Breaking Barriers to Bicycling:

Bicycle Lanes Best Practices and

Pilot Treatments
 Breaking Barriers to Bicycling:
Bicycle Lanes Best Practices and Pilot
Treatments

Prepared by:
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
285 East Main Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 228-2663/www.morpc.org

October 2005

Information and statistics referenced herein were obtained from the identified sources. The best
practices presented herein are not express or implied opinions, suggestions or statements that any
current condition or practice violates an applicable safety regulation or standards.

Funding for this document was provided by Franklin, Delaware, Licking and Fairfield counties,
municipalities and townships within these counties, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Transit Administration, and the Ohio Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the
views of MORPC, which is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the official view and policies of the State of Ohio and/or Federal
agencies. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Foreward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Design Standards and Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intersections and Interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
City of Davis, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Bike Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intersection Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Chicago, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Intersections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Parking Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Special Design Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Blue Bicycle Lanes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Advanced Stop Line (Bike Box). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Contra-flow Bicycle Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Bike Slots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Left-Turn-Only Bicycle Lane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Bikeway Signing and Marking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Innovative Bicycle Treatments .41

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix A
MORPCs Internal Guidelines for Recommending Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 1

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Land Use as Traffic
Figure 2 Bike Lane
Figure 3 Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections
Figure 4 Bike Lane with Parking
Figure 5 Bike Lane on One-Way Street
Figure 6 Typical Bicycle and Auto Movements at Major Intersections
Figure 7 Bike Lanes Approaching Right-Turn-Only Lanes
Figure 8 Freeway Interchange and Bike Lane
Figure 9 Bike Left-Turn Lane
Figure 10 Typical Arterial Intersection
Figure 11 Minor Arterial Bike Lanes and Two-Way-Left-Turn Lane
Figure 12 Traffic Islands for Bicycles at Major Intersections
Figure 13 Intersection with 2-way Arterial
Figure 14 Intersection with 1-way Arterial Street
Figure 15 Bike Lane with Left- and Right-Turn Bays 50 Wide Intersection
Figure 16 Right-Turn-Only Except Bikes
Figure 17 Bike Lane with Left- and Right-Turn Bays 60 Wide Intersection
Figure 18 Blue Bicycle Lanes
Figure 19 Advanced Stop Line Bike Box
Figure 20 Contra-Flow Bike Lane
Figure 21 Bike Slots
Figure 22 Left-Turn-Only Bicycle Lane
Figure 23 OMUTCD Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities
Figure 24 OMUTCD Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities
Figure 25 OMUTCD Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities
Figure 26 Portland, Oregon Bike Signage
Figure 27 Chicago Bike Signage

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 2

FOREWARD

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling: Bicycle Lanes Best

Practices and Pilot Treatments is a compilation of best
practices, research and test projects that communities
across the nation can review to improve the bicycling
environment. This document focuses primarily on bike
lanes and the challenges associated with intersection and
interchange safety. Intersections and interchanges are
barriers to all but the most experienced traffic bicyclists. In
encouraging bicycling, it is important that we address those
challenges that create a barrier to the use of this
alternative mode of transportation.

Most bicycle/auto crashes occur at intersections including

driveways, parking lots, and alleys. Appropriate design
and signage will place motorists and bicyclists at ease as
they learn to share the road and safely maneuver
challenging intersections.

The information presented in this document has been

gathered from various sources including A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Green Book, AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Departments of Transportation,
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and various
local communities.

We hope that by seeing what others have done, local

communities in central Ohio will be inspired to create
programs that will encourage, build and promote a safer
bicycling environment.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 3

BACKGROUND While Federal regulation encourages and supports the
construction of bicycle facilities, the overwhelming cry from the
public for more facilities has created a more intense review of
local, regional and state policies. Even though ISTEA and TEA-21
called for the consideration of bicycle facilities when improving
road facilities, bicycle enthusiasts and advocates interpreted
consideration as actively pursuing.

In the quest to build more bikeways in central Ohio, policies are

being challenged to ensure bicycles are considered in the
planning process. In 2004, the Central Ohio Bicycle Advocacy
Coalition challenged the policies of the MPO, the Mid-Ohio
Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), to include language in
its policy to routinely accommodate bicycle and pedestrians when
local communities apply for MORPC-attributable federal funds.

MORPC, as the MPO, is required by legislation to plan for the

development and integrated management and operation of
transportation systems and facilities (including pedestrian
walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as
an intermodal transportation system. However, to require the
routine inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities was a first for
central Ohio.

As a steward of public funds, MORPC embraces the regional

responsibility of providing a transportation system that is seamless
and that provides for the needs of all modes of transportation.
However, the maintenance and construction of the various
elements of the transportation system are the responsibility of
state and local jurisdictions.

Local communities now faced with a regional policy that requires

routine accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities are
challenged to find ways to adhere to the policy. Inclusion in new
roadway construction isnt as much of a challenge as retrofitting
existing infrastructure. The first of several, this document is
designed to provide some assistance to local communities in
constructing bicycle facilities for new and existing roadways.

