FEBRUARY 2019

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE

February 2019

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Bikeway Selection Guide

5a. FUNDING NUMBERS

NA

6. AUTHORS

Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Blackburn, Lauren;

Wood, Adam; Reed, Dan; Elbech, Mary

5b. CONTRACT NUMBER

DTFH61-16-D-00005

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500

Raleigh, NC 27606

Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Mobycon - North America, Durham, NC

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NA

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S)

AND ADDRESS(ES)

Tamara Redmon

Project Manager, Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

FHWA-SA-18-077

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

NA

13. ABSTRACT

This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about tradeoffs relating to the selection of bikeway types. This report highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process

and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical processoriented way. It draws on research where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility,

documentation, and experimentation.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks,

active transportation, low stress networks

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

52 

16. PRICE CODE

NA

17. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unlimited
CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2. Bikeway Selection Policy .......................................................................................................................... 6

3. Bikeway Selection Planning ..................................................................................................................... 10

4. Bikeway Selection .................................................................................................................................. 22

5. Bikeway Selection in Practice................................................................................................................... 35

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 48

NOTICE

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

the interest of information exchange. 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 contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, 

or regulation.

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 or behaviors and, in some 

cases, may reflect conditions that are not recommended.

Publication Number: FHWA-SA-18-077
2

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 1. INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction

1	 Bikeway	–	A	facility	intended	for	bicycle	travel	which	designates	space	for	bicyclists	distinct	from	motor	vehicle	traffic.	A	bikeway	does	not	include	

shared lanes, sidewalks, signed routes, or shared lanes with shared lane markings, but does include bicycle boulevards.

This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners 

consider and make informed trade-off decisions relating to 

the selection of bikeway types. It is intended to supplement 

planning and engineering judgment. It incorporates and builds 

upon the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) support 

for	design	flexibility	to	assist	transportation	agencies	in	the	

development of connected, safe, and comfortable bicycle 

networks that meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities.

This guide references existing national resources from FHWA, 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials	(AASHTO),	the	National	Association	of	City	

Transportation	Officials	(NACTO),	the	Institute	of	Transportation	

Engineers (ITE), and others. It is not intended to supplant 

existing design guides, but rather serve as a decision support 

tool. It points to relevant sources of design information and 

focuses on the following question:

What type of bikeway1 should be chosen on this 

particular street or in this plan given real-world 

context, constraints, and opportunities?
3

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 1. INTRODUCTION

This guide focuses on safety, but it also emphasizes the 

importance of comfort to appeal to a broad spectrum of 

bicyclists. This will encourage more people to choose to bike 

and in doing so will help FHWA meet its goal to increase the 

number of short trips made by bicycling and walking to 30 

percent by the year 2025 (a 50 percent increase over the 2009 

value of 20 percent), as established in its Strategic Agenda for 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation. 

This guide highlights linkages between the bikeway selection 

process and the larger transportation planning process. The 

bikeway type selection decision should be informed by active 

public involvement and participation that occurs as part of the 

planning process. 

Bikeway	type	selection	primarily	depends	on	the	traffic	volume	

and operating speed characteristics of the roadway, which are 

often	implied	by	their	functional	classification	(arterial,	collector,	

local) within various land use contexts. The land use context will 

likely have a big impact on the available right-of-way, the mix of 

roadway	users,	property	access,	traffic	operating	speeds,	road	

operations and safety performance, and community goals—all 

of which will inform trade-off decisions. 

This guide presents these factors and considerations in a 

practical, process-oriented way, as outlined in Figure 1 on page 

4. It draws on research where available, and it emphasizes the 

use	of	engineering	judgment,	best	practices,	design	flexibility,	

documentation, and experimentation. A comprehensive 

assessment of pertinent research and a literature review is 

available in a separate document entitled Literature Review 

Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic that can be 

found here: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve. 

It also acknowledges that there are often multiple potential 

solutions, sometimes none of which are ideal. 

Within this context, this guide reinforces the need to be 

clear about the design choices a practitioner is making, and 

to thoroughly understand safety and other trade-offs that 

those choices entail. This guide documents and highlights 

common trade-offs and advises transportation agencies on 

practices to describe the trade-offs associated with bikeway 

selection. It presents the information in a way that is targeted to 

practitioners, recognizing real-world constraints and focusing 

on helping to make day-to-day decisions about whether, and to 

what	extent,	to	separate	bicyclists	from	motor	vehicle	traffic.	

Guide Outline 

Section 2: The bikeway selection process begins with policy. 

This section describes ways that policy provides the framework 

for bikeway selection decision making in the transportation 

planning, project development, design, and project delivery 

processes. 

Section 3: This section focuses on key aspects of the planning 

process	that	influence	bikeway	type	selection.	This	section	

culminates in a discussion about a project’s purpose, or why it is 

being undertaken and what it is intended to accomplish. 

Section 4: This section focuses on bikeway selection. It 

identifies	strategies	for	selecting	the	desired	bikeway	type	

based on the design user and roadway context. It then outlines 

an	approach	for	assessing	and	refining	options,	evaluating	their	

feasibility, and selecting the preferred bikeway type. 

Section 5: This section highlights real-world decisions on a 

range	of	common	roadway	types.	It	identifies	options	and	

describes how the bikeway choice impacts bicyclists and people 

traveling by other modes. 

Bikeway type selection has important safety implications. It 

also	influences	other	aspects	of	planning	and	design	of	specific	

projects, whether along a corridor or within a broader bikeway 

network. The information in this guide is intended to streamline 

the bikeway selection process, accelerate project delivery, foster 

the development of connected networks, and improve safety for 

all users.

Traffic Volumes and Safety of Vulnerable Users 

Over the last few decades, research suggests that 

bicyclist risk decreases as the number of bicyclists 

increases. This phenomenon is known as “safety in 

numbers.” Greater safety attracts more bicyclists, 

resulting in safer cycling conditions overall. Multiple 

studies show that the presence of bikeways, particularly 

low-stress, connected bikeways, positively correlates 

with increased bicycling. This in turn results in 

improvements in bicyclists’ overall safety.
4

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 1. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1: FHWA Bikeway Selection Process and Guide Outline

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
5

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 1. INTRODUCTION
6

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 2. BIKEWAY SELECTION POLICY 

2. Bikeway Selection Policy 

A	transportation	agency’s	policies	can	help	to	define	a	vision	for	the	transportation	network.	They	can	also	support	consistent	

implementation of projects that meet the needs of all users. Policies can address a broad range of topics, such as bikeway selection, 

funding, project development, planning, design, accessibility, and maintenance. Policies are also useful to guide and prioritize 

acceptable trade-offs. The following section highlights examples of how policies can provide context and serve as a framework for 

the bikeway planning and selection process.

Policies relating to bikeway selection can:

1. Define specific goals and expectations for the 

bicycle network. For example, an agency may establish 

a policy stating that the primary bicycle network should 

serve the “interested but concerned” user type and/or be 

designed to support a target bicycle mode share (see page 

13).

2. Make the linkage between bikeway selection 

and broader goals for multimodal access and 

safety. Vision Zero policies and related “Road to Zero” or 

“Toward	Zero	Deaths”	initiatives	can	specifically	reference	

bikeway selection as a strategy for reducing fatalities and 

serious injuries. Policies can explain how bikeway selection 

occurs as part of all transportation activities and funding 

programs. They can also explain the relationship between 

broader goals for level of service (LOS) and the project’s 

defined	purpose.	For	example, as part of the long-range 

planning process, an agency can establish a desired 

LOS for bicyclists and identify the bikeway types that will 

achieve the desired LOS.

3. Define the metrics for success. Complete	Streets	

implementation can be measured by how closely 

transportation projects match expectations for bikeway 

selection and achieve desired goals. These metrics can 

be included and updated in agency policy, and many 

agencies routinely report on progress toward these goals. 

Policies can direct the agency to track implementation 

of the bikeway network and preferred bikeway types. An 

agency can also evaluate outcomes according to safety 

and mobility metrics and describe the issues that may have 

led	to	a	final	decision.	Tracking	and	reporting	can	identify	

improvements to the agency’s bikeway selection policy or 

implementation strategies. Metrics of success should be 

tied to performance—instead of using miles of bikeways 

which may be disconnected, a more effective metric could 

be low-stress bikeway network connectivity.

4. Provide a transparent framework for prioritizing 

and programming transportation projects, 

including specific bikeway types. Policies can 

promote a transparent decision making process for 

prioritizing and funding transportation projects and 

bikeways.

5. Define different planning contexts and design 

considerations used to select desired bikeways.

Roadways pass through a broad range of land use and 

development contexts, such as rural areas and urban 

centers. An agency’s policies for bikeway selection can 

clearly describe planning context and highlight relevant 

factors such as topography, curbside uses, geographic 

distribution	of	destinations,	local	plans,	and	traffic	

characteristics. Policies can also address accessibility 

requirements and guidelines. For example, agency policy 

can demonstrate how people with disabilities will be able to 

cross a separated bike lane.

6. Explain a preferred approach to design flexibility 

and experimentation when selecting bikeway 

types. Projects often encounter constrained rights-of-way 

and	other	factors	that	influence	the	selection	of	a	preferred	

bikeway type or an alternative. Policies can describe how 

strongly the agency will adhere to its bicycle network plan 

and to what extent the decision making process will grant 

exceptions to the preferred bikeway type. 
7

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 2. BIKEWAY SELECTION POLICY 

7. Direct the agency to prepare project-level 

feasibility assessments and engage the public 

on complex bikeway selection decisions. As 

local	officials	and	the	public	ask	questions	about	potential	

impacts and trade-offs associated with bikeway options, 

agency policy can describe an approach to producing a 

detailed feasibility study or scoping assessment prior 

to	making	a	final	bikeway	selection.	A	feasibility	study	

can also provide for more public input and opportunities 

to	educate	the	public	about	the	purpose	and	benefits	

of various bikeway types. Policies can also describe an 

approach to engaging the public. An agency may establish 

an online portal or process by which the public can submit 

requests for bikeway improvements or comments about 

existing facility maintenance and operations.

8. Highlight the linkage between bikeway selection 

and state or local traffic ordinances and control 

standards. For example, some states have laws that 

require cyclists to ride in designated bikeways, but most 

provide	flexibility	to	the	cyclist	depending	on	the	bicyclist’s	

experience and roadway conditions.

9. Proactively address bikeway selection as part of 

maintenance activities. Bikeways can be integrated 

into routine maintenance activities, such as roadway 

resurfacing	projects.	Agency	policies	can	outline	a	specific	

process for identifying and capturing opportunities. Figure 

2 is an excerpt from FHWA’s workbook on Incorporating 

On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects, and 

it highlights numerous points in the planning and design 

process in which bikeway selection decisions will occur.

Figure 2: Roadway Resurfacing

This chart, from FHWA’s resource on Incorporating On-Road 

Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects, highlights points 

in the roadway resurfacing planning and design process 

where bikeway selection occurs.

Source: FHWA
8

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 2. BIKEWAY SELECTION POLICY 

The Dutch Approach to Safety and Bikeway Selection 

Between the 1950s and 1970s, the Netherlands and the 

United States began an intense period of auto-centric 

planning. The resulting increases in motor vehicle travel 

led to a steady increase in transportation related fatalities. 

In 1972 transportation-related fatalities peaked in both 

countries. Improvements in roadway design, vehicle 

design, and medical care since the early 1970s have led 

to decreases in fatalities between 1972 and 2011, and 

between 1972 and 2017, as shown in Table 1 below.

While there may be many explanations for these changes 

in raw numbers, it is notable that even during the period 

of increased distracted driving (since 2011), fatalities 

continue to drop in the Netherlands while they have 

dramatically increased in the United States. 

How has the Netherlands built one of the safest 

transportation systems in the world? 

In the early 1970s the Dutch shifted from the auto-centric 

approach to a Safe Systems (defined as Sustainable 

Safety in 1997) approach in response to public protests 

of the high numbers people killed, particularly children 

(~400 in 1971). The public also opposed the degradation 

of the public realm, environment, and quality of life 

resulting that comes with widening roadways through 

cities. The Dutch Sustainable Safety program has 

proven to be among the most effective in the world. It 

is a proactive approach to prevent fatalities and serious 

injuries through roadway design practices. Because of 

the program’s success, many practitioners look to the 

Netherlands for inspiration and guidance.

The Most Effective Features of Sustainable Safety

The Dutch Sustainable Safety program includes 

traditional reactive strategies to address crashes that 

have occurred as well as efforts to improve vehicle 

design. The improved safety outcomes, however, are 

largely obtained by the preventative approach to roadway 

design which strives to prevent serious crashes, and 

where crashes do occur, to minimize the risk of severe 

injury. This approach assumes human error. This results 

in roadway design practices which strive to minimize 

situations where there are likely to be large differences in 

speed and mass operating together or at conflict points.

The Sustainable Safety approach shifts the primary 

responsibility for safety from the system users (an 

approach that focues on education and enforcement 

strategies) to require system designers to accept the 

primary responsibility to achieve safety goals. 

The following page explains the five core elements of the 

Netherlands Sustainable Safety Program.

Fatalities (1972) Fatalities (2011) Fatalities (2017)

United States 54,589 32,367 (- 40.7%) 40,100 (- 26.6%)

Netherlands 3,506 661 (- 81.1%) 613 (- 82.5%)

Table 1: Comparison	of	Transportation-Related	Fatalities	in	the	United	States	and	the	Netherlands,	1972	to	2017
9

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 2. BIKEWAY SELECTION POLICY 

Netherlands Sustainable Safety Design Principles 

FUNCTIONALITY: Roads can be categorized by three 

distinct functions within a hierarchical network—

through roads, distributor roads, and access roads. 

Through roads (arterials) are best suited for through 

traffic and are designed to move vehicles efficiently from 

A to B. Access roads (local) feature low speeds, allowing vehicle traffic to mix with pedestrians and cyclists. 

Residential streets are the majority of access roads and 

focus on safe, slow streets that prioritize pedestrians. 

Distributor roads (collector) connect access and through 

roads, encouraging traffic flow and providing safe interchanges, particularly when intersecting a road with a 

different function. 

HOMOGENEITY: Roads with vehicles of balanced 

speeds, directions, and masses are the safest. Reductions in speed can mitigate the risk of serious injury or 

fatality and can be managed through roadway design. 

Where speeds are high, and road users of varying masses are moving in different directions, separation can 

prevent conflicts and serious injury.

PREDICTABILITY: Roads should be intuitive so that 

users can recognize and know what to expect. Roadway 

design can encourage road users to behave in a way that 

is expected and in line with the posted speed limit. 

FORGIVENESS: Infrastructure can be designed to accommodate human error, minimizing the risk for serious 

injury or fatality. The layout of a road can significantly 

influence traffic behavior. Forgiving streets ensure that 

even when something does go wrong, the risk of severe 

consequence is mitigated. 

STATE AWARENESS: Awareness of individual road 

users is encouraged to improve safety for all users. Factors that contribute to awareness include the condition 

of the road, weather, driving skills, impairment, stress, 

and fatigue.

For additional related information, see FHWA’s report 

on Bicycle Network Planning and Facility Design 

Approaches in the Netherlands and the United States 

at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_

pedestrian/publications/network_planning_design.

