This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

org/28853

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design

Features: A Guide (2025)

DETAILS
68 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-73298-7 | DOI 10.17226/28853

CONTRIBUTORS
Bahar Dadashova, Karen Dixon, Okan Gurbuz, Richard Dzinyela, Boya Dai, Shawn
Turner, Michael Hintze, Katy Sawyer, Bill Schultheiss, Dylan Passmore, Jeremy
BUY THIS BOOK Chrzan, Tyler Wong, Clay Sublett, Stefanie Brodie, Christopher Monsere, Sirisha
Kothuri, Nathan McNeil, Rebecca Sanders, and Jessica Schoner; National
Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION
Transportation Research Board. 2025. On-Street Bicycle Facility Design
Features: A Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/28853.

Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)

This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

NCHRP
Research Report 1136
National
Cooperative
Highway
Research Program

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features

A GUIDE

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2024 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

OFFICERS
Chair: Carol A. Lewis, Professor, Transportation Studies, Texas Southern University, Houston
Vice Chair: Leslie S. Richards, General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia
Executive Director: Victoria Sheehan, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC

MEMBERS
Michael F. Ableson, CEO, Arrival Automotive–North America, Detroit, MI
James F. Albaugh, President and CEO, The Boeing Company (retired), Scottsdale, AZ
Carlos M. Braceras, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City
Douglas C. Ceva, Vice President, Customer Lead Solutions, Prologis, Inc., Jupiter, FL
Nancy Daubenberger, Commissioner of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul
Marie Therese Dominguez, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany
Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag University Professor of Engineering Emeritus, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Randell Iwasaki, President and CEO, Iwasaki Consulting Services, Walnut Creek, CA
Ashby Johnson, Executive Director, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Austin, TX
Joel M. Jundt, Secretary of Transportation, South Dakota Department of Transportation, Pierre
Hani S. Mahmassani, W.A. Patterson Distinguished Chair in Transportation; Director, Transportation Center, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL
Scott C. Marler, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames
Ricardo Martinez, Adjunct Professor of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Decatur, GA
Michael R. McClellan, Vice President, Strategic Planning, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Atlanta, GA
Russell McMurry, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta
Craig E. Philip, Research Professor and Director, VECTOR, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN
Steward T.A. Pickett, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY
Susan A. Shaheen, Professor and Co-director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley
Marc Williams, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Michael R. Berube, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Sustainable Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Amit Bose, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC
Tristan Brown, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC
Steven Cliff, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Rand Ghayad, Senior Vice President, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Germantown, MD
Robert C. Hampshire, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Jason Kelly, Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Zahra “Niloo” Parvinashtiani, Engineer, Mobility Consultant Solutions, Iteris Inc., Fairfax, VA, and Chair, TRB Young Members
Coordinating Council
Ann Phillips (Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy, retired), Maritime Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC
Sophie Shulman, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC
Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Paul P. Skoutelas, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Polly Trottenberg, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Jim Tymon, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Veronica Vanterpool, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC
Michael Whitaker, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Kristin White, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Vinn White, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, DC

* Membership as of November 2024.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M

NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1136

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features
A GUIDE

Bahar Dadashova
Karen Dixon
Okan Gurbuz
Richard Dzinyela
Boya Dai
Shawn Turner
Texas A&M Transportation Institute
Bryan, TX

Michael Hintze
Katy Sawyer
Bill Schultheiss
Dylan Passmore
Jeremy Chrzan
Tyler Wong
Clay Sublett
Stefanie Brodie
Toole Design Group
Silver Spring, MD

Christopher Monsere
Sirisha Kothuri
Nathan McNeil
Portland State University
Portland, OR

Rebecca Sanders
Jessica Schoner
Safe Streets Research & Consulting
Portland, OR

Subscriber Categories
Pedestrians and Bicyclists • Design • Safety and Human Factors • Transportation, General

Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

2025

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1136

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 15-74
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by ISBN 978-0-309-73298-7
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities Library of Congress Control Number 2024952444
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
© 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini-
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the published or copyrighted material used herein.
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
ment No. 693JJ31950003. understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA,
FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
NOTICE
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special-
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
directly to those in a position to use them. Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- FHWA; or the program sponsors.
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and
The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or spec-
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by ifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices,
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- procedures, or specifications.
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.

Published research reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from

National Academies Press

500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360
Washington, DC 20001

(800) 624-6242

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

https://nap.nationalacademies.org
Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by
President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues
related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding
contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation.
Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L.
Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in
1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and
health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine
and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct
other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National
Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to
knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at
www.nationalacademies.org.

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation
Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve
complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about
8,500 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the
public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public
interest. The program is supported by state departments of transportation, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other
organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1136

Monique R. Evans, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
Arefeh Nasri, Senior Program Officer
Stephanie L. Campbell-Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
Alison Shapiro, Editor

NCHRP PROJECT 15-74 PANEL

Field of Design—Area of General Design
Rebecca L. Mowry, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA (Chair)
Andrew Jay Beagle, Washington State Transportation Improvement Board, Olympia, WA
Karlynn Brown, WSP, Nashville, TN
Shaunna Kay Burbidge, Avenue Consultants, Taylorsville, UT
Arthur Getman, Replica, Overland Park, KS
Jill Mrotek Glenzinski, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, WI
George Thomas Rogerson, Jr., VaDOT (retired), Midlothian, VA
Darren G. Buck, FHWA Liaison
Bernardo B. Kleiner, TRB Liaison

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

FOREWORD

By Arefeh Nasri
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board

NCHRP Research Report 1136: On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide presents a
state-of-the-art and data-driven guide for selecting context-appropriate design features for
safety improvements of separated and non-separated on-street bicycle lanes. The guide was
developed based on an extensive literature review, a roadmap for identifying the contextual
factors affecting bicyclist safety at selected on-street bikeway sites, and an evaluation of
the safety effectiveness of bikeway types using before-after and cross-sectional analyses. The
guide is of immediate interest to state and local transportation agencies seeking to enhance
bicycle lane safety as they expand and improve their bicycle networks.

As separated on-street bicycle lanes become increasingly common, many state depart-
ments of transportation (DOTs) and local agencies have installed them to address safety
concerns and promote cycling. Non-separated bikeways are marked by pavement striping
or painted buffers, while separated bikeways use flexible delineators, curbs, parking lanes,
or other barriers to create horizontal and vertical separation from motor vehicle traffic.
Research was needed to provide state DOTs with detailed information on the anticipated
safety benefits of bicycle network design features across various contexts, the relationship
between these features, and the risk of midblock (non-intersection) bicycle crashes.
Under NCHRP Project 15-74, “Safety Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facility Design
Features,” the Texas A&M Transportation Institute was asked to develop a data-driven guide for
practitioners at state DOTs and other transportation agencies for selecting context-appropriate
design features for safety improvements to existing separated and non-separated on-street
bicycle lanes and for the planning of new bicycle lanes. The research team developed a guide
based on an up-to-date, quantitative analysis of crash patterns, roadway characteristics, land
use patterns, and human factors that increase conflicts and the risk and severity of midblock
bicycle crashes.
In addition to the guide published as NCHRP Research Report 1136, an associated publication
detailing the conduct of research, NCHRP Web-Only Document 414: Safety Evaluation
of On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features, is available. Supplemental to these publica-
tions are a technical memorandum detailing the project and a PowerPoint presentation.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 414 can be found on the National Academies Press website
(nap.nationalacademies.org) by searching for NCHRP Web-Only Document 414: Safety
Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features. The technical memorandum and
­PowerPoint presentation can be found on the National Academies Press webpage for
NCHRP Web-Only Document 414 under “Resources.”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

CONTENTS

1 Summary
2 Chapter 1 Introduction
2 1.1 Background
3 1.2 Visual Assessment of Separated Bicycle Lane Crash Sites

7 Chapter 2 Safety Principles and Bikeway Selection

7 2.1 Safety Principles and Strategies
9 2.2 Bikeway Selection
12 2.3 Chapter Summary

13 Chapter 3 Contextual Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety

13 3.1 Roadway Grades
14 3.2 Driveway Volumes
15 3.3 Pedestrian Generators
16 3.4 Frequency of Access Points
18 3.5 Chapter Summary

19 Chapter 4 Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety

19 4.1 Bikeway Width
20 4.2 Buffer Design
25 4.3 Sight Distance
31 4.4 Traffic Control at Driveway and Alley Crossings
35 4.5 Driveway Design Considerations
42 4.6 Alley Design Considerations
42 4.7 Mixing Zones or Undefined Transitions
42 4.8 Lighting Design
44 4.9 Chapter Summary

47 Chapter 5 Policy and Planning Considerations

47 5.1 Context and Modal Priority
48 5.2 Access Management
49 5.3 Curb Space Management
49 5.4 Short-Term vs. Long-Term Implementation
50 5.5 Maintenance
51 5.6 Chapter Summary and Guidance for Implementing Agencies

53 References

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

SUMMARY

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design

Features: A Guide

This report provides guidelines that identify specific design features for existing and planned
on-street bikeways that affect bicyclist safety at midblock locations. These guidelines were
informed by a literature review, a safety analysis of crashes associated with on-street bike-
ways in six U.S. cities, and a visual assessment of specific locations where clusters of mid-
block crashes occurred. Given that most bicyclist-involved crashes occur at intersection
locations, jurisdictions tend to invest more resources in addressing bicyclist safety issues
at these locations. However, midblock bicyclist crashes result in nearly double the number
of fatalities (National Transportation Safety Board 2019). As agencies aim to implement
more complete bicycle networks that attract a broader spectrum of bicyclists, improved or
updated guidance for midblock design elements is needed.
Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview of the report. Chapter 2 outlines fun-
damental safety principles and strategies grounded in the Safe System approach and exist-
ing Federal Highway Administration bikeway guidance applicable for all bikeway types
within the street right-of-way. Using these principles, the research team conducted a visual
assessment of separated bicycle lane segments where there were clusters of crashes to better
understand the contextual factors and design elements that may be contributing to those
crashes. This visual assessment supplemented the safety analysis, which did not include
key midblock contextual factors such as parking, loading, alleys, and driveways due to data
limitations.
Chapter 3 discusses common contextual factors that have been shown to impact bicyclists’
safety which designers must be aware of but are not typically able to modify during design.
These factors must be mitigated by the application of design elements that apply the Safe
System principles and strategies. Suggestions for approaching design elements most critical
to midblock bikeway safety are discussed in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 provides a general discussion of policies and planning strategies that agencies
could have in place to address the common challenges with midblock bikeway design.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Background
The safety analysis and modeling techniques used to evaluate the safety of bikeways identified
several factors that have either a positive or negative effect on bikeway safety; however, due to
data limitations, the safety analysis did not include discrete design features or contextual factors
that likely impacted safety outcomes. Therefore, the research team also conducted a visual assess-
ment of separated bicycle lane segments where clusters of crashes occurred to better understand
potential contributing factors. The visual assessment focused on separated bicycle lanes because
this bikeway type has been shown to have superior safety performance over other bikeway types
and shared travel lanes due to constraining motorist interactions with bicyclists to defined cross-
ings at streets, alleys, and driveways. Separated bicycle lanes are of interest to the engineering
and planning profession because they also have the most variation in design elements used by
implementation agencies, and design practices continue to evolve. Design elements that could be
considered in midblock bikeway design are then discussed. These design suggestions are based
on general safety principles, previous studies, existing guidance, and the research team’s visual
assessment of sites where crashes occurred on separated bicycle lanes.
The design of conventional bicycle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes at midblock locations is
relatively standardized, with variations in design practices limited to bicycle lane width and
presence, type of motorist parking/loading, and the application of supplemental traffic control
treatments such as colored pavement or traffic signs. Existing bikeway design guidance presents
only minor differences in bikeway width, typically within a range of 4 ft to 7 ft wide, exclusive of
buffers and gutter pans [National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) 2011;
AASHTO 2023]. Given the relatively modest variability in these bikeway types, the focus of guid-
ance in this report for conventional bicycle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes is on design strategies
in high crash spots (conflict zones).
Separated bicycle lanes provide the highest degree of protection and comfort compared to other
on-street bikeway types because they limit motorist encroachment to defined crossing locations
with physical barriers. However, the design of separated bicycle lanes at midblock locations varies
considerably more than conventional and buffered bicycle lanes due to factors such as the selection
of vertical elements, the lateral placement and spacing of vertical elements, where and how parking
and loading are managed on a street, and how mixing zones and transitions are treated. Each of
these factors can impact the comfort and safety of bicyclists and have not all been well researched.
A variety of electrically powered micromobility and power-driven mobility devices have
entered the market that may be operated on bikeways. Like bicyclists, many of these users are
uncomfortable operating on roadways in shared lanes with motor vehicle traffic, especially in
areas with higher motor vehicle volumes and operating speeds. For the purposes of this research,
these users are assumed to be present and operating on bikeways.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Introduction  3

Chapter 2 of these guidelines presents general safety principles and strategies applicable to
midblock locations of all on-street bikeways. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 present common factors
contributing to bikeway safety found in the safety analysis and visual assessment and provide
practitioners with guidance or strategies to increase bikeway safety. Chapter 5 of this report
explores policy and planning strategies that may also mitigate negative outcomes at midblock
locations of bikeways.

