Federal Highway Administration

SEPARATED BIKE LANE 

PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

MAY 2015
2

SEPARATED BIKE LANE | PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. This document was prepared 

for the Federal Highway Administration (Task Order DTFH61-11-D-00035-T-13001) by 

the University of North Carolina (UNC) Highway Safety Research Center, Sam Schwartz 

Engineering, and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for 

the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to 

the objective of this document.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the 

facts and accuracy of the data presented herein.

The report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. It does not create or 

confer any rights for or on any person or operate to bind the public. 

Images in the report are intended to serve as examples of the range of real world existing 

conditions; they are not limited to best practices or approved designs and in some cases 

may reflect conditions that are not recommended.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUTCD

Any traffic control devices that are used for separated bike lanes must comply with the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD is incorporated by 

reference in 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655, Subpart F, and is approved as the 

national standard for designing, applying, and planning traffic control devices installed on 

any street, highway, or bikeway open to public travel. The FHWA issues the MUTCD, which 

contains all national design, application, and placement standards, guidance, options, 

and support provisions for traffic control devices used with separated bike lanes. The 

jurisdiction implementing the bike lane must ensure that the project complies with the 

MUTCD. Please note that interim approvals (IAs) have been issued by the FHWA for green 

colored pavement (IA-14) and bicycle signal faces (IA-17). Agencies who desire to use green 

colored pavement or bicycle signal faces must request specific approval from the FHWA 

using the procedure outlined in Paragraphs 14 through 22 of Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. 

Please also note that bike boxes and two-stage turn boxes are still experimental. Agencies 

who desire to experiment with bike boxes or two-stage turn boxes must request approval 

from the FHWA using the procedure outlined in Paragraphs 8 through 11 of Section 1A.10 

of the MUTCD. The FHWA maintains a web page regarding the MUTCD approval status of 

various bicycle-related treatments at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/mutcd.

Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-15-025

Cover image: L Street separated bike lane in Washington, DC (Source: Alex Baca, Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) 
3

SEPARATED BIKE LANE | PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

FHWA Project Managers and Technical Leads

Dan Goodman

Christopher Douwes

Bruce Friedman

Elizabeth Hilton

Tamara Redmon

Gabriel Rousseau

Brooke Struve

Technical Work Group

Linda Bailey, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

David Vega-Barachowitz

Kristin Bennett, Department of Public Works, Milwaukee, WI

Rob Burchfield, Bureau of Transportation, Portland, OR

Sean Co, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bay Area Metropolitan 

Planning Organization)

Ronald Effland, Missouri Department of Transportation

Betsy Jacobsen, Colorado Department of Transportation

Dwight Kingsbury

Adonia Lugo, League of American Bicyclists (LAB) Equity Initiative

Jim McDonnell, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO)

Jamie Parks, Public Works Department, Oakland, CA 

Paula Reeves, Washington Department of Transportation

Ryan Russo, Department of Transportation, New York, NY

Mike Sallaberry, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

Ed Stollof, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

Lisa Fontana Tierney, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

Nathan Wilkes, Transportation Department, Austin, TX
4

SEPARATED BIKE LANE | PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

Special Thanks

The project team would like to thank staff at the following U.S. municipalities 

for sharing their time, data, designs, and expertise. A special thanks is 

extended to staff at the District of Columbia Department of Transportation 

(DDOT) and the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) 

for sharing their insights and expertise throughout this project.

Alameda, CA 

Arlington County, VA 

Atlanta, GA 

Austin, TX 

Baltimore, MD 

Boston, MA 

Boulder, CO 

Cambridge, MA 

Charleston, SC 

Chicago, IL 

Davis, CA 

Eugene, OR 

Evanston, IL 

Indianapolis, IN 

Jackson, WY 

Long Beach, CA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Madison, WI

Miami, FL 

Milwaukee, WI 

Minneapolis, MN 

Missoula, MT 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 

Phoenix, AZ 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Portland, OR 

Salt Lake City, UT 

San Jose, CA 

San Francisco, CA 

Seattle, WA 

Spartanburg, SC 

St. Petersburg, FL 

Syracuse, NY 

Washington, DC 

Consultant Team

UNC Highway Safety Research Center: Carl Sundstrom

Sam Schwartz Engineering: Ben Rosenblatt, Sarah Kellerman, Heather 

Rothenberg, Richard Retting

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.: Conor Semler, Karla Kingsley, Jesse Boudart

Consultants: William Hunter, Robert Schneider

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (CONTINUED)
5

SEPARATED BIKE LANE | PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

CHAPTER 1: WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES? 11

Separated Bike Lanes Defined 13

Separated Bike Lanes in the United States 15

Separated Bike Lanes in Context 16

Separated Bike Lanes and the Community 17

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE AND PLANNING PROCESS 19

Structure of the Guide 21

Background on Planning and Design Recommendations 22

CHAPTER 3: WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES? 25

Implementing Separated Bike Lanes Using a Flexible Approach 27

Separated Bike Lanes and Connected Low-Stress Bicycle Networks 30

Safety Context 33

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES 35

Summary of Planning Elements 37

Planning and Design Process Diagram 40

Choosing Locations 41

Identifying a Successful Location 41

Consider: Users of Separated Bike Lanes 43

Consider: Connections with Separated Bike Lanes 44

Consider: Context of Separated Bike Lanes 47

Opportunities for Separated Bike Lane Installation 52

Funding, Maintenance, and Outreach 59

Funding Separated Bike Lanes 59

Maintaining Separated Bike Lanes 64

Outreach on Separated Bike Lanes 66

Project Evaluation 69

Holistic Evaluation of Separated Bike Lanes 69

Best Practices on Data Collection 69

CHAPTER 5: MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 73

Four Step Design Process 75

Flexibility in the Planning and Design Process 76

Directional and Width Characteristics 77

Forms Of Separation 83
6

SEPARATED BIKE LANE | PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

Midblock Considerations 89

Driveways  89

Transit Stops 92

Accessible Parking 97

Loading Zones 99

Intersection Design 102

Turning Movements 103

Intersection Markings 113

Signalization Strategies 115

Signal Phasing 119

Bicycle Turning Movements 122

Other Design Elements 127

Sign Guidance 127

Markings Guidance 129

Separated Bike Lane Transitions 131

Decision Making Process Examples 133

One-Way Street with Left-Side Conflicts 135

Two-Way Separated Bike Lane on One-Way Street 138

Median-Running Two-Way Separated Bike Lane 141

CHAPTER 6: MOVING FORWARD 145

APPENDIX (INCLUDED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT)

Appendix A: Literature Review

Appendix B: Lessons Learned Report

Appendix C: Crash Analysis Report

Appendix D: Project Evaluation Checklist

Appendix E: Data Collection Information

Appendix F: Future Research Needs
7

SEPARATED BIKE LANE | PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

Figure 1: Elements of Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design 8

Figure 2: Spectrum of Bicycle Facility Types 14

Figure 3: Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland 31

Figure 4: Planning and Design Process Diagram 40

Figure 5: Number of Complete Streets Projects Nationwide, 2005-2013 57

Figure 6: Outreach Process for Separated Bike Lanes 66

Figure 7: Planning and Design Process Diagram 76

Figure 8: Directional Characteristics: One-Way Design Option 1 77

Figure 9: Directional Characteristics: One-Way Design Option 2 79

Figure 10: Directional Characteristics: One-Way Design Option 3 79

Figure 11: Directional Characteristics: Two-Way Design Option 1 80

Figure 12: Directional Characteristics: Two-Way Design Option 2 81

Figure 13: Directional Characteristics: Two-Way Design Option 3 82

Figure 14: Midblock Considerations: Driveway Design Option 1 90

Figure 15: Midblock Considerations: Driveway Design Option 2 91

Figure 16: Midblock Considerations: Transit Stop Design Option 1 93

Figure 17: Midblock Considerations: Transit Stop Design Option 2 94

Figure 18: Midblock Considerations: Transit Stop Design Option 3 95

Figure 19: Midblock Considerations: Accessible Parking Design Option 98

Figure 20: Midblock Considerations: Loading Zone Design Option 1 99

Figure 21: Midblock Considerations: Loading Zone Design Option 2 100

Figure 22: Intersection Design: Signalization 104

Figure 23: Intersection Design: Lateral Shift 105

Figure 24: Intersection Design: Mixing Zone 107

Figure 25: Intersection Design: Bend-In 110

Figure 26: Intersection Design: Bend-Out 111

Figure 27: Lane Markings: White Chevrons and White Lines 113

Figure 28: Lane Markings: Use of Green Paint 114

Figure 29: Signal Phasing Examples 119

Figure 30: Bicycle Turning Movements: Bike Boxes and Early Exit 123

Figure 31: Bicycle Turning Movements: 2-Stage Turn Queue Boxes 125

Figure 32: Decision Making Process Example 1 137

Figure 33: Decision Making Process Example 2 140

Figure 34: Decision Making Process Example 3 143

Table 1: Resources for Bicycle Design Elements 28

Table 2: Planning Elements for Separated Bike Lanes 37

Table 3: Intersection Treatment Options 103

Table 4: Bend-In and Bend-Out Comparison 110

FIGURES

TABLES
8

SEPARATED BIKE LANE | PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

37 What factors should be 

considered when planning SBLs? 102 What factors should be considered 

when designing intersections 

along a corridor with a SBL?

64

What maintenance-related

challenges do SBLs present 

and how can they be addressed?

127 What signage and marking 

options are commonly used as 

part of a SBL design?

66 What types of outreach are 

needed when planning a SBL? E-1 At minimum, what data should 

be collected before and after 

implementation of a SBL?

30 How can SBLs contribute

to connected bike networks? 98 How can accessible parking 

and loading be accommodated 

in tandem with a SBL?

28 To what extent do current design

guidelines address SBLs? 93 How can a SBL be designedaround and past a bus stop?

13 What are Separated

Bike Lanes? 84 What options are availableto provide separation?

60 What Federal funding sources can

be used to implement a SBL? 115 What signalization strategies are available when designing a SBL?
9

SEPARATED BIKE LANE | PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

SEPARATED BIKE LANE

ELEMENTS OF

PLANNING AND DESIGN

Figure 1

SEPARATED BIKE LANE 

PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE

This Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide outlines planning considerations 

for separated bike lanes (also sometimes called “cycle tracks” or “protected bike lanes”) 

and provides a menu of design options covering typical one and two-way scenarios. 

It highlights different options for providing separation, while also documenting 

midblock design considerations for driveways, transit stops, accessible parking, and 

loading zones. It provides detailed intersection design information covering topics 

such as turning movement operations, signalization, signage, and on-road markings. 

Case studies highlight best practices and lessons learned throughout the document.

The Guide consolidates lessons learned from practitioners designing and implementing 

separated bike lanes throughout the U.S. It attempts to capture the current state of 

practice, while still recognizing that our understanding of this facility type is still evolving 

and that there is a need for design flexibility. To encourage continued development 

and refinement of techniques, the guide identifies specific data elements to collect 

before and after implementation to enable future analysis across facilities in 

different communities. It identifies potential future research, highlights 

the importance of ongoing peer exchange and capacity building, 

and emphasizes the need to create holistic ways to evaluate 

the performance of a separated bike lane.
10

CHAPTER 1 | WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?
11

CHAPTER 1 | WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

CHAPTER 1

WHAT ARE 

SEPARATED 

BIKE LANES?
12

CHAPTER 1 | WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?
13

CHAPTER 1 | WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

A separated bike lane is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is located within 

or directly adjacent to the roadway and that is physically separated from motor 

vehicle traffic with a vertical element. Separated bike lanes are differentiated from 

standard and buffered bike lanes by the vertical element. They are differentiated 

from shared use paths (and sidepaths) by their more proximate relationship to 

the adjacent roadway and the fact that they are bike-only facilities. Separated 

bike lanes are also sometimes called “cycle tracks” or “protected bike lanes.”

Within the common elements of separated bike lanes – dedicated space 

for cyclists that is separated from motor vehicle travel and parking lanes – 

practitioners have flexibility in choosing specific design elements. Separated 

bike lanes can operate as one-way or two-way facilities; their designs can 

integrate with turning automobile traffic at intersections or can be more fully 

separated; they can be designed at roadway grade, at sidewalk grade or at an 

intermediate grade; and they can be separated from the adjacent roadway or 

sidewalk with a variety of treatments including but not limited to on-street 

parking, raised curbs or medians, bollards, landscaping, or planters. 

Separated Bike 

Lanes Defined

Higgins Street separated bike lane in downtown Missoula, MT (Source: City of Missoula)

WHAT ARE 

SEPARATED BIKE LANES?
14

CHAPTER 1 | WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Figure 2

A shared roadway with pavement markings 

providing wayfinding guidance to bicyclists and 

alerting drivers that bicyclists are likely to be 

operating in mixed traffic.

Bike lanes with a painted buffer increase 

lateral separation between bicyclists and 

motor vehicles.

A separated bike lane is an exclusive facility 

for bicyclists that is located within or directly 

adjacent to the roadway and that is physically 

separated from motor vehicle traffic with a 

vertical element.

Separated Bike Lanes compared to other bicycle facility types

(Photo sources, from top: Nick Foster, Eric Gilliland, Conor Semler, Kevin Lee, Karla Kingsley, Nick Foster)
15

CHAPTER 1 | WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Separated bike lanes are one of many bicycle facility types that can be used to 

create connected bicycle networks. FHWA defines a network as “Interconnected 

pedestrian and/or bicycle transportation facilities that allow people of all ages and 

abilities to safely and conveniently get where they want to go.” Connected bicycle 

networks can include all of the facility types shown in Figure 2.

Separated bike lanes have existed in the United States since at least the 1970s, 

but only in the past several years has interest spread outside of a handful of earlyadopting cities: an inventory of such facilities found that they have doubled in 

number since 2011 and may double again by 2016.(1) Separated bike lanes have 

been a fixture of bicycle networks in many countries with high rates of cycling 

for decades. Today, interest in separated bike lanes is accelerating in the U.S. and 

there is a rapidly growing list of planned and implemented separated facilities 

across the country. The Green Lane Project, a program of the PeopleForBikes 

organization, maintains an inventory of separated bike lanes in the U.S., 

which is available at: http://www.peopleforbikes.org/green-lane-project/

pages/inventory-of-protected-bike-lanes.

Separated Bike 

Lanes in the 

United States

WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE 

LANES?

(1) Inventory of Protected Bike Lanes (PeopleForBikes, 2014)
16

CHAPTER 1 | WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

On Kinzie Street in Chicago, parked cars and flexible delineator posts on both sides of the street separate 

the bike lanes from traffic. (Source: City of Chicago)

Separated bike lanes have the potential to improve traffic safety for all street users, 

especially when implemented as part of a “road diet” or other traffic calming project. 

Separated bike lanes can help to organize all traffic modes, while also reducing 

pedestrian crossing distances and decreasing “leapfrogging” between buses and 

bicyclists. Separated bike lanes can contribute to increased bicycling volumes and 

mode shares, in part by appealing to less confident riders and this could eventually 

result in a more diverse ridership across age, gender, and ability. Shifting a greater 

share of commute, errand, or social trips to the bicycle also offers one potential 

solution for relieving traffic congestion and contributing to other public policy goals.

Separated bike lanes are one of many bicycle facility types and they exist within a 

broader context shaped by demographic and land use changes and influenced by 

interrelated transportation, public health, environmental, and economic factors. In 

many communities there is an aging population maintaining an independent lifestyle 

later in life and at the same time a generation of younger adults that is driving less 

and riding transit more than previous generations. Separated bike lanes can speak to 

both of these demographic trends, while also contributing to a community’s health 

and economic goals, as noted below.

As the linkages between the built environment and public health – in particular, the 

obesity epidemic – have become clear, creating more opportunities for residents to 

incorporate “active transportation” modes such as walking and bicycling into their 

daily lives has been identified as one strategy to encourage healthier lifestyles (2). 

Research has also suggested that the creation of bicycle-friendly streets can be a 

boon to business, encouraging greater patronage of local retail (3). Cities like New 

York City and Chicago have framed strategic infrastructure investments, such as 

separated bike lanes, as an element of their economic development strategies.

Separated Bike 

Lanes in Context

WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE 

LANES?
17

CHAPTER 1 | WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

As with all transportation investments, there are important equity considerations 

associated with separated bike lanes. Separated bike lanes can contribute to 

greater mobility at low cost to lower-income populations, providing a “last mile” 

link to transit, and expanding access to employment opportunities. Providing 

opportunities for public input throughout the planning and design process can build 

local support for separated bike lanes, while also ensuring that community concerns 

are addressed.

Chapter 4 of this document emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities 

for early and ongoing public engagement in proposed separated bike lane projects 

because a strong public involvement program will ensure that social, economic, and 

environmental issues are fully considered. Practitioners must also ensure that their 

professional actions do not impose “disproportionately high and adverse effects” 

on low-income and minority populations, as specified by the DOT Order 5610.2(a), 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Environmental Justice Executive 

Order 12898.

For more information on public involvement requirements, see:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/orders/#a11

Refer specifically to Part 450: Planning Assistance and Standards, Subpart B: 

Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming, 23 CFR 450.210: Interested 

parties, public involvement, and consultation and Part 450: Planning Assistance and 

Standards, Subpart C: Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, 23 

CFR 450.316: Interested parties, participation, and consultation.

Additional resources and tools for engaging the public and building community 

support for walking and bicycling are available on the Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Information Center (PBIC) website at http://www.pedbikeinfo.org.

(2 )Anna Goodman, Shannon Sahlqvist, and David Ogilvie. (2014). New Walking and Cycling Routes and 

Increased Physical Activity: One- and 2-Year Findings From the UK iConnect Study. American Journal of 

Public Health. (3) New York City Department of Transportation. (2013).

Separated Bike 

Lanes and the 

Community

WHAT ARE SEPARATED BIKE 

LANES?

The League of American 

Bicyclists (LAB) has 

adopted equity as one of 

its top priorities and 

established an Equity 

Initiative and an Equity 

Advisory Council. 

Through these and other 

efforts, LAB “engages 

leaders from traditionally 

underrepresented 

demographics and bridges 

the current gap between 

diverse communities and 

bicycle advocates.” For 

more information, visit:

http://bikeleague.org/equity. 

LAB has also developed 

resources focusing 

specifically on equity and 

bicycle transportation, 

including the following:

The New Majority: 

Pedaling Towards Equity

http://bikeleague.org/sites/

default/files/equity_report.pdf

Integrating Equity in 

Bike Advocacy

http://bikeleague.org/

sites/default/files/League_

internal_equity_web.pdf
18

CHAPTER 2 | OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE AND PLANNING PROCESS
19

CHAPTER 2 | OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE AND PLANNING PROCESS

CHAPTER 2

OVERVIEW OF 

THE GUIDE 

AND PLANNING 

PROCESS
20

CHAPTER 2 | OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE AND PLANNING PROCESS
21

CHAPTER 2 | OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE AND PLANNING PROCESS

OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE 

AND PLANNING PROCESS

OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE 

AND PLANNING PROCESS

Structure 

of the Guide

This guide is structured in four primary sections:

• Introduction chapters describing what a Separated Bike Lane is and providing 

an overview of the Guide, planning process and other relevant context;

• A broad review of separated bike lane planning considerations;

• A flexible menu of design recommendations; and

• A Moving Forward section outlines next steps for separated bike lane development.

In addition, detailed reports on the literature review, lessons learned interviews, 

and safety analysis, along with project evaluation and data collection worksheets 

designed for practitioners, are included as appendices. This guide provides an 

overview of planning considerations and a menu of design options for Separated 

Bike Lanes. These sections of the document are described in more detail below.

Planning Considerations

The Planning Separated Bike Lanes chapter provides information on the process 

of determining appropriate locations, taking into account factors such as existing 

and potential users, creating connections as part of a bicycle network, street 

and land use contexts, and opportunities available for installation. It also touches 

on other planning issues including funding, maintenance, public outreach, and 

project evaluation.