Bicycle Network Planning & 

 Facility Design Approaches

in the Netherlands and 

the United States

FHWA Global Benchmarking Program

The Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic 

(CROW Manual) is a resource that 

informs decisions about creating 

and maintaining effective cycling 

infrastructure in the Netherlands.
10

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

3. Bikeway Selection Planning

Bikeway type selection should not be done in isolation. The decision is part of a broader planning process that accounts for roadway 

and	traffic	characteristics	of	all	modes,	including	freight,	transit,	personal	vehicles,	emergency	access,	bicyclists,	and	pedestrians.	It	

includes community goals and priorities as well as public involvement and feedback from all parts of the community.

Vision

At the core of the planning process is a vision for a future 

bicycle network. The vision is developed through a planning 

process and is typically documented in a local, regional, or state 

plan. The vision describes desired future characteristics of 

and	outcomes	for	bicycle	transportation	and	typically	defines,	

explicitly or implicitly, the target bicyclist design user type (as 

described on page 13).

The vision for the bike network can inform planningrelated activities, such as decisions regarding where an 

agency chooses to pave shoulders and transportation 

recommendations in a small area plan. It should also be 

integrated into planning discussions about large scale 

transportation initiatives and plans for other types of networks, 

such as transit and freight.

To strengthen the vision, an agency may set it into policy. 

Agencies may consider adoption of the Safe Systems or 

Sustainable Safety policy, as described in the previous pages, 

which applies to all transportation decisions. In this case, the 

agency might prioritize the most vulnerable road users above 

other transportation objectives. These priorities inform the 

planned	network	and	specific	objectives	for	each	transportation	

improvement project.

The Bicycle Network

A bicycle network is a seamless interconnected system of 

bikeways. The purpose and quality of the network depends 

on the assumptions, goals, and decisions made during the 

planning	process.	Networks	should	be	thoughtfully	planned	to	

provide necessary and desired connections and access. The 

most successful bicycle networks enable people of all ages and 

abilities to safely and conveniently get where they want to go.

The bicycle network informs bikeway type selection by showing 

where higher quality facilities are needed the most. If a 

project is planned on a roadway that is a critical link in the bike 

network, including the appropriate bike infrastructure should be 

prioritized as a part of that project. A lower quality bikeway such 

as a regular bike lane on a busy suburban arterial road with highspeed	traffic	is	a	missed	opportunity	to	build	out	a	low-stress/

high comfort bike network that serves a greater portion of the 

population. The opportunity to make a high-quality connection 

may not occur again for decades. While this bike lane may be an 

improvement over no bikeway facility, it will not be appealing for 

most people given the context.

Similarly, if a project is planned on a road that is not part of the 

bike network, a trade-off on the quality of the bike facility might 

be more acceptable (keeping in mind that bicyclists have a right 

to travel on all public roads, unless prohibited, whether or not a 

bicycle facility is present).

By	influencing	bikeway	selection	in	this	way,	the	planned	bicycle	

network helps communities be strategic about investments 

and implementation, while also helping to balance competing 

network needs, such as for transit and freight. It helps agency 

staff and advocates set priorities by recognizing that every 

individual street or road does not serve the same role in the 

network and that some are more important than others. The 

network also helps to determine the extent to which a parallel 

route (described on page 34) is a feasible alternative.

Figure 3: Seven	Principles	of	Bicycle	Network	Design
11

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Network Principles

Effective bicycle networks lead to more people bicycling by 

creating	bicycling	routes	that	are	efficient,	seamless,	and	easy	

to use. Seven key principles for bicycle network design are 

highlighted in Figure 3. 

Of these seven principles, three have particular importance in 

guiding bikeway selection:

Safety: Roadway and bikeway designs should be selected 

to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes and minimize 

conflicts	between	users.

Comfort: Bikeway facilities should be selected to minimize 

stress, anxiety, and safety concerns for the target design user. 

Comfort	and	safety	are	closely	related.

Connectivity: Trips within a bicycle network should be direct 

and convenient and offer access to all destinations served 

by the roadway network. Transitions between roadways and 

bikeways should be seamless and clear.

Bicycle Network Planning Resources

Numerous	resources	are	available	to	communities	that	are	

planning bicycle networks. As shown in Figure 4, two key FHWA 

resources include Measuring Multimodal Network Connectivity 

and the Bike Network Mapping Idea Book. The Pedestrian and 

Bicycle	Information	Center	also	recently	published	a	white	paper	

on	Defining	Connected	Bike	Networks.	Other	resources	include	

the planning chapter of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of 

Bicycle Facilities and the ITE Transportation Planning Handbook.

Network Form

Bike networks take on many forms based on community 

vision, planning horizon, preferred bikeway type, and—most 

importantly—geographical and physical context. Some bike 

networks follow an established street grid, while others are 

primarily comprised of shared use paths following waterways, 

railroads, and utility easements.

Some bike networks emphasize local circulation within 

neighborhoods and a challenge in the planning process is to 

connect these districts to each other. Figure 5 on page 12 shows 

examples of how bike network form can impact bikeway selection.

Bicycle Network Vision Statements

Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

Statewide Bike Plan Vision

Massachusetts’ integrated and multimodal 

transportation system will provide a safe and wellconnected bicycle network that will increase access for 

both transportation and recreational purposes. The Plan 

will advance bicycling statewide as a viable travel option 

- particularly for short trips of three miles or less - to the 

broadest base of users and free of geographic inequities.

Louisiana Complete Streets Policy Update

The intent of this policy is to create a comprehensive, 

integrated, connected transportation network for 

Louisiana that balances access, mobility and safety 

needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians of all ages and abilities, which includes 

users of wheelchairs and mobility aids.

Source: Federal Highway Administration and Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

Figure 4: National	Bike	Network	Resources
12

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Common Network Considerations 

Relating to Bikeway Selection

The following are common questions to ask when selecting a 

bikeway that will be compatible with the bicycle network.

• Where	does	this	route	fit	within	the	bicycle	network	hierarchy?	

• Does	the	route	have	a	viable	parallel	alternative?	The	land	use	

context and transit access along the parallel route should 

appeal to and attract bicyclists from the primary route while 

offering a more comfortable bikeway type.

• Does this route connect regional trails or other networks that 

are	frequented	by	younger,	older,	or	disabled	cyclists?	The	

bikeway type should match the needs of users of all ages and 

abilities.

• Is the route along a road that already supports low-stress 

bicycling	and	does	not	improve	connectivity	to	the	network?	

The roadway may not need to be further improved for bicycling.

• What are the safety implications and potential safety-related 

trade-offs	for	different	bikeway	types	along	this	route?

Figure 5: Examples	of	Bicycle	Network	Forms

The level to which the preferred 

bikeway type should be 

compromised, if compromise is 

necessary, should be informed by the 

relative importance of the segment 

within the larger network and the 

availability of alternative routes. 

For example, if the form of the bike 

network is a grid, a compromise on 

one segment may be acceptable 

given that a high-quality parallel 

route may be available.

In contrast, if there is only one 

roadway that provides access 

for bicyclists, for example to a 

downtown center, compromising on 

the bikeway type is less desirable.

User Types

Understanding the characteristics of different types of 

bicyclists	helps	to	inform	bikeway	selection.	Characteristics	

commonly	used	to	classify	user	profiles	are	comfort	level,	

bicycling skill and experience, age, and trip purpose. However, 

people	may	not	fit	into	a	single	user	profile,	and	a	bicyclist’s	

profile	may	change	in	a	single	day.	For	example,	a	commuter	

bicyclist who is comfortable bicycling within a bicycle lane when 

traveling alone may prefer to bicycle on a quiet residential street 

or shared use path when traveling with children.

In	addition	to	other	factors,	people	who	bicycle	are	influenced	

by their relative comfort operating in close proximity to motor 

vehicle	traffic.	Many	people	are	interested	in	bicycling	for	

transportation but are dissuaded by the potential for stressful 

interactions with motor vehicles. The following sections 

examine how comfort, skill, and age may affect bicyclist 

behavior and preference for different types of bikeways.

When	used	to	inform	bikeway	design,	the	bicyclist	user	profile	

becomes	the	“design	user	profile.”	Selecting	a	design	user	

profile	is	often	the	first	step	in	assessing	a	street’s	compatibility	

for	bicycling.	The	design	user	profile	should	be	used	to	select	

a preferred type of bikeway treatment for different contexts. 

Of adults who have stated an interest in bicycling, research 

has	identified	three	types	of	potential	and	existing	bicyclists.2

Children	were	not	included	in	the	research	and	require	special	

consideration in the design of bikeways. There is some overlap 

between these groups and the goal, as it pertains to the 

planning process, is to better understand and account for the 

general needs of different types of bicyclists. The three types 

are highlighted below.

Highly Confident Bicyclist

Highly	Confident	Bicyclists	are	the	smallest	group	identified	

by research. While some of these individuals bicycle less 

frequently, when they do, they prefer direct routes and do not 

avoid	operating	in	mixed	traffic,	even	on	roadways	with	higher	

motor vehicle operating speeds and volumes. Many also enjoy 

bikeways	separated	from	traffic;	however,	they	may	avoid	

bikeways which they perceive to be less safe or too crowded 

with pedestrians or other slower moving bicyclists, or which 

require deviation from their preferred route.

2	 Dill,	D.	and	N.	McNeil.	Revisiting	the	Four	Types	of	Cyclists.	In	

Transportation	Research	Record	2587.	TRB,	National	Research	Council,	

Washington,	DC,	2016.
13

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Somewhat Confident Bicyclist

Somewhat	Confident	Bicyclists,	also	known	as	Enthused	and	

Confident	Bicyclists,	are	the	next-smallest	group.	They	are	

comfortable on most types of bicycle facilities. They have a lower 

tolerance	for	traffic	stress	than	the	Highly	Confident	Bicyclist	

and generally prefer low-volume residential streets and striped 

or separated bike lanes on major streets, but they are willing 

to	tolerate	higher	levels	of	traffic	stress	for	short	distances	to	

complete trips to destinations or to avoid out-of-direction travel.

Interested but Concerned Bicyclist

Interested	but	Concerned	Bicyclists	are	the	largest	group	

identified	by	the	research	and	have	the	lowest	tolerance	for	

traffic	stress.	Those	who	fit	into	this	group	tend	to	avoid	

bicycling except where they have access to networks of 

separated bikeways or very low-volume streets with safe 

roadway crossings. To maximize the potential for bicycling as 

a viable transportation option, it is important to design bicycle 

facilities	to	meet	the	needs	of	the	Interested	but	Concerned	

Bicyclist category. This is generally the recommended design 

user	profile	as	the	resulting	bikeway	network	will	serve	bicyclists	

of	all	ages	and	abilities,	which	includes	Highly	Confident	and	

Somewhat	Confident	Bicyclists.

Target Design User

The	target	design	user	influences	the	safety,	comfort,	

connectivity,	and	cohesion	of	the	bicycle	network.	Communities	

establish a target design user by selecting a target comfort 

level	for	the	bicycle	network.	Comfort	and	stress	are	inversely	

correlated.	Exposure	to	high	motor	vehicle	traffic	speeds	and	

volumes is the primary contributor of stress. High-comfort/lowstress networks serve the most people while low-comfort/highstress networks serve the least.

While the target design user and target comfort level should 

be selected based on the vision, this critical decision is often 

overlooked. In such cases, the network typically defaults to 

serving	Highly	Confident	and	Somewhat	Confident	users	in	a	

Basic	Bikeway	Network	(as	described	on	page 14).	Communities	

seeking to serve all ages and abilities will need to establish lowstress bicycle networks.

Figure	6:	Bicyclist	Design	User	Profiles

Note:	the	percentages	above	reflect	only	

adults who have stated an interest in bicycling.
14

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Low-Stress Bicycle Network

A	Low-Stress	Bicycle	Network	(also	referred	to	as	an	“all	ages	

and abilities network” or a “high comfort network”) is one that is 

designed to be safe and comfortable for all users. The emphasis 

is on the quality of the bikeway, not just the presence of a 

bikeway. Depending on roadway conditions, a given street or 

bikeway	may	not	be	sufficient	to	provide	a	safe	and	comfortable	

experience for all bicyclists. For example, an adult new to 

bicycling or a parent pulling their child in a bike trailer may not 

be willing to use a traditional bike lane on a multi-lane road with 

high	speeds	and	volumes	of	traffic.

Low-Stress	Networks	rely	on	separating	bicyclists	from	traffic	

using separated bike lanes and shared use paths.3 Low-speed 

and low-volume streets with the operating characteristics 

of bicycle boulevards also support these networks if safe 

crossings	of	busy	roads	are	provided.	Low-Stress	Networks	can	

also	adequately	serve	confident	bicyclists.

By serving a broad audience of existing and potential bicyclists, 

Low-Stress	Networks	maximize	system	use	by	serving	high	

percentages of shorter distance transportation and utilitarian 

trips	for	all	types	of	bicyclists.	Low-Stress	Networks	have	

resulted in bicycling rates of 5-15 percent in the United States, 

and of 15-50 percent in countries that have robust low-stress 

networks complemented by supportive transit, land use, and 

other policies. Mode shares will likely vary based on the wide 

range of contexts found in the U.S. 

Interim bikeway network types include:

• Basic Bikeway Network:	Completing	a	bikeway	network	will	

take time and investment. Many existing bicycle networks 

rely on bikeways that do not provide separation. These can 

be improved for bicycling by slowing motor vehicle speeds 

and implementing other speed management measures. For 

additional	information	on	current	traffic	calming	practice,	

visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/traffic_calm.

cfm. Bicycle networks that consist primarily of bicycle lanes 

and	shoulders	may	be	called	Basic	Bikeway	Networks.	These	

networks	support	Highly	Confident	Bicyclists	and	some	

Somewhat	Confident	Bicyclists.	There	are	several	examples	

of	cities	in	the	United	States	with	Basic	Bikeway	Networks	and	

these networks generally have bicycle mode shares of 2 to 3 

percent.

• Traffic-Tolerant Bicycle Network: A network that relies 

primarily	on	roadways	without	specific	bicycle	improvements	

may	be	referred	to	as	a	Traffic-Tolerant	Network	to	indicate	

that	it	serves	only	those	Highly	Confident	Bicyclists	who	are	

likely already riding. This type of network will likely not meet 

3	 City	of	Austin.	2014	Austin	Bicycle	Plan.	Austin	Transportation	Department,	Austin,	TX.	November	2014.

the	needs	of	Somewhat	Confident	Bicyclists	or	Interested	but	

Concerned	Bicyclists—including	children	and	young	adults—

because	they	may	find	it	to	be	uncomfortable.	As	a	result,	the	

amount of people bicycling will likely remain below 2% over 

time.

Blended Networks

Many communities take a hybrid approach to network 

planning. A common practice is to plan a focused 

low-stress network (sometimes referred to as a “spine 

network”) that creates the most important connections, 

and then augment it with a basic bikeway that creates 

additional connections to less popular destinations.

In these cases, the importance of selecting 

appropriate bikeway facilities is greatly increased. 

If a high-stress bicycle facility type is selected for a 

project on the low-stress subset network, the integrity 

of the network is compromised. 

