Bicycle infrastructure for enhanced cycling safety

There is some evidence that bicycle infrastructure such as cycle tracks, paths, and lanes improve bicyclist safety (Reynolds 2009, Chen 2012a, Cicchino 2020, Park 2015a, Lusk 2011, Marshall 2019, Harris 2013, Romanow 2012). However, additional evidence is needed to confirm effects.

A higher availability of bicycling infrastructure is associated with better safety outcomes for bicyclists and other road users, especially when bike facilities are protected and separated (Marshall 2019). Protected bike lanes appear to reduce bicyclist injuries (Lusk 2011, Harris 2013), increase cyclists’ perception of safety (NITC-Monsere 2014), and reduce bicyclist crashes, especially when tall, continuous barriers or a grade with horizontal separation are used (Cicchino 2020). On-road bicycle lanes (Smith 2019, Reynolds 2009, Chen 2012a) and off-road paths appear to reduce bicyclist crashes and injuries compared with no facilities (Reynolds 2009). Adding bicycle lanes on urban arterial streets also appears to reduce risk of bike crashes (Park 2015a, Pulugurtha 2015) and may reduce risk of crashes for all road users, with lanes 4-8 feet wide recommended (Park 2015a). A New Orleans-based study suggests on-road bicycle lanes may reduce injury severity and head and face injuries for cyclists involved in crashes with motor vehicles, compared with no bicycle lanes (Smith 2019).

Studies comparing the U.S. and some European countries find fatalities among bicyclists and pedestrians in the U.S. are much higher (Buehler 2021, Pucher 2016). Experts suggest differences may be associated with higher bicycle ridership, networked bicycling and walking facilities with separated rights of way serving desirable destinations, lower urban speed limits, fewer vehicle miles traveled, and smaller and less powerful personal motor vehicles (Buehler 2021, Pucher 2016). Bicycle infrastructure that decreases bicyclists’ interactions with cars or pedestrians and makes potential interactions safer are associated with fewer bicyclist injuries (Cochrane-Mulvaney 2015). Slower traffic speeds and volumes (Cochrane-Mulvaney 2015, Marshall 2019, Park 2015a, Romanow 2012), smoother and flatter pavement, road lighting (Cochrane-Mulvaney 2015, Cicchino 2020, Harris 2013, Reynolds 2009, Romanow 2012), fewer driveways and approaches that cross bicycle lanes (Pulugurtha 2015), and greater numbers of bicyclists on the road (Pucher 2010) are also associated with fewer bicyclist injuries. Turn lanes, separate bike signals, and other intersection design features can increase safety for bicyclists (Pucher 2003). Roundabouts can increase injury risk more than other types of intersections (Reynolds 2009, Daniels 2009), especially without cycle tracks (Cochrane-Mulvaney 2015, Reynolds 2009). Sharrows, which are road markings that indicate motor vehicles should share the street with cyclists, but do not designate a fully separate bicycle lane, appear to increase injury risks for cyclists (Wall 2016).

Access to bicycle lanes appears to increase bicycling (Pucher 2010, Parker 2011), especially when protected lanes are used and separated from traffic by a physical barrier (McNeil 2015, NITC-Monsere 2014) and when facilities are implemented as part of a comprehensive package of interventions such as a bicycle and pedestrian master plan (Pucher 2010). Experts also suggest increased access to bicycling infrastructure may help reduce unequal enforcement of penalties for bicycling infractions (e.g., riding on sidewalks). Neighborhoods without bicycling infrastructure are more likely to have lower residential stability, higher poverty rates, and greater numbers of Black and Hispanic residents (Barajas 2021).

A cost benefit analysis of the 45 miles of bicycle lanes New York City installed in 2015 found it was cost effective based on the increased likelihood of people cycling, improved air quality from the reduced traffic congestion, lower health care costs from lower injury rates and increased active living and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved (Gu 2017). A Netherlands-based cost benefit analysis suggests that investments in improved bicycle infrastructure yield positive net benefits in the long-term (Fishman 2015). Costs for infrastructure improvements vary significantly by locale and type of improvement, for example, in one study, bike lanes cost an average of $133,170 and signed bicycle routes cost an average of $25,070 per mile (UNC-Bushell 2013). Some studies suggest that bicycle facilities may increase sales at local businesses (NITC-Monsere 2014).