Recently, the public has requested MORPC to intervene on

transportation improvement projects that are occurring in the
region but are not utilizing MORPC-attributable federal funds.
While MORPC cannot guarantee or ensure the inclusion of bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in these projects, MORPC has drafted
internal guidelines, which will suggest consistent
recommendations to the sponsors of such projects. These
internal guidelines appear in this report in Appendix A.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 4

EXISTING Local land use policies and the strong home-rule status of central
Ohios municipalities continue to foster, encourage and support an
CONDITIONS automobile-oriented society. Intermodal transportation to and
from new developments will be more important than ever as users
of the system seek alternative and more efficient ways to reach
destinations. The bikeway transportation system provides just
one of many alternatives to those who choose not to or who are
unable to drive.

Figure 1
Land Use as Traffic
1995 - 2010 2010 - 2025
Every new house and
every square foot of new
commercial or industrial
development translates
into new trips.

Residential development
accounts for over 1/2 of
the trips in the region.

Over 1/2 the expected

5000 trips = 500 houses or development by 2025 will
150,000 square feet retail or be in place by 2010.
350,000 square feet office or
900,000 square feet industrial

Bicyclists have the same mobility needs as every other user of the
transportation system. They use the highway system as their
primary access to goods, services, and recreational activities.
Existing highways and streets, often with relatively inexpensive
improvements, must serve as the base system to provide for the
travel needs of bicyclists. Multi-use trails and trail connectors can
augment this existing system in scenic corridors, greenways or
places where access is limited. Transit is an important link and
partner to a comprehensive bikeway system. Bicycle
transportation planning is an effort that should consider many
alternatives to provide for safe and efficient bicycle travel.

In central Ohio, however, the bicycle transportation system that

exists is primarily multi-use trails. Trails appear to be safer
because they are separated from motor vehicle traffic. Local
communities are apprehensive about constructing bike lanes,
wide curb lanes or paved shoulders because facilities they
construct are viewed safe for all users.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 5

There are basically three types of riders. The more traffic-
experienced rider is confident riding anywhere he or she is legally
allowed to operate and can negotiate busy and high-speed roads
that have few, if any, special accommodations for bicyclists. The
less experienced adult/teen riders are less confident and prefer to
use roadways with a more comfortable amount of operating
space, perhaps with designated space for bicyclists, or shared-
use paths that are away from motor vehicle traffic. Children/Teen
riders may be confident riders and have excellent bike handling
skills, but have yet to develop the traffic sense and experience of
an everyday adult rider.

Bike lanes, wide curb lanes or paved shoulders would appeal to

the more traffic-experienced rider. Having no way to control which
users will use bike lanes, local communities are reluctant to build
these facilities in fear of tort liability claims.

The AASHTO Green Book, other state-adopted highway

standards, federal and state regulations and guidelines, and
research publications issued by the Transportation Research
Board are often used in tort cases to educate the jury about the
standard level of practice for design. Expert witnesses are used,
who in turn rely on written text to explain the accepted standard
practices for design to the jury.

As a result of concerns about litigation, communities avoid

designing bike lanes, wide curb lanes and paved shoulders.
Communities need to remember that the skills, experience and
judgment of their design engineers are still valuable tools that
should be applied to solving design problems and that, with
reliance on complete and solid documentation, tort liability
concerns need not be an impediment to achieving good design.

Model Planning Guidelines

The process of planning bicycle facilities must be fully integrated

into the other ongoing planning activities, comprehensive
planning, sub-area planning, site plan review and highway design.
Key elements that appeared to be consistently present in
jurisdictions adequately treating bicycle accommodations include:

Policy statements in the comprehensive plan that relate to

bicycle needs and objectives
Inclusion of bicycle facility elements in the comprehensive
plan
Preparation of sub-area or sector plans for areas needing
special coordination
Designation of a knowledgeable person or persons on the
planning and/or engineering staff to serve as the in-house
bicycle advocate

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 6

Effective bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented land use planning will
have the most significant impact on bicycle travel of any bicycle
strategy. Model planning guidelines can encourage the use of
bicycles and walking by locating and forming mixed land uses that
reflect the average trip length associated with bikes
(approximately 2 miles) and walking (about 0.5 miles).
Connectivity of adjacent residential and mixed uses will also foster
increased bicycling and walking.

Another important element of local planning must involve problem

identification. An ongoing process that should take place at all
levels is the identification of the major deficiencies that have
become pervasive over the years as well as the day-to-day
isolated problems that occur. Both public agencies and private
citizens are an integral part of the problem identification process.

Planning and Engineering

Bicycle transportation planning is commonly construed as the

effort undertaken to develop complete/comprehensive bicycle
facilities for transportation and recreational activities. The
resulting system is composed of multi-use trails, improved
roadways, bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, bicycle mapping and
transit links. All facilities are interconnected and spaced closely
enough to satisfy the travel needs of bicyclists.