Proximity to motor vehicle traffic is a significant 

source of stress and discomfort for bicyclists: crash 

and fatality risks sharply rise for vulnerable users 

when motor vehicle speeds exceed 25 mph. Further, 

as motorized traffic volumes increase above 6,000 

vehicles/day, it becomes increasingly difficult for 

motorists and bicyclists to share roadway space. 

For example, on a roadway with 10,000 vehicles/

day, a bicyclist traveling at 10 mph will be passed 

approximately every four seconds by a motor vehicle 

during the peak hour. Research indicates motorists 

also feel more comfortable operating on streets where 

bicyclists are separated from motor vehicle traffic.
15

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Bikeway Types

With evidence of the “safety in numbers” effect growing 

stronger, the development of connected networks of 

comfortable bikeways that are attractive to the widest range of 

bicyclists	(e.g.	the	“Interested	but	Concerned”	bicyclist	profile)	

would have the greatest potential to increase bicycle use, and 

thereby	increase	individual	bicyclist	safety.	The	efficacy	of	each	

treatment below requires consideration of many contextual 

factors	such	as	traffic	volume,	traffic	speed,	intersection	design,	

and land use, among other factors. Generally, bikeways have 

a more positive impact on safety outcomes for bicyclists than 

shared lanes. 

The following discussion provides an overview of shared 

lanes and bikeways. In general, the bikeway design should be 

consistent and continuous from mid-block locations through 

intersections. For example, it is not best practice to design 

mid-block bike lanes and transition to shared lanes at each 

intersection. A key consideration for Sustainable Safety is to 

minimize	bicyclists	exposure	to	motor	vehicle	traffic,	which	is	

best	accomplished	by	providing	continuous	bikeways.	Figure	7	

provides an overview of bicyclist comfort and safety under the 

four	common	intersection	configurations:	shared	lanes,	bike	

lanes/shoulders, mixing zones, and protected intersections. 

The table on the following pages highlights intersection 

considerations and performance characteristics for the 

bikeway types highlighted in this section. These intersection 

considerations are organized by the elements of the 

Netherlands	Sustainable	Safety	Program	presented	on	page	9.	

This information is intended to build on the information in Figure 

7,	which	compares	bicyclist	safety	and	exposure	to	potential	

motor	vehicle	conflict	at	intersections	by	bikeway	type.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure	7:	Comparison	of	Bicyclist	Comfort	and	Safety	at	Intersections

Source: MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide
16

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Shared 

Lanes

Bicycle 

Boulevards Shoulders Bike Lanes

One-Way 

Separated 

Bike Lanes 

with Mixing 

Zones

Separated 

Bike Lanes 

and Sidepaths 

with 

Protected 

Intersections

Functionality (Comfort) - Roads can be categorized by their function

Lowest at higher vehicle speeds and volumes

Highest at lower vehicle speeds and volumes

Moderate to High due to separation from 

traffic and constrained entry point

High due to separation from traffic and 

constrained conflict point

Homogeneity - Roads with vehicles of balanced speeds, directions, and masses are the safest

Intersection approach exposure to potential 

motorist conflict is high

Turning conflict exposure correlates with 

vehicle speeds and volumes

Turning conflict exposure generally lower due 

to lower vehicle speeds and volumes

Constrained entry point reduces approach 

exposure if visibility is good

Constrained conflict point eliminates approach 

exposure, and constrains conflicts to a single 

point

Predictability (Right-of-Way) - Roads should be intuitive

No ability to imply right-of-way priority to 

bicyclists

Right-of-way priority can be clarified by 

providing a bikeway on the approach or 

restricting through-vehicle access

Right-of-way priority is clarified to require 

motorists to yield

Conflicts may occur anywhere within the 

facility

Conflict point is constrained to one location 

increasing predictability

Table 2: Intersection	Performance	Characteristics	by	Bikeway	Type
17

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Shared 

Lanes

Bicycle 

Boulevards Shoulders Bike Lanes

One-Way 

Separated 

Bike Lanes 

with Mixing 

Zones

Separated 

Bike Lanes 

and Sidepaths 

with 

Protected 

Intersections

Forgiveness (Safety) - Infrastructure can be designed to accommodate human error

Relies upon perfect user (driver and bicyclist)

behavior to avoid crashes

Minimal: bicyclists operating in shared space 

with vehicles

Moderate: application of traffic calming 

treatments and lower operating speeds can 

improve safety

Moderate: bicyclists operate in separated 

space from vehicles, however vehicles can 

encroach into the facility at any location

Moderate: bicyclists operate in separated 

space from vehicles except for defined entry 

point, followed by shared operating space

High: bicyclists operate in separated space 

from vehicles except for defined conflict point 

which can be designed to reduce motorist 

speed, but contraflow movement from two-way 

operation can increase risk

Awareness (Visibility) - Awareness improves safety for all users

Visibility may be restricted by parking 

necessitating parking restrictions

Visibility is typically unrestricted

Requires high level of motorists scanning to 

identify bicyclists approaching from behind or 

operating beside them

Requires moderate level of motorists scanning 

to identify bicyclists approaching or within the 

conflict point

Key Crash Types Associated with Bikeway Type

Right and left hooks

Sideswipes

Overtaking

Hit from behind

Merging

Failure to yield at conflict point

Table	2	(continued):	Intersection	Performance	Characteristics	by	Bikeway	Type
18

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Shared Lanes

In	shared	lanes,	bicyclists	ride	in	mixed	traffic,	therefore	their	

comfort	and	safety	varies	widely	based	on	traffic	operating	

speeds and volumes. Shared lanes can be a positive and 

affordable solution when designed correctly and used in the 

correct context; however, the vast majority of bike/car crashes in 

the U.S. occur in shared lanes that are applied to inappropriate 

contexts and environments. While operating conditions vary 

widely, research has shown that the presence of on-street 

parking	can	have	a	significant	impact	on	bicyclist	safety	

operating	in	shared	lanes.	While	parked	vehicles	may	calm	traffic	

in some scenarios, bicyclists riding alongside parked vehicles in 

shared lane scenarios are more exposed to being injured or killed 

when a vehicle operator opens their car door into their operating 

path. To improve operations in shared lanes, shared lane 

markings (SLM) and signs can be added to inform people driving 

that bicyclists may operate in the lane and to show where to 

expect cyclists. Research consistently indicates SLMs decrease 

the prevalence of sidewalk riding, but the majority of bicyclists 

(current or potential) and drivers do not feel comfortable on 

multi-lane or higher-speed roadways with SLMs. The Manual 

on	Uniform	Traffic	Control	Devices	therefore	suggests	SLMs	be	

restricted to roadways with operating speeds of 35 miles per 

hour or less.

Another type of shared lane is the wide outside lane, or wide curb 

lane. Research on wide outside lanes has generally found safety 

performance to be diminished as bicyclists tend to ride closer to 

the edge of the pavement, curb, or parking. Wide outside lanes 

are also associated with higher rates of wrong-way bicycling 

than streets with bikeways or SLMs.

Bicyclists are exposed to all crash types within shared lanes at 

intersections. The lack of a bikeway can reduce the predictability 

of a bicyclist’s operating location. This can be exacerbated in 

locations where bicyclists operate in the wrong direction or on 

adjacent	sidewalks	to	avoid	uncomfortable	traffic	conditions.	

Bicycle Boulevards

Bicycle boulevards are low-stress bikeways primarily located 

on low-volume, low-speed local streets. Treatments such as 

shared	lane	markings,	wayfinding	signs,	and	traffic	calming	

features are implemented to prioritize bicycle travel, including 

at crossings with higher volume arterials. Bicycle boulevards 

have a lower incidence of bicycle-involved crashes than parallel 

arterial routes. This may be because the parallel arterial routes 

often don’t have context-appropriate bicycle infrastructure.

On most bicycle boulevards, bicyclists are likely to approach 

intersections in shared lanes. Due to the lower volume and 

operating speeds associated with bicycle boulevards, shared lane 

approaches are likely to have better performance characteristics 

than shared lanes. A key aspect of bicycle boulevard design is to 

ensure comfortable and safe crossings of intersecting arterials 

so that travel along the bicycle boulevard can be maintained. At 

approaches to higher speed and volume streets, many bicycle 

boulevards transition to bike lanes, separated bike lanes, or shared 

use paths.

Advisory Bike Lanes

Advisory bike lanes demarcate a preferred space for bicyclists 

and motorists to operate on narrow streets that would otherwise 

be shared lanes. Unlike dedicated bicycle lanes, motor vehicle 

use is not prohibited in the advisory bike lane and is expected 

on occasion. Advisory bike lanes are a relatively new treatment 

in	North	America.	Dutch	research	has	found	this	treatment	has	

been effective at reducing motor vehicle operating speeds; 

however, consideration should be given to the bikeway type’s 

general intuitiveness and to the potential need for education 

around its proper use. In order to install advisory bike lanes, 

an approved Request to Experiment is required as detailed in 

Section	1A.10	of	the	MUTCD.

Intersection approaches with advisory bike lanes should 

transition to shared lanes or bike lanes to avoid right-of-way 

confusion	and	potential	for	conflicts	between	motorists	

operating in opposite directions within the intersection. 

Shoulders

Research shows that continuous paved shoulders and bicycle 

lanes act essentially the same in terms of operations as bike 

lanes. A major factor in the safety of shoulders for bicyclists is 

the presence and design of rumble strips, which can present a 

crash hazard or render a shoulder un-rideable for bicyclists. It 

should be noted that shoulders may not have any intersection 

treatments	and	the	comfort	of	both	bikeway	types	is	influenced	

by maintenance considerations. For more information on rumble 

strip best practices, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_

dept/pavement/rumble_strips.

On intersection approaches with shoulders, the shoulder will 

typically taper to the intersection, implying motorist priority, 

or transition to a bike lane design to signify that turning and 

crossing motorists should yield. Shoulders may also transition 

to one-way separated bike lanes. 

Bike Lanes and Buffered Bike Lanes

Conventional	and	buffered	bike	lanes	designate	an	exclusive	space	

for bicyclists to operate one-way on the roadway through the use 

of pavement markings and signs. A research review of the safety 

impacts	of	bicycle	infrastructure	generally	finds	that	they	improve	
19

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

bicyclist safety; however, mixed results regarding collision reduction 

are documented because many studies do not account for factors 

such as exposure, maintenance, or differences in implementation 

(i.e., bike lanes that actually terminate to shared lanes at 

intersections, bike lanes that are narrower than recommended, or 

blocked bike lanes which require bicyclists to exit). 

Intersection approaches with bike lanes require motorists 

to yield to bicyclists within the bike lane before entering or 

crossing the bike lane. This clarity can be further enhanced with 

bicycle lane extensions through the intersections, green colored 

pavement, and regulatory signs. Bike lanes may also transition 

to shared lanes or one-way separated bike lanes. 

One-Way Separated Bike Lanes

One-way separated bike lanes are physically separated from 

adjacent travel lanes with a vertical element, such as a curb, 

flex	posts,	or	on-street	parking.	One-way	separated	bike	lanes,	

especially those with a physical curb, have been shown to 

reduce injury risk and increase bicycle ridership due to their 

greater actual and perceived safety and comfort. 

Intersection designs should promote visibility of bicyclists and 

raise	awareness	of	potential	conflicts.	The	provision	of	sufficient	

sight distance is particularly important at locations where the 

on-street parking is located between the bike lane and travel lane. 

One-way separated bike lanes may transition to shared lanes, bike 

lanes, mixing zones, or protected intersections. 

Intersection approaches with mixing zones require motorists to 

yield to bicyclists before entering or crossing the bike lane. This 

clarity can be further enhanced with bicycle lane extensions 

through the intersections, green colored pavement, and 

regulatory signs. Research shows protected intersections have 

fewer	conflicts	and	are	therefore	preferable.	

Two-Way Separated Bikes Lanes and 

Sidepaths

Two-way separated bike lanes and sidepaths are physically 

separated from adjacent travel lanes using elements such as a curb, 

flex	posts,	or	on-street	parking.	They	may	be	located	on	one	side	of	

a street or both sides. Unlike two-way separated bike lanes, which 

provide for the exclusive travel of bicyclists, sidepaths are designed 

to	support	and	encourage	pedestrian	use.	Conflicts	between	path	

users are a primary source of injuries and can result in a degraded 

experience for all users where paths are not wide enough to handle 

the mixture and volume of diverse users.

Care	should	be	taken	at	intersections	and	driveways	which	intersect	

two-way separated bike lanes and sidepaths due to the two-way 

operation	of	bicycles	in	these	locations.	Crash	patterns	consistently	

show	contra-flow	movement	of	bicyclists	are	a	main	factor	in	

crashes due to motorists failing to yield or look for approaching 

bicyclists. Where two-way separated bike lanes are implemented 

on one-way streets, siting these facilities to the right of automobile 

lanes has resulted in safer intersections for bicyclists by reducing 

conflicts.	All	intersections	should	be	designed	with	protected	

intersections due to the two-way operation; transitions to other 

bikeway types should occur after the intersection.

To	mitigate	these	conflicts,	research	suggests	the	following	

potential solutions:

• The application of separate phases at signals with high 

volumes of turning motorists 

• Slow turning drivers with reduced corner radii or raised 

crossings

• Improve sight lines

• Raise awareness with marked crossings and regulatory signs

For more information, see the FHWA Separated Bike Lane 

Planning and Design Guide.
20

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

Road Context

The selection of a preferred bikeway type requires a balance 

of community priorities with data analysis and engineering 

judgment working within relevant constraints for the project. 

The land use context is an important consideration when 

determining the need for and type of separation between users 

(bicyclists,	pedestrians,	and	motorists).	This	will	influence	

decisions such as whether to provide a sidepath or a separated 

bike lane or whether and to what extent to separate bicyclists 

from pedestrians. Another consideration is the volume, speed, 

and	mass	of	motor	vehicle	traffic.	

Table	3	shows	Context	Classifications	for	Geometric	Design	

from the latest version of AASHTO’s Green Book. These context 

classifications	take	into	account	land	use,	density,	setbacks,	

and	other	factors.	Combined	with	the	existing	functional	

classifications,	they	are	intended	to	help	practitioners	balance	

user needs and safety. Documenting and accounting for context 

is	an	important	part	of	the	planning	process.	Context	also	

informs bikeway selection, as described in the following section.

Project Type

The	bikeway	selection	process	will	be	influenced	by	the	type	of	

project pursued and the construction methods inherent in that 

project type. The AASHTO Green Book categorizes the following 

three general project types based on the extent of construction:

• New construction – Roadway projects constructed on a new 

alignment 

• Reconstruction – Projects on existing alignments that change 

the basic road type 

• Construction on existing roads – Projects that retain the existing 

roadway alignment (except for minor changes) and do not 

change the basic roadway type

For new construction and reconstruction projects, there are 

usually fewer constraints and the preferred bikeway type can 

be implemented. However, projects on existing roads and 

reconstruction projects involve right-of-way and other constraints 

that should be taken into consideration and may result in a 

modification	to	the	preferred	bikeway.	The	decision	to	modify	the	

design	should	consider	allowable	design	flexibility	and	trade-offs	as	

Source: AASHTO Green Book: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, 2018. 