It is unclear what impact access to bicycle paths, lanes, and tracks have on disparities in access to active living opportunities. Research suggests that bicycle lane investments are typically made in areas of greater sociodemographic advantage (Braun 2021). Available evidence indicates there are likely multi-faceted, non-infrastructure barriers to bicycling for people of color and those with low incomes, such as lack of confidence in cycling skills, fears regarding physical safety and crime, or concerns about inequitable law enforcement tactics (Braun 2021, Barajas 2021).

People of color experience a disproportionate share of cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. and are more likely to encounter inequitable effects of policing during traffic enforcement efforts meant to increase safety (Barajas 2021, Braun 2021). People of color, those with low incomes, and those without health insurance are more likely to suffer pedestrian injuries and fatalities because they are all more likely to live in communities that are the least safe for walking (Dodds 2017). More traffic citations are issued in neighborhoods with lower residential stability, higher poverty rates, and greater numbers of Black and Hispanic residents. For example, in recent years, 86% of tickets for bicycling on sidewalks in New York City were issued to Black and Hispanic cyclists (Barajas 2021).

A Chicago-based study found that bicycle infrastructure on high traffic streets was associated with fewer cycling tickets issued, but bicycle infrastructure was less likely to be in place in neighborhoods of color. Additionally, tickets were disproportionately issued in areas without bicycle infrastructure, and to people of color, most frequently for illegal cycling on sidewalks; the study findings highlight the lack of bicycle infrastructure in neighborhoods of color and demonstrate uneven targeted policing tactics (Barajas 2021). Bicycle lanes are associated with bicycle commuting, which may be higher in neighborhoods with residents that are more likely to be white or have higher income levels (Braun 2021). While residents in neighborhoods of color, or with lower incomes, may cycle even in the absence of supportive cycle infrastructure, experts suggest the multi-faceted, non-infrastructure barriers to cycling likely have a greater impact (Braun 2021).

Experts suggest that if bicycle infrastructure is implemented alone, it may increase disparities (Braun 2021). However, if infrastructure additions are part of broader interventions that address the non-infrastructure barriers for cyclists of color, then implementation may be seen as a tool for racial justice and can reduce the potential for negative interactions with law enforcement (Barajas 2021, Braun 2021). Experts also recommend embedding equity in bicycle and pedestrian master plans by acknowledging equity as a value of the plan, stating planned actions to increase equity, and establishing how planners will be accountable to the commitment (Berg 2020). To reduce disparities in access to safe, active transit opportunities and improve equity, communities with lower incomes need to receive more financial and infrastructural investments than communities with high incomes (Ganzar 2022).

Automobile-centric design motivated many zoning patterns and urban movements in the U.S., creating community inequalities through reduced access to transportation option and increased residential segregation, which further entrenched health disparities (McAndrews 2022). Communities of color and with low incomes experience discrimination along with socioeconomic and physical barriers that restrict their access to safe, convenient, and affordable options for active transport (Berg 2020). This includes lack of access to secure bike parking, disproportionate traffic safety risks, and fears of crime or racial profiling (Barajas 2021). People with low incomes have also been displaced from urban centers by gentrification, moving to suburbs where there is more affordable housing but longer commute times, yet another barrier to active transit (Urban-Stacy 2020). New York City’s "broken windows" policing strategy in the 1990s employed racial profiling and aggressive response to minor infractions, including pedestrian and bicycle violations; the policy was found to reduce quality of life, restrict mobility, and erode public trust for people of color (Barajas 2021, Kamalu 2018).