Education

Bicycle education on how to maneuver through turning

movements at intersections, interchanges, and driveways in either
the midblock or intersection area is crucial in reducing
bicycle/motor vehicle conflicts. Driveways or alleys in commercial
areas are the highest risk for conflicts because more motor vehicle
traffic is present. Bicyclist education about the danger of
driveways is warranted, with the message focusing not only on
motorist drive-out but also on motorist overtaking situations.
Motorist education relating to the overtaking situation above is
also needed. Bicyclist education about correct position when
riding on streets with on-street parking is also highly
recommended. Law enforcement agencies also need training on
the proper enforcement of bicyclists rights and duties.

Encouragement

According to FHWA and many state and local jurisdictions, bicycle

lanes are the preferred bicycle facility in urban environments.
Paved shoulders are appropriate in rural areas and wide curb
lanes are appropriate in areas where there is not enough room to
accommodate bicycle lanes or where traffic conditions call for the
experienced traffic bicyclist.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 7

In areas that are transitioning from rural to urban, the needs of
bicyclists can be accommodated by retrofitting bike lanes onto
many existing roadways using the following methods:

1. marking and signing existing shoulders as bike lanes

2. physically widening the roadway to add bike lanes
3. restriping the existing roadway to add bike lanes

On projects where it is not physically possible to provide bike

lanes due to constraints such as existing buildings or
environmentally sensitive areas, a wide outside lane may be
substituted. A wide outside lane should only be considered after
other options have been pursued, such as narrowing or removing
travel lanes or parking. Wide lanes allow motor vehicles to pass a
bicyclist in the lane, but provide few of the benefits of bike lanes.
Bike lanes should resume where the constraint ends.

Effectively reducing running (actual) speeds to less than 25 MPH

creates a more comfortable environment for bicycling where there
is insufficient width for bike lanes.

Bicycle lanes, paved shoulders and wide curb lanes are most
challenging to design and maneuver at intersections and
interchanges. Bicyclists ability to maneuver through intersections
and interchanges requires knowing traffic law. Bicycles are
considered slow-moving vehicles and must obey the same laws
as motorists.

According to the Transportation Research Boards Committee on

Bicycling and Bicycle Facilities, a recommendation was presented
to FHWA that states children bicyclists and their parents prefer a
network of designated bicycle facilities (e.g., bike lanes, separate
bike paths, or side street bicycle routes) through the key travel
corridors typically served by arterial and collector streets or
provide usable roadway shoulders on rural highways.

However, apprehension exists particularly with the use of bike

lanes in conditions with high traffic volume and speed. This is
certainly the condition that communities fear most. Children/teens
aged 10 through 15 leave their safe neighborhoods and the
safe bike path to venture out and explore other destinations.
Bike lanes would be beneficial in these quests. However, this
would be the user group most at risk when using bike lanes.

In order for these children/teens to learn to maneuver in bike lanes

through the intersections and interchanges, they need to be
educated on how to ride in traffic. Education plays a paramount
role to this age group when installing bike lanes. Currently in
central Ohio bike education is offered sparsely, if at all. More

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 8

 education coupled with emulating experienced traffic riders would
assist in training this age group to bike in traffic.

Are there streets that should not be fitted for bike lanes?
According to the Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide, bicycle lanes
have been successfully implemented on streets with upwards of
30,000 vehicles per day. Bike lanes work best when cars are
traveling between 25 and 35 miles per hour, the posted speed for
most urbanized areas.

The challenge for local communities is to provide a design that will

safely maneuver bicyclists through intersections and interchanges.
Best practices for these specific challenges continue to evolve as
municipalities across the country strive to make their communities
more bicycle friendly.

The remainder of this guide focuses primarily on the innovative

design of bicycle lanes at intersections and interchanges that have
achieved some modicum of success or that are being tested.
Many of the treatments can be altered to fit individual locations
and situations. However, each situation must be evaluated to
determine the possibilities that are appropriate for that particular
project. This guide assumes that the bicyclist that will use bicycle
lanes will be the experienced traffic bicyclist and the casual or new
adult/teenage rider.

BEST PRACTICES Design Standards and Approaches

Bicycle Lane - also known as a Class II Bikeway, is a portion of

the roadway designated by striping, signing, and/or pavement
markings for preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.

Figure 2

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 9

As a relatively new feature in the roadway cross-section, bike lane
design has been the topic of much study in recent years. Bike
lane design can be quite challenging in situations where the
existing urban traffic patterns are complex and cross-sections are
already constrained by heavy traffic volumes. Designers
throughout the country develop new and better solutions each
year.

Figure 3

Typical Bike Lane Cross-Sections

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 10

(1) On-street Parking
If parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed
between the parking area and the travel lane and have a
minimum width of 5 feet.

(2) Parking Permitted without Parking Stripe or Stall

Where parking is permitted but a parking stripe or stalls are
not utilized, the shared area should be a minimum of 11
feet without a curb face and 12 feet adjacent to a curb
face. If the parking volume is substantial or turnover is
high, an additional 1 to 2 feet of width is desirable.