Menu of Design Recommendations

The Design Recommendations chapter forms the heart of the guide, laying out 

in detail recommended design approaches based on currently understood best 

practices. The recommendations are organized around four primary design 

areas: directional and width characteristics, intersection considerations, type of 

separation, and midblock considerations. Also covered are general strategies for 

related topics such as signalization, signage, and markings. A series of hypothetical 

design scenarios are also provided, complete with suggested dimensions and 

traffic controls, to illustrate the various recommendations put into practice. It is 

important to note that separated bike lane design is a quickly evolving subject and 

therefore this guide does not prohibit designs that are not included – a flexible 

design approach is encouraged. (For further information on FHWA’s position on 

design flexibility, refer to the August 2013 memo “Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility 

Design Flexibility”, available at the following address: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_

guidance/design_flexibility.cfm
22

CHAPTER 2 | OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE AND PLANNING PROCESS

Overview of the 

Planning Process

The recommendations in this guide were developed based on a comprehensive 

review of the state of the practice of separated bike lane planning and design in the 

United States. This effort was comprised of four parts:

• An in-depth literature review;

• “Lessons learned” interviews with practitioners;

• A safety analysis of implemented projects; and

• Ongoing input from a Technical Work Group.

Literature Review

A review of national and international literature on separated bike lanes and related 

issues was conducted to establish a baseline of the current state of the practice, 

including studies, design guides, and other pertinent publications. This review 

informed and served as a foundation for the first-hand information collected during 

the subsequent phases of work (refer to Appendix A).

Lessons Learned Interviews

Structured interviews were conducted with municipalities that have designed and 

constructed separated bike lanes, those that are planning to implement separated 

bike lanes, and those that have considered separated bike lanes but determined 

them to not be the appropriate treatment. Over 35 cities, towns, and counties were 

interviewed, and the results have been incorporated throughout this document 

(refer to Appendix B).

Safety Analysis

An in-depth analysis of crash and ridership data from implemented separated 

bike lanes in the U.S was completed to evaluate safety outcomes and inform the 

recommendations of this guide. While the bicycle collision and volume data that exist 

for most implemented projects is not yet sufficient to draw broad-based conclusions 

concerning the overall safety of separated bike lanes, the analysis did uncover useful 

insights to build upon in future analyses (refer to Appendix C). Future research will 

become more robust as data collection efforts improve, and municipalities consider 

more holistic evaluations of separated bike lane projects to measure impacts on 

mobility, economic vitality, and quality of life. To help municipalities collect robust 

data for evaluation, a project evaluation checklist and data collection information 

guide are provided as appendices (refer to Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively).

OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE 

AND PLANNING PROCESS
23

CHAPTER 2 | OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE AND PLANNING PROCESS

Technical Work Group Guidance

Finally, a Technical Work Group was convened to provide guidance, input, and critical 

review throughout the project planning process. Comprised of representatives 

from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), National Association of 

City Transportation Officials (NACTO), League of American Bicyclists (LAB) and 

nearly a dozen geographically diverse State and city transportation departments, 

the Technical Work Group helped ensure that the information, analysis, and 

recommendations contained herein are not only accurate but responsive to the 

concerns and experiences of practitioners across the transportation discipline. 
24

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?
25

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

CHAPTER 3

WHY CHOOSE 

SEPARATED 

BIKE LANES? 
26

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?
27

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Separated bike lanes are a relatively new treatment in most American municipalities. 

The current design process for separated bike lanes is loosely based on a mixture 

of existing best practices, local roadway conditions, context, and constraints, and 

some design element guidance in existing national resources. A common lesson 

learned from municipalities that have implemented or are planning to implement 

separated bike lanes is the desire for more concrete design guidance, while still 

allowing for flexibility in the planning and design process.

For separated bike lanes to be successful, a flexible design process taking into 

account all available resources is needed. This guide provides a menu of design 

options that may be used in tandem as required by specific site conditions and 

project goals.

Many of the different resources that inform the planning and design process 

provide flexible options on the use of different elements and a range of dimensions 

on designs. These resources cover a range of contexts, philosophies, audiences, 

and goals, while also presenting various levels of flexibility. A selection of the most 

prominent and widely used resources, with a summary of key separated bike lane 

design elements presented within each resource and the degree to which flexibility 

in design is encouraged, is provided in the table on the following page. In most 

cases, separated bike lanes are not addressed as a facility but design elements used 

in SBL are included. 

While certain portions of the design information in this guide (see Chapter 6) 

are based on information from these resources, practitioners need not limit their 

designs to what is presented in that chapter. The following table and the menu 

of design options in Chapter 6 is intended to help designers navigate through 

the different resources; additional flexibility beyond the existing resources and 

what is included in this guide may be needed, especially in comparison to typical 

street design. The practice of designing separated bike lanes is still evolving and 

until various configurations have been implemented and thoroughly evaluated on 

a consistent basis, design flexibility will remain a priority. FHWA encourages the 

use of all appropriate design resources as well as continued experimentation and 

modifications of designs, in order to develop safe, comfortable, and predictable 

separated bike lane treatments that fit unique site conditions and needs for each 

project. Design modifications following separated bike lane implementation should 

be expected and welcomed; they are not an indication of failed design.

Implementing 

Separated Bike 

Lanes Using a 

Flexible Approach

WHY CHOOSE 

SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

A memo on this topic 

is available at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/bicycle_

pedestrian/guidance/design_

guidance/design_flexibility.cfm 

Additional questions and 

answers related to FHWA’s 

position on NACTO’s

Urban Street Design Guide 

are available at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/bicycle_

pedestrian/guidance/design_

guidance/design_flexibility_

qa.cfm

The Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices 

is adopted by reference 

in accordance with 

Title 23, United States 

Code, Section 109(d) 

and Title 23, Code of 

Federal Regulations, 

Section 655.601(d) 

and 655.603(a), and is 

approved as the national 

standard for designing, 

applying, and planning 

traffic control devices 

installed on any street, 

highway, or bikeway open 

to public travel. The FHWA 

publishes the MUTCD, 

which contains all national 

design, application, and 

placement standards, 

guidance, options, and 

support provisions for 

traffic control devices used 

with separated bike lanes.
28

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Bicycle specific signs and pavement 

markings (including green colored 

pavement(1), markings through intersections)

Intersection approach treatments and 

combined bicycle lanes / vehicle lanes 

(i.e. mixing zones)

Bicycle signalization (bicycle signal heads(1),

signal timing for clearances, 

bicycle detection, bicycle push buttons)

Bicycle turning treatments 

(2-stage queue boxes, bicycle boxes)

Bicycle facilities on one-way streets 

(left or right side)

Contraflow or two-way bicycle facilities

Bicycle facilities and on-street parking 

(parallel or diagonal)

Transit stop interaction treatments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

SBL- Specific

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

SBL- Specific

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices

FHWA

Guide for the Development

 of Bicycle Facilities

AASHTO (2012)

High None High None 

High None Medium None 

Medium None High None 

Low None Low None 

None None Medium None 

Low None Medium None 

Low None High None 

Low None Low None 

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

Resources for 

Bicycle Design 

Elements

The table below highlights the extent to which existing design resources published 

by FHWA, AASHTO, NACTO, and ITE address elements of Separated Bike Lane 

planning and design. Key design resources are noted at the top of each column 

and specific planning and design considerations are noted in the rows. This table 

should be used as a high-level reference point for practitioners and the resources 

should be consulted directly for further guidance.

Table 1
29

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

SBL- Specific

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

SBL- Specific

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

SBL- Specific

Level of 

Detail 

Addressed

Traffic Control 

Devices Handbook

ITE (2012)

Urban Bikeway 

Design Guide

NACTO (2014)

Urban Street 

Design Guide

NACTO (2013)

Medium Medium Low Low Medium None

High High Medium Low Medium None

High Medium Low None Medium None

High Medium Low None None None

Medium Low Low None Medium None

High Medium Low None Medium None

Low Low None None Medium None

Low Low None None None None

(4) (4)

(4) (4)

(4) (4)

(4) (4)

(4) (4)

(4) (4)

1

Interim Approval Status

2

Experimental status

3

Separated bike lanes are not 

discussed in AASHTO’s Guide 

for the Development of Bicycle 

Facilities, although some 

elements are covered in the 

context of shared use paths 

and sidepaths. As defined in 

this report, Separated Bike 

Lanes are located within or 

immediately adjacent to the 

roadway and are intended for 

bicyclist use only; AASHTO’s 

shared use path facility type 

generally refers to off-street 

facilities with their own rightsof-way, and that may be used 

by pedestrians, joggers, and 

other users.

4

NACTO’s Urban Street Design 

Guide provides broader context 

for Separated Bike Lanes. 

More comprehensive design 

information on these facilities 

is provided in NACTO’s Urban 

Bikeway Design Guide.
30

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Separated 

Bike Lanes and 

Connected 

Low-Stress 

Bicycle Networks

Separated Bike Lanes and Connected Bicycle Networks

Separated bike lanes are one of many bicycle facility types that can be used to create 

bicycle networks, which are interconnected bicycle transportation facilities that 

allow bicyclists to safely and conveniently get where they want to go. Well-planned 

and designed separated bike lanes can complement or connect to other facilities 

such as on-street bike lanes and shared use paths. Separated bike lanes can appeal to 

a broad range of people and in doing so contribute to increases in bicycling volumes 

and rates. A June 2014 National Institute for Transportation and Communities 

report entitled “Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in 

the U.S..” observed that ridership on all facilities increased after the installation of 

separated facilities. Survey data showed that 10% of current riders switched from 

other modes and that over a quarter of riders are bicycling more in general because 

of the separated bike lanes. This report is available at: 

http://otrec.us/project/583

As part of a connected bicycle network, separated bike lanes can:

• Provide a more comfortable experience for less-skilled riders;

• Improve access to destinations such as schools, jobs, health care facilities, and 

essential services;

• Enhance access to public transportation, for example by helping to solve the first/

last mile challenge;

• Improve access to employment opportunities, especially for those without access 

to a private automobile; and

• Provide a linkage between regional trail systems.

Separated Bike Lanes and Low-Stress Networks

Separated bike lanes have great potential to fill needs in creating low-stress bicycle 

networks (generally separated from heavy vehicular traffic or sharing the road with 

motorists only on very low-volume residential streets). Many potential cyclists 

(including children and the elderly) may avoid on-street cycling if no physical 

separation from vehicular traffic is provided. This cohort falls into the “Interested, 

but Concerned” category as noted in Figure 3. To encourage this group to use cycling 

as a transportation option for short to moderate length trips, many municipalities are 

focusing on creating a connected bicycle network that “Interested, but Concerned” 

riders will confidently use. Examples of two municipalities that are leading the push 

in creating low-stress bicycle networks are presented in a case study on page 46.
31

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Many municipalities may already have a comprehensive network that – when mapped 

– appears to adequately cover a large area with multiple intersecting on-street 

bike lanes or sign-posted bike routes. However, if these facilities are inaccessible to 

cyclists seeking a low-stress experience then the network may not meet the needs 

of everyone. Municipalities may implement separated bike lanes as a way to provide 

a low-stress bicycle network. Such a network might be overlaid on and around – or 

even replace – an existing bicycle network. It pays particular attention to higherquality, lower-stress connections, even if this results in some backtracking or extra 

distance requirements for cyclists using the enhanced network. An example of a 

planning effort in Pasadena, CA focused on low stress bicycle networks is highlighted 

on the following page.

The goal of a low-stress network is to create connections that cover a municipality 

while emphasizing the quality of bicycle facilities over their quantity. Depending 

upon the context of the corridor (motorist volumes and speeds, roadway alignment, 

etc.), municipalities may find that separated bike lanes provide substantial benefits 

in moving towards building out such a network. Additionally, municipalities may find 

that providing a low-stress bicycle map for public use – with a focus on separated 

bike lanes, off-street paths, greenways, and neighborhood bike boulevards – will be 

helpful in defining and promoting the low-stress network. For more information on 

low-stress networks, refer to the May 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute report, 

“Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” - available at the following address:

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-networkconnectivity.pdf

 Graphic based on: Geller, R. (2006). Four types of Cyclists. Portland Office of Transportation.

Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland

By Proportion of Population

Strong & Fearless (<1%)

Enthusiastic & Confident (7%)

Interested, but Concerned (60%) No Way, No How (33%)

Figure 3
32

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Separated Bike Lanes and Bike Share

Bike share systems are growing rapidly in popularity in U.S. cities. Since the first 

major U.S. bike share scheme launched in Washington, DC, in 2008, the number 

of bikeshare programs has expanded to 36 cities, with more on the way. Bike share 

has transformed the way people get around in many cities and provides convenient 

transportation options to replace short car, walking, taxi, and transit trips. Bike share 

growth has been accompanied by a jump in bicycle commuting, which increased by 

over 60% between 2000 (US Census) and 2008-2012 (5-year US Census American 

Community Survey) – the largest growth in any transportation mode. With its 

surge in popularity, bike share has consequently attracted many novice riders or 

those who may only remember bicycling recreationally as children and never in 

urban traffic. The presence of bike share as part of a city’s transportation landscape 

may spur planners to consider separated bike lanes and other low-stress options 

to allow for safe and comfortable movement within the street network. For more 

information on bike share programs, visit: 

 www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikeshare 

From a design perspective, separated bike lanes have potential to complement bike 

share systems. Siting bike share docking stations adjacent to separated bike lanes 

– within their physical separation from vehicular traffic – allows for easy and safe 

Pasadena, CA’s bicycle network as mapped based on bicycle comfort, or stress level. Green segments 

represent low-stress bikeways. (Source: Sam Schwartz Engineering)
33

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Trends in Bicycle Safety

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 743 cyclists 

were killed in the US in 2013 and an additional 48,000 were injured in collisions 

with motor vehicles. The number of cyclist fatalities represents an increase of 1.2 

percent over the previous year; by comparison, the decrease in total motor vehicle 

crash fatalities from 2012 to 2013 was 3.1 percent. In 2012, sixty-nine percent 

of cyclist fatalities occurred in urban areas and 60 percent occurred midblock. A 

variety of efforts at the national, State, and local levels have sought to improve 

safety for bicyclists using a combined approach that incorporates planning, 

engineering, education, and enforcement. At the national level, the US Department 

of Transportation’s (USDOT) efforts to improve quality of life include promoting 

the creation of connected pedestrian and bicycle networks, ensuring that everyone 

has access to convenient and affordable transportation choices, and encouraging 

innovations such as road diets that have proven safety benefits. 

Safety Context

WHY USE THIS GUIDE?

A B-Cycle docking station provides physical separation within the buffer space in Austin, TX, between the 

separated bike lane and vehicle travel lanes. (Source: City of Austin)

access and egress to docks. At the same time, the physical separation or buffer space 

may provide ideal locations for the dock locations themselves; by claiming roadway 

space for the separated bike lane, planners may find they have also simultaneously 

identified a space within the right-of-way for a docking station. Refer to Chapter 4 

for additional ideas on public space opportunities through separated bike lane design.

A listing of current bike share systems in the U.S. is available at: 

www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikeshare
34

CHAPTER 3 | WHY CHOOSE SEPARATED BIKE LANES?

Separated Bike Lane Safety – Real or Perceived? 

Since separated bike lanes are physically separated from vehicular traffic, almost all 

users (96 percent) feel safer as a result of the separation, which can help attract 

new riders(4)

. However, while cyclists may perceive that separated bike lanes provide 

increased safety, it has been difficult to identify conclusive safety trends due to a 

lack of data, especially bicycle volume data before separated bike lane installation. 

In addition, the relatively small numbers of bicyclist crashes that are reported make 

it difficult to draw conclusions that may be applied to separated bike lanes on a 

broad level. 

The analysis conducted as part of the preparation of this guide studied data from 

17 separated bike lane corridors in 8 States (refer to Appendix C). Based on this 

analysis, separated bike lanes were generally associated with a decrease in total 

crashes and an increase in total bicycle crashes, however, when accounting for 

changes in bicycle volumes on facilities that provided sufficient pre- and postimplementation bicycle volume data, the per capita crash rates for cyclists appeared 

to decrease in most facilities after separated bike lanes were installed. Additionally, 

the analysis found that increases in bicycle crashes after separated bike lanes were 

built were especially pronounced at intersections.

The Future of Separated Bike Lanes and Safety 

Separated bike lanes continue to be installed across the country to improve quality 

of life and efforts to create safer, more complete streets. As this trend continues, it 

is imperative for communities to collect bicycle and motor vehicle crash and volume 

data for a sufficient period of time before and after separated bike lane installation. 

This will improve understanding of safety benefits and design considerations—such 

as differences between one-way and two-way facilities (Refer to Appendix E for 

guidance on data collection and Appendix D for a project evaluation checklist). 

(4)“Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.” National Institute for 

Transportation and Communities (2014).
35

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

CHAPTER 4

PLANNING 

SEPARATED 

BIKE LANES
36

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES
37

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

SUMMARY OF 

PLANNING ELEMENTS

1 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

SBLs within a 

Bike Network

Plan for a separated bike lane in context of a bike network, not as an isolated 

project. Connect origins and destinations. Develop a low-stress bike network 

accessible to novice cyclists.

Safety Benefits Use separated bike lanes to create safety benefits at specific locations or along 

high-volume corridors. Providing physical separation may improve safety and 

provides peace of mind to novice cyclists.

Design Flexibility Strategically deploy separated bike lanes where most needed. Consider context 

and use design flexibility on separation type, intersection treatments, and 

other design elements to promote safety and manage traveler expectations.

Existing and 

Potential Users

Desired bikeway routes may already attract cyclists. Plan for separated bike 

lanes along corridors that naturally draw cyclists to expand opportunities. 

Fill unmet needs on busy streets that discourage cycling due to high-traffic 

volumes.

Local Support Successful locations start with local support. Choose corridors where 

residential or business communities have bought in to the idea of encouraging 

cycling through strategic infrastructure investment.

SBLs and Equity Use separated bike lanes to promote cycling as an option for commuting 

to transit-dependent or carless households. Facilities can also improve 

connections to transit, jobs, schools, and essential services through safer first 

/ last mile trips.

The process of planning for separated bike lane facilities is complex and involves 

multiple stakeholders with diverse goals. This chapter provides an overview of 

opportunities and challenges when planning separated bike lanes. It includes 

representative case studies from municipalities that have addressed common 

planning issues and provides guidance on how to holistically approach the task 

of repurposing or reconstructing the street for low-stress bicycling. Planners, 

designers, and engineers of separated bike lanes can consult this chapter as a 

reference tool throughout the planning process. 

The table below provides a summary of key planning chapter takeaways. For 

additional case studies and lessons learned on separated bike lanes in a wide range 

of U.S. cities, refer to Appendix B.

Table 2
38

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

2 ADDITIONAL CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

Roadway Capacity 

Effects

Consider how a separated bike lane affects motor vehicle volumes. Potentially 

implement a road diet, remove on-street parking, or remove a travel lane. 

Evaluate capacity effects holistically against mobility benefits of separated 

bike lanes and potential safety improvements relating to SBL implementation. 

Perform traffic modeling to measure disbursement of vehicles in road network.

Pedestrian and 

Other Street User 

Safety Effects

When locating bicycle facilities on higher-speed or higher-volume facilities, 

the separation afforded by SBLs may provide increased comfort and safety 

benefits. Improved organization of motor vehicle travel lanes and turn lanes, 

as well as reduced crossing distances and potential pedestrian safety islands, 

all provide benefits related to those found in FHWA’s 9 proven pedestrian 

safety countermeasures.

Transit Corridors Consider how a separated bike lane shares a corridor with transit services. 

Design lanes for safe interaction at transit stops or measures that separate 

bus and bike lanes, such as boarding islands. Consider placing facilities on leftsides of 1-way streets or on parallel, non-transit corridors.

Loading and 

Unloading

Engage in site-specific research on local loading and unloading requirements 

when designing separated bike lanes. Commercial corridors may require 

dedicated loading zones with clear markings. Explore off-street loading 

options and off-peak loading time incentives.

Accessibility Ensure that the interface of the SBL with pedestrian facilities at crosswalks, 

parking spaces, transit stops and other locations is accessible and in compliance 

with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other local requirements. 

Consider access to the curb for fire and emergency vehicles.

Parking Evaluate parking needs holistically and attempt to minimize parking space 

losses where possible. Educate the public on floating parking regulations. 

Identify opportunities to provide parking on streets adjacent to separated 

bike lanes. 