Table 3: Context	Classification	for	Geometric	Design

Category Description

Rural

The rural context applies to roads in rural areas that are not within a developed community. These include areas with the lowest 

development density; few houses or structures; widely dispersed or no residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; and usually 

large building setbacks. The rural context may include undeveloped land, farms, outdoor recreation areas, or low densities of other 

types of development.

Rural 

Town

The rural town context applies to roads in rural areas located within developed communities. Rural towns generally have low 

development densities with diverse land uses, on-street parking, and sidewalks in some locations, and small building setbacks. Rural 

towns may include residential neighborhoods, schools, industrial facilities, and commercial main street business districts, each of 

which present differing design challenges and differing levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity. The rural town context recognizes 

that rural highways change character where they enter a small town, or other rural community, and that design should meet the 

needs of not only through travelers, but also the residents of the community.

Suburban

The suburban context applies to roads and streets, typically within the outlying portions of urban areas, with low to medium 

development density and mixed land uses (with single-family residences, some multi-family residential structures, and 

nonresidential development including mixed town centers, commercial corridors, big box commercial stores, light industrial 

development). Building setbacks are varied with mostly off-street parking. The suburban context generally has lower development 

densities	and	drivers	have	higher	speed	expectations	than	the	urban	and	urban	core	contexts.	Pedestrians	and	bicyclist	flows	are	

higher than in the rural context, but may not be as high as found in urban and urban core areas.

Urban

The urban context has high-density development, mixed land uses, and prominent destinations. On-street parking and sidewalks 

are generally more common than in the suburban context, and building setbacks are mixed. Urban locations often include multistory and low- to medium-rise structures for residential, commercial, and educational uses. Many structures accommodate mixed 

uses: commercial, residential, and parking. The urban context includes light industrial, and sometimes heavy industrial, land use. 

The urban context also includes prominent destinations with specialized structures for entertainment, including athletic and social 

events, as well as conference centers. In small- and medium-sized communities, the central business district may be more an urban 

context	than	an	urban	core	context.	Driver	speed	expectations	are	generally	lower	and	pedestrian	and	bicyclist	flows	higher	than	in	

suburban areas. The density of transit routes is generally greater in the urban context than the suburban context, including in-street 

rail transit in larger communities and transit terminals in small- and medium-sized communities.

Urban 

Core

The urban core context includes areas of the highest density, with mixed land uses within and among predominantly high-rise structures, 

and with small building setbacks. The urban core context is found predominantly in the central business districts and adjoining portions 

of major metropolitan areas. On-street parking is often more limited and time restricted than in the urban context. Substantial parking 

is in multi-level structures attached to or integrated with other structures. The area is accessible to automobiles, commercial delivery 

vehicles, and public transit. Sidewalks are present nearly continuously, with pedestrian plazas and multi-level pedestrian bridges connecting 

commercial and parking structures in some locations. Transit corridors, including bus and rail transit, are typically common and major 

transit	terminals	may	be	present.	Driver	speed	expectations	are	low	and	pedestrian	and	bicycle	flows	are	high.
21

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 3. BIKEWAY SELECTION PLANNING

described in detail in the following section. If the preferred facility 

type is not feasible, the next-best facility should be considered, as 

described on page 33. 

Regardless of the project type, the resulting design solution should 

include measures intended to result in motor vehicle operating 

speeds that are in line with desired operating speeds necessary to 

improve the safety of all users. 

Intersection Considerations 

In	2016,	58	percent	of	cyclist	fatalities	occurred	outside	of	

intersection locations, in both urban and rural areas, and 30 percent 

occurred at intersections.4

 Research has determined that the 

following behaviors are most commonly associated with bicyclist 

crashes, including fatal and non-fatal crashes, on U.S. roadways:5

• Cyclists	operating	in	shared	lanes

• Cyclists	riding	against	traffic	on	roadways

• Motorists or cyclists failing to yield or stop at intersections

• Right-hook crashes: motorists pass a cyclist (traveling the same 

direction) and crash into the cyclist while making a right turn 

• Left-hook crashes: motorists crash into the cyclist when making 

a left turn

Intersection treatments that connect separated bikeways, or 

roadway designs that minimize vehicle operating speed and 

volume, may improve safety outcomes for bicyclists compared to 

operating in shared lanes.6

 However, the practitioner should also 

consider	research	that	found	that	bicyclists	traveling	contra‐flow	

to	motor	vehicle	traffic	are	at	an	elevated	risk	of	a	crash	due	to	

reduced awareness of motorists across all types of facilities.7

Additional research is needed to understand how poor design 

or	user	error	may	have	led	to	these	contra-flow	crashes.	More	

research	to	develop	or	improve	crash	modification	factors	for	

specific	bicycle	facility	types	will	improve	bikeway	selection	in	the	

future.

Identify Project Purpose

The design of roadways—and therefore the selection of 

bikeways—often happens within a continuing, cooperative, and 

comprehensive planning process that uses a performance4	 National	Highway	Traffic	Safety	Administration	(NHTSA)	National	Center	for	Statistics	and	Analysis.	

	“2016	Traffic	Safety	Facts:	Bicyclists	and	Other	Cyclists”	https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812507

5	 Portland	Office	of	Transportation.	(2007).	Improving	Bicycle	Safety	in	Portland.	Thomas,	L.,	Levitt,	D.,	and	Farley,	E.	(2014).	North	Carolina	Bicycle	Crash	

Types:	2008‐2012.	North	Carolina	Department	of	Transportation	Division	of	Bicycle	Transportation.

6	 Mead,	J.,	McGrane,	A.,	Zegeer,	C.,	Thomas,	L.	(2014)	Evaluation	of	Bicycle‐Related	Roadway	Measures:	A	Summary	of	Available	Research.	Federal	

Highway Administration. 

7	 Wachtel,	A.,	and	Lewiston,	D.	(1994).	Risk	Factors	for	Bicycle‐Motor	Vehicle	Collisions	at	Intersections.	ITE	Journal,	pp.	30‐35.	

Petrisch,	T.,	Landis,	B.,	Huang,	H.,	and	Challa,	S.	(2014).	Sidepath	Safety	Model:	Bicycle	Sidepath	Design	Factors	Affecting	Crash	Rates.	Transportation	

Research	Record	1982,	pp.	194‐201.

driven approach for decision making. Public agencies that are 

responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development 

of transportation systems and facilities work cooperatively to 

determine long and short-range investments. Public agencies at 

all scales, from small towns, transit authorities, and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) to State Departments of 

Transportation, carry out planning, with active involvement from 

the traveling public, the business community, community groups, 

environmental organizations, and freight operators.

Factors	that	can	inform	the	identification	of	a	specific	project	

include:

• Project Limits: Project limits should enhance network 

continuity and user safety. Where transitions are necessary, 

their design should be logical and intuitive for bicyclists, 

pedestrians, and motorists. Logical project limits should 

be established to meet the desired connectivity and safety 

objectives of the project for bicyclists.

• Land Use Context: Differences in land use can impact the 

distances between destinations and the expected number 

and types of bicyclists. Land use is therefore an important 

consideration in determining the preferred bikeway type.

• Types of Bicyclists the Bikeway is Expected to Serve: Most of 

the	population	falls	into	the	Interested	but	Concerned	category,	

who, along with children, are typically the default design users 

in urban and suburban contexts. Rural roadways are more likely 

to	serve	more	confident	adult	bicyclists,	and	the	default	design	

user	profile	is	typically	the	Highly	Confident	or	Somewhat	

Confident	categories.	However,	some	rural	roadways,	for	

example those near resort and vacation areas or in areas with 

Amish or Mennonite populations, also attract young bicyclists. 

Potential latent demand should also be considered.

• Key Safety and Performance Criteria: The planning process 

should	address	how	the	proposed	bikeway	fits	within	the	larger	

framework of the bicycle network. For example, is this facility 

a	key	connection	in	a	regional	network	of	bikeways?	Does	it	

connect	two	off-road	shared	use	paths?	It	can	also	highlight	

important safety issues for bicyclists as well as other modes 

of travel. The bikeway selection process is initiated once a 

corridor	or	project	has	been	identified.	This	process	is	outlined	

in the following section.
22

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

4. Bikeway Selection

Bikeway selection is a context-sensitive decision that involves 

a planning and engineering based analytical process. This 

process accounts for the broader network and roadway context 

and	then	drills	down	on	a	specific	corridor.	It	starts	with	the	

identification	of	a	desired	facility	and	then	gets	refined	based	on	

real-world conditions such as available right-of-way and budget. 

The quality of the bikeway selected will impact the level 

of comfort and by extension the amount of people in the 

community	that	will	benefit	from	it.

A generalized version of this process is mapped out in the chart 

below, and the following pages provide detailed information on 

how each step of the process plays out on different roadway 

types.

Desired Bikeway Type

Streets in Urban, Urban Core, Suburban, 

and Rural Town Contexts

The typical bicyclist user type for the urban, urban core, 

suburban, and rural town land use contexts is the Interested but 

Concerned	category	because	of	the	development	and	density	of	

destinations in these areas. Figure 9 provides guidance for how 

motor vehicle volume and speed can be taken into consideration 

to determine a preferred bikeway type. 

Generally, the higher the speed and volume of a road, the more 

protective the recommended bikeway. Shared lanes or bicycle 

boulevards are recommended for the lowest speeds and 

volumes; bike lanes for low speeds and low to moderate volumes; 

and separated bike lanes or shared use paths for moderate 

to high speeds and high volumes. Because the design user 

is	the	Interested	but	Concerned	cyclist,	the	most	appropriate	

recommendation may be a more protective facility than necessary 

for	a	Highly	Confident	or	Somewhat	Confident	design	user.	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: FHWA Bikeway Selection 

Process and Guide Outline
23

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

Figure 9: Preferred	Bikeway	Type	for	Urban,	Urban	Core,	

Suburban	and	Rural	Town	Contexts

 

1	 Chart	assumes	operating	speeds	are	similar	to	posted	speeds.	If	they	differ,	use	operating	speed	rather	than	posted	speed.	

2	 Advisory	bike	lanes	may	be	an	option	where	traffic	volume	is	<3K	ADT.

3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.

Notes
24

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

Rural Context 

The typical bicyclist type on roadways in rural areas is the 

recreational	bicyclist,	who	often	fits	the	Highly	Confident	or	

Somewhat	Confident	category.	Shared	lanes,	paved	shoulders,	and	

shared use paths are appropriate bikeway types on rural roadways. 

Shoulder width is an important consideration to accommodate 

these	bicyclists	based	on	traffic	volumes	and	posted	speeds	in	the	

rural context. Figure 10 provides guidance for selecting a preferred 

shoulder width to accommodate bicyclists based on volumes and 

posted speeds in the rural context.

It is often desirable to provide shared use paths along rural 

roads with higher speeds (45 mph or greater). This is especially 

true for locations that attract larger volumes of bicyclists 

due to scenic views or for routes that serve as key bicycle 

connections between destinations. Paths are also an important 

consideration for families and children making connections in 

rural areas. Shared use paths are also generally preferred on 

rural	roads	with	Average	Daily	Traffic	above	a	certain	threshold	

(e.g.	above	6,000	or	7,000	ADT	depending	on	context).

In	highly	constrained	conditions	where	sufficient	shoulder	width	

cannot be achieved, it is preferable to provide a narrow shoulder 

rather than no shoulder. 

Assessing and Refining 

the Desired Bikeway Type

On many projects, especially new construction and 

reconstruction, the bikeway selection process only needs to 

reference	Figures	9	and	10;	however,	on	retrofit	projects	and	on	

projects with other constraints, the bikeway selection process 

will become more complex. The remainder of this section 

highlights a variety of other considerations that will arise in 

the bikeway selection process, for example by indicating the 

need for greater separation (such as additional buffer width, 

additional vertical buffer elements, or other measures) between 

bicyclists and motor vehicles. These factors include:

• Unusual motor vehicle peak hour volumes – On roadways

that regularly experience unusually high peak hour volumes,

more	separation	can	be	beneficial,	particularly	when	the	peak

hour also coincides with peak volumes of bicyclists.

• Traffic vehicle mix – Higher percentages of trucks and buses

increase risks and discomfort for bicyclists due to vehicle

size and weight, and the potential for motorists to not see

bicyclists due to blind spots. This is a particular concern for

right turns, where large vehicles may appear to be proceeding

straight or even turning left as they position to make a wide

right turn movement. In addition, designated emergency

vehicle	routes	may	influence	bikeway	selection	and	design.	

Additional buffer width between a separated bike lane and the 

travel lane at an intersection can improve visibility and safety 

in these locations. Additional separation between bicyclists 

and motorists is particularly important on moderate to highvolume streets where heavy vehicles are more than 5 percent 

of	traffic.

• Parking turnover and curbside activity	–	Conflicts	with

parked or temporarily stopped motor vehicles present a risk

to bicyclists—high parking turnover and curbside loading

(commercial and passenger) may expose bicyclists to being

struck by opening vehicle doors or people walking in their

travel path. Vehicles stopped within bicycle lanes or travel

lanes may require bicyclists to merge into an adjacent travel

lane. In locations with high parking turnover, or curbside

loading needs, wider bike lanes or separated bike lanes in

lieu	of	bike	lanes	can	help	to	alleviate	conflicts.	This	issue

also encompasses locations where transit vehicles load and

unload passengers within a bicycle lane or shared curb lane.

• Driveway/intersection frequency – The frequency of

driveways and intersections also impacts decisions regarding

the amount of separation needed between the street and

the separated bike lane. Motorists need adequate sight

distance and space to yield to bicyclists. This is particularly

important for two-way separated bike lanes located on one

side of two-way streets and for sidepaths. Wider buffers

and clear sight lines can improve bicyclist safety. Frequently

spaced driveways may require elimination of on-street parking

adjacent to separated bike lanes and raising of the bike lane

to	provide	separation	from	traffic.

• Direction of operation – With regards to separated bikeways,

a determination must be made as to whether the bikeway will

be provided as a one-way facility on each side of the road,

a two-way facility on one side of the road, or as two-way

facilities on both sides of the road. This decision requires

engineering judgment based on the bikeway’s role in the

broader bike network, the locations of destinations within the

corridor, physical constraints within the right-of-way, and an

assessment of intersection operations.

• Vulnerable populations – The presence of high

concentrations of children and older adults should be

considered during project planning. These groups may only

feel comfortable bicycling on physically separated facilities,

even where motor vehicle speeds and volumes are relatively

low.	Typically,	these	populations	are	less	confident	in	their

bicycling abilities and, in the case of children, may be less

visible to motorists and lack both roadway experience as

well	as	sufficient	cognitive	or	physical	maturity	to	recognize

and	anticipate	potential	conflicts.	They	can	also	create	more

conflicts	with	pedestrians	when	they	are	expected	to	share

the same space.
25

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

 

Figure 10: Preferred Shoulder Widths for Rural Roadways

3	 Chart	assumes	operating	speeds	are	similar	to	posted	speeds.	If	they	differ,	use	operating

or a separated pathway.

Notes

1	 This	chart	assumes	the	project	involves	reconstruction	or	retrofit	in	constrained	conditions.	

For new construction, follow recommended shoulder widths in the AASHTO Green Book.

