DRAFT 03/31/2016

Bikeway Classification
Classification of bikeway types is an important step to help planners comprehend how parts of the bike
network function and work together. Classification can also provide an understanding of the level of
bicycle accommodation on streets in the network and give guidance about prioritization and
implementation. This paper refers to two types of bikeway classification:
Facility classification: groups bikeways by the type of facility; for example, separated bike lanes,
bike lanes, shared roadways and trails, and
Network classification: provides a framework for understanding a given bikeways function or
importance in the network, typically by designating a primary and secondary network.
The approach that Montgomery County takes to bikeway classification can play an important role in the
Countys efforts to create a world-class bicycle plan and to be an exemplar of suburban bicycling in the
U.S. Using network classification as a means of indicating critical routes will facilitate creation of a
connected low-stress network. This is not to say that every primary bikeway would be separated bike
lanes on a major street, but every primary bikeway would play a key role in providing a low-stress
connection.1 A higher network classification would indicate a routes fundamental importance to the
bike network and give County staff guidance at the time of facility design decisions.
This paper provides an overview of Montgomery Countys current classification schemes for bikeways.
This is followed by a summary of classification practices from a number of local and national cities.
Finally, recommendations are presented for how Montgomery County should move forward with
classification in its Bicycle Master Plan update. It should be noted that this paper focuses on bikeway
classification for the purposes of master-planning and implementation, not for creating bicycling maps.
Current Montgomery County Bikeway Classification
Montgomery Countys existing classification scheme was developed for the 2005 Countywide Functional
Bikeways Master Plan and includes both facility classification and network classification. Facilities are
classed by type and include:
Shared use path
Bike lane
Signed shared roadway
Dual bikeway2
Cycle tracks
1

It should be noted that network classification and the importance of a given route to the network is only one
component of a prioritization scheme. Overall prioritization of the bike network for phased implementation is not
addressed in this paper.
2
Montgomery County developed the dual bikeway facility type in the 2005 Countywide Bikeways Functional
Master Plan to recognize differing levels of ability and comfort among bicyclists and to recognize the two functions
(transportation and recreation) that a bike network serves. Dual bikeways include both an on-street bikeway and
an off-road shared use path on the same roadway.

DRAFT 03/31/2016
Facility types were not grouped by bicyclist level of comfort or degree of separation provided from
automobile traffic.
Bikeways are further classified into either countywide or local routes. Countywide routes comprise
about two-thirds of the network and were the focus of the 2005 Plan. These routes generally are located
on arterial streets and provide longer distance connections, linking major destinations throughout the
County. Local routes are those that feed into the county route system, typically from smaller
neighborhood origins and destinations. The countywide/local designation has no inherent relationship
to the prioritization or implementation of facilities.
Necessity of a New Classification Scheme
The need for a new bikeway classification system springs from the introduction of new facility types in
the Bicycle Master Plan update, as well as a need to better link policy objectives to the network
classification system.
The Bicycle Master Plan update could include as many as twelve facility classifications, thus grouping
facility types may benefit the County so as not to create a greater level of complexity than necessary.
The current network classifications of Local and Countywide route types appear to serve little or no
function and likely adds unnecessary complexity to the network definition. Furthermore, since
countywide bikeways comprise about two-thirds of all master-planned bikeways, this designation does
not indicate those bikeways that are the most important and which therefore should be prioritized in
discussions related to limited space and trade-offs between various travel modes, or designed to a
higher standard (e.g., separated bike lanes that are wider than typical conditions) in anticipation of large
bicycle volumes. Creation of a network classification system that has real policy impacts in the decisionmaking process can help move the bike plan from lines on a map to a truly useful tool.
Example Classification Schemes
This section reviews bikeway classification schemes in a number of local jurisdictions and exemplary
bicycle communities in other parts of the country. Few counties around the country create bike plans to
the level of detail and implementation-ready recommendations that Montgomery County does. For this
reason, Arlington County and Hennepin County are the only two examples of county-wide plans
included here. While the rest of the plans are from cities, they are worth reviewing as exemplar bicycling
communities, some of which have suburban-type roadways, such as Portland, Minneapolis and Seattle.
Arlington, Virginia
Arlington County uses a facility classification system and does not have a network classification for its
bikeways. Arlingtons bikeway classification was last updated in the 2008 Master Transportation Plan,3
though the County is considering updates as they move forward with a countywide LTS analysis that will

http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/02/DES-MTP-Bicycle-Element.pdf