3 INSTALLATION OPPORTUNITIES

Pilot Projects Use “pilot projects” to test reactions to separated bike lane concepts with 

minimal upfront investment. Evaluate designs, make necessary changes, and 

transition successful pilots to permanent buildouts where feasible.

Street Retrofits Using the existing right-of-way, change geometry of the street to 

accommodate separated bike lanes. Consider changes to number or width 

of travel lanes and/or presence of on-street parking. Reduce costs by using 

scheduled resurfacing projects as opportunities for street retrofits.

New Construction or 

Major Reconstruction

Leverage major capital construction projects and include separated bike 

lanes in designs. The addition of separated facilities may represent a minimal 

increase on total construction investment. 
39

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

4 OTHER PLANNING ISSUES

Cost Few benchmarks exist for separated bike lane costs, which vary extensively 

due to the wide variety of treatments and materials used. Cheaper materials 

can save money upfront; however, permanent build-outs may prove more 

cost-effective in the long term.

Funding Consider funding through Federal programs, State or local contributions 

(including dedicated taxes), private sector sources, and nonprofit 

contributions. Private sector partners can benefit from separated bike lanes; 

consider value capture strategies.

Maintenance Plan ahead on how a separated bike lane will be maintained. Consider the 

width of the facility and evaluate sweeping and plowing capabilities. Forge 

local partnerships and develop maintenance agreements. Consider repairs for 

the facility itself (e.g. replacing flexible delineator posts frequently).

Outreach Perform continuous outreach before, during, and after separated bike lane 

implementation. Target different groups such as residents, local businesses, 

advocacy groups, and others. Provide public education on changes to the 

streetscape.

Agency Coordination Coordinate with public agencies on traffic safety, enforcement, 

emergency vehicle access, maintenance, funding, and other issues. 

Use a combination of design resources to inform the design process.

5 PROJECT EVALUATION

Holistic Evaluation Evaluate separated bike lanes in a holistic fashion. Consider all street users 

(pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists). Measure important 

changes such as crash (fatality and injury), volume, and speeding data 

along with indirect benefits such as retail sales growth, public health, and 

environmental benefits.

Data Collection Formalize data collection procedures and collect pre- and post-implementation 

data on all separated bikeway corridors and comparison corridors. Remain 

consistent on methodology and data collection technology. Use data to 

communicate the effect of separated bike lanes on all street users.
40

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Planning and Design 

Process Diagram

Midblock 

Considerations

Forms of Separation

Intersection Design

Directional & width 

characteristics

Make DESIGN element decisions 

Context

Constraints

Connections

Users

PLAN for Potential

Separated Bike Lanes

Installation 

opportunities

Project EVALUATION

IMPLEMENTATION

Collect DATA for 

project evaluation

Perform OUTREACH

Analyze FUNDING options

Potential to implement projects 

via a pilot approach

Figure 4
41

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

When planning for a separated bike lane, success can be considered within 3 

frameworks: network effects, safety improvements, and appropriateness of the 

solution.

Network Effects 

The public may deem a separated bike lane as successful if it is heavily used by 

cyclists. Cyclists will be more likely to use a bicycle facility, separated or otherwise, 

if it is part of a comprehensive bicycle network. Successful separated bike lanes will 

improve service by addressing high-stress areas in the network and provide linkages 

to expand the portion of a city or town’s street grid that is accessible by bike. 

Separated bike lanes that provide first and last mile connections to other modes, 

such as transit, and that fill a need in building a low-stress network accessible to 

cyclists of all abilities will be successful in terms of effects on a bicycle network. Users 

and ridership both benefit from the improved legibility and network completeness 

provided by SBLs.

Safety Improvements 

Some separated bike lanes will succeed in creating safety improvements at specific 

locations, such as those adjacent to or passing through major intersections, while 

others can improve bicycle safety along an entire corridor, such as on a high-volume 

street. In conjunction with a Complete Streets planning approach, separated bike lanes 

can be a tool for improving safety outcomes for all street users, including cyclists.

Appropriateness of the Solution 

Separated bike lanes will be most successful when deployed strategically. Not every 

bicycle facility needs to be a separated bike lane, and in certain cases it may be 

appropriate to vary a facility’s separation type or alignment depending on external 

conditions, such as traffic volumes or adjacent land uses. Planners and engineers 

should be flexible on designs through a context sensitive approach. For further 

information on FHWA’s support for and encouragement of design flexibility, see the 

August 2013 memo at the following web address: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_

guidance/design_flexibility.cfm

Identifying a 

Successful Location

CHOOSING

LOCATIONS
42

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

A Complete Streets retrofit has improved safety outcomes along 1st Avenue in New York City 

(Source: NYCDOT)

AFTER

BEFORE
43

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Are cyclists already using a corridor? 

A separated bike lane may be appropriate if a street or corridor already has bicycle 

traffic. Streets that naturally draw cyclists, even in the absence of any bicycle 

facility, are likely to draw even more if a separated bike lane is constructed.

Would potential cyclists use the corridor if a separated facility 

existed? 

Some streets may not currently have high bicycle volumes because they are 

uncomfortable. Planners should study corridors that could potentially fill an 

unmet need in expanding their jurisdiction’s bicycle network to meet latent 

demand. 

Consider: Users 

of Separated Bike 

Lanes

Planners in Alameda found that cyclists were already heavily using its waterfront 

recreational path along Shoreline Drive – so much so that the need for a new, 

separate bicycle-only facility had become apparent to accommodate the large 

number of pedestrians, cyclists and other nonmotorized users of the path. 

In planning for a separated bike lane along Shoreline Drive, the City received 

overwhelming calls of support from path users – cyclists and pedestrians 

alike. Alameda was able to decrease the street capacity in certain segments 

and to remove on-street parking in others along Shoreline Drive without 

significant impacts on street or parking availability. As a result, the City will 

build a two-way buffered bikeway on the beach side of the street with broad 

public support and a growing community of cyclists that look forward to using 

the upgraded facility with views westward across the San Francisco Bay. 

Local Support

Alameda, CA

CASE STUDY

CHOOSING LOCATIONS
44

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Consider: 

Connections with 

Separated Bike 

Lanes

Could a potential separated bike lane connect origins and 

destinations? 

A separated bike lane that improves connections between and among high-demand 

destinations such as schools, parks, transit stops, commercial areas, residential 

clusters, and other attractions will better serve a community than if it is located at 

random without these considerations. 

How can a potential separated bike lane help build a low-stress 

bicycle network? 

Physically separated bike lanes can be a primary tool in creating a bicycle network 

that is accessible for cyclists of all ability levels, including children and inexperienced 

adult bicyclists. Facilities that provide low-stress, high-quality connections can 

improve mobility for all users. Along with off-street paths, greenways, and facilities 

on low-volume residential streets, planners can use separated bike lanes as a tool to 

build out low-stress networks accessible to all. The table below and the maps on the 

following page highlight how Portland, OR has integrated the concept of low stress 

bikeways into its planning process and how its bicycle network is anticipated to be 

enhanced in the coming years.

Portland’s Bike Plan for 2030 targets an expansion of a low-stress network, which includes separated 

bike lanes. (Source: One Year Progress Report on Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030, published April 2011)

CHOOSING LOCATIONS
45

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Could a separated bike lane improve connections for 

disadvantaged populations? 

Beyond facilitating connections between origins and destinations in a low-stress 

environment, planners should consider separated bike lanes and their relationship 

with surrounding communities. In many American cities, transit-dependent 

populations often face long commutes that are exacerbated by limited access to 

private motorized transport and residences far from convenient public transport 

options. (5)

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/rich-poor-both-know-good-biking-when-they-see-it-newdata-shows

Portland’s Bike Plan for 2030 targets an expansion of a low-stress network, which includes separated bike lanes. (Source: City of 

Portland)
46

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Low-stress bicycle networks – already common in European municipalities – 

will likely become more widespread in the United States in coming years as 

bicycling grows as a transportation option and municipalities seek to attract 

new riders. Low stress network strategies recognize that a significant portion 

of people interested in riding are not comfortable interacting or sharing a 

roadway with high-volume motor vehicle traffic. Two municipalities leading 

the push in creating these networks – and using separated bike facilities as a 

major component of building them out – are Austin and Boulder. 

Austin is combining its paved trails, low-volume streets, and on-street 

separated bike lanes to create an “all ages and abilities network,” or one 

that provides even novice cyclists, the young, and the old with the ability 

to travel extensively by bicycle in the city via lower stress facilities. The 

City’s highly popular Bluebonnet Lane separated bike lane runs adjacent 

to an elementary school and is frequently populated with young children 

commuting to and from school on two wheels. 

Boulder has an extensive network for bicycling that includes on-street 

bicycle lanes, off-street multi-use paths, and sidepaths, as well as designated 

bike routes along residential streets. Estimating that a core network of 

connected bicycle facilities will be complete in the next few years, Boulder 

is now assessing where it can fine tune the existing network to attract and 

accommodate a broader range of people who want to make trips by bike; in 

particular women, older adults, and families with younger children. The City 

is looking towards creating a low-stress network to provide a connected 

system of routes accessible for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. 

Low-Stress Bicycle 

Networks

Austin, TX and Boulder, CO

Bluebonnet Lane, Austin, TX (Source: City of Austin)

CASE STUDY
47

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

How might a separated bike lane affect roadway capacity? 

Separated bike lanes cannot be planned in a vacuum. Among the primary concerns 

when planning a separated facility is determining how much, if any, motor vehicle 

capacity might be removed due to an installation. The reduction could result from 

removing a lane of vehicular traffic or altering signal timing such that vehicular 

throughput is impacted. Many municipalities find the subject of reduced capacity 

politically challenging. Planners should engage in a comprehensive, multi-modal 

analysis of the costs and benefits of a separated bike lane in terms of mobility for 

all street users – cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, in addition to motorists. 

Planners should take a flexible approach to separated bike lane construction and 

engage in robust before and after data collection (refer to Appendix E) in order 

to holistically evaluate how separated bike lanes can fit into a roadway network. 

Evaluation should include performing a traffic volume analysis, determining if a 

corridor has excess capacity, and evaluating whether a separated bike lane design 

will require removal of roadway capacity. Planning for high-quality separated bike 

lanes within a dynamic, constrained environment poses considerable challenges 

and requires careful consideration and analysis.

How do Separated Bike Lanes support USDOT’s Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Safety Initiative? 

When locating bicycle facilities on higher-speed or higher-volume facilities, the 

separation afforded by SBLs may provide increased comfort and safety benefits. 

The United States Department of Transportation launched a Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Safety Initiative, and installation of separated bike lanes may provide 

contextual solutions to bicycle safety concerns. 

Separated bike lanes are one of many solutions to consider as communities

actively work to improve the comfort and safety of all roadway users. For

additional information on USDOT’s new initiative, visit the following web

address:

http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-foxx-announcesnew-initiative-enhance-pedestrian-and

How can installing a separated bike lane improve pedestrian safety? 

Separated bike lanes in areas with high pedestrian activity can provide safety 

benefits to groups beyond cyclists themselves. Separated bike lanes can shorten 

pedestrian crossing distances, and, depending on design, may provide a median 

refuge for pedestrians. This benefit is especially beneficial for young, elderly, 

and disabled pedestrians who may need more time to cross. SBLs can reduce the 

number of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk, thereby reducing pedestrian/bicyclist 

conflicts. Portland State University’s 2014 study of separated bike lanes and data 

collected from facilities in New York City have both found a reduction in sidewalk 

riding following installation of separated bike lanes.

Consider: 

Context of 

Separated Bike 

Lanes

CHOOSING LOCATIONS
48

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Pedestrians wait to cross 1st Avenue in New York City on a median island refuge. (Source: NYCDOT)

Platform island bus stop and 1st Avenue South separated bike lane in St. Petersburg, FL. (Source: Rory Rowan)
49

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

How can a separated bike lane be installed on a transit corridor? 

If planners intend to place a separated bike lane on a corridor that also accommodates 

transit services (such as bus or light rail), additional considerations are required 

to ensure the separated bike lane functions well with transit operations and stops. 

Planners should evaluate the context of each corridor, and determine the most 

appropriate design. Options include installing signs, pavement markings, and/or 

bus bulbs to provide for shared space, placing a separated bike lane on the left 

side of a one-way street (out of the way of transit stops along the right side), or 

choosing to install a separated bike lane on a nearby parallel corridor away from 

transit to minimize conflicts. There may be a benefit to placing a separated bike 

lane adjacent to a rail corridor to encourage bicyclists to ride away from in-street 

rail tracks that may pose a hazard.

How can loading and unloading activities be accommodated with 

a separated bike lane?

Planning for loading and unloading on streets with separated bike lanes requires 

site-specific evaluations of local needs. Commercial areas with limited off-street 

or side-street loading opportunities will require advanced planning and outreach. 

Dedicated on-street loading space can be provided along a floating parking lane, 

with highly visible crossings and accessible curb ramps. Other options include offpeak loading time slots or configuring adjacent streets and driveways for loading. 

A dedicated accessible parking space in Austin, TX. (Source: Kelly Blume)
50

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

How can accessibility issues be handled with a separated bike lane? 

Municipalities must take measures to address accessibility and not reduce access as a 

result of implementing separated bike lanes. Requirements fall under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA) but may also include specific supplemental State or local 

legislation. If not planned carefully, separated bike lane installations can potentially 

impede access to the curb for alighting motor vehicle passengers or transit users. It 

is possible to address this curb access issue by installing mid-block curb-ramps and 

buffers wide enough to accommodate wheelchair lifts. In municipalities with legislation 

requiring any on-street parking be adjacent to a curb, planners may find it necessary 

to install a raised curb between the separated bike lane and floating parking lane to 

To plan for separated bike lanes while accounting for outside context, New 

York City frames its planning process as part of a more comprehensive effort 

to transform its streets to promote livability and safety in addition to mobility. 

The City has found that separated bike lane installations generally improve 

safety outcomes for all users. 

On 1st and 2nd Avenues, the City accounted for context through the following 

measures:

• Installation of pedestrian islands that shorten crossing distances; 

• Placement of its M15 Select Bus Service in dedicated bus lanes on the right 

sides of one-way streets, with separated bike lanes on the left to minimize 

bicycle-transit stop conflicts; 

• Provision of floating parking throughout the corridors to create physical 

separation for cyclists; and

• Targeted outreach to merchants along the corridors and creation of 

dedicated loading zones and times where needed.

Contextual 

Separated Bike 

Lane Planning

New York City, NY

A separated bike lane, shorter crossing distances, and a dedicated bus lane along 1st Avenue, 

New York City (Source: NYCDOT)

CASE STUDY
51

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

achieve compliance. Other municipalities are addressing this legislative challenge 

by changing local codes to remove such requirements. Likewise, Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects individuals with disabilities and governs 

recipients of USDOT funds. This Section provides for detectable warning surfaces 

(small truncated domes) indicating the boundary between a pedestrian route and 

vehicular route where the connection is flush, rather than curbed.

How can a separated bike lane be constructed in the context of 

on-street parking needs?

Separated bike lanes are often implemented through the removal of a parking lane 

or by moving the parking lane between the separated bike lane and motor vehicle 

lanes. Parking impacts are frequently the most contentious issue associated with 

separated bike lane projects, even in cases where parking removal was relatively 

minimal. In some cases, it may be appropriate to identify opportunities to replace 

lost parking by evaluating potential changes to parking regulations on streets 

adjacent to a proposed separated bike lane.
52

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Use Pilot Projects

Building out a robust separated bike lane using expensive and often permanent 

materials like raised curbs and dedicated bicycle signals may be challenging. One 

solution, already employed in numerous US jurisdictions, is to begin with a pilot 

project. With pilot projects, municipalities might forgo permanent curbs for less 

costly flexible delineator posts, dedicated bicycle signals for other less costly 

intersection approach designs (i.e. less prescriptive mixing zone designs), and 

thermoplastic paint for cheaper but shorter-term marking treatments.

Numerous benefits in addition to lower costs arise from pilot projects:

• Designers have the ability to “tweak” designs once they are implemented and 

behaviors can be observed. With newer, complex facility types, design tweaks 

can be expected and are not indicative of a failed design.

• Pursuit of non-permanent installations provides the public assurance that 

the separated bike lane concept is not being forced upon them, and provides 

opportunity for public debate (especially important if it is a community’s first 

ever separated bike lane).

• Pilot projects allow a low-risk trial run for a separated bike lane without 

significant financial commitment, so if a facility fails or is not accepted, the 

level of investment lost is relatively minimal; implementation processes under 

pilot projects will be more streamlined than under more formalized capital 

construction processes.

• A pilot project can be a stepping stone to a more permanent separated bike 

lane design – many US municipalities have found the “pilot to permanent” 

route a smart, cost-effective way to familiarize the public with separated 

bicycle facility design treatments.

Opportunities for 

Separated Bike 

Lane Installation

CHOOSING LOCATIONS
53

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Apply a Performance Based Practical Design Approach

Performance Based Practical Design (PBPD) is an approach grounded in a 

performance management framework. The approach encourages cost savings 

by utilizing the flexibility that exists in current design guidance and regulations. 

These cost savings will enable cities, Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs), and States to deliver a greater number of projects (for example projects 

that will create or significantly improve connected pedestrian and bicycle 

networks). The emphasis on flexibility and project value is fully consistent with 

the planning and design process outlined in Chapters 4 and 5 of this document. 

The planning and design process for separated bike lanes should consider both 

short- and long-term project and system goals and should focus on scoping 

projects to stay within the core purpose and need. In this way, separated bike 

lane planning, design, and implementation will be fully consistent with the PBPD 

approach. For more information on Performance Based Practical Design, see 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/pbpd.

Salt Lake City’s 300 East separated bike lane was installed using PBPD with inexpensive materials 

(Source: City of Salt Lake City)
54

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Install separated bike lanes as part of street retrofits 

Most separated bike lanes will come about as a result of a retrofit of a street using 

its existing right-of-way. Space in the roadway that is required for a separated bike 

lane can come from one or more of the following, depending on local context and 

needs: 

• Removal of a lane of on-street (usually curbside) parking

• A shift in alignment of existing on-street parking from curbside to floating to 

create a parking-protected separated bike lane

• A removal of one of more vehicular travel lanes

• A reduction in width of some or all vehicular travel lanes and/or on-street 

parking lanes. 

These actions fall into two groups, those that affect on-street parking and those 

that affect general travel lanes and roadway capacity. Planners seeking to install 

a separated bike lane by changing on-street parking should consider undertaking 

parking utilization studies, pricing on-street parking at market rates, and 

evaluating a change in regulations on adjacent or intersecting streets to offset 

parking space losses. As the public becomes more accepting of cycling and the 

need for infrastructure with physical separation, they may become more likely to 

accept and even request such changes. 

Creating space for separated bike lanes often involves reducing lane widths or 

eliminating a motor vehicle lane. Planners have found success in promoting such 

changes to the streetscape through a Complete Streets approach. By framing the 

loss of roadway vehicle capacity – which in itself might be undesirable – as a way 

to calm traffic, improve safety outcomes, and enhance mobility for all street users 

(pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists alike), the public will be more 

likely to see a separated bike lane as a part of a comprehensive effort to improve 

roadway safety. Implementing such a street conversion by adding a separated 

bicycle facility, along with other Complete Streets elements like landscaped 

pedestrian refuge islands, enhanced transit stops, changes to signal timing to 

reduce speeding, and others, can help to ensure that projects are well-received. 

Furthermore, adding a separated bike lane design to a more wide-ranging 

Complete Streets retrofit may often represent only a marginal increase in overall 

investment on a project.
55

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Pilot Projects

Boulder, CO

In 2013, Boulder introduced a Living Laboratory program to introduce and test 

new bike facility treatments. The goal of the pilot program is to increase trips by 

enhancing the existing system for bicyclists of all ages and riding abilities. This 

pilot approach allows city officials to quickly test out infrastructure treatments, 

including separated bike lanes, and gather public input to guide design refinements 

and determine which projects should be made permanent. The program benefits 

the city by minimizing much of the upfront costs for project design. Boulder prides 

itself on its active community participation in civic projects, and using a pilot 

approach allows the City to be experimental while still maintaining its responsive 

reputation before permanent separated bike lane designs are finalized. Boulder’s 

planners use the program to actively identify potentially successful separated 

bike lanes and test these perceptions in real-time. 