2 A separated shared use pathway is a suitable alternative to providing paved shoulders.

speed rather than posted speed.

4 If the percentage of heavy vehicles is greater than 5%, consider providing a wider shoulder 
26

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

• Network connectivity gaps – Separated facilities can help 

close gaps in a low-stress network. Examples include onstreet connections between two major shared use paths, 

or where routes connect to parks or other recreational 

opportunities.

• Transit Considerations for Selecting Bikeways – Biking 

offers	a	valuable	“first-mile”	and	“last-mile”	connection	to	

transit systems, effectively expanding the transit shed around 

a station or stop. It is important to ensure accessibility of 

transit boarding areas, pedestrian crossings, and parking 

spaces, while also integrating the bicycle network with transit 

systems.	Traffic	laws	and	agency	policy	often	address	transit	

vehicles and bicycles in the right most lane or right side of 

the roadway. Some agencies have designated shared “transit 

lanes” for bicycle riding, but frequent bus stops or roadway 

design may create delay or less safe conditions for bicyclists 

sharing	a	lane	with	heavy	transit	traffic.	If	the	preferred	

bikeway type for a roadway is a bike lane or separated bike 

lane, the placement of the bike lane with respect to where 

pedestrians may wait or travel when boarding or alighting 

transit vehicles should be considered, as should the extent to 

which transit operations impact bicyclists’ level of comfort 

and safety. As noted in FHWA’s Separated Bike Lane Planning 

and Design Guide,	options	for	minimizing	conflicts	with	transit	

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.

Evaluating Feasibility

Meeting safety and mobility goals are typical objectives for 

roadway designers. Designers have an ethical obligation to 

provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, which 

may require a careful evaluation of mobility goals where they 

have the potential to degrade safety. One user’s convenience 

or mobility should not be prioritized over another user’s safety. 

Most roadway and bikeway design projects can be designed to 

improve safety for all modes. When evaluating safety tradeoffs, options that reduce serious injuries and fatalities should 

be prioritized over options that may reduce property damage or 

minor injuries. 

8	 Potts,	I.	B.,	D.W.,	Harwood,	and	K.R.,	Richard.	Relationship	of	Lane	Width	to	Safety	on	Urban	and	Suburban	Arterials.	Presented	at	the	86th	Annual	

Meeting	of	the	Transportation	Research	Board,	Washington,	DC,	2007.

Options for Reallocating Roadway Space

When building new roadways, preferred bikeways should be built 

to	preferred	dimensions.	When	retrofitting	existing	roadways,	it	

will often be necessary to evaluate options that reallocate space 

and options that require the use of constrained dimensions for 

motor vehicle lanes and bikeways. The following options are 

common strategies for reallocating roadway space to provide a 

preferred bikeway.

Narrowing Travel Lanes: In some cases, the width needed 

for bikeways can be obtained by narrowing travel lanes. Lane

widths on many roads are greater than the minimum values

described by the AASHTO Green Book, and lanes as narrow as

10 feet do not result in an increase in crashes or reduce vehicle 

capacity on roads with speeds of 45 mph or less.8 Narrower	lane	

widths can contribute to lower vehicle operating speeds, which

can increase safety for all roadway users.

The	AASHTO	Green	Book	provides	flexibility	to	use	travel	lanes	

as narrow as 10 feet in a variety of situations depending on 

operating	speeds,	volumes,	traffic	mix,	horizontal	curvature,	

use of on-street parking, and street context. Travel lanes are

not required to be of equal width. For example, some agencies

use an 11- foot-wide outer lane to accommodate buses, with the

remainder of the travel lanes being 10 feet wide.

Removing Travel Lanes: Removing	travel	lanes	and	reconfiguring	

the resulting roadway space (commonly known as a “road

diet”) are frequently the result of efforts to improve the safety 

performance of a roadway segment. Streets that were designed

based on forecasts that were unrealized or where conditions

may have changed often have excess capacity, encouraging fast

speeds that can increase crash risk for all roadway users. Road 

diets can improve safety for all roadway users by reducing travel 

speeds, providing space 

for bikeways, shortening 

street crossings, adding 

turn lanes, or by providing 

wider sidewalks. Road diet 

conversions have potential 

operational	benefits	as	

well, particularly on streets 

with high numbers of 

left-turning vehicles, 

which	impede	traffic	in	the	

leftmost through lane of 

an undivided street.

Figure 11: FHWA Road Diet 

Informational Guide
27

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

Four- to three-lane conversions are the most common road

diets, but there are numerous other types. Four-lane undivided

streets	with	traffic	volumes	of	less	than	15,000	vehicles/day	are	

candidates for conversions, though there are many examples 

of conversions on roads with up to 20,000 vehicles/day. Fourlane streets with higher volumes usually need a more detailed 

engineering study that includes recommendations for signal 

timing changes and other enhancements at intersections. 

The FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide provides detailed

information about this strategy.9

One-way streets: Many one-way couplets were originally 

two-way streets, and in the conversion, all available space was 

converted to one-way travel lanes, resulting in excess capacity. 

These streets may offer opportunities to install bike lanes, 

separated bike lanes, or shared use paths through lane removal

or narrowing. Where bikeways replace a vehicle travel lane, there 

is frequently additional space that can be allocated to other 

purposes such as on-street parking, wider street buffers, or 

wider sidewalks.

Reorganizing Street Space: There may be opportunities to create 

bikeways or upgrade existing facilities by reorganizing street 

space without removing travel lanes. For instance, in some 

cases curbside on-street parking can be shifted away from the 

curb face to create parking-protected separated bike lanes. This 

type of project requires changes to pavement markings and 

attention to intersection design treatments. Pre-cast concrete 

curb sections can be used to augment pavement markings to 

physically separate parking stalls from the bike lanes.

Making Changes to On-Street Parking: On-street parking may 

serve residents or street-oriented businesses. On-street parking 

provides a buffer for pedestrians, improving their comfort and 

safety;	it	may	also	reduce	automobile	traffic	speeds	on	the	

street. On-street parking can also provide a physical separation

between	a	separated	bike	lane	and	moving	traffic.	However,	on-	

street	parking	introduces	potential	conflicts	for	bicyclists	and	

motorists and uses road width that might otherwise be used as

a travel lane or to create a higher-quality bikeway.

Removing or reducing on-street parking involves working with

the affected businesses and residents. It may be possible to 

accommodate more parking on side streets, or to consolidate

it in newly created parking bays or in shared (off-street) parking 

surface lots or parking structures. Parking consolidation or 

reconfiguration	can	take	many	different	forms.	Some	examples	

are	provided	below.	When	parking	is	modified,	it	is	important	to	

consider requirements to provide accessible parking spaces for 

individuals with disabilities. A parking utilization study is often

useful in determining if these (and other) solutions are feasible.

9	 FHWA.	Road	Diet	Informational	Guide.	FHWA-SA-14-028.	Federal	Highway	Administration,	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Washington,	DC,	

November	2014.

• Removing Parking on One Side: On streets with parking on

both sides, adding bikeways may not require the removal

of all on-street parking if the parking is not being used 

efficiently.	Deciding	where	to	remove	parking	may	depend

on which side of the street has fewer or no businesses. For 

streets with steep grades, removal of parking on the downhill

side	may	be	preferable	to	minimize	conflicts	between	faster	

moving bicyclists and parked vehicles. Parking does not 

need to be retained on the same side of the street through an 

entire corridor; alternating parking from one side to the other 

can provide	a	traffic	calming	benefit.

Figure 12: Roadway	Reconfiguration	Opportunities

Source: Florence, SC Neighborhood Revitilization Plan
28

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

• Converting Diagonal Parking to Parallel Parking: Converting	

diagonal parking to parallel parking can generate road width

for the creation of bikeways and improve bicyclist safety. 

Front-in,	diagonal	parking	creates	conflicts	with	bicycle	

travel. Motorists backing out of spaces have poor visibility 

of	approaching	traffic,	which	includes	bicyclists,	and	it	can	

be	difficult	for	bicyclists	to	see	vehicles	backing	out	due	to	

other parked vehicles.10Diagonal parking also takes up more

roadway width compared to parallel parking spaces.

Where diagonal parking is to be provided or retained, it is

preferable to require backing into the space (also called

“reverse-angle parking”). This design improves a parked

motorist’s	visual	field	to	their	left	and	right	as	they	depart	the	

10	 FHWA.	Lesson	19:	Bicycle	Lanes,	Course	on	Bicycle	and	Pedestrian	Transportation.	FHWA-RD-99-198.	Federal	Highway	Administration,	U.S.	Department	

of	Transportation,	Washington	DC,	1999.

space, and therefore can enhance safety for bicyclists and

motorists approaching the vehicle. Reverse-angle parking 

also	has	other	benefits	to	motorists,	such	as	better	access	

for loading and unloading.

• Converting Parallel Parking to Reverse-Angle Parking on 

One Side: Another possibility is to convert a street with 

parallel parking on both sides to reverse-angled parking 

on just one side. This can result in a lower net parking loss 

and provide additional width for the placement of bicycle 

facilities.

• Pilot Projects: Some	of	the	strategies	identified	above	

can be implemented as temporary, or pilot projects to test 

measures to determine if they meet the needs of all users. 

This can be an effective strategy to engage community 

members and build long-term support for more permanent 

solutions.

Approach to Traffic

Bikeways can often be implemented with minimal reductions 

of motor vehicle capacity or travel times. However, if such

impacts are anticipated, they should be evaluated alongside

community goals and the safety, comfort, and connectivity 

benefits	to	bicyclists.	They	should	also	be	considered	within	

the context of an agency’s policies and evaluated through a

project’s performance measures. Increasingly, projects have a

wider range of performance measures that may include safety, 

health, equity, quality-of-life, economic vitality, multimodal level

of service, and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.

To determine the design of a roadway, it is common practice

to	project	traffic	volumes	10–30	years	into	the	future.	When	

evaluating trade-offs, care should be taken to ensure that the

traffic	projection	adequately	considers	community	goals,	

agency mode split targets, changes in land uses, improvements

to other modal networks (e.g., transit and bicycle), shifts 

in modal preferences (such as increases in bicycling), and

transportation investments. It is also a common practice to 

analyze	the	peak	15	minutes	of	the	peak	hour	to	conduct	traffic	

analysis. Alternatives analyses should take a broader view of 

traffic	impacts,	as	some	delay	for	this	very	short	period	of	time	

may	be	worth	the	safety	benefits	gained	from	an	alternative	

street design or proposed bikeway design.

Intersections are a focus area for evaluating impacts on

vehicle	operation.	The	2010	Highway	Capacity	Manual	includes	

planning levels of service (PLOS) tools that consider relative

impacts	to	cars,	bicyclists,	pedestrians,	and	other	traffic	while	

not	requiring	detailed	or	extensive	traffic	counts.

Figure 13: Roadway	Reconfiguration	Opportunities

Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO
29

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

Preferred Bikeway Type 

is Feasible with Preferred 

Design Values

If	an	existing	space	reallocation	strategy	results	in	sufficient	

space for the preferred bikeway to be installed with preferred 

design values, the bikeway can be installed. There is no need to 

consider other bikeway types or parallel routes.

Preferred Bikeway Type 

is Not Feasible with Preferred 

Design Values

If	sufficient	space	is	not	available	to	provide	the	preferred	

bikeway type at the preferred design values, it will be necessary to 

consider other options, several of which are highlighted below. 

Reducing Bicycle Facility Widths

Where preferred design values cannot be achieved, reduced or 

minimum widths can be used to preserve the preferred bikeway 

type in the design. However, the use of minimum width bikeways 

should be limited to constrained roadways where desirable or 

preferred bikeway widths cannot be achieved after all other 

travel lanes have been narrowed to minimum widths appropriate 

for the context of the roadway. Where it is necessary to go 

below minimum widths, the preferred bikeway is infeasible and 

it will be necessary to select another bikeway type. 

Wide Outside Lane or Bike Lane?

In some instances, it may be necessary to choose between the 

provision of a 10-11-foot-wide travel lane with a bike lane or a 

15-16-foot-wide	outside	travel	lane.	In	the	past,	it	was	common	

practice to provide wide outside lanes under the assumption

that motorists in such a lane could pass a person riding a 

bicycle without encroaching into the adjacent lane and that this 

practice would improve operating conditions and safety for both 

bicyclists and motorists. 

11	 Hunter,	W.	W.,	J.	R.	Feaganes,	and	R.	Srinivasan.	Conversions	of	Wide	Curb	Lanes:	The	Effect	on	Bicycle	and	Motor	Vehicle	Interactions.	In	

Transportation	Research	Record	1939,	Transportation	Research	Board	of	the	National	Academies,	Washington,	DC,	2005,	pp.	37–44.

12	 McHenry,	S.	R.,	and	M.	J.	Wallace.	Evaluation	of	Wide	Curb	Lanes	as	Shared	Lane	Bicycle	Facilities.	Maryland	State	Highway	Administration,	Baltimore,	

MD, 1985.

13	 Duthie,	J.,	and	J.	F.	Brady,	A.	F.	Mills,	and	R.	B.	Machemehl.	Effects	of	On-Street	Bicycle	Facility	Configuration	on	Bicyclist	and	Motorist	Behavior.	In	

Transportation	Research	Record	2190,	Transportation	Research	Board	of	the	National	Academies,	Washington,	DC,	2010,	pp.	37-44.

14	 Ewing,	R.	Traffic	Calming:	State	of	the	Practice.	Prepared	for	the	Federal	Highway	Administration,	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Washington,	DC,	

1999.

15	 Fitzpatrick,	K.,	P.	J.	Carlson,	M.	D.	Wooldridge,	and	M.	A.	Brewer.	Design	Factors	That	Affect	Driver	Speed	on	Suburban	Arterials.	In	Transportation	

Research	Record	1751.	TRB,	National	Research	Council,	Washington,	DC,	2001.

However,	experience	and	research	find	that	this	configuration	

does not adequately provide safe passing distance and that 

motorists generally do not recognize that this additional 

space is intended for bicyclists.11, 12, 13 Also, wider travel lanes 

are associated with increases in motor vehicle speeds, which 

reduce comfort and safety for bicyclists.14, 15 Wide curb lanes 

are therefore not recommended as a strategy to accommodate 

Figure 14: Roadway	Reconfiguration	Opportunities

Source: Longview, TX Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
30

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

Figure 15: Example Door Zone Biking Space

bicycling	except	as	an	interim	treatment	for	retrofits	where	an	

existing road is being re-striped and all other travel lanes have 

been narrowed to the minimum widths.

Door Zone Bike Lane or No Bike Lane?

In some instances, it may be necessary to choose between the 

provision of a 10-11-foot-wide travel lane with a bike lane or a 

15-16-foot-wide	outside	travel	lane	adjacent	to	a	parking	lane.	

In these circumstances, where it is not feasible to eliminate 

the parking, the designer will have to choose between a narrow 

bicycle lane or a wide outside lane.

