' requires sidewalks on leaders. Some nearby several years back,
' commercial frontage to be kept communities require property success will need to be
' dear by property owners. DPW owners to dear snow and ice coordinated with
' dears the Center sidewalks in from sidewalks. A strong bylaw departments such as
' the first pass but keeping the and thoughtful enforcement may Human Services and
' sidewalks is the responsibility of help keep sidewalks clear. Police, DPW.
' the commercial property However,there is skepticism as
' owners. to whether this will clear
' sidewalks faster and keep them
' clear. If successful,this may
' enable DPW staff and equipment
' to clear snow and ice from
' sidewalks in high priority areas
' and sidewalks which front public
' property. Human Services is
' working to identify ways to help
' seniors shovel.
Keeping the sidewalks ' Sometimes after the sidewalks Although a budget increase for Lexington Public Works,
and bus stops clear ' have been plowed the freeze additional equipment and staff, Transportation Advisory
during freeze thaw cycles ' thaw cyde creates a condition the Town could consider treating Committee and Select
after storms or for storms ' that is difficult for pedestrians sidewalks similar to roads; if Board.
too small for plow ' and pedestrian find alternative storm is icing or a storm is too
operations ' routes on the street with traffic. small for removal operations they
' could instead be treated.This will
' require additional equipment and
' material purchases and will
' require additional overtime
' funds. Key sidewalks should be
' identified,expectations clearly set
' and will depend on weather
' conditions.
Ice and snow build-up at Due to the local climate's Pending Public Works staff Lexington Public Works
the base of sidewalk ' freeze/thaw cycle, puddles that capacity, where there are Department,the
pedestrian ramps ' form at the base of pedestrian known problem areas Transportation Safety
' ramps frequently freeze sidewalk clearance should Group,and Select Board
' overnight and create a hazard include particular attention
' for all pedestrians. to snow and other debris
near sidewalk pedestrian
ramps. I<ey locations should
be identified and this can be
monitored and worked into
the plan.
49 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Late summer vegetation ' Overgrown vegetation will Keeping overgrown vegetation in Lexington Public Works
impeding pedestrian and ' sometimes block sidewalk, check, especially in late summer Department,
bicycle mobility. ' paths, and bike lane segments, just prior to the new school year, Conservation
' diminish sight lines at the should be part of Public Works Department,
' MMBW and impact pedestrian sidewalk maintenance routine Transportation Safety
' and bicycle access,visibility, with known problem areas. If Group
' and safety.Over grown staff constraints are anticipated,
' vegetation is often reported consider bringing in a short-term
' landscaping company vendor.
' Town can conduct a campaign
' directed at property owners to
' keep vegetation out of sight
' Iines.
Encouragement Policies and Programs
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Online promotion of Promoting Lexington as a place �ontinue to promote the Town Manager's Office,
walking and bicycling for people to choose to walk or www.,Il�xk�iJe�Wnr�llkkaias.:or�website Planning Department
bike for transportation and a specialty websitejust for and Transportation
recreation can encourage more getting around town without a Services, Greenways
residents and visitors to choose car. Create a single map that Corridor Committee,
not to drive for some trips. focuses solely on travel without a Bicycle Advisory
People are not sure whether or car. The map and/or mobile app Committee,
not they can get to their would feature sidewalks, paved Transportation Advisory
destination solely on sidewalks trails,and paths; bike lanes, Committee, and
or bike lanes. People don't multiuse paths and side paths Commission on
know what to expect. with bus stops included. This Disability
information could enable a non-
car traveler to plan a safe and
comfortable route.This app/map
should be kept current through
major construction projects.
Roadway User Courtesy A better understanding of the Perhaps called "Lexington Nice", Town Manager's Office,
Program needs of vulnerable road users, the campaign can be modeled Transportation Safety
such as pedestrians and after the"Newport Waves" Group, Police
bicyclists. Enhanced courtesy program in Newport RI.(NOTE:the Department,, Bicycle
between those driving,walking, Newport Waves program is Advisory Committee,
and bicycling is intended to propriety protected).The Friends of the
improve safety for all. successful effort included a 1 min Minuteman Bikeway.
video which featured local Transportation Advisory
personalities,street banners,and Committee, Commission
posters in storefront windows.See: on Disability Greenways
h:t:t�rs..�/�ik�n�uu.�rortri.orr� ir�trr�d Corridor Committee;
u�in. �newu.._r�rt::::�nrayes/...I::I�e�...C:c��nrr�. School Department and
�e�ulld hasr a videa cantw�st to SRTS
kic_k._a:ff.:�he._ca.rrg. �i r�.
50 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Town-wide Bike Loop Designate a loop route within Designated a bicycle loop within Lexington Public Works
Town limits on designated Town limits on designated Department and Bicycle
roadways via wayfinding roadways via wayfinding signage. Advisory Committee
signage.
Walking or Bicycle While Town staff are provided Provide incentives to Town staff Town Manager's Office
Commuting for Town parking at no cost,the number to encourage active and Lexington Human
Employees of Town employees using transportation;this can come in Resources Sustainability
transit,or walking or bicycling the form of financial incentives— Officer, Planning
to work is low. e.g., Portland OR provides
$25/month stipend for those
who commit to walk or bike 4
days/week—and facilities, such
as covered bike parking and
shower/locker facilities where
possible.
Bike Parking at Schools Some schools lack plentiful and While most schools provide bike Lexington Public
quality bike parking, some of parking, others are lacking. Bike Schools, Department of
which should be covered (which racks should meet current Public Facilities,
currently only exists at LHS and industry standards to make Recreation Department,
the middle schools).The"grid" bicycle parking convenient, and Bicycle Advisory
or"comb"style racks at some accessible,and secure. Committee
schools don't meet standards.
Bike Parking in the Bicycle parking was added A summer bicycle count may Department of Public
Center during the Centerscape project. help clarify this issue.The Town Works,Center
However, residents feel more is should continue to work with Committee, Bicycle
needed. landowners in the Center to Advisory Committee
provide bicycle parking
particularly near the Minuteman
Bikeway where people can park
their bikes and walk to the
businesses in the Center.
Bike Parking Currently, Lexington's Zoning Consider expanding the Zoning Lexington Planning
Requirements for Bylaw only requires bike Bylaw to include e-mobility Department, Building
Development parking for large development device parking. Development of Department, Board of
projects and multifamily a bike parking guide similar to Appeals, Planning Board,
housing, leading to inadequate Arlington's or Cambridge's will Economic Development,
bike parking at some smaller help developers understand and Bicycle Advisory
development. Some design issues and select products Committee
developments were built before that meet industry standardsz3.
the Town enacted bicycle As property owner improve their
parking rules. Because these are properties,depending on what
preexisting it is difficult to bring they are proposing it may be an
older developments into opportunity to bring the
compliance. property into compliance
z3 See the Association of Pedestrian and Bicyde Professionals Bike Parking Guide at:https://ww�N.a.�rbp.orc�(Publications or Arlington's Guide at:
H�ttp.,:��a rr_h iv�.orr��ciet;a.i.Is�Nr:l.i.rr.r�.to n..._I1�F1.._sV�e��nrf)e�e�i rvr�r7:t...jc1._�l.�;i�9/y»ctel.?..8lmodel2u�
51 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Bike Parking Placement There are areas of town that Parking for other mobility Lexington Bicycle
Around Town need more bicycle parking. devices in addition to bicycle Advisory Committee,
Tricycles, e-bikes and cargo should be included in the above Commission on
bikes are not well proposed bike parking guide. Disability, Public Works
accommodated for parking Areas for additional parking and Public Facilities.
could be prioritized and funding
sought from the Boston MPO
Encourage connections There are short cuts in town The Greenway Corridor Lexington Planning
between private property that provide an efficient routes �ommittee, and other citizens Department, Planning
away from traffic but some are has been particularly good at Board,Transportation
on private land. These"cut- advising the Planning Board on and Bicycle Advisory
thrus"were not identified in this desired easements. This practice Committees,and
plan, but as developments are should continue. Greenway Corridor
planned the Planning Board and Committee.
planning staff may consider
how these opportunities can be
formalized.
Artistic Bike Racks Bike racks not only satisfy New,creatively designed bike Lexington Public Works
demand for bike parking but racks should be well placed and Department, Economic
can strengthen the Town's help to further Lexington brand Development, Historic
brand. as a historic destination for District Commission,
visitors and locals. See Lexington Council for
www.pinterest.com/downtownlar the Arts,and Bicycle
amie/custom-bike-racks for an Advisory Committee
example from a small city in
Wyoming.
Bike Rack Request In certain parts of Town there is The town could set up a request Transportation Safety
Program a need for more bicycle racks. and approval system so business Group Economic
Businesses have often owners have easy access to the Development Office,
requested bicycle racks near process. Town could seek a Lexington Bicycle
their businesses. grant for purchase and Advisory Committee
installation
52 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Education Policies and Programs
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Children walk and bike Elementary and middle school Continue to foster more school- Lexington Public Schools,
safety program children do not always have a based "bike trains"and walking SRTS, Lexington Police,
full understanding of traffic school buses and continue the Transportation Services,
safety and laws for walking and local Safe Routes to School and Bicycle Advisory
bicycling. Program—with participation Committee
from the Police Department and
materials from the MassDOT
SRTS Tool Kit—to encourage
participation at more schools
with an emphasis on walk/bike
safety courses. Continue to offer
Bike Rodeos, Bike Smart, Smart
Cycling, etc. Events are posted at
www.lexbikewalkbus.org. LPS is
working on including DESE
approved pedestrian and bicycle
safety curriculum
Free Bike Safety Some adults and children do �ontinue to promote free Transportation Services,
Equipment not have helmets,lights,and giveaways of bicycle helmets, Lexington Police
other safety equipment on their lights, safety vests, ankle straps Department, Bicycle
bicycles. and other items at community Advisory Committee and
events, at schools and/or local advocates
community events.
Bicycle Maintenance Even teenagers and adults who Existing classes are popular. Transportation Services,
Courses for Adults feel comfortable riding a bike Continue to promote bicycle Bicycle Advisory
do not always know proper maintenance forteenagers and Committee and local
maintenance skills.Well- adults.Class are posted on the advocates
designed bike maintenance www:ll_��b.ik��nrallkb_us.orq w�b�it�
classes can build additional
confidence and enthusiasm for
bicycling for transportation on a
regular basis
Walk/Bike/Driver Safety Many motorists, bicyclists,and Public outreach including Transportation Safety
Education Materials pedestrians lack information mailings,fliers, and PSAs, can Group, Police
about safely interacting with educate all roadway users about Department,
other road users and current safe interactions; grants are Transportation Services,
traffic laws. Materials developed frequently available for such Transportation Advisory
by the Bicycle Advisory materials.These potential funds Committee, Bicycle
Committee and the Friends of could help to supplement efforts Advisory Committee
the Lexington Bikeways were by advocates. *MassBIKE and Bike
well received but are currently League have good
out of date. material
53 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Pedestrian and Bicycle Local residents and visitors to As a follow-up to the new signs Lexington Economic
Wayfinding to Local Lexington may not realize the on the Minuteman Bikeway,a Development Office,
Destinations close proximity of cultural and town-wide plan for additional Greenways Corridor
recreational destinations in the destination wayfinding signs Committee,
town. along ACROSS Lexington routes Transportation Advisory
and other walk/bikeways should Committee,and Bicycle
be considered. Lexington will Advisory Committee
need to find the balance of
promoting economic
development and courteous
behavior with too many signs
that cause sign fatigue and
maintenance costs
Enforcement Policies and Programs
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Crosswalk Compliance People driving frequently fail to Continued and additional Lexington Police
yield to pedestrians in enforcement efforts,24 motorist Department
crosswalks. education, and decoy(empty
police car) operations could be
considered to enhance
compliance.
Safe Routes to School People driving near schools— This is a constant concern at Lexington Police
Enforcement sometimes parents—sometimes every school zone almost every Department
speed or otherwise do not drive week and is not specific to this
safely. bike/ped plan. See above.
Truck Safety Large trucks can present a Establish a Town policy requiring Lexington Public Works
hazard to pedestrians and side guards, convex mirrors,and Department, Fire
bicyclists,sometimes cross-over mirrors on large Department and Bicycle
threatening to pull bicyclists trucks owned and operated by Advisory Committee
under their wheels. the Town. Consider if legally
allowed extending this
requirement to for
vehicles/companies bidding on
town contract work
24.
54 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Traffic Calming Speeding drivers can Speeding is a constant concern. Transportation Safety
compromise the quality-of-life Considerable amount of time is Group and Lexington
in some neighborhoods and spent at these problem areas to Public Works
lead to more dangerous either deter the poor driving Department
conditions for people walking behaviors. Sometimes speeding
and bicycling. is a few outliers. Physical
alterations to the road are the
most effective at reducing
speeds. Feedback signs have
proven to be effective when sited
appropriately but over time they
lose their effectiveness.The
Town may consider instead,
several mobile feedback signs
that rotate locations over time.
Bus Shelters Comfort for bus riders is Require bus shelters when Lexington Planning
important to encourage walking development projects are Department,
and bus transit in all types of proposed on bus routes and bus Transportation Services
weather stop is adjacent to the and Transportation
development.The Town should Advisory Committee and
provide design standards. The Commission on Disability
shelter in the Center was
approved by several committees
so could serve as guidance.
Equity Policies and Programs
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
Active transportation in Higher-density housing aims to To encourage high levels of Lexington Planning
proximity to multi-family promote new multi-family units, walking, bicycling,and transit Department and the
residential development with some affordable units use,development permits should Planning Board
encourage connections to
sidewalks, nearby trails, and on-
street bike facilities.
Active transportation in Congestion during peak To encourage high levels of Lexington Planning
proximity to commercial commuting hours near walking, bicycling, and transit Department and the
development Lexington's use,development permits should Planning Board
commercial/manufacturing encourage connections to
districts.This interferes with sidewalks, nearby trails, and on-
transit service efficiency, safety, street bike facilities. Parking
adds to travel time and air ratios should discourage driving
pollution and incentivize alternative
methods of commuting. Expand
TDM to all developments
55 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Evaluation Policies and Programs
Program Need Recommendation Leadership
League of American Currently,the Town of Lexington Town staff to develop a checklist Lexington Bicycle
Bicyclists(LAB) Bicycle has been designated as a Bronze- of projects and programs aimed Advisory Committee
Friendly Community level BFC by the LAB.Aspiring to to achieve silver-level BFC
(BFC) Program reach the next level(Silver)can designation in 3-5 years. While
provide the organizing policy for this is a marker of progress,the
various improvementsthatwill application procedure is
require evaluation to present to burdensome on staff.It would be
the LAB in the ne�certification helpful if data collection could be
round. automated or a volunteer effort
or perhaps consider a different
designation.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Compared with motor vehicle To supplement Bicycle Advisory Greenways Corridor
Data (A) counts,there is very little data Committee's annual counts on Committee,
related to the number of people the Minuteman Bikeway, develop Transportation Advisory
walking and bicycling for work, a regularly scheduled, pedestrian Committee, and Bicycle
for recreation, or for errands. and bicycle count program Advisory Committee
beyond the Bikeway(e.g., Mass
Ave or Waltham Street).
Pedestrian and Bicycle There is very little data related To better understand how school Transportation Services,
Data (B) to the number of children children at all levels are reaching Lexington Public Schools,
walking, bicycling,and school, surveys should be taken and Transportation
scootering to school on a at least once a year but ideally in Advisory Committee
regular basis. both the fall and the spring.
Coordination with individual
school Principals will be needed.
A survey is expected Spring of
2024
Walk/Bike Safety Audits As planning for the new high Existing walk/bike safety audits Lexington Public Schools
at Lexington High School school building begins,the should be used to help inform, and the Transportation
Town may need to have a the planning and design work by Safety Group
better understanding of areas the Town's consultant
where hazards exist for students architect/engineer.Attention
walking or biking to school. should be paid to students
arriving by methods other than a
car.
Update Pedestrian Bicycle During implementation actions The TBPP action plan and Transportation Safety
Plan of Lexington's first Bike Ped prioritization list should be Group,Commission on
Plan it is likely we will see ways undated every three years to Disability Greenways
to improve efficiency of our reflect progress and new Corridor Committee,
actions and the criteria of information. The project criteria Transportation Advisory
prioritization may change. should be reviewed every 5 years Committee, and Bicycle
Advisory Committee
56 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, , ,,, ,� �� ��� �, � ��� � ,,; ,
,y ��i� ///�% ,�%i �fir////�/% //%/!% %%/ , ;�
„�iaaiiii„//////////// //�%�,,� �/� �//,����� ��%� /�/��
y; ;,,,,,,/% ///////% //////� 0//////// ,% /
,,,,,,;;,,,,,,�%/ /���// , ,,///�/// ,/ ///i
���� ��������i�� �'��,,,,,,,;;;;,,,,,,,,;�,.
� ����f%//%�� � ;
�%���� �, ,/�/� ,,,,,,,���, , ,
; �� ;/% /// ///%////%i ,, ,
. ,,//// /i/ /�/,//,/,/ //,,,,,,,,i �
,,,, ,,,, %/ ,/ /,,f%,,
.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,�%,�„%,,,,�,/%,�%,,,,,,,,,,,,,,� � �r�
; .� ,,,,,,�,,,�, � ��
t � r �', � � � ,� , �
� 'r J :
� ,GS ��� �r
� / N� ,
���� ��"; ��� �
ri � � � 1�`a�,�,
,-, �� r�; �
�,ti+rfiu ,'� ,y�r �
��/���, ` g, �i. " ��i� �
����i
4,ri'
Ii��i��IV
�.
���
�'N�� I � � "� '�
�� ���
� �
, ; ,z
uiu��6i , ' i�� i
I
y r� ii�i,
i �.:� ,; ' �„ `,
I II,�
I� ,,V IYI tY
%f
��I� n�
�i� .m �,i ��" �r ��� �' �� � � � �I�"r � '
��^� ���������� �, ������� � , �
/ � .�f l�fl�l ° ���'b„�
///l�/%G%�„� � i%/��J� r�r � �i%r//�� %ii%//fi ,,,,,,,, . ,,���. �
/%ri� p�
i i iO l// i i t � ��Y�� � � �
i��� r //i /�l//i � ���� VE � �����
i
,i iiy i i��,,, > /�i�i�l�j�y���/�i�i „ ,Y ` �' r��� ���.