CASE STUDY

Boulder’s Baseline Road separated bike lane was installed through the Living Laboratory program. 

(Source: Ray Keener)
56

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Street Retrofits and 

Complete Streets

Boston, MA

As part of its Connect Historic Boston initiative to link National Park Service 

and historic sites with transit stations, planners in Boston included a design for 

a center-running separated bike lane along Causeway Street. It will be part of a 

network that includes four miles of separated bike lanes along five connected 

roadways. The City received a Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

Recovery (TIGER) grant by proposing a wide swath of Complete Streets 

improvements to several downtown corridors including Causeway Street, 

which runs adjacent to high-volume pedestrian attractors like North Station, 

the city’s largest transit hub, and the TD Bank Garden arena. The City has 

decided to use an existing median to build a center-running two-way separated 

bike lane in this section as part of a major Complete Streets retrofit. 

The two-way alignment will allow crossing pedestrians to contend with 

crossing only one rather than two separate bicycle facilities, and also will 

reduce pedestrian exposure to motor vehicles in crosswalks. Meanwhile, 

bicyclists will enjoy the benefit of a separated facility that is well-marked 

and easily identifiable, with a median that decreases their exposure to motor 

vehicle traffic. Transit users will also benefit through safer walking and cycling 

infrastructure, which should help increase transit mode share and support the 

City’s Greenovate Boston (greenhouse gas emission reduction) initiative.

CASE STUDY
57

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

610 municipal Complete Streets policies were in effect as of 2013, and more are adopted every year. 

(Source: Smart Growth America)

Integrate separated bike lanes into large new construction or 

major reconstruction projects

Working from a blank or relatively blank slate, planners and engineers should 

consider possible needs for a separated bike lane from the beginning of the design 

process. Finding the necessary roadway width to include a separated bike lane 

in a retrofit can be the most difficult part of the planning process, so planning a 

separated bike lane from the beginning of a more significant construction project 

can be highly beneficial to minimize such difficulties years later. Municipalities 

might consider funding separated bike lanes on new roadways through impact 

fees on the developer, as separated bike lanes could also bring increased market 

values to new properties. Municipalities should also take advantage of greater 

design flexibility in new street construction as part of a Complete Streets 

approach, especially in States or municipalities that mandate a Complete Streets 

planning process. Widening an existing roadway can also be an opportunity to 

produce designs to accommodate adding a separated bike lane. Finally, major 

reconstruction projects offer opportunities to introduce separated bike lanes to 

the public as part of a recreational, tourist, or cultural initiative.

Figure 5
58

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Reconstruction 

Projects, Separated 

Bike Lanes, and 

Tourism

Indianapolis, IN

CASE STUDY

Construction of the downtown Cultural Trail in Indianapolis, IN. (Source: Mark H. Zwoyer)

Completed section of the downtown Cultural Trail in Indianapolis, IN. (Source: Mark H. Zwoyer)

The city of Indianapolis embarked on a comprehensive downtown development effort 

to create a historic “Cultural Trail” that connects the city’s six cultural districts. Officially 

opened in 2013, the trail includes 8 miles of physically separated bicycle facilities, 

connects 82 miles of existing on-street bike lanes and over 70 miles of off-street 

greenway trails, and supports a new public bikeshare system of 250 bikes for use on the 

facility. The Cultural Trail also features high-quality pedestrian infrastructure, wayfinding 

and informational signage, public art, and bioswales for stormwater collection and 

corridor beautification. Constructed with a mix of Federal funds and private donations, 

Indianapolis has successfully created a new tourist attraction through its downtown 

that also happens to feature a high-quality separated bike lane that improves bicycle 

connections for residents and visitors alike.
59

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Costs for separated bike lanes vary extensively due to the wide variety of treatment 

types and materials used. One estimate provides a range of $50,000 to $500,000 

per mile for facilities in Austin, TX, but the range may be even wider in other 

localities.(6)

 Permanent build-outs with raised curbs and/or dedicated bicycle 

signalization require more labor and material costs than pilot project approaches 

to separated bike lanes that consist only of flexible delineator posts and moderate

amounts of paint and signage. The use of more affordable materials (often as 

part of a pilot project approach) can help save money upfront on separated bike 

lane investment. 

Funding Separated 

Bike Lanes

Municipalities often consider more affordable, temporary materials for their 

flexibility and ease of installation. Washington, DC, built two of its newer 

separated bike lanes along L and M Streets NW, using flexible delineator posts 

and reduced use of green paint in order to save money on implementation while 

addressing neighborhood concerns about design. The District’s Department 

of Transportation estimates that separated bike lane construction costs on L 

Street may have been reduced by upwards of 50% as a result.

Saving Money 

with Inexpensive 

Materials

Washington, DC

CASE STUDY

Inexpensive treatment with flexible delineator posts on L Street, Washington DC (Source: DDOT)

FUNDING, 

MAINTENANCE, AND OUTREACH

Beaudet, Annick, AICP, and Katherine Gregor. “Austin Rides to the Front. “Planning May 2014: 17-19. 

Print.
60

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Bicycle and pedestrian projects, including separated bike lanes, are eligible for 

Federal-aid highway and transit program funding categories. More information 

is available at the following web address: 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/funding_

opportunities.cfm

Funding can be acquired from many sources, including Federal, State, and/or local 

contributions, and monies from private or nonprofit entities. Municipalities have 

pursued funding through Federal programs such as the Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program 

(STP), Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Transportation Investment 

Generating Economic Recovery grants (TIGER), and others. In general, all Federal 

funding sources can and should be considered in the context of separated bike lane 

projects. Beyond Federal funds, planners should explore local funding options such 

as development impact fees and/or local sales tax ordinances to raise money that is 

dedicated to separated bike lane development. 

CASE STUDY

Federal-Aid Funding 

for Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Facilities

Nationwide

Separated bike lanes can also be funded using private sector sources – a good 

solution in locations where access to public funds is scarce. Local businesses often 

have reason to advocate and even pay for separated bike lane investment; some US 

municipalities are considering or have already received funding for separated bike 

lanes from local businesses, or groups of businesses through Business Improvement 

Districts (BIDs), or other private entities that consider investments in bicycle 

infrastructure to be economically beneficial. A common solution is for a BID to 

enter a maintenance agreement with a city that has funded separated bike lane 

construction along a commercial corridor. 

Some companies may find a separated bike lane to be such an attractor of potential 

customers or employees that funding its entire construction can be a worthwhile 

investment. 

Creative funding solutions through value capture financing, in the form of Tax 

Increment Financing (TIF) mechanisms, infrastructure impact fees, or others, may 

represent future collaborations between the public and private sectors that treat 

separated bike lanes like other investments in local transportation infrastructure. 

Nonprofit funding such as that from health organizations, can provide the 

incremental push that a municipality might need to bring a separated bike lane 

concept from planning and design stages to implementation. 
61

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Business districts recognize that vibrant, thriving commercial spaces are 

characterized by walkability and activity. Philadelphia’s Center City BID initiated a 

traffic calming project to address excess capacity and make street crossings safer 

on JFK Boulevard and Market Street. The BID worked with the City, neighborhood 

building owners, and retail tenants, and determined that a separated bike lane 

design with a landscaped buffer would be the preferred method of calming traffic. 

During Park(ing) Day, the City enacted a temporary closure of one lane, and 

showed that traffic would still flow properly even with a lane reduction. 

Likewise, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) in Miami led the planning 

and concept development of several separated facilities. The DDA is enthusiastic 

about separated bike lanes because of their ability to attract “interested but 

concerned” riders and draw potential shoppers to its commercial district. 

Specifically, the DDA is hoping to attract senior citizens, who often ride on the 

sidewalk in downtown. In both cases, BIDs in Philadelphia and Miami will assume 

responsibility for cleaning and regular maintenance of the separated bike lanes and 

buffers.

CASE STUDY

BID Support for 

Separated Bike 

Lanes

Philadelphia, PA and 

Miami, FL

The City of Philadelphia and the Center City District temporarily closed one lane (at left) on Market 

Street to demonstrate the impacts of adding a separated bike lane. (Source: Dylan Semler)
62

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

The city of Seattle is planning a separated bike lane along 7th Avenue in 

the city’s South Lake Union neighborhood, and considers this corridor 

an important element in creating connections in its low-stress bicycle 

network. Amazon, one of Seattle’s largest corporate residents, will pay for 

construction of the portion of the proposed separated bike lane adjacent 

to the company’s new corporate headquarters. Negotiated as a part of 

the development review process, 

both Amazon and the city of 

Seattle believe safe bicycle access 

to the workplace will render 

the location more desirable for 

potential employees. While such 

an arrangement may not be 

common, other municipalities 

may wish to consider approaching 

large corporate entities for whom 

separated bike lane investment 

could be a win-win situation.

CASE STUDY

Corporate Funding 

for Separated Bike 

Lanes

Seattle, WA

Rendering of proposed 7th Avenue separated bike lane (Source: Seattle Times)

Rendering of proposed Blanchard Street to Westlake Avenue configuration with two one-way 

separated bike lanes, to be funded by Amazon. (Source: Seattle Times)
63

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Funding Separated 

Bike Lanes with 

Value Capture

Chicago, IL

Value capture financing is defined as the recovery of the increase in property 

value generated by public infrastructure investments that accrue to private 

landowners who benefit from the infrastructure. Chicago has used value 

capture through Tax Increment Financing (TIF) mechanisms, in which 

portions of increased tax revenue from development rights are used to fund 

neighborhood improvements such as separated bike lanes. The City also uses 

TIF funding to expand its popular Divvy bike share program. 

CASE STUDY

TIF districts in central Chicago (Source: City of Chicago)
64

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Properly maintaining separated bike lanes involves a set of unique issues that may 

not be compatible with general street or sidewalk maintenance. When building 

separated bike lanes, municipalities must consider how they will be swept and, if 

applicable, plowed during snow events. Consideration should include an inventory 

of existing maintenance equipment, whether it will fit in the proposed separated 

bike lane, and alternative options if the equipment will not be compatible. The width 

of separated bike lanes relative to the width of sanitation vehicles is a particularly 

important issue to address during planning stages. 

Common maintenance problems are the lack of coordination between planning 

and maintenance agencies and a lack of funding to purchase smaller sanitation 

equipment to fit the separated bike lane. Plowing and sweeping problems are 

exacerbated in many municipalities due to their separate departments for planning 

and maintaining separated bike lanes. When building separated bike lanes to 

accommodate drainage, planners should consider environmentally friendly options 

such as bioswales within landscaped medians that can absorb precipitation and also 

serve as the facility’s form of physical separation from vehicular traffic. 

Maintaining 

Separated Bike 

Lanes

Seattle’s 2nd Avenue two-way separated bike lane provides adequate width and access for street sweeping 

vehicles. (Source: Seattle Department of Transportation)

MAINTENANCE
65

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Sweeper Selection 

for Separated Bike 

Lane Maintenance

Nationwide

CASE STUDY

In order to sweep or plow separated bike lanes, many municipalities have 

realized that traditional maintenance equipment is either too large or small. 

The Green Lane Project, “a PeopleForBikes program that helps build better 

bike lanes to create low-stress streets”, has published a list on the subject, 

available at the following web address: 

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/tech-talk-the-best-street-sweepersfor-clearing-protected-bike-lanes

As separated bike lanes become more common, the list will likely expand as 

more products come to market. 

Narrow sweepers like this one can fit into most separated bike lanes (Source: PeopleForBikes)

Boulder uses a standard plow that fits in its 2-way Baseline Road separated bike lane. 

(Source: City of Boulder)
66

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Outreach when planning for separated bike lanes is just as critical as working through 

designs and securing funding. Separated bike lane outreach takes numerous forms, 

including: 

• Outreach to the general public during planning and design stages, including 

residents along a potential separated bike lane corridor;

• Outreach to the business community along the proposed corridor; 

• Coordination with transit agencies that operate service along or intersecting with 

the proposed corridor;

• Coordination with enforcement and public safety agencies such as police and fire 

departments;

• Coordination with State and county Departments of Transportation (especially 

for separated bike lanes along or intersecting with state or county-controlled 

roads); 

• Coordination with maintenance divisions;

• Coordination with other partners such as advocacy groups, public health 

organizations, and others; and

• Outreach during implementation with a public education focus on how different 

user groups (cyclists, motorists, pedestrians) should interact with the new facility 

(especially around conflict areas like intersections and driveways). 

Outreach on 

Separated Bike 

Lanes

Separated Bike Lane 

OUTREACH

Including public 

education in SBLs

General Public

Local Residents

living on SBL corridor

Local Businesses

Local Transit

 Agencies

State or County

Departments of Transportation

Enforcement

Advocates

 for Persons with Disabilities

located on SBL corridor 

and local Business 

Improvement Districts

such as Police and 

Traffic Control 

Agencies

Local Maintenance

 Agencies

SBL Advocacy

 Groups

Public Health

and mainenance 

partners

and other related 

organizations

Outreach Diagram

OUTREACH

Figure 6
67

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

The most successful outreach is started as early as possible and provides all 

stakeholders with transparent information on changes that are proposed to the 

streetscape. Support from the local business community can be critical to the 

success of a planned separated bike lane, and partnerships with BIDs have been 

instrumental in advancing separated bike lanes in many municipalities. Separated 

bike lanes can be marketed to the business community as a tool for traffic calming 

and generators of increased activity in front of storefronts. 

Business Support 

for Separated Bike 

Lanes

Missoula, MT

CASE STUDY

A separated bike lane for Higgins Street in Missoula emerged through a master 

plan that was conceived of and paid for by the local downtown business 

improvement association. The plan focused heavily on improving walking and 

cycling and included separated bicycle facilities. While a few local businesses 

opposed the project because of losses of curbside parking spots, the vast 

majority, along with the association’s director and the director of the downtown 

redevelopment agency, supported the project to bring safer cycling activity to 

downtown Missoula. This support was critical during the public process, and was 

an important contributor in moving the project forward. Since construction, the 

downtown BID has assumed responsibility for cleaning and regular maintenance 

of the separated bike lane. Its activities include snow removal and sweeping, 

and the BID owns maintenance vehicles that can fit into the separated bike lane. 

Higgins Street separated bike lane in downtown Missoula, MT (Source: City of Missoula)
68

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

CASE STUDY

Jackson plans to launch a public education campaign associated with its Broadway 

separated bike lane that will be implemented in 2014 and 2015. The campaign 

will include a partnership with a local advocacy organization, advertisements 

in the local newspaper, and temporary signage along the corridor during the 

initial rollout period. This type of public education effort – rare to date in US 

municipalities that have constructed separated bike lanes – is encouraged 

and could serve as a model for education during implementation, especially in 

municipalities building their first separated facility.

Public Education 

on Separated Bike 

Lanes

Jackson, WY

Rendering of Broadway, a curb separated bike lane in Jackson, WY. (Source: City of Jackson)

Successful separated bike lane planning is also contingent on cooperation by 

planners with sister agencies within a municipality along with relevant State or 

county departments of transportation. The design guidance presented in the 

following chapter is intended to be a resource for all of these parties, and is meant 

to aid coordination efforts with these groups. 

Perhaps the most important element of separated bike lane outreach involves 

educating the public on what can be significant changes to the streets in their cities, 

towns or villages. As separated bike lanes become more popular, the learning curve 

on these new designs will improve, but today across the country many citizens are 

interacting with these facilities (as cyclists, as motorists, and as pedestrians) for the 

first time. As a result, it is critical to consider a messaging campaign, even at a highly 

localized level, in order to improve awareness of new designs. 
69

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

When planning separated bike facilities, practitioners should evaluate projects in 

a holistic fashion, considering all street users and using evaluation criteria beyond 

just mobility and safety. The project evaluation process should attempt to measure 

various effects of separated bike lanes on different groups such as pedestrians, 

cyclists, transit users and motorists. A detailed project evaluation checklist is 

provided as Appendix D. This checklist identifies a broad range of measures that can 

be considered as part of a holistic evaluation of a Separated Bike Lane. This checklist 

can be used in conjunction with Appendix E, which provides detailed instructions on 

volume and crash data collection pre- and post-implementation. One of the critical 

elements in the evaluation is to confirm that all of the traffic control devices are 

compliant with the provisions in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD), which is available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.

It is crucial that any evaluation measure before and after changes in bicycle volumes 

and bicycle crash and injury data. The collection of high-quality volume and crash 

data is also important for future research efforts on the mobility and safety effects of 

separated bike lanes. Meanwhile, the indirect effects on the streetscape, local area 

quality of life, and safety outcomes for all street users – such as improvements to 

public spaces, a revival of a retail corridor, shorter crossing distances for pedestrians, 

and even simplified traffic patterns for motorists – should be emphasized as part of 

a package of improvements gained through separated bike lane implementation. 

Using a Complete Streets framework, municipalities can use this holistic approach to 

project evaluation to achieve support for designs by showing the spillover benefits 

to populations beyond the local bicycling community. 

Holistic Evaluation 

of Separated Bike 

Lanes

Best Practices on 

Data Collection

Before planning and designing a separated bike lane, it is critical to formalize data 

collection procedures in order to provide for effective project evaluation. This is 

important because only with quality data will a municipality be able to make a 

quantitative case for the safety, mobility, and economic benefits of separated bike 

lanes. Use the data collection information checklist (see Appendix E) to collect 

data before and after separated bike lane installation at key locations. Of particular 

importance is the need to collect bicycle volume and crash data in a consistent 

manner during the pre- and post-implementation periods. With advances in 

automated counting technology and their decreasing costs, municipalities are 

strongly encouraged to use them to achieve regular and continuous count data. 

It is also important to maintain a consistent counting methodology in the before 

and after evaluation periods, preferably using the same technology vendor or 

contractor. Additional data collection to accompany automated counts, such as 

maintaining a before and after photo library and conducting qualitative surveys to 

measure satisfaction on projects, are also advised. Finally, data collection should be 

viewed as one piece of project evaluation and should be tied into project outreach 

and the holistic evaluation of a separated bike lane’s effect on all street users.

PROJECT

EVALUATION
70

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Separated Bike Lane 

Project Evaluation

New York City, NY

CASE STUDY

New York City frames its separated bike lane projects in the context of Complete 

Streets with improvements that benefit all users. To assess impacts the agency 

performs a holistic project evaluation that includes data collection on traffic 

volume and safety in addition to numerous other factors. To evaluate the success 

of a section of its 1st Avenue separated bike lane between E. 61st Street and 

E. 72nd Street, the City measured changes in crashes with injuries for all users 

(cyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicle occupants) along the corridor before 

and after implementation, noting a reduction of 10%. (This data is for two years 

after and will be updated for up to three years after implementation, at which 

point the City considers the results to be final). 

The evaluation measured mobility outcomes and showed a significant 45% 

weekday increase in bike volumes. The mobility measurement included motor 

vehicles too, showing that vehicular travel times improved slightly during the PM 

peak as a result of a more simplified traffic pattern, the addition of left turn bays, 

and new dedicated loading zones that reduced double-parking. This improvement 

in travel times also benefits transit users, as 1st Avenue is a one-way street, with 

a dedicated bus lane on its right side serving the City’s M15 Select Bus Service 

route. Ridership on this bus route has improved 9% since implementation. The 

City also calculated vehicular Levels of Service at E. 72nd Street and found no 

change. Within this evaluation framework, New York City also highlights the 14 

new landscaped pedestrian islands (which shorten crossing distances) and the 

new street trees planted within them. 

