This all-day workshop will focus on the most up-to-date knowledge and guidance for the design of Protected Bike Lanes and Protected Intersections. The workshop will discuss how Protected Intersection design concepts have evolved in North America and examples of how they are being implemented. The workshop will borrow from design guidance in the U.S.’s most recent bikeway design guides, including the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, the FHWA Separated Bicycle Lane Planning and Design Guide and the MassDOT Separated Bicycle Lane Planning and Design Guide. Additionally, this workshop will focus on specific elements of protected lanes, including two-way design and curb heights, and provide updates on current research. *These sessions are eligible for CM and PDH credits. Please complete the check-in sheet when you arrive to the session for these credits. presenters: Robert Burchfield, Toole Design Group Nick Falbo, Alta Planning + Design Roger Geller, City of Portland

1. Protected Signal Phase
Separating users through space and time

3. Bike
Signal
Turn only
lane
R10-11

8. By Places for Bikes

10. Use:
• For contra-flow bicycle
movements
• Where high-volume
turns will cross the
bikeway
• Where concurrent
phases are possible
Do Not Use:
• Where conflicting
turning traffic is minor
• Where conflicting
turning traffic can be
prohibited
• Where a protected
phase can’t be provided
Application

11. Pros:
• Elimination of turn
conflict
• High comfort
experience
Cons:
• Increased signal delay
• Limited application
Considerations

12. Guidance
FHWA. Interim
Approval for
Optional Use of a
Bicycle Signal
Face (IA-16)
2013.

13. Guidance
Bikes Use Ped Signal
(R9-5) sign may be used
to provide guidance
without bicycle signal
head.

14. Mixing Zone
A shared lane to reduce conflict in advance of a turn

16. Small
Corner
Radii
Turn Lane with
Shared Lane
Markings
Short Storage Length
(60-100 ft)
Narrow Lane
R4-4
R3-7
Broken line or
yield lineSlow Speed
Merge
(≤20 mph)

19. Combined Bike Lane/Turn lane

21. New York, NY

22. Portland, OR

23. Use:
• Low-speed, urban
conditions
• Maximum of 50-150
turning motor vehicles
in the peak hour
• (FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide
2015, p. 107).
Do not Use:
• Bidirectional facilities
• Where high-volume
turns will cross the
bikeway
Application

24. Pros:
• Organize user
interactions, reduce
right-hook risk
Cons:
• Greater traffic stress
than separated options.
• May not be suitable for
children
• Does not work with
bidirectional facilities
Considerations

25. Guidance
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design
Guide
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

26. Adjacent Crossing
Improving visibility in advance of the turn

28. R10-15
(modified)
Advance stop bar
No Right on Red
20 – 50’ clear
Small
Corner
Radii

32. Missoula, MT

33. Vancouver, BC

35. Example
Washington, DC

36. Use:
• Separated bike lanes
with visual
obstructions.
• Bidirectional facilities
Do Not Use:
• Where high-volume
turns will cross the
bikeway*
Adjacent Crossing: Application
*May be paired with protected signal phase

37. Pros:
• Increases visibility prior
to the intersection
Cons:
• Right-hook risk remains
where bicyclists
overtake stopped/slow
motor vehicles
Adjacent Crossing: Considerations

38. Adjacent Crossing: Additional Guidance
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design
Guide

39. Separated Crossing
Improving visibility and yielding opportunity

41. 16.5 ft
(6.5 ft min)
Advance stop bar
No Right on Red Small
Corner
Radii
20 – 50’ clear
R10-15
(modified)

48. Use:
• Separated bike lanes
with wide separation
• Bidirectional facilities
Do Not Use:
• Where high-volume
turns will cross the
bikeway*
Separated Crossing: Application
*May be paired with protected signal phase

49. Separated Crossing: Considerations
Pros
• Increased
comfort
• Increases visibility
before and after
the turn
• Provides space
for yielding
vehicles
Cons
• Right of way
requirements
• Less conventional

50. Separated Crossing: Additional Guidance
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design
Guide

51. • Formally supported by FHWA Achieving
Multimodal Networks 2016.
Protected Intersection: Guidance Basis