I�y ��
����1,,,,, ;i�,�, ,,,,,, i� � i%i/, i '�b� :f�
1�� i r/
�f��l� ������:.
.�,,
r !
„f�
� Y
���
!� �
� � „ �
Additional pedestrian and bicyc(e facility improvements a(ong Muzzey Street and others(eading to the
Lexington High Schoo(campus could result from safety audits conducted as part of the high schoo(
redesign process.
57 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
„' � ���
�� ���° � � � � Illf��� iiii�°�iiii°���iiii°��� �iiii�iiii��� Illf;���� ���,� � IIII Illh�iiii IIII����� �iiii�
��� � Illf° � iiii� � � �
Illf �, �� ���
iiii
��w
� ui�
� m iii �iiii���.��������� �iiii iiii���������
As part of the TBPP, the planning team explored ways for the Town of Lexington to "address
challenges related to the increasing number and type of electric-assist bicycles and other E-vehicles
needing accommodation," and is seeking "recommendations as to appropriate policy to ensure safety
of all users." (from the original RFP for the TBPP)
This section of the TBPP report summarizes
a much longer technical memorandum
�
found in Appendix B that includes a full
overview of the policy, infrastructure, and ,_
� ���, ,
enforcement contexts nationally,
throughout New England, and in Lexington � � �°"
E-lsike
for what are often called "E-micromobility"
(C VasS'1,2,ar 3.Se�e Ap�aendlx A) Stanclin�OSittiri�E-S�c�oote�r
devices. The full memorandum also offers
recommendations to manage common
concerns with these electric-powered
transportation devices and small-scale
vehicles.The E-micromobility devices ����`� � �
shown below are included in the analysis:
• E-bicycles (Classes 1-3; also referred E-sk:�t�r��„�� �,,,E wn��,
to throughout this memorandum as
"E-bikes")
• E-scooters (standing or sitting) � ;��
�� .�
• Other E-Micromobility Options
• E-skateboards (including One Havert��arc� Electr�c unicycie
Wheels)
• Hoverboards
• E-unicycles
In general,there is considerable variability in how E-micromobility devices are regulated in the U.S.
(with the exception of E-bikes). While some devices (E-skateboards, in particular) still operate in an
ambiguous legal zone, best practice appears to advise operators to behave like bicycle riders on public
ways.
To summarize the technical memorandum's recommendations for Lexington:
> Since E-bikes and E-scooters are already regulated under Massachusetts state law, the
plan recommends that the Town of Lexington follow state law and permit these devices
to use all public ways open to bicycles, including the Minuteman Bikeway and all other
shared use paths where bikes are already permitted.
> While the legality of E-boards may be uncertain, these devices are already appearing on
public ways in Lexington. Lexington should adopt "rules of the road" for these devices
that generally align with bicycle operational rules.
58 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Creating educational signs, handouts, stickers, web assets, etc.will permit the public to
be educated on the behaviors the Town of Lexington would like to see practiced by E-
micromobility users.
> Revise the current"No Motor Vehicles" signs at trailheads and intersections along the
Minuteman Bikeway to explicitly allow for electric-assist bicycles and other micromobility
devices. The additional plaque could say: "except e (electric)-assist".
> Defining micromobility and E-micromobility in Town ordinance will clarify that everything
from a kick scooter to an electric skateboard is addressed by local transportation policy.
> Continuing discussions with all of the Minuteman Bikeway communities and adjacent
towns regarding what other communities, such as Boulder Colorado, have done to
regulate human- and electric-powered micromobility users. This will permit Lexington
residents and officials to explore, discuss, and address the use of these new devices on
public ways.
> Focus on moderating behavior through encouragement and education.
> Expecting more growth in these modes, and planning to expand infrastructure to support
them, will enable the Town to position itself for a greener, less auto-dependent future.
> Continue to foster an expectation of reasonable behavior and speeds on the Minuteman
Bikeway through the practice of community engagement and good riding behavior, while
deterring negative practices on the path. The Lexington Police Department will continue
this practice as staffing allows to make the path safe and enjoyable for all who use it.
59 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
60 Network Recommendations
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�
����
� "` ��� ��
a,
. . . .
To help the Town of Lexington prioritize the nearly 300 bicycle, pedestrian,
and trail facility recommendations, the TBPP used 12 criteria to score and
rank them. The results of the Prioritization process are not set in stone. The
intent is to inform project funding and future implementation of the facility
recommendations. Permitting, engineering complexity, and the need for
public input for most projects are equally important as the prioritization
score and rank. This may result in some high scoring projects taking several
years to implement and/or medium-to-low scoring projects becoming a
reality sooner rather than later.25
' �� � ���
�� ��� IIII � �iiii � iiii� '�'iiii iiiii� iiii iiii°
The 12 evaluation criteria sprung from the five Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan goals—Safety,
Connectivity, Design, Economy, and Feasibility—described in Chapter 3. They include a mix of two
types of criteria:
> Quantitative: scores that can be derived from data sources—primarily GIS—such as
scores based on the number of nearby crashes and the linear distance/proximity to
public and private schools, transit lines, and retail districts
> Qualitative: scores that the planning team used theirjudgement to determine, such as
whether a recommendation helped close a gap in the current network, its level of
engineering complexity, its impact to on-street parking, and whether the
recommendation had received community support during or prior to the TBPP effort.
25 This is especially the case for bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations that coincide with Public Works'regular repaving or repair
program and roadway corridor projects that have been,or will soon be,programmed into the Town's Capital Budget
61 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�������������������� IIII ,,����°Illh���� IIII ������� ��ii�iiii� �������liii���������� IIII�����iiii iiii�
The prioritization methodology incorporates hierarchy among the 12 criteria to further reflect what is
important to the Lexington community. Incorporating feedback from Town staff, the TSG+, and from
public meeting #2 on June 8. Each criterion was given a weight of 1, 2, or 3 to highlight the critical
role that, for instance, well-designed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure near K-12 schools plays for
town residents.The list of criteria, the weighting, and maximum points allocated for each criterion is
shown below.
Table 3 Draft Evalu�tion Cri��ria
Plan Goals Criteria (up to 5 points each) Weighting Max.
Note:qualitative criteria shown in Italics Weighted
Point Total
Proximit to reported bic cle/pedestrian crashes 2 10
1:SAFETY
Motor vehicle volume alon roadwa 2 10
Addresses a ke a in the trail/bic cle/ edestrian network 1 5
Proximit to ublic or rivate school (K-12) 3 15
2:CONNECTIVITY
Proximit to ublic ark or conservation(and entrance 2 10
Proximit to transit line(MBTA or Lex ress) 2 10
3: DESIGN Recommendation promotes "all ages and abi(ities"by 2 10
rovidin se aration from motor vehicfes
Proximit to retail districts 2 10
4: ECONOMY
Proximity to tourist/cultural destination 1 5
Level of en ineerin complexit 2 10
5: FEASIBILITY lmpact to existing on-street parking 2 10
Level of expressed communit support 1 5
TOTAL 110
With the weighting established, the planning team developed a scoring rubric to determine scores
for each criterion. This equated to scores of 0 through 5 for the criteria for each of the project
recommendations. The highest score possible is 110 points. The detailed scoring rubric can be found
in Appendix C.
�� „��
�� � �� � ��� � �� � � � IIII°�° � iiii���iiii��iiii� ��� iiii iiir���
° �
IIII iiii�iiii
���� ��� iiii iiii�°iiii��� � � °�iiii�
Using the prioritization methodology described above, scores were given to all infrastructure project
recommendations found in the Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Recommendations
intended to improve safety and connectivity for people riding bicycles included recommendations for
new or improved bicycle facilities—bike lanes and shared roadways—along with intersection
improvements. The Prioritization tables on the following pages indicate the roadway location, the
project recommendation, project "theme" (i.e., whether it provides connections along a longer
corridor), project length, and evaluation score. Recommendations highlighted in yellow indicate
those that lie along MassDOT roadways.
62 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Table 4 ieysle F�eility Recommendati�r►s
�acility Name� �Streetl�� Street2 Pro�ect Tt�eme � Length �; ° m -
Re�ommendation ' �feet� ' � -
� o: �
WORTHEN ROAD MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE WALTHAM STREET Separated BL or side path 3,521 ^i�
CONCORDAVENUE BENIAMIN ROAD WEST BELMONTTOWN LINE Bike Lane 11,195
PLEASANTSTREET/ROUTE4/225 WATERTOWNSTREET/ROUTE4 MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE Bil<eLane 2453
MUREY STREET MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL Separated BL con MMBW-Eastto LHS 1692
WALTHAM STREET WORTHEN ROAD MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE Bilre Lane 2,823
CL4RKE STREET MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE PARK DRIVE Bil<e Lane MMBW-Eastto LHS 1281
MASSACHUSETTSAVE PLEASANTSTREET/ROUTE4/225 ARLINGTONTOWNLINE SeparatedBL MassAveEast 4,256
BEDFORD STREET LOIS LANE MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE Bike Lane 1,454
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A KENDALL ROA� WALTHAM STREET Bilre Lane 1042
WALTHAM STREET MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A BROOKSIDE AVENUE Bike Lane 1,709
WALTHAM STREET WORTHEN ROAD MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A Bil<e Lane 1,983
WORTHEN ROAD MASSACHUSETTS AVE BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 Separated BL MMBW-West to LHS 1,973
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE KENDALL ROAD Bike Lane 5331
MASSACHUSETTS AVE BEDFORD STREET WORTHEN ROAD Bike Lane 2,083
WOBURNSTREET LOWELLSTREET MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE BikeLane 6,444
MASSACHUSETTS AVE WORTHEN ROAD INSTERSTATE 95 Bike Lane one way 5,027
DEPOTSQUARE, MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE MINUTEMANBIKEWAY Shared5treetw/TC MMBW-EasttoLHS 269
WALTHAM STREET BROOKSI�E AVENUE HAYDEN AVENUE Bike Lane 3,076
FOLLEN ROA� MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A Shared Streetw/TC 4,821
MAPLESTREET/ROUTE2A LOWELLSTREET/ROUTE2A MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE Shared5treetw/TC 5,162
MARRETT ROAD ROUTE 2A LINCOW TOWN LINE/MINUTEMAN HS Bike Lane 2,020
MERIAM STREET MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE Shared Lane&Bike Lane MMBW-East to LHS 297
HANCOCK STREET BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4 ADAMS STREET Shared 5treet w/TC 2,434
MARRETT ROA�/ROUTE 2A SPRING STREET LINCOLN STREET Bil<e Lane 3,454
LOWELLSTREET WOBURNSTREET EASTSTREET BikeLane 3,567
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A WALTHAM STREET SPRING STREET Bil<e Lane 1,985
MASSACHUSETTS AVE I-95 BRIDGE MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A Bike Lane 2,221
ROUTE 2A MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE LINCOLN TOWN LINE Bil<e Lane 2,334
HARTWELLAVENUE MINUTEMANBIKEWAY WOODSTREET SeparatedBL HartwellAveCorridor 3,654
BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 MINUTEMAN BII(EWAY ELDRED STREET Separated BL 4,908
LOWELL STREET/ROUTE 2A MAPLE STREET/WINCHESTER DRIVE SUMMER STREET/ROUTE 2A Bilre Lane 3,499
WALTHAM STREET PIPER ROAD EXISTING BIKE LANES Bike Lane 1,329
BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 HARTWELLAVENUE BEDFORD TOWN LINE Bil<e Lane 1,525 ��
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A FORBES ROAD MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE Bil<e Lane 546 <o
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A LINCOW STREET WILSON ROAD Bil<e Lane 1,193 .u
LOWELLSTREET NORTH STREET BURLINGTON TOWN LINE Bil<e Lane 1,935
SUMMERSTREET/ROUTE2A LOWELLSTREET/ROUTE2A ARLINGTONTOWNLINE BikeLane 1,775
PLEASANT STREET WORTHEN ROAD EAST WATERTOWN STREET/ROUTE 4 Shared Streetw/TC 1,595
WADSWORTH ROAD/SERVICE ROA WADSWORTH ROAD WATERTOWN STREET Bil<e Lane 1,323
ADAMS STREET EAST STREET NORTH STREET Shared Street w/TC 2,963
CAMELLIA PLACE BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY Shared Streetw/TC MMBW-West to LHS 399
FLETCHER AVE WOBURN STREET HAYES LANE Shared Street w/TC MMBW-Vinehrook 1,533
MARRETT ROAD ROUTE 2A LINCOW TOWN LINE Bike Lane 1,495
PAULREVEREROAD CEDARSTREET MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE Shared5treetw/TC 2,847
BEDFORD STREET/ROLITE 4/225 HARTWELL AVENUE ELDRED STREET Separated BL 1,581
EASTSTREET BURNHAMROAD LOWELLSTREET BikeLane 3,643
MASSACHUSETTSAVE/ROUTE4/22 HOLLOWLANE Hl1NTROAD BikeLane 2,261
NORTH HANCOCK STREET HAMILTON ROA❑ BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 Shared Streetw/TC 2,222
HANCOCK STREET REVERE STREET BURLINGTON STREET Shared Streetw/TC 1,274
PLEASANTSTREET CONCORDAVENUE LAWRENCELANE Shared5treetw/TC S86
WALNUTSTREET CONCORDAVENUE WALTHAMCITYLINE Shared5treetw/TC 2,606
LINCOLN STREET LINCOLN TOWN LINE MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A Shared Street w/TC 5,300
HAMILTONROAD LEDGELAWNAVENUE HANCOCKSTREET Shared5treetw/TC 542
SPRING STREET CONCORD AVENUE MARRETT ROAD Bike Lane 5,684
FAIRFIELD DRIVE/BROOKWOOD RO LOWER VINE BROOI((NORTH) LOWER VINE BROOK(SOUTH) Shared Streetw/TC 621 •ii
HANCOCKSTREET ADAMSSTREET REVERESTREET Shared5treetw/TC 1,589 :�
HARTWELLAVENUE WOODSTREET BEDFORDTOWNLINE Se aratedBL 1,672
LOWELLSTREET WOBURNSTREET WINCHESTERDRIVE BilceLane 1,882
NORTHSTREET ADAMSSTREET LOWELLSTREET Shared5treetw/TC 1,694
NORTHSTREET BURLINGTONSTREET ADAMSSTREET Shared5treetw/TC 3,973
PARK DRIVE CLARKE STREET WALTHAM STREET Shared Streetw/TC 1,538
WOBURN STREET LOWELLSTREET WINCHESTERTOWN LINE Bil<e Lane 2,051
REVERE STREET BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 HANCOCK STREET Shared Street w/TC 2,010
BURLINGTON STREET GROVE STREET NORTH STREET Shared Street w/TC 3,890
CONCORD AVENUE SPRING STREET BENIAMIN ROAD WEST Bilre Lane 1,S1S
LOWELLSTREET EASTSTREET NORTHSTREET BikeLane 2,792
SPRING STREET CONCORD AVENUE WALTHAM CITY LINE Bil<e Lane 627
WORTHEN ROAD WALTHAM STREET KENDALL ROAD Bil<e Lane 1,384
ADAMS STREET NORTH STREET BURLINGTON TOWN LINE Shared Street w/TC 517
WATERTOWNSTREET ROUTE20FFRAMP BELMONTTOWNLINE Shared5treetw/TC 691
WESTON STREET LINCOLN STREET SHADE STREET Shared Street w/TC 294
HAYDEN AVENUE SPRING STREET 200'EAST OF SPRING STREET Bil<e Lane 195
HILLSTREET CEDARSTREET BEDFORDSTREET/ROUTE4/225 Shared5treetw/TC 3,873
WINTER STREET JOHN BENSON ROAD BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 Shared Street w/TC 2,707
SKYVIEW ROAD RANGEWAY STREET JOHN BENSON ROAD Shared Streetw/TC 914 ��
VOLUNTEER WAY GROVE STREET COACH ROAD Shared Street w/TC 1,522
RANGEWAY STREET VOLUNTEER WAY SKYVIEW ROAD Shared Streetw/TC 195
63 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Although they may not be the first group of projects to be implemented by the Town, the five
highest scoring bicycle facility recommendations include:
> Worthen Road (from Mass Ave to Waltham St):the highest scoring of any project, (90
points) the recommendation would significantly improve bicycle connections to
Lexington High School, the adjacent athletic fields, and the Lower Vine Brook path
system. The corridor would include either a 10'-wide shared use path on the north/east
side (replacing the existing 5'-wide sidewalk) or separated bike lanes could be striped
on the roadway in both
directions if parking were �; � �
restricted to one side only. ����
> Concord Avenue (from �.��
Benjamin Rd West to the
Belmont Line):while bike lanes ����y���f�,
in both directions can be striped
� G/y%%/� � �� ��o
west of Benjamin Rd West to � i/%�%t � � �% �
�i;�/��,�f���%���� ��
, � 'i��i��,� ii
Spring Street, to the east, the �������������j////%������/ �
/��������w��hr��J �� ���, /
28'-29'-wide roadway precludes �� ����i��va� '
bike lanes in both directions.As ' �������������������
� �����������������
such, an uphill climbing bike °� '
lane is recommended with Narrowing Concord Ave's travel lanes to 10'-11'and
sharrows in the downhill shifting the center fine to the north accommodates a
direction. This creates an climbing bike Iane in the eastbound direction.
eastbound bike lane for most of
Concord Ave. From Pleasant St to the Belmont Line however, when topography is
reversed so the climbing bike lane would run westbound while sharrows should be
striped on the downhill side.
> Pleasant Street (from Mass Ave to Watertown St): soon to be under construction, 5'-
wide bike lanes along Pleasant St will extend from Mass Ave to the new roundabout at
the Pleasant/Watertown intersection.The bike lanes will link existing bike lanes on
Mass Ave with the bike lanes on Watertown Street from Pleasant St over Route 2 to the
Belmont Line.