1.2 Visual Assessment of Separated

Bicycle Lane Crash Sites
The safety analysis identified a range of contextual or built environmental factors that research
has found to impact bicyclist safety. While the safety analysis and modeling techniques used to
evaluate the safety of bikeways in this report did not analyze these factors directly due to limi-
tations in available data, the research team performed a limited visual assessment of all crash
locations on or near separated bicycle lanes in four cities using an online map tool’s roadside
photography feature to identify the presence of those factors and evaluate whether they may have
contributed to bicyclist crashes (Images taken by the research team were used in the report and
thus are not subject to copyright). The relatively small set of crashes (98 total) that occurred on
separated bicycle lanes within the data set presented a unique opportunity to perform a desktop
visual assessment of each crash location. In many instances, the research team had direct and
personal knowledge of the streets in question, which was obtained through past site visits or
direct involvement in the design of the bikeway. While the team did not review crash locations of
other bikeway types, likely, many factors that were identified in the visual scans are also applicable
to other bikeway types.
The visual assessment identified contextual and design factors present across multiple crash
sites, some of which are included in the literature review findings of the associated conduct of
research report, NCHRP Web-Only Document 414, which can be found by searching the National
Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org) for NCHRP Web-Only Document 414:
Safety Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features. Additional contextual factors that
were not identified in the literature review but have been noted in other crash research included
the presence of roadways with downhill grades and proximity to pedestrian generators and alley
access points. Suggestions for applying existing guidance, modifying existing guidance, or creating
new guidance for design elements that may mitigate the presence of contextual factors or lead to
improved design decisions are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

1.2.1 Contextual Factors

The following contextual factors related to crash locations were consistently identified across
the four cities reviewed, and are ranked from the highest number of crashes to the lowest number
of crashes:
• Roadways with downhill grades (24 crashes; 23 in Seattle, two in Austin, none in Philadelphia
or Minneapolis). Previous research in Seattle found that downhill approaches (greater than
4 percent) to intersections may increase the potential for left-hook bicyclist crashes [Seattle
Department of Transportation (DOT) 2016]. The crashes within separated bicycle lanes
analyzed in this study all occurred at driveway access points to commercial parking lots or
garages. Design elements that warrant review include bikeway width (Section 4.1), sight dis-
tance (Section 4.3), and on-street parking restrictions (Section 4.3.1). Contextual elements
that warrant review include roadway grades (Section 3.1). In some cases, a different bikeway
selection may need to be made (Section 2.2).
• Commercial parking garage driveway (22 crashes; 19 in Seattle, two in Austin, one in
Minneapolis, none noted in Philadelphia). Twenty crashes were located on streets where

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

4   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

on-street parking is permitted in the vicinity of the garage entrance/exit. Design elements
that warrant review include sight distance (Section 4.3), on-street parking restrictions
(Section 4.3.1), driveway design (Section 4.5), and application of traffic control devices
(Section 4.4). Contextual elements that warrant review include driveway volumes (Section 3.2)
and frequency of access points (Section 3.4).
• Proximity to pedestrian generators (12 crashes involving pedestrians; eight in Austin, four
noted in Seattle, none in Philadelphia or Minneapolis). The eight crashes involving pedestrians
in Austin occurred at one location on Guadalupe Street where a bikeshare station is near
a transit stop. This location is also at a main access point to the University of Texas at Austin
where there are high volumes of pedestrians crossing between the University to access adjacent
commercial destinations, bikeshare, and transit. The crashes in Seattle occurred at one location
with on-street parking and a transit stop. Design elements that warrant review include bikeway
width (Section 4.1), on-street parking restrictions (Section 4.3.1), lighting (Section 4.8), sight
distance (Section 4.3), and application of traffic control devices (Section 4.4). Contextual elements
that warrant review include pedestrian generators (Section 3.3). Additional design elements
not addressed in this report include bikeshare siting and transit stop placement and design.
• Alley access points (seven crashes; five in Seattle, two in Minneapolis, none noted in Philadelphia
or Austin). Except for one alley in Minneapolis that was in a residential single-family area with
large setbacks, the remaining six crashes were in denser land use settings where multi-story build-
ings abut the sidewalks and alley edges squarely without sight-line setbacks. On-street parking is
allowed at only two of the locations. Design elements that warrant review include driveway design
(Section 4.5), sight distance (Section 4.3), on-street parking restrictions (Section 4.3.1), alley
design considerations (Section 4.6), and application of traffic control devices (Section 4.4).
Contextual elements that warrant review include frequency of access points (Section 3.4).
• Commercial surface parking driveway (seven crashes; none noted in Philadelphia). Two
crashes were located on streets where on-street parking is permitted in the vicinity of the
driveway to access the parking lot. Design elements that warrant review include sight distance
(Section 4.3), on-street parking restrictions (Section 4.3.1), driveway design (Section 4.5),
lighting (Section 4.8), and application of traffic control devices (Section 4.4). Contextual elements
that warrant review include frequency of access points (Section 3.4).
• Gas station/convenience store driveway (six crashes, all one site in Austin; none noted in other
cities). Design elements that warrant review include driveway design (Section 4.5), buffer design
(Section 4.2), lighting (Section 4.8), and application of traffic control devices (Section 4.4).
Contextual elements that warrant review include frequency of access points (Section 3.4).
• Residential single-family driveway (three crashes, all in Seattle; none noted in other cities).
Design elements that warrant review include sight distance (Section 4.3), on-street parking
restrictions (Section 4.3.1), lighting (Section 4.8), and application of traffic control devices
(Section 4.4).

1.2.2 Design Factors

The following design factors were consistently identified across the four cities reviewed, and
are ranked from the highest number of crashes to the lowest number of crashes:
• Significant gaps between vertical elements (56 crashes; none in Minneapolis). The factor
observed across the highest number of crash sites in the visual assessment was the presence of
significant gaps in vertical elements due to the frequency and width of access points such as
driveways and alleys. These gaps resulted in large conflict zones, which increased a bicyclist’s
exposure to motorists and, in some cases, effectively downgraded the bicycle facility from
a separated bicycle lane to a buffered bicycle lane along significant portions of the bikeway.
Design elements that warrant review include bikeway width (Section 4.1), buffer design (Sec-
tion 4.2), sight distance (Section 4.3), lighting (Section 4.8), on-street parking restrictions

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Introduction  5

(Section 4.3.1), and application of traffic control devices (Section 4.4). The inability to main-
tain physical separation within a separated bicycle lane may warrant selecting a different bike-
way type as discussed in Section 2.2.
• Two-way bikeway on a one-way street (25 crashes; 13 in Seattle, 10 in Austin, two in Minneapolis,
none noted in Philadelphia). Twelve crashes were located on streets where on-street park-
ing is restricted. The remaining 13 were located on 2nd Avenue in Seattle at parking garage
driveway locations. Design elements that warrant review include on-street parking restrictions
(Section 4.3.1), commercial lot and garage driveway design (Section 4.5), and application of
traffic control devices (Section 4.4)
• Narrow bikeway or buffer (17 crashes; 14 in Austin, three in Seattle, none in Minneapolis or
Philadelphia). All locations were adjacent to on-street parking. A relatively narrow bikeway and/
or buffer design in separated bicycle lanes were noted in these crashes, many of which involved
pedestrians near transit stops or crossing a bicycle lane from a parking spot. Design elements
that warrant review include bicycle lane width (Section 4.1), buffer design (Section 4.2), sight
distance (Section 4.3), lighting (Section 4.8), on-street parking restrictions (Section 4.3.1), and
application of traffic signs (Section 4.4.). The inability to provide adequate bikeway or buffer
width may warrant selecting a different bikeway type as discussed in Section 2.2.
• Unmarked or unclear driveways (21 crashes; all cities). Nine crashes were located on streets
where on-street parking is permitted. Design elements that warrant review include sight distance
(Section 4.3), driveway design (Section 4.4), on-street parking restrictions (Section 4.3.1),
mixing zones or undefined transitions (Section 4.7), lighting (Section 4.8), and application of
traffic control devices (Section 4.4).
• Mixing zones or undefined transitions (16 crashes; all cities). These locations exhibited a
pattern of having multiple driveways, large driveways, or an intersection near the crash loca-
tion that reduced the ability of vertical elements to remain on the separated bicycle lane and
added complexity to the transition of the separated bicycle lane to a conventional bicycle
lane or shared lane. Six crashes were located on streets where on-street parking is permitted.
Design elements that warrant review include sight distance (Section 4.3), on-street parking
restrictions (Section 4.3.1), driveway design (Section 4.5), lighting (Section 4.8), mixing zones
or undefined transitions (Section 4.7), and application of traffic control devices (Section 4.4).
The largest number of crashes in the visual scan were associated with sites where a combina-
tion of contextual and design factors was present at the crash location or were located within
close proximity to the crash location. A sample of these locations is shown in Figure 1.

2nd Avenue, Seattle

A narrow buffer, downhill grade,

commercial parking garage, and
two-way bikeway on a one-way
street.

Figure 1.   Sample of locations with combinations of contextual and design

factors that can contribute to crashes.
 (continued on next page)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

6   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Chestnut Street, Philadelphia

On-street parking and closely

spaced driveways remove vertical
elements for a large portion of
this street segment.

W 26th Street, Minneapolis

On-street parking, closely spaced

driveways, and proximity to
the intersection result in
the removal of vertical elements
from the midblock location to
the intersection, creating an
undefined mixing zone.

Rio Grande Street, Austin

Two-way bikeway on a one-way

street and a large gas station
driveway opening that result in
the removal of vertical elements
from the midblock location to
the intersection, creating an
undefined mixing zone.

Figure 1. (Continued).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

CHAPTER 2

Safety Principles and

Bikeway Selection

2.1 Safety Principles and Strategies

FHWA has embraced the Safe System approach as a strategy to eliminate serious injuries and
deaths resulting from crashes on the transportation system. As noted on FHWA’s website, “This
approach requires a supporting safety culture that places safety first and foremost in road system
investment decisions [FHWA n.d. (c)]. This system is based on the following principles [FHWA
n.d. (a)]:
• Death and serious injuries are unacceptable,
• Humans make mistakes,
• Humans are vulnerable,
• Responsibility is shared,
• Safety is proactive, and
• Redundancy is crucial.
The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide applies the Safe System approach as a foundational phi-
losophy to guide bikeway selection. It identifies seven bikeway network design principles for devel-
oping effective bicycle networks that improve bicyclist safety (see Figure 2). These benefits can
flow to other users who operate on bikeways (e.g., micromobility users).
Bicycle networks and bikeways need to be designed with the goal of reducing injuries and
fatalities. When planning bikeway networks and designing bikeway facilities, practitioners can
improve safety by applying Safe System principles through the following strategies:
• Selecting an appropriate bikeway. Physically separate bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic
where motor vehicle volumes are higher and/or the speed differential between bicyclists and
motor vehicles is large.
• Providing space. Avoid overly constrained conditions that do not allow users space to react
to mistakes and reduce bicyclists’ comfort and safety.
• Minimizing exposure to conflicts. Minimize and consolidate areas where bicyclists are
exposed to motor vehicle traffic to the maximum extent practicable.
• Managing motorist speed. Where conflict points between bicyclists and motorists cannot be
further minimized, manage motorist speed to reduce the likelihood of serious or fatal injury.
• Ensuring awareness. Ensure awareness of bicyclists is maximized at conflict points and the
right-of-way between users is clear.
Additionally, to serve the broadest range of users, the provision of an effective bikeway network
is as important as providing a bikeway on an individual street. Effective bikeway networks are
comfortable, safe, connected, and direct, as well as relatively dense (cohesive), connecting desired
destinations (attractiveness) while minimizing delays or gaps (unbroken flow) (Schultheiss
et al. 2019).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide
Figure 2.   Seven principles of bicycle network design (Schultheiss et al. 2019).
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Safety Principles and Bikeway Selection   9

2.2 Bikeway Selection

As discussed in NCHRP Web-Only Document 414: Safety Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facility
Design Features, all bikeways have been found to be effective at improving safety outcomes com-
pared to baseline shared lane conditions in large part because they create separate operating
space for bicyclists. A description of the research on which this guide is based is available on the
National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org) by searching for NCHRP Web-Only
Document 414: Safety Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features.
The selection of an appropriate bikeway based on conflict potential and likely impacts of con-
flicts is fundamental in the Safe System approach. Bicyclists are inherently vulnerable and at dis-
proportionate risk if they are hit by a motor vehicle due to the large difference in kinetic energy
between a person and a motor vehicle in the event of a crash, even when crashes occur at lower
operating speeds. Within a Safe System framework, it is important to separate users in space, and
sometimes in time (at traffic signals), when conflicts are likely to occur. As noted in the FHWA
Bikeway Selection Guide (see Figure 3), bikeways have different performance characteristics to
manage conflicts resulting from human mistakes.
Bicycling as an activity is open to people of all ages and abilities who are interested in and
able to ride a bicycle. The design of bicycles is rapidly changing to accommodate a wide range
of users. The expansion of bikeway networks combined with the increasing electrification of
bicycles is expanding the demand for bicycling. The electrification and increasing availability
and use of micromobility transportation devices are also increasing the demand for bikeways
while increasing the mixture of users operating within them. Bikeways are attractive facili-
ties for people using micromobility and personal mobility devices; in some communities, these
users are required to operate on bikeways. Like bicyclists, these users are also disproportionately
vulnerable in a crash with a motorist, and many of these users are uncomfortable operating on

Figure 3.   Performance characteristics by bikeway type (Schultheiss et al. 2019, Table 2).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

10   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

roadways in shared lanes with motor vehicle traffic, especially in areas with higher motor vehicle
volumes and operating speeds. Research consistently shows the volume, operating speed, and
the relative mixture of motor vehicles (e.g., trucks, buses, cars) operating on a roadway are the
primary factors impacting the comfort and safety of bicyclists. While crashes with micro­mobility
users was not documented in this research, for purposes of this guidance, these users are assumed
to be present and operating on bikeways.

Bikeway selection guidance in North America has been evolving over the past decade to reflect
lessons learned from abroad, lessons learned from implemented bike networks in North America
where bicycle ridership is higher relative to peer cities, and research that shows which types of
bicycle facilities both attract users and provide safe outcomes. Injury and fatality risks sharply
rise for vulnerable users when they are involved in a crash with motor vehicles operating at
speeds over 20 to 25 mph. Exposure to potential conflicts also increases as motor vehicle traf-
fic volumes increase above 6,000 vehicles/day on a street as it becomes increasingly difficult for
motorists and bicyclists to share operating space.

In recognition of vulnerable user crash risk and the need to consider vulnerable user comfort
when operating with or adjacent to motorists, NACTO, AASHTO, FHWA, and international
design guidance typically recommend separated bicycle lanes be considered when motor vehicle
volumes exceed 6,000 vehicles per day and speeds exceed 25 mph. The FHWA Bikeway Selec-
tion Guide (Schultheiss et al. 2019; see Figure 4) and the NACTO Designing for All Ages and
Abilities Guide (NACTO 2017; see Figure 5) are representative of the thresholds found in these
documents.

Notes
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.

Figure 4.   Recommended bikeway type based

on motor vehicle speed and volume thresholds
(Schultheiss et al. 2019).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Safety Principles and Bikeway Selection   11

* While posted or 85th percentile motor vehicle speed are commonly used design speed targets, 95th percentile speed captures high-end speeding,
which causes greater stress to bicyclists and more frequent passing events. Setting target speed based on this threshold results in a higher level of
bicycling comfort for the full range of riders.

†
Setting 25 mph as a motor vehicle speed threshold for providing protected bikeways is consistent with many cities' traffic safety and Vision Zero
policies. However, some cities use a 30 mph posted speed as a threshold for protected bikeways, consistent with providing Level of Traffic Stress
level 2 (LTS 2) that can effectively reduce stress and accommodate more types of riders.