Retail sales grew along New York City’s 9th Avenue separated bike lane corridor when compared with 

comparison corridors without separated bike lanes (Source: NYC DOT)
71

CHAPTER 4 | PLANNING SEPARATED BIKE LANES

New York City has focused on economic factors like retail sales growth along separated bike lane 

corridors, 2 of which are included in this 2013 report (Source: NYC DOT)

The installation of the separated bike lane also allowed the City to remove PM 

peak parking restrictions, resulting in the effective creation of 70 new spaces 

during this time – an accomplishment given the potential losses of on-street 

parking that can accompany the installation of separated bike lanes with 

mixing zones. While the City has not yet measured the effect of the subject 

corridor on local retail, similar studies – such as one on a section of its 9th 

Avenue separated bike lane – have shown marked increases in revenue for 

local stores on separated bike lane corridors relative to comparison corridors 

with no separated facilities. These improvements are cited in the City’s 2013 

Economic Benefits of Sustainable Streets report for 9th Avenue and Columbus 

Avenue; similar economic impact studies will expand to other separated bike 

lane corridors in the future.
72

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
73

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 5

Figure 6

CHOOSING LOCATIONS

CHAPTER 5

MENU OF DESIGN

RECOMMENDATIONS
74

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
75

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

DESIGN 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Four Step 

Design Process

The separated bike lane design process can be categorized into four general categories 

– Directional and Width Characteristics, Forms of Separation, Midblock Considerations, 

and Intersection Considerations. These categories form the basis of a four-step design 

process where the decisions within each step inform future design decisions, resulting in 

an iterative design process based on available street width, transportation priorities, and 

other project goals. This chapter groups the design process into these four categories and 

provides flexible design options to best meet local conditions and the community’s goals.

When designing these newer types of facilities, it is important to document the numerous 

decisions made throughout the design process. Documentation should demonstrate that 

the final design was developed based on the best available data, good engineering judgment,

and sound design principles.

STEP 1: ESTABLISH DIRECTIONAL AND WIDTH CRITERIA

• The decision of one-way and two-way separated bike lanes should be based on 

traffic lane configurations, turning movement conflicts, parking requirements, and 

surrounding bicycle route network options and destinations.

• Width considerations include expected bicycle volumes, required buffer width, and 

maintenance requirements.

• Alignment decisions for running the separated bike lane on the right-side, left-side, 

or in the center of the road, include transit stop conflicts, intersection and driveway 

conflicts, locations of destinations, and parking placement.

STEP 2: SELECT FORMS OF SEPARATION

• Separation type decisions should be based on the presence of on-street parking, 

street width, cost, aesthetics, maintenance, motorized traffic volumes and speeds.

STEP 3: IDENTIFY MIDBLOCK DESIGN CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

• There are several potential conflicts that may occur at midblock locations along a 

separated bike lane.

• Transit stops occurring on the same side of the street as the separated bike lane 

present a challenge due to interactions among cyclists, transit vehicles, and those 

accessing transit stops.

• Locating accessible parking spaces may require additional design adjustments.

• Loading zones should be well-located and designed to minimize conflicts.

• Driveways present concerns due to challenges with sight distance and driver expectations 

that can be minimized through design treatments and driveway consolidation.

STEP 4: DEVELOP INTERSECTION DESIGN

• Intersection design should focus on the safety of all users with additional consideration 

on delay, queuing, user expectations, motorized traffic volumes and speeds.

• Sufficient sight distance for all street users at intersection approaches should 

be provided.

• Designs should protect or provide safe interactions between separated bike lane 

users and conflicting turning movements.

• Signs and markings should be included to appropriately guide and prompt safe 

behaviors through intersections.
76

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Make DESIGN element decisions 

Context

Constraints

Connections

Users

PLAN for Potential 

Separated Bike Lanes

Installation 

opportunities

Project EVALUATION

IMPLEMENTATION

Collect DATA for 

project evaluation

Perform OUTREACH

Analyze FUNDING options

Potential to implement projects 

via a pilot approach

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The designs presented in this chapter are based on current design guidance and 

the state of the practice and are intended to be a starting point for a flexible design 

process that takes into account site conditions, context, and continually evolving 

design resources. The graphic below highlights the key elements of a successful 

design process, but the order and exact execution of the steps are flexible. Evaluation 

and design are iterative processes, with designs evolving as municipalities evaluate 

how a facility is functioning.

Flexibility in the 

Planning and 

Design Process

Figure 7
77

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The selection of separated bike lane width and directional characteristics depends 

on a combination of factors that are most often determined by the existing street 

and surrounding network characteristics. The most critical considerations are to 

reduce conflicts with turning vehicles, provide sufficient width for safe operations 

and ease of maintenance, and ensure predictable behavior by the street users.

DIRECTIONAL AND WIDTH 

CHARACTERISTICS 1

One-Way 

Separated Bike 

Lane on a 

One-Way Street

A one-way separated bike lane on a one-way street is the least complicated design. 

This type of design can most easily be implemented on existing streets through the 

conversion of a motor vehicle lane or removal of on-street parking. Another advantage 

of this type of facility is the ability to provide a reasonable signal progression for 

cyclists, improving travel time and signal compliance. One potential complication of 

this design may be wrong-way riding by bicyclists. This can occur if there are no 

suitable and attractive bicycle routes (such as a parallel facility) near this separated 

bike lane.

• One-way separated bike lanes 

should have a minimum width of 

5 ft. Wider separated bike lanes 

provide additional comfort and 

space for bicyclists and should be 

considered where a high volume of 

bicyclists is expected. Widths of 7 

ft and greater are preferred as they 

allow for passing or side-by-side 

riding. Additional care should be 

taken with wider lanes such that the 

separated bike lane is not mistaken 

for an additional motor vehicle lane. 

• Total clear width between the curb 

face and vertical element should 

be at least the fleet maintenance 

(sweeping or snowplow) vehicle 

width. Widths (inclusive of the 

gutter pan and to the vertical buffer 

element) narrower than 7 ft will 

often require specialized equipment. 

Consultation with a Public Works 

department is recommended during 

the planning process.

• A minimum 3 ft buffer should be 

used adjacent to parking. For further 

guidance on buffer selection and 

installation, see page 83. 

• For further guidance on typical signs 

and markings for separated bike 

lanes, see page 127. 

DIRECTION AND WIDTH

01

02

03

04

NOT TO SCALE

STEP

Figure 8
78

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

One way Separated 

Bike Lane on a 

One-Way Street 

(Left-Side Running) 

Consider a left-side running separated bike lane under the following conditions:

• The corridor includes a high frequency transit route resulting in potential 

conflicts with transit vehicles, stops, and transit riders. 

• There are fewer driveways, intersections, or other conflicts on the left-side 

of the street.

• The most likely destinations for bicyclists are on the left-side of the street.

• On-street parking is located on the right-side of the street.

Long Beach, CA, has installed left-side, one-way separated bike lanes along a pair of one-way streets 

downtown. (Source: City of Long Beach) 
79

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• Bike symbols should be 

placed periodically in the 

lane.

• Drainage grates and gutter 

seams should generally 

not be included in the 

usable width. 

• For further guidance 

on buffer selection and 

installation, see page 83.

• For further guidance on 

typical signs and markings 

for separated bike lanes, 

see page 127. 

One-Way 

Separated Bike 

Lane on a 

Two-Way Street

Central Median 

Alternative

Providing one-way separated bike lanes on each side of a two-way street creates 

a predictable design for managing user expectations. Typically, each separated 

bike lane will run to the outside of the travel lanes in a design similar to a one-way 

separated bike lane on a one-way street. A potential challenge with this design is it 

takes up more roadway space compared to the alternatives of providing a two-way 

separated bike lane or developing alternate corridors for directional travel.

An alternative design places separated bike lanes adjacent to a median. This design 

can be considered when there are significant conflicts due to turning movements, 

transit activity, or other conflicting curbside uses. Depending on the width of the 

median, this design may result in intersection design challenges, particularly in how 

bicyclist right- and left-turns are made.

DIRECTION AND WIDTH

01

02

03

04

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 9

Figure 10

NOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE
80

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Two-Way 

Separated Bike 

Lane on Right-Side 

of One-Way Street

 (2 Lanes)

Left-Side Running 

Alternative

Providing a two-way separated bike lane on a one-way street may be desirable 

under certain circumstances. This design couples a separated bike lane with a 

contraflow bike lane in order to route bicyclists in the most direct or desirable way 

given the street network and destinations. However, this design can create some 

challenges for roadway user expectancy at intersections and driveways, which could 

be mitigated by signage suggesting to look both ways for pedestrians. Additionally, 

certain intersection designs are not possible.

Consider a left-side running separated bike lane under the following conditions:

• The corridor includes a high frequency transit route resulting in potential 

conflicts with transit vehicles, stops, and transit riders. 

• There are fewer driveways, intersections, or other conflicts on the left-side 

of the street.

• The most likely destinations for bicyclists are on the left side of the street.

• On-street parking is located on the right side of the street.

DIRECTION AND WIDTH

• Two-way separated bike 

lanes should have a preferred 

combined width of at least 

12 ft. Given this total width, 

clear signs and markings 

should be provided such that 

the separated bike lane is not 

mistaken for an additional 

motor vehicle travel lane.

• For further guidance 

on buffer selection and 

installation, see page 83.

• A centerline to separate 

the two-way bicycle traffic 

marked in accordance with 

the MUTCD (2009).

• For further guidance on 

typical signs and markings 

for separated bike lanes, see 

page 127. 

01

02

03

04

Figure 11

NOT TO SCALE
81

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• Due to operational and 

user expectations, this 

design is best used when 

there is no room for 

separated bike lanes on 

both sides of the street.

• For further guidance 

on buffer selection and 

installation, see page 83.

• A centerline to separate 

the two-way bicycle 

traffic marked in 

accordance with the 

MUTCD (2009).

• For further guidance 

on typical signs and 

markings for separated 

bike lanes, see page 127

Two-Way 

Separated Bike 

Lane on Right-Side 

of Two-Way Street 

Providing a two-way separated bike lane on a two-way street may be desirable 

under certain circumstances such as minimizing conflicts on high frequency transit 

corridors or along corridors with a higher number of intersections or driveways 

on one side of the street (such as along a waterfront). This design does, however, 

create some challenges for roadway user expectancy at intersections and driveways. 

Additionally, the design limits intersection design options.

DIRECTION AND WIDTH

01

02

03

04

Figure 12

NOT TO SCALE
82

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• A continuously raised 

buffer is preferred to 

reduce the chance of 

U-turns across the 

separated bike lane.

For further guidance 

on buffer selection and 

installation, see page 83.

• A centerline to separate 

the two-way bicycle 

traffic marked in 

accordance with the 

MUTCD (2009).

• For further guidance on 

typical signs and markings 

for separated bike lanes, 

see page 127. 

Center 

Orientation 

Alternative

An alternative design places a two-way separated bike lane in the center of the 

street. This design is uncommon and can be considered when there are significant 

conflicts due to turning movements, transit activity, or other conflicting curbside 

uses. Depending on the width of the roadway and the amount of space that can be 

allocated to the separated bike lane and buffer, this design may result in intersection 

design challenges, particularly on how bicyclist right- and left-turns are made.

01

02

03

Figure 13

NOT TO SCALE
83

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Vertical elements in the buffer area are critical to separated bike lane design. 

These separation types provide the comfort and safety that make separated 

bike lanes attractive facilities. The selection of separation type(s) should be 

based on the presence of on-street parking, overall street and buffer width, cost, 

durability, aesthetics, traffic speeds, emergency vehicle and service access, and 

maintenance. In certain circumstances, emergency vehicle access may need to 

be provided through low or mountable curbs or non-rigid means. The spacing 

and width dimensions that follow are suggestions; narrower buffer widths may 

be used so long as the vertical elements can be safely accommodated under the 

conditions of that roadway. To realize the full benefits of several treatments at 

a potentially lower overall cost, a combination of separation treatments may 

be used.

Cyclists enjoy the greatest level of comfort when buffers provide greater levels of 

physical separation. The National Institute for Transportation and Communities’ 

(NITC) report, “Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes 

in the U.S.,” found that planters, curbs, and flexible delineator posts provided 

the greatest sense of comfort, and that any type of buffer shows a considerable 

increase in self-reported comfort levels over a striped bike lane.

FORMS

OF SEPARATION 2

STEP
84

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

10 ft - 40 ft 

Typical

Spacing

3 ft Preferred

Delineator Posts

Bollards

Flexible delineator posts are one of the most popular types of separation 

elements due to their low cost, visibility, and ease of installation. However, 

their durability and aesthetic quality can present challenges and agencies may 

consider converting these types of buffers to a more permanent style when 

design and budgets allow. Delineators can be placed in the middle of the 

buffer area or to one side or the other as site conditions dictate (such as street 

sweeper width or vehicle door opening).

Bollards are a rigid barrier solution that provides a strong vertical element to 

the buffer space. Depending on how frequently the bollards are placed, this 

form of separation may result in an increased cost compared to others, and 

may not be as appropriate on higher speed streets.

San Francisco, CA. (Source: Dianne Yee)

Indianapolis, IN (Source: PeopleForBikes)

10 ft - 40 ft 

Typical

Spacing

1.5 ft - 3 ft Preferred

FORMS OF SEPARATION
85

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Continuous

(Can allow 

drainage gaps)

Planting Strips 

(optional)

6 in Typical

Curb Height

16 in Preferred

Minimum

Raised Median

Concrete curbs can either be cast in place or precast. This type of buffer 

element is more expensive to construct and install but provides a continuous 

raised buffer that is attractive with little long-term maintenance required. 

Mountable curbs are an option where emergency vehicle access may be 

required.

FORMS OF SEPARATION

Austin, TX (Source: City of Austin)

Concrete Barrier

Continuous

Spacing

3 ft Typical 

Minimum

Concrete barriers provide the highest level of crash protection among these 

separation types. They are less expensive than many of the other treatments 

and require little maintenance. However, this barrier type may be less 

attractive and may require additional drainage and service vehicle solutions. 

A crash cushion should be installed where the barrier end is exposed.

Seattle, WA. (Source: Seattle DOT)
86

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Planters

3 ft Typical

Maintain

consistent

space

between

planters

This form of separation provides an aesthetic element to the streetscape, 

a suitable vertical barrier, and is quick to install. However, depending on the 

placement, this treatment is more expensive than other solutions, requires 

maintenance of the landscaping, and may not be as appropriate on higher 

speed streets.

Portland, OR (Source: Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium)

FORMS OF SEPARATION

2 ft Preferred Minimum

3 in - 6 in 

Height Typical 

Separated bike lanes may also be designed as raised facilities, either at 

sidewalk grade or at an intermediate grade. If designed at the sidewalk level, 

the use of different pavement types, markings, or buffers may be necessary 

to keep bicyclists and pedestrians separated. If placed at an intermediate 

level, a 3 inch mountable curb may be used to permit access of sweeping 

equipment.

Raised Lane

Cambridge, MA. (Source: City of Cambridge)
87

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Parking Stops

6 ft Spacing

(variable)

6 ft 

Typical

4 in Minimum

Height

1 ft - 2 ft Typical

Parking stops and similar low linear barriers are inexpensive buffer 

solutions that offer several benefits. These barriers have a high level 

of durability, can provide near continuous separation, and are a good 

solution when minimal buffer width is available. However, using the 

minimum width will not provide the same level of comfort and protection 

due to their low height and bicyclists’ proximity to traffic.

Baseline Road separated bike lane in Boulder, CO. (Source: City of Boulder)

FORMS OF SEPARATION

3 ft Minimum

18 ft - 20 ft - Typical parallel parking space length

7 ft - 8 ft Typical

 Direction on parking space 

markings can be found in the 

MUTCD Figure 3B-21

While not a barrier type on its own, parked cars can provide an additional 

level of protection and comfort for bicyclists. A minimum buffer width of 

3 feet is required to allow for the opening of doors and other maneuvers. 

Additional vertical elements such as periodic delineator posts should be 

paired with this design. Barrier types that obstruct the opening of car 

doors or create tripping hazards should be avoided.

Parked Cars

Parked cars provide separation in Seattle, WA. (Source: Seattle DOT)
88

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Combination of 

Treatments

Separation types can be used in combination to realize the full benefits of several 

treatments at a lower overall cost. For example, delineator posts can be alternated 

with parking stops or other low, linear barriers to provide both horizontal and vertical 

elements. Planters or rigid barriers and bollards may be used at the start of a block 

to more clearly identify the separated bike lane and provide an aesthetic treatment, 

with more inexpensive treatments used midblock.

FORMS OF SEPARATION

Raised curb islands at intersections combined with flexible delineator posts and parked cars midblock on 

9th Avenue in New York City, NY (Source: NYC DOT)

A raised lane combined with curbside bicycle and car parking provide vertical and horizontal separation 

from vehicular traffic on Higgins Street in Missoula, MT. (Source: City of Missoula)
89

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

MIDBLOCK

CONSIDERATIONS 3

Driveways that intersect with separated bike lanes create a potential crash risk 

due to the conflict between turning motor vehicles and through bicyclists. The 

risk is increased at locations where there is poor sight distance due to parked cars, 

landscaping, and other obstructions, or where the design may result in unexpected 

movements such as the contra-flow direction of travel that occurs on two-way 

separated bike lanes. Many of these conflicts can be mitigated through good 

design that improves visibility and expected behaviors. An additional measure 

beyond separated bike lane design is to consolidate or relocate driveways and 

access to minimize the number of conflict points along the corridor.

DRIVEWAYS

STEP
90

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• Guidance for parking space markings 

can be found in MUTCD(2009) 

Section 3B.19. For further guidance 

on buffer selection and installation, 

see page 83.

• A variety of pavement marking 

treatments can be used to improve 

visibility of the separated bike lane 

and reinforce the expected bicyclist 

behaviors to motorists. For further 

guidance on paint and striping in 

conflict areas, see page 114.

• A “turning vehicles yield to bikes” sign 

is often used in this scenario to alert 

turning vehicles to the presence of 

the separated bike lane; however, it 

should be noted that while this sign 

has been proposed it has not yet 

been specifically approved by FHWA 

through either the Interim Approval 

process or adoption into a new edition 

of the MUTCD.

• For further guidance on typical signs 

and markings for separated bike lanes, 

see page 127. 

• Parking should be prohibited at least 

20 ft from the edge of a driveway, 

dependent on vehicle speeds and 

volumes. Paint alone may not be 

enough to keep vehicles from parking 

in prohibited spaces without frequent 

enforcement efforts. Additional 

elements such as delineator posts, 

parking stops, or concrete curb 

extensions can be included to ensure 

that this area remains clear.

• Landscaping and other street-side 

elements that obscure sight distance 

should not be included within 15 ft of a 

driveway edge.

One Way 

Separated Bike 

Lanes

DRIVEWAYS

01

02

04

05

05

NOT TO SCALE

03

Figure 14
91

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• A variety of pavement marking 

treatments can be used to improve 

the visibility of the separated bike 

lane and reinforce expected bicyclist 

behaviors toward motorists. For 

further guidance on paint and 

striping in conflict areas, see page 

114.

• Signs on side streets or driveways 

can alert drivers to expect two-way 

bicycle traffic, especially on one-way 

streets. 

• Given the additional width of a twoway separated bike lane, additional 

measures may be used to reduce the 

likelihood of accidental entrance by 

motor vehicles:

• A “Do Not Enter” with a 

supplementary “Except Bicycles” 

plaque may be used.

• Or, a BIKE LANE sign (MUTCD 

R3-17) may be used. 

• A delineator post may be placed 

on the centerline between the 

two directions of bicycle travel.

• Parking should be prohibited at least 

20 ft from the edge of a driveway, 

dependent on vehicle speeds and 

volumes. Paint alone may not be 

enough to keep vehicles from parking 

in prohibited spaces without frequent 

enforcement efforts. Additional 

elements such as delineator posts, 

parking stops, or concrete curb 

extensions can be included to ensure 

that this area remains clear.

• To avoid separated bike lane 

encroachment of vehicles 

exiting driveways into the street, 

landscaping and other street-side 

elements that obscure sight distance 

should not be included within 15 ft of 

a driveway edge.

• Floating parking design downstream 

of driveways on one-way streets do 

not require parking restrictions for 

visibility since no conflicting traffic is 

approaching.

Two-Way 

Separated Bike 

Lanes

DRIVEWAYS

01

02

03

04

05

06

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 15

Parking restrictions not required on

downstream side of driveway

for vehicles turning onto one-way streets
92

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Ideally, separated bike lanes will not operate along the same side of the roadway 

as high-frequency transit routes, either by using different sides of the street or 

different streets. However, on many corridors, this division between transit and 

bicycles is not possible. In these cases transit stops present a challenge among 

interactions with cyclists, transit vehicles, and those accessing transit stops.