64 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Muzzey Street (from Mass Ave to Park Drive): ike Lanes ir� Lexirr ton Center
currently a one-way street with parking on the
west side, the TBPP's recommendation is to It should be noted that several
remove parking and provide bi-directional comments related to the desire for
separated bike lanes along the east side of the striped bike lanes on Mass Ave in
Lexington Center were received during
street. Combined with the highest scoring the planning effort. Given the
intersection improvement at Mass Ave and proximity to LHS,the Town's primary
Depot Square, these projects are intended to pedestrian-oriented business district,
remove the gap between the Minuteman and many cultural and historical
Bikeway and LHS (and beyond, to Lincoln Park). destinations, improved access for
The future redesign of LHS should incorporate bicyclists is logical for the Center.
this future connection into the site plan and While not to preclude bike lanes in the
long term,for the short/medium term
placement of bike parking. the TBPP maintains Mass Ave in its
> Waltham Street (from Mass Ave to Worthen current condition with shared lanes
Rd): as a complement to the two-way bike facility and relies on the nearby Minuteman
on Muzzey St, a southbound bike lane is Path and other recommended
recommended on Waltham St to improve perpendicular bike facilities to provide
bicycle access to Lexington Center.
connectivity to LHS. To accommodate the bike
lane, 10'-11' wide lanes should be striped along
with shifting the centerline 1'-2'to the east.
65 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Table 5 Ir�tersecti�n Recornmendations
„ � _ ,
�acijit�Name�� � Skreexi; Stree� Prolect Reonrrtimendatlon Ttreme
� � � �o � �
MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE DEPOTSQUARE Greenbilce<rossingincoordinationwMuzzey MMBW-easttoLHS
improvements
BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 BEDFOR�STREET/ROUTE 4/225 HARRINGTON ROAD New raundabaut(under mnstru[tion
BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 WORTHEN ROAD Reduce tuming radius(NW corner)
HARTWELLAVENUE HARTWELLAVENUE MA6UIREROAD add 6il<eaccammodationswgreenpaint HartwellAveCorridor
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A WALTHAM STREET Reduce tuming radii,add truck aprons
LOWELLSTREET LOWELLSTREET WOBURNSTREET Redureturningradii,addtruckaprons
WALTHAM STREET WALTHAM STREET BROOKSIDE AVENUE Full reronstruction-close slip lane/add median
and(per signal upgrades)
SLM in lek turn approach on Mass Ave(EB and WB
MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE/ROUTE4/225 MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE/ROUTE4/225 MAPLESTREET/ROUTE2A toMarrettRd)
MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE/ROUTE4/225 MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE/ROUTE4/225 WOBURNST/FLETCHERAVE/WINTHROPR WIIreConStru<tion(CloSesliplane5)
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A SPRING STREET Reduce tuming radii,add truck aprons
HANCOCKSTREET HANCOCKSTREET COOLIDGEAVENUE Reduceturningradius�SWcomer)
CONCORDAVENUE CONCOR�AVENUE WALTHAMSTREET RedUretUrningradii,addtrUCkaprons
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A SCHOOLSTREET Full reconstruction�T up intersection)
WALTHFM STREET WALTHAM STREET ROUTE 2 EB ON-RAMP(NB WALTHAM ST) Reduce tuming radius or add raised x-walk
CONCORD AVENUE CONCORD AVENUE WALNUT STREET Reduce tuming radii&extend median Island
PHILIP ROAD PHILIP ROAD WORTHEN ROAD E Redure turning radius
BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 HARTWELL AVENUE Full reconstru<tion�address slip lanes)
LOW ELL STREET LOW ELL STREET EAST STREET Enlarge existing splitter island
PLEASANT STREET PLEASANT STREET STEARNS ROAD reduce radius N�V mmer and expand concrete
landing
ADAMS STREET ADAMS STREET EAST STREET Full reconstruction�T up intersection)
LOWELLSTREET/ROUTE2A LOWELLSTREET/ROUTE2A SUMMERSTREET/ROUTE2A WIIreConStrU<tiOn�TUpintersettion)
MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE SCHOOLSTREET Reduceturningradius�SEcorner�
PLEASANTSTREET PLEASANTSTREET WATERTOWNSTREET Rounda6outcurrentlylndesignandfunded
ANTHONY ROAD ANTHONV ROAD LILLIAN ROAD RedUCe tUrning radii
LOWELLSTREET LOWELLSTREET LACONIASTREET Redureturningradius(NWrorner)
MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE BEDFORDSTREET/ROUTE4/225 Fullreconstru<tion(Tupintersection)
FOLLEN ROPD FOLLEN ROAD LOCUST AVE Reduce tumin radius(NW comer)
WORTHEN ROAD EAST WORTHEN ROA�EAST PLEASANT STREET Add bUmp oUt(NE Corner)
MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE HARRINGTON ROAD Full reronstru<tion(T up intersection/dose slip
lane)
HANCDCK STREET HANCOCK STREET ADAMS STREET Full reronstruction(T up interse[tion)
KENDALLROAD KENDALLROAD FARMCRESTAVENUE Bumpout(SWcomer)
LOWELLSTREET LOWELLSTREET MAPLESTREET/WINCHESTERDRIVE Fullreconstru<tion(�losesliplanes)
W II reconstru<tion(T intersections/cbse slip
CE�ARSTREET CE�ARSTREET PAULREVEREROAD/HILLSTREET lanes�
MERIAMSTREET MERIAMSTREET SOMERSETROAD/FRANKLINROAD Smalltraffi<circle�mountable)
66 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
1�i1�(l°'�' r�ia/ t�*a � � ���� � ,���� � � u uuuuior U,,,� i �-
Although they may not be the first group of u,� °� �� ' � ��� , spi�p�'�� ��� ��,�/
intersection im rovements to be ����'y� � �wr"����,��J�`�if� � ti / I(�' �
P c��lll� , ��„ � � ��� li
�, r r �� a, ��
implemented by the Town, the five highest ��i �4'`,�" � �� �
�, �
" '
scoring intersection recommendations ��J� ������tr�'���,�,.� �� �
II1CIude: �'�a % � Gre�n k�ik�cross�rrc� �� "
�
�� at � �,�1 ��� �' '%
,
> Mass Ave at Depot Square:the � � ,���'�� � ���������� �' ��
intent of this improvement is to „" �� ��,�{���� 1� Ill���}������ ��,t����°,, �
better facilitate safe bicycle ����� '� ���``��'' �i��� , ��k�I���e x���,�nt
,�; �
access from the Minuteman ' ��;�� �� ' �"
��, �
Bikewa to Lexin ton Hi h ' ��'% � �� �' ��
�' / � �
Y J J �� ; " '�, � �I /i��"
School and vice versa.The ! � I�m-�;r�ct,c��,al bike �" � �' 'o�,,�';;p�� �
� � �la��s tr�/��e�r�LH�(d�� �Oi��i p����
feature enhancements include �,� / M ���������i��������Illlllllllllr :p �����%//���
striped bicycle crossings with �� '� ��
green pavement markings A mix of bike(anes and green bicyde crossings on Mass
immediately adjacent to the pair Ave at Depot Square will improve the linkage from the
of Mass Ave crosswalks at Depot Minuteman eikeway to LHS.
Square.Crossings would be direction with southbound bicyclists using the west crosswalk
and northbound bicyclists using the east crosswalk.The latter requires a short bike lane
from Muzzey Street to the crosswalk for access.This recommendation is paired with the bi-
directional bikes along Muzzey Street described above.
> Bedford Street at Harrington Road: currently under construction, this challenging
intersection for bicyclists and pedestrians will soon feature a modern roundabout. The
design includes a geometry that slows motor vehicle traffic significantly, crosswalks
with landscaped splitter islands, and shared lanes for bicyclists.
> Bedford Street at Worthen Road: improvements at the intersection focus on the
northwest corner. A tighter curb radius with truck-turning apron is recommended to
slow traffic and improve safety for pedestrians and thru-bicyclists traveling on Bedford
Street. A striped bike lane should also be striped along the north side of Worthen Road
from the intersection to remove the gap with the existing bike lane that starts nearly
400 feet to the west.
> Hartwell Ave at Maguire Road:currently,the intersection features right turn slip lanes that
accommodate very high speeds and no pedestrian infrastructure.Although a bike lane is
present,the high-speed traffic from Maguire to Bedford Road creates a significant safety issue
for southbound bicyclists.In the near-term bike lanes should be painted green.For the future
redesign,slip lanes should be removed, buffered or separated bike lanes added (with green
pavement markings,as needed),and crossing opportunities for pedestrians.
> Marrett Road at Waltham Street: as part of State Route 2A, improvements will require
coordination and approval by MassDOT. Recommendations include the reduction of
the corner curb radii (with truck-turning aprons) to slow traffic and improve pedestrian
safety. Potential future bicycle lanes recommended along both roadways will need to
be accommodated as well.
67 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
���� � � ������� ,��� �
����� �������� Illf����iiii��iiii iiii�iiii�����iiii������� ���������IIII� � �� ����`��� Illf��������������������iiii�iiii���������� iiii� Illf���°°��.�� iiii�������iiii����iiii� ������iiii ������ iiii���
Similar to the bicycle facility projects, projects, recommendations intended to improve safety and
connectivity for people walking and using wheelchairs included recommendations for new or
improved sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian safety countermeasures that should be considered at
many crosswalk locations. The Prioritization tables on the following pages indicate the roadway
location, the project recommendation, project"theme" (i.e., whether it provides connections along a
longer corridor), the specific recommendation, project length, and evaluation score.
Recommendations highlighted in yellow indicate those that lie along MassDOT roadways.
68 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Table 6 Sid�walk Rec�rrr endati�ns
Prc�jecti �engtn
Facility Name Streetl Street2� Recommen- Theme �� �
dataar� lfeetj ; � _
W " W � . �
WALTHAM STREET MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A WORTHEN ROAD New 1,922
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE2A KENDALLROAD MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE/ROUTE4/2251mprovement 5,299
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A MIDDLE STREET SPRING STREET Improvement 1,733
BASKIN ROAD BA51(IN ROAD WORTHEN ROAD New fi54
WORTHEN ROAD MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE BEDFORDSTREET/ROUTE4/225 Improvement 1,834
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A WALTHAM STREET KENDALL ROAD New 1,022
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A WALTHAM STREET SPRING STREET Improvement 1,966
BEDFORDSTREET/ROUTE4/225 WORTHENROAD TEWKSBURYSTREET Improvement 820
MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE PERCY ROAD/7AVERN LANE EXISTING 5/W 100'EAST OF HOLLOW LA New 529
MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A LINCOLN STREET MIDDLE STREET/CARY AVENUE Improvement 1,713
LOWELL STREET LACONIA STREET EAST STREET New 796
MERIAM STREET YORK STREET ADAMS STREET New 1,464
STEDMAN ROAD ALLENSTREET CLARKE MIDDLESCHOOL New 498
BURLINGTON STREET GROVE STREET NORTH STREET New 3,885
HARTWELLAVENUE MAGUIREROAD WOODSTREET New 3,580
ADAMS STREET EASTSTREET/HATHAWAY RoaD NORTH STREET Improvement 3,456
CROSBYROAD MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE HASTINGSSCHOOLDRIVEWAY New 386
WALNUTSTREET CONCORDAVENUE CARTPATHLANE New 1,854
FLETCHER AVE WOBURN STREET HAYES LANE New MMBW Vinebrook 1,529
SPRING STREET SHADE STREET WALTHAM CITY LINE Improvement 3,410
BURLINGTON STREET SIMONDS ROAD BLAKE ROAD New 1,654
BURLINGTON STREET EXISTING SIDEWALI( GROVE STREET New 135 �o
CAMELLIA PLACE EXISTING SIDEWALI( MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY New MMBW LHS West c 243 a
FOLLEN ROAD MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A SMITH AVENUE/SUMMIT ROAD New 3,390 a
RINDGEAVENUE WINNAVENUE EXISTINGSIDEWALK New 753 a
PLEASANTSTREET DOVER LANE 200'EAST OF DOVER LANE Improvement 209
KENDALLROAD EXISTINGSIDEWALI( MARRETTROAD/ROUTE2A New 440
LILLIAN ROAD SHEILA ROAD LOWELL STREET New 1,788
SEDGE ROAD EXISTIN6 SW 250'WEST OF HATHAWAY ROAD EXISTING SW 400'SOUTH OF DIAMOND New 367
BEDFORD STREET/ROUTE 4/225 ELDRED STREET EXISTING SW 220'NORTH OF CIDER MIL New 2,507
BEDFORDSTREET/ROUTE4/225 EXISTINGSW200'EASTOFHARTWELLAVENUE EXISTINGSW250'WESTOFELDREDSTR New 961
LINCOLN STREET MARRETT ROAD/ROUTE 2A MIDDLEBY ROAD Improvement 1,560
BEDFORDSTREET/ROUTE4/225 HARTWELLAVENUE BEDFORDTOWNLWE Neev 1,437
EASTERNAVENUE SCHOOLSTREET EWELLAVENUE New 161
HARTWELLAVENUE WOOD STREET HAFB ENTRY GATE New Hartwell Ave Corrid 740
LOCUSTAVENUE EXISTING 5/W 150'EAST OF FOLLEN ROAD END OF 5/W AT 43 LOCUST AVENUE Improvement 116
PEACOCK FARM ROAD WATERTOWN STREET/ROUTE 4 BUTLER AVENUE New 3,528
ALBEMARLEAVENUE ANTHONYROAD HILLCRESTAVENl1E/RAWSONAVENUE New 122
ANTHONY ROAD LILLIAN ROA❑ ALBEMARLE AVENUE New 328
BLOSSOMCREST ROAD WALTHAM STREET ALLEN STREET Improvement ACROSS 1,851
GRASSLANDSTREET SPRINGSTREET VALLEVFIELDSTREET Improvement 1,723
LOCUSTAVENUE EXISTINGSIDEWALK MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE/ROUTE4/225New 1,306
SCHOOLSTREET EASTERN AVENUE MARRETTROAD/ROUTE2A New 1,511
TAFTAVENUE EXISTINGSIDEWALKEASTOFCHARLESSTREET EXISTINGSIDEWALKEASTOFSUTHERLA New 400
WOODSTREET CONESTOGAROAD CHESTNUTLANE New 187
GRANTSTREET EASTSTREET COLONYROAD New 1,114
KENDALLROAD WALTHAMSTREET EXISTINGSIDEWALK New 250
NORTHSTREET LOWELLSTREET BURLINGTONTOWNLINE New S67
NORTH STREET BURLINGTON STREET ADAMS STREET New 3,977
WOODLANDROAD HAYESAVENUE ADAMSSTREET New 899
CEDARSTREET MLLSTREET MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE New 1,190
SMITH AVENUE EXISTING S/W 100'NORTH OF FOLLEN ROAD FOLLEN ROAD New 140
SMITH AVENUE EXISTING S/W 200'SOUTH OF INDEPENDENCE A EXISTING S/W 200'NORTH OF FOLLEN R New 291
TOWER ROAD EXISTING SIDEWALI( MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE/ROUTE 2A/4/New 181
WINTERSTREET JOHN BENSON ROAD BEDFORDSTREET/ROUTE4/225 New ACRO55 2,650
WOOD STREET FAIRVIEW AVENUE 50'SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE New 60
WOODSTREET WOODPARI(CIRCLE 100'SOUTHOFWOODPARI(CIRCLE New 66
BLOSSOMCREST ROAD ALLEN STREET MEADOW BROOKAVENUE New ACROSS 1,422
HAMILTONROAD HANCOCKSTREET LEDGELAWNAVENUE New 544
LOCUSTAVENUE EXISTING SIDEWALI( EXISTING 5/W 150'EAST OF LEXINGTON New 229
LOCUSTAVENUE FOLLEN ROAD EXISTING 5/W 150'EAST OF FOLLEN ROA New 161
MAGUIREROAD HARTWELLAVENUE BEDFORDTOWNLWE New 1,fi84
MASSACHUSETTSAVENUE WOODSTREET MARRETTROAD/ROUTE2A New 1,518
MERIAM STREET SOMERSET ROAD/ABBOTT ROA� YORK STREET New 1,079
RINDGE AVENUE EXISTING 5/W 75'NORTH OF WINN AVENUE EXISTING 5/W 125'NORTH OF WINN AVE New 51
SKYVIEW ROAD RANGEWAY STREET IOHN BENSON ROA� New 856
69 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
project � Length�
Facility Narrre 5tree#1 Street2 Recommen�+ Them� �� �
Idati4n ��� � �feet) �
�- . � o �
WILSONROAD ROOSEVELTROAD MARRETfROAD/ROUTE2A New 662
BAKERAVENUE EXISTINGSIDEWALK TAFTAVENUE New 159
BAKERAVENUE BUTLERAVENUE EXISTINGSIDEWALK New 767
CEDARSTREET ENTRANCETOPINEMEADOWSGOLFCLUB HILLSTREET New 2,936
GARFIELDSTREET EARLSTREET REEDSTREET New 721
HAYESAVENUE BERWICKROAD HANCOCKSTREET New 642
REEDSTREET AUGUSTUS ROAD CENTRESTREET New 2,136
WATERTOWNSTREET/ROUTE4 CRESCENTROAD PLEASANTSTREET New 890
BALFOURSTREET ASBURYSTREET CEDARSTREET New 1,016 -a
HAYES LANE FLETCHER AVE GRANT STREET New MMBW-Vinebroo 263 �e
HOMESTEA�STREET CEDARSTREET ASBURYSTREET New 1,115 -a
RAWSONAVENUE ALBEMARLEAVENUE RIN�GEAVENUE New 376
HAYESAVENUE CASTLEROAD WOODLANDROAD New 651
NORTHSTREET ADAMSSTREET LOWELLSTREET New 1,671
BERWICK ROAD HAYES AVENUE EXISTING 5/W 300'NORTH OF HAYES AV New 224
RANGEWAY STREET VOLUNTEER WAY SKYVIEW ROAD New 185
RICHARD ROAD FOLLEN ROAD EXISTING 5/W 150'EAST OF ROBBINS RO New 1,042
SOMERSET ROAD FRANKLIN ROAD HAYES AVENUE New 440
ASBURYSTREET HOMESTEADSTREET PAULREVEREROAD New 1,287
GROVESTREET VOLUNTEERWAY BEDFORDTOWNLINE New S82
LINCOLN STREET LINCOLN TOWN LINE WESTON STREET New ACRO55 2,633
SOMERSET ROAD EXISTING S/W 200'WEST OF FRANKLIN ROAD FRANKLIN ROAD New 207
VOLUNTEERWAY GROVESTREET RANGEWAYSTREET New 1,545
CASTLEROAD FRANKLIN ROAD HAYESAVENUE New 490
FARMCRESTAVE EXISTINGSIDEWALI( KENDALLROAD New 120
FRANKLIN ROAD SOMERSET ROAD CASTLE ROAD/FRANKLIN ROAD New 285
Although they may not be the first group of new and improved sidewalks to be implemented by the
Town, the five highest scoring sidewalk recommendations include:
> Waltham Street (from Marrett Rd to Worthen Rd): the °� � ���� �;� � � 4 �����
intent of the new sidewalk recommendation is to ��"M �' �r " � �1'�'"
provide a safe space for walking or using a wheelchair ''' "
�y, , ��
on the east side of Waltham St.A sidewalk lies on the , �� ������� � � ���
�';
west side of the corridor but the speed of traffic and the «
4�„ ,,�������m„��� �
?N/ '/ �iF/�j�/ �
poor sight lines make it difficult for residents to access. ��/��j„/„ „ , ��
����� G.