DRAFT 03/31/2016
lead to identification of new network recommendations. Currently, there are four facility type
categories:
Off-street trails
Bike lanes
Sharrows
Bike routes
To date, the two buffered bike lane and separated bike lane facilities in Arlington have not been
differentiated from standard bike lanes and remain in the Bike lane category. The County may update
this classification as more buffered and
separated facilities are implemented. Two
facility types that Montgomery County will use
in the plan update are not included in
Arlingtons scheme: advisory bike lanes and
bike boulevards. Arlington is considering
implementation of these facility types as well
Legend from Arlington County's 2015 public bike map update
but has not yet decided how to classify them.
Additionally, bike routes are roads that have been determined to be bicycle-friendly or [emphasis
added] provide important connections to the bicycle network. These streets have not been improved
with signage or markings, and they have not necessarily been vetted for comfort and suitability of
crossings for bicyclists. Some streets may not be very bicycle-friendly, but they are included in the route
network because they provide an important or direct connection. This route network will also be
revisited as the LTS analysis is completed to better identify bicycle-friendly streets and focus on
intersection improvements.
Washington, DC
DCs bikeway classification was last updated as part of the MoveDC4 plan completed in 2014. The Plan is
not explicit in its classification of facility types as it refers to one set of facility types on maps and
another when describing the facility types available to planners. Maps include the following:
Trail
Cycle track
Bike lane, including contraflow and climbing lanes
The plan mentions the following commonly used facility types:
Shared-use paths
Cycle track
Bike lane, including climbing and contraflow lanes
Sharrows

http://www.wemovedc.org/

DRAFT 03/31/2016

Signed shared routes and Neighborhood Bikeways

Shared roadway (all other roads minus freeways)

However, the planned network does not include any

facility types other than the three included on the map.
The District has undertaken a separate wayfinding effort
to identify signed routes that consist of streets with bike
facilities and those local streets that are bicycle-friendly.
The Neighborhood Bikeway identification and signage
program is also separate from the master planning effort
and the wayfinding program.

Legend from MoveDC Bicycle Element map

DC does not have network classification for its bikeways. MoveDC does articulate modal priorities for all
DC streets, including the identification of some bicycle priority streets. However, these priorities have
not yet had any bearing on trade-offs made in the course of design for a multimodal street.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
The City of Minneapolis updated its facility classification in 2015 as part of a bike plan update5 aimed at
incorporating protected facilities into their toolbox. This update did not define a new bike network for
the city, rather focused only on short-term recommendations for the locations of new protected bike
lanes. The update includes the following facility classes:
Protected bikeways
o Off-street trail
o Pedestrian/bicycle bridge
o Sidepath
o Protected bike lane
Bike lanes
o Buffered bike lane
o Bike lane
o Contraflow bike lane
o Advisory bike lane
o Shoulder accommodation
Bike boulevards
Shared lanes
o Sharrows
o Signed bike route
o Shared bus/bike lane
These classes are generally based upon the bicyclists experience on the street and the level of
interaction he will have with automobiles. Bike boulevards are classed separately from other types of
5

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@publicworks/documents/images/wcms1p-144745.pdf

DRAFT 03/31/2016
shared lanes because of their lower volumes and speeds. Signed routes are assumed to be comfortable
enough for bicyclists without additional pavement markings.
Minneapolis 2011 bike network plan6 is modeled after roadway classification and states that the
classification purpose is to help prioritize projects and make better use of limited funds. The
classification is as follows:
Arterial Bikeway: Routes of regional significance that attract the highest number of bicyclists and
are intended to form a spider web pattern centered on downtown Minneapolis
o Principal arterials spaced at two-mile intervals designed for grade separation and faster
speed
o Minor arterials spaced at one-mile intervals
o May be situations where two arterial bikeways are located parallel to one another in
close proximity because their differing facility types serve different user groups
Collector Bikeway: Feed into arterial bikeways; spaced at half-mile intervals to capture bicyclists
from every part of the city
Neighborhood Bikeway: Feed into collector bikeways; found in every neighborhood and not
eligible for regional funding
While the intent of this scheme is to prioritize bikeways, it has not been used this way in practice.
Minneapolis maintains a robust bicycle counting program that City staff found to be a better indication
of the importance of any given bikeway project than network classification. Connections to locations
with higher existing counts or locations with high counts and deficient facilities have been prioritized.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Hennepin County completed a bike plan7 in 2015 that is separate from the Minneapolis one detailed
above. The plan classed bicycle facilities in the following groups:
Off-street
o Multi-use trail
o Cycle track
o Protected bike lane
On-street
o Cycle track
o Protected bike lane
o Buffered bike lane
o Bike lane
o Shoulder