(3) Parking Prohibited

Figure 3 depicts a bike lane along the outer portion of an
urban curbed and uncurbed street where parking is
prohibited.

The recommended width of a bike lane is 5 feet from the

face of a curb or guardrail to the bike lane stripe. This 5-
foot width should be sufficient in cases where a 1 2-foot
wide concrete gutter pan exists, given that a minimum of 3
feet of rideable surface is provided, and the longitudinal
joint between the gutter pan and pavement surface is
smooth. The width of the gutter pan should not be
included in the measurement of the rideable or usable
surface, with the exception of those communities that use
an extra wide, smoothly paved gutter pan that is 4 feet
wide, as is a bike lane. If the joint is not smooth, 4 feet of
rideable surface should be provided.

Since bicyclists usually tend to ride a distance of 32 - 40

inches from a curb face, it is very important that the
pavement surface in this zone be smooth and free of
structures. Drain inlets and utility covers that extend into
this area may cause bicyclists to swerve and have the
effect of reducing the usable width of the lane. Where
these structures exist, the bike lane width may need to be
adjusted accordingly.

(4) Typical Roadway in Outlying Areas Parking Protected

Figure 4 depicts a bike lane on a roadway in an outlying
area without curbs and gutters. This location is in an
undeveloped area where infrequent parking is handled off
the pavement. Bike lanes should be located within the
limits of the paved shoulder at the outside edge. Bike
lanes may have a minimum width of 4 feet, where the area
beyond the paved shoulder can provide additional
maneuvering width. A width of 5 feet or greater is
preferable and additional widths are desirable where
substantial truck traffic is present, or where motor vehicle
speeds exceed 50 mph.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 11

Bicycle lanes serve the needs of all types of bicyclists in urban
and suburban areas, providing them with their own travel lane on
the street surface. The minimum width of a bike lane should be 5
feet against a curb or adjacent to a parking lane. The 5 feet
should be located outside the door zone. The door zone (also
known as the danger zone) is the area that is the width of the car
door when the door is open. Allow a minimum of 3 feet for the
door zone.

Figure 4

Door Zone
3 ft min. 5 ft min.

Wider bike lanes are recommended on streets with higher motor

vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, or where pedestrian traffic in
the bike lane is anticipated. Width measurements are taken from
the curb face to the bicycle lane stripe. Regular maintenance is
critical for bike lanes.

Bike lanes should always be one-way facilities, carrying traffic in

the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic, and they
should not be placed between parking spaces and the curb.
Since bicyclists must periodically merge with motor vehicle traffic,
bike lanes should not be separated from other motor vehicle lanes
by curbs, parking lanes, or other obstructions. Two-way bike
lanes on one side of two-way streets create hazardous conditions
for the bicyclist and are not recommended.

On one-way streets, bicycle lanes should be installed on the right-

hand side, unless conflicts can be greatly reduced by installing the
lane on the left-hand side. Left-side bicycle lanes on one-way
streets may also be considered where there are frequent bus or
trolley stops, unusually high numbers of right-turning motor
vehicles, or if there is a significant number of left-turning bicyclists.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 12

 Figure 5

However, experienced riders who depend upon mirrors for traffic

awareness use them on the left side of the bike, helmet or
glasses. Left-turn situations have shown that they lose sight of a
great deal of roadway when they ride to the left of traffic. In a turn
situation, this poses no major issue because of the short distance
of the event; however, for longer distances; many would feel
seriously uncomfortable using such lanes.

Bicycle lanes should be provided with adequate drainage to

prevent potentially hazardous conditions. The drainage grates
should be bicycle-safe. When an immediate replacement is not
possible, a temporary correction of welding thin metal straps
across the grates perpendicular to the drainage slots at 4 inches
with center-to-center spacing should be considered.

Bicycle lanes can complicate turning movements at intersections.

This is where knowing traffic law becomes important. In order for
bicyclists to maneuver through intersections, it is important that
the bicyclist know what is expected of the motorist. This section
will show best practices for turning movements.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 13

Intersections and Interchanges

Most auto/bicycle crashes occur at intersections. For this reason,

bikeway design at intersections is to be accomplished in a manner
that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists and will
permit both to operate in accordance with the normal rules of the
road.

Figure 6 illustrates a typical intersection of multilane streets, with

bike lanes on all approaches. Some common movements of
motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. At intersections where

Figure 6

Typical Bicycle and Auto Movements at Major Intersections

AASHTO

there are bike lanes and traffic signals, installation of bicycle-

sensitive loop detectors within the bike lane (well in advance of
intersections) is desirable. It is also important that loop detectors
in left-turn lanes be sensitive enough to detect bicycles. The use
of push-button actuators at bikeway intersections is not preferred
by bicyclists as they must stop to actuate the signal.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 14

Figures 7 and 8 illustrate recommended striping patterns for bike
lanes crossing a motorist right-turn-only lane, or freeway off- and
on-ramps. When confronted with such intersections, bicyclists will
have to merge with right-turning motorists. Since bicyclists are
typically traveling at speeds less than motorists, they could signal
and merge where there is a sufficient gap in right-turn traffic,
rather than at any predetermined location.