‡
Operational factors that lead to bikeway conflicts are reasons to provide protected bike lanes regardless of motor vehicle speed and volume.

Figure 5.   Contextual guidance for selecting bikeways for all ages and abilities (NACTO 2017).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

12   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

2.3 Chapter Summary

The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide applies the Safe System approach as a foundational
philosophy to guide bikeway selection. It identifies seven bikeway network design principles for
developing effective bicycle networks that improve bicyclist safety: safety, comfort, directness,
connectivity, cohesion, attractiveness, and unbroken flow. It is important to separate users in
space, and sometimes in time (at traffic signals), when conflicts are likely to occur. Bikeways at
midblocks are expected to reduce the fatalities and injuries resulting from crashes and conflicts
between bicyclists and motorists as well as other active users such as pedestrians and micro-
mobility devices. The research shows that volume, operating speed, and the relative mixture of
motor vehicles (e.g., trucks, buses, cars) operating on a roadway are the primary factors impact-
ing the comfort and safety of bicyclists. Therefore, the selection of bikeway type will depend on
these factors. The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide indicates that injury and fatality risks sharply
rise for vulnerable users when they are involved in a crash with motor vehicles operating at
speeds over 20 to 25 mph. Exposure to potential conflicts also increases as motor vehicle traffic
volumes increase above 6,000 vehicles/day [average daily traffic (ADT)] on a street as it becomes
increasingly difficult for motorists and bicyclists to share operating space. Based on this assess-
ment, the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommends implementing separated bicycle lanes
when traffic conditions exceed these thresholds (i.e., posted speed limit over 25 mph and traffic
volume of over 6,000 vehicles/day) to provide a safe and comfortable bicycling space to all ages
and abilities. Contextual and design considerations to improve the safety of bicyclists at separated
bicycle lanes are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

CHAPTER 3

Contextual Factors Impacting

Bikeway Safety

For midblock bikeways, the design elements described in Chapter 4 each have an impact on
bicyclist safety, many of which can be addressed by the provided design strategies. However, the
visual scan of the separated bicycle lane crash locations also revealed the importance of known
contextual factors that may increase bicyclist crash risk which designers could consider and
where existing guidance is lacking or unclear. Designers are not typically able to modify these
factors, but they need to be aware of and mitigate potential safety impacts to users where prac-
ticable. The following discussion provides an overview of these factors with considerations for
how to mitigate increased crash risk associated with them.

3.1 Roadway Grades

During design, it is important to recognize the relative operating speeds of all users who may
come into conflict. A key factor impacting a bicyclist’s operating speed is roadway grade. While
attempts have been made to apply traffic-calming treatments to manage the operating speeds
of bicyclists, research has not been conducted to determine how to achieve a desired operating
speed or to show if traffic-calming strategies applied to bicyclists will achieve the desired results.
Since the grades of most roadways and bikeways typically cannot be significantly changed, the
following could be considered during design:
• On flat terrain, a typical non-powered bicyclist’s operating speed is between 8 and 15 mph,
with average speeds closer to 10 mph (AASHTO 2012).
• E-bikes are increasing in popularity. Initial research shows they narrow the typical range of
operating speeds and increase average operating speeds up to 15 mph on flat terrain (Langford
et al. 2013).
• Downhill grades can result in downhill operating speeds of more than 15 mph, with some
research showing that bicyclist crash risk and crash severity increase on roads with grades
greater than 4 percent (Seattle DOT 2016).
• Micromobility devices are likely operating at speeds close to typical bicyclists’ speeds, with
many cities requiring speed limiters on rental devices that restrict top speeds to 15 mph.
• Traffic calming for bikeways has been tried in the following circumstances; however, research
has not been conducted on the effectiveness of the treatment:
– Raised crossings in advance of and through passenger loading zones;
– Raised crossings in advance of and through bus stops;
– Chicaning approaches to shift the bicyclist’s approach angle to an intersection, alley, or
driveway crossing; and
– Narrowing of bicycle lanes to limit passing and operating speeds.
• A wide variety of traffic-calming treatments are effective in managing motorist operating
speeds and could be considered where motorist operating speeds are a concern for bicyclist

13

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

14   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

safety. Traditional traffic-calming guidance has typically recommended against the use of
more effective raised devices and traffic circles on roadways with slopes of 8 percent or more.
This guidance was not informed by research and some communities with steeper roadways
have experimented with these devices on streets with slopes greater than 8 percent. More
research on this topic is recommended [FHWA n.d. (b)].
• Posted speed limits could be reviewed at locations where a lowering of posted speed could improve
bicyclist safety outcomes. It is recommended to use the FHWA USLIMITS2 tool (FHWA 2023) to
perform the engineering study to determine an appropriate speed limit as this tool supports the
assessment of a wide range of contextual factors within a Safe System framework.

3.2 Driveway Volumes

NCHRP Web-Only Document 414 found that sites adjacent to commercial and civic land uses
were associated with a higher crash risk and sites adjacent to residential land use were associated
with a lower crash risk. Driveway vehicle volume was not studied since many cities do not collect
or maintain driveway volume data.
As noted in NCHRP Report 659: Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways (2010), the
design of a driveway is affected by both its setting and land use. The setting can be urban, sub-
urban, or rural, and the types of vehicles served by a driveway and the number of anticipated
conflicts can vary greatly depending on land use, such as a single-family home or a convenience
store or gas station (Gattis et al. 2010a).
Driveway volume thresholds can be a useful metric for determining when conflict mitigation
measures may be necessary based on bicyclist exposure (see Section 4.4). However, designers
typically do not have driveway volumes readily available, and estimating conflicts based on the
number of parking spaces served per driveway can be cumbersome due to variables such as one
or more land uses being served by the parking space, different time-of-day demands, and park-
ing occupancy rate.
Existing guidance typically categorizes driveway volume into three categories: low, medium,
and high. The Michigan DOT Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide (2018) defines
the driveway volume thresholds based on the number of motor vehicle crossings per hour
(Figure 6). The AASHTO Bike Guide (2023) uses similar classifications but defines thresholds
based on the number of crossings per day: minimal (less than 25 per day), lower (25–500 per day),
and higher (greater than 500 per day).
Both guides provide limited and incomplete examples of how volume may be tied to land use
and context. For example, low-usage driveways may be represented by a single-family home or a
standalone business and medium-usage driveways may be represented as a small subdivision or
strip mall development (Michigan DOT 2018); lower-volume driveways may be residential and
higher-volume driveways may be commercial (AASHTO 2023).

Figure 6.   Michigan DOT’s driveway type hourly volume

thresholds (Michigan DOT 2018).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Contextual Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   15

Table 1.   Estimated number of driveway conflicts based on land use.

Land Use Group Number of Driveway Conflicts
Minimal Lower Higher
< 25 / day 25-500 / day > 500 / day
<10 at peak hour 10-50 at peak hour >50 at peak hour
Industrial1 N/A Industrial N/A
Residential 2 Single-family detached Multi-family, greater than N/A
10 spaces per driveway
Multi-family detached, less
than 10 spaces per driveway
Lodging 3 Dense urban hotel Urban/ suburban hotel N/A
Commercial or Mixed Commercial or mixed use, Commercial or mixed Commercial or mixed
Use 4 fewer than 10 spaces per use, between 10 and 50 use, greater than 50
driveway spaces per driveway spaces
Services 5 N/A N/A Fast-food restaurant
Gas station/convenience
1. Industrial land uses generate lower trips per parking space and are typically medium volume (25-500 conflicts per
day per driveway). However, due to larger design vehicles, the effective turning radius of entering vehicles and
therefore speed may be higher (see Section 3.4.3, Driveway Design)
2. Single-family detached or multi-family land uses with fewer than 10 spaces per driveway are typically low volume
(fewer than 25 conflicts per day)
3. Lodging land use in an urban/suburban context is typically medium volume (25-500 conflicts per day per driveway).
Lodging in a dense urban setting can be assumed to have the same volume as mixed-use land use (see below)
4. Mixed-use land use is dependent upon the number of parking spaces served per driveway. In general, mixed-use
land use serving fewer than 10 spaces per driveway will be low volume (fewer than 25 conflicts per day), between
10 and 50 spaces per driveway will be medium volume (25-500 conflicts per day), and greater than 50 spaces per
driveway will be higher volume, regardless of setting or location. If parking demand is limited to peak hours,
then the designer could consider that most of the conflicts will occur during a limited duration of the day
5. Service land uses such as fast-food restaurants, gas stations, or convenience stores have the highest trips generated
per parking space and can typically be assumed to have high volume (more than 500 conflicts per day, regardless of
context or number of driveways)

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual can be used to esti-
mate the number of trips generated per independent variable by a land use group in different
settings (for example, the number of trips per dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling in a sub-
urban versus dense urban setting, or the number of trips per hotel room in a suburban versus
urban core setting) (ITE 2017). The ITE Parking Generation Manual can be used to estimate the
number of parking spaces per independent variable (for example, the number of parking spaces
recommended for one dwelling unit or one hotel room) (ITE 2017). When applied together,
this data can be used to estimate the trips per parking space per driveway. Table 1, based on
the above-mentioned ITE manuals, provides a generalized estimate of the number of driveway
conflicts that can be anticipated based on land use groups and settings using this type of analysis.
Designers could also consider the number of driveways, their spacing or frequency along the
corridor, the bikeway type (one-way or two-way separated bicycle lanes), and peak period of
travel demands when determining suitable design treatments for driveways.
Table 1 can be used in combination with Table 3 in Section 4.5 to determine mitigation strate-
gies based on the estimated number of conflicts for a given land use and setting, as applicable.

3.3 Pedestrian Generators

The literature review conducted as part of NCHRP Web-Only Document 414 included studies
that indicated that the number of bus stops and bus route length are positively associated with
bicycle collisions. It also included studies that indicated that land and building use can influence
bicyclist safety. The visual scan identified proximity to transit as a potential contributing factor to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

16   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

increased bicycle crashes, especially crashes between pedestrians and bicyclists. It will neither be
practicable nor desirable to reduce pedestrian generators or to relocate bikeways to avoid them.
At locations where bicyclists and pedestrians are likely to come into conflict, design treatments
that could decrease crashes include:
• Provide wider bikeways or bikeways with buffers that allow space for:
– Pedestrians to be seen, improving bicyclists’ reaction time to yield to pedestrians,
– Pedestrians to temporarily pause to allow the bicyclist to pass before entering the bicyclist’s
path,
– People to load or unload from personal or commercial vehicles parked adjacent to the
bikeway, and
– Transit users to embark/debark from a transit vehicle without entering a bikeway.
• Mark pedestrian crossings clearly with marked crosswalks.
• Channelize pedestrians to marked crossings where high pedestrian volumes across a wider
area are likely to result in increased conflicts.
• Provide educational or regulatory signs and markings to communicate bicyclists’ yielding
responsibilities.
• Provide lighting at locations where night-time pedestrian crashes are likely to occur or there
is a history of crashes occurring.
• Ensure pedestrian infrastructure supports the mobility needs of pedestrians with disabilities
to minimize their need to operate within a bikeway.

3.4 Frequency of Access Points

Driveways are a primary source of midblock conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. When
street access points such as driveways and alleys are spaced closely together, vertical protection in
the buffer of an on-street separated bicycle lane may not be feasible for extended portions of the
bikeway, resulting in the separated bicycle lane being downgraded to a bicycle lane or buffered
bicycle lane in the vicinity of the high conflict areas (see Figure 7).
At locations with closely spaced driveways, access management techniques need to be con-
sidered where practicable, especially as properties redevelop. Access management is an FHWA
Proven Safety Countermeasure (FHWA 2021). In some cases, it may be feasible or desirable to
implement access management principles to improve overall traffic flow and safety within a cor-
ridor and to reduce or eliminate motorist conflicts with bicyclists at driveways.
When feasible or desirable, strategies that could be considered to reduce the frequency or impact
of access points include the following:
• Consolidate driveways to reduce the number of potential conflicts between bicyclists and
motorists.
• Restrict left turns and/or through crossings of a separated bicycle lane.
• Combine turn restrictions with raised medians that control prohibited movements.
• At signalized driveways, restrict turns on red to maintain the integrity of crossings and bicycle
queuing areas.
• Relocate driveways to side streets or alleys or provide frontage roads as an alternative to access
points.
• In circumstances where the application of access management has the unintended consequence
of increasing motorist operating speeds, particularly on roadways where bicyclists share lanes
or are operating within standard bicycle lanes, measures to reduce motorists’ operating speeds
could be considered, including the application of speed safety cameras or traffic-calming
treatments.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Contextual Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   17

An alley, a surface parking lot driveway, and

a garage parking driveway located within 130 ft
of a signalized intersection, resulting in a
conventional bicycle lane segment that does
not provide the safety and comfort of a
separated facility for bicyclists in high-
conflict areas.

Three garage driveways located within 200 ft

of a signalized intersection, resulting in a
conventional bicycle lane segment that does
not provide the safety and comfort of a
separated facility for bicyclists in high-
conflict areas.

Two driveways serving the surface parking

lot create a large space where vertical
elements are not practical, which can allow
motorists to turn at higher rates of speed;
additionally, the bicycle lane and driveways
lack legibility.

Figure 7.   Examples of closely spaced access points.