Over the last decade, cities have increasingly invested in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to support active living and harness the potential benefits for the environment, the economy, and public health. However, the built environment in under-resourced communities remains a significant contributor to health inequities for people of color with low incomes (Prochnow 2022, McAndrews 2022, Brookings-Semmelroth 2020). Communities with low incomes and communities of color still have fewer places to engage in outdoor activities, have less access to cooling shade, and experience more extreme heat and poorer air quality (KFF-Ndugga 2022, CAP-Rowland-Shea 2020, TPL-Chapman 2021).

• How does your organization engage neighborhood residents, especially residents of color and those with low incomes, in the planning and development of bicycle infrastructure? Do those leading initiatives come from the local community and represent its needs?
• Which city planning groups or community organizations are involved in identifying neighborhoods that would benefit from bicycle infrastructure? How are funds raised and allocated for planning initiatives in your community?
• Whom can you partner with to develop and support bicycle and pedestrian master plans with a multi-faceted approach to increase safe, active living across your community?
• What other strategies could be implemented alongside bicycle infrastructure to increase its ability to make equitable change? What is the local policing approach to bike and pedestrian infractions?

Bicycle paths and lanes are becoming more common around the U.S., with an increase in paved, off-road trails from 5,904 miles to 39,329 miles between 1991 to 2021. The length of protected bicycle lanes went from 34 miles in 2006 to 425 miles in 2018 (NatGeo-Straus 2021). Cities like Austin, Texas, New Orleans, Louisiana, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Memphis, Tennessee are investing in more protected bicycle lanes; cities like Atlanta, Georgia, Kansas City, Missouri, and Nashville, Tennessee are similarly increasing investments in on-road bicycle lanes (Urban-Fiol 2022). About half of all respondents to a nationwide 2012 survey had bicycle paths within a quarter mile of their homes and about 40% had bicycle lanes (NHTSA-Schroeder 2013).

Many organizations are working to increase bike paths and lanes, including the League of American Bicyclists, the People for Bikes Green Lane Project and the Alliance for Biking & Walking (LAB-BFA, PeopleForBikes-GLP, ABW). For example, the League of American Bicyclists runs the Bicycle Friendly America (BFA) program that provides assistance, tools, and recognition for states, communities, universities, and businesses to support increasing bicycling opportunities locally (LAB-BFA). Additionally, People for Bikes has helped make the case for how bicycle infrastructure positively impacts the local economy and supports equitable transportation in cities (PeopleForBikes-Economic Benefits). Federal funding levels for bicycling and walking infrastructure was capped at $850 million/year in 2015 with the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (LAB-Federal Funding). Federal agencies, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offer several planning resources to transportation officials in installing bicycle paths and lanes (CDC-PA Transportation). There are several federal grant programs available to help with funding for projects to expand and improve bicycle infrastructure, which now include selection criteria requiring applicants to address how proposed projects will advance equity (Urban-Fu 2022).

In Houston, Texas, a place governance organization connected two disinvested neighborhoods to green space and amenities by developing and implementing a bicycle path network that enables circulation of pedestrians and cyclists across the city center from the eastern and western edges of the city (Brookings-Farber 2023). In Hidalgo County, Texas, public health officials supported the establishment of community coalitions to drive the expansion of the local bicycle infrastructure and physical activity opportunities, resulting in the addition of 5 miles of bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and free water refill stations, among other bicycle amenities (CDC-Castillo 2019).

CDC-PA Transportation - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). What’s your role? Transportation.

ChangeLab-Zimmerman 2013 - Zimmerman S, Kramer K. Getting the wheels rolling: A guide to using policy to create bicycle friendly communities. Oakland: ChangeLab Solutions; 2013.

LAB-Bike laws - The League of American Bicyclists (LAB): Bike laws and model legislation.

PBIC-Design resource - Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC). Design Resource Index.

PFP-Trail action guide - Partnership for Prevention (PFP). Places for physical activity: Facilitating development of a community trail and promoting its use to increase physical activity among youth and adults - An action guide. Washington, D.C.: Partnership for Prevention (PFP); 2008.

RTT-Toolbox - Rails to Trails Conservancy (RTT). Trail-building toolbox.