Narrow	bicycle	lanes	may	direct	cyclists	into	the	path	of	the	

“door zone” where drivers may open a door into a bike lane

unexpectedly. Door zone crashes typically account for 5% - 10% 

of urban bike crashes, most commonly in shared lanes. Despite 

this seeming increased risk, studies have shown that the 

provision of a bicycle lane is still likely safer for the bicyclist than 

the provision of a wide outside lane. A study of bicycle crashes 

in Seattle found that streets with bicycle lanes had the fewest 

total dooring crashes compared to streets with shared lanes or 

marked shared lanes.

One-Way Separated Bike Lane on Both Sides 

or Two-Way Separated Bike Lane?

Where it is determined that a separated bike lane is the 

preferred bikeway type, it will be necessary to determine the 

most	appropriate	configuration	for	the	bikeway.	

On two-way streets, one-way separated bike lanes on each 

side of the street are typically preferred over a two-way 

separated bike lane or side path on one side of the street. Oneway separated bike lanes in the direction of motorized travel

are typically the easiest option to integrate into the existing 

operation	of	a	roadway.	This	configuration	provides	intuitive	and	

direct connections with the surrounding transportation network, 

including simpler transitions to existing bike lanes and shared 

travel lanes. It is also the most consistent with driver expectations 

since bicyclist operation is in the same direction as motor vehicle 

operation.

In circumstances where destinations are concentrated along 

one side of a street, the bikeway is connecting to other two-way 

bikeways, or where the bikeway is located on a one-way street for 

motor vehicle travel, the provision of a two-way separated bike lane 

may be desirable as wrong-way bicycling is likely in a one-way bike 

lane	configuration.

Selecting the appropriate configuration	requires	an	assessment	

of many factors, including safety, overall connectivity, ease of 

access, public feedback, available right-of-way, curbside uses, 

Figure	16:	Roadway	Reconfiguration	Opportunities

Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO
31

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

intersection operations, ingress and egress at the termini, 

maintenance, and feasibility. The analysis should also consider 

benefits	and	trade-offs	to	people	bicycling,	walking,	taking	

transit, and driving. The primary objectives for determining the 

appropriate	configuration	are	to:

• Provide clear and intuitive transitions to existing or planned

links of the bicycle network;

• Minimize	conflicts	between	all	users	–	bicyclists,	pedestrians,	

and motorists;

• Provide convenient access to destinations; and to

• Connect	to	the	roadway	network	in	a	direct	and	intuitive	

manner with a special consideration for the design of queuing 

and transition space for bicyclists who are entering and exiting 

the separated bike lane.

Providing a two-way separated bike lane or side path on one side 

of	a	street	introduces	a	counterflow	movement	by	bicyclists,	

which can be challenging—but not impossible—to accommodate. 

This	also	applies	to	a	counterflow	separated	bike	lane	on	a	oneway	street.	Care	should	be	given	to	the	design	of	intersections,	

driveways,	and	other	conflict	points,	as	people	walking	and	driving	

may not anticipate bicyclists traveling	in	the	counterflow	direction.	

Motorists entering or crossing the roadway often will not notice 

bicyclists approaching from their right, and motorists turning from 

the roadway across the bicycle facility may likewise fail to notice

bicyclists traveling the opposite direction.

Strategies	can	be	employed	to	manage	or	eliminate	conflicts	

between	counterflow	bicyclists	and	motorists,	who	are	primarily	

focused	on	identifying	gaps	in	oncoming	traffic	and	may	be	

less cognizant of bicyclists approaching the intersection. 

Where appropriate, signal phasing can be used to eliminate

conflicts	between	turning	motorists	and	bicyclists	traveling	in	

the	counterflow	direction.	Geometric	treatments	to	slow	turning	

motorists	prior	to	the	conflict	point	(e.g.	raised	crossings,	parking	

restrictions,	hardened	centerlines)	can	be	considered.	Traffic	

control or warning signs, and high visibility bicycle crossing or 

crosswalk pavement markings, can be installed to alert motorists 

to the presence	of	counterflow	bicyclists.

At	the	terminus	of	the	bicycle	facility,	the	counterflow	bicyclist	

must	be	clearly	directed	back	into	the	traffic	mix	in	the	correct	

direction of travel. This often requires the design of queuing 

spaces for bicyclists to wait outside the path of other bicyclists, 

motorists, and pedestrians while they wait to turn or transition

from the bikeway. 

Where space is constrained on two-way streets, and one-way 

separated bike lanes are not feasible, the designer may choose 

one of the following options:

• Provision of bike lanes or buffered bike lanes

• Provision of a two-way separated bike lane 

• Provision of a shared use path

In	locations	where	the	counterflow	movement	can	be	designed	

for, the provision of a two-way separated bike lane may be 

preferable over the provision of bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, or 

shared use paths.

Figure	17:	Roadway	Reconfiguration	Opportunities

Source: Stamford, CT Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
32

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

Shared Use Path or Separated Bike Lane?

Shared use paths may be an acceptable design solution in lieu of 

separated bike lanes where space is constrained and the project 

is in land use contexts where both walking and/or bicycling 

volumes are relatively low and are expected to remain low. The 

shared use path may be located on one or both sides of the street, 

depending upon bicycle and pedestrian network connectivity 

needs. As volumes increase over time, the need for separation 

between bicyclists and pedestrians should be revisited. Where 

land use is anticipated to add density over time, right-of-way 

should be preserved to allow for future separation of bicyclists 

and pedestrians.

FHWA’s Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator16 can 

help designers understand potential volume thresholds where

passing movements between bicyclists and pedestrians will

limit the effectiveness of a shared use path. To improve comfort

and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and to improve the

efficiency	of	the	shared	use	path	for	bicycle	travel,	separation	of	

bicyclists and pedestrians should be considered when:

• Shared Use Path Level of Service is projected to be at or 

below	level	“C”	during	peak	hours.

• Pedestrians can reasonably be anticipated to be 30 percent or 

more of the volume during peak hours.

• Higher volumes of children, older adults, or individuals with

disabilities are likely to be present.

• Where faster bicycle speed is desired to serve regionally 

significant	bicycle	travel.

The use of the Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator 

requires the following inputs to calculate a LOS score:

• Volumes of people walking and running, adult bicyclists, child 

bicyclists, and in-line skating

• Proposed or existing path width

• Presence of a center line

When volume inputs are not available during the planning 

process, it may be necessary to estimate activity by using 

existing volumes on similar streets and shared use paths in

the vicinity, allowing for adjustments, as necessary, to account

for existing and future land uses adjacent to the facility and

regional trends likely to increase shared use path activity.17

16	 FHWA.	Shared	Use	Path	Level	of	Service	Calculator—A	User’s	Guide.	FHWA-HRT-05-138.	Federal	Highway	Administration,	U.S.	Department	of	

Transportation,	Washington	DC,	2006.

17	 Ewing,	R.,	and	R.	Cervero.	Travel	and	the	Built	Environment	–	A	Meta-Analysis.	Journal	of	the	American	Planning	Association,	Vol.	6,	No.	3,	2010,	pp.	265-294.

Narrow Shoulder or No Shoulder?

For any given roadway, the determination of the appropriate

shoulder width should be based on the roadway’s context

and conditions in adjacent lanes. The AASHTO Green Book

recommends	a	preferable	shoulder	width	of	6	to	8	feet	on	

low-volume roads and up to 12 feet on roads with high speeds

or large volumes of trucks. This shoulder width may be soft

surface or paved in many conditions. For new construction or 

reconstruction, a paved shoulder at the width recommended in 

the Green Book will accommodate bicycling activity.

For	roadways	which	are	being	reconstructed	or	retrofitted	where	

preferred Green Book shoulder widths cannot be provided, 

designers should provide the recommended shoulder width

shown in Figure 10. Where those recommended widths cannot 

be provided, the following minimum paved shoulder widths can 

provide a minimum level of bicycle accommodation:

• A shoulder width of at least 3 feet on open-section roadways 

with no vertical obstructions immediately adjacent to the 

roadway and no rumble strips.

• A shoulder width of at least 5 feet is recommended from the 

face of a guardrail, curb, or other roadside barrier to provide 

additional operating width, as bicyclists generally shy away 

from a vertical face.

Increasing the width of shoulders is preferable where higher 

bicycle usage is expected and if motor vehicle speeds exceed

45 mph; if use by heavy trucks, buses, or recreational vehicles

exceeds 5% of ADT; or if obstructions exist along the roadside.

Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) may be used to determine the 

minimum shoulder width to provide a comfortable facility. Figure 

10 provides recommended shoulder widths to achieve a Bicycle 

LOS	of	“C”	or	better	at	the	speed	and	volume	thresholds	shown.

Downgrade Bikeway and 

Assess Parallel Route Option

At locations where the preferred bikeway is determined to not 

be feasible it will be necessary to consider downgrading the 

bikeway to the next best facility and/or to provide a parallel 

facility. 

The impacts on ridership, comfort, safety, and overall network 

connectivity should be considered when evaluating bikeway 

alternatives or parallel routes to ensure the project will still 

meet	the	purpose	identified	at	the	outset	as	illustrated	by	these	
33

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

potential trade-offs:

• Reduced or suppressed bicycling activity where:

• the bikeway comfort does not meet the needs of all ages 

and abilities bicyclists

• a parallel route lengthens the route

• failure to provide a bikeway leaves an important gap in 

the bicycle network

• Reduced safety where bicyclists must operate with higher 

speed	and/or	higher	volume	traffic	in	shared	lanes

• Reduced safety where bicyclists must operate in narrow 

bikeways (e.g. narrow bike lanes adjacent to high turnover 

parking or narrow shared use paths with high volumes of 

pedestrians or bicyclists)

• Reduced safety where bicyclists improperly use facilities (e.g., 

ride the wrong way on shared lanes, sidewalks, or separated 

bike lanes)

• Increased sidewalk bicycling where bicyclists are avoiding 

low-comfort conditions

All roadways should be safe and accessible by bicycle except

where	bicycle	travel	is	specifically	prohibited	by	law	and	clearly	

signed. Whenever roads are reconstructed or constructed, 

appropriate bikeways should be included to accommodate

bicyclists’	needs.	However,	technical,	political,	and	financial	

realities may mean that not all roads can be immediately 

retrofitted	or	designed	with	an	appropriate	bikeway.	Further,	

the project type (reconstruction, resurfacing, restriping, etc.) 

may limit bikeway options. Thus, choices should be made 

regarding which improvements receive priority, and what level 

of accommodation and bikeway each roadway will receive. 

Making these choices requires an understanding of standards, 

guidelines, and technical analysis tools as well as local 

knowledge, engineering judgment, and public input.

The Next Best Facility

When the preferred bikeway is not feasible, other bikeways 

which maximize user safety and comfort to the greatest extent 

practicable should be considered. For example, if the preferred 

bikeway is a shared use path and the current project is a street 

resurfacing, it may not be feasible for that project to install 

the shared use path. The only practical option may be the 

installation of a shoulder. 

If a separated bike lane is preferred, but not feasible, and it 
34

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION

is also not feasible or desirable (given pedestrian volumes) 

to provide a sidepath, then a buffered bike lane should be 

considered, as it maximizes separation to vehicles over other 

options. 

The reduction	of	traffic	volumes	or	speeds,	using	traffic	

calming or other strategies, should also be considered in 

situations where the preferred bikeway is not feasible.

The inability to provide the preferred bikeway should not

immediately result in dismissal of other options. If the resulting 

bikeway is not appealing to all ages and abilities, it still may 

be	desirable	and	beneficial	for	the	comfort	and	safety	of	

more	confident	bicyclists.	The	next	best	bikeway	should	be	

considered, but will often depend on the context and particular 

constraints of each project. Where project constraints or 

compromises require a design solution that does not meet the 

original purpose of the project, it may be necessary to consider 

alternative parallel routes. It is therefore important to evaluate 

the project from all angles and consider the impacts on all 

modes of transportation.

Practitioners should document design decisions. Memoranda, 

engineering studies, and other methods of documentation can 

be used to capture the engineering judgment behind a design 

solution. In some cases, depending on the design criteria

involved,	applying	flexibility	may	trigger	the	need	for	a	design	

exception. Documenting design decisions is usually a critical

part of the design exception process.

Parallel Routes

In circumstances where the preferred bikeway is not 

feasible, and the provision of a lower quality bikeway will not 

accommodate the target design user on the primary route (e.g. 

the interested but concerned bicyclist), a parallel route should 

be evaluated to accommodate the design user to meet the 

original purpose and need for the project. The land use context 

and transit access along the parallel route should appeal to and 

attract bicyclists from the primary route while offering a more 

comfortable facility type.

In grid networks, these parallel routes are often low-volume, 

low-speed local streets parallel with high-volume, higherspeed streets. These can be designed to operate and 

function as bicycle boulevards. For the parallel route to be a 

viable alternative, street crossings should provide a similar 

18	 Broach,	J.,	Dill,	J.,	and	J.,	Gliebe.	Where	Do	Cyclists	Ride?	A	Route	Choice	Model	Developed	with	Revealed	Preference	GPS	Data.	Transportation	

Research	Part	A:	Policy	and	Practice,	Vol.	46,	No.	10,	2012,	pp.	1730-1740.

19	 	FHWA.	Reasons	Why	Bicycling	and	Walking	Are	Not	Being	Used	More	Extensively	as	Travel	Modes.	In	National	Bicycling	and	Walking	Study.	FHWAPD-92-041.	Federal	Highway	Administration,	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Washington,	DC,	1994.

20	 	Broach,	J.,	and	J.	Dill.	Bridging	the	Gap:	Using	Network	Connectivity	and	Quality	Measures	to	Predict	Bicycle	Commuting.	Presented	at	96th	Annual	

Meeting	of	the	Transportation	Research	Board.	National	Research	Council,	Washington,	DC,	2017.

level of service as the primary route. This may require careful 

assessment of major street crossings associated with the 

parallel route to ensure they can accommodate safe and 

comfortable crossings. The viability of the parallel route may 

require improvements at these crossings. This is especially 

important at crossing locations of high-speed, or high-volume, 

traffic	that	do	not	have	traffic	signals.	

Another key determinant of bicycling is trip distance. Research 

indicates that for an alternative low-stress route to be viable, 

the increase in trip length should be less than 30 percent.18

Excessive distance is frequently noted as the most powerful 

deterrent to bicycling.19 This is supported by research in stated 

preference and revealed preference studies.20 Bicycle network 

and facility design can provide short cuts for bicyclists to make 

bicycling more time-competitive with motor vehicle travel by 

providing short segments of path between cul-de-sacs and 

across parks or stream valleys. Areas with connected networks 

of separated facilities and high levels of short trips are most 

likely to result in significant	mode	shift	toward	bicycling.

Wrap Up

At locations where the preferred bikeway cannot be provided on 

the primary route and it is necessary to downgrade the bikeway 

and the design user, and at locations where a parallel route 

is not feasible or is not provided, it must be recognized that 

bicycle activity may be suppressed, and the safety of bicyclists 

operating on this roadway segment may be reduced. This may 

negatively impact goals established in adopted bicycle master 

plans, sector plans, corridor plans, or transportation master 

plans. Where this occurs, efforts should be made to identify 

potential remedies that will help a community achieve the 

bicycling goals established in their adopted plans.
35

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

5. Bikeway Selection in Practice

21	 TRB.	Highway	Capacity	Manual.	Transportation	Research	Board,	National	Research	Council,	Washington,	DC,	2010

22	Mekuria,	M.C.,	P.G.	Furth,	and	H.	Nixon.	Low-Stress	Bicycling	and	Network	Connectivity.	MTI	Report	11-19.	Mineta	Transportation	Institute,	San	Jose	

State	University,	San	Jose,	CA,	2012.