%/�"�j//%%��i�//iiii/%����ii� ����1''�"����r /i %�,������ �I
> Marrett Road (from Kendall Rd to Mass Ave): currently � � �
� �,a����'r ��� � ��� � ,;�
the existing south sidewalk is in poor condition and less "°��"' � �°` °�` ,'� ° '�'�
u ✓��� � ��t ��� ,�a� � +�nw.�, ,,..
than 4'-wide in places. Lying along State Route 2A, ���mr._.... .___. _: _ ..,
coordination with MassDOT is required. Segrnent of Marrett Road's south sidewalk
near Bacon St in need of repair.
> Marrett Road (from Middle St to Spring St): similar to
the more easternmost segment described above, the existing south sidewalk is in poor condition
and is less than 4'-wide in places. Lying along State Route 2A, coordination with MassDOT is
required before repairs are made.
> Baskin Road (Baskin Rd to Worthen Rd): Baskin Road provides a key connection for pedestrians
and bicyclists wishing to access LHS and points beyond.This new sidewalk recommendation
would fill in the gap between the existing sidewalk further up the hill and Worthen Road.
> Worthen Road (from Mass Ave to Bedford St):the plan recommends enhanced clearing of the
dense vegetation along the south/east sidewalk around the curve on the approach to Mass Ave to
ensure a fully accessible five-foot width is maintained.
70 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Tabl� 7 �r�sswalk Reearr��end�ti�ns
�acility Name ��� Gruss Street 1 Cross Street 2 Prpject Rec�smmenclatio�s THeme " � � �
� � � . �
Hancock5treet Hancocl<Street MinutemanCommuter8il<eway Imprave RRFB
MassachusettsAvenue MassachusettsAvenue Boevker5treet Improve Bumpouts MassAveEast
Marrett Road/Route 2A Marrett Road/Route 2A Kendall Road New Piano Key,ramp&RRFB
MassachusettsAvenue MassachusettsAvenue CharlesStreet Improve BumpoutsandRRFB MassAveEast
Lowell Street Lowell Street Harrington Elementary Driveway Improve Median island&RRFB
Lowell Street/Route 2A Lowell Street/Route 2A Whipple Road New Piano Key and ramp ACROSS LEX •o
Massachusetts Avenue Massachusetts Avenue Crosby Road Improve RRFB .u
Lincoln Street Lincoln Street Middlby Road New Piano Key&ramp(by developer) ACRO55 LEX
MassachusettsAvenue MassachusettsAvenue FottlerAvenue Improve BuinpoutsandRRFB MassAveEast
Massachusetts Avenue/Route 4/225 Massachusetts Avenue/Route 4/225 Winthrop Road/Woburn Street New Coordinate w new intersection
MassachusettsAvenue MassachusettsAvenue BowStreet Improve BumpoutsandRRFB MassAveEast
Massachusetts Avenue Massachusetts Avenue Hastings Road Improve RRFB
Revere Street Revere Street Minuteman Commuter Bikeway Improve RRFB
School Street School Street Rolling Avenue New Piano Key striping&ramp
Crosby Road Crosby Road Hastings School Driveway New Piano Key w/RRFB
GrentStreet GrentStreet ShermanStreet Improve RRFB
Marrett Road/Route 2A Marrett Road/Route 2A Bacon Street Improve Piano Key&RRFB
Marrett Road/Route 2A Marrett Road/Route 2A Massachusetts Ave(West) New Piano Key striping
Maple Street/Route 2A Maple Street/Route 2A Solomon Pierce Road Improve Piano key striping
Marrett Road/Route 2A Marrett Road/Route 2A Stedman Road Improve Piano Key&RRFB
Marrett Road/Route 2A Marrett Road/Route 2A Battle Road Trail New Piano Key striping
MassachusettsAvenue MassachusettsAvenue Sylvia5treet Improve Medianisland MassAveEast
Woburn Street Woburn Street Solomon Pierce Road Improve RRFB
Massachusetts Avenue Massachusetts Avenue Estabrook Road New RRFB
Worthen Road Worthen Road Lincoln ParkTrail Improve Bump outs(per SBL/path design)
Bedford Street/Route 4/225 Bedford Street/Route 4/225 Valley Road/North Hancock Street Improve Piano Key w/RRFB
Lowell Street Lowell Street Fulton Road Improve RRFB
Massachusetts Avenue Massachusetts Avenue Oak Street Improve Bump out(ONE side only) Mass Ave East
Pleasant Street Pleasant Street Between Worthen Road East-Rt 2 On- Improve Bump outs(reduce lanes to 11')
Burlington Street Burlington Street Blake Road Improve RRFB
Hartwell Avenue Hartwell Avenue Wood Street New Piano Key&RRFB Hartwell Ave Corrid
Lowell Street/Route 2A Lowell Street/Route 2A Fairlawn Avenue Improve Piano Key&RRFB
Massachusetts Ave(West) Massachusetts Ave(West) Marrett Road/Route 2A New Piano Key striping
Summer Street/Route 2A Summer5treet/Route 2A Whipple Hill Trail New Piano Key,ramp&RRFB
Marrett Road/Route 2A Marrett Road/Route 2A Prospect Hill Road New Piano Key&RRFB
Marrett Road/Route 2A Marrett Road/Route 2A Old Reservoir Parking Improve Piano Key striping
Watertown Street/Route 4/225 Watertown Street/Route 4/225 Crescent Road Improve RRFB
Woburn Street Wohurn Street Manley Court New Piano Key,ramp&RRFB
Lowell Street Lowell Street Locke Village Driveway New Piano Key&RRFB
PleasantStreet/Route4 Pleasant5treet/Route4 WilsonFarmParkingLot Improve RRFB
Concord Avenue Concord Avenue Path at Scott Road New Piano Key w/RRFB ACRO55 LEX
East Street East Street Emerson Road Improve Buinp out on NW corner
Burlington Street Burlington Street Simonds Road Improve RRFB
Pleasant Street/Route 4 Pleasant Street/Route 4 Mason Street Improve RRFB
Spring Street Spring Street Woodcliffe Road New Piano Key w/RRFB
Wood Street Wood Street Battle Road Trail/Old Massachusetts A Improve RRFB and A�A landing
Baskin Road Baskin Road Baskin Road New Piano Key and ramp
Conestoga Road Conestoga Road Wood Street New Piano Key and RRFB
Minuteman Commuter Bikeway Minuteman Commuter Bilceway Seasons Four Driveway Improve Private land;wider Piano Key striping
Watertown5treet/Route4/225 WatertownStreet/Route4/225 PleasantStreet New Crosswalkspertoundaboutdesign
Wood Street Wood Street Conestoga Road New Piano Key&RRFB
Wood Street Wood Street Woodpark Circle New Piano Key&RRFB(by developer)
Wood Street Wood Street Fairview Avenue New Piano Key and RRFB
Hathaway Road Sedge Road Hathaway Road New Piano Key&bump out
Simonds Road Simonds Road Blake Road New Piano Key striping&ramp ACRO55 LEX
Grove Street 6rove Street Gould Road Improve tighten comers to slow right turn
Maple Street Maple Street 114/120 Maple Street New only iftrail is built ACRO55 LEX
Wood Street Wood Street Massachusetts Avenue New Piano Key&truck apron
Burlington Street Burlington Street Longfellow Road New Piano Key striping ACRO55 LEX
Grove Street Grove Street Tidd Circle New Piano Key and ramp ACRO55 LEX
Maple Street Maple Street/Route 2A Lowell Street New Two Piano key&ramps
71 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Although they may not be the first group � �� �� �
of new and improved crosswalks to be � �
�.
implemented by the Town, the five � ��� � ;; ��,�r u� � ����
highest scoring crosswalk '� �� � ���.. .`� '
��
,; �
recommendations include:
,
�^,��� i ��
> Hancock Street at the
r '
Minuteman Bikeway %°°��°^° � ,�. -� ��� �,;,;�� ,;��
crossing: installation of
RRFBs is recommended to
improve the current crossing View of crosswa(k on Mass Ave at Bowker Street facing east
conditions for pedestrians (additiona(ly, bike(anes along Mass Ave are recommended)
and bicyclists.
> Mass Ave at Bowker Street:to reduce
the length of the 50-foot-long crosswalk ass Ave Crosswalk at the Post ffice
and to enhance visibility of pedestrians,
the plan recommends installation of It should be noted that the planning
curb extensions/bump outs on each side team considered a median island and
of the roadway. other pedestrian safety counter-
> Marrett Road at Kendall Road: this measures at the crosswalk in front of
proposed new crosswalk and RRFBs the Post Office. Due to potential
would help to link the neighborhoods conflicts a median island would create
on each side of Marrett Road.The for parades along Mass Ave and the
crossing would lie more than 500 feet change RRFBs would bring to the
from the crosswalk to the baseball fields surrounding historic character of
to the east and over 900 feet from the
Lexington Center, no changes to the
Waltham St intersection.
crossing have been recommended at
> Mass Ave at Charles Street:the
this time.
addition of curb extensions/bump
outs—along with RRFBs—on Mass Ave �� � " " � `' `�
t�1 i-, �
n;
N
is intended to reduce the length of the , %�i�� ,� ���� �} '`"rr � �
F�r
�..,r"�i���I�I���,✓ � q��;r��� � i
50-foot-long crosswalk and to enhance z �� � � %f
visibility of pedestrians, especially those
trying to cross at night.
, ��� �r�r��
> Lowell Street at the Harrington � s, "� ti'I'W�� " �
�„
School driveway:the plan recommends � ��� 4�+� ,I'i >�
improving safety for school children and
parents at the existing crosswalk. Safety
counter measures should include RRFBs and a raised median island that would shadow
the left-turn pocket on the northbound approach to the school driveway.
� IIII°�� iiir�'iiii iiii�iiii�iiii���� � �1114�1111 ��� � � ��
������° � � iiii iiii 1114��.� �iiii��.�iiir��iiir� � ���Vii�iiii��
Using the prioritization methodology described earlier in this chapter, scores were given to all
infrastructure project recommendations found in the Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian
72 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Plan. Recommendations for new and enhanced trails and shared use paths intended to improve
connectivity for both bicyclists and pedestrians are included. The Prioritization table on the following
page indicates the location, the project recommendation, project "theme" (i.e., whether it provides
connections along a longer corridor), project length, and evaluation score.
Tabl� � Trail/Sh�red lJse P�th R���mm�ndations
pr�ject Length�
Facillty Narrre Streetl Street2 Theme Recommen- �fe�t) ' �� � . ,
� t�atQ#rii � �
- w � « . �
Grove Street Estabrook School driveway Volunteer Way New Sidepath 3,887
Hartwell Avenue Bedford Street/Route 4 Maguire Road Hartwell Ave Corridor New Sidepath 2,813
Clarke Middle School Fields Path Stedman Road Marrett Road/Route 2A New Path 1,088
Hayden Woods Path Valleyfield Street Waltham Street/Brookside Avenue Trail Improvement 933
Paint Mine Trails 400'West of Turning Mill Road 500'East of Grove Street ACROSS LEX Trail Improvement 1,806
New Path Lincoln Street Lincoln Park Path New Path 1,048
New Path Marrett Road/Route 2A/Bacon Street Lexington Community Center New Path 1,758
Unnamed Trail Woodland Road Fiske Elementary School Trail Improvement 626
Dunback Meadow Trail Improvement 400'South of Bacon Street Clarke Middle School Trail Improvement 1,375
Bacon Street Path Improvement Marrett Road/Route 2A 400'south of Bacon Street Trail Improvement 1,940
Dunback Meadow Path Worthen Rd E Back of Bowman Elementary School Trail Improvement 550
New Path Hathaway Road BrentRoad New Path 735
Wood Street Massachusetts Avenue Hartwell Avenue New Sidepath 6,865
New Path Lowell Street Lo�ke Village to Cycle Loft New Path 170
Eldred Street Bedford Street/Route 4 Grove Street New Sidepath 2,405
Marrett Road/Route 2A Forbes Road Wilson Road New Sidepath 2,292
New Path Baseball Field/Clarke Street Lexington High School New Path 563
Lower Vine Brook Path East Street/Emerson Road Lower Vine Brool<Path End Trail Improvement 1,088 :i�
Paint Mine Trails Turning Mill Road Burlington Town Line ACROSS LEX Trail Improvement 1,250 ��
Emerson Road East Street 400'West of Thoreau Road New Sidepath 851
New Path Countryside Village Harrington Elementary School New Path 866
Simonds Brook Trail 700'east of Bedford Street 500'east of Grove Street Trail Improvement 3,245
Lower Vine Brook Path Brookwood Road Fairfield Drive Trail Improvement 538
North Street North Street Path End Adams Street New Sidepath 84
Adams Street North Street Burlington Town Line New Sidepath 506
New Path Grove Street/Volunteer Way Wright Farm Trails New Path 247
New Path Minuteman Commuter Bikeway Ledgelawn Avenue New Path 377
Western Greenway Path End Walnut Street Trail Improvement 1,680
Connector Path Garfield Street Minuteman Commuter Bikeway Trail Improvement 235
New Path Concord Avenue Path End ACROSSLEX New Path 1,591
New Path Ellen Dana Court Minuteman Commuter Bikeway New Path 607
New Path Rindge Ave Arlington ReservoirTrail New Path 357
New Path Bedford Street/Route 4 Simonds Brook Trail New Path 718
New Path Cutler Farm Road/Hudson Road Valleyfield Street New Path 544
New Path Valley Road Minuteman Commuter Bikeway New Path 140
New Path Pleasant Street Watertown Street ACROSS LEX New Path 3,237
Although they may not be the first group of new and improved trails and shared use paths to be
implemented by the Conservation Commission or other Town departments,the five highest scoring
trail/shared use path recommendations include:
> Grove Street Sidepath (from Estabrook School driveway/Eldred St to Volunteer Way
within public ROW):the recommended expansion of the existing 5'-wide west sidewalk to
8'-10' for pedestrian and bicycle traffic will improve connectivity to the Estabrook School.
Care will need to be taken with the segment south of Eldred St where the ROW narrows
and space may not be available for an 8'-10'-wide sidepath.
> Hartwell Avenue Sidepath (from Bedford St/Rt.4 to Maguire Road within public ROW):
the TBPP recommends further enhancement of the current south sidewalk along Hartwell
73 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Avenue to meet standards for a fully accessible shared use path.This could include the
need to widen the path is places and special crossing treatment at the driveway
locations.This segment of sidepath is part of the design work currently in progress and
intended to be constructed in 2030 using federal funds.
> Clarke Middle School Fields Path (from ������„"i""���i�io����%��� "'%i����'�"
'�i%�////////%//////////%%//%%%%//,//,//////������'
Marrett Rd to Stedman Rd on Recreation ��ii��iii/ii%%%/////%%%%�������������i /i�
Dept. property):this recommended path ��� �� � � �������
�
accommodates a significant desire line
between the Marrett Rd crosswalk and the
Clarke Middle School via a route just west of
the ball fields. The path would pass very
close to the baseball back-stop, run
alongside the soccer pitch and pass between
the south baseball diamond and the tennis
courts. The future path would provide a more South-facing view of the potential new path
intuitive and accessible route compared with corridor(at midd(e-right)connecting
the adjacent, hilly "paper street" between Marrett Road with the Clarke Middle School.
Marrett Rd and Brookside Ave.
> Hayden Woods Path (from Valleyfield St to Waltham St/Brookside Ave on Conservation
Commission property):while this "paper street" currently contains a dirt/gravel footpath,
the TBPP recommends upgrades to an 8'-10'-wide stonedust path that is fully accessible
for all.This will enhance connectivity from the neighborhoods west of Waltham St to the
Clarke Middle School. Coordination with the Conservation Commission will be required
before moving forward with implementation of the improvements.
> Paint Mine Trails (from �400'west of Turning Mill Rd to Grove St on Conservation
Commission property): this recommendation would likely include a shared-use path
along the utility easement that runs between the Burlington Landlocked Forest trailhead
on Turning Mill Rd and Grove St. Coordination with the Conservation Commission and
Eversource and other utility companies will be required before moving forward with
implementation of the improvements.
74 Prioritization
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�
����
� "` ��� ��
a,
.
The recommendations developed for the Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan represent a major investment in active transportation infrastructure in
Lexington. The short, medium, and long-term results could have a substantial
impact on bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and safety and improve the
quality of life for those who live, work, or visit the town. None of this can
happen without a strong implementation strategy that includes identification of
high-level costs, performance measures, and those who will take the lead on
implementing project recommendations. Since many of the recommendations
sit along state roadways, MassDOT will be a critical player to help improve
bicycling, walking, rolling, and using micromobility in Lexington.
�°���� � � �1114 IIIII � Illf�iiii��iiii�iiii�iiii�iiii����� Illf�iiir� �� ��
The Table of prioritized projects is presented in Appendix D
��� Illf��iiii���iiii�iiii����iiii�� IIII ���iiii� �
Performance Measures are data-driven benchmarks intended to help the Town of Lexington gauge
progress towards the Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan's five goals. They also help the Town
departments and committees communicate successes and challenges and motivate community and
political leaders to take further action to help implement the TBPP through funding and/or public
support. By nature, they are aspirational and intended to 'push the envelope' to encourage moving
ahead in a somewhat aggressive nature to improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists,
and micromobility users in Lexington.To achieve success, serious consideration of additional funding
for implementation and maintenance will be needed. This will affect the five-year Capital Plans for a
handful of departments, especially the Public Works Department.