Figure 7

Bike Lanes Approaching Right-Turn-Only Lanes AASHTO

For this reason, it is recommended that either all delineations are

dropped at the approach of the right-turn lane (or off ramp), or that
a single, dashed bike lane line be extended across the right-turn
lane. A pair of parallel lines (delineating a bike lane crossing) to
channel the bike merge is not recommended, as bicyclists will be
encouraged to cross at a predetermined location, rather than
when there is a safe gap in right-turning traffic. Also, some
bicyclists are apt to assume they have the right-of-way and
neglect to check for right-turning traffic.

The City of Columbus, Ohio, recommends for right-turn lanes

greater than 200 feet in length, a marked island (2-3 feet wide) be
installed between the bike lane and right-turn lane where space

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 15

permits. This reduces the time a bicyclist is exposed directly to
traffic on both sides.

A dashed line across the right-turn-only lane (or off ramp) is not
recommended on extremely long lanes, or where there are double
right-turn-only lanes. For these types of intersections, all striping
is dropped to permit judgment by the bicyclists to prevail. Bike
lanes crossing on ramps do not present the same problems, as
bicyclists normally have a good view of traffic entering the
roadway, and will adjust their path to cross ramp traffic.

A single dash line may be useful in special cases, such as

freeway ramps, where there is a greater distance between the
beginning and end of the ramp. A bike crossing sign is intended
for use on highways to warn motorists of the potential for bicyclists
crossing the roadway.

Figure 8

WSDOT Design Manual, Facilities for Nonmotorized

Transportation

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 16

City of Davis, California

Davis, California, has established itself as Americas Best Cycling

City. With an area just over ten square miles, Davis has 48.8
miles of bike lanes and 49 miles of bike paths. More than 80
percent of all collector and arterial streets within the city have bike
lanes and/or bike paths. This is the highest such ratio of any city
in the country!

For decades, the City of Davis has led the nation in the design
and construction of innovative bicycle facilities. This is how the
City of Davis addresses bicycle lanes.

Bike Lanes

Bike lanes provide a significant benefit to safe and efficient bicycle

circulation. Conflicts between bikes and autos are dramatically
reduced when on-street lanes are installed. Having separate
identifiable areas on the street for bikes and autos places the
travelers in predictable locations.

Generally, bicycle lanes are provided or planned for all collector

and arterial streets. The citys guideline width for on-street bike
lanes is eight feet when adjacent to the curb and fifteen feet (8
feet parking + 7 feet for bikes) where parking is allowed. There is
a consensus among bicycle planning and safety experts that bike
lanes constructed to the Davis guidelines are safe and adequate.

Bike lanes become unsuitable for bicycle riders that lack the
necessary skill to safely use them when traffic volumes are heavy
and/or vehicle speeds are high. These individuals should use
alternate routes. There are bicyclists who have the desire and
skill to use on-street lanes, such as bike commuters, so these
facilities are still very much needed.

Width criteria for bike lanes takes into account occasional

obstructions, such as leaf piles and yard debris, that may exist in
the bike lanes that would require bicyclists to steer around them.
While automobiles do sometimes stray into the bike lane and
bicyclists sometimes stray into the vehicle lane, these incursions
seldom result in crashes. Mid-block crashes between bikes and
motor vehicles are rare. More common are bike/bike accidents
and bikes running into fixed objects such as parked cars. The
majority of bike/car crashes occur at intersections.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 17

Intersection Considerations

Intersections are the locations where many bicycle/auto conflicts

occur. Skilled bicyclists usually have little problem making the
appropriate transitions when using on-street lanes. Lesser skilled
bike drivers may have difficulty safely performing weaving
maneuvers near intersections. These bicycle drivers need
alternate, less demanding routes as alternatives to using the on-
street bike lanes.

When using such alternate routes, the bicyclist will still need to
cross busy arterial streets, usually at signalized intersections.
Special loop detectors (which can detect bicycles) as well as
bicycle-oriented signal call buttons can facilitate the crossing.
Bicycle routes typically used by younger children need to provide
protected signalizations for crossing arterial streets, both at
intersections and at other locations where crossings are needed.
Grade-separated crossings are an alternative to protected at-
grade crossings. Such crossings tend to be very expensive,
which limits where they can be considered to only a few high
priority locations.

Neither bike overpasses nor underpasses work well near

intersections. The crossing length is longer and there is not the
opportunity to adjust the road grade to shorten the slopes of the
crossing. Also, the transitions between on-street lanes and the
separate crossing path increase the possibility of unsafe
movements. Underpasses can prompt personal safety concerns if
their required length is too great and/or visibility through the
underpass is limited.

