1. SEPARATED BIKEWAYS
PROWALK-BIKE 2010 Brooke DuBose – Fehr & Peers
Chattanooga, Tennessee Mike Sallaberry – SFMTA

2. Agenda
1. Overview of Separated Bikeways
2. ITE Ped/Bike Council Research
• Opportunities & Issues
3. Why consider them?
• When and how to use them
4. Concerns, and how to design for them

3. Separated Bikeways
Dunsmuir Cycle Track, Vancouver BC
Photo Credit: AverageJoeCyclist.com

4. One-Way Separated Bikeways
New York City
Cambridge, MA
Vancouver, BC

5. Two-Way Separated Bikeways
New York, NY Montreal, QC

6. Facility Elements
Segment Driveways Intersections
Lane Width Visibility Visibility
Slowing Slowing
Buffer Width
Vehicle Vehicle
& Type
Speed Speed
One-way or Turning
Auto Access
two-way lane Movements

7. Agenda
1. Overview of Separated Bikeways
2. ITE Ped/Bike Council Research
• Opportunities & Issues
3. Why consider them?
• When and how to use them
4. Concerns, and how to design for them

8. ITE Informational Report
Findings on the current state of practice for
installing separated bikeways in North America
PURPOSE
1. Summarize existing research and design guidance
2. Identify locations & design attributes of facilities
already constructed in U.S. & Canada
3. Demonstrate the need for additional research on
safety, latent demand, and design guidelines

9. Potential Latent Demand
Bicycle Planning Trends:
Roger Geller’s Four Types of Bicyclists
Fast & Fearless -
1%>
Interested but Concerned – 60% No Way, No How – 33%
Enthused &
Confident – 7%

10. Fast & Fearless
Enthused & Confident
Interested but Concerned

11. Moral of the Story: We have spent much of our
Fast & Fearless - time planning for 7-8% of riders
1%>
Interested but Concerned – 60% No Way, No How – 33%
Enthused &
Confident – 7%

12. Scoreboard, Baby!
Bicycle Counter, Copenhagen
Photo Credit: Momentum

13. Initial Survey Results
What is your opinion on separated bikeways?
250
55% Preferable to on-road
200 facilities and should
be installed where
43%
possible
150 Appropriate only in
limited circumstances
100
Never appropriate
50 2%
0

14. Initial Survey Results
How important a role do you think separated bikeways have or
could have in making cycling more mainstream and popular?
250 50%
200
Critical
Important
150
24% Neutral
19% Not Important
100
Detrimental
4% 3%
50
0

15. Initial Survey Results
Should separated bikeways be included in design manuals in the
US and Canada?
65%
300
250
Yes
200 Yes, with
proper criteria
150 Maybe
21%
100 Probably not
10%
Absolutely not
50 3% 1%
0

16. Design Guidance
•List of nine problems with
separation focuses on two-way
shared use paths
•Discusses three types of path-
roadway intersections: Midblock,
Adjacent, and Complex
•Provides limited design guidance
•Does not prohibit separated
bikeways

17. Cities Are Already Experimenting…
Geographic Location of Separated Bikeways
Total Coverage:
• 45 states
• 5 provinces
Highest Coverage
(# cities):
• California – 37
• Florida – 13
• Washington – 13
• Ontario – 10

18. ITE Informational Report
HIGHLIGHTED LOCATIONS
•SW Broadway, Portland, OR
•15th St, NW, Washington DC
•Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA
•Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA
•8th Avenue, (Manhattan) New York City, NY
•9th Avenue, (Manhattan) New York City, NY
•Broadway, (Manhattan) New York City, NY
•Allen Street/Pike Street, (Manhattan) New York City, NY
•Grand Street, (Manhattan) New York City, NY
•Kent Avenue, (Brooklyn) New York City NY
•Sands Street, (Brooklyn) New York City NY

20. Agenda
1. Overview of Separated Bikeways
2. ITE Ped/Bike Council Research
• Opportunities & Issues
3. Why consider them?
• When and how to use them
4. Concerns, and how to design for them

21. Why: Prevention of Poor Design

22. Why: Roadway Obstructions
in Urban Areas
New York City

23. Why: Continuity of
Pathway Experience
Vancouver, BC

24. Cyclist Comfort on
Busy Roadways
From
London Cycling Design
Standards

25. Cyclist Comfort on
Busy Roadways
State of Cycling Report, SF
Top two barriers to cycling:
- Not enough bike lanes
- Not comfortable riding with
cars

26. Agenda
1. Overview of Separated Bikeways
2. ITE Ped/Bike Council Research
3. Issues & Opportunities
4. Why consider them?
When and how to use them
5. Concerns’ and how to design for them

27. Unexpected Movements
Bi-directional paths can create unexpected movements
at intersections and driveways
Consider using single direction paths where there are
many driveways and intersections

28. Turn Conflicts/Intersections
- Bring cyclists down to
roadway level
- Improve sightlines
- Signalize
- Slow turning drivers
- Add high visibility markings

29. Left Turns

30. Maintenance:
Sweeping and Snow
- Make path wide enough for street sweeper/plows
- Buy smaller street sweepers/plows

31. Conflicts with Pedestrians
Appropriate widths, good separation
Ped demand very high, need for
better lane placement and separation

32. Potential for Blockages and
Reduced Room for Passing
Rolled curbs aid
passing/leaving path
Minimum 6.5’ (~2.0m) width
to allow for side by side
riding and passing

33. Additional Tool for Practitioners

34. Ultimate Goal?
Positive Feedback Cycle
More More demand
accommodation (for bicycle accommodation)
MORE CYCLISTS
More awareness More safety
of cyclists

36. Thank you for attending!
Brooke DuBose
Fehr & Peers
Transportation Planner
b.dubose@fehrandpeers.com
Mike Sallaberry, PE
San Francisco MTA
Project Development and Implementation
mike.sallaberry@sfmta.com