75 Implementation Strategy
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
To better track our performance and help adjust our implantation, collecting data on how safe
bicyclists and pedestrians feel, changes to the number of students walking or biking to school and
tracking near misses will provide meaningful measures. However, this data is not readily available
and will need to be collected via surveys.
Tabl� 9 Perf�rrnan�e eas�aresZ6
Plan Goals Performance Measure 3-and-8 Year Lead Agencies/
Targets Groups
2027 2032
Reduction in bicycle and pedestrian-involved 25% 50% Planning Department,
crashes. *This metric does not account for how safe Police and TSG.
people feel
1:SAFETY Number of crosswalks enhanced with pedestrian 6 16 Public Works, Planning
safet countermeasures (new or existin ) De artment,and TAC
Reduction of reports of nears misses (This data set 25% 50% TSG/Police
can be created through online mapping.Will need
to develo baseline)
Number of lane miles of new bike lanes(either 4 mi. 20 mi. Public Works, Planning
standard or separated) Department and TAC/
LBAC
Total miles of connected bike lanes increasing 2 10 Engineering, DPW, TSG
2: CONNECTIVITY Number of new bicycle or pedestrian safety projects 6 24 Public Works, Planning
(of any type)within�/z mile of a public or private K- Department, and Lex.
12 school Public Schools
Number of new sidewalk projects that eliminate 10% 50% Engineering, DPW,TSG,
aps in the network Commission on Disabilit
Number of lane miles of new separated bike lanes 1 mi. 6 mi. Public Works, Planning
3: DESIGN and/or new side paths Department,TAC/LBAC
Increased percentage of commuters who report 2.5% 3%walk Planning Department
4: ECONOMY walking or bicycling to work as their primary means walk 2% 3%bike and Economic
of transportation (per current ACS data,2.2%and bike Development
1.2%, res ectivel )
The number of Lexington students riding buses to 60% 80%
school. Currently 50%of the student body
purchases bus passes
Annual number of temporary/pilot projects to 1 demo 1 demo Public Works, Planning
5: FEASIBILITY demonstrate the effectiveness of bicycle or per year per year Department, and TSG/
edestrian im rovements on a roadwa TAC/LBAC
TSG =Transportation Safety Group/TAC=Transportation Advisory Committee/LBAC = Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee
26 Note that meeting these benchmarks could have significant impact on budget and staff capacity.Five-year Capital Plans among various
departments will need to be coordinated so the Town can seize upon small and large opportunities to improve the bicycle and pedestrian
network in Lexington.
76 Implementation Strategy
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
��������������� IIII��������������� ���� ������������IIII'�� �iiii����� ������'�m�iiii� IIII���iiii ��������iiii���.���
Implementation of the nearly 300 recommendations will be a long-term, multi-phase effort involving
several Town agencies, committees and boards,the Town Manager's office, and the Select Board.
Help will be needed from elected officials at the state level and state agencies, primarily MassDOT.
The following are the critical next steps to achieve this goal.
> The Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan should be adopted by the Lexington Select Board
as the formal guiding document for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the town.
> Lexington Public Works Department should quickly ascertain which of the TBPP's
recommendations coincide with DPW projects currently on the roadway repaving and/or
sidewalk repair list, or recommendations that overlap with projects that have been
programmed into the Town's Capital Budget.
> The Lexington Planning Department and/or Town Manager—potentially with assistance from
State Representatives and/or Senators -should schedule a coordination meeting with
MassDOT District 4 to discuss logistical and funding opportunities to incorporate bicycle and
pedestrian facility recommendations made on state roads within the TBPP.
> The Lexington Planning Department should schedule coordination meetings with planners
from surrounding communities to discuss recommended bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects
that could provide enhanced links between towns, e.g., Waltham Street bike lanes to the
Waltham Line, Mass Ave East bike lanes to the Arlington Line, or sidewalk and trail
improvements along the Adams and North Street corridors to Burlington.
> A dedicated staff person from Public Works, the Planning Department, or the Town
Manager's office should commit a significant proportion of their time to the implementation
of the TBPP. This will be needed to ensure the necessary coordination between departments,
facilitate fund raising efforts where needed, help manage the recommended programs, and
potentially manage contractors and consultants.
> To accommodate the growing maintenance needs with the implementation of the many
bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations, the Town should increase the budget for the
Department of Public Works accordingly. The increase could be based on the proportional
increase in the quantity of sidewalk miles, the number of new flashing beacons, and other
pieces of infrastructure.Additional funds will be used to increase staff capacity and purchase
new equipment.
As of the end of 2023, the Town of Lexington has
established itself as a walkable and bike-friendly
community. Thousands of residents live within a
short walk or bike ride to a wide variety of places
to shop, eat, recreate, attend a house of worship, � ��< «, �� '� ' +
i�v�;��/�,�
rI���i .�r nn �
or spend time at the library. Many more have ,�,1' ,�,���,�, ;� ,�,'�"'%�'�%, ' � ��� ��,���
�� ����1%� �i� , �lll , �� ��"��,��
children who currently walk or bike to the many ,� ����, � 1�y � ��,� �� ;�i i' �
neighborhood-based schools in Lexington and all ,,,,,
three middle and high schools are centrally located '``' '���� �
for nearly all students. The Minuteman Bikeway '`'""'% �
��
� �
and connecting trails and pathways form the spine ,�r, � , � � ri '���r/���1� J �
of a strong trail network for commuting,
�,�, ' �d�i�;,��,,, � ���u,,!,ii%�/,�%;'/�'�i,�����„u�;,pi�
77 Implementation Strategy
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
recreation, and errands. Despite these successful characteristics, more work needs to be done to
encourage more bicycling and walking, and a more accessible community for people of all ages and
abilities. The project and program recommendations are designed to make Lexington one of the
most walkable and bike-friendly Towns in the Commonwealth and enhance the quality of life for its
nearly 34,000 residents.
78 Implementation Strategy
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
�
����
� "` ��� ��
a,
.
Ill,,,,,���iii irm„ ���irm "'�f'°��oii�������fi�� 1113 iii���III� �irm�' I����������;iiriii�ii� Ilf��lll�iir� iir�1116 iir�� ��i����
Ilf����lll��� �I������� �iirm ��II�� ��Ilb�iir��)
III� Ill��lllii�� ii��lll��6� �ir� Ilf����ir�iir�m�iir��'���ii�ir�� ���iir Ilf;°;Ill����iirii� Ill���a�ir��'
I iii�;;iir�iir�m�Ilbiii III ii��� Ill���riii��� II��irm��ii��iir���u irm� (JU�ir°��� ""III""���� ��iir���Ill��iii i���
� III�i������� I���irii�i�°iir�iii����iiia�iir� �i�iir��i�iii� �ir�� ���i�iiiiim� II{��Ibi�iii� Il�ic�iir�m�iir�i���uirm�
Ilf� ""III'°�II�III� ��� I��irii�ir°iir�iii���' Ill�iir������� �Ilp������ �i� ��.II�� ��Ib�6��:��
79 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
' ' � ' I
I '
I I �
.
https://www.lexi ngtonma.gov/1621/Town-wide-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Plan
80 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
' I I
' I
I I ' '
September 19, 2023
James C. Tasse, PhD
James Tasse Consulting
81 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
"�.�'����� IIII �'�'' ���IIII�'�IIII����IIII'�
As part of the process for developing a Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in 2023, the Town of
Lexington is exploring how to "address challenges related to the increasing number and type of
electric-assist bicycles and other E-vehicles needing accommodation," and is seeking
"recommendations as to appropriate policy to ensure safety of all users."
This technical memorandum is based on an overview of the policy, infrastructure, and enforcement
contexts nationally, throughout New England, and in Lexington for what are often called "E-
micromobility" devices and offers some recommendations to manage common concerns with these
electric-powered transportation devices and small-scale vehicles.
The following E-micromobility devices are the focus of this report and are defined in the next section:
> E-bicycles (Classes 1-3; also referred to throughout this memorandum as "E-bikes„)
> E-scooters (standing or sitting)
> Other E-Micromobility Options
> E-skateboards (including One Wheels)
> Hoverboards
> E-unicycles
In general, across the US, with the exception of E-bikes, there is considerable variability in how E-
micromobility devices are regulated. While some devices (E-skateboards, in particular) still operate in
an ambiguous legal zone, best practice appears to advise operators to behave like bicycle riders on
public ways.
This memorandum makes the following recommendations for the Town of Lexington:
> Since E-bikes and E-scooters are already regulated under Massachusetts state law, and
it is recommended that the Town of Lexington follow state law and permit these
devices to use all public ways open to bicycles, including the Minuteman Bikeway and
all other shared use paths where bikes are already permitted.
> While the legality of E-boards may be uncertain, it is likely that these devices are
already appearing on public ways in Lexington. Unless law enforcement plans to step
up enforcement actions on these devices, Lexington should adopt"rules of the road"
for these devices that generally align with bicycle operational rules.
> Creating educational signs, handouts, stickers, web assets, etc.will permit the public to
be educated on the behaviors the Town of Lexington would like to see practiced by E-
micromobility users.
> Revise the current"No Motor Vehicles" signs at trailheads and intersections along the
Minuteman Bikeway to explicitly allow for electric-assist bicycles and other
micromobility devices. The additional plaque could say: "except e-assist".
> Defining micromobility and E-micromobility in Town ordinance will clarify that
everything from a kick scooter to an electric skateboard is addressed by local
transportation policy.
82 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Continuing discussions with all of the Minuteman Bikeway communities and adjacent
towns regarding what other communities, such as Boulder Colorado, have done to
regulate human- and electric-powered micromobility users. This will permit Lexington
residents and officials to explore, discuss, and address the use of these new devices on
public ways.
> Focus on moderating behavior through encouragement and education.
> Expecting more growth in these modes, and planning to expand infrastructure to
support them, will enable the Town to position itself for a greener, less auto-dependent
future.
> Continue to foster an expectation of reasonable behavior and speeds on the
Minuteman Bikeway through the practice of community engagement and good riding
behavior, while deterring negative practices on the path.The Lexington Police
Department will continue this practice as staffing allows to make the path safe and
enjoyable for all who use it.
IIII � . � � � „ �� � �
� � �
� IIII iiii�iiii �iiii������� ��������� �����
� iiii iiii�iiii iiii� � �iiii iiii�
������ ��������� ����� ����� ����
The "electric-assist bicycles and other E-vehicles" Lexington is seeking information on are generally
included in a new category of transportation devices broadly known as "micromobility."
I iii�iir�iir��Il�iii III ii���
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) broadly defines "micromobility" as
"any small, low-speed, human- or electric-powered transportation device, including bicycles,
scooters, electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters (E-scooters), and other small, lightweight,wheeled
conveyances."
FHWA further observes that "micromobility has rapidly proliferated in cities nationwide, proving to
be a popular transportation option for many users."27
Micromobility devices are available as either devices for individual ownership, or increasingly, as part
of"fleets" for shared use, such as bike share systems. Users pay for and unlock devices for use in
defined areas, and return them to docking stations or, in some cases, dockless devices are returned
to designated parking or catchment areas.
Ilf;°;III����iriii������Ill����iir��' Il�iii�ir�iir�m�1�6111iir�� �Ilf;°;�����Il�iiii�iir�iir�m�Ill�iiillliir��)
A subset of micromobility includes "electric-powered micromobility" or"E-micromobility" devices,
which include pedal-assist bicycles—two-wheel bikes, tricycles, and cargo bikes—electric scooters,
electric skateboards, electric mono-wheels, and other devices (See Figure 1).These devices are
equipped with rechargeable batteries and motors that either assist the operator's efforts (in the case
27 Ir�tt.�s..��w�w._(N7v�r�.cN.o:t.,ccry Ilii�rak�illir� f�c� slrr�a�ts irrrirr� f�cG sNr��G.c�r�r�;
83 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
of pedal-assist bicycles) or move the device without human exertion beyond balancing and steering.
They are generally limited to "human-scale" operational speeds of around 20 mph (although some E-
bikes have a maximum speed of 28mph), and to motors of 750w or less.28 They are typically present
as either individually-owned devices, or as part of E-bike or E-scooter share systems.
Figure 1:Common E-Micromobi(ity Devices
� \,
w,:
`"..�,�`�'
„ �
��,�%��
����r��Jf,,,, ;,
E-bike
(Class 1, 2, or 3. See Appendix A) Standing/Sitting E-Scooter
���� ���...��.
� g�
�.�
�,�,
��
�w� �
� �
E-Skateboard One Wheel
28 Note that there are E-devices that can go faster than 28mph or which have motors exceeding 750w. Such
devices exist in an even more ambiguous regulatory space than the devices discussed here. Due to their
operating speeds that exceed a "human scale,"these devices are excluded from the definition of micromobility/E-
micromobility used in this report, and may be generally incompatible with bike/ped infrastructure.
84 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
� "
"'� � ��� ��r�
Hoverboard Electric Unicycle
E-micromobility is the primary subject of this technical memorandum. For detailed descriptions of
each device, and how they are typically regulated in the U5, please see Appendix B1.
Apart from E-bikes, and to some extent, E-scooters, E-micromobility devices are being introduced to the
American transportation system without much consideration of their legality or best operational practices.
E-micromobility devices generally shar�and sometimes compete for—operational space with traditional
"human-powered micromobility" users (i.e., standard bicycles, skateboards, and scooters without electric
motors), as well as pedestrians and wheelchair users.
As a result, E-micromobility devices can present challenges to community designers and policy makers,
who need to consider where these new devices should operate, what sort of regulatory framework should
govern their use and what the best practice norms of behavior are. While it is important to consider the
impacts of these new devices, it is also necessary to bear in mind that they are being used by fellow
citizens and may represent mobility choices that are at least partly driven by desire to avoid the financial
cost and climate impacts of automobiles. Public policy at local, regional, or state levels should be cautious
of adopting positions that are reactionary or discriminatory because these devices are new and unfamiliar,
or may occasionally be used in a disrespectful or dangerous manner.Applying the rules for bicycles, which
operate at approximately the same speeds, is the most widely adopted approach to regulating these
devices and educating users in other states and municipalities.
Current Lexington Policy on Bikes, E-bikes, and Pedestrians
The Town of Lexington is making a commitment to improve access for people walking, bicycling, and
rolling. Section 7 of the town's Comprehensive Plan, entitled "Transportation and Circulation," summarizes
a number of public desires and policy changes related to improving mobility, and especially bike/ped
access29. Objective 7.2 includes a desire to "Improve and expand options for walking, biking, and
micromobility throughout Lexington," explicitly referencing the promotion of"micromobility" as a goal.
"Micromobility" is defined in the Lexington Comprehensive Plan as:
29.See hltp�:��www.lPxin tc�r7rna.r�ovlDocurrrent�enter!\(iev�r�6�51l10.Gaal./...I rans��rtatic�n?bidld::::
85 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
"a range of sma(l(ightweight devices operating at speeds typica(ly below 15 mph and idea(for trips up to 6
miles. Micromobi(ity modes can be shared or private(y owned devices that are human-powered or electric3o"
Lexington's definition of micromobility includes the sub-category of E-micromobility.
Despite this commitment to the new mode, existing Lexington ordinance(anguage31 does not define
micromobility devices or operationa(rules for them clear(y. Lexington is not unique in this regard—few
municipa(ities in the country currently do so.
The pertinent sections of Lexington code that regulate bicycles, pedestrians and micromobility include the
following definitions:
PEDESTRIAN
Any person afoot or riding on a conveyance moved by human power, except bicycles or tricycles.
TRAFFIC
Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals,vehicles, streetcars or other conveyances, either singly or together,
while using any street or highway for the purpose of travel.
VEHICLE
Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a
highway, including bicycles when the provisions of these rules are applicable to them, except other
devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and devices which
derive their power for operation from stationary overhead wires."
Micromobility as a class of user is not presently described in Town ordinance. The definition of
"pedestrian" can be construed to refer to users of kick scooters or skateboards, and thus may extend to
some micromobility users the same rights of access to public ways that persons walking have.
There is no definition of bicycle, motorized bicycle, motorized scooter, or motorized skateboard, although
all of these devices would appear to be "vehicles" under town code. E-bikes are not defined in Lexington
ordinance. These gaps in definition and operational guidance create some conflict with state law, which
has sharper language describing E-bikes, at least.
With respect to operation, Lexington ordinances32 say the following with respect to bicycle and
motorized device operation:
Part I, General Bylaws, Chapter 100 Public Ways and Spaces, § 100-2
3o ryltr�s:l��nr�rvw.Ic�xinr�tc�nma:aov�C)ocurerent�enterl�i�wr�6�s1�1Q-Goal.t I rans�ortation?k,idld.:::.p.7-16 Footnote 12
31 Language can be found at https:/{ecode36d.com�10�;07505
sz��ttp�:l�er_oc1F��.36(�.caml1(7535717
86 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Use of streets, sidewalks and public places.
Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall use or operate on any sidewalk or independent bicycle
path any motorized vehicle, except a wheelchair, maintenance vehicle, or a police or fire emergency or
patrol vehicle.
� Non-motorized bicycles may be ridden on independent bicycle paths, designated by the Select Board
and marked as bike paths or bike routes.When necessary and in the interest of public safety, non-
motorized bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks, except within business districts and within such other
areas as may be designated by the Select Board.
�In all other respects, bicycles shall be operated according to Chapter 85, Section 11 B of the General
Laws of Massachusetts.0
In Lexington ordinance, it is not clearjust what "non-motorized bicycles" are, and whether such language
is intended to restrict the use of E-bikes.The phrase "non-motorized bicycles" exists in tension with
Massachusetts law,which explicitly excludes E-bikes from the definition of"motorized bicycle" or"motor
vehicle" (for details on Massachusetts Law on E-bikes and other devices, see Appendix B4). Under state
law, an E-bike is regulated as a "non-motorized bicycle," but it is not clear that Lexington holds the same
position.
As a result of this terminological ambiguity, under Massachusetts state law, it appears that E-bikes are
permitted on "independent bicycle paths" in Lexington, or anywhere else an unpowered bicycle is
permitted in the town. This would include the Minuteman Bikeway, as well as on any local conservation
and recreation trails where "traditional" unpowered bikes are permitted. But the Town's definition of, and
position on, the use of E-bikes is not clearly spelled out, and any effort to restrict E-bike access to public
ways based on town code would appear to conflict with state law.
For devices other than E-bikes, the situation is even less clear. E-micromobility devices are not specifically
mentioned in Lexington ordinance, and their use is not explicitly regulated.