Where possible, separation should continue at transit stops by routing bicyclists 

behind the bus platform. This type of design avoids conflicts with transit vehicles 

but does create potential conflicts with pedestrians who must cross the separated 

bike lane to access the transit stop. This potential pedestrian conflict can be 

mitigated through design and the provision of discrete crossing locations. Visually 

impaired pedestrians accessing the bus stop should be directed to the crosswalk 

using detectable warnings.

TRANSIT STOPS 3
93

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• The front end of the platform needs 

5 ft x 8 ft minimum clear space to 

accommodate deployment of an 

accessible ramp from equipped buses.

• In circumstances without on-street 

parking, a narrower transit platform 

may be used so long as a 5 ft x 8 ft 

level space can be maintained.

• With a minimum crosswalk width 

of 6 ft, consider a wider crosswalk 

dependent on transit boardings. 

Ideally, the crosswalk is placed at 

the transit vehicle exit point. If this 

transit stop is at a street crossing, the 

bike lane crosswalk should be placed 

at the start (upstream) end of the 

platform and included with the full 

street crossing. If a raised crosswalk 

is not selected, curb ramps with a 

marked crosswalk should be used. 

Each curb ramp should have a 

detectable warning surface in 

accordance with DOT’s regulations 

implementing Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at 

49 CFR 27.3(b).

• Place yield line pavement marking 

just prior to the crosswalk.

• Optional “YIELD” markings may be 

placed in the bike lane.

• Place a YIELD HERE TO 

PEDESTRIANS (MUTCD R1-5) sign 

at crosswalk. 

Island Platform 

with No Separated 

Bike Lane Bend

TRANSIT STOPS

This design may be used at locations where the transit vehicle may stop in a travel 

lane. In this alignment the separated bike lane does not shift, no sidewalk space 

is removed, and more on-street parking is allowed. Separating bicycles from 

bus flow also eliminates “leapfrogging” which improves cyclist comfort and bus 

operating speeds.

01

02

03

04

05

06

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 16
94

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Island Platform 

with Separated 

Bike Lane Bend

TRANSIT STOPS

• This lateral shift of the separated 

bike lane must be designed based 

on the offset distance and bicycle 

design speed. 

• Front end of platform needs 5 

ft x 8 ft minimum clear space to 

accommodate deployment of 

accessible ramp from equipped 

vehicles.

• In circumstances without on-street 

parking or limited sidewalk space, a 

narrower transit platform may used 

so long as a 5 ft x 8 ft level space can 

be maintained.

• Minimum crosswalk width is 6 

ft. Consider a wider crosswalk 

dependent on transit boardings. 

Ideally, the crosswalk is placed at 

the transit vehicle exit point. If this 

transit stop is at a street crossing, 

the bike lane crosswalk should be 

placed at the start (upstream) end of 

the platform and included with the 

full street crossing. 

• To increase awareness between 

bicyclists and transit users and to 

emphasize a preferred crossing 

location, an optional raised crosswalk 

may be used. Ramp up to raised 

crosswalk should be 1:10 – 1:25 

slope.

• Yield triangle pavement markings can 

be placed prior to the crosswalk in 

accordance with the MUTCD (2009).

• Place a YIELD HERE TO 

PEDESTRIANS (MUTCD R1-5) sign at 

crosswalk 

• For further guidance on typical signs 

and markings for separated bike 

lanes, see page 127. 

At locations where it is desired to have the transit vehicle move out of the flow of 

traffic, a separated bike lane may need to bend around the transit platform.

01

02

03

04

05

08

06

07

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 17

The term daylighting refers to the removal of 

on-street parking near intersections or adjacent 

to curb cuts in order to improve sightlines 

for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Dependent on offset

and design speed

Ramp deployment area:

Minimum 5 ft x 8 ft
95

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Transit Stop Mixing 

with Separated 

Bike Lane

TRANSIT STOPS

• Transit vehicles pull up to stops 

along the curb, across the 

separated bike lane. Vehicles yield 

to through bicyclists.

• Front end of platform needs 5 

ft x 8 ft minimum clear space to 

accommodate deployment of 

accessible ramp from equipped 

vehicles.

• Optional “YIELD” markings in bike 

lane. 

• NO PARKING BUS STOP sign 

(MUTCD R7-7).

• Optional BUS ONLY pavement 

markings (MUTCD Figure 3B-23).

• For further guidance on typical 

signs and markings for separated 

bike lanes, see page 127. 

Where bus service is sufficiently infrequent (about four buses per hour or fewer), 

transit stops can be designed in the separated bike lane. When buses are present, 

cyclists merge left and pass buses boarding and alighting passengers. At all 

other times, at least 55 minutes of every hour, bikes continue through the bus 

stop uninterrupted. 

01

02

03

04

05

06

NOT TO SCALE

Shared bus stop/bike lane configuration in Boston, MA 

(Source: Conor Semler)

Figure 18
96

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Island bus platform adjacent to a separated bike lane in Austin, TX. (Source: Kelly Blume)

Raised crosswalk (under construction) adjacent to a transit stop island platform on Broadway in Seattle, WA. 

(Source: Seattle DOT)
97

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Where designated on-street parking is provided, accessible parking must be 

provided. Refer to the 2010 ADA Standards and the current Public Rights of Way 

Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) published by the U.S. Access Board for more 

information. These spaces must be provided on the block perimeter where onstreet parking is marked or metered. In many cases, the accessible parking may be 

provided on block faces that do not conflict with separated bike lane alignment. 

However, a priority for accessibility is locating the parking spaces where the 

street is most level and, ideally, closest to obvious destinations such as building 

entrances. Under these circumstances it may be necessary to include accessible 

parking on the same block face as a separated bike lane.

Providing accessible parking spaces at the start of a block often affords the most 

flexibility in designing around the separated bike lane. A painted access aisle 

without any vertical elements provides space to deploy a lift and allows a vehicle 

to park in the buffer to deploy a left-side lift, if necessary.

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

A dedicated accessible parking space with access aisle in Austin, TX. (Source: Kelly Blume)

3
98

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

3 ft Recommended 20 ft Minimum

6 ft Minimum 8 ft Minimum

5 ft Minimum

8 ft Minimum for van accessible spaces

4 ft Typical

06

08

07 02

03

01

05

04

09 09

•	 The design and layout of accessible 

parking spaces for persons with 

disabilities is required, and PROWAG 

provides the best available 

information on the details. 

•	 An access aisle shall be provided the 

full length of the parking space and 

shall connect to a pedestrian access 

route. The access aisle shall shall not 

encroach on the vehicular travel lane. 

Refer to PROWAG for details.

•	 A 5 ft wide minimum access aisle shall 

be provided at street level. For ease of 

parking, a best practice is to provide 3 

foot front and/or rear aisles.

•	 A crosswalk and curb ramp shall 

connect the access aisle to the 

sidewalk.

•	 No posts or other obstructions shall 

be placed in accessible parking space 

buffer. For further guidance on 

buffer selection and installation, see 

page 83.

•	 Place a YIELD HERE TO 

PEDESTRIANS (MUTCD R1-5) sign 

at crosswalk.

•	 Yield line pavement marking may be 

placed prior to the crosswalk. Refer 

to MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.20 for 

pavement symbols and arrow markings.

•	 For further guidance on typical signs 

and markings for separated bike lanes, 

see page 127. 

•	 Place an accessible parking sign 

(MUTCD R7-8) on the sidewalk facing 

each parking space.

Located Midblock 

Within Parking 

Lane

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

01

02

03

04

05

08

09

06

07

NOT TO SCALE

A reserved parking sign is placed alongside a floating 

parking lane in Austin, Texas (Source: Kelly Blume)

Figure 19
99

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

03

04

02

8 ft Minimum

20 ft minimum

Dependent on loading space requirement

07

01

05

08

09

05

06

• Parking is restricted in loading zone.

• A 5 ft wide minimum access aisle 

shall be provided the full length of 

the accessible loading zone and shall 

connect to a pedestrian access route. 

Refer to PROWAG for details. For 

further guidance on buffer selection 

and installation, see page 83. 

No posts or other obstructions in 

loading zone buffer.

• Optional “LOADING ZONE” pavement 

markings (MUTCD Figure 3B-23). 

Loading zones need to be accessible – 

refer to PROWAG R310 for guidance.

• Green pavement optional. For 

guidance on green pavement 

markings, see page 114.

• NO PARKING LOADING ZONE sign 

placed on the sidewalk near each end 

of buffer (MUTCD R7-6). 

• Guidance for parking space markings 

can be found in MUTCD(2009) 

Section 3B.19. 

• For further guidance on typical signs 

and markings for separated bike lanes, 

see page 127. 

• A crosswalk and curb ramp must 

connect the loading zone to the 

sidewalk.

• Optional: Yield bar pavement marking 

may be placed prior to the crosswalk. 

Refer to MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.20 

for pavement symbols and arrow 

markings.

There are a number of circumstances that require access to the curb along 

separated bike lane corridors including loading and deliveries, temporary bus 

parking, and hotel drop-off zones. In some cases, these uses can simply be 

relocated to an adjacent block face or alley. If not, ideally these zones can be well 

placed and consolidated to reduce the impacts of pedestrian and vehicle intrusion 

into the bicycle space.

If on-street parking is used in the buffer space, the loading zone design is simpler 

where parking can be restricted and the pedestrian conflict crossing the bike lane 

can be managed. When there is not space that can be made available from on-street 

parking and a loading zone is still required, additional space must be acquired either 

from the sidewalk, through a roadway widening, through a reduction in vehicle 

travel lanes, or by creating a vehicle mixing zone with the separated bike lane.

LOADING ZONES

Occupying Parking 

Lane Only

05

06

08

07

09

03

04

01

02

3

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 20
100

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• Green pavement is optional. For 

guidance on green pavement 

markings, see page 114.

• NO PARKING LOADING ZONE 

sign placed at each end in buffer 

(MUTCD R7-6). The NO PARKING 

LOADING ZONE sign can also be 

placed on the sidewalk, where it may 

be less likely to be hit by motorists 

and also may have less of an impact 

on maintenance operations.

• For further guidance on typical signs 

and markings for separated bike 

lanes, see page 127.

• A crosswalk and curb ramp must 

connect the loading zone to the 

sidewalk.

• Optional: Yield bar pavement 

marking may be placed prior to the 

crosswalk. Refer to MUTCD(2009) 

Section 3B.20 for pavement symbols 

and arrow markings.

• A lateral shift of the separated 

bike lane into the sidewalk may 

be necessary to accommodate a 

required loading or drop-off zone 

where there is no on-street parking. 

The shift must be designed based 

on the offset distance and bicycle 

design speed.

If a lateral shift cannot be 

accommodated and a loading zone 

is required, loading and drop-off 

activities may have to mix with 

bicycle traffic creating a conflict in 

high-use areas.

• Parking is restricted in loading zone.

• A 5 ft wide minimum access aisle 

shall be provided the full length 

of the accessible loading zone and 

shall connect to a pedestrian access 

route. Refer to PROWAG for details. 

For further guidance on buffer 

selection and installation, see page 

83. 

• Optional LOADING ZONE pavement 

markings (MUTCD Figure 3B-23). 

No posts or other obstructions in 

loading zone buffer.

Bending Separated 

Bike Lane into 

Sidewalk

LOADING ZONES

01

02

03

05

06

07

04

03

01

02

8 ft Minimum

Dependent on offset 

and design speeds

20 ft minimum

Dependent on loading 

space requirement

Acceptable sidewalk width 

(context dependent) must be maintained

04

09

08

06

07

06

05

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 21

08

09
101

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

A dedicated loading zone along Polk Street in San Francisco, CA. (Source: Alek Pochowski)
102

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

INTERSECTION

DESIGN 4

Intersection design is often the most challenging separated bike lane design element. Above, an 

intersection along New York City’s 9th Avenue facility. (Source: NYC DOT)

STEP

It is not possible to maintain permanent physical separation of bicycles and 

automobiles through intersections, where cross street and turning movements 

must cross the path of bicyclists. Intersections are where most bicycle-vehicle 

collisions occur, and where riders feel the most stress. Designers have implemented 

a variety of strategies, including both time- and space-separation, for maintaining 

the benefits of separated bike lanes through intersections. The configurations 

and geometries for each specific location will dictate which options are most 

advantageous.
103

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The movements of automobiles and bicycles at intersections may conflict with 

each other. Therefore, design elements are needed to increase visibility of 

bicyclists for motorists.

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Signalized and 

Unsignalized 

Treatments

Potential 

elimination of 

turn conflict

Greater traffic 

stress

Organize 

conflicts; 

reduce 

right-hook risk

Increased 

signal cycle 

length, possibly 

with increased 

wait times

Greater sense 

of comfort/ 

less traffic 

stress

Turning 

vehicle 

conflicts at 

intersections

Maintain 

Separation

Pros Cons

Shift Bicycles 

Across Turning 

Vehicles

Signals: separate through and 

turning movements in time

Bend In: position cyclists closer to 

turning vehicles to increase visibility

Bend Out: provide space for 

right-turning vehicles to turn before 

encountering bicycle conflicts; 

provide space for queueing

Lateral Shift: vehicles cross 

high-visibility bike lane; clear 

responsibility for yielding

Mixing Zone: shared lane, 

requires less space

4

Using signalization to separate the movements of automobiles and bicyclists 

through an intersection removes potential conflict points which are present with 

other treatments. A separate signal phase allows bicyclists to proceed without 

right-turning vehicle conflicts and stops bicyclists at times when right-turning 

automobiles can proceed. This approach may be selected at intersections with 

high volumes of right-turning automobiles, or on one-way streets with leftturning automobiles and a left-side running separated bike lane, and where the 

signal phasing and cycle length can accommodate a bicycle signal phase. Signal 

phasing, cycle lengths, and traffic progression should all be carefully considered 

for bicyclists where significant delay frequently results in poor signal compliance.

Signalization

Table 3
104

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• A near-side bicycle signal can 

supplement far-side signals to improve 

visibility (refer to MUTCD Interim 

Approval IA-16).

Near-side signals are required when the 

far-side signal is 120 ft or greater from 

the stop bar, and recommended over 

80 ft.

Near-side signals can be placed on the 

pedestrian pushbutton pole, or the 

bicycle pushbutton pole, if used. 

• Minimum 1 ft buffer at intersection. 

For further guidance on buffer 

selection and installation, see page 83.

• If no dedicated right turn lane is 

present, bicyclists may use pedestrian 

walk signal. A ‘Turning vehicles yield to 

bikes’ sign may be placed on the mast 

arm.

• NO TURN ON RED (MUTCD 

R10-11) on mast arm near 

signal head.

• Guidance for parking space 

markings can be found in 

MUTCD(2009) Section 3B.19. 

ONLY

Queue storage length depends on

 volume and operations

Near side 

bike signal

Taper length depends on traffic speed

02

01

4 ft Min

07 08

07

05

06

04

• For further guidance on signal phasing, 

see page 119.

• Signal detection for bicyclists is needed 

if the signal [or signal operation] is 

actuated. 

An optional signal detection loop may 

be placed 60 - 120 ft in advance of the 

intersection. 

• A bicycle detector symbol marking 

(MUTCD Fig. 9C-7) should be placed 

over the loop to alert passing cyclists to 

the in-ground sensor. 

For further guidance on typical signs and 

markings for separated bike lanes, see 

page 127. 

01

02

03

05

06

07

08

04

NOT TO SCALE

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Signalization

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 22
105

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• The weave area should be short 

to force vehicles to make slow and 

deliberate turning movements into the 

right turn lane. 

A variety of pavement marking 

treatments can be used to improve 

visibility of the separated bike lane 

and reinforce the expected bicyclist 

behaviors. For further guidance on 

paint and striping in conflict areas, 

see page 114.

• For further guidance on typical signs 

and markings for separated bike lanes, 

see page 127. 

• Guidance for parking space markings 

can be found in MUTCD(2009) Section 

3B.19. 

• For further signal guidance, see page 

115.

A lateral shift moves cyclists to the left of the motor vehicle right turn lane before 

vehicles can move right. This places the responsibility for yielding clearly on drivers 

turning right, and brings bicyclists into a highly visible position. In the lateral shift 

configuration, like the mixing zone (see page 107), potential conflicts between 

right-turning vehicles and through bicyclists occur before the intersection. A 

lateral shift treatment is effective for intersections where a separate bicycle signal 

and signal phasing is not feasible, because bicyclists can proceed in the same signal 

phase as through and right-turning vehicles. 

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Lateral Shift

• Provide minimum queue storage 

length for automobiles needed for 

operations, depending on right-turn 

volumes and signal cycle length. 

• For further guidance on bike boxes, see 

page 122.

• Shift bike lane closer to motorized 

traffic prior to weave area so motorists 

and bicyclists can see each other better. 

• For further guidance on buffer 

selection and installation, see page 83.

• Shorter queue storage lengths are 

preferred because it allows for a 

longer distance of midblock separation 

relative to the intersection and slows 

motor vehicle speeds.

• Include BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE 

YIELD TO BIKES (MUTCD R4-4) at end 

of parking restrictions. 

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 23
106

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Salt Lake City’s 

Experimental 

Lateral Shift

Salt Lake City, Utah

Salt Lake City used a pilot project approach to install a temporary separated 

bike lane along 300 East Corridor. A lane of parked cars provides additional 

separation between moving vehicles and cyclists; however, the City drops 

the parking lane in advance of intersections to improve visibility. To manage 

through-bicycle and right-turning vehicle conflicts at intersections, the City 

chose to apply an experimental lateral shift approach. Cyclists move to the left 

of the motor vehicle right-turn lane in advance of any opportunity for vehicles 

to move right. This approach places the onus of yielding to cyclists squarely on 

motor vehicles that need to make a right turn. The City has received positive 

feedback from planners and designers who have observed the facility, and 

plans to use design for its future separated bike lane intersection approaches 

where roadway width can accommodate a dedicated right turn lane. 

CASE STUDY

300 East Corridor separated bike lane. (Source: City of Salt Lake City)
107

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• Include BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD 

TO BIKES (MUTCD R4-4) at end of 

parking restrictions. ONLY

50 ft Typical, 25 ft Minimum 

110 ft Typical

60 ft

02

03

01

4 ft Min

04

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Mixing Zone A mixing zone is an area where bicyclists and right-turning automobiles merge 

into one travel lane approaching an intersection. Mixing zones provide a design 

option in which the potential conflict between right-turning vehicles and through 

bicyclists occurs before the intersection, similar to the lateral shift. Mixing zones 

may provide the best option in locations without on-street parking and/or with a 

constrained right-of-way where the roadway width will not accommodate both a 

bicycle lane and a right-turn lane at the intersection. 

• Mixing zones are often used at 

intersections with turning vehicle 

volumes high enough to cause 

frequent conflicts, but not high 

enough to require signalization.

Mixing zones may be most effective 

at intersections with 50-150 turning 

vehicles in the peak hour.

• Shared lane markings help guide 

bicyclists to the left side of turning 

vehicles.

• For further guidance on buffer 

selection and installation, see page 83.

01

02

03

04

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 24 Additional mixing zone designs are highlighted in the pictures on pages 50, 102, and 108.
108

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

A mixing zone along New York City’s 2nd Avenue separated bike lane. (Source: NYC DOT)
109

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

When the separated bike lane approaches an intersection with right-turning 

vehicles still positioned to the left of the separated bike lane, the designer 

may choose to either “bend-in” or “bend-out” the separated bike lane at the 

intersection to reduce the likelihood of conflicts with right-turning vehicles. The 

decision to bend-in or bend-out depends on a number of factors, including buffer 

type and width, available right-of-way, sight distance, side-street characteristics, 

and other contextual factors. Considerations for selecting bend-in or bend-out are 

highlighted in Table 5 on the following page. 

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Bend-In and 

Bend-Out

A bend-in design approaching an intersection in St. Petersburg, FL. (Source: Rory Rowan)
110

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• Shift bicycle lane closer to motorized 

traffic so motorists and bicyclists can 

see each other better.

• Bend-in design creates opportunity 

to build a curb extension to reduce 

pedestrian crossing distance. 

• For further guidance on buffer selection 

and installation, see page 83.

01

02

03

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Bend-In To increase the visibility of bicyclists for turning vehicles, the bend-in design positions 

bicyclists adjacent to the vehicle turn lane.

NOT TO SCALE

Requires less space than 

bending out

Bend - In

Advantages Disadvantages

Bend - Out Allows a queuing location for 

cyclists wanting to turn left.