When existing driveways cannot be removed or consolidated, designers may explore other
mitigation measures for reducing the potential for bicyclist crashes at conflict points (see
Section 4.3 and Section 4.4). In some cases, it may be appropriate or necessary to reconstruct
the street to provide a raised sidewalk-level bicycle lane, or to select a different bikeway
type where frequent driveway spacing makes the provision of a separated bicycle lane with
pavement-mounted vertical elements challenging (Figure 7).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

18   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

3.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter provides contextual factors affecting bicyclist safety at midblock locations that
could be considered when installing bikeways. A list of quantitative and qualitative measures to
consider for improving bicyclists’ safety at midblock locations is provided. These measures include:
• Roadway grade—Roadway grade affects both bicyclist and vehicle speeds, as well as the speeds
of emerging micromobility devices such as e-scooters and e-bikes. The research team suggests
providing traffic-calming measures such as raised crosswalks, raised crosswalks in advance
and through bus stops, and chicaning approaches to shift bicyclists’ approach angle. Narrowing
bicycle lanes to limit passing can also help to reduce speeds for bicyclists at downhill grades
(greater than 4 percent). Both traffic-calming measures and posted speed limit reductions are
suggested for motor vehicles. The research team proposes using the ITE and FHWA resources
on traffic-calming measures and posted speed limits for motor vehicles.
• Driveway volumes—NCHRP Web-Only Document 414 used land use type as a proxy for drive-
way volumes and found that sites adjacent to commercial and civic land uses were associated
with a higher crash risk than sites adjacent to residential land use, which were associated with
a lower crash risk. Estimating driveway volumes is challenging. One of the suggestions is to use
low, medium, and high volumes as a qualitative measure to estimate driveway volumes (see
Figure 6). The research team proposes using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook to estimate
the potential number of conflicts and to consider driveway designs (presented in Section 4.5)
to reduce bicyclist and motor vehicle conflicts.
• Pedestrian volumes—According to modeling results in NCHRP Web-Only Document 414, bus
stops and routes were associated with a higher number of bicyclist crashes. This may be due
to a higher volume of pedestrians and therefore pedestrian entries into bicycle lanes, which
may result in higher pedestrian and bicyclist crashes as well as crashes between bicyclists and
motorists if the bicyclist must divert into oncoming traffic to avoid pedestrians. Although not
found in NCHRP Web-Only Document 414, similar conditions can be assumed at sites with a
higher number of pedestrians (e.g., commercial areas). The research team provides a list of
considerations around these sites to reduce the potential conflict between pedestrians and
bicyclists, such as providing wider bikeways or bikeway buffers, clearly marking pedestrian
crosswalks, channelizing pedestrians to marked crosswalks, providing lighting (especially for
sites with higher nighttime crashes), providing educational or regulatory signs for bicyclist
yielding, and ensuring pedestrian infrastructure supports the mobility needs of pedestrians
with disabilities to minimize their need to operate within a bikeway.
• Access points—Access points such as driveways and alleys are primary midblock conflict loca-
tions between motorists and bicyclists. The research team suggests reducing conflict poten-
tial associated with access points using several strategies, including consolidating driveways,
restricting left turns, combining turn restricting with raised medians, restricting turn on red at
signalized driveways, or relocating driveways to side streets or alleys. When these measures are
not applicable, designers could explore other mitigation strategies such as reconstructing the
street to provide a raised sidewalk-level bicycle lane.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

CHAPTER 4

Design Factors Impacting

Bikeway Safety

While the safety data analysis conducted for this study showed that all bikeways improve
safety outcomes for bicyclists, the visual assessment of separated bicycle lane crash sites revealed
factors outside of the available data that have been suspected to impact bicyclists’ safety which
designers need to be aware of. Many of these factors can be mitigated by discrete design choices.
In some instances, there may be a need to consider trade-offs between design and operational
elements at locations where more conflicts are expected (e.g., driveways, parking garages, parking
lots, and alleys with midblock access points).
The following provides a general discussion of key design elements that can improve the safety
and comfort of bicyclists operating midblock on a bikeway. These design elements are consid-
ered critical based on the existing state of the practice research and guidance. They are further
informed by the visual assessment of crash locations conducted as part of this study. In this
chapter, the research team summarizes relevant guidance for each element where it is available
and provides an analysis of the relationship of that guidance to the design of bikeways at sepa-
rated bicycle lane crash locations. The research team notes where the guidance as written may
have been beneficial to address the issues at the crash sites observed. Suggestions to supplement
existing guidance are offered to address issues found at these sites, with recommendations for
further detailed research as applicable.
While a primary focus of the provision of bikeways is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries
primarily resulting from crashes with motorists, it could also be a goal of agencies to reduce
injuries to bicyclists where the condition of a bikeway can be a contributing factor. Research
of hospital records estimates that 50 to 70 percent of all bicyclist-only crashes typically result
in less severe injuries and may not be reported in agency or national crash databases (Schepers
et al. 2017). Research indicates that many of these crashes may result from infrastructure issues,
including a lack of maintenance (Schepers et al. 2017). Therefore, this guidance also discusses
critical maintenance needs that could be considered during planning and preliminary design
and provides a discussion of maintenance policies and practices that could be adopted by agen-
cies seeking to provide networks of safe, comfortable, and attractive bikeways for all ages and
abilities.

4.1 Bikeway Width

Bicyclists require an operating space of 48 to 60 inches to accommodate a single lane of travel;
therefore, design guidance typically recommends a minimum bicycle lane width of 4 to 6 ft for a
range of bicycle types. This minimum operating space allows for the natural side-to-side motion
that occurs while people bicycle. The minimum operating widths do not account for the provision
of additional shy distance to most other vertical elements (e.g., utility poles, on-street parking,

19

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

20   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

or guardrails) that may be adjacent to a bikeway, nor do they account for

Accommodating Other Users the reaction space necessary for bicyclists to avoid collisions with objects or
of Bikeways people that may suddenly enter the bikeway. Guidance for shy distance to
vertical elements varies between sources, with most recommending wider
While performance characteristics bicycle lanes to improve the comfort and safety of bicyclists operating near
for micromobility devices are vertical elements. The provision of an extra 12 to 36 inches of space is the
limited and not incorporated into typical range suggested.
this guidance, providing bikeway
designs which accommodate adult A wider bicycle lane width can provide a more comfortable environment for
bicyclists and the “interested people riding bikes, allow bicyclists to operate side-by-side (social bicycling),
but concerned” design user will create space for a bicyclist to pass other bicyclists, and provide space to navi-
generally lead to the establishment gate around objects or people who may suddenly appear within their operat-
of geometric and operational ing space. The literature review identified a study (Park and Abdel-Aty 2021)
design criteria that will result that found a 5 to 6 ft bicycle lane width had positive implications for reducing
in bikeways that accommodate vehicle crashes, while 6 to 7 ft bicycle lane widths were effective in reducing
all users, including people using nonmotorized vehicle crashes (bicyclist and pedestrian). Wider bicycle lanes
micromobility devices and personal may also be beneficial to support micromobility devices, which are required
assistive mobility devices. by law to operate within bikeways in many communities. NACTO published
revised bikeway guidance to consider wider bicycles and wider operating spaces
to accommodate passing and social bicycling (Figure 8).
Where vertical elements are installed to create separated bikeways, bikeway width between
the vertical elements will be a key consideration for maintenance access. When designing the
bikeway, the ability of the maintenance team to access and maintain the bikeway needs to be a
key consideration. At locations where the bikeway operating space is less than 8 ft, new equip-
ment or changes in maintenance practices may be required (Section 5.5).
When retrofitting existing roadways, it may be necessary to evaluate multiple bicycle facility
types based on the available right-of-way space when minimum-width bikeways are under consid-
eration. A suitable bikeway width could be selected to accommodate planned bicyclist volumes
and actions such as bicyclists operating side-by-side or passing one another, as appropriate.
Additional information to help practitioners make informed trade-off decisions related to the
selection of bikeway types that support connected, safe, and comfortable bicycle networks that
meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities can be found in the FHWA Bikeway Selection
Guide and the AASHTO Bicycle Guide (2023).
Narrower-than-recommended separated bicycle lanes or buffers next to a vertical curb or
parking result in less space for bicyclists to react to and avoid obstacles such as pedestrians
crossing the bikeway, the opening of car doors, and debris in the bicycle lane (Figure 9). They
may increase crash risks for bicyclists during passing events or when operating side-by-side;
however, this potential increase in crash risk has not been studied. Wider bikeways and buffers
allow bicyclists to avoid these conflicts, to safely navigate around obstructions or obstacles, and
to pass or operate beside other bicyclists.

4.2 Buffer Design

The provision of a buffer can increase the lateral separation between bicyclists and motorists or
provide additional separation to vertical elements or parking. A buffer adjacent to a bikeway can
provide a more comfortable environment for people riding bikes, create space for bicyclists to
pass or operate beside other bicyclists, or create space to navigate around objects or people who
may suddenly appear within their operating space. The FHWA Separated Bicycle Lane Guide
recommends a minimum width of 5 ft for separated bicycle lanes and a minimum buffer width
of 3 ft when the parking lane is located between the bicycle lane and the general travel lane.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide
Figure 8.   Bikeway width guidance (NACTO 2023).
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

22   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Contextual factors such as the presence of on-street

parking, nearby destinations, marked crossings, block
lengths, and frequency of passenger pick-up and drop-off
can increase the desire for pedestrians to cross midblock.
Additional consideration may be given to bikeways that
operate counterflow to the general travel lane, as
pedestrians may not look for bicyclists traveling
counterflow to general traffic.

When a bicycle lane operates adjacent to and in the same

direction as a parking lane, there is the potential for a
bicyclist to be struck by a driver opening a car door.

When separated bicycle lanes are constructed to

minimum widths where buffers are narrowed or even
eliminated, an additional consideration is the potential
for the vertical elements themselves to become debris
within the bicycle lane and a crash hazard if they are not
maintained when damaged.

Figure 9.   Examples of narrow bikeways or buffers.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   23

A 3-ft buffer will accommodate the space most vehicle doors will open into; however, additional buffer
space adjacent to a parking lane can create space for people loading or unloading from vehicles.

4.2.1 Pavement Marking Design for Buffers

The 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) did not pro-
vide standards or guidance for the use of pavement markings in the buffer of a buffered bicycle
lane or separated bicycle lane, which led to the emergence of multiple strategies and localized
standards. Since there is limited research into the specific styles and dimensions of markings that
relate to legibility and safety performance, agencies typically choose marking strategies that fit
within their operations and maintenance capabilities as well as bikeway visibility goals.
For many agencies, a primary consideration in the design of a pavement buffer is the quantity
of pavement markings because it increases short-term installation costs and potentially long-
term maintenance needs. These added maintenance costs may impact design decisions related
to the spacing of lane lines as well as their width and thickness. A secondary consideration is
how the pattern markings are applied and whether the strategy requires more workers, special-
ized equipment, or time to install. Using materials that have the longest lifespan while achieving
the desired retroreflectivity and visibility performance characteristics over materials that may
be cheaper to install but require frequent refreshing could be considered. There is no current
research that demonstrates a particular marking strategy is most effective; therefore, maintenance
considerations need to be a primary consideration when developing a buffer design.
The AASHTO Bicycle Guide recommends the patterns as shown in Figure 10, which is similar
to MUTCD guidance.

4.2.2 Lateral Placement and Spacing of Vertical Elements

Currently, there is no national guidance on where to place vertical elements within a bicycle lane
buffer. The type of vertical element used and longitudinal spacing and lateral location in a separated

Figure 10.   Buffer design options (AASHTO 2023).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

24   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

bicycle lane buffer can impact the effective bikeway width and bicyclist comfort and safety. Ver-
tical elements can impact where motorists park within a parking area. Some motorists may park
as far away from an active travel lane as possible to allow more egress and ingress room for drivers
(see Figure 11), which can lead to encroachment into a bicycle travel lane and reduce the benefit of
buffer space intended for loading or opening vehicle doors. This potential encroachment into a
bicycle lane can become more frequent when constrained travel lanes and parking lanes are selected
by the designer or are a necessary outcome to provide a separated bicycle lane in constrained
corridors.
In locations that are not constrained, designers have some flexibility in the placement of vertical
elements. Some designers choose to place vertical elements within the buffer as close as possible
to the bicycle lane to minimize vehicle strikes to the vertical elements or to create additional space
for vehicle doors to open without striking a vertical element. For some agencies, this choice results
from a desire to limit maintenance of the vertical element. However, a consequence of this design
choice is that motorists can encroach further into the bicycle lane buffer than intended by the
designer, thereby reducing the effective bikeway width, which can increase crash risks for bicy-
clists or decrease their comfort in the bikeway. It is also not guaranteed that this placement will

The lateral placement of vertical elements such as

flex posts within a buffer can impact how the
space is used. In this example, the placement of
flex posts on the right edge of the buffer allows
motorists to park closer to the bicycle lane,
increasing dooring accident risk while reducing
the effective bicycle lane width.

When intermittent vertical elements such as flex

posts are spaced far apart and are not replaced
after damage or removal, motorists may encroach
into the buffer or bikeway between the barriers;
where barriers allow a motorist entry to the
bicycle lane, they may block the entire lane to
access the curb.

Figure 11.   Buffer width and vertical element placement.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   25

Use of more robust, closely spaced, or continuous

barriers prevents motorists from encroaching in
the buffer or bikeway and can ensure the
availability of the full width of the bicycle lane.

Figure 11. (Continued).

minimize maintenance needs, as motorists may still damage the vertical elements when parking
or loading. The type of vertical element and spacing needs to be carefully considered concerning
factors such as motorist speed and volume, the presence of transit, the presence of an adjacent
parking lane to the bikeway, local destinations, parking and loading demand, and maintenance
needs of the bikeway with an understanding of the potential impacts to users of the bikeway.
An additional maintenance consideration for agencies is the use of temporary versus perma-
nent materials. Temporary vertical elements have allowed agencies to rapidly retrofit streets to
implement separated bikeway networks; however, in some cases, this has required an increase
in maintenance needs to replace and repair damaged vertical elements. As these bikeways are
upgraded to permanent installations, agencies are increasingly using a variety of more durable
vertical elements, such as dowels in concrete barriers, modular concrete barriers, extruded or
precast curbing, small medians with curbing, or they are fully raising these bikeways to sidewalk
level during street reconstructions. These projects create opportunities to minimize ongoing
maintenance needs associated with temporary materials; however, the primary issue of ensuring
the bikeway is free of obstructions remains a critical design and policy decision, especially as it
relates to the provided clear width between the vertical elements (Section 5.5).