The absence of clear rules governing E-micromobility in current ordinance highlights a gap in Lexington
code. The creation of a bike/ped plan for the town should include directives to proactively define and
manage these new devices.
Recommendations for E-Micromobility Policy for Lexington
The following are draft operational and broader policy recommendations for the Town of Lexington with
respect to E-micromobility devices.
Operational Recommendations
All local speed limits and restrictions apply, including the recently-posted advisory speed limit of 15 mph
on the Minuteman Bikeway and on any other trails or ways in the town.
87 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
A. E-bikes. It is recommended that Class 1 and Class 2 E-bikes be permitted to operate anywhere a
traditional human powered bicycle may be operated as per Massachusetts law including:
a. Multi-use paths (including the Minuteman Bikeway and any other mixed-use path or trail in town
b. Sidewalks as limited in Lexington code Part I, General Bylaws, Chapter 100 Public Ways and
Spaces, § 100-2.
B. E-bikes should follow all rules that apply to "traditional" bicycles in Lexington with respect to
locations where they can/cannot be ridden.
C. Class 3 E-bikes should be considered as allowable as long as they operate at the recommended
15 mph limit.
D. Lexington should develop and share E-bike operational education resources.
Note that under Massachusetts law, restrictions on the use of E-bikes on public ways require a process
that includes public meetings:
"A municipality, local authority or state agency with jurisdiction over a bike path or bikeway after public
notice and a public hearing may adopt ordinances or regulations prohibiting or otherwise regulating the
operation of electric bicycles on such paths, including, but not limited to, the imposition of speed limits."33
Attempting to restrict the use of E-bikes on pathways currently open to bicycles would presumably
necessitate following the state-mandated process.
E. E-scooters. It is recommended that E-scooters should be permitted on multi use paths, bike
lanes, and roadways, including:
a. the Minuteman Bikeway
b. Sidewalks as limited in Lexington code Part I, General Bylaws, Chapter 100 Public Ways and
Spaces, § 100-2.
F. E-scooters should follow all rules that apply to "traditional" bicycles in Lexington with respect to
locations where they cannot be ridden.
G. Lexington should develop and share E-scooter operational education resources.
Note that E-scooters appear to be subject to the current requirement for operators to possess a valid
drivers' license under Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title XIV, Chapter 90, §1 E to operate on public
ways. Defining E-scooters in a way that excludes them from licensing requirements at the town level may
be possible;town legal counsel should be consulted.
H. Other E-micromobility Devices. Electric skateboards (including One Wheels), Hoverboards, and
Electric Unicycles appear to meet the definition of"motor vehicle" in both Massachusetts law and
Lexington ordinance. Because such devices do not generally meet the requirements for a motor vehicle to
be used on public ways under state law, such devices operate in a legal gray area.
That said, in the absence of a plan to enforce a ban, providing educational signage and resources about
the use of these devices—legal or not—may benefit all users. When they are present on public ways, E-
sa p�tip.,:��tnr�nr�nr.ivra��.c�ov�info��letail,lrna�,s�q.en�ral.:::lav�rs.:_���:::`�`�::1._1_�::::'r�.
88 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
micromobility devices other than E-bikes and E-scooters should also be expected to operate according to
rules generally applying to bicycles. If the Town of Lexington does not plan to enforce bans on these
devices, the Town should consider adding ordinance language that would define them and clarify
operational rules. Not that additional policy changes at the state level may be necessary to exempt these
devices fully from motor vehicle rules—the town legal counsel should be consulted about making such
changes.
Policy and Education Recommendations
1. Pro-active(y define and regulate all micromobi(ity devices in Lexington ordinance.
The lack of any reference in Lexington code to micromobility devices, electric or not, including what they
are and how users of them should behave, creates uncertainty on the part of educators, law enforcement,
planners, and facilities managers about how to talk about and manage these devices.As these devices are
increasingly common, proactively defining this class of device in ordinance will help position town
government for any additional specific regulatory actions directed at the devices.
A. Consider adding a general definition of micromobility to Lexington ordinance section, e.g.:
"Micromobility device" means a small, lightweight (sub 120 pound) low-speed human-powered or
electric-powered transportation device, including a scooter, skateboard, electric scooter, electric
skateboard, or other wheeled conveyance that has a top speed of 28 miles per hour or less.
The 120-pound weight limit is suggested to include electric-assist cargo bikes in the general definition of
micromobility.
Add language clarifying that, under Lexington Code § 100-2 "Use of streets, sidewalks and public places,"
the word "bicycle" shall include E-micromobility devices to indicate that such devices must follow bicycle
rules.
B. Consider adding language to Lexington Code that explicitly defines E-bikes according to
Massachusetts state law as per Massachusetts General Laws c.90 § 1 "Definitions" and regulates them as
bicycles as per Massachusetts General Laws c.85 § 11 B 3/a
C. Consider adding a section to code referencing "Additional Rules for E-Micromobility Devices" and
include any limitations on where they can operate (such as Lexington conservation and recreation
properties where bicycles are already restricted), speed, additional equipment, etc.which may be
established through public processes if they are different from operational rules which apply to bicycles.
D. Note that under Massachusetts law, restrictions on the use of E-bikes on public ways require a
process that includes public meetings:
"A municipality, local authority or state agency with jurisdiction over a bike path or bikeway after public
notice and a public hearing may adopt ordinances or regulations prohibiting or otherwise regulating the
89 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
operation of electric bicycles on such paths, including, but not limited to, the imposition of speed limits."
34
Attempting to restrict the use of E-bikes on pathways currently open to bicycles would necessitate
following the state-mandated process.
2. Develop signage and other resources that educate users on the use of E-
micromobility devices on pub(ic ways.
E-micromobility devices are here to stay, and proactively developing resources to educate users with
rules for their operation that would generally align them with bicycle rules is recommended. These might
include web-based resources, signs, handouts, and pavement markings, as well as public informational
forums or events in the field. See Figure 2 for examples of exemplary educational resources developed by
Boulder, Colorado, to guide users on where different types of micromobility devices may be used.
Figure 2: Bou(der CO educationaf resources for micromobility devices
here can different e-micromobility
devices be used in Boulder?'
Sidawalks Multi-UeePatha SkreetsandBikeLsnes
�Except Dismovnt 2anes)
����� Classland2E-bike i
_,_.,_.,_ _____.,_.,_.,_______.,_.,_.,_______.,_.,_.,______,_.,_._.,_______.,_.,_.,______,_._.,_.,_______._.,_.,___,_.,_.,_.
�'��� ClessJE-bike
,9�'4trc2��tc.
�.�� Luw-Pawer5caoter
� F}ik,r+0..azri¢�s
"" Lightweigh#Elestric �
�r Vehicls(E-Scooter!
e9�--mb E-SEsatebaard)
___ -__� ���������� ��������� ������� �� ��������� ��������� �������������__�
�"���ToyVehiels � � �
sa h t tps:!ltnrtnr�nr.ivr�ss e�av/i n(a_:_�e ta i I,s.�rna,s.:::gen Eral.:::l a�nrs.:_��5.::`�`�::1._1_�::::'r�)
90 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
GAmrvwPM I.um namMfnxiFM M.ml�wud M i4�� ��I �ol mn I.. na KK� ��,�
<<. � mmWm nuxnbu �Mrwrt,a xnoad ngn w�,y mnpPrtb rnqurnd vnnuhrQ rvwbn4 .,. '"w'
MdkM.%RR 6YM W1M'84YWn
� ��J///I t//r(rl�� ///11%, t%%N �� l� ///ll/� ��
��� � �
�,��.
�� �a�
u�o �b
�� �,
� ��;���r,. ,�
��,a,���� „r,% '°////i ��%/ �" ���'� � � �%� � �! �
��,��d �OG�� ��� L r�l�,
M�, ��,
�� �,�;
�,�r�c�a� � �
��wa��r�� � rl!l�� l�r� � ��; � � t;� �, � �� �
�, ��
� ��� F>>, � ,�� �� ,,,,w,
�g IWC 6tlW8
�'Fn[^ M1M" NeW 4'"A
��„
�.mmP4W�.�.�w'1WCer r�,�/ //�����„�� 0��,/,.�, //�ll/ �1�� ��i/� �i���� �"f���
,., '����� B��!/r/� ��%/� ����� i�///!.% �in���ll�� +i�//%� ,�/%l�/ ..
�y�i��u� a�� � ��., �� „ , ,.,b ,"x ..
u. �naa,ser�ar�a
�� ,� �///r �//lU' ��, � f%�� %%i t/l0� to,1 f/%//0
�' �' ,i` ��D� ���o� %%/ �////� ,�� � ,,,r�� �% �� a
. , "�� n��, ,��,
�r
,,,.., „�� �„�p,� .,,,
��r �„N�
��� �rr�f /�� U�; ��° '��' �i�
�o�� �����% �,.� ////r % %/ �% �i %
� �,� � � h„ar ��,v�� �w /
� " �.��,�d
�'. ,, � � apa�a, „�,.: �
�xW��G�� ����,.,.,.
� � � , � Ml0. M�w. NJa M�dk MIM, MlM YAPft
6klldmvk�^,�ua�,qryat¢urow.mSa�k�viroauurcdIDwstlemr¢nO:Iha,v�umuo-6PoBm g^ae�tlak {���V
3. Launch a public process to discuss/adopt the guidance for micromobi(ity use
emp(oyed by other municipa(ities such as Bou(der, CO.
Ultimately, what kinds of powered and unpowered micromobility devices are permissible in certain
contexts is a local decision. Review of policies from across the country reveal that Boulder, CO, has
perhaps the most comprehensive management scheme for these devices. Lexington should consider
reviewing Boulder's policies in a public process and adopt them as needed/desired. In the longer term,
any restrictions or relaxing of rules governing E-micromobility may require additional policy work at the
state level to avoid conflicting with Massachusetts state law.
4. Anticipate and p(an for providing more infrastructure and increasing the width of
the Minuteman Bikeway to twe(ve feet where feasib(e and other shared use paths to ten
feet.
As volumes of all active transportation users grows, additional infrastructure may be needed to
accommodate the increased traffic. This should include more bike lanes, more and wider multi-use paths,
wider sidewalks, etc.While rights of way and other constraints may exist that restrict widening public
ways, including trails, the general policy of the town should be to expect more use and to plan to expand
facilities as much as is feasible.
91 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
5. Explore strengthening community collaborations to encourage safe behavior on the
sidewalks and the Minuteman Bikeway.
Massachusetts state law defines a public way as follows (see Appendix B4, below):
"Way", any public highway, private way laid out under authority of statute,way dedicated to public use, or
way under the control of park commissioners or body having like powers.3s
Based on this definition, the Minuteman Bikeway appears to be a public way. Some confusion over the
exact status of the corridor may linger as the MBTA apparently retains ownership, and so the bikeway is
not, in some quarters, considered a public way. Nonetheless, as Massachusetts statute includes some
"private ways" in its definition of public way, the Minuteman Bikeway would appear to meet the statutory
definition of a public way but may not be considered a road where traffic laws are enforced.
The Lexington Police Department has a long-standing practice of monitoring the use of the Minuteman
Bikeway. Through the practice of community engagement, officers have rewarded good riding behavior
while deterring negative practices on the path. The Lexington Police Department will continue this
practice as staffing allows to make the path safe and enjoyable for all who use it. The department does
not feel that actively enforcing bicycle violations and citing riders promotes a collaborative relationship
between the police and the community.
Lexington Town government may wish to explore how the community can collaborate to enforce
expectations of safe riding. If the Town wishes to explore, if allowed under state law, adding an ordinance
clarifying that the Minuteman Bikeway is a public way and that Lexington police are authorized to enforce
traffic law on it, including speed limits and any restrictions on the types of devices used on them, legal
counsel will be needed and additional staff will be needed.
It may be necessary to also amend the Minuteman Bikeway advisory speed limit so that it has the strength
of an ordinance and is subject to enforcement.
It is worth noting that many E-bikes are shipped without speedometers on them,which may further
complicate enforcement efforts. Community policing, visual speed message boards and education may
help users understand a responsible human-scale speed on shared use facilities.
Town legal counsel should be consulted before making any such changes.
3s htt s:!/www.rnass.c�rav/info-detailsfrv�ass-ez�n�r�l-laws-c90-ss-1
92 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Conclusions
E-bikes and E-scooters are already regulated under Massachusetts state law, and it is recommended that
the Town of Lexington follow state law and permit these devices to use all public ways open to bicycles,
including the Minuteman Bikeway and all other shared use paths where bikes are already permitted.
While the legality of E-boards may be uncertain, it is likely that these devices are already appearing on
public ways in Lexington. Unless law enforcement plans to step up enforcement actions on these devices,
Lexington should adopt"rules of the road"for these devices that generally align with bicycle operational
rules.
Creating educational signs, handouts, stickers,web assets, etc. will permit the public to be educated on
the behaviors the Town of Lexington would like to see practiced by E-micromobility users.
Defining micromobility and E-micromobility in Town ordinance will clarify that everything from a kick
scooter to an electric skateboard is addressed by local transportation policy.
Convening a public process to discuss what other communities, both local municipalities and others like
Boulder Colorado, have done to regulate human- and electric- powered micromobility users will permit
Lexington residents and officials to explore, discuss and address the use of these new devices on public
ways.
Expecting more growth in these modes, and planning to expand infrastructure to support them, will
enable the town to position itself for a greener, less auto-dependent future.
Exploring whether the Minuteman Bikeway can be defined as a public way that Lexington police can
enforce a speed limit or device bans would permit community policing opportunities and help educate
the public on desired behavior.
93 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Appendix 61
Detailed Descriptions of E-Micromobility Devices
Low-Speed Electric Bicycles
The very first electric bike patents date back to the 1890s,just a few years after the standard diamond
frame bicycle as we know it arrived in the mid-1880s. As one of the oldest forms of E-micromobility, the
policies regulating electric-assist bicycles are the most mature.
The development of"pedal assist"technology in 1989 created the E-bike as we know it today. Pedal assist
E-bikes provide motor power only when the pedals are turning and create a more genuinely "bicycle-like„
experience than the older versions of E-bikes that relied on throttles to control the motor. Riding a pedal-
assist E-bike is not effort-free and offers a riding sensation that might be described as amplifying
muscular effort.
According to People for Bikes, a national bicycle and E-bicycle advocacy group:
Electric-assisted bicyc(es have been defined and regu(ated at the federal(eve(since 2002. Pub(ic Law 107-
319 established that e(ectric bicycles are regu(ated as consumer products under the Consumer Product
SafetyAct, and more specifica((y, subject to the same regulations that govern traditiona(, human-powered
bicycles. Thus, electric bicyc(es are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and must comply
with the bicycle safety standards at 16 C.F.R. Part 1512. ln addition, electric bicyc(es are exp(icit(y not "motor
vehicles"for the purposes of federal law and are not subject to National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration vehicle standards.As a practical matter, Public Law 107-319 ensures that electric bicycles are
designed, manufactured, and tested like traditional bicycles for the purposes of consumer product safety(aw.
The main provisions of Pub(ic Law 107-319 are codified at 15 U.S.C. �2085.
Under federal law, an electric bicycle is referred to as a "low-speed electric bicycle,"which is defined as "a
two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1
h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden
by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph." Significantly, this definition provides a
maximum assisted speed that an electric bicycle can travel when being powered only by the motor, but
does not provide a maximum assisted speed for when an electric bicycle is being powered by a
combination of human and motor power36
s6 h_tt.l��..��wvkr.vkr,.pec�. Il�forlbilc�s..or s�lls��tri�..k�il��s �Ilicie�..�rrr�..11au4rs
94 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Starting in 2010, People for Bikes began an effort to enact policy across the country that standardizes the
types of E-bikes available for sale in the US into three classes:
Assist cut- Power
Type Power actuation off Limit
Class 1 E-
bike Pedal-assist only
20 MPH
Class 2 E- Throttle (usually with pedal
750 watts
bike assist)
Class 3 E-
bike Pedal-assist only 28 MPH
Class 1 E-bikes are "pedal assist only" bicycles, meaning the motor only boosts the rider when the pedals
are turning. The motor assist is limited to a top speed of 20mph, and the motor size may not exceed 750
watts.These E-bicycles are generally permitted for use in most places a traditional bicycle can be used.
Class 2 E-bikes are pedal assist but also come equipped with a throttle on the handlebars that permits the
motor to be used without the pedals turning. The motor assist is limited to a top speed of 20mph, and the
motor size may not exceed 750 watts. These E-bicycles are sometimes restricted from mountain bike trails
and National Park paths but are generally permitted for use in most places a traditional bicycle can be
used.
Class 3 E-bikes are "pedal assist only" bicycles, meaning the motor only boosts the rider when the pedals
are turning. The motor assist is limited to a top speed of 28mph, and the motor size may not exceed 750
watts.These E-bicycles are typically legal for use in roadway rights of way or on paths where the
managing authority has authorized their use.
E-bicycles can be difficult to distinguish from traditional un-assisted bikes. Tell-tale signs include the
presence of a bulky rear hub ("hub drive") or bottom bracket area ("mid-drive") where the motor is, and a
battery pack, usually located on a rack above the rear wheel or on/in the down tube of the bicycle.
It is also a challenge to visually differentiate between the different classes of E-bicycles. Many kinds of E-
bicycles are sold as various classes, so it is hard to tell with just a casual look what class an E-bike may be,
i.e., there are Class 1, 2, and 3 Commuters, road bikes, and cargo bikes etc. E-Mountain Bikes are typically
only Class 1 or 2.The salient differences are that Class 2s always have a throttle, and Class 3s can go up to
28mph. Class 3 E-bikes are sometimes identifiable by a larger battery pack (often visible as an especially
95 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
thick down tube).All E-bikes sold in the US are supposed to have a sticker on them, usually located low
on the seat tube or down tube, which identifies what class it is.
See Figure 3 for a typical mid-drive Class 2 E-bike with the battery on the rear rack, and Figure 4 for an
image of a hub motor.
