FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

1. Introduction

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?

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The vision for the bike network can inform planning- related 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 sections, 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 high-speed 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 is a feasible alternative.

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 shows examples of how bike network form can impact bikeway selection.

Figure 5: Examples of Bicycle Network Forms

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?

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.

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/low-stress networks serve the most people while low-comfort/high-stress 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. Communities seeking to serve all ages and abilities will need to establish low-stress bicycle networks.

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 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.

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 sections 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. 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

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 characteristicsthan 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.

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.

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 described in detail in the following section. If the preferred facility type is not feasible, the next-best facility should be considered, as described in its section.

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 performance-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.

2     Dill, D. and N. McNeil. Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists. In Transportation Research Record 2587. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2016.

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

4     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.

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 sections 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.

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.

• 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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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  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 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 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 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.

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.

9     FHWA. Road Diet Informational Guide. FHWA-SA-14-028. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, November 2014.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.