Raised crossing provides traffic 

calming for automobiles and 

can also slow bicyclists. 

Parking spaces close to 

the intersection may be 

lost

Bicyclists may perceive less 

separation due to proximity 

of through vehicles

Requires more space

Less familiar design

Adequate sight distance 

may be difficult for vehicles 

approaching on the side 

street.

Allows vehicle traffic turning across 

separated bike lane to queue out of 

the way of through traffic and before 

the separated bike lane.

Motorists on a side street can see 

bicycles and vehicles in a similar field of 

vision. 

• A ‘Turning vehicles yield to bikes’ sign 

may be placed on the mast arm.

• Guidance for parking space markings 

can be found in MUTCD(2009) 

Section 3B.19. 

• For further guidance on typical signs 

and markings for separated bike 

lanes, see page 127. 

05

06

04

Table 4

Figure 25
111

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

• A ‘Turning vehicles yield to bikes’ 

sign may be placed on the 

mast arm.

• For further guidance on typical 

signs and markings for separated 

bike lanes, see page 127.

• For further guidance on signal 

phasing, see page 119.

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Bend-Out

• Bend-out design provides opportunity 

for an ample pedestrian refuge between 

the separated bike lane crossing and the 

roadway crossing.

• Separated bike lane and crosswalk may 

be raised to sidewalk level through the 

intersection, providing a traffic calming 

effect.

• For further guidance on buffer selection 

and installation, see page 83.

The bend-out design positions bicyclists downstream on the side street away 

from the intersection, allowing vehicles to complete turning movements before 

interacting with bicyclists. This design, which could be used on lower-volume 

side streets or driveways, provides space for a vehicle to yield to crossing bicycles 

without blocking through traffic on the main street. A Bicycle/Pedestrian Warning 

(W11-15) sign may be used as driveways approach separated bike lanes to alert 

drivers to be aware for bikes and pedestrians.

05

01 04

02

03

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 26

06
112

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Boulder, CO uses some of the sidewalk space created by the bend-in intersection design for bike parking.

(Source: Kevin Zolkiewicz)

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Opportunities for 

Space Created by 

Bend-In 

A bend-in design creates the opportunity to construct a curb extension to reduce 

pedestrian crossing distances. The design can create public space which could be 

used for: 

• Bike parking corrals

• Bikeshare stations

• Parklets

• Public art exhibits

• Bioswales/rain gardens
113

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

INTERSECTION MARKINGS 4

3 ft 5 ft

8 ft - 12 ft

Recommended

Diagonal crosshatch markings are often used in narrower buffers (i.e. 3-4 feet wide) and given their 

typical dimensions white chevrons are generally used in buffers with a width of 4 feet and above.

4 ft 5 ft

8 ft - 12 ft

Recommended

4 ft 5 ft

8 ft - 12 ft

Recommended

72 in

72 in

72 in

72 in

72 in

72 in

72 in

72 in

64 in

44 in

44 in

Minimum 

(applies to all 

three examples 

above)

White Chevrons 

and White Lines

White dashed lines may be used to mark extensions of the separated bike lane 

through intersections or other traffic conflict areas. These dotted lines are 

intended to increase awareness of where bicyclists may be positioned. White 

chevrons should be used in wider painted buffers with a width of 4 feet and above. 

Bike lane symbols should be placed periodically to reduce the intrusion of 

pedestrians and motorists into the separated bike lanes. The words BIKE LANE 

may be used as an alternative to the bike symbol. Periodic maintenance will be 

required to ensure markings remain visible.

Seattle’s first downtown separated bike lane on Second Avenue between Pike Street and Yesler Way. 

(Source: SDOT)

Figure 27
114

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

2 ft

6 ft

2 ft

6 ft

Use of Green 

Colored Pavement 

Green pavement increases awareness of bicycles and can be used to indicate an 

area of potential conflict with motor vehicles. The green colored pavement is 

an additional treatment and shall not be used instead of dotted lines to extend a 

bicycle lane across an intersection, driveway, ramp, or at the beginning of a turn 

bay. 

Green paint across a mixing zone opening on M Street NW in Washington, DC (Source: 

Jason Broehm)

The pattern of the green colored pavement may be in a manner matching the 

pattern of the dotted lines; filling in only the areas directly between a pair of 

dotted line segments (MUTCD Interim Approval IA-14) as shown in the diagram 

above. 

The green pavement and other conflict zone markings in the designs below are 

non-standard but currently in use by many U.S. municipalities.

INTERSECTION MARKINGS

Figure 28
115

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Bicycle signals may be used to separate bicycle through movements from vehicle 

right turning movements for increased safety. 

They can also be used to facilitate complex bicycle movements or help people on 

bicycles navigate complex intersections safely. 

A leading bicycle interval, which uses a bicycle signal lens to provide three to five 

seconds of green time before the corresponding vehicle green indication, can be 

used to increase the visibility of bicyclists to motorists.

The yellow change interval and all-red clearance interval may need to be adjusted 

to provide for passage of bicyclists through an intersection. The yellow change 

interval is when the steady yellow signal indication is displayed preceding the red 

signal interval. 

The Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO) uses the following equation 

to calculate the total clearance interval (i.e. the time that all signals are 

red that follows a yellow change interval and precedes the next green 

interval):

C(i) = 3 + W / V

• C (i) = Total Clearance Interval

• W = Intersection Width

• V = Cyclist Speed (9.5 mph can be used 

as a default if no speed is known)

SIGNALIZATION STRATEGIES

Bike Signals

4

Dedicated bicycle signalization along New York City’s 9th Avenue separated bike lane. 

(Source: NYC DOT)
116

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

SIGNALIZATION

Signal Phasing 

and Coordination

Bicyclists exert the most energy when starting from a stopped position. Decreasing 

the number of stops at traffic signals in a corridor will increase the comfort for people 

on bikes and improve bicyclist compliance with the signals.

Bicycle Progression Speed

• The bicycle progression speed should be set to minimize the chance of stopping 

at each intersection based on the average bicycling speed. 

• The average bicycle speed on a corridor may vary depending on roadway grades 

and typical speeds of bicyclists. A bicycle speed study may be conducted to find 

the actual progression speed.

• 10 mph is a comfortable speed for the general population; more confident cyclists 

may travel around 15 mph.

• Bicycle progression speed is largely dependent on street grade.

• Two-way separated bike lanes on a one-way street can cause significant 

challenges with signal progression for bicyclists in the contra-flow direction and 

may lead to poor compliance with the traffic signals.

Average Bicycle Delay at Intersections

• Related to the progression speed, bicyclists are less willing to wait at red traffic 

signals than motorists. Cycle lengths should be short to minimize the average 

bicyclist delay. A maximum 90 second cycle length is recommended.

Signal Detection

• Automatic detection by loops and/or video are important devices to give 

bicyclists green lights.

• Other detector feedback devices should be considered to provide information 

for bicyclists to receive a green light. Examples include the TO REQUEST GREEN 

WAIT ON SYMBOL sign (MUTCD R10-22), blue light detector device, and others. 

For sign and markings guidance, see page 127.

• Detection across the entire separated bike lane is preferred to call a green light for 

the user. Bicycle detection 60 or 120 feet in advance of the intersection could be 

used to call a green light for the bicyclist to minimize the chance of stopping and 

thereby increasing cycling comfort. 
117

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

 A bicycle detector pavement marking (MUTCD Figure 9C-7) communicates to bicyclists where to position 

themselves for signal detection in Portland, Oregon (Source: Jesse Boudart)

A blue light detector feedback device along NE Multnomah Street in Portland, OR. (Source: Jesse Boudart)
118

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

SIGNALIZATION

Bike Signal 

Alternatives

When bicycle signals cannot be used, active detection, such as a blue indicator light, 

inform cyclists that they have been detected by the signal and will be receiving a 

green signal during the cycle. Active detection may decrease frustration and improve 

red light compliance among cyclists.

SIGNALIZATION

Additional 

Guidance on 

Bicycle Signals

The California MUTCD contains thresholds for when to use a bicycle signal. The 

thresholds below, in particular, relate to separated bike lanes:

Volume:

• W = B x V and W > 50,000 and B > 50.

• W is volume warrant, B is the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering 

the intersection. V is the number of vehicles at the peak hour entering the 

intersection. B & V shall use the same peak hour.

Collision:

• When 2 or more bicycle/vehicle collisions of the types susceptible to correction 

by a bicycle signal have occurred over a 12-month period and the responsible 

public works official determines that a bicycle signal will reduce the number of 

collisions.

Geometric:

• Where a separated bike lane or multi-use path intersects a roadway.

• At other locations to facilitate a bicycle movement that is not permitted for a 

motor vehicle.
119

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

SIGNAL PHASING

Signal Phase Example 1

SIGNAL PHASING EXAMPLES

A leading bicycle interval can be used to increase the visibility of a bicyclist 

through the intersection. 

• A bicycle green signal shall not be used with coinciding vehicle green signal 

faces which allow permitted turning movements across bicycle movements. 

• Bicycle signal faces should be placed such that visibility is maximized 

for bicyclists and minimized for adjacent or conflicting motor vehicle 

movements. If drivers could be confused by viewing bicycle signal 

indications, such as when the start or end of a bicycle green indication 

occurs at different times than concurrent motor vehicle movements, 

consideration should be given to using visibility-limited bicycle signal faces.

• If bicycle signals are used, NO RIGHT ON RED (or left for one way roads) 

signs (MUTCD R10-11) should be used. 

Optional:

• The interim approval (MUTCD Interim Approval IA-16) specifies the 

permitted use of bicycle signal phases with arrows in the signal assembly as 

well as the bicycle icon. The use of arrows in a bicycle signal assembly have 

not been implemented in the United States. 

Considerations:

4

BIKE VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN

Bicycle lead interval allows 

bikes to advance ahead of 

automobiles.

Figure 29
120

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Signal Phase Example 3

A two-way separated bike lane adds complexity to signal phasing at two-way intersections. Importantly, 

the separated bike lane movement should be separated from conflicting vehicle turning movements.

BIKE VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN

Signal Phase Example 2

Bicycle movements can be separated from conflicting vehicle movements with 

automobile right-turn restrictions during the bicycle through movement, and bicycle 

signals stopping bikes while automobiles turn right.
121

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Signal Phase Example 4

Signal Phase Example 5

Signal Phase Example 6

In low vehicle traffic situations with separated bike lanes, a dedicated bicycle movement should be 

considered. The interim approval for bicycle signals (IA-16) does not permit a “bicycle scramble” (where 

bicycle movements are permitted from all four directions simultaneously).

When all vehicle turning movements must be accommodated, bicycle movements 

should be completely separated from vehicle movements.

One way streets with two-way separated bike lanes have fewer conflicting vehicle 

turning movements but should nevertheless be separated in time.

BIKE VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN
122

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Bike Boxes

and Early Exit

To allow bicyclists to comfortably navigate intersections, intersection design must 

account for right-turning, through, and left-turning movements where these 

movements are allowed. Left-turn movements (from right-side or center-running 

separated bike lanes) create the most potential for conflict with motor vehicles, 

but specific treatments such as bike boxes or two-stage turn queue boxes can 

facilitate safe and comfortable turning movements for bicyclists. 

BICYCLE TURNING MOVEMENTS

Bike boxes are designated spaces at signalized intersections that allow bicyclists 

to queue in front of motor vehicles at red lights. Placed between the stop line and 

the pedestrian crosswalk, bike boxes increase the visibility of queued bicyclists 

and provide them with the ability to start up and enter the intersection in front of 

motor vehicles when the signal turns green. Bike boxes, which have experimental 

status in accordance with the MUTCD, also provide bicyclists with the opportunity 

to position for a left turn. For more information on the MUTCD experimentation 

process, see http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/condexper.htm. On multilane streets, 

the bike box may extend across all lanes up to the left turn lane to allow for leftturning bicyclists. 

In locations with few travel lanes or low volumes, an early exit can allow more 

confident cyclists to weave from the separated bike lane into the travel lane and 

position themselves to turn with mixed traffic. 

4

A cyclist approaches a bike box on M Street, Washington DC. Source: DDOT
123

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Bike Boxes

and Early Exit

• The bike box should include 

a minimum depth of 10 ft 

and minimum combined 

width of the bike lane, 

buffer space, and adjacent 

travel lane.

• At signalized intersections, 

passive bicycle detection 

(inductive loops) may be 

used to give bicyclists a 

green light. For additional 

information on signal 

detection, see Page 116.

• On multilane streets where 

left turns are allowed, bike 

boxes may be extended 

across the left turning lane. 

• A variety of pavement 

marking treatments can be 

used to improve the visibility 

of the separated bike lane 

and reinforce expected 

bicyclist behaviors. 

For further guidance on 

paint and striping in conflict 

areas, see page 114.

• A ‘Turning vehicles yield 

to bikes’ sign may be used. 

For further guidance on 

typical signs and markings 

for separated bike lanes, see 

page 127. 

• Install STOP HERE ON RED 

sign (MUTCD R10-6A).

• Install NO TURN ON RED 

sign (MUTCD R10-11) 

if turns on red would 

otherwise be permitted.

04

05

06

07

01

02

03

NOT TO SCALE

BIKE TURNING MOVEMENTS Figure 30

07
124

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

An example of a left-turn queue box used on a bike lane in San Francisco. (Source: San Francisco Municipal 

Transportation Agency)

2- Stage Turn 

Queue Boxes

Two-stage turn queue boxes allow bicyclists to make left turns at multilane 

intersections from a right-side separated bike lane, or right turns from a left-side 

separated bike lane. Cyclists who arrive on a green light travel into the intersection 

and pull out into the two-stage turn queue box away from through-moving bicycles 

and in front of cross-street traffic. They may also be used at unsignalized intersections 

to simplify turning movements. Various positioning options are possible, depending 

on the corridor and intersection configuration. The two-stage turn queue box is 

experimental in accordance with the MUTCD.

TURNING MOVEMENTS
125

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

2- Stage Turn 

Queue Boxes

TURNING MOVEMENTS • The two-stage turn queue 

box should be designed in 

accordance with the MUTCD 

experimental approval. It should 

be located out of the way of 

through bicyclists, usually 

between the bike lane and 

crosswalk.

The two-stage left-turn box 

dimensions are about the 

same size or larger than the 

dimensions of four (4) cyclists 

standing side by side (10 ft wide 

X 6.5 ft deep).

• Where on-street parking 

is located upstream of the 

intersection, the two-stage 

turn queue box can be located 

between the bike lane and 

vehicle travel lane.

• Include a bicycle symbol and 

arrow indicating direction of 

turn in the two-stage queue box.

• At signalized intersections, 

passive bicycle detection 

(inductive loops) may be used to 

give bicyclists a green light.

• Install a NO TURN ON RED 

(MUTCD R10-11) sign where 

the two-stage left-turn box is 

installed in the path of a right 

turning vehicle.

• A variety of pavement marking 

treatments can be used to 

improve the visibility of the 

separated bike lane and reinforce 

expected bicyclist behaviors. For 

further guidance on paint and 

striping in conflict areas, 

see page 114.

• Guidance for parking space 

markings can be found in 

MUTCD (2009) Section 3B.19. 

• For further guidance on typical 

signs and markings for separated 

bike lanes, see page 127.

05

06

07

08

01

02

03

04

NOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 31
126

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

No Bicycle Turning 

Treatments

Geometric constraints may not allow for two-stage left-turn queue boxes, or bike 

boxes to be located on separated bike lane routes. The provision of BICYCLISTS 

MAY USE FULL LANE sign (MUTCD R4-11) prior to intersections may help bicyclists 

cross the roadway to perform left-turns. Excluding areas to comfortably perform 

left-turns at intersections may discourage bicycling.

TURNING MOVEMENTS
127

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

OTHER

DESIGN ELEMENTS

SIGN GUIDANCE 1) MUTCD Sign R3-17

Bike lane

7) MUTCD Sign R10-22

Bicycle signal actuation sign

YIELD

TO

PEDS

4) MUTCD Sign R9-6

Bicyclists yield to pedestrians

10) MUTCD Sign R4-4

Begin right turn lane yield to bikes

2) MUTCD Sign R10-11

No turn on red

8) MUTCD Sign R4-11

Bicycles may use full lane sign

5) MUTCD Sign R4-11

Bicyclists may use full lane

11a) MUTCD Sign R7-8

Reserved Parking for persons with disabilities

3) MUTCD Sign R10-15a

Turning vehicles yield to bikes

9) MUTCD Sign R3-7R

Right lane must turn right

6) MUTCD Sign R7-9

No Parking Bike Lane

11b) MUTCD Sign R7-8P

Van accesible

Bike lane

Bicyclists yield to pedestrians

No turn on red

Bicyclists may use full lane

Turning vehicles yield to bikes

No Parking Bike Lane

MUTCD Sign R3-17

MUTCD Sign R9-6

MUTCD Sign R10-11

MUTCD Sign R4-11

MUTCD Sign R10-15 (Mod.)

MUTCD Sign R7-9

Signs and pavement markings supplement good design and reinforce appropriate 

behavior for all roadway users. This section provides a summary of the most 

commonly used signs and pavement markings related to separated bike lane 

installation.
128

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

12) MUTCD Sign R7-6

No parking loading zone

11a) MUTCD Sign R7-8

Reserved Parking for persons with disabilities

 13) MUTCD Sign R7-7

11b) MUTCD Sign R7-8P

Van accesible

Reserved parking for No parking loading zone

persons with disabilities

No parking bus stop Bicycle/Pedestrian Warning

Van accessible

MUTCD Sign R7-6

MUTCD Sign R7-8

MUTCD Sign R7-7 MUTCD Sign W11-15

MUTCD Sign R7-8P

7) MUTCD Sign R10-22

Bicycle signal actuation sign

12) MUTCD Sign R7-6

No parking loading zone

9) MUTCD Sign R3-7R

Right lane must turn right

Bicycle signal actuation sign Right lane must turn right

MUTCD Sign R10-22 MUTCD Sign R3-7R

10) MUTCD Sign R4-4

Begin right turn lane yield to bikes

Begin right turn lane yield to 

bikes

MUTCD Sign R4-4
129

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

MARKINGS GUIDANCE 1) MUTCD Fig. 3B-24

Standard arrows for pavement markings

(”Turn & Through Lane-Use Arrow” example shown) 

3d) MUTCD Fig. 9C-5

Bicycle pavement marking

3b) FHWA Fig. 10-16

Bicycle pavement marking

6a) MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

Word, symbol & arrow pavement markings for bicycle lanes 4) MUTCD Fig. 9C-9

Shared lane marking

8b) MUTCD Fig. 3B-16

Recommended yield line layouts (”sharks teeth”) [MAX]

3c) FHWA Fig. 10-16

Bicycle pavement marking

bicycle lanes

6b) MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

Word, symbol & arrow pavement markings for bicycle lanes 5) MUTCD Fig. 9C-7

Bike detector pavement marking

9) MUTCD, Similar to Fig. 3B-23

Example of elongated letters for word pavement markings

3a) MUTCD Fig. 9C-5

Bicycle pavement marking

5) MUTCD Fig. 9C-7

Bike detector pavement marking

3d) MUTCD Fig. 9C-5

Bicycle pavement marking

8a) MUTCD Fig. 3B-16

Recommended yield line layouts (”sharks teeth”) [MIN]

Standard arrows for 

pavement markings (example 

shown)

Bicycle pavement marking: 

helmeted bicyclist symbol

Bicycle pavement marking: Shared lane marking

word legends

Bike detector pavement 

marking

Bicycle pavement marking: 

bike symbol

Pavement marking

MUTCD Fig. 3B-24 MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

MUTCD Fig. 9C-9

MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

MUTCD Fig. 9C-7

MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

MUTCD Fig. 9C-5 8a) MUTCD Fig. 3B-16

Recommended yield line layouts (”sharks teeth”) [MIN]

10) MUTCD Fig. 3B-22

International symbol of accessibility parking space marking

Recommended yield line 

pavement markings layout

MUTCD Fig. 3B-16
130

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6a) MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

Word, symbol & arrow pavement markings for bicycle lanes

7a) MUTCD Section 3B.19

Examples of Parking Space Markings

pavement markings

6a) MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

Word, symbol & arrow pavement markings for bicycle lanes

6b) MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

Word, symbol & arrow pavement markings for bicycle lanes

7b) MUTCD Section 3B.19

Examples of Parking Space Markings

6b) MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

Word, symbol & arrow pavement markings for bicycle lanes

6c) MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

Word, symbol & arrow pavement markings for bicycle lanes

7c) MUTCD Section 3B.19 Word, symbol & arrow Examples of Parking Space Markings

pavement markings for 

bicycle lanes

MUTCD Fig. 9C-3

20 ft MIN.

per UVC

20 ft typical

for end space

22 to 26 ft

NO

PARKING

ZONE

8 ft

NO

PARKING

ZONE

20 ft MIN.

per UCV

20 ft MIN.

per UCV

20 ft MIN.

per UCV

20 ft typical

8 ft

Extension enab les

driver to see limits

of stall. 4 to 6 inches

12 inches

20 ft typical

for end

space

22 to 26 ft

NO

PARKING

ZONE

30 ft MIN. on 

approach to signal

per UVC

8 ft

NO

PARKING

ZONE

NO

PARKING

ZONE

8 ft

NO

PARKING

ZONE

20 ft MIN.

from unmar ked

cross walk

(see UVC Sections

1-118 and 11-1003)

Side walk

7d) MUTCD Section 3B.19

Examples of Parking Space Markings

Examples of Parking Space Markings

MUTCD Section 3B.19

10) MUTCD Fig. 3B-22

International symbol of accessibility parking space marking

9) MUTCD, Similar to Fig. 3B-23

Example of elongated letters for word pavement markings

International symbol of 

accessibility parking space 

marking

SLOW pavement marking

MUTCD Fig. 3B-22

MUTCD, Similar to Fig. 3B-23
131

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

SEPARATED BIKE LANE TRANSITIONS

A separated bike lane should be designed so users do not face uncertainty where the 

facility begins, ends, or intersects with another bicycle facility. Design treatments at a 

separated bike lane’s terminus can vary significantly depending on the context. In all 

cases, however, planners and engineers should attempt to minimize bicycle conflicts 

with vehicular traffic and/or pedestrians and create clear pathways to safely enter 

and exit the separated facility. These transitions can be loosely categorized into 

five scenarios.