4.3 Sight Distance

The provision of appropriate sight distances is essential to allow street users to see each other,
have time to make decisions, and respond accordingly to avoid a crash. For midblock locations,
the necessary sight distances fall into three main categories:
1. Sight distances for drivers and bicyclists traveling on the street.
2. Sight distances for drivers and bicyclists when the motorist is turning across the bikeway to
access a driveway or alley.
3. Sight distances for drivers entering the street (crossing the bikeway) from a driveway or alley.
Sight distance guidance for drivers and bicyclists traveling on the street will differ based on the
type of bicycle facility and the site conditions. This includes sight lines for bicyclists and motor-
ists outlined in the AASHTO Green Book, which could be provided to ensure street users can
see each other when the bicyclist is traveling within a conventional bicycle lane, buffered bicycle
lane, or shared lane to avoid rear-end or overtaking crashes by motorists striking bicyclists. For
these bicycling conditions, the roadway geometry design for motor vehicles will often result in

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

26   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

sufficient sight distances when bicyclists are operating at speeds below the roadway design speed.
Designers may consider the speed and location of the bicyclist in a buffered bicycle lane and
confirm that these sight lines are adequate. When bicyclists operate in separated bicycle lanes,
rear-end and bicyclist-overtaking crashes are not possible unless the motorists enter the separated
bicycle lane or the separated bicycle lane transitions to a shared lane or conventional bicycle lane.
Sight distances for drivers turning into a driveway or alley are similar to intersection sight dis-
tances. For conventional and buffered bicycle lanes, motorists are expected to merge into the bicycle
lane approaching the driveway or alley after they have confirmed there are no bicycle conflicts.
This requires the same geometric roadway sight lines from the AASHTO Green Book. However,
while the provision of these sight lines is generally accommodated as part of common roadway
designs, these conventional bicycle lanes and shared lanes are overrepresented in rear-end and
bicyclist-overtaking crashes, as well as right-hook crashes, which occur when motorists do not
merge into the bicycle lane but instead overtake the bicyclist and turn in front of them at a higher
speed (Pai 2011). Conflicts that occur when drivers merge into a conventional bicycle lane or turn
across their path at a driveway or alley can happen before the motorist has slowed to navigate the
turn, resulting in potentially higher-speed crashes. For separated bicycle lanes, motorists cannot
merge into the bicycle lane approaching the driveway or alley and must turn across the bicycle lane
at the access point, which can result in lower-speed conflicts compared to conventional bicycle
lanes and shared lanes at conflict points. Transitioning conventional or buffered bicycle lanes to
separated bicycle lanes at higher-volume driveways and alleys may help mitigate crash risk at loca-
tions where conflicts are caused by improper motorist merging or higher motorist turning speeds.
The AASHTO Bike Guide (2023) provides new methods to evaluate sight distances for
separated bicycle lane conditions. These sight distances are based on stopping sight distances,
motorist turning speeds, and typical bicycle operating characteristics. As shown in Figure 12 and

PC = point of curvature

Figure 12.   Approach clear space for separated bicycle lanes (AASHTO 2023).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   27

Table 2.   Suggested approach clear space (AASHTO 2023).

Effective Vehicle Turning Vehicular Turning Speed Recommended Approach
Radius Clear Space

< 18 ft <10 mph* 20 ft

18 ft 10 mph 40 ft
25 ft 15 mph 50 ft
30 ft 20 mph 60 ft
>30 ft 25 mph 70 ft

*Most low-volume driveways and alleys.

Table 2, when on-street parking or other potential sight-line obstructions occur within the street
buffer between a separated bicycle lane and adjacent travel lane, those obstructions need to be
eliminated to provide sufficient sight lines and time for a motorist or bicyclist to see the other
user and have time to slow or stop before reaching the conflict point. This concept of approach
clear space is based on the characteristics of the motorist’s movement (e.g., how fast or slow they
will turn) and recognizes that motorist turning speed is influenced by the effective turning
radius for that turning movement (Fitzpatrick 2004, 2022). Most low-volume driveways and
alleys are likely to have a small effective turning radius that requires drivers to turn more slowly,
where a 20-ft approach clear space would be appropriate. However, some low-volume driveways
or alleys that are used for commercial purposes (e.g., deliveries, large trucks) may have larger
effective turning radii, and the potential for higher vehicular turning speeds needs to be con-
sidered. Where higher bicyclist speeds are likely to occur (such as when traveling downhill),
these sight distances may be increased to account for the longer stopping sight distances for the
bicyclist.
For left-turning motorists across a one-way separated bicycle lane, the provision of the approach
clear space for the right-turning motorist will generally accommodate sight distances between the
motorist and bicyclist traveling in the opposite direction. For left-turning motorists across a two-
way separated bicycle lane, the left-turning motorist needs a sight line to bicyclists approaching
from the same direction, as shown in Figure 13. The same approach clear space distances shown in
Table 2 still apply, but the effective turning radius is typically larger than the right turn and requires
a longer approach clear space. On streets with two-way traffic flow, the operational dynamic of
a motorist looking for gaps in traffic creates unique challenges that cannot be resolved through
improving sight distance. This maneuver increases motorist workload because the motorist is pri-
marily looking for gaps in oncoming motor vehicle traffic, and they are less likely to scan for bicy-
clists approaching from behind. Further increasing crash risk, the motorist often accelerates toward
the crossing once they perceive a gap in traffic, which increases the risk of injury to bicyclists and
other users in the crossing area. Prohibiting these left-turn movements and eliminating the bicycle-
motorist conflict are suggested if traffic volumes or operating speeds are high, multiple conflicting
motorist lanes are present, or existing left-turn volumes are high.
Sight distances for drivers exiting a driveway or alley are impacted by potential sight obstruc-
tions behind the curbline (e.g., large trees, tall street furniture, walls, building facades) and sight
obstructions created by on-street parking. Both types of sight obstructions relate to conventional
bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, and shared lanes, but only the sight obstructions behind
the curbline relate to separated bicycle lanes. However, on-street parking can limit sight lines
between motorists exiting the driveway and those operating in the travel lane, which still needs
to be considered for driveway operations. Bicyclists and motorists operating in the street have the
right-of-way over motorists exiting driveways and alleys. While gap acceptance is used to estab-
lish typical sight lines for motorists looking for gaps in motorist traffic to exit stop-controlled

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

28   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

PC = point of curvature

Figure 13.   Left-turn-approach clear space for two-way separated bicycle lanes (see
Table 2 of this report for approach clear space values) (AASHTO 2023).

locations, motorists often have more difficulty assessing bicyclist speeds and looking for gaps in
bicyclist traffic. At a minimum, bicyclist stopping sight distances could be provided to allow time
for bicyclists traveling from the left and/or right to slow or stop if a vehicle encroaches into their
path (Figure 14). Although uncommon, if driveways or alleys are expected to facilitate motorists
through movements (e.g., to continue along an alley or go from one driveway to another), then
sight distances to bike facilities on the opposite side of the street could be considered (Figure 15).
Like the previous example, at a minimum, stopping sight distances for the bicyclist to see and
slow for motorists need to be provided.

4.3.1 On-Street Parking Restrictions

On-street parking can represent a sight-distance obstruction along all types of bicycle facili-
ties. On-street parking can affect sight lines between drivers exiting driveways or alleys and
impact their ability to see bicyclists within conventional bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   29

Figure 14.   Sight triangles for motorists exiting driveways and alleys (AASHTO 2023).

Figure 15.   Sight triangles for through motorists exiting driveways and alleys (AASHTO 2023).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

30   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

shared lanes. For separated bicycle lanes, on-street parking can affect sight lines between drivers
entering driveways or alleys and impact their ability to see bicyclists.
Where on-street parking is permitted, many agencies have existing guidance or regulations
restricting on-street parking near driveways or intersections; however, these policies are not always
followed during design to maximize on-street parking availability. In other instances where parking
is not physically prevented, motorists may illegally stop or park in no-parking areas identified by
signs and/or markings. Furthermore, the existing guidance or regulations restricting parking near
driveways or alleys (i.e., 5 ft, 10 ft, or 20 ft from the edge of the driveway) may not accommodate the
sight distances discussed in the previous section. For corridors with commercial driveways spaced
100 ft apart or less, designers could consider eliminating on-street parking between these driveways
in favor of maximizing sight distances (AASHTO 2023).
Designers must consider the technical and political realities associated with on-street park-
ing restriction or removal and assess the safety risks of not restricting on-street parking to meet
recommended sight lines and clear zones during conceptual planning and design. For example,
restricting on-street parking near low-volume residential driveways is often politically challeng-
ing where people are accustomed to having an abundance of parking available near their resi-
dence. Crash data shows that crashes rarely occur at these locations in part because driveway use
can be very infrequent during a typical day; therefore, the relative risk of a collision is low even
at locations where the recommended clear space is not provided. By comparison, restricting
on-street parking near high-volume parking garage driveways may also be challenging, but these
locations show a greater risk of crashes where on-street parking is a factor in restricting sight
distance between street users.
Parking restriction or removal along streets where parking demand is high will still often need
reasonable accommodations for parking and loading to occur, as failure to provide those accom-
modations may increase the likelihood that vehicles will park or load from within the bikeway.
Where on-street parking restrictions are being considered, designers may recognize that different
strategies for restricting on-street parking have a wide range of effectiveness and corresponding
safety outcomes. Some of these strategies are discussed below:
• Signs and pavement markings—The use of no parking (R7-1), no standing (R7-4), and no
stopping signs are a common strategy used to indicate where motor vehicles are restricted. Rules
governing the use of these signs differ by local ordinances, but in general the most restrictive (i.e.,
prohibiting any stopping at all) is preferable as vehicles stopping in these areas will restrict sight
lines for motorists and bicyclists at driveways and alleys. If stopping is not prohibited, design-
ers need to recognize that drivers will stop their vehicles in these spaces for deliveries and other
short-term operations or to illegally park. Where short-term curbside operations are desired on
a street, these spaces could be designated in lieu of on-street parking spaces in areas outside of
the desired sight triangles or approach clear spaces. Locating these short-term operating spaces
near driveways or alleys may have the added benefit of providing additional sight lines when
vehicles are not using these spaces. Areas with parking restrictions may be supplemented with
pavement markings with a no parking “X” or diagonal crosshatch marking style being typical
(e.g., gore markings). The use of signing and pavement markings is the least physically restrictive
of the noted treatments which can accommodate faster-turning vehicles using these spaces to
turn into or out of driveways and alleys.
• Physical objects—The use of physical objects, such as flexible delineator posts, precast curbs,
or other tactical treatments can supplement signing and pavement markings to physically
deter motorists from using street areas to park, stand, or stop, thus helping to preserve sight
triangles near driveways or alleys. These treatments also have the benefit of physically control-
ling effective turning radius and turning speeds for vehicles turning into or out of driveways
and alleys.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   31

• Curb extension—Curb extensions may be used on capital improvement projects to recon-

struct curb lines to prohibit on-street parking near driveways and alleys. These treatments
also have the benefit of defining the effective turning radius and turning speeds of vehicles.
Curb extensions have the benefit of being able to accommodate midblock crosswalk locations
for pedestrians where those crossings are desired by shorting crossing distances and allowing
pedestrians to begin their crossing closer to the edge of travel lanes where they are more
visible. Curb extensions can also be designed to provide protected intersection geometry,
allowing conventional bicycle lanes or buffered bicycle lanes to be transitioned to separated
bicycle lanes at driveways and alleys.
• Mountable truck aprons—The use of truck aprons could be used at alleys and higher-volume
driveways where accommodating the off-tracking of larger vehicles is desired. These treat-
ments can help to physically restrict on-street parking or stopping and help to reduce turning
speeds for passenger vehicles while still being functional spaces for other street uses (e.g.,
emergency services use). Mountable truck aprons can also supplement curb extensions as part
of a protected intersection design at a driveway or alley.

4.4 Traffic Control at Driveway and Alley Crossings

Bikeway crossings at driveways and alleys need to be easy to recognize and intuitive to use.
Applying Safe System intersection design principles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists
approaching a driveway or alley need consistent cues that both raise awareness of the conflict
point and clearly reflect which users have the right-of-way. Even without any traffic control
devices, state codes generally require motorists to come to a complete stop before exiting a
driveway or alley and to yield to pedestrians when making left or right turns across a driveway.
The specific language varies across jurisdictions, but the right-of-way priority given to crossing
pedestrians is generally consistent. State codes are sometimes less clear with respect to expected
behavior at driveways when there is a bikeway present, but many state codes extend the rights of
pedestrians to bicyclists; regardless, all state codes require motorists to exercise due care when
turning and to yield to conflicting users within a crossing.
It is important that driveway and alley geometry, signage, and pavement markings work together
to provide the legibility necessary to ensure user awareness and the mutual understanding of right-
of-way priority. An improper application of traffic control can result in significant non-compliance
by users resulting in confusion and increased crash risk. Driveway and alley geometry and material
choices can also signal right-of-way priority for motorists or crossing pedestrians and bicyclists.
Figure 16 is an example where the geometric design and traffic controls at a driveway are applied
incorrectly to indicate priority to crossing motorists who do not have right-of-way priority to enter
the adjacent roadway or have right-of-way priority over crossing pedestrians for whom the stop
control does not apply.
Some jurisdictions are applying traffic control strategies with a nuanced approach based on
the driveway context, with more traffic control devices being installed at higher volume drive-
ways and few to none applied at low-volume locations. Other jurisdictions are using a systematic
approach to establish a baseline minimum treatment for conflict zones, such as marking all con-
flict zones with green pavement markings and dotted edge lines, like in Seattle, WA. A sample of
the wide variety of approaches observed in this research study can be seen in Figure 17.

4.4.1 Pavement Markings for Driveway and Alley Crossings

Pavement markings can be helpful tools for raising awareness and communicating right-of-
way priority; particularly at locations where raised crossings are not provided or practicable.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

32   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Traffic control devices at this driveway prioritize

motorists by placing stop controls on the bikeway. The
driveway design provides visual cues indicating
motorist priority with no grade breaks provided,
unclear marking of the crosswalks, and continuance of
the roadway surface through the bikeway. These types
of conditions frequently result in conflicts between
users and improperly coded crash reports, which may
not cite motorists for failing to yield.

Figure 16.   Example location where traffic controls and driveway design confuse the
right-of-way.

Bicycle symbols and

arrows in a two-way
bikeway with a centerline
and solid green
background. 2 nd Ave,
Seattle, WA.

A two-way separated
bicycle lane crossing
marked with solid green
pavement, inside a large
white dotted edge line.
Vancouver, British
Columbia.

Figure 17.   Examples of pavement markings at driveways with separated

bicycle lanes.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   33

A two-way separated
bicycle lane with a dashed
green crossing and dashed
white edge line, as well as a
narrow, painted throat.
Howard St, San Francisco,
CA.

A raised, separated bicycle

lane with only solid green
across a driveway. Beacon
St, Somerville, MA.

A parking-protected two-
way separated bicycle lane
with bicycle symbols, a
centerline, and white
dotted buffer/edge lines.
Franklin St, Richmond,
VA.

Figure 17. (Continued).

Across North America, there has been a wide range of approaches to pavement marking strate-
gies at driveways and alleys when a bikeway is present, and this was evident at the study sites.
Some common elements include:
• Bicycle-related pavement marking symbols, such as bicycle symbols (sometimes accompa-
nied with an arrow or with bicycle symbols turned to face motorists), chevrons, or shared
lane markings (which do not conform to MUTCD practices) to warn motorists of the poten-
tial conflict.
• Crosswalk markings, green-colored pavement, or dotted white edge lines to define the crossing.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

34   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

• Supplemental yield lines to define the driveway location and yield points.
• Longitudinal lines and gore zones to define the driveway approach area.
• Centerlines provided on two-way facilities with bicycle symbols to advise motorists of two-
way operation.
• Solid or dashed green paint is becoming increasingly common, particularly on separated
bicycle lanes.
• Pavement markings provided to encourage slower bicyclist approach speeds at the conflict point:
– SLOW word messages on the bikeway approach to the crossing.
– Transverse painted bars to act as a “rumble strip.”
At locations where these bikeways cross driveways or alleys, there is no industry consensus
for how to mark the bikeway; the buffer lines may remain solid or dotted through the conflict
area, and supplemental, green-colored pavement markings, bicycle lane symbols, or other
markings such as chevrons may be used to increase the conspicuity of the conflict area. Most
agencies develop a standard strategy or policy for these design details within their community
and ensure that they are maintained (Section 5.5). Examples of these strategies are shown in
Figures 18 and 19.

4.4.2 Traffic Signs for Driveway and Alley Crossings

Traffic control signs can be helpful tools for raising awareness and communicating right-of-
way priority, particularly at locations where it is determined that stop control or yield control is
necessary. Where restrictive control is desired, it is suggested to follow existing MUTCD guid-
ance. In most instances, this will likely result in restrictive control being placed on motorists
exiting driveways or alleys to stop or yield to crossing bicyclists and pedestrians.

Figure 18.   Example pavement markings based on presence of turn conflict

(Ohio DOT 2024).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   35

At uncontrolled locations, or where there is a desire to add supplemental warning signs, the
existing guidance for the selection and application of these signs is often vague or not fully devel-
oped. As a result, many communities have been deploying a wide range of treatments to facilitate
warning of motorists and/or crossing pedestrians and bicyclists at conflict points associated with
driveways and alleys. Some of these signs are not explicitly stated for use in these applications
in the MUTCD (e.g., for W11-1 and all word message signs) while the other signs shown are
noncompliant with the MUTCD and would require experimental approval by the FHWA for use.

4.5 Driveway Design Considerations

Research to date does not indicate design strategies that are most effective at raising awareness,
ensuring compliance, or improving safety outcomes of bicyclists at driveways, except for raised
or offset crossings (protected intersections), which have been found to reduce crashes by up to
50 percent (Madsen et al. 2022; Schepers 2017). At a minimum, design guides typically recom- Figure 19.  Example
mend the following strategies be considered to communicate priority right-of-way assignment two-way bicycle
for crossing pedestrians and bicyclists: crossing detail (Ohio
DOT 2024).
• Provide a raised crossing to create a continuous surface through the driveway with grade
breaks to require slower motorist crossings. Raised crossings also provide safety and right-of-
way clarity benefits to pedestrians walking on adjacent sidewalks, improve accessibility, and
simplify the driveway design.
• Provide consistent material choices or colored pavement to make identification of the bikeway
and sidewalk appear to continue through the driveway and not end at the driveway.
• Apply a consistent approach to the use of pavement markings to identify driveway locations
and bikeway conflict areas.
• Provide appropriate assignment of restrictive traffic controls following MUTCD guidance
where an uncontrolled crossing is not desirable.
The Michigan DOT Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide (2018) provides exam-
ples of traffic control applications based on driveway usage, including three tiers of design options.
This can be a model for agencies to consider when developing their own contextual guidance for
driveway design based on risk to develop a consistent approach to driveway design and operation
in their communities. An example of such information applying the driveway volume guidance
(Section 3.2) is presented in Table 3.

4.5.1 Driveway Geometry

There is limited national guidance and research on the geometric design of driveways, with
the AASHTO Green Book (2018) citing ITE reports from 1974 and 1986 and NCHRP Report 659:
Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways (Gattis et al. 2010a). Through many editions of the
Green Book, there has been a recognition that driveways impact the safety and convenience of
road users on thoroughfares by introducing conflict points. NCHRP Report 659 (Gattis et al.
2010a) states that “good driveway design should facilitate smooth vehicle egress and ingress to
and from the roadway and should also provide for pedestrians and bicyclists.” However, design
considerations for bicyclists in the report are limited to providing sight distance between users
as provided in the latest AASHTO Green Book, minimizing abrupt changes in cross slope or
longitudinal slope for bicyclists, and minimizing the number of grate openings that a bicycle tire
may drop into. The report lists objectives for driveway design, including minimizing the width
of the driveway that bicyclists and pedestrians will need to cross, but also designing a driveway
shape that conforms to the path of the turning vehicle and minimizes encroachment into other
lanes (Figure 20). Since the report was published in 2010, practitioners have learned that these

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

36   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Table 3.   Driveway design strategies and countermeasures by number

of driveway conflicts.

Number of Conflicts at Driveways

Minimal Lower Higher
Design Strategy and < 25 / day 25-500 / day > 500 / day
Corresponding Countermeasure <10 at peak hour 10-50 at peak hour >50 at peak hour
Minimize Exposure to Conflicts
Access management (Section 3.4)
Horizontal geometry - Reduce
driveway opening (Section 4.5.1.1)
Manage Motorist Speed
Horizontal geometry - Reduce curb
radii (Section 4.5.1.1)
Vertical geometry – Raise bikeway
or provide vertical deflection
(Section 4.5.1.2)
Ensure Awareness
Motorist stop/yield signs
Warning signs
Pavement markings (Section 4.4.1)
Dashed lane line extensions
Directional markings (Two-way
or contraflow lanes)
Supplemental green pavement
markings
Note: See the key below for an explanation of what each shade of gray represents.

Key
Degree of Countermeasure Necessity Color
Candidate for countermeasure treatment
Countermeasure should always be considered, but not
mandated or required, based upon engineering
judgement
Countermeasure should always occur

objectives are at odds and that facilitating smooth vehicle egress and ingress increases motorists’
turning speeds and reduces the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along the roadway,
either on the sidewalk, a side path, or a conventional or separated bikeway.
Geometric design elements at driveways significantly impact minimizing bicyclists’ exposure to
conflict and managing motorist turning speed. Motor vehicle (turning) speeds will be the dominant
factor in determining risks for bicyclists and pedestrians at driveway crossings. It is important that
motor vehicle design speed criteria at driveways always be as low as possible, preferably at or below
5 to 8 mph. The following geometric features can help to achieve this.

Figure 20.   Design issues for a vehicle turning right into or from a driveway
(Gattis et al. 2010b).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   37

4.5.1.1 Horizontal Geometry

It is important for designers to consider the appropriate design vehicle as well as existing drive-
way volumes when designing driveways across raised bicycle lanes or retrofitting them for the pro-
vision of an on-street bicycle lane. For example, higher volume driveways serving midsize or larger
parking structures are rarely able to accommodate a design vehicle larger than a passenger vehicle
due to clearance or weight restrictions. If a driveway does not meet the volume thresholds neces-
sary to warrant a traffic signal, then design flexibility at unsignalized intersections with respect to
encroachment of vehicles into opposing travel lanes on minor streets could be afforded.
Considering that very low design speed is somewhat unique to driveways compared to inter-
sections, designing driveway access that allows the control or design vehicle access or egress to
use the full width of the driveway throat to complete a turn could be considered in most loca-
tions. Similar principles might apply when retrofitting a corridor with a separated bicycle lane at
roadway grade, making the longitudinal gap in the bicycle lane buffer and vertical protection no
longer than necessary to accommodate design and control vehicles, thus minimizing exposure
to risk for people bicycling. In locations where it is necessary to accommodate a larger control
vehicle, truck aprons may be considered to minimize the driveway width for other vehicles and
to control turning speeds.

4.5.1.2 Vertical Geometry

In a typical cross section with positive drainage, the driveway profile grade within the apron
is a key feature to help ensure low incoming motor vehicle speeds at driveway conflict points.
The approximate sag grade break—the angle where the driveway apron meets the edge of the
adjacent travel lane—is the main characteristic commonly used to describe the degree of vertical
deflection at driveways.
The various components of a driveway and how they intersect with the surrounding streetscape
can result in complex grades that are rarely constant across the width of a driveway and can be
challenging to assess. Unlike well-established tools in the transportation industry for analyzing
horizontal swept paths in CAD software, there is limited data on typical vehicle ground clearance
profiles and limited software that can model the complex dynamic response of a turning vehicle
to changes in grades through the various stages of accessing a driveway.
The transportation industry tends to design for outlier vehicles to produce a “conservative”
design that will work for all vehicles. At driveway grade breaks, there are often concerns raised that
vehicles designed with low ground clearance may strike raised pavement or even end up stuck,
such as a car with clearances as low as 3 to 5 inches in and around the front wheels (see Figure 21).
This has the effect of limiting grade breaks to conservative values based on a simplistic assessment
of typical grade scenarios and a straight-line diagram created from a finite number of points of a

Classic American muscle car 1998 Sports coupe car 2008

Figure 21.   Ground clearances (Gattis et al. 2010a).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

38   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

vehicle undercarriage. The ground clearance profile can vary considerably through the length of a
vehicle, which can have a significant impact on a vehicle’s ability to clear changes in grading with
the front and rear overhang often being the determining factor rather than ground clearance across
a vehicle’s wheelbase. Similarly, turning simulation software can result in overly conservative esti-
mates of a design vehicle’s turning path.
The AASHTO Green Book (2018) suggests that a sag grade break not exceed 9 percent,
which is also suggested as an upper limit in NCHRP Report 659: Guide for the Geometric Design
of Driveways (Gattis et al. 2010a) based on the implication that there should be no likelihood
of vehicles striking the pavement. However, the limited “non-fringe suburban” cases examined
in that study may not be appropriate to generalize from, particularly for urban settings, due
to the small sample size, high posted speeds in the corridors, and large curb returns with long
continuous driveway aprons that may all be contributing to those observations. More broadly,
some portion of vehicles contacting the road surface may be desirable provided it is not severe
or the result of a driver traveling too fast. In situations where it may be a sign of a grade break
that is difficult for drivers to see, that is an issue that could be resolved through design.
Within a Safe System context, it may not be practicable to continue to design for vehicles with
unnecessarily low ground clearance if it comes at the expense of achieving system safety goals. To
improve the safety performance of driveways, it is necessary to reflect carefully on design vehicle
needs and consider maximum sag grade breaks beyond current practice; this includes introduc-
ing minimum sag grade breaks or limiting the typical length of a driveway apron in the interest
of managing motor vehicle speeds at driveways as a design goal with standard driveway details
and design guidance to be applied at locations which have a history of safety challenges or can
reasonably be expected to generate conflicts such as parking structures which cross pedestrian
paths and bikeways.
Based on a sample of suburban locations, the authors of NCHRP Report 659 (Gattis et al.
2010a) concluded that driveways with sag grade breaks between 13.5 and 19 percent were gener-
ally steeper than those below 6.5 percent, which were considered “flatter.” Designers may choose
steeper sag breaks than the above 9 percent recommended by the AASHTO Green Book (2018)
or closer to this range to reduce motorist turning speed. Some existing driveways with raised
separated bicycle lanes in urban settings have sag grade breaks that exceed the AASHTO Green
Book (2018) guidance, as shown in Figure 22.

Vertical Deflection at On-Street Bikeways

It is common for separated bicycle lanes to be installed at roadway grade, particularly in quick
build, retrofit, or interim separated bicycle lane projects that must work within a limited budget
or schedule constraints that do not allow significant curb alignment changes. Some jurisdictions
have taken novel approaches to still achieving some vertical deflection at driveways in these
conditions where safety concerns have presented themselves.
It is an increasingly common practice to provide speed bumps at parking garage driveway
exits in the interest of pedestrian safety where the garage design limits motorist sight lines. This
design strategy has also been applied in some jurisdictions to the street side of separated bicycle
lane driveway crossings (Figure 23).
The City of Seattle has taken a different approach on recent corridor projects such as
2nd Avenue, 7th Avenue, and Bell Street separated bicycle lanes by incorporating additional
concrete work into the retrofit projects to raise the separated bicycle lane at key driveway cross-
ings (Figure 24). In Rotterdam, Netherlands, raised concrete speed bumps have been installed
on both sides of a street-level two-way bikeway (Figure 25) where motorists exit a roadway to
access a parallel service road at a midblock location.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   39

Example 3-foot-wide driveway

apron with 6-in curb where sag
grade breaks were designed to vary
between roughly 6 percent and
16 percent. Western Ave in
Cambridge, MA.

Example 4.5-foot-wide driveway

apron with 6-in curb and 10 percent
sag grade break. 10th Avenue,
Vancouver, Canada.

Example 5-foot-wide alley apron

with 6-in curb and 10 percent sag
grade break. Willingdon, Burnaby,
Canada.

Figure 22.   Sample driveway apron grades at driveways with raised separated
bicycle lanes.

Figure 23.   Speed bumps installed at roadway-grade separated

bicycle lane at the Pier 7 driveway entrance on the Embarcadero,
San Francisco, CA (Source: San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

40   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Figure 24.   Separated bicycle lane raised at

commercial garage driveway on 2nd Ave in
Seattle, WA.

Figure 25.   Driveway access to service road in

Rotterdam, Netherlands.

 ertical Deflection for Driveways Crossing Raised Separated Bicycle Lanes

V
with Minimal Buffer Width
When designing separated bicycle lanes within constrained rights-of-way, it is common for
a raised bicycle lane to have little more than a standard curb width of separation. In such cases,
sometimes designers install parallel ramps to lower the bikeway to roadway grade at driveways
or place the flare of a driveway apron directly in the bikeway, resulting in no vertical deflection
for drivers and a warped bikeway grade through the driveway (for example, see Figure 26).
For typical 6-inch curb heights in North America, motor vehicle contact with the roadway sur-
face typically occurs not in the middle of the vehicle underframe, but at the front or rear overhang
of the vehicle. With only a slight drop in the standard 6- to 8-inch North American curb height,
vehicle ground clearances can improve considerably and can tolerate much more aggressive grade
breaks. With a dense separated bicycle lane network, the Dutch allow the use of a 4-inch curb
to provide designers more flexibility to design driveway ramps to be relatively compact while
providing an aggressive grade break (see Figure 25). For constrained North American scenarios,
the adoption of this Dutch practice of using curb heights as low as 4 inches (100 mm) would be
beneficial to improve safety and design outcomes in constrained locations, particularly on road-
way segments with a high frequency of driveways. Another Dutch design option that could be
considered for constrained cases where the gutter pan is not an integral component of the travel
lane is to extend the driveway apron into the gutter pan to facilitate the desired design goals
and minimally impact drainage flows, as shown in Figure 27.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   41

Figure 26.   Raised separated bicycle lane with

narrow buffer and driveway flares in bicycle lane
(Pacific Street in Vancouver, British Columbia).