Research has shown that the majority of bicycle/motor vehicle

crashes occur at intersections. Therefore, special consideration
must be given to bicycle and vehicle movements at intersections.
Bicycle lanes enhance visibility between bicycles and motor
vehicles, and provide the best opportunity for a safe interaction
between vehicles. Typical treatment of these lanes is shown in
Figures 7, 9 and 10. Note that a weaving section of sufficient
length, considering prevailing vehicle speeds, is essential for the
left-turn and through bicycle lanes to be effective.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 18

Figure 9

Bike Left-Turn Lane

WSDOT, Design Manual, Facilities for Non-motorized
Transportation

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 19

Figure 10

Typical Arterial Intersection

Figure 10 shows typical intersection treatment where a Class I

(bike path) facility interacts with an intersection. The bike path
may or may not continue beyond the intersection. The advantage
of this intersection design is that it places the bicyclist in a
predictable location and minimizes the distance to cross opposing
vehicle lanes during the prescribed signal phase.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 20

Figure 11 displays a plan view of a street segment constructed
with a continuous center left-turn lane. This lane, combined with
on-street bike lanes creates a bicycle-friendly route by making it
easier and safer to cross the street compared to a four-lane road.

Figure 11

Minor Arterial Bike Lanes and Two-Way Left-Turn Lane

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 21

Figure 12 provides some additional information about the traffic
islands for bicycles at arterial intersections. These islands make it
easier for bicyclists to approach the intersection, making it a
convenient and safe crossing.

Figure 12

Traffic Islands for Bicycles at Major Intersections

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 22

Chicago, Illinois

The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center partnered with the

City of Chicago and Chicagoland Bicycle Federation to develop a
Bike Lane Design Guide. The Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide
shows what works in the City of Chicago and is an excellent
example of how facilities for bicyclists can be integrated into the
layout of busy urban streets. The guide essentially shows how
bicycles can be retrofitted into an existing street system. If your
community is just embarking on a program of marking bike lanes
for the first time, effort should be taken to educate drivers, local
politicians and even the bicycling community as to how the lanes
will operate, where they will be installed, and how people should
behave when encountering them. Bicycle lanes have been
successfully implemented on streets with upwards of 30,000
vehicles per day. Bike lanes work best when cars are traveling
between 25 and 35 miles per hour. Review how Chicago
addresses the challenge of intersections.

Intersections

Intersections present one of the most significant design

challenges on streets with bike lanes. If space allows, the outer
bike lane stripe is dotted all the way to the stop bar at controlled
intersections, and to the extension of the property line at
uncontrolled intersections. This alerts bicyclists to the potential for
motorists to be crossing their path and encourages safe merging
in advance of the intersection (see Figure 13 bike lane with
parking; intersection with 2-way arterial street).

When a bike lane intersects with a one-way street, or where right

turns are prohibited, the bike lane is solid all the way to the
intersection (see Figure 14 bike lane with parking; intersection
with 1-way arterial street).

Historically, Chicago has widened major intersections to improve

capacity by allowing for opposing left-turn lanes and two through
lanes in each direction. This often leaves no room for a bike lane
at the intersection so the outer bike lane stripe is dropped at the
beginning of the taper for the turn bay. The parking lane line is
continued toward the intersection to encourage drivers to park
closer to the curb and provide more room for the bicyclist (see
Figure 15 bike lane at 50 wide intersection).

When bike lanes are considered for streets with channelized

intersections, the curb lane is designated with markings and signs
indicating Right Turn Only Except for Bikes. This improves
safety for bicyclists by preventing through motorists from passing
on the right while still allowing through bicyclists to use the lane.
Signage also indicates that motorists should yield the shared lane
to the bicyclist (see Figure 16, typical bike lane signage).

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 23

When the width allows, the bike lane is dotted to encourage right-
turning vehicles to merge right. The bike lane then continues for a
minimum of 30 feet until the stop bar (see Figure 17 bike lane at
60 wide intersection).

Parking Setbacks.

On-street parking is available throughout Chicago. Sight distance

requirements restrict vehicle parking within 20 feet of all
intersections. On streets with bus routes, parking is prohibited for
80 feet to allow space for buses to pull to the curb. The 4-inch
bike lane stripe is dropped to allow for turning movements and the
lane line is dotted to indicate where merging should occur.

Defining the parking lane. Some agencies choose not to paint a

stripe between the bicycle lane and the parking lane, preferring to
leave a 12 - 13 foot combined parking and bike lane. The
advantages of striping the line to define the parking lane include:

The striping encourages motorists to park closer to the

curb and thus provide more space for bicyclists in the bike
lane, especially when they need to avoid an opening car
door.
The striping discourages motorists from thinking that the
shared bike/parking lane is in fact a travel lane for motor
vehicles, particularly when parking is relatively light and
turn over is high.

If parking is typically long-term and consistently utilized, or if the

individual parking stalls are marked with a cross or T, a full stripe
between the bike lane and parking lane may not be necessary.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 24

Figure 13

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 25

Figure 14

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 26

Figure 15

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 27

Figure 16

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 28

Figure 17

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 29

Special Design Treatments

AASHTO acknowledges that bicycle lanes tend to complicate both

bicycle and motor vehicle turning movements at intersections.
This problem is further complicated at major interchanges where
the bicyclist is proceeding straight and the motorist is turning right.
In order to make the bicyclist safer while maneuvering
intersections, various designs have been and are being tested.