When a separated bike lane terminates at an off-street trail or sidepath, designers 

should place markings and signage to emphasize the connection and enforce space 

designations for different user groups (generally differentiating space for cyclists 

from space for pedestrians or joggers). Green paint can be used at the junction 

of these facilities in order to alert different path users to the presence of cyclists 

entering and exiting the trail to and from the separated bike lane. Depending on the 

nature of the off-street trail, bicycle-specific wayfinding signage should be installed 

near the end of the separated bike lane to encourage the off-street trail’s use. 

A roadway with a separated bike lane may narrow to the point that there is no longer 

space for separation. In other cases there may not be funding available to construct 

a separated lane through an entire corridor, or there may be operational or context 

related constraints. Designers should seek to continue the bicycle facility through 

on-street painted lanes (or, if necessary, shared lane markings) on the roadway 

beyond the end of the separated bike lane segment. Green paint prior to, through, 

and beyond the intersection where the separated facility terminates is advised. 

Transitions to 

Off-Street Trails 

or Sidepaths

Transitions 

to On-Street 

Bicycle Lanes

Transition from a buffered bike lane to separated bike lane on 8th Avenue in New York City, NY. 

(Source: NYC DOT)
132

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Situations where a separated bike lane ends with no bicycle facility beyond it 

should be avoided where possible. Care should be taken to alert both cyclists 

and motorists to the end of the separated bike lane through green markings and 

signs. For cyclists approaching the end of a facility, alerts should be provided with 

enough advance notice to allow for a change in route to side streets or adjacent 

corridors, especially if the separated bike lane terminates in an area with high 

vehicular traffic volumes (for example, at highway interchanges or high-volume 

attractions like stadiums). For transitions that occur in high-volume locations, 

design flexibility is encouraged to create a safe landing point for cyclists, even if it 

requires a change in local law to allow cyclists to use sidewalks, or involves other 

unique treatments. 

Transitions at the beginning and end of a two-way separated bike lane require 

special consideration. On two-way streets, bicyclists will have to move across 

conflicting through vehicle movements to connect between the separated bike 

lane and the standard bike lane or shared lane. Bicycle signals or two-stage 

turn queue boxes may be needed to manage conflicts. Two-way separated bike 

lanes on one-way streets must accommodate contraflow bicycles getting to and 

exiting from the separated bike lane at either end of the facility. Cross streets 

or contraflow bike lanes may be used to connect bicyclists to other streets or 

facilities. Two-way separated bike lanes pose an additional challenge of wrongway riding after the bike lane terminates.

When one separated bike lane intersects with another, practitioners should 

design intersections to facilitate turns between them. On high-volume corridors, 

this may be best accomplished through a “protected intersection” design, which 

includes corner islands to shield through- and turning bicycle traffic from the 

adjacent roadways. Cyclists turning left from a right-side running separated bike 

lane should be encouraged to make two-stage left turns and queue in two-stage 

turning boxes adjacent to corner islands. Depending on the street’s existing 

geometry, pedestrian crosswalks may need to be set back from intersections in 

order to make room for the turning queue boxes. Bicycle specific wayfinding and 

directional signage should be installed to simplify cyclists’ experience navigating 

the intersection. The “protected intersection” treatment can be viewed as an 

expansion of the “bend out” design treatment covered in the turning movements 

section of this chapter.

Transitions to

 Roads with No

Dedicated Bicycle 

Facilities

Intersections 

with Other 

Separated Bike 

Lanes

Transitions 

from Two-Way 

Separated Bike 

Lanes
133

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The preceding sections highlighted numerous factors that inform the design 

of separated bike lanes, from the four primary design categories (directional 

characteristics and width, separation type, midblock considerations and 

intersection considerations) to secondary areas of focus. Because of space 

constraints and the complex nature of streets, design is often an iterative process 

where trade-offs between different design options must be evaluated and a 

change to one element of the design necessitates changes to other elements. 

Similarly, trade-offs may continually be made between facility design and planning 

considerations such as potential ridership, transit access, parking supply and 

maintenance throughout the design process.

This section illustrates the decision-making process for separated bike lane design 

through three hypothetical examples, underscoring the integrated nature of 

their designs.

DECISION MAKING 

PROCESS EXAMPLES
134

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
135

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

While one-way separated bike lanes positioned on the left side of a one-way 

street offer several potential advantages, this scenario illustrates a case where the 

benefits of a right-side facility are seen as outweighing the drawbacks. Note: This 

design could also be mirrored on both sides of a two-way street to create one-way 

separated bike lanes in each direction.

Because this one-way street is coupled with, and well-connected to, a one-way street 

in the opposite direction a short block over, significant demand does not exist for a 

contra-flow bicycle facility. Therefore, a two-way bike lane is not seen as critical on 

this street. The narrower profile of a one-way lane also ensures that a parking lane 

can be preserved along with the preferred number of travel lanes. The lane and 

buffer are sized at 7 ft and 3 ft respectively so as to accommodate the municipality’s 

street sweepers and snow plows until smaller models can be integrated into the fleet. 

The land use patterns along the street are such that the left side of the street has 

many more driveways – which increase potential vehicle conflicts, detracting from 

the safety and comfort of a separated bike lane – than the right side. A right-side 

facility is seen as the safer choice. Although this option creates additional conflicts at 

the bus stops along the right side, the parking lane alongside the separated bike lane 

creates additional space to mitigate this challenge as described under the Midblock 

section on the following page.

ONE-WAY STREET 

WITH LEFT-SIDE CONFLICTS

STEP 1

DIRECTION AND WIDTH

STEP 2

FORMS OF SEPARATION

Design Challenge

One-way vs Two-way

Lane Alignment

Buffer Type Because this type of bicycle facility and street configuration is a new one for this 

jurisdiction, an interim design using low-cost and easily modified materials is preferred. 

Separation from traffic for the bicycle lane is provided using flexible delineator posts. 

Once the project has been evaluated and funding has been identified, the design can 

be improved if needed and built-out with more permanent materials such as a raised 

median with landscaping and bioswales.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS EXAMPLES
136

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

STEP 3

MIDBLOCK

STEP 4

INTERSECTIONS

Transit Stops

Curbside and 

Accessibility

Turning Movements

Markings and Signage

Because a bus service runs along this street, with stops along the right side, it is 

necessary to carefully design the separated bike lane where it interacts with the 

bus stops. Having buses stop in the travel lane is not desired due to motor vehicle 

volumes, therefore the width provided by the parking lane along the right side is 

utilized to create “mixing zones” for bicyclists and stopped buses at bus stops. While 

not as comfortable for bicyclists as a design that maintains the separated bike lane 

through the bus stop, in this case it is seen as a reasonable compromise between 

motor vehicle capacity, bicycle facilities, transit service, and parking needs.

To ensure the availability of space for commercial loading and unloading activity, 

dedicated loading zones are provided at intervals within the parking lane. The removal 

of parking along the left side of the street creates challenges for some businesses on 

that side of the street, which are partially mitigated by providing loading zones at the 

corners of the cross streets. 

Right-turning volumes at this intersection are low enough that mixing zones are 

employed at intersections to manage turning conflicts.

Signs and markings require motorists to yield to bicyclists when entering the mixing 

zones. Shared lane markings within the mixing zones guide bicyclists to the outside 

of right-turning automobiles, while green paint through the intersection calls 

attention to the bicycle lane. 2-stage bicycle turn boxes are provided on the far side 

of the intersections to collect left-turning bicyclists, and NO TURN ON RED signage 

prevents right-turning motorists from interfering with bicyclists queuing ahead of 

them to make 2-stage left turns.
137

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

BIKE MOVEMENT DIAGRAM

1

2

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 32

(only bicycle phases shown)
138

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

TWO-WAY SEPARATED BIKE LANE 

ON ONE-WAY STREET

Design Challenge

One -way vs Two-way

Lane Alignment

Buffer Type

Designing for 

Driveways

Two-way separated bike lanes can be desirable on one-way streets when there is 

a high level of bicyclist demand in both directions due to limited alternatives for 

the contra-flow direction. However, they create additional turning conflicts that 

must be mitigated through careful design.

Bicyclists have expressed a preference to be able to utilize this street for two-way 

travel because of its numerous destinations, it is the most direct route and because 

comfortable bicycle facilities are not feasible on parallel streets. In addition, new 

developments along the street and related road work provides an opportunity to 

create an attractive, permanent bicycle facility. A comprehensive redesign of the 

streetscape is completed, providing a two-way separated bike lane that responds 

to user preferences and supports the economic development taking place along 

the street.

In this location, the left side is preferred for the two-way bike lane as it puts 

bicyclists and turning motorists moving in the same direction next to each other, 

maximizing visibility. Doing so also minimizes impacts on bus stops along the 

route.

It made economic sense to incorporate a permanent bicycle lane design into the 

road work that is already planned to address utility infrastructure and roadway 

condition as it would represent only an incremental cost. The bicycle lane is 

placed at sidewalk grade since cross streets and driveways are widely spaced and 

to reinforce the bicycle-oriented nature of the street. The bicycle lane is paved 

in asphalt rather than concrete to reinforce its purpose. A buffer zone along the 

curb separates the raised bicycle lane from the parking lane while a landscaped 

buffer separates it from the pedestrian portion of the sidewalk. 

Driveways are designed to prioritize those on foot and bicycle by bringing crossing 

motor vehicles up to sidewalk grade rather than vice versa. To ensure that 

bicyclists are visible to drivers entering and exiting the few driveways along the 

route, ample visibility is provided through the removal of several parking spaces 

at each driveway to provide clear sight lines. Furthermore, the asphalt bicycle 

lane pavement is carried through the driveways and enhanced with green paint 

and warning signage to call both drivers’ and bicyclists’ attention to the presence 

of each other.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS EXAMPLES

STEP 1

DIRECTION AND WIDTH

STEP 2

FORMS OF SEPARATION

STEP 3

MIDBLOCK
139

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Curbside and 

Accessibility

Turning Movements

Markings and Signage

Much of the loading activity for businesses along the left side of the street takes 

place off-street, but to minimize conflicts between on-street loading and bicyclists, 

dedicated loading zones are provided towards the middle of each block. Accessible 

parking spaces are also located mid-block by narrowing the bike lane and shifting it 

towards the landscaped buffer to create the necessary width.

The two-way bicycle lane is painted green through intersections, whether it remains 

at sidewalk grade or crosses at roadway grade. A bicycle turn queue box facilitates 

right turns by northbound bicyclists and left turns by southbound bicyclists.

Two-way separated bike lanes generally require their own protected signal phase at 

signal-controlled intersections where conflicting turns are allowed. Dedicated left 

turn bays are included at intersections (in exchange for several parking spaces) with 

a separate signal phase from that of the bicycle movement, and the northbound bike 

lane “bends in” at the intersection approach to visibly position bicyclists immediately 

next to left-turning drivers. In addition, minor cross streets are treated similarly to 

driveways with a raised pedestrian and bicycle crosswalk that slows motor vehicles 

while enhancing sidewalk users’ visibility.

STEP 4

INTERSECTIONS
140

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

(only bicycle phases shown)

1

2

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 33

BIKE MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
141

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

MEDIAN-RUNNING TWO-WAY 

SEPARATED BIKE LANE

Design Challenge

Lane Alignment

Buffer Type

Midblock 

Considerations

Some two-way streets lend themselves to two-way bike lanes running down the 

center rather than one-way bike lanes on the outside edges, particularly on a 

route oriented to bicycle through traffic. Such a design can create a boulevardlike experience but management of bicycle, motor vehicle and pedestrian 

interactions at intersections is key.

A two-way separated bicycle lane down the median of the street may be 

appropriate when many bicyclists use the street as a commuting “through” 

route; the outer edges experience a heavy combination of parking, bus stop and 

commercial loading activity; left turn volumes for motorists are modest; and the 

neighborhood plan envisioned the street serving as a grand “boulevard” with a 

tree-lined median. The two-way bike lane is a comfortable 12 ft wide, which also 

easily accommodates maintenance vehicles.

To implement the new design in a short-term, low-cost way, the separated bike 

lane is primarily separated using interim materials such as markings, flexible 

delineator posts and landscaped planters (which are maintained by the local 

merchants association). However, an available grant is sufficient to build out 

raised islands at intersection approaches to better protect pedestrians at the 

crossings and move closer to the long-term boulevard vision by including largecanopy trees.

Locating the two-way separated bicycle lane within the median of the street 

generally eliminates midblock design issues such as transit stops, accessibility, 

parking, loading and driveway conflicts. This configuration concentrates design 

challenges at the intersections.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS EXAMPLES

STEP 3

MIDBLOCK

STEP 2

FORM OF SEPARATION

STEP 1

DIRECTION AND WIDTH
142

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Turning Movements

Markings and Signage

“Carving out” the left turn bays from the median brings bicyclists and turning motorists 

directly alongside each other, improving visibility at the intersection approaches. 

Separate signal phases are necessary for the bike lane and left turning motor vehicles 

given the multiple conflicts present in this design. A stop bar is provided for bicyclists 

in advance of the crosswalk so that pedestrians can cross unimpeded during their 

“walk” phase.

The two-way bicycle lane is painted green through the intersections. Bicycle turn 

queue boxes are provided on the near side of the intersection (in the “shadow” 

of the median) to facilitate right turns by northbound bicyclists and left turns by 

southbound bicyclists and on the far side of the intersection for northbound left turns 

and southbound right turns. Dotted lane line extensions within the intersection help 

organize drivers’ through and turning movements, particularly around the bicycle 

turn queue boxes. Signs reinforce the designated lanes and stopping locations and 

alert both motorists and bicyclists to the conflicting movements.

STEP 4

INTERSECTION
143

CHAPTER 5 | MENU OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 34
CHAPTER 6 | MOVING FORWARD

144
CHAPTER 6 | MOVING FORWARD

145

CHAPTER 6

MOVING 

FORWARD
CHAPTER 6 | MOVING FORWARD

146

MOVING FORWARD

This Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide builds on existing research 

and design guidance through an in-depth review of relevant literature, interviews 

with practitioners throughout the U.S., and analysis of available crash and volume 

data. The guide provides practical information and promotes design flexibility to 

facilitate the planning, design, and implementation of separated bike lanes.

Separated bike lanes are one of many “tools in the toolbox” that communities will 

use to create connected bicycle networks. They can boost bicycle ridership and 

draw a broader spectrum of users, and they may provide safety and economic 

benefits to non-users as well. Separated bike lanes can have a wide range of 

safety impacts for bicyclists and other street users depending on site-specific 

conditions and context.

FHWA supports a flexible approach to the planning and design of separated bike 

lanes, in part because the state of the practice is evolving as more separated bike 

lanes are implemented throughout the U.S. In order to advance the state of the 

practice there must be an ongoing conversation among those that are planning, 

designing, implementing, using, and evaluating separated bike lanes. This 

conversation should incorporate lessons from separated bike lanes built as part of 

new projects, and also those implemented within constrained urban, suburban, 

and rural environments. Data, research, capacity building, and evaluation will be 

cornerstones of this effort and are described briefly below. Safety and Equity will 

be integral components of all four areas.

1. Data: Because they are relatively new in the U.S., data specific to separated 

bike lanes on safety, ridership, user comfort, maintenance, economic 

impacts, and cost are limited. Data on these attributes will improve over time. 

Moving forward planners and designers should collect before- and aftervolume and crash data for all planned separated bike lanes. States, MPOs, 

and local governments implementing separated bike lanes should consider 

incorporating robust data collection and project evaluation methodologies 

into their standard project implementation process. A data collection 

information checklist and project evaluation worksheet are included as 

appendices to this guide (refer to Appendices E and D, respectively). Preand post-implementation data on bicyclist crashes and volumes is necessary 

at a minimum to provide meaningful results and to continue to improve the 

state of the practice.

Key Considerations
CHAPTER 6 | MOVING FORWARD

147

2. Research: The crash analysis conducted as part of the development of this guide 

is a first step towards understanding the safety trends related to separated bike 

lanes. However, to truly understand the safety effects of separated bike lanes, 

it will be necessary to collect more robust crash data (e.g., crash severity) and 

bicyclist volume data. Future research should be conducted to develop crash 

modification factors for different SBL configurations. To facilitate this process, 

a mechanism to receive and compile new and updated data on separated bike 

lanes will be needed and, to the extent possible, this effort should be coordinated 

with ongoing efforts to modify FHWA’s Traffic Monitoring Analysis System 

(TMAS) based on the Traffic Monitoring Guide format so that exposure rates 

for SBLs can be properly assessed. Future research identified in Appendix F, and 

also by other stakeholders such as the Transportation Research Board’s Bicycle 

Transportation Committee, should also be undertaken and should involve 

stakeholders and partners at all levels, including cities, MPOs, States, advocacy 

organizations, University Transportation Centers, private nonprofit institutions, 

foundations, and the Federal government.

3. Capacity Building: Ongoing peer exchange and capacity building efforts are 

needed, especially given that the state of the practice for planning and designing 

separated bike lanes is still evolving. A venue to compile and make available 

to practitioners the best separated bike lane designs should be created and 

maintained. In the interim, stakeholders are encouraged to continue ongoing 

peer exchanges focused on innovative bicycle facility design and to look for 

opportunities to “broaden the base” of practitioners and communities that are 

participating. Additional venues for providing training and peer exchange to 

practitioners planning and designing separated bike lanes should be identified 

and could potentially include universities, advocacy organizations, MPOs, States, 

and national training providers.

4. Evaluation: Project evaluation should extend beyond safety and ridership 

to consider the sustainability and performance of projects in relation to all 

relevant policy goals. These might include accessibility, job access, economic 

development, tourism, public health, and environmental quality. A holistic 

performance evaluation framework is needed to enable communities to evaluate 

separated bike lanes in a way that is comprehensive and that responds to policy 

goals and community needs. To the extent possible, this evaluation framework 

should be coordinated with other established ways to evaluate performance. 

This framework should cover the broad range of transportation goals and 

objectives, while at the same time incorporating social, environmental, and 

economic considerations.
FHWA-HEP-15-025

For More Information

Visit http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian