Conventional Bike Lane
ELM-CBL-34 Conventional Bike Lane
Related Media
The items below come from outside the Commonway System, external videos, podcasts, and articles related to this page's topic, not part of the guidebook itself.
Why this pattern exists
A conventional bike lane provides a clearly delineated, expected space for cyclists that a shared travel lane does not, improving predictability for both cyclists and drivers at a lower cost and space requirement than a buffered or protected facility. This pattern exists to document where this baseline level of separation is adequate versus where a stronger treatment is warranted.1
Key considerations
- Adequacy depends heavily on adjacent vehicle speed and volume; paint-only separation becomes less appropriate as speed and volume increase2
- Lane width should accommodate safe passing distance from parked cars where relevant, to avoid the door-zone conflict
- Should be considered a baseline treatment rather than the ceiling; upgrading to a buffered or protected facility should be the default aspiration on higher-stress corridors
Related patterns
Buffered Bike Lane (ELM-BBL-35), Protected Bike Lane/Cycle Track (ELM-PBL-37) (stronger-separation alternatives); Sharrow (ELM-SHR-39) (a lesser treatment for contexts where even this pattern is not feasible)
References
- Legal / regulatory AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Adopted by most state DOTs as the foundational lane-width and design standard.
- Precedent-based NACTO, Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 3rd Ed. (2025), "Design User, Design Speed, and Design Year." Protected lanes become the only all-ages-and-abilities-permissible option above 25 mph or 6,000 vehicles per day.