RWJF-Action strategies - Leadership for Healthy Communities. Action strategies toolkit: A guide for local and state leaders working to create healthy communities and prevent childhood obesity. Princeton: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF); 2009.

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

ABW - Alliance for Biking & Walking (ABW). Protected bike lanes mean business.

Barajas 2021* - Barajas JM. Biking where Black: Connecting transportation planning and infrastructure to disproportionate policing. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2021;99:103027.

Berg 2020* - Berg A, Newmark GL. Incorporating equity into pedestrian master plans. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2020;2674(10):764-780.

Braun 2021* - Braun LM. Disparities in bicycle commuting: Could bike lane investment widen the gap? Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2021:1-16.

Brookings-Farber 2023 - Farber K. How Houston is connecting two disinvested neighborhoods to green space and amenities. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute; 2023.

Brookings-Semmelroth 2020 - Semmelroth L. How Wilmington, Del. is revitalizing vacant land to rebuild community trust. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 2020.

Buehler 2021* - Buehler R, Pucher J. The growing gap in pedestrian and cyclist fatality rates between the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, 1990–2018. Transport Reviews. 2021;41(1):48-72.

CAP-Rowland-Shea 2020 - Rowland-Shea J, Doshi S, Edberg S, Fanger R. The nature gap: Confronting racial and economic disparities in the destruction and protection of nature in America. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress (CAP); 2020.

CDC-Castillo 2019 - Castillo EC, Campos-Bowers M, Ory MG. Expanding bicycle infrastructure to promote physical activity in Hidalgo County, Texas. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2019;16:190125.

CDC-PA Transportation - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). What’s your role? Transportation.

Chen 2012a* - Chen L, Chen C, Srinivasan R, et al. Evaluating the safety effects of bicycle lanes in New York City. American Journal Public Health. 2012;102(6):1120-1127.

Cicchino 2020* - Cicchino JB, McCarthy ML, Newgard CD, et al. Not all protected bike lanes are the same: Infrastructure and risk of cyclist collisions and falls leading to emergency department visits in three U.S. cities. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2020;141:105490.

Cochrane-Mulvaney 2015 - Mulvaney CA, Watson MC, Parkin J, et al. Cycling infrastructure for reducing cycling injuries in cyclists. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;(12):CD010415.

Daniels 2009* - Daniels S, Brijs T, Nuyts E, Wets G. Injury crashes with bicyclists at roundabouts: Influence of some location characteristics and the design of cycle facilities. Journal of Safety Research. 2009;40(2):141-148.

Dodds 2017 - Dodds A. For the greater good: A Complete Streets approach can benefit low-income communities. Roads & Bridges. 2017.

Fishman 2015* - Fishman E, Schepers P, Kamhuis CBM. Dutch cycling: Quantifying the health and related economic benefits. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(8):e13-e15.

Ganzar 2022* - Ganzar LA, Bentley SS, Salvo D, et al. Incorporating equity into active commuting to school infrastructure projects: A case study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2022;112:103493.

Gu 2017* - Gu J, Mohit B, Muennig PA. The cost-effectiveness of bike lanes in New York City. Injury Prevention. 2017;23(4):239-243.

Harris 2013 - Harris MA, Reynolds CC, Winters M, et al. Comparing the effects of infrastructure on bicycling injury at intersections and non-intersections using a case-crossover design. Injury Prevention. 2013;19(5):303-310.

Kamalu 2018* - Kamalu NC, Onyeozili EC. A critical analysis of the 'broken windows' policing in New York City and its impact: Implications for the criminal justice system and the African American community. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies. 2018;11(1):71-94.

KFF-Ndugga 2022 - Ndugga N, Artiga S. Climate change and health equity: Key questions and answers. KFF. May 24, 2022.

LAB-BFA - The League of American Bicyclists (LAB). Bicycle Friendly America (BFA).

LAB-Federal Funding - The League of American Bicyclists (LAB). Benchmarking data: Federal funding & planning for biking & walking.

Lusk 2011 - Lusk AC, Furth PG, Morency P, et al. Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street. Injury Prevention. 2011;17(2):131-135.

