A separated bike lane is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is located within or directly adjacent to the roadway and that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic with a vertical element. Separated bike lanes are differentiated from standard and buffered bike lanes by the vertical element. They are differentiated from shared use paths (and sidepaths) by their more proximate relationship to the adjacent roadway and the fact that they are bike-only facilities. Separated bike lanes are also sometimes called "cycle tracks" or "protected bike lanes." Within the common elements of separated bike lanes - dedicated space for cyclists that is separated from motor vehicle travel and parking lanes - practitioners have flexibility in choosing specific design elements. Separated bike lanes can operate as one-way or two-way facilities; their designs can integrate with turning automobile traffic at intersections or can be more fully separated; they can be designed at roadway grade, at sidewalk grade or at an intermediate grade; and they can be separated from the adjacent roadway or sidewalk with a variety of treatments including but not limited to on-street parking, raised curbs or medians, bollards, landscaping, or planters. Separated bike lanes are one of many bicycle facility types that can be used to create connected bicycle networks. FHWA defines a network as "Interconnected pedestrian and/or bicycle transportation facilities that allow people of all ages and abilities to safely and conveniently get where they want to go." Connected bicycle networks can include all of the facility types shown in Figure 2. Within the common elements of separated bike lanes - dedicated space for cyclists that is separated from motor vehicle travel and parking lanes - practitioners have flexibility in choosing specific design elements. Separated bike lanes can operate as one-way or two-way facilities; their designs can integrate with turning automobile traffic at intersections or can be more fully separated; they can be designed at roadway grade, at sidewalk grade or at an intermediate grade; and they can be separated from the adjacent roadway or sidewalk with a variety of treatments including but not limited to on-street parking, raised curbs or medians, bollards, landscaping, or planters. Separated bike lanes are one of many bicycle facility types that can be used to create connected bicycle networks. FHWA defines a network as "Interconnected pedestrian and/or bicycle transportation facilities that allow people of all ages and abilities to safely and conveniently get where they want to go." Connected bicycle networks can include all of the facility types shown in Figure 2. Separated bike lanes have existed in the United States since at least the 1970s, but only in the past several years has interest spread outside of a handful of early-adopting cities: an inventory of such facilities found that they have doubled in number since 2011 and may double again by 2016. Separated bike lanes have been a fixture of bicycle networks in many countries with high rates of cycling for decades. Today, interest in separated bike lanes is accelerating in the U.S. and there is a rapidly growing list of planned and implemented separated facilities across the country. The Green Lane Project, a program of the PeopleForBikes organization, maintains an inventory of separated bike lanes in the U.S., which is available at: http://www.peopleforbikes.org/green-lane-project/pages/inventory-of-pro…. Separated bike lanes have the potential to improve traffic safety for all street users, especially when implemented as part of a "road diet" or other traffic calming project. Separated bike lanes can help to organize all traffic modes, while also reducing pedestrian crossing distances and decreasing "leapfrogging" between buses and bicyclists. Separated bike lanes can contribute to increased bicycling volumes and mode shares, in part by appealing to less confident riders and this could eventually result in a more diverse ridership across age, gender, and ability. Shifting a greater share of commute, errand, or social trips to the bicycle also offers one potential solution for relieving traffic congestion and contributing to other public policy goals. Separated bike lanes are one of many bicycle facility types and they exist within a broader context shaped by demographic and land use changes and influenced by interrelated transportation, public health, environmental, and economic factors. In many communities there is an aging population maintaining an independent lifestyle later in life and at the same time a generation of younger adults that is driving less and riding transit more than previous generations. Separated bike lanes can speak to both of these demographic trends, while also contributing to a community's health and economic goals, as noted below. As the linkages between the built environment and public health - in particular, the obesity epidemic - have become clear, creating more opportunities for residents to incorporate "active transportation" modes such as walking and bicycling into their daily lives has been identified as one strategy to encourage healthier lifestyles. Research has also suggested that the creation of bicycle-friendly streets can be a boon to business, encouraging greater patronage of local retail. Cities like New York City and Chicago have framed strategic infrastructure investments, such as separated bike lanes, as an element of their economic development strategies. As with all transportation investments, there are important equity considerations associated with separated bike lanes. Separated bike lanes can contribute to greater mobility at low cost to lower-income populations, providing a "last mile" link to transit, and expanding access to employment opportunities. Providing opportunities for public input throughout the planning and design process can build local support for separated bike lanes, while also ensuring that community concerns are addressed. Chapter 4 of this document emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities for early and ongoing public engagement in