Operational analysis of shared lane markings and green bike lanes on roadways with speeds greater than 35 mph.
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


Operational analysis of shared lane markings and green bike lanes on roadways with speeds greater than 35 mph.

Filetype[PDF-5.21 MB]

Select the Download button to view the document
This document is over 5mb in size and cannot be previewed
  • English

  • Details:

    • Publication/ Report Number:
    • Resource Type:
    • Geographical Coverage:
    • Abstract:
      This study analyzed the effectiveness of shared lane markings (sharrows), wide curb lanes, standard and buffered

      bike lanes, and green bike lanes on improving operations of bicycle facilities. Three measures of effectiveness

      were used in this study: lateral separation between the motor vehicle and bicyclist, the distance of bicyclists to the

      curb or edge of pavement, and the yielding behavior of drivers and cyclists at merge points. Also, motor vehicle

      speeds before, while, and after passing bicyclists were analyzed. Except for the Bridge of Lions site, the before-and-after data indicate that installation of sharrows led to an increase in lateral separation between motor vehicles

      and bicyclists. At Riverside Drive, the separation increased by 0.67 feet, while at the North 56th

      Street site, an

      increase of 2.55 feet was observed after installing sharrows and increasing the outside lane width. Data also

      suggested a significant improvement in lateral separation of 0.86 feet at Sunset Drive, which was widened to

      create a wider outside lane (but had no shared lane markings), and Bailey Road, where a marked buffer between

      the travel lane and bike lane resulted in an increase in separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists of 0.72

      feet. It was also observed that bicyclists rode further from the curb/edge of pavement for the after-period

      compared to the before-period for Riverside Drive, Bridge of Lions, North 56th

      Street, and Sunset Drive. P-values

      less than 0.05 were observed for these five sites suggesting that the treatments were effective in moving bicyclists

      further from the curb/edge of pavement. Data also indicates that drivers slow down as they pass bicyclists on non-limited access roadways (before speed of 32.02 mph to 29.97 mph while-passing) and then increase their speeds

      after overtaking the bicyclists (30.80 mph while-passing to 32.82 mph after-passing). The difference between the

      speeds before-passing and while-passing, and while-passing and after-passing, were both significant with a p-value less than 0.000. However, when the before-passing (32.02 mph) and after-passing (32.54 mph), excluding

      while-passing speeds, were analyzed, no significant difference was found (p-value = 0.110). For limited access

      facilities, the difference between the overtaking driver’s speed before-passing (37.35 mph) and while-passing

      (34.93 mph) the bicyclists was significant with a p-value of 0.000. However, the difference between motor

      vehicle speeds while-passing bicyclists (34.94 mph) and after-passing (35.48 mph) was not significant (p-value =

      0.150). Contrary to the non-limited access streets, the difference between vehicle speeds before- (37.33 mph) and

      after-passing (35.48 mph) was significant for the limited access facilities (p-value =0.017).

    • Format:
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov

    Version 3.26