This section highlights real-world decisions on bikeway type for a 

broad range of common roadway types. It shows typical bikeway 

options and describes how the application of different bikeway 

choices impact bicyclists and people traveling by other modes. 

For each context scenario provided in this section, four different 

bikeway	applications	are	shown,	identified	as	A	(baseline),	B,	C,	

and D. 

This section also provides the opportunity to evaluate how the 

policy and planning frameworks discussed in Sections 2 and 

3 can be applied on different types of roads and in different 

contexts. These examples can also be used to test and apply the 

bikeway selection process and factors outlined in Section 4. 

When reviewing this section, it will be helpful to reference factors 

for	assessing	and	refining	the	desired	bikeway	type	highlighted	in	

the previous section, such as:

• Unusual motor vehicle peak hour volumes

• Traffic	vehicle	mix

• Parking turnover and curbside activity

• Driveway and intersection frequency

• Direction of operation

• Vulnerable populations

• Network	connectivity	gaps

• Transit considerations for selecting bikeways

It will also be important to cross reference this information 

with	Figure	9:	Preferred	Bikeway	Type	for	Urban,	Urban	Core,	

Suburban,	and	Rural	Town	Contexts	and	Figure	10:	Preferred 

Shoulder Widths for Rural Roadways on pages 23 and 25.

In	addition	to	these	figures,	the	FHWA	Shared	Use	Path	Level	of	

Service	Calculator	(see	page	32)	and	the	following	analysis	tools	

can be used to help assess the comfort of the existing roadway 

conditions and analyze bikeway alternatives.

Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS): BLOS can be used to evaluate 

the comfort of bike lanes and shared lanes, using an A through 

F rating with A being the best and F the worst. It is important to 

consider	that	this	method	of	evaluation	has	significant	limitations	

due to the fact that it was developed to analyze a limited set of 

bicycling conditions within shared lanes, paved shoulders, and 

bike lanes. It does not allow evaluation of shared use paths, 

separated bike lanes, or buffered bike lanes.21

Level of Traffic Stress (LTS): LTS was created to address 

deficiencies	in	the	Bicycle	LOS	method.	It	is	a	method	of	

classifying road segments and bikeway networks based on how 

comfortable	bicyclists	with	different	levels	of	confidence	(using	

the user types discussed on page 12) would feel using them. 

The LTS ratings22 are:

• LTS-1:	Low	Traffic	Stress	Bikeway	comfortable	for	Interested	

but	Concerned	Bicyclists

• LTS-2:	Moderate	Traffic	Stress	Bikeway	comfortable	for	

Somewhat	Confident	Bicyclists

• LTS-3:	High	Traffic	Stress	Bikeway	comfortable	for	Highly	

Confident	Bicyclists

• LTS-4:	Extreme	Traffic	Stress	that	is	not	comfortable	for	most	

bicyclists

A bikeway that is LTS-1 is appropriate and comfortable for all 

user types and is known as an all ages and abilities bikeway.
36

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

Bicyclists: The lack of separation from traffic moving 

at 45-50mph limits is an unforgiving design that 

decreases comfort and safety during passing events 

and while operating in darkness. Fewer driveways and 

intersections reduce conflict points, but locations with 

limited sight lines increase crash risk. Interested but 

concerned bicyclists will not feel comfortable operating 

on the roadway, feeling the highest Level of Traffic 

Stress (LTS = 4). Confident cyclists are also moderately 

uncomfortable (BLOS = D) due to the 45mph operating 

speed and relatively high percentage of trucks (4%). 

Motorists: Motorists do not have safe options for 

overtaking cyclists except to wait for a break in 

oncoming traffic and move into the opposing travel lane. 

This may create motorist discomfort and frustration 

when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy, 

especially at locations with limited sight distance.

Pedestrians: No physical separation from traffic 

moving at 45-50mph limits is an unforgiving design that 

decreases comfort and safety. Pedestrians must walk 

in the road. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may require in-lane 

stops and riders may have difficulty accessing the stops.

2-Lane Roadway (Base Condition)

A

Background: This is a rural, two-way, 22-foot-wide undivided road. It is a 

designated state bicycle route connecting two small towns in a bucolic 

rural valley with a history of attracting bicycle tourists traveling longer 

distances.	The	Average	Daily	Traffic	(ADT)	is	1,500	(with	4%	heavy	

vehicles) and the operating speed is 45 mph. The public right-of-way 

extends	to	10	feet	on	either	side	of	the	roadway.	Low	traffic	volumes	

create gaps where motorists can easily change lanes to pass; however, 

there are locations with limited sight lines. Expected pedestrian 

volumes are to be 15-20 during peak hours, with 100-150 bicyclists on 

weekend afternoons.

Considerations: The designer has the option to select a bikeway based 

on the rural context (Figure 10) or the rural town context. As a popular 

roadway for touring bicyclists, it would be acceptable to use the rural 

town context bikeway selection chart (Figure 9) for this roadway. It is 

recommended that the design user be chosen after consultation with the 

communities and, if feasible, input from people who bicycle on the route—

potentially via a survey of bicycle touring clubs. If it is determined the 

design user should be the interested but concerned bicyclist to provide 

an all ages and abilities facility, Figure 9 recommends a shared use 

path or separated bike lane be considered due to the 45-mph operating 

speed.	FHWA’s	Shared	Use	Path	Calculator	can	show	volume	thresholds	

where passing movements between pedestrians and bicyclists will limit 

the effectiveness of the shared use path, warranting a wider path or a 

separated	bike	lane	with	a	sidewalk.	If	confident	cyclists	are	the	design	

users, Figure 10 recommends provision of a shoulder with a minimum 

width of 5 feet. In both instances, pedestrians are likely to use the bikeway 

provided, as it creates a place to walk separate from motor vehicles. 
37

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

2-Lane Roadway (Shared Use Path Option)

B

2-Lane Roadway (Wide Shoulder Option)

C

Bicyclists: Physical separation and a buffer greatly increase 

comfort and safety for cyclists, resulting in lowest stress 

conditions (LTS = 1), especially during periods of darkness. 

Low pedestrian volumes will result in minimal conflicts on the 

sidepath. A path width of 8 to 10 feet comfortably services 

volumes of up to 300 users per hour (SUP LOS = C). A sidepath 

constructed to a high-quality standard (smooth and level) that 

is cleared of debris will accommodate touring and recreational 

bicyclists. A poor-quality sidepath will result in those cyclists 

continuing to operate in the roadway. 

Motorists: The lack of shoulders does not improve motorist 

safety. Motorist discomfort and frustration is reduced when 

bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy; especially at locations 

with limited sight distance. However, if confident and faster 

cyclists feel they must operate in the roadway due to path 

conditions, this may result in some conflicts with motorists who 

expect the bicyclists to be operating on the path. Motorists will 

need to be aware of counterflow bicyclists.

Pedestrians: The path creates a comfortable and safe place for 

people to walk. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to 

conflicts on the sidepath. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may require in-lane 

stops but riders will have an improved ability to access stops 

along one side of the roadway. Stops on opposite sides of the 

path would benefit from the provision of crossings and stop 

amenities. 

Bicyclists: Wide paved shoulders (>5 feet in width) are 

operationally similar to bike lanes on rural roads. Paved 

shoulders 7 feet or more in width result in a highly comfortable 

route (BLOS = A) for confident cyclists; interested but concerned 

cyclist traffic stress remains high (LTS = 4). Rumble strips may 

be located on or near the shoulder line if a minimum of 4 feet of 

operating space remains for bicyclists. 

Motorists: Wider shoulders are more forgiving for driver error, 

increasing their safety. However, if the shoulder is obstructed 

or rumble strip placement is not correct, bicyclists operating in 

the lane may result in unexpected conflicts with motorists who 

expect the bicyclists to be operating on the shoulder.

Pedestrians: The wide shoulder creates a more comfortable 

place for people to walk. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may 

lead to conflicts, requiring bicyclists to occasionally operate in 

the traveled lane. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop fully 

outside the travel lane within the shoulder. Riders will have an 

improved ability to access stops on both sides of the roadway. 
38

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

2-Lane Roadway (Narrow Shoulder Option)

D

Bicyclists: Narrow paved shoulders (4-5 feet) are operationally 

similar to bike lanes on rural roads. Paved shoulders 4 feet or 

more in width result in a very comfortable route (BLOS = B) for 

confident cyclists; interested but concerned cyclist traffic stress 

remains high (LTS = 4). Paved shoulders less than 3 feet in width 

will not accommodate bicyclists. If rumble strips are present, 

they should be at the edge of the paved surface to maximize the 

width of the shoulder. 

Motorists: Narrow shoulders can be forgiving for driver error, 

increasing their safety. However, if the shoulder is obstructed 

or rumble strip placement is not correct, bicyclists operating in 

the lane may result in unexpected conflicts with motorists who 

expect the bicyclists to be operating on the shoulder.

Pedestrians: The narrow shoulder creates a more comfortable 

place for people to walk. High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may 

lead to conflicts, requiring bicyclists to occasionally operate in 

the traveled lane. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop 

partially outside the travel lane within the shoulder. Riders will 

have an improved ability to access stops on both sides of the 

roadway. 

Related Resources

1. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle 

Facilities

2. FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal 

Networks Guide

3. AASHTO Roadside Design Guide

4. FHWA Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes 

Website
39

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

Bicyclists: The width of the road creates an ambiguous operating 

space for bicyclists which can lead to motorists driving faster 

than the speed limit of 30mph decreasing comfort and safety 

during passing events and while operating in darkness. Interested 

but concerned bicyclists will feel uncomfortable operating on the 

roadway feeling a moderately high Level of Traffic Stress (LTS = 3) 

because of the lack of a defined operating space. Confident cyclists 

are generally comfortable (BLOS = C) due to the wide operating lane 

(17 feet) and relatively low percentage of trucks (2%). To bypass 

stopped or parked vehicles, bicyclists will be required to merge into 

the traffic lane if they operate within the shoulder area. 

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway 

but may be unsure where bicyclists are expected to operate. Where 

bicyclists are moving around stopped or parked vehicles, they will 

be viewed as unpredictable to motorists. Bicyclists who operate in 

the lane and not the shoulder area to avoid parked vehicles, may be 

viewed as “not sharing the roadway.” 

Pedestrians: The lack of a consistent walking space will require 

pedestrians to walk in the roadway decreasing their comfort and 

safety. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop partially 

outside the travel lane within the undefined shoulder area which can 

create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher 

frequency. Riders will have difficulty accessing stops on both sides of 

the roadway depending upon sidewalk and crossing conditions. 

2-Lane Roadway (Base Condition)

A

Background: This is a two-lane, 34-foot-wide street located in a 

small town. It was originally a farm-to-market road and now is 

passing from a residential area into the outskirts of the town center. 

The	Average	Daily	Traffic	(ADT)	is	6,000	(with	2%	heavy	vehicles)	

and the operating speed is 30 mph. The public right-of-way extends 

to 10 feet on either side of the roadway, but there are trees and 

utility poles located within the right-of-way. Portions of the route 

have a sidewalk on one side of the roadway. Expected pedestrian 

volumes are 25-50 during peak hours, with 100-150 bicyclists on 

weekend afternoons. There is sporadic parking along roadway, but 

all properties have driveways and adequate vehicle storage space. 

There is relatively long distances between driveways.

Considerations: The design user should be the interested but 

concerned bicyclist to provide an all ages and abilities facility. 

Based	on	the	traffic	context,	Figure	9	recommends	a	bike	lane	be	

considered	due	to	the	6,000	vehicles/day.	A	buffer	would	improve	

the comfort for bicyclists. A challenge here is accommodating 

pedestrians who are likely to use the bikeway if a sidewalk is not 

provided, as it creates a place to walk separate from motor vehicles. 

A	shared	use	path	could	serve	both	users	but	may	result	in	conflicts	

between pedestrians and bicyclists if the path is too narrow to 

accommodate pedestrians who may desire to walk side-by-side. 

FHWA’s	Shared	Use	Path	Calculator	can	be	used	to	understand	

volume thresholds where passing movements between pedestrians 

and bicyclists will limit the effectiveness of the shared use path, 

warranting a wider path or a bike lane with sidewalk. The presence 

of occasional parking and the possible need to remove trees 

presents a need to build community support.

Source: Stamford, CT Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
40

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

2-Lane Roadway (Bike Lane Option)

B

2-Lane Roadway (Separated Bike Lane Option)

C

Bicyclists: Narrow bike lanes (5 feet) can create a very 

comfortable route (BLOS = B) for confident cyclists as well 

as interested but concerned cyclists due to the relatively low 

operating speed and volume of the roadway (LTS = 2) and the 

provision of dedicated operating space for bicycling. 

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway 

and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists as they 

have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to 

operate. 

Pedestrians: If sidewalks are not provided with the bike lanes, 

pedestrians are likely to walk in the bike lane to improve 

their safety. This may lead to conflicts, requiring bicyclists to 

occasionally operate in the traveled lane. Where sidewalks are 

provided, the bike lanes create a buffer to traffic lanes improving 

pedestrian comfort and safety.

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop 

partially outside the travel lane but within the bike lane, which 

can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate 

with higher frequency. Riders will have difficulty accessing stops 

on both sides of the roadway depending upon sidewalk and 

crossing conditions.

Bicyclists: Separated bike lanes (5 feet) with a buffer (2 feet 

minimum) can create a very comfortable route (BLOS = A) for 

confident cyclists as well as interested but concerned cyclists 

due to the relatively low operating speed and volume of the 

roadway (LTS = 1) and the provision of dedicated operating 

space for bicycling. While this is a narrow buffer, the effective 

width of the bike lane can be increased by placing vertical 

separation close to vehicle travel lane. Vertical separation is 

relatively constant because of the infrequent driveways.

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway 

and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists as they 

have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to 

operate. 

Pedestrians: If sidewalks are not provided with the separated 

bike lanes, pedestrians are likely to walk in the bike lane to 

improve their safety. This may lead to conflicts, requiring 

bicyclists to occasionally operate in the traveled lane which can 

be more challenging due to the barriers. Where sidewalks are 

provided, the separated bike lanes create a buffer to traffic lanes 

improving pedestrian comfort and safety.

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop 

partially outside the travel lane but within the separated bike 

lane, which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit 

routes operate with higher frequency. Riders may have difficulty 

accessing stops on both sides of the roadway depending upon 

sidewalk and crossing conditions.

Source: Stamford, CT Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
41

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

2-Lane Roadway (Shared Use Path Option)

D

Bicyclists: Physical separation and a buffer greatly increase 

comfort and safety for cyclists, resulting in lowest stress 

conditions (LTS = 1), especially during periods of darkness. 