Figure 3
���� / ��`r,� "°i � � /1�/��/%nni✓
r U ,, '�ir, � / �/i�j �� .�
� �1 �1��,// ��/,r
��. '�'�/�&$t�'IYS�Y�'�'IH IRf�kf�:rt"x��S�:t1l7r'95�, f ''�' �., ,%!/,�I �l G
1��
� Y� / � � " ,; R�acie iruat�nkbd l��ktmry
� rir
r �r� �� �,°"����� � ! �""` �
�,� n' v i i,- %
/ � ,i � +�r� � �
� .,.
o ,�, �
� ,„,- � r �'� �
`„ rr�rr� �+W�� �
�� ,
f � �
/ , ru�f35'.�}ICff6ff '" �
� y �
% �' �:v'�` ���i 1� W�g^'�iw�n;.'� r ,�F
� `� � �� � � �y���g�'6 s
l�"' �` �I�lyw��`5" 'hu�',.
,,,�Y �� q. ''��(��;c 3�
.;r �k �Y��� �
t .. � w� W,x:a
�' 1 � - � � ��'
° �,.t P ✓`�� x
� '" .r +' y"�C"'�i m�'J �'�/`�,: n��ioail�i.i f. 1 ��,'�� ,� r� � .
"'+ "�mi �""[ � �y
,�'�r ��'�' „n���� � r � .. ,��m ��� ����; ��"'�""7� � �� "��'���'"�'` �ki�tiM x �r' ��J'�w
il i i`✓i � � I�.f � � F �
�'� re r � ,w'�" � k Pa �f n,�^� ,�� � a h�. �+�
�� I �
"��J�'n� �'����;.�"�"r ,* 6�y�.. a g� � ,A'�,��,�I'�" "�,. �, a K � �S��J"w p `��r��"'"'�n`�° !r °'��`,�
s"„���"� �i^* �+�v��j,� r� ,�°��a� ua,1 x � � �� �'
'�" '' '�"�� � �,�I�� � � ,�A^� ��� � �' ..or�n ?+y �"�7 , � ��v��t §^��'� '
��'✓t�r d �x �-e�4.1�'...�.�,.�wraW�. ,m „w»m�„ ��� �' � t �� t i ib
"r��v"�"��w����z�x�� IMldclnverrwcrtcrratba0.t�r� ���^� �� ���:��Sa'R' � �-�,AI�CE�.'f�/II��-COMA"111"1U�4'��' d���
'm" ,��vTM,r"+.+�.���x, '� kbt�4�'k+�t�wf h�lcycqu k � a u��'
k`�',.«�r,r��4���m,�.^� �r '� � »�rN��u ,�F" .� l �
�� ��^"� '� � ��"t,r � �'a��"r �^����^� ��»�«°Y� �`��'�w
!,«�a�a�� �'Gr�""�� �� "���°i��r��� �� �✓�...t !.���'�� �'�� r� v +� r� � i»ar„a'm:'�'"'rdr" "+ �,5a ,�;�" ,.'� n} w�n,':"'e �„�K%
�N�_,A,�. da.5r,,.,;,,, , ,a�A,... +�.,�.� .f M,..u, � .. �'�w"'.m.h, i.,r<:���,.h�: ...k � ✓�„ ,,�*�, .w
Figure 4—an E-bike hub motor
i;ii;; � �,;,,,,
� , �
��, �u �
i�i b��i "' �
� ,
U���� � � � as� ����fl�tilql
r�h�i�e��'
� � ��
�«`` ��;
i
p%I%
��
� i �ai
�' ��i���/r
�F����
� � ��
i' ry��1� % i
�t
v��� %!G
��{j f/ '�/
, ����t��,,.,,
Thirty-nine states, including Massachusetts, have adopted all (or parts) of the three class E-bike
classification system. Operating guidelines vary from state to state (See Figure 4 Appendix B2, below) but
generally treat Class 1 and Class 2 E-bikes as "traditional" un-assisted bicycles. With a top speed of
20mph, Class 1 and Class 2 E-bikes operate within "human scale" speeds that are easily attainable on
96 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
unassisted bikes. Because of their higher top speed of 28 mph, Class 3 bicycles are often restricted to
roadways and banned from multi-use paths unless authorized by the facility manager.
Several states have motor wattage limits that are different from the 750 watt standard in the three class
system.
The National Conference of State Legislature's "primer" on E-bike law notes that
Of the 43 states and D.C. that define E-bikes, some state (aws, such as in Arizona, Minnesota, Utah and
Washington, specifically allow E-bike operation on faci(ities such as bicycle paths or greenways, with the
caveat that many carve out exceptions for(oca(ities to enact stricter operation regulations on such bike and
pedestrian facilities. In De(aware, lowa and Nebraska, e(ectric bicycles are defined within the existing
definition of a bicyde, therefore there is not a distinction when it comes to operation on trails. Vermont
specifies that motor-assisted bicycles are governed as bicyc(es and have the same rights and duties
applicab(e to bicyc(ists. Hawaii's(aw does not include restrictions on where E-bikes may operate.37
E-bike Fleets in Bike Share Systems
According to US DOT, bike share systems (on-the-street businesses offering bicycles available for self-
serve public rental and use) currently serve approximately 35 cities in the US, and after a decline between
2020 and 2022, the use of existing docked bike shares (systems that use specific parking stations for
storage and rental access) is again exceeding 2019 levels.38
A number of bikeshare fleets around the world are adding E-bikes, and the "Bike Share World Map"
curators report that:
"Since August 2021, the number of bike-sharing systems with E-bikes has grown by 62.9% and the
number of E-bikes increased by 72.95%."39
The North American Bicycle Share Association (NABSA) in its 2023 "State of the Industry" report states
that in shared use systems, "The number of trips taken on E-bikes increased from 18.8 million in 2021 to
30.9 million in 2022."40 The inclusion of E-bikes into bike share fleets that prove to be viable is likely to
continue to expand. Lexington, significantly, is located near Boston and may see users on the BlueBikes
system, which is one of the largest bike share systems in North America, but which does not yet appear to
have any E-bikes in the fleet.
Most municipalities do not impose limitations on where E-bikes in shared systems may operate and treat
them generally like unpowered bike share bicycles.Where limitations do explicitly exist, E-bike share
bicycles are most often prohibited from sidewalk operation.
37 h�ttps:��www.rocsl.orc��tr�r�sportatic�rr�statE.�elF�ctrie�bi�VclF:::lawrs::.�:::le isl�tivF:-.p.r:irrrcrP�.r�.yiislrali_ean.
-�
ss r��tps:��data.bts.gov�Stc7ri�5�5�5umvridvy...pf...f�OCk2d.f3ikF��sharE...lrips.b'�YSt�m.:::�nd:::C7:t(j:f ...qY ?zkf!
39 ��tlps:ll�+ikesh�rin�world_rv�ap.eornlreportslbswrre� rrrid?02.?..repor�C.pdf
ao ��ttp.,:��nabr;a.net�202.3�t1�sl2.�l�0.?..2irrdustry/..
97 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
E-Scooters
An E-scooter may be broadly defined as a device:
"Weighing less than one hundred pounds that is equipped with two or three wheels, handlebars, and an
electric motor, and which is solefy powered by the rider or by an efectric motor capable of propelling the
device without additiona(propulsion supp(ied by the rider, at a maximum speed on a paved(eve(surface of
no more than twenty miles per hour, or both."41
Note that some manufacturers sell scooters that exceed 20 mph.
E-scooter regulation at the federal level is not consistent or clear.
State law in some cases defines them, and sometimes imposes rules for operators (licensing, registration,
age limits) and locations where their use is permitted. Local municipalities often further define their
operational rules and limits, which often coincide with bike, moped, or motorcycle law.
E-scooters are often included in older definitions of"motorized scooters" (devices more like Vespa
scooters, etc) and this association often stipulates possession of drivers' license to use them on public
ways.A further complication exists when places (e.g., Boulder, CO) make a distinction between motorized
scooters and "lightweight electric devices," a description that is used to define the kind of scooters used in
shared systems. They are sometimes included with bicycles with respect to operational rules.4z
Non-motorized scooters (i.e., a board with a handle but no motor) are typically regulated as skateboards.
E-scooter Shares
US DOT reports that as of July 2022, 158 municipalities had E-scooter share systems, and evidence
suggests that these systems are growing faster than bike shares. Most municipalities do not impose
limitations on where E-scooters in shared systems may operate and treat them generally like unpowered
bike share bicycles.Where limitations do explicitly exist, E-scooters are most often prohibited from
sidewalk operation.
E-Skateboards
E-skateboards are motorized skateboards with either one or four wheels upon which an operator stands
and moves sideways. Regulation at the federal level is non-existent. "One Wheel" brand E-boards are the
subject of warnings from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission.43
a�..hltps.!l... lawinsider.corvi�dictianary�elec.lvic�sco�l:er
4z https://mankeel-store.com/what-arE-thE-regulations-for-electric-scooters-in-thE-us/
as I�tt.���./.../...w�nr.w,.c��e. r�v I�V�wsire��arr� I���nr�.-R�II��s�� ?�.?....3 CI{�SC.-��Carins.-C�ar�suirr��ir�.-t�.-S�o .-lJsiiin .-G�in��nr6�o��ll.-
�ellf..G��ll�r»ir� ..IE::II��trii�..51��tebc��r�s..C7u��..ta�..F'�ctioir�..H�z�rd..At..I...�a�t..Fa�ar..f..7c���N�s..�irnd..l�ull�ii Ile..11n'urii�s..
�.�pc�r��d
......................................
98 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The inability of these motorized devices to meet minimum design standards for roadway use as "vehicles„
has led some sources (including ones that are generally pro-skateboard) to acknowledge that they are
likely"technically illegal" at the federal level.44 State law in some places clarifies their status and
sometimes imposes rules for operators and locations they are permitted, but the rules of operation are
sometimes unclear. California, for example, apparently permits E-skateboards to operate contraflow like a
pedestrian. Some sources recommend that E-skateboards only be operated on private property.
Some states and local municipalities often further define their operational rules and limits,which
sometimes coincide with bike laws (e.g. Michigan45).Where rules exist, E-skateboards are often limited to
25mph or less and sometimes have wattage limitations on motors.
Note that some manufacturers sell E-skateboards that exceed 20 mph.
Shared E-skateboard systems do not appear to exist, but E-skateboards are available for rent at some
shops around the nation.
Hoverboards
Hoverboards are wheeled board devices in which the operators' feet face forward on a platform and move
forward on two wheels (unlike a skateboard, in which the operator moves sideways with respect to the
orientation of feet). They might be understood as Segways without the handlebars. Hoverboards are more
on the "toy device" end of the micromobility spectrum, but because they have some popularity and see
use on public ways they are sometimes discussed and regulated at the state or local level. There are no
federal laws on hoverboard operation.46
Shared E-hoverboard systems do not appear to exist.
E-unicycles
E-unicycles are devices with one wheel with foot platforms on either side of the wheel that the operator
stands on facing forward. There are no federal rules governing the use of one wheels47. They are rarely
mentioned in state law and are sometimes lumped in with E-bike rules by analysts. They would appear to
conform to the definition of"motor vehicles" under many state laws. Some of these devices can exceed
the top speeds of Class 3 E-bikes, putting them in a deeper legal gray area.
Shared E-unicycle systems do not appear to exist.
44 h�ttps.l��'skateN��ab.crarn�yuides.arrd.tipslelar_tric.skatek�aard.laws.usa�
4s r�ltr�s:l��skatc�hub.cc�re7l�uides.and.tipsl�lectric.skatebaarr�.laws.usa�
46 htt�as:���nrww.c���1.r�e:trcview.corrr.�late.�t:::Vraver�c�are�:::law
"H�ttp�:l�raciicalr_oiYrmul:e.corn�eleclric-urric�rcles.le��l�
99 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Appendix 62: E-Micromobility Policy in the United States
Policies that regulate the use of these electric-powered devices are still relatively new and in a constant
state of evolution, as new E-micromobility gadgets continue to appear and see use on public ways across
the country. Electric-assist bicycles, which are the E-micromobility devices that have been around the
longest, have prompted the development of regulatory policy and schemes that usually treat them as
standard bicycles. Many states now have clear language describing where and how E-bikes may be used,
but the rules around the use of E-skateboards, hoverboards, E-scooters, or E-mono-wheels are not as
consistent or clear (See Figure 5).
Figure 5: US Po(icy on E-Micromobility Devices
_ � ,- �
�� ��-� �� ���-�m�
��mm � �� :�� � � ��- ��� � ��„
-�����^� ��.�, , �� u ��'m,�o,u V �,,�.' ,�II,1=l, � ^ � � V�� ���� � �1A� 9� mol���I�I�I�IV"�u'NVVV,�¢��,��a ,�,� .��IV�,.
��� .
�� �� � �a � m�
� IIIIIIu„„
-
. �
����� � : � �
�i���, ��m �-�mo r��� mr„. ���� ^ u
�m' �m� sro ^�� �m�, wry
IIII ���� • IIII ���a �
u.�� �,�� � sa ,. .... �..
m�
�
�
100 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
uuuu�i lil�i �,pu�lll
/
� �w.
-�m �m :
� �
�
�'
� �
m�
:; �"i.;'� ..
„ i . ur
� / �
/
�;
�u^�
��
��
�m ^
.�
m�,m
�
�
101 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
' � �
� �
� �� um� � ���,
� ����
� ����
� -��
� ,
�� �� . �
�� �� uu��� � �
, �
�
� �
�
�
� �
As long as E-micromobility devices remain in the realm of human-scale mobility(lightweight, no
enclosure, and speeds under 20 mph), and can obey bicycle traffic law (including having braking systems
that permit them to stop as required by traffic control devices), this memorandum broadly recommends
that public policy evolve so as to recognize that E-micromobility users:
> Should be permitted the use of the common public ways
> Should generally follow state law and best practice guidance for bicycle operations (especially:
ride with traffic, obey traffic controls, use hand signals, be predictable)
> Should operate at safe human scale speeds and comply with any advisory speed limits
> Should not generally operate on sidewalks, but may be permitted in some areas where bicycles
are also permitted to operate
102 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Should yield to pedestrians when present
> Should be covered under definitions of vulnerable users in law.
103 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Appendix 63: New England Laws on E-Micromobility Devices
As with the rest of the country, E-micromobility policy in New England is fairly inconsistent, except in
regard to E-bike regulation.
E-bikes
> All of the New England states have adopted the "3 Class System" except for Rhode Island which
has a non-standard policy that People for Bikes calls "problematic."
> States that use the 3 Class system generally regulate E-bikes as bicycles.
> Massachusetts specifically recognizes Class 1 and Class 2 E-bikes but has no provision for Class 3
E-bikes at the state level.
E-Scooters
> New England states generally regulate E-scooters as "motorized scooters" restricted to sub
30mph speed.
> Connecticut state law permits E-scooters and requires them to operate as bicycles.A license for
their use is not required. Some municipalities impose additional rules.
> Maine state law defines motorized scooters and requires a license for their operation. Some
municipalities impose additional rules.
> Massachusetts state law defines motorized scooters and requires a license for their operation.
Some municipalities impose additional rules.
> New Hampshire state law defines motorized scooters and requires a license for their operation.
Some municipalities impose additional rules. (https://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/other-
types.php)
> Rhode Island state law permits E-scooters; some municipalities impose additional rules.
> Vermont state law appears to classify E-scooters as "motor assisted" bicycles; some municipalities
impose additional rules.
E-Skateboards
> Connecticut state law appears to ban E-skateboards from public ways as unregisterable motor
vehicles.
> Maine state law appears to ban E-skateboards from public ways as unregisterable motor
vehicles.
> Massachusetts state law is silent on E-skateboards
> New Hampshire state law is not clear on E-skateboards, and may include them with scooters
> Rhode Island state law regulates E-skateboards as a type of motor-vehicle
> Vermont state law is not clear on E-skateboards.
Hoverboards
104 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
> Connecticut state law is silent on hoverboards.
> Maine state law is silent on hoverboards.
> Massachusetts state law may consider hoverboards a form of Electric Personal Assistive
Motorized Device, which imposes operational rules on them including
> Riders must be 16 years old or over
> Always yield right-of-way to foot pedestrians
> Always ride in a single file line
> Exceed no more than 12.5 mp/h
> Transport no more than one person
> Possess no more than two non-tandem wheels
> New Hampshire state law is not clear on hoverboards.
> Rhode Island state law may consider hoverboards a form of Electric Personal Assistive
Motorized Device
> Vermont state law may consider hoverboards a form of Electric Personal Assistive
Motorized Device, which have specific equipment requirements that most of the
devices don't meet.
Electric Unicycles
The status of these devices is unclear in all New England states; registration and licensing may be
required.
105 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Appendix 64: Relevant Massachusetts State Law on Bicycles,
E-bikes, and E-Scooters
Massachusetts Law on "Traditional" Bicycle Operation
htt s:!/vvanrw.r��ss.�cavlinfic�-d�tails/rnass�chusetts-lavv-about-bicycl�s
see also, specifically, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c85-ss-11 b
Massachusetts Law on E-bike Operation
https:ll�nrv�rvar.m�ss.�c�v�infic�-detailslmass-�en�r�l-laws-c�5-ss-11 b-34
Massachusetts Legal Definitions
All definitions below are directly from:
h�s:���nrww.rraass.r�ovlinfo-ci�tails/rnass-gen�r�l-laws-c90-ss-1
Bicycle is not defined explicitly in state law
Electric Bicycle
Note that Massachusetts law is silent on Class 3 E-bikes
"Electric bicycle", a bicycle or tricycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of
750 watts or less that meets the requirements of a class 1 electric bicycle or a class 2 electric
bicycle.
Motorized Bicycle
A "motorized bicycle" does not include an E-bike
"Motorized bicycle", a pedal bicycle which has a helper motor, or a non-pedal bicycle which has a
motor, with a cylinder capacity not exceeding fifty cubic centimeters, an automatic transmission,
and which is capable of a maximum speed of no more than thirty miles per hour; provided,that the
definition of"motorized bicycle" shall not include an electric bicycle.
Motorized Scooter
106 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
A "motorized scooter" does not include an E-bike
"Motorized scooter", any 2 wheeled tandem or 3 wheeled device, that has handlebars, designed to
be stood or sat upon by the operator, powered by an electric or gas powered motor that is capable
of propelling the device with or without human propulsion.The definition of"motorized scooter"
shall not include a motorcycle. electric bicycle or motorized bicycle or a 3 wheeled motorized
wheelchair.