In any situation where it is difficult for bicyclists to traverse the

undefined area created by right-lane merge movements, the
following is offered as guidance. Professional judgment and
sound engineering practices must be used on the site-specific
application of any design treatment.

Blue Bicycle Lanes

The City of Portland, Oregon, is testing the impact of painting bike

lanes blue as they pass through intersections. Cities in Denmark,
the Netherlands, and other European countries have done this for
many years (although some choose red or green paint).

Figure 18

Advanced Stop Line (Bike Box)

The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has recently re-striped a

complex signalized intersection with a design that allows bicyclists
using bicycle lanes to wait at a red light several meters ahead of
other travel lanes. When the light changes, bicyclists can get
away quicker and make a left turn without conflicting with other
traffic.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 30

The objective of the advance bicycle box is to improve the visibility
of bicyclists at intersections and to enable them to correctly
position themselves for turning movements during the red signal
phase by allowing them to proceed to the front of the queue.

Figure 19

Kansas, Design Criteria, Section 5302 Local Bicycle Facility

Design Guidance for the Metropolitan Kansas City Region
A bicycle lane leading up to a bicycle reservoir is located
between the motor vehicle stop line and the crosswalk. The
bicycle box should be 12 to 14 feet deep. If it is shallower,
bicyclists tend to feel intimidated by the motor vehicles, and if it is
deeper, motorists tend to encroach. To increase its effectiveness,
a bicycle stencil should be placed in the bicycle box and a
contrasting surface color is strongly recommended for the
reservoir and the approach bicycle lane. Instructional signs and
separate bicyclist signal heads can be installed in conjunction with
the bicycle box.

This treatment may be used at intersections with high motor

vehicle and bicycle ADT, frequent turning conflicts, and
intersections with a high percentage of turning movements by both
bicyclists and motorists. According to the Department of
Environment, Transport, and Regions of Great Britain (DETR)
advance stop lines have been used successfully at sites with
motor vehicle flows up to 1000 vehicles per hour and with two-
lane approaches.

Contra-flow Bicycle Lanes

The objective of contra-flow bicycle lanes is to increase efficiency

and safety by shortening trip distances. Contra-flow bicycle lanes
have been used in some locations where there is a strong
demand for bicyclists to travel against the normal flow of traffic or

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 31

to travel in both directions on a one-way street. Contra-flow
bicycle lanes are especially applicable for use on one-way streets,
in hilly areas or where the alternate route is circuitous or
hazardous.

Figure 20

The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, asks the following

questions to evaluate potential contra-flow lane locations:

Is safety improved because of reduced conflicts?

Can bicyclists safely and conveniently re-enter the traffic
stream at either end of the contra-flow section?
Is the contra-flow bicycle lane short and does it provide
direct access to a high-use destination point?
Are there no or very few intersecting driveways, alleys, or
streets on the side of the proposed contra-flow lane?
Are there a substantial number of bicyclists already using
the street?
Is there sufficient street width to accommodate a full-
dimension bicycle lane?
Will the contra-flow bicycle lane provide substantial
savings in travel distance compared to the route motor
vehicles must follow?
Are traffic volumes acceptable?

There are multiple examples of contra-flow bicycle lanes that exist

around the country; however, the contra-flow lane should be
considered in only certain circumstances.

Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes

Shared bicycle/bus lanes provide dedicated lanes for bikes and

buses in areas where it is not feasible to have separate lanes for
both modes. The lane is painted or paved with colored asphalt to
emphasize the lane designation. The lane should be wide enough
to allow bicyclists to pass a stopped bus. The right lane is
stenciled as a diamond lane, with supporting signage and

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 32

pavement legends that designate the lane for buses and bicycles
only.

Shared bicycle/bus lanes are commonly used in downtowns

where it is difficult to find room for dedicated bicycle lanes.
Considerations of shared bicycle/bus lanes include:

Bicyclists must pass stopped buses on the left whether

there is a bicycle lane or not
A dedicated bicycle lane is often unnecessary
Provides separation of faster and slower moving traffic

Bikes and buses travel at approximately the same average speed.

Travel time for buses and bikes is improved as they are not
hindered by congested auto traffic.

Disadvantages of shared bicycle/bus lane include: there is a leap-

frog effect of buses and bikes; if not designed well, or if turning
traffic is allowed use of the lane, benefits of the lane will be
reduced.

Examples currently include Tucson, AZ; Madison, WI; Toronto,

Ontario; Vancouver, BC; and Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia
colors its shared lane red to add emphasis.

Bike Slots

The Missouri Department of Transportation, District IV, is currently

using an intersection treatment it calls a bike slot. The bike slot is
an intersection treatment that was developed from the AASHTO
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTO
presents optional treatments for pavement parking where a bike

Figure 21

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 33

lane approaches a major intersection. However, the bike slot is
an option even though bike lanes may not be present.