Standard precast paver driveway apron

rising 4 in (100 mm) over approximately
16 in (0.4 m) in the Netherlands, resulting
in a roughly 25 percent typical sag grade
break.

A transition to a 3.5 in (85 mm) high roll

curb in a raised separated bicycle lane on
10 th Avenue in Vancouver, British Columbia,
resulting in roughly a 45 percent sag grade
break.

Driveway ramp extended into a gutter

pan within a parking lot next to the
Westlake separated bicycle lane in
Seattle, WA.

Figure 27.   Sample driveway aprons in raised separated bicycle lanes with narrow
buffer widths.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

42   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

4.6 Alley Design Considerations

Similar to driveways with different turning volumes and uses, alleys can serve diverse purposes
and uses that could be considered in the design process. A common issue on streets without
on-street parking or dedicated loading zones is that commercial deliveries for stores, pharmacies,
small grocery stores, etc. often occur from the street, with the delivery vehicles blocking conven-
tional or buffered bicycle lanes, which requires bicyclists to merge into adjacent travel lanes. Even
with separated bicycle lanes, these types of larger deliveries often result in the delivery vehicle
accessing and parking in the separated bicycle lane, or parking in the designated loading zone
in line with on-street parking, but then blocking the bicycle lane with delivery equipment (e.g.,
ramps, delivery stockpiles).
Where these conditions are likely to occur, developers and designers could consider designing
alleys to accommodate delivery operations and limit delivery conflicts to only the vehicles enter-
ing and exiting the alley. In these cases, alleys will often need to be wide enough to accommodate
larger vehicles, and the entrances and exits to the alley must facilitate the turning movements of
these larger vehicles as a control vehicle (often with some adjacent lane encroachment to accom-
modate the turning movement). Curb extensions and truck aprons, as well as designing the alley
with a driveway apron, could all be considered to control passenger vehicle turning speeds better
while still accommodating the desired larger control vehicle.

4.7 Mixing Zones or Undefined Transitions

Mixing zones in advance of intersections and transitions between different operations of sepa-
rated bicycle lanes (i.e., two-way to one-way or contraflow) are both instances where the physical
separation between the separated bicycle lane and the general travel lane may need to be discontinued
for a limited duration of the bikeway. A factor not discussed in existing guidance is the presence
of driveways within the functional area of an intersection, which can result in the removal of a
significant portion or all the vertical separation from the driveways to the intersection. Similarly,
an alley near multiple driveways may result in a midblock transition for bicyclists, which could be
unexpected for all roadway users. This condition was only observed at one location in the study, and
the result was a cluster of crashes (10) at both terminus points.
Not anticipating the need for mixing zones and transition areas or understanding the impact
of access points during the bikeway selection process (see Section 2.2 and Section 3.4) may lead
to safety issues in the implemented bikeway. Additionally, the desire to maintain on-street park-
ing may result in transitions that are too short and do not meet minimum shifting or merging
tapers for safety. It is important that designers avoid transitions that result in unconventional
operations for users, require the application of too many traffic control devices to convey opera-
tional intent, or are overly ambiguous (Figure 28). In some cases, it may be appropriate or neces-
sary to reconstruct the street to provide a raised sidewalk-level bicycle lane or to select a different
bikeway type.

4.8 Lighting Design

A properly lit area creates a comfortable and functional environment for all street users. A well-
lit street provides drivers with more opportunity to see bicyclists or pedestrians in the roadway
or at approaching conflict points such as intersections and driveways and to stop or maneuver to
avoid them. For bikeways, fixed-source lighting improves visibility along the path of travel, allow-
ing bicyclists to better detect surface irregularities and obstructions at night.
At midblock locations, pedestrian-scale lighting is preferred to tall, highway-style lamps.
Pedestrian-scale lighting is characterized by shorter light poles (approximately 15 ft high), lower

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   43

A two-way separated bicycle facility

transitions to a contraflow bikeway
at an intersection with three back-
out parking lot driveways within
120 ft of the intersection. The parcel
on the right is a corner parcel surface
lot that is serviced by four
driveways—two on each of the
adjacent streets (see Section 3.4).

A two-way bikeway on a one-way

street may be interpreted by
motorists as a two-way general travel
boulevard, as opposed to a one-way
street for motorists.

A parking lane is dropped for a

right-turn lane, which creates a
conventional bicycle lane segment at
the intersection. The parking garage
entrance at the beginning of the
transition from a separated bicycle
lane to a conventional bicycle lane is
unmarked.

Figure 28.   Examples of mixing zones and undefined transitions.

 (continued on next page)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

44   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

To maintain on-street parking, a

through lane abruptly becomes a
left-turn-only lane and motorists
have a short merging taper at a
driveway. Vertical protection in the
separated bikeway buffer is not
provided between closely spaced
driveways and an alley. If motorists
make unanticipated maneuvers,
other motorists will encroach in the
bikeway.

Figure 28. (Continued).

levels of illumination (except at conflict points such as intersections and driveways), closer spacing
(to avoid dark zones between luminaires), and high-pressure sodium vapor, metal halide, or light
emitting diode (LED) lamps.
For development projects that include new driveways crossing a bikeway or increase the number
of parking spaces serviced by a driveway crossing a bikeway, the reviewing agency could consider
requiring lighting to ensure that bicyclists will be more visible to approaching motorists.

4.9 Chapter Summary

This chapter provides a list of design considerations when installing separated bicycle lanes. The
primary design elements affecting bicyclist safety midblock include bikeway and buffer design,
sight distance, traffic control at driveway and alley crossings, and driveway designs. In addition
to the design, the research team provides maintenance suggestions for each design element. Both
qualitative and quantitative measures are summarized as follows:
• Bikeway width—Conventional bikeway width of 4 to 6 ft does not account for roadside fixed
objects including vertical separation elements. Therefore, the research team suggests an extra
12 to 36 in for separated bicycle lanes to accommodate the bicyclists operating near vertical ele-
ments (this does not include the buffer zone where the vertical elements are usually installed).
• Buffer design—Buffer width, pavement marking, and spacing of vertical elements are important
bikeway design considerations. The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommends a minimum
buffer width of 3 ft when the parking lane is located between the bicycle lane and the general
travel lane (Schultheiss et al. 2019). The safety effectiveness of buffer pavement markings has
not yet been evaluated. Consideration could be given to using pavement marking materials
that have the longest lifespan while achieving the desired retroreflectivity and visibility per-
formance characteristics over materials that may be cheaper to install but require frequent
refreshing. Currently, there is no national guidance on where to place vertical elements within a
bicycle lane buffer. Some agencies place vertical elements within the buffer as close as possible
to the bicycle lane to minimize vehicle strikes to the vertical elements or to create additional
space for vehicle doors to open without striking a vertical element. This practice results in less
operating space for bicyclists. Most of the separated bicycle lanes evaluated in NCHRP Web-
Only Document 414 utilized flexible delineators as vertical elements. Agencies may choose
to implement separated bicycle lanes with more robust vertical elements such as doweled-in
concrete barriers, modular concrete barriers, extruded or precast curbing, small medians with

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Design Factors Impacting Bikeway Safety   45

curbing, or fully raise these bikeways to sidewalk level during street reconstructions to create
more protected bikeways and lower maintenance costs associated with less robust vertical
elements.
• Sight distance—Guidance for drivers and bicyclists traveling on the street will differ based on
the type of bicycle facility and the site conditions. The AASHTO Bike Guide (2023) provides
new methods to evaluate sight distances for separated bicycle lane conditions based on stop-
ping sight distances, motorist turning speeds, and typical bicycle operating characteristics.
The recommended clear space based on vehicle turning speeds and turning radii are provided
in Table 2. On-street parking spaces can also restrict the sight distance of vehicles entering
the street from a driveway or alley. Agencies have existing guidance or regulations restricting
on-street parking near driveways or intersections, such as restricting parking 5 ft, 10 ft, or 20 ft
from the edge of the driveway. For corridors with commercial driveways spaced 100 ft apart
or less, designers might consider eliminating on-street parking between these driveways in
favor of maximizing sight distances.
• Traffic control—Using pavement markings and traffic signs at driveways or alleyways along
midblock bikeway sections helps to raise awareness among motorists and bicyclists of conflict
locations. Driveway and alley geometry and material choices can also signal right-of-way pri-
ority for motorists or crossing pedestrians and bicyclists. Some of the recommended practices
and countermeasures are bicycle-related pavement marking symbols, chevrons, or shared lane
markings, crosswalk markings, green-colored pavement, dotted white edge lines to define the
crossing, supplemental yield lines to define the driveway location and yield points, longitu-
dinal lines and gore zones to define the driveway approach area, centerlines in two-way bike-
ways, solid or dashed green paint, and markings encouraging slower bicyclist approach. There
is no guidance on appropriate traffic signs that need to be implemented at uncontrolled loca-
tions to minimize conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. As a result, many communities
have been deploying a wide range of treatments to raise awareness of motorists and/or crossing
pedestrians and bicyclists at conflict points associated with driveways and alleys.
• Driveway design—The research team suggests using the Michigan DOT Sidepath Intersec-
tion and Crossing Treatment Guide (2018), which provides examples of traffic control appli-
cations based on driveway usage and creates three tiers of design options [minimal, low, and
higher conflicts (Table 3)]. An example of such guidance applying the driveway volume guid-
ance (Section 3.2) is presented in Figure 21. Overall, there is limited national guidance and
research on the geometric design of driveways. The AASHTO Green Book lists objectives for
driveway design, such as minimizing the width of the driveway that bicyclists and pedestrians
must cross and designing a driveway shape that conforms to the path of the turning vehicle
and minimizes encroachment into other lanes. However, the latter recommendation results in
higher turning speeds. Motor vehicle design speed criteria at driveways need to always be as
low as possible, preferably at or below 5 to 8 mph. Some of the geometric features of driveways
that can help to achieve lower speeds are (1) horizontal geometry—designing driveway access
that allows the control or design vehicle to use the full width of the driveway throat to com-
plete a turn into or out of the driveway; and (2) vertical geometry—considering maximum sag
grade breaks beyond the current practice of 9 percent (AASHTO 2018). Section 4.5 provides
some national and international examples that could be considered for reducing the conflicts
between motorists and bicyclists at driveways and alleyways.
• Alley design—Alley design could be considered at locations with frequent deliveries that
may potentially block bicyclists’ paths at separated bicycle lanes (a very common occurrence
at alley streets without on-street parking or dedicated loading zones). Where these conditions
are likely to occur, developers and designers could consider designing alleys to accommodate
delivery operations and limit delivery conflicts to only the vehicles entering and exiting the
alley. In these cases, alleys will often need to be wide enough to accommodate larger vehicles,
and the entrances and exits to the alley must facilitate the turning movements of these larger

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

46   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

vehicles as a control vehicle. Curb extensions and truck aprons, as well as designing the alley
with a driveway apron, could be considered to better control passenger vehicle turning speeds
while still accommodating the desired larger control vehicle.
• Mixing zones—Mixing zones in advance of intersections and transitions between different
operations of separated bicycle lanes (i.e., two-way to one-way or contraflow) are both instances
where the physical separation between the separated bicycle lane and the general travel lane
may need to be discontinued for a limited duration of the bikeway. A factor not discussed in
existing guidance is the presence of driveways within the functional area of an intersection,
which can result in the removal of a significant portion or all of the vertical separation from
the driveways to the intersection. Similarly, an alley in close proximity to multiple driveways
may result in a midblock transition for bicyclists (from a separated bikeway to a more conven-
tional bicycle lane), which could be unexpected for all roadway users. This condition was only
observed at one location in the study, and it resulted in a cluster of crashes (10) at both terminus
points. Designers could avoid transitions that result in unconventional operations for users,
require the application of too many traffic control devices to convey operational intent, or are
overly ambiguous. In some cases, it may be appropriate or necessary to reconstruct the street to
provide a raised sidewalk-level bicycle lane, or to select a different bikeway type.
• Lighting design—At midblock locations, pedestrian-scale lighting is preferred to tall, highway-
style lamps. Pedestrian-scale lighting is characterized by shorter light poles (approximately
15 ft high), lower levels of illumination (except at conflict points such as intersections and
driveways), closer spacing (to avoid dark zones between luminaires), and high-pressure
sodium vapor, metal halide, or LED lamps. For development projects that include new drive-
ways crossing a bikeway or that increase the number of parking spaces serviced by a driveway
crossing a bikeway, the reviewing agency could consider requiring higher levels of lighting at
the bikeway to ensure that bicyclists will be more visible to approaching motorists.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

CHAPTER 5

Policy and Planning Considerations

A successful planning process needs to be grounded in the desired outcomes that accomplish the
policies and goals established by the public agency or community. These outcomes are frequently
related to increasing bicycle mode share, safety, connectivity and access, and equity. Agencies and
communities are increasingly recognizing that to achieve such goals there needs to be a focus on
“all ages and abilities” networks consisting of bikeways that provide low-stress connectivity.
There are important policy and planning considerations and decisions to be made to achieve
bicycle networks that provide safe and comfortable access to a broad spectrum of people with
varying levels of experience and risk tolerance. Many of these considerations are discussed in
existing guidance from NACTO, AASHTO, and FHWA. For example, FHWA’s Bikeway Selec-
tion Guide provides vehicle speed and volume thresholds for selecting the appropriate bikeway
type for the broader population (Schultheiss et al. 2019). AASHTO and NACTO guidance also
discusses general principles around how to minimize conflicts and increase awareness and
legibility of bikeways as discussed in Section 2.1, Safety Principles and Strategies. Often bike
network planning and implementation involve trade-offs. While some trade-offs may be
corridor-specific, many may recur throughout the network. Having clear policies around modal
priority, curb space management, and access management can help agencies avoid the design
challenges and decisions outlined further below and more effectively achieve desired outcomes.
However, even with clear policies in place, it can often be challenging to make trade-off decisions,
particularly in complex urban contexts.

5.1 Context and Modal Priority

Establishing a modal priority policy can give clarity to operational and design decisions that
impact bikeway planning and implementation. A modal priority policy may be system-wide, tied
to specific land use (e.g., within urban centers), or corridor-specific. Typically, modal priority poli-
cies tie back to, and are supportive of, other policies such as equity, safety, and mode shift. In the
case of bikeway network planning, a modal priority policy may facilitate a decision to reallocate
roadway space to achieve the desired bikeway design or inform a decision to avoid putting a bike-
way on a corridor where, for example, there is insufficient space to also accommodate reliable
transit service, which may be a higher priority. In the case of development review, a modal priority
policy may inform a decision to restrict placing new driveways or loading zones on a bikeway or
transit priority corridor, and instead give preference to locating driveways or loading zones on
abutting side streets or alleys. Where high-volume driveways serving garages will be located on
bikeway and pedestrian corridors, consideration could be given to building designs that ensure
adequate sight lines are available between exiting motorists and people walking on sidewalks and
operating on bikeways adjacent to the site, as discussed in Section 4.3. This can be particularly
beneficial on roadways with downhill grades where a bikeway is planned.