proposed separated bike lane projects because a strong public involvement program will ensure that social, economic, and environmental issues are fully considered. Practitioners must also ensure that their professional actions do not impose "disproportionately high and adverse effects" on low-income and minority populations, as specified by the DOT Order 5610.2(a), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898. For more information on public involvement requirements, see: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/orders/#a11 Refer specifically to Part 450: Planning Assistance and Standards, Subpart B: Statewide Transportation Planning and Programming, 23 CFR 450.210: Interested parties, public involvement, and consultation and Part 450: Planning Assistance and Standards, Subpart C: Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, 23 CFR 450.316: Interested parties, participation, and consultation. Additional resources and tools for engaging the public and building community support for walking and bicycling are available on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) website at http://www.pedbikeinfo.org. This guide is structured in four primary sections: * Introduction chapters describing what a Separated Bike Lane is and providing an overview of the Guide, planning process and other relevant context; * A broad review of separated bike lane planning considerations; * A flexible menu of design recommendations; and * A Moving Forward section outlines next steps for separated bike lane development. In addition, detailed reports on the literature review, lessons learned interviews, and safety analysis, along with project evaluation and data collection worksheets designed for practitioners, are included as appendices. This guide provides an overview of planning considerations and a menu of design options for Separated Bike Lanes. These sections of the document are described in more detail below. The Planning Separated Bike Lanes chapter provides information on the process of determining appropriate locations, taking into account factors such as existing and potential users, creating connections as part of a bicycle network, street and land use contexts, and opportunities available for installation. It also touches on other planning issues including funding, maintenance, public outreach, and project evaluation. The Design Recommendations chapter forms the heart of the guide, laying out in detail recommended design approaches based on currently understood best practices. The recommendations are organized around four primary design areas: directional and width characteristics, intersection considerations, type of separation, and midblock considerations. Also covered are general strategies for related topics such as signalization, signage, and markings. A series of hypothetical design scenarios are also provided, complete with suggested dimensions and traffic controls, to illustrate the various recommendations put into practice. It is important to note that separated bike lane design is a quickly evolving subject and therefore this guide does not prohibit designs that are not included - a flexible design approach is encouraged. (For further information on FHWA's position on design flexibility, refer to the August 2013 memo "Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility", available at the following address: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_… The recommendations in this guide were developed based on a comprehensive review of the state of the practice of separated bike lane planning and design in the United States. This effort was comprised of four parts: * An in-depth literature review; * "Lessons learned" interviews with practitioners; * A safety analysis of implemented projects; and * Ongoing input from a Technical Work Group. A review of national and international literature on separated bike lanes and related issues was conducted to establish a baseline of the current state of the practice, including studies, design guides, and other pertinent publications. This review informed and served as a foundation for the first-hand information collected during the subsequent phases of work (refer to Appendix A). Structured interviews were conducted with municipalities that have designed and constructed separated bike lanes, those that are planning to implement separated bike lanes, and those that have considered separated bike lanes but determined them to not be the appropriate treatment. Over 35 cities, towns, and counties were interviewed, and the results have been incorporated throughout this document (refer to Appendix B). An in-depth analysis of crash and ridership data from implemented separated bike lanes in the U.S was completed to evaluate safety outcomes and inform the recommendations of this guide. While the bicycle collision and volume data that exist for most implemented projects is not yet sufficient to draw broad-based conclusions concerning the overall safety of separated bike lanes, the analysis did uncover useful insights to build upon in future analyses (refer to Appendix C). Future research will become more robust as data collection efforts improve, and municipalities consider more holistic evaluations of separated bike lane projects to measure impacts on mobility, economic vitality, and quality of life. To help municipalities collect robust data for evaluation, a project evaluation checklist and data collection information guide are provided as appendices (refer to Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively). Finally, a Technical Work Group was convened to provide guidance, input, and critical review throughout the project planning process. Comprised of representatives from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), League of American Bicyclists (LAB) and nearly a dozen geographically diverse State and city transportation departments, the Technical Work Group helped ensure that the information, analysis, and recommendations contained herein are not only accurate but responsive to the concerns and experiences of practitioners across the transportation discipline. (Author/publisher)
Abstract