The absence of a bike lane does not preclude the need to

accommodate the bicyclists especially at intersections. The bike
slot intersection treatment is beneficial where there are conflicts
between through bicyclists and right turning vehicles. Bicyclists
who stay to the far right following the curb along a right-turn lane
and then either continuing across the intersection or swerving to
the left across the right-turn lane at the intersection put them in
danger.

Left-Turn Only Bicycle Lane

Left-hand turns are often a difficult maneuver for the bicyclists.

Some cities have developed left-turn bicycle lanes to increase
safety and make the left-hand turn easier. This treatment is
especially useful where a signed bicycle route may jog a short
distance to another through street.

Figure 22

As with all guidance, professional judgment and sound

engineering practices must be used on any site-specific
application of any design treatment.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 34

Bikeway Signing and Marking

The use of appropriate signs and pavement markings will improve

the safety and general public acceptance of bicycles on public
roadways. Regulatory and warning signs will alert bicyclists to
potential conflicts and convey regulatory messages to both
bicyclists and motorists at highway intersections. Consult the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for the latest
and most complete set of specifications for bicycle-related signs
and markings. According to the MUTCD, bicyclist traffic control
devices must adhere to the following five basic requirements to
perform their intended function:

1. Fulfill a need.
2. Command attention.
3. Convey a clear, simple meaning.
4. Command respect of road users.
5. Give adequate time for proper response.

The local design, placement, operation, maintenance and

uniformity of bicycle traffic control devices must be consistent with
MUTCD recommended standards. Uniformity of design includes
shape, color, symbols, wording, lettering, reflectorization and
sizes.

Regulatory signs give notice of traffic laws or regulations that

bicyclists and motorists must follow. Examples include signs for
bicycle lane designation, no parking signs, stop signs and yield
signs.

In Ohio, the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices

currently offers the following bicycle signage:

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 35

Figure 23

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 36

Figure 24

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 37

Figure 25

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 38

 Figures 26 and 27 are bicycle signs other cities have tested to aid
motorists and bicyclists in maneuvering through intersections.

Figure 26

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 39

Figure 27

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 40

 Innovative Bicycle Treatments

The ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council developed a report on a

large variety of innovative treatments that accommodate bicycles.
The report, Innovative Bicycle Treatments, provides basic
information on a large variety of innovative treatments to
accommodate bicycles. The report is intended as an introduction
to the treatments and, where available, includes publications and
contact information on agencies that have further information and
often first-hand experience with particular facilities. While this
guide is geared toward the safe maneuvering through
intersections and interchanges, Innovative Bicycle Treatments is a
catalog of solutions to various traffic problems involving bicycles.
Many of the treatments can be altered to better fit individual
locations.

CONCLUSION This guide is offered to aid local communities in designing bike

lanes that will assist bicyclists in maneuvering through complex
intersections and interchanges. As more and more bicycle lanes
are constructed, central Ohio will need to implement better design
and signage to help reduce conflicts.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, John, Bicycling Street Smarts: Riding Confidently, Legally
and Safely.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO), Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, 1999.

Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide, October 2002.

City of Davis Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, Davis, California, May

2001.

Federal Highway Administration, Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb

Lanes: Operational and Safety Findings and Countermeasure
Recommendations, Public Caption No. FHWA-RD-99-035,
October 1999.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Course on Bicycle and

Pedestrian Transportation.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Flexibility in Highway

Design, FHWA-PD-97-062.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Selecting Roadway

Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, FHWA-RD-92-073.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Improving Conditions for

Bicycling and Walking, A Best Practices Report, Prepared for the
Federal Highway Administration, by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professions,
January 1998.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The Bicycle Compatibility

Index: A Level of Service Concept, Implementation Manual,
FHWA-RD-98-095.

Florida Department of Transportation, State Safety Office, Bicycle

Facilities Planning and Design Handbook, Revised February
1998.

Kansas, Design Criteria, Section 5302 Local Bicycle Facility

Design Guidance for the Metropolitan Kansas City Region,
November 2002.

King, Michael Architect Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison of

Approaches.
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Regional Bicycle

Transportation Facilities Plan, 2003.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 42

 Nabti, Jumana, Ridgway, Matthew and the ITE Pedestrian and
Bicycle Council, Innovative Bicycle Treatments, An Informational
Report, May 2002.

Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD), 2003.

Orlando, City of Orlando Bicycle Plan, Planning and Development

Department, Transportation Planning Bureau, May 1994.

City of Portland Office of Transportation, Portlands Blue Bike

Lanes, July 1, 1999.

The Traffic Institute Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois,

Program of Instruction for the Bicycle Planning and Facility
Workshop, March 1994.

WSDOT Design Manual, Facilities for Non-motorized

Transportation, March 1994.

RESOURCES
Glowacz, Dave, Bicyclist Survival, Chicago Multi-Lingua Graphics,
1995.

Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc. Use Your Head and Wear a

Helmet, PO Box 493, St. James, NY 11780.

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 43

Breaking Barriers to Bicycling 44