During periods of heavier pedestrian traffic where pedestrians 

walk side-by-side, some conflicts are likely on the sidepath. A 

path width of 10 feet services volumes up to 150 users per hour 

comfortably (SUP LOS = B). At 200 users or more, a path width 

of 12 feet is required to maintain a SUP LOS of B. The pedestrian 

use will likely result in sport and faster cyclists continuing to 

desire to operate in the roadway. 

Motorists: The narrowing of the roadway will have a minimal 

impact on motorist safety given the slower speed nature of 

the roadway. Motorist discomfort and frustration is reduced 

when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy, especially 

during periods of darkness. The reduction in space to stop or 

park motor vehicles may generate controversy if there is not 

sufficient off-street parking available. Motorists need to be 

aware of counterflow bicyclists, but the elimination of parking 

may contribute to adequate sight lines.

Pedestrians: The path creates a comfortable and safe place 

for people to walk continuously on one side of the roadway. 

High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts on the 

sidepath. Completing a sidewalk on the opposite side of the 

road would complete the pedestrian network.

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may require in-lane stops 

but riders will have an improved ability to access stops along 

one side of the roadway. Stops on opposite sides of the path 

would benefit from the provision of crossings and completion of 

the sidewalk. 

Related Resources

1. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle 

Facilities

2. FHWA Shared Use Path Calculator

3. FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design 

Guide

4. National Association of City Transportation 

Officials (NACTO) Bikeway Design Guide
42

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

Bicyclists: Lower volume, multi-lane roads generally allow 

for free-flowing traffic and operating speeds in excess of the 

speed limit. Interested but concerned bicyclists will feel very 

uncomfortable operating on the roadway with a Level of Traffic 

Stress (LTS = 4) because of the lack of a defined operating 

space. Confident cyclists are generally uncomfortable (BLOS = D) 

as well due to the higher operating speeds in a shared lane. 

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway 

by changing lanes, but they may be tempted to pass bicyclists 

within the travel lane if they are operating in a platoon and the 

bicyclists is riding near the edge of the road. Four-lane, undivided 

roadways without left turn lanes also generally have higher 

crash rates than other road types. In a suburban area where 

bicyclists are more frequently merging to turn left, they will not 

have a safe place to wait, resulting in motorists unexpectedly 

seeing bicyclists operating or stopped in the left lane, increasing 

discomfort for motorists. 

Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety is degraded by 

proximity to the adjacent traffic lanes and potential exposure to 

multiple-threat crashes at crossings. Crossings at unsignalized 

intersections may be challenging for many pedestrians. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses must stop within the 

outside travel lane, which can create conflicts with bicyclists 

where transit routes operate with higher frequency. 

4-Lane Roadway (Base Condition)

A

Background: This is a four-lane, 50-foot-wide street located in 

a suburban area with various large business and retail parcels. 

The	Average	Daily	Traffic	(ADT)	is	9,000	(with	2%	heavy	vehicles)	

and the operating speed is 35 mph. The public right-of-way 

extends to 10 feet on either side of the roadway with continuous 

sidewalks that have trees and utility poles located within them. 

Expected pedestrian volumes are to be 25-50 during peak hours, 

with 200-250 bicyclists on weekend afternoons. There is no 

parking along the roadway, as all properties have driveways 

and adequate vehicle storage space. There are relatively long 

distances between driveways.

Considerations: The design user should be the interested but 

concerned bicyclist to provide an all ages and abilities facility. 

Based	on	the	traffic	context,	Figure	9	recommends	a	separated	

bike lane or shared use path be considered due to the 9,000 

vehicles/day and 35 mph speed limit. FHWA’s Shared Use 

Path	Calculator	can	be	used	to	understand	volume	thresholds	

where passing movements between pedestrians and bicyclists 

will limit the effectiveness of the shared use path, warranting 

a wider path or a separated bike lane with sidewalk. If the 

speed limit can be reduced to 30mph, a buffered bike lane 

may	be	sufficient	for	many	users.	A	challenge	here	is	the	built	

environment will require extensive reconstruction, therefore 

solutions which do not move curb lines are the most economical 

option. 

Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO
43

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

B C

4-Lane Roadway (Bike Lane Option) 4-Lane Roadway (Separated Bike Lane Option)

Bicyclists: Bike lanes (6 feet) can create a very comfortable 

route (BLOS = B) for confident cyclists. The interested but 

concerned cyclists is still relatively uncomfortable due to the 

operating speed and volume of the roadway (LTS = 3) despite 

the provision of bike lanes. Many may still ride on the sidewalk if 

operating speeds remain over 35mph. If speeds were lowered to 

25-30 mph and a buffer was added to the bike lane, their comfort 

would increase substantially (LTS = 2). 

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway 

and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists as they 

have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to 

operate. The provision of a turn lane increases motorists safety; 

however, it likely lowers operating speeds, which may cause 

some to express frustration. 

Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety is greatly improved 

because the bike lanes create a buffer to traffic lanes. Also, 

the reduction of through travel lanes eliminates the potential 

for a multiple-threat crash, and the left turn lane creates 

opportunities to add pedestrian refuges.

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop partially 

outside the travel lane but within the bike lane, which can create 

conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes operate with higher 

frequency. Rider access is improved with safer street crossings. 

Bicyclists: Separated bike lanes (6 feet) with a buffer (2 feet 

minimum) can create a very comfortable route (BLOS = A) for 

confident cyclists as well as interested but concerned cyclists 

due to the relatively low operating speed and volume of the 

roadway (LTS = 1) and the provision of dedicated operating 

space for bicycling. Vertical separation is relatively constant due 

to infrequent driveways.

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway 

and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists as they 

have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to 

operate. 

Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety is greatly improved 

because the bike lanes create a buffer to traffic lanes. Also, 

the reduction of through travel lanes eliminate the potential 

for a multiple-threat crash, and the left turn lane creates 

opportunities to add pedestrian refuges.

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses may be able to stop 

partially outside the travel lane but within the separated bike 

lane. This can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit 

routes operate with higher frequency. Rider access is improved 

with safer street crossings. 
44

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

4-Lane Roadway (Shared Use Path Option)

D

Bicyclists: Physical separation and a buffer greatly increase 

comfort and safety for cyclists resulting in lowest stress 

conditions (LTS = 1), especially during periods of darkness. 

During periods of heavier pedestrian traffic where pedestrians 

walk side-by-side, some conflicts are likely on the sidepath. 

A path width of 12 feet services volumes of up to 200 users 

per hour comfortably (SUP LOS = B). At 300 users or more, a 

path width of 14 feet is required to maintain a SUP LOS of B. 

The pedestrian use will likely result in sport and faster cyclists 

continuing to desire to operate in the roadway. This width and 

the volumes are reaching a point where separating pedestrians 

and bicyclists may be desirable. 

Motorists: The narrowing of the roadway will have a minimal 

impact on motorist safety given the slower speed nature of 

the roadway. Motorist discomfort and frustration is reduced 

when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy, especially 

during periods of darkness. Motorists will need to be aware of 

counterflow bicyclists, but the prohibition of parking ensures 

adequate sight lines.

Pedestrians: The path creates a comfortable and safe place 

for people to walk continuously on one side of the roadway. 

High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts on the 

sidepath. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses will be required to stop 

within the travel lane. Special care will be required at transit 

stops to ensure waiting pedestrians are not waiting on the 

shared use path. Rider access is improved with safer street 

crossings.

Related Resources

1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 

Implementing Context Sensitive Design 

on Multimodal Corridors: A Practitioner’s 

Handbook

2. FHWA Road Diet Information Guide

3. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway 

Capacity Manual

4. USDOT Memorandum on Level of Service

5. ITE Trip Generation Manual

Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO
45

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

Bicyclists: Higher volume, multi-lane roads generally allow 

for free-flowing traffic and operating speeds in excess of the 

speed limit. Interested but concerned bicyclists will feel very 

uncomfortable operating on the roadway (LTS = 4) even with the 

provision of an existing 9-foot shoulder. These bicyclists will 

avoid this roadway or ride on the sidewalks. Confident cyclists 

are generally comfortable (BLOS = A) on this roadway operating 

within the 9-foot shoulder despite the higher operating speeds. 

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway, 

but they may be tempted to pass bicyclists and not yield to 

bicyclist operating with the shoulder due to the higher operating 

speeds. In a suburban area where bicyclists are more frequently 

merging to turn left, they may wait in the provided left turn lane, 

but they may have difficulty merging across the multiple lanes 

of high-speed traffic to enter the lane, resulting in motorists 

unexpectedly seeing bicyclists operating in left lanes on the 

roadway, increasing discomfort for motorists. 

Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety is acceptable along 

the roadway because of the provided separation from traffic 

but degraded at street crossings due to their potential exposure 

to multiple-threat crashes and the higher operating speeds. 

Crossings at unsignalized intersections may be challenging for 

many pedestrians. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses can stop within the shoulder, 

which can create conflicts with bicyclists where transit routes 

operate with higher frequency. Riders may have challenges 

crossing the roadway to access stops.

5-6 Lane Roadway (Base Condition)

A

Background: This	is	a	five-lane,	70-foot-wide	street	with	an	

existing 9-foot shoulder located in a suburban area with various 

large	business	and	retail	parcels.	The	Average	Daily	Traffic	

(ADT)	is	26,000	(with	2%	heavy	vehicles)	and	the	operating	

speed is 45 mph. The public right-of-way extends to 20 feet on 

either side of the roadway, with continuous sidewalks that have 

trees and utility poles located within them. Expected pedestrian 

volumes are to be 25-50 during peak hours, with 200-250 

bicyclists on weekend afternoons. There is no parking along the 

roadway, as all properties have driveways and adequate vehicle 

storage space. There are relatively long distances between 

driveways.

Considerations: The design user should be the interested but 

concerned bicyclist to provide an all ages and abilities facility. 

Based	on	the	traffic	context,	Figure	9	recommends	a	separated	

bike	lane	or	shared	use	path	be	considered	due	to	the	26,000	

vehicles/day and 45 mph speed limit. FHWA’s Shared Use Path 

Calculator	can	be	used	to	understand	volume	thresholds	where	

passing movements between pedestrians and bicyclists will 

limit the effectiveness of the shared use path, warranting a 

wider path or a separated bike lane with sidewalk. A challenge 

here	is	that	the	shoulder	can	provide	safety	benefits	for	

motorists given the higher operating speeds and volumes. 

Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO
46

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

Bicyclists: The shoulders and travel lanes can be reduced in 

width to create a bi-directional separated bike lane (8 feet) 

with a buffer (6-foot minimum) on one side. It can create a very 

comfortable route (BLOS = A) for confident cyclists as well as 

interested but concerned cyclists (LTS = 1) due to the physical 

separation from the traffic. 

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway 

and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists, as 

they have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected 

to operate. Motorists will need to be aware of counterflow 

bicyclists, but the elimination of parking ensures adequate sight 

lines.

Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety remains unchanged 

from the existing conditions. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses will be required to stop 

within the travel lane. Special care will be required at transit 

stops to ensure waiting pedestrians are not waiting on the 

shared use path. Rider access does not change from existing 

conditions with the exception of access across the separated 

bike lane. 

5-6 Lane Roadway (Buffered Bike Lane Option)

B

5-6 Lane Roadway (Separated Bike Lane Option)

C

Bicyclists: Buffered bike banes can be created by narrowing 

the shoulders. The 6-foot bike lane with a 3-foot buffer does 

not improve comfort from the unmarked shoulder (BLOS = A) 

for confident cyclists, but does improve motorist awareness of 

bicyclists operating in the lanes. The interested but concerned 

cyclists is still relatively uncomfortable due to the operating 

speed and volume of the roadway (LTS = 3) despite the provision 

of buffered bike lanes. Many may still ride on the sidewalk or 

avoid the road.

Motorists: Motorists can easily overtake cyclists on the roadway 

and have decreased stress operating around bicyclists, as they 

have greater awareness for where bicyclists are expected to 

operate. 

Pedestrians: Pedestrian comfort and safety remains unchanged 

from the existing conditions. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses can stop within the 

shoulder ,which can create conflicts with bicyclists where 

transit routes operate with higher frequency. Riders may have 

challenges crossing the roadway to access stops.

Source: Active Tyler: Active Transportation Plan for the Tyler, TX Area MPO
47

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 5. BIKEWAY SELECTION IN PRACTICE

5-6 Lane Roadway (Shared Use Path Option)

D

Bicyclists: Instead of narrowing the shoulders, the existing 

sidewalk can be widened to create a shared use path. Physical 

separation and a buffer greatly increase comfort and safety 

for cyclists, resulting in lowest stress conditions (LTS =1), 

especially during periods of darkness. During periods of 

heavier pedestrian traffic where pedestrians walk side-by-side, 

some conflicts are likely on the sidepath. A path width of 12 

feet services volumes up to 200 users per hour comfortably 

(SUP LOS = B). At 300 users or more, a path width of 14 feet is 

required to maintain a SUP LOS of B. The pedestrian use will 

likely result in sport and faster cyclists continuing to desire to 

operate in the roadway. The width and the volumes are reaching 

a point where separating pedestrians and bicyclists may be 

preferable. 

Motorists: The narrowing of the roadway will have a minimal 

impact on motorist safety given the slower speed nature of 

the roadway. Motorist discomfort and frustration is reduced 

when bicycle and motor vehicle traffic is heavy, especially 

during periods of darkness. Motorists will need to be aware of 

counterflow bicyclists, but the prohibition of parking ensures 

adequate sight lines.

Pedestrians: The path creates a comfortable and safe place 

for people to walk continuously on one side of the roadway. 

High pedestrian or cyclist volumes may lead to conflicts on the 

sidepath. 

Transit Operators and Riders: Buses will be required to stop 

within the travel lane. Special care will be required at transit 

stops to ensure waiting pedestrians are not waiting on the 

shared use path. Rider access is improved with safer street 

crossings.

Related Resources

1. FHWA Workbook on Incorporating On-Road 

Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects

2. FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures

3. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway 

Capacity Manual

4. USDOT Memorandum on Level of Service

5. ITE Trip Generation Manual
48

BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 6. CONCLUSION

6. Conclusion

This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners 

consider and make informed decisions about trade-offs relating 

to the selection of bikeway types. It incorporates and builds 

upon	FHWA’s	active	support	for	design	flexibility	and	connected,	

safe, and comfortable bicycle networks that meet the needs of 

people of all ages and abilities.

For new construction and reconstruction projects, the bikeway 

selection process can be relatively straightforward. Figures 9 

and 10 in this guide show the desired bikeway type for roads 

with different characteristics, and this guidance is based, in 

large	part,	on	motor	vehicle	traffic	volume	and	speed.	

However, many of the projects that practitioners design and 

build	are	retrofits,	or	construction	projects	on	existing	roadways.	

These roadways often have more constraints and require tradeoffs.

This guide outlines a process for balancing these trade-offs 

by	identifying	the	desired	bikeway	type,	assessing	and	refining	

the potential options, and evaluating feasibility. An agency’s 

policies provide the framework for decision making, and the 

transportation planning process ensures that user types, bicycle 

networks, road context, and project types are considered.

This process is intended to accelerate the delivery of highquality multimodal projects that improve safety for everyone 

and meet the transportation needs of people of all ages and 

abilities.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

49
FHWA-SA-18-077