47

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

48   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Figure 29.   Modal accommodation level (WSDOT 2022).

There are different approaches to establishing and applying policies that establish modal prior-
ity or the level to which the needs of various modes are to be addressed in design. Agencies such
as Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Washington State Department of Trans-
portation (WSDOT) identify expected road users based on the land use context and then identify
the design elements that could be considered. For example, in FDOT’s Context Classification
Guide, the urban core context classification anticipates having more pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users, and therefore calls for the provision of lower design speeds, signal spacing, crossing
distances, bicycle facilities, and wide sidewalks to increase the safety and comfort of these users
(FDOT 2020). Similarly, Division 11 of WSDOT’s Design Manual establishes a low, medium, or
high “modal level of accommodation” based on land use context (Figure 29) (WSDOT 2022).
Montgomery County, Maryland’s Complete Streets Design Guide establishes modal and design
element priorities for constrained rights of way for each of its 12 defined street types that are
responsive to a range of land use and functional needs (Montgomery County 2021).

5.2 Access Management

As discussed in Section 3.4, driveways are a primary source of midblock conflicts between
bicyclists and motorists. Access management is a FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure (FHWA
2021). Communities need to have access management policies that aim to reduce conflicts and
support more walkable and bikeable streetscapes. Access management policies could be embed-
ded into land use codes or ordinances to ensure driveway access does not negatively impact the
safety of users of the adjacent street and is responsive to land use context. Policies may address

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Policy and Planning Considerations   49

restrictions (e.g., outside of the functional area of an intersection or preference given to alleys or
adjacent minor streets). In addition, a maximum number of driveways per distance or block face,
or a minimum spacing between driveways may be established (see Section 3.4).
If established access management criteria cannot be met with new development, then strategies
such as joint-use driveways could be required or incentivized. For existing development, there
may be opportunities to incentivize joint-use driveways or other access management strategies
through the permitting process when redevelopment or major alterations are proposed or through
capital projects that may offer other access or streetscape enhancements. Agencies could look for
opportunities to remove redundant driveways accessing the same parcel that do not comply with
the established access management policy on corridors where bikeways are being installed and
at signalized intersections that are being upgraded. Restricting turning movements in and out
of driveways may be accomplished using hardened infrastructure, such as center medians or
diverters, or signage. Beyond access management policies that work to minimize conflicts and
improve safety for all road users, driveway design plays a critical role in the safety of bikeways at
driveway locations (as discussed in Section 4.5).

5.3 Curb Space Management

Bikeways are typically placed adjacent to the curb, putting them in direct conflict with other
curb uses such as parking, commercial loading, passenger loading, transit stops, and in some
cases, parklets and eateries. While there are design strategies that allow bikeways to safely
co-exist with these other curb uses, having a curb space management policy in place can clarify
priorities in constrained locations and reduce conflict potential. A curb space management policy
could establish curb use priorities based on land uses and functions. It may also determine tools
and strategies for allocating curb space along a block or corridor. In commercial districts, the
loading/unloading of goods for businesses is a critical function of the public right-of-way. Such
activity will occur regardless of whether designated loading areas are provided. A curb space
management policy will provide direction on where or when loading can occur within a given
block if, for example, a bikeway is deemed a priority and there are unavoidable conflicts between
the two functions. Such a policy may be supported by clear guidelines for business owners and
operators and technological tools such as apps that allow drivers to understand where there
are designated loading zones, if there are time restrictions in place for deliveries, or to reserve
loading-zone space.

5.4 Short-Term vs. Long-Term Implementation

In many instances, when jurisdictions want to expand a bicycle network and improve bicyclist
safety quickly, bikeways are often installed as lower-cost retrofits to streets. In some instances, this
can constrain options for addressing safety challenges related to driveway design, bikeway width,
or bikeway transitions, which may ultimately require reconstruction of a roadway to resolve or a
comprehensive parking management strategy to be implemented. Designers will have to weigh
potential bicycle ridership and safety trade-offs associated with advancing a short-term solution
versus waiting for a more extensive capital project to address design challenges.
An example of this is Beacon Street in Somerville, MA (Figure 30). To improve bicyclist safety,
the travel lanes and parking lanes were narrowed to install conventional bicycle lanes as a short-
term strategy. The frequency of driveways on the corridor was a concern as proposals for separated
bicycle lanes were evaluated because the driveway spacing limited space for physical barriers,
leaving large areas of the bicycle lane unprotected. Further, the constrained corridor limited space
to provide a wide buffer between parked cars and the bikeway. As funding became available and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

50   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Figure 30.   Beacon Street, Somerville, MA.

an on-street parking management strategy gained consensus, the city was able to reconstruct the
roadway to provide a separated bicycle lane on one side of the roadway and a raised bicycle lane
on the other with parking consolidated to one side. This design approach created the space for a
comfortable bikeway and allowed for the driveways to be redesigned to reduce exposure and
manage motorist turning speeds. This two-step implementation approach may be beneficial when
large portions of a separated bicycle lane will likely be unprotected, or there will be frequent loca-
tions of mixing zones or undefined transition areas.

5.5 Maintenance
Research has shown that the provision of high-comfort bikeway networks improves safety
and increases trips on bikeways by bicyclists, as well as electrically powered micromobility and
mobility device users. High-comfort bikeways such as separated bicycle lanes require additional
amounts of pavement markings, signs, and supplemental supportive devices such as vertical
elements compared to conventional bikeways. Seasonal maintenance (e.g., clearing leaf litter,
snow removal) of separated bicycle lanes may also require specialized equipment. Maintenance
policies and funding levels need to account for this additional maintenance activity to support a
functional bikeway network that people feel comfortable using year-round.
To manage maintenance costs over time, thought could be given to the resources needed to
maintain the facilities during the design phase. Where bikeway widths (Section 4.1) will require
specialized equipment (e.g., smaller or narrower) or additional labor to maintain the facility
(including the cleaning of debris, ice, and snow), that equipment could be purchased or changes
in maintenance procedures could be accounted for. Routine maintenance and replacement of
vertical elements, signs, etc. could also be accounted for.
Agencies might incorporate a regular inspection process and have a method to monitor and
address community concerns (e.g., 3-1-1). At a minimum, inspections could evaluate:
• Pavement quality—Poor pavement quality or joints with gutters within a constrained oper-
ating space need to be addressed to reduce bicyclist crash risk.
• Drainage—Locations that experience poor drainage flows to storm sewer systems result-
ing in standing water, frequent icing during winter, or silting within the bikeway need to be
addressed through changes in surface grading or the addition of new drainage structures.
• Pavement marking and signs—Missing or faded markings or signs need to be replaced to
maintain bikeway visibility.
• Vegetation adjacent to and over bikeways—Vegetation that extends into the operating space
of a bikeway could be removed to avoid striking a person while traveling within the bikeway.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Policy and Planning Considerations   51

Figure 31.   Tree branches and ground-level

vegetation extending into a bikeway operating
space.

These can create unexpected crash hazards, particularly during low-light or dark conditions
(see Figure 31).
• Vertical element conditions—Damaged vertical elements that extend into the bikeway
operating space could be removed and missing vertical elements replaced to maintain the
integrity of the separated bicycle lane.
Many of these common maintenance issues are significant contributing factors to bicyclist
crashes. Low-light and nighttime conditions can also increase the potential crash risk for users
encountering these hazards or diminish the visibility of the bikeway to motorists.
Life-cycle costs need to be considered when evaluating materials. It is desirable to choose
materials that have a longer operating life and are more durable to potential motor vehicle impacts.
Bikeways with temporary materials that require frequent replacement or are subject to frequent
damage could be prioritized for replacement with more durable materials (NACTO 2023).

5.6 Chapter Summary and Guidance

for Implementing Agencies
This chapter discusses key policy and planning approaches that can help agencies avoid or
minimize situations where one or more contextual or design factors identified in Chapters 3 and 4
contribute to midblock bikeway conflicts. The research team identifies the following key plan-
ning and policymaking decisions that agencies can adopt to improve bicyclist safety at midblock
locations:
• Modal priority—A modal priority may facilitate a decision to reallocate roadway space to
achieve the desired bikeway design. Alternatively, it can also inform a decision to avoid putting
a bikeway on a corridor where other roadway users may have higher priority (e.g., transit).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

52   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Such a policy may be system-wide, tied to specific land use, or corridor-specific, and is tied
to other policies such as equity, safety, and mode shift. Some agencies and states are starting
to use modal priority as a policy to inform the decision-making process, such as FDOT and
WSDOT.
• Access and curb space management—As discussed throughout this guidance, driveways are
major conflict points between motorists and bicyclists. Adequate access management policies
need to be embedded into land use codes or ordinances to ensure driveway access does not
negatively impact the safety of users of the adjacent street and is responsive to land use context.
Similarly, curb space management policies could establish curb use priorities based on land
uses and functions to avoid conflicts between bicyclists and other roadway users at parking,
commercial loading, passenger loading zones, transit stops, and, in some cases, parklets and
eateries.
• Short-term and long-term implementations—Bikeway design and implementation deci-
sions may be affected by the intended timeframe (e.g., short-term or interim retrofit design
versus more permanent long-term design). Designers will have to weigh potential bicycle
ridership and safety trade-offs associated with advancing a short-term implementation versus
waiting for a more extensive capital project to address design challenges associated with drive-
ways, parking, alleys, and intersection approaches.
• Maintenance—Unlike conventional bicycle lanes, high-comfort and safer bikeways such as
separated bicycle lanes have a higher maintenance cost associated with pavement markings,
traffic signs, drainage, repair/replacement of vertical elements, as well as the seasonal main-
tenance of bikeways and vegetation. Seasonal maintenance (e.g., clearing leaf litter, snow
removal) of separated bicycle lanes may also require specialized equipment. Maintenance
policies and funding levels need to account for this additional maintenance activity to support
a functional bikeway network that people feel comfortable using year-round.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

References

AASHTO. 2012. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 4th ed.
AASHTO. 2018. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book). 7th ed.
AASHTO. 2023. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 5th ed.
FHWA. n.d. (a). The Safe System Approach. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem
_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.
FHWA. n.d. (b). Traffic Calming ePrimer. https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/traffic-calming/selected
-reports/.
FHWA. n.d. (c). Zero Deaths and Safe System. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-deaths.
FHWA. 2021. Proven Safety Countermeasures. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safetycountermeasures.
FHWA. 2023. USLIMITS2 - A Tool to Aid Practitioners in Determining Appropriate Speed Limit Recommenda-
tions. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/.
Fitzpatrick, K. and W. Schneider. 2004. Turning Speeds and Crashes Within Right-Turn Lanes. Report No. FHWA/
TX-05/0-4365-4.
Fitzpatrick, K., R. Avelar, M. Pratt, S. Das, and D. Lord. 2022. Crash Modification Factors for Corner Radius, Right-
Turn Speed, and Prediction of Pedestrian Crashes at Signalized Intersections. Report No. FHWA-HRT-21-105.
FDOT. 2020. Context Classification Guide. https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source
/roadway/completestreets/files/fdot-context-classification.pdf.
Gattis, J.L., J.S. Gluck, J.M. Barlow, R.W. Eck, W.F. Hecker, and H.S. Levinson. 2010a. NCHRP Report 659: Guide for
the Geometric Design of Driveways. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/14399.
Gattis, J.L., J.S. Gluck, J.M. Barlow, R.W. Eck, W.F. Hecker, and H.S. Levinson. 2010b. NCHRP Web-Only Document
151: Geometric Design of Driveways. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/17637.
ITE. 2017. Trip Generation Manual. 3rd ed.
Langford, B.C., C. Cherry, T. Yoon, S. Worley, and D. Smith. 2013. North America’s First E-Bikeshare: A Year
of Experience. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2387,
pp. 120–128. https://doi.org/10.3141/2387-14.
Madsen, T.K.O., C. Tønning, A.V. Olesen, T. Hels, and H. Lahrmann. 2022. Advanced stop boxes and their effect
on traffic conflict rates between cyclists and turning vehicles. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security,
14(10), pp. 1731–1749.
Michigan DOT. 2018. Sidepath Intersection and Crossing Treatment Guide. https://www.michigan.gov/-/media
/Project/Websites/MDOT/Travel/Safety/Road-User/Bicycling/Research/Sidepath-Intersection-Crossing
-Treatment-Guide.pdf?rev=e2bd18cabe484038b436f3f1c75f45bb.
Montgomery County. 2021. Complete Streets Design Guide. https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning
/transportation/complete-streets/.
NACTO. 2011. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NACTO_Urban
Bikeway_DesignGuide_MRez.pdf.
NACTO. 2017. Designing for All Ages & Abilities. Island Press. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12
/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf.
NACTO. 2023. Material Success: Designing Durable Bikeways. https://nacto.org/publication/materialsuccess/.
National Transportation Safety Board. 2019. Bicyclist safety on U.S. roadways: Crash risks and countermeasures.
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf.
Ohio DOT. 2024. Multimodal Design Guide. https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/working/engineering
/roadway/manuals-standards/multimodal.

53

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

54   On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Pai, C.W. 2011. Overtaking, rear-end, and door crashes involving bicycles: An empirical investigation. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), pp. 1228–1235.
Park, J., and M. Abdel-Aty. 2021. Application of random effects nonlinear model for analyzing motorized and
nonmotorized traffic safety performance. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, 147(1),
https://doi.org/10.1061/JTEPBS.0000485.
Schepers, P., H. Stipdonk, R. Methorst, and J. Olivier. 2017. Bicycle fatalities: Trends in crashes with and without
motor vehicles in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
Volume 46, pp. 491–499.
Schultheiss, B., D. Goodman, L. Blackburn, A. Wood, D. Reed, and M. Elbech. 2019. Bikeway Selection Guide.
Report No. FHWA-SA-18-077. FHWA, Office of Safety.
Seattle DOT. 2016. City of Seattle Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis. https://www.seattle.gov/documents
/Departments/SeattleBicycleAdvisoryBoard/presentations/BPSA_Draft_Public_093016.pdf.
WSDOT. 2022. Design Manual. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/design.pdf.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

On-Street Bicycle Facility Design Features: A Guide

Transportation Research Board

500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

ISBN 978-0-309-73298-7
90000

9 780309 732987

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.