Motorized scooters require a license to be used in MA:
A motorized scooter shall not be operated on any way by a person not possessing a valid driver's
license or learner's permit, nor at a speed in excess of 20 miles per hour. 4$
Motor Vehicles
A "motor vehicle" does not include an E-bike or a motorized bicycle
"Motor vehicles",all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than
muscular power including such vehicles when pulled or towed by another motor vehicle, except
railroad and railway cars, vehicles operated by the system Icnown as trolley motor or tracicless
trolley under chapter one hundred and sixty-three or section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-
four of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-seven,vehicles running only upon rails or tracks,
vehicles used for other purposes than the transportation of property and incapable of being driven
at a speed exceeding twelve miles per hour and which are used exclusively for the building, repair
and maintenance of highways or designed especially for use elsewhere than on the travelled part
of ways,wheelchairs owned and operated by invalids and vehicles which are operated or guided by
a person on foot; provided, however,that the exception for trackless trolleys provided herein shall
not apply to sections seventeen,twenty-one, twenty-four, twenty-four I, twenty-five and twenty-
six.The definition of"Motor vehicles"shall not include electric bicycles or motorized bicycles. In
doubtful cases, the registrar may determine whether or not any particular vehicle is a motor vehicle
as herein defined. If he determines that it should be so classified, he may require that it be
registered under this chapter, but such determination shall not be admissible as evidence in any
action at law arising out of the use or operation of such vehicle previous to such determination.
Wav: "Way", any public highway, private way laid out under authority of statute,way dedicated to
public use, or way under the control of park commissioners or body having like powers.4g
48 https://rnaleqislature.�ov/Laws/GeneralLawslPartllTitleXlV�Chapter90�Section1 E
49 See also: Ir�tt.p�:��wvtr.v�r.irm�ass„gcrvf�No��.�.?..�G�..�a�ulblli�..way..�qll..c..g(l..s..
.�.../..��w�ll_r���':�.:...�..::t��t.:::::�r� �'!Q?C1str��t%2�}rar%?�}Ir�i Il�w� `%.?...Ot67��as°/a��rro�uimicii �II"/�.?..�1s�ire��s`%.?...O�ind�"/�?�rr�ads
107 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Sources Consulted
(Sources are listed by the hosting entity of the website consulted.Where individual authors could be
identified, they are included in parenthesis after the name of the entity hosting the website.)
City of Boulder Colorado Public Works—Transportation and Mobility Department. "E-
micromobility: E-bikes, E-scooters and More." Last modified 2023.
Ir�tt.ps.��l����ll_r�_�ir�c�llc�.r��r�.o. ��r s�r�ri��s �--rY7icrairr7olk�illir�
City of Burlington,Vermont, Public Works Department. "Shared Mobility: Electric Bike Share." No
last modified date given; accessed September 14, 2023.
Ih�tt.ps:��wv�rw,.b��a_rllii.im. tc�imvt. a�v 17C�\/�/ l�rains ort��iair� F�Ifr�ns ortiatia�ir�o
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. "Massachusetts Laws and Regulations." Last modified 2023.
Ir��tt.�s:��wv�r.w,.ir�n�s_s:. av �o i�s Il��nr�..r� ull�tii�ans
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. "Short Form Instruction 3.280: Public Way° Last modified
2009..h:kk.l�.s:��v�rvu.vu:irm�.ss:. rav �'r�� ����3.. �ulk�lli�..v�,a .. �I..e..gp..s..
� �'c�wrrllc���'#:�-:k�xt:::::t�in °/q�(Jskr��t°/Q�SJ�r°/a?011�i Il�w� °!�.?...�kha�as%.?..Clrrrur�i�i �II%.?..G�srir���s°!�.?...�Dair��'%�
....../........................................................................................................Y........................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................�:..............................................................................................................
C�.rc>.��'s.
ESkate Hub. "Electric Skateboard Laws in the U5." Last modified 2023.
Il�tt s: �s��tehuboccrirm� �aid�s..�nd..ti s �Ileetriie..sl<���Ib�aarc�..11a�nrs..uasa
Gadget Review (Jed Smith). "New Law for Hoverboards in 2023." Last modified October 16, 2022.
Ir�tt.�s:���nr�nr.w:.��g��irevi��nr.camlll�t�st..l�over�ac��rd..11aw
General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. "General Laws." Last modified 2023.
I�t t.p s;��rr��II_�.c�.i_s.11�t.u_r e::.r�c�v!I...a�nr�!G�n e r�II I...a v�r s
Law Insider. "Electric Scooter Definition." No last modified date; accessed September 14, 2023.
Ir�t t.�s;��wv�r.w,:II��nr ii.ir�_s ii c�_�r:c�irrr��c9.%�:t i_c�r�_�rv!�II e c t r ii c..5 c r�o t�ir
Mankeel Electric Scooters. "What are the regulations for electric scooters in the US?" Last
modified 2023. Il�tt.ps.:.��rv7_�nkeell.::::�.t�r�.:corrr�(wh_�t::::�ire.::::�lr�_�.::::r�. ull��ie�r��.-�e�r.-�Il��tri�.-s�e��t�rs.-iiirn.-the.-u�r;
National Conference of State Legislatures. "State Electric Bicycle Laws:A Legislative Primer." Last
modified February 24, 2021. ht.t.psol�w�nrwor�cslleoir /t,q� rairns�ac�.r��:�iir�_n�st�.t�.:::�ll_�c.tri_c.:::bi�vcll�--Ilaws--�--
II_�c�ii�lla�iiv�.-�iriicmert�r�c�i.s�ira�i�n
North American Bikeshare and Scooter Share Association. "Webinar Recap: NABSA Takes a
Closer Look into the 2022 Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report," Last modified August
22, 2023. Il�t:.l:. s: ir��l�s�.ir�et 2f��; �3� .?..� ��9�.?ir7du�s�ir
Radical Commute (Jason Atwell). "Are Electric Unicycles Street Legal?" Last modified May 1, 2021.
I�tt.ps;':��ir��i_c�r.11c�i�i����.c�rrrn�(�Il��:tri�.:::urn.i_c.y�ll_�s.:::lle.,. �II
PBSC Urban Solutions. "The Meddin Bike-sharing World Map Report 2022 edition." Last modified
December, 2022. II�t:G.�s..//bii.l<��h_�riiir��.��nrarll_�rm��.p..��m./r� rar�s bsuvir�n� rvriir�.?...a�.?..r��a�irt. c�f
People for Bikes. "Policies and Laws: National Electric Bicycle Law and Policy Overview." No last
modified date; accessed September 14, 2023. h:t.t.�s.:.//�nr��nr,. ea Ilefa�irbiilke�.ar elle��iri�--I�iik�s r�llici��--
�r�r�..11�ws
.........................................
108 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Planning Board. "LexingtonNEXT Comprehensive Plan." Lexington Massachusetts website. Last
modified September 28, 2022..hn:t�. s: www.11exin loimirrr�. �v F�16 Il..�xiiin� tc�n--�llext------C�rrr� r�h�nsive.--
�'ll a irn
...................
StreetsblogMass (Sam Mintz). "Last-Minute Legislation Legalizes (Some) E-Bikes, Axes Low-
Income Fares, and Throws More Cash At EVs." Last modified August 1, 2022.
Il�tt�s: rrrass.streetslk�ll� o�ar .?...��� 0�3 C�1 Il�st.-mir�ut�.-II� isllatia�rr.-II� ��Ilizes.-sa�m�.-e.-�aiilk�s.-s u�ll�h�s.-
Ilow.-iiin�ccrm�.-��r�s.-ar��d.-thro��s.-mr�ir�.-��sh.-�t.-evs
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Town of Lexington Massachusetts. "Town of Lexington Massachusetts [Town Codes and
Ordinances]." Last modified March 21, 2023.N7t:t.�s..//�co�e3��:c�rr.�/II.:F_�._$_1._�
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. "CPSC Warns Consumers to Stop Using
Onewheel Self-Balancing Electric Skateboards Due to Ejection Hazard;At Least Four Deaths and
Multiple Injuries Reported." Last modified November 16, 2022.
Ihrtt s: www.c �c. av If���r�r�r��rir�r� I��w�.-R�Ile�s�� ?��� �I{:a5�.-�/Wl�rins.-�e�r�s�amers.-ta.-S�o .-lJsiiin .-
.............�.......��............................. ............./...................................................../......................................................................../.........................�..................................................................................................................................................1�.........................�
�.ne..v..W.h_�:eII.::Se.11f:::_P�.II�_rr�i_r9.c�..Fll�ctric..Slcatel��a�rds..I��a�..tc�..F,����iior�..�I...Iar.�rc�..��..I...e�s�..F�ur..I[���khs..�nd..
,I�_u:u.11_ti.�.11�.:::llin�'�urii�s..R� or�ed
US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. "Trends in Docked
Bikeshare Trips in the US Since 2019." Last modified June 2023.
Il:n.tt.ps:/1r����.lk�ts.c��vlst�irieslslSumrv7�ry..�a�..l�ack��'..IE3ikesh�rc�..-l�ri�s.:::_b:�r..Svs�errn..�nc�..CZ�f�fc��r..?rk�,!
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (Blackshear, Danielle).
"Micromobility: Emergence of New Transportation Modes." Last modified April 4, 2023.
Il�tt s: tnr�nr�nr.fhv�r�,�'afi. �v Ilii�r�billir� f�c� ylhe�ts imirm fac� sh���.c�m
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (Price, Jeff and Danielle
Blackshear,Wesley Blount JR and Laura Sandt). "Public Roads-Spring 2021. Micromobility: A Travel
Mode Innovation." Last modified Spring 2021. h.t.t.�s.�.//M.i. Nrorr�r� �.c�at. r��r �ulbllic--ire��r�s s irin --20�1 (��
109 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
' � I ' I ' I I
I I
110 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
oa Sheila Page,Assistant Planning
Director,Town of Lexington re are yo Phil Goff, Project Manager
at�: October 11, 2023
Projeet �.: 15929.00 roject � �o Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan
This memorandum has been prepared to summarize the parameters of the criteria used to prioritize
project recommendations for the Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the Town of Lexington.
INTRODUCTION TO PRIORITIZATION
Table 1 includes VHB's recommended criteria for evaluation of recommended projects. These are based
on the following project goals established earlier.
TABLE 1: DRAFT EVALUATION CRITERIA
uu � � � �
Project Goals Criteria (up to 5 points each) Weighting Max.
Note:qualitative criteria are shown in Ita(ics Weighted
Point Total
Proximit to reported bic cle/pedestrian crashes 2 10
1: SAFETY
Motor vehic(e volume alon roadwa 2 10
Addresses a critical gap in the trail/bicycle/pedestrian 1 5
network
2: CONNECTIVITY Proximit to ublic or rivate school (K-12) 3 15
Proximit to ublic ark or conservation (and entrance 2 10
Proximit to transit line (MBTA or Lex ress) 2 10
Recommendation promotes "all ages and abilities"by 2 10
3: DESIGN
rovidin se aration from motor vehic(es
Proximit to retail districts 2 10
4: ECONOMY
Proximit to tourist/cultural destination 1 5
Leve(of engineering complexity 2 10
5: FEASI BI LITY Im act to existin on-street arkin 2 10
Leve!of ex ressed communit su ort 1 5
TOTAL 110
111 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
SCORING RUBRIC
The criteria scoring shall be ranked on a scale of 1 through 5 (1 being low priority and 5 being a high
priority). After weighting is set to prioritize some elements over others, the scoring total for any given
trail, bicycle, or pedestrian network recommendation could score up to 110 as the highest score.
1. Safety
a. Proximity to Reported Bicycle/Pedestrian Crashes
• Description: Referencing crash data, determine the proximity of recommendation to
reported bicycle/pedestrian crashes. The greater the number of crashes within a 100-
foot buffer radius of the recommendation, the higher the priority to implement the
recommendation to reduce crash risk for bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Scoring
0 0 = no crashes within 100 feet
0 1 = 1 crash within 100 feet
0 3 = 2 crashes within 100 feet
0 5 = >3 crashes within 100 feet
b. Motor Vehicle Volume Along Roadway (Qualitative)
• Description: Roadways that carry more traffic typically have more opportunities for
conflicts, thus separated bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure provides more benefit.
Recommendations on roadways with higher levels of traffic will receive a higher
score in this category.
• Scoring
0 1 = Roadway is a local, residential street and/or one that carries <1,000
vehicle trips per day
0 3 = Roadway is a modestly-busy local street (typically 1,000-5,000 vehicle
trips per day) or recommendation is a path/trail project
0 5 = Busy state or local roadway with high traffic volumes (typically >5,000
vehicle trips per day)
2. Connectivity
a. Addresses a Critical Gap in the Trail/Bicycle/Pedestrian Network (Qualitative)
• Description: Does the recommendation remove a critical gap in the
trail/bicycle/pedestrian network or provide connectivity to other active transportation
facilities such as the Minuteman Bikeway, shared use paths, bike lanes, or sidewalks?
• Scoring
0 0 = Recommendation does not connect to an active transportation facility
0 1 = Recommendation connects to an active transportation facility at one end
0 3 = Recommendation connects to an active transportation facility at both
ends
112 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
0 5 = Recommendation connects to an accessible, shared use path facility at
both ends
b. Proximity to K-12 Schools
• Description: Does the recommendation lie within close proximity to a K-12 public or
private school or within �/z mile of multiple schools.
• Scoring
0 0 = No schools within �/z mile
0 1 = 1 school within �/2 mile
0 3 = 1 school within �/a mile or 2 schools within '/z mile
0 5 = 1 school within 500 feet or 2 schools within '/a mile
c. Proximity to Public Park or Conservation Land (Qualitative)
• Description: Does the recommendation lie within a '/z mile of a trailhead or accessible
entrance to a public park, conservation land, or part of the Across Lexington trail
network? Recommendations in close proximity to public parks and conservation
lands will receive the highest scores.
• Scoring
0 0 = No entrance to public park or conservation land within '/z mile
0 1 = Access point to public park or conservation land within '/z mile
0 3 = Access point to 2 public parks or conservation lands within �/z mile
0 5 = Access point to 3 or more public parks or conservation lands within �/2
mile
d. Proximity to Transit (MBTA or Lexpress)
• Description: Does the recommendation lie within a �/z mile of public transit route or
facility? Recommendations in close proximity to current public transit (MBTA or
Lexpress) routes will receive the highest scores.
• Scoring
0 0 = No public transit route within �/z mile
0 1 = 1 public transit route within �/z mile
0 3 = 2 public transit routes within �/z mile
0 5 = 3 or more public transit routes within �/z mile
3. Design
a. Recommendation Promotes "All Ages and Abilities" by Providing Separation From
Motor Vehicles (Qualitative)
• Description: What type of separation from motor vehicles would the
recommendation provide? Recommendations with a greater level of separation from
motor vehicles will receive the highest scores.
• Scoring
0 1 = Shared lane
113 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
0 3 = New or improved sidewalk, new or improved crosswalk, intersection
improvement, or standard striped bike lane
0 5 = New or improved path project or separated bike lane
4. Economy
a. Proximity to Retail District
• Description: Does the recommendation lie within a '/z mile or less of a retail-based
business district or full-service grocery store? Recommendations in close proximity to
business districts will receive the highest scores.
• Scoring
0 0 = Not near a retail district or full-service grocery store
0 1 = within '/z mile from a retail district or full-service grocery store
0 3 = within '/a mile from a retail district or full-service grocery store
0 5 = within 500 feet from a retail district or full-service grocery store
b. Proximity to Key Destinations
• Description: Does the recommendation lie within a '/4 mile to 1 mile of a key
destination in Lexington? Recommendations will receive the highest scores if they are
located in close proximity to any of the following:
o Lexington Center (includes Town Hall/Cary Hall, Depot Square)
o Minuteman National Historic Park
o Battle Green/Belfry Hill
o Lincoln Park
o Lexington Community Center
• Scoring
0 0 = Not near a key destination
0 1 = 1 mile from a key destination
0 3 = '/z mile from a key destination
0 5 = '/a mile from a key destination
5. Feasibility
a. Level of Environmental and Engineering Challenges (Qualitative)
• Description: Would the recommendation create significant engineering and/or right
of way challenges, require environmental permitting, and/or lead to conflicts with
utilities? Any of these would require additional funding, environmental
permitting/mitigation, and/or potentially lengthy negotiations with property owners
and utility companies.
• Scoring
0 1 = Anticipated high level of engineering complexity, such as involving
environmental permitting, right of way acquisitions, relocating curbs,
drainage, utilities, and/or grade separated paths/bike lanes/crossings
114 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
0 3 = Anticipated modest level of engineering complexity, such as building a
new sidewalk, installation or modification of signal infrastructure, or
substantial changes in traffic operations
0 5 = Little to no engineering complexity anticipated, such as road markings,
signage, or installation of a solar-powered RRFB
b. Impact to Existing On-Street Parking (Qualitative)
• Description: Would the recommendation remove parking that is heavily utilized (e.g.,
in a commercial area) or restrict parking where parking is allowed, by rarely used
(e.g., in residential areas)?
• Scoring
0 1 = Linear recommendation removes well-utilized and/or commercial parking
on one side of the street
0 2 = Linear recommendation removes well-utilized and/or commercial parking
along a portion of one side of the street
0 3 = Linear recommendation removes residential parking on both sides of the
street where demand is low or inconsistent; crosswalk or intersection project
that impacts >2 parking spaces
0 4 = Linear recommendation removes residential parking on one side of the
street where demand is low or inconsistent; crosswalk project that impacts 1-
2 parking spaces
0 5 = Recommendation has no impact on parking
c. Expression of Community Support and/or Safety Concern (Qualitative)
• Description: Location for recommendation received some level of community
support50 and/or was highlighted as a particularly hazardous location during the
planning process.
• Scoring
0 2 = Some level of support expressed
0 5 = Strong level of support expressed
so Note that mmmunity support may be neutralized/negated if there is a roughly equal level of opposition
115 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
IIII IIII���iiii� ����� iiii���� IIII'���������� �����������������IIII�IIII ����� Illf�������iiii�iiii�iiii��iiii�����iiii���� Illf�����iiii�� ������"�������
II� ����� �iiir m� �IIII�� �Illl��liii�III���°���
,Ill�.:�,:�.1����11 �III ii iir��, �� ir�ir°��� vl� ��l,..l�� i�,....
iii �,....Ilf:�ii���III ,....�iir� ,....II{.�� ����iirii�i�,....I�III iir�
116 Appendices
DRAFT Lexington Town-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
117 Appendices