Marshall 2019* - Marshall WE, Ferenchak NN. Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users. Journal of Transport & Health Health. 2019;13:100539.

McAndrews 2022* - McAndrews C, Schneider RJ, Yang Y, et al. Toward a gender-inclusive Complete Streets movement. Journal of Planning Literature. 2022;38(1):3-18.

McNeil 2015* - McNeil N, Monsere CM, Dill J. Influence of bike lane buffer types on perceived comfort and safety of bicyclists and potential bicyclists. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2015;2520:132-142.

NatGeo-Straus 2021 - Straus I. Is the U.S. becoming more bike friendly? National Geographic. 2021.

NITC-Monsere 2014 - Monsere C, Dill J, McNeil N. Lessons from the green lanes: Evaluating protected bike lanes in the U.S. Portland: National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC); 2014.

Park 2015a* - Park J, Abdel-Aty M, Lee J, Lee C. Developing crash modification functions to assess safety effects of adding bike lanes for urban arterials with different roadway and socio-economic characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2015;74:179-191.

Parker 2011* - Parker KM, Gustat J, Rice JC. Installation of bicycle lanes and increased ridership in an urban, mixed-income setting in New Orleans, Louisiana. Journal of Physical Activity & Health. 2011;8(Suppl 1):S98-S102.

PeopleForBikes-Economic Benefits - PeopleForBikes. Protected bike lanes statistics.

PeopleForBikes-GLP - PeopleForBikes Green Lane Project (GLP). Report: Protected bikes lanes 101.

Prochnow 2022* - Prochnow T, Valdez D, Curran LS, et al. Multifaceted scoping review of Black/African American transportation and land use expert recommendations on activity-friendly routes to everyday destinations. Health Promotion Practice. 2022.

Pucher 2003 - Pucher J, Dijkstra L. Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(9):1509-1516.

Pucher 2010* - Pucher J, Dill J, Handy S. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine. 2010;50(Suppl 1):S106-25.

Pucher 2016 - Pucher J, Buehler R. Safer cycling through improved infrastructure. American Journal of Public Health. 2016;106(12):2089-2091.

Pulugurtha 2015* - Pulugurtha SS, Thakur V. Evaluating the effectiveness of on-street bicycle lane and assessing risk to bicyclists in Charlotte, North Carolina. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2015;76:34-41.

Reynolds 2009 - Reynolds CC, Harris MA, Teschke K, Cripton PA, Winters M. The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: A review of the literature. Environmental Health. 2009;8:47.

Romanow 2012 - Romanow NTR, Couperthwaite AB, McCormack GR, et al. Environmental determinants of bicycling injuries in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2012:2013(487681):1-3.

Smith 2019* - Smith A, Zucker S, Lladó-Farrulla M, et al. Bicycle lanes: Are we running in circles or cycling in the right direction? Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2019;87(1):76-81.

TPL-Chapman 2021 - Chapman R, Foderaro L, Hwang L, et al. Parks and an equitable recovery. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land (TPL); 2021.

UNC-Bushell 2013 - Bushell MA, Poole BW, Zegeer CV, Rodriguez DA. Costs for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure improvements: A resource for researchers, engineers, planners, and the general public. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Highway Safety Research Center; 2013.

Urban-Fiol 2022 - Fiol O, Freemark Y, Su Y. Why U.S. cities are investing in safer, more-connected cycling infrastructure. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 2022.

Urban-Fu 2022 - Fu S, Ramos K, Axelrod J. Advancing racial equity through federally funded public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 2022.

Urban-Stacy 2020 - Stacy C, Su Y, Noble E, et al. Access to opportunity through equitable transportation: Lessons from four metropolitan regions. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 2020.

Wall 2016 - Wall SP, Lee DC, Frangos SG, et al. The effect of sharrows, painted bicycle lanes and physically protected paths on the severity of bicycle injuries caused by motor vehicles. Safety. 2016;2(4):26.

WisDOT-Bicycles - Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Travel by bike.