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@publicworks/documents/webcontent/convert_275983.pdf
7
http://www.hennepin.us/~/media/hennepinus/residents/transportation/bike/bike-plan/bicycle-transportationplan.pdf

DRAFT 03/31/2016
o

Bicycle boulevard

These broad classes were chosen to avoid being overly prescriptive on facility type throughout the
county. Hennepin County recognized that it would not be the implementing agency for many of the
recommended facilities and wanted to leave flexibility for other jurisdictions. Additionally, the level of
effort needed for further facility specificity throughout the network was not possible in the scope of this
planning effort.
Network classification consists of a plan recommendation to designate an enhanced bicycle network.
This recommendation emerged from the public engagement process where it was clear that bicyclists
and potential bicyclists sought a greater amount of separation from automobile traffic. This classification
touched on both facility type and network function with the recommended characteristics:
Facility type is off-street trail, cycle track or protected bike lane
Part of Minneapolis protected bike lane network
Within a priority regional bikeway corridor as identified in Metropolitan Council Regional Bicycle
System Study
Part of a route that spans major barriers (e.g., river, railroad, highway)
Connects major activity centers
This framework has not yet been used for implementation in the county, nor has the County used these
criteria to identify its enhanced bicycle network.
Boston, Massachusetts
The Boston Bike Network Plan8, updated in 2013, identifies five classes of bikeway facilities:
Off-road path
o Shared use path
Protected Bike Lane
o Cycle track
Exclusive Lanes
Overview and characteristics of bikeway types from Hennepin County 2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan

o Buffered bike lane

o Bike lane
o Contraflow bike lane
o Climbing lane
Shared lanes
o Advisory bike lanes
o Priority shared lane

http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Boston%20Bike%20Network%20Plan%2C%20Fall%202013_FINA
L_tcm3-40525.pdf

DRAFT 03/31/2016
o

Shared lane: denoted with sharrows and signage; constrained corridors with speed limit
35 mph or less
o Bus-bike lane
Shared roads
o Shared street (flush)
o Neighborway: added traffic calming, prioritizes bicyclists and pedestrians, equivalent to
a bicycle boulevard
o Recommended local route: unimproved route that provides connectivity, generally
lower volume and/or speed than a sharrow street

These classes have enabled the City to work with a wide variety of facility types that suit the wide range
of street types but also retain a manageable vocabulary of bikeways. Facilities are classed, generally,
according to the bicyclists experience on the street. For instance, an exclusive lane is roadway space
specifically dedicated for bicyclists but not immune from periodic obstructions such as double-parked
cars. By classifying buffered bike lanes this way, perhaps the City misses expressing some of the
advantage that a wider facility provides, but it also is recognizing the reality of the daily experience.
Facility classification graphic from Boston Bike Network Plan

Bostons plan does further classify the network into primary and secondary routes with the following
definitions:

DRAFT 03/31/2016

Primary routes connect neighborhood centers, regional multi-use paths, transit hubs, major
employment centers, and institutional destinations.
o Provide long distance routes
o Carry the highest volumes
o Have as much separation from traffic as possible
o Include all major bridges
Secondary routes stretch into neighborhoods and provide access to local businesses and
neighborhood destinations.
o Connect schools, neighborhood stores, parks, transit hubs and the primary network
routes
o Have varying levels of bicyclist volumes and separation from traffic

These definitions are helpful in conceptualizing the network and prioritizing facilities at a high level, but
in practice the designations have not had a clear effect on implementation. Closing gaps in the existing
facilities along primary routes was prioritized, but the five-year action plan consists of streets and trails
that are both primary and secondary routes. Implementation has been based more on opportunities and
in response to problems rather than guided by a goal of improving the primary routes first.
Seattle, Washington
The 2014 Seattle Bike Plan9 identified five facility types for its network, which only group bike lane types
together:

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaster.htm

DRAFT 03/31/2016

Off-street
Cycle track
Neighborhood greenway
In street, minor separation (buffered bike lane,
bike lane, climbing lane)
Shared street (sharrow)

Each facility type is designated for use on streets with

certain speed, traffic and functional classification criteria.
Though not every recommendation conforms to these
usage standards, they provided a framework for network
development that leads to a system with greater
separation between bicyclists and automobiles on higherspeed, higher-volume streets.
Seattles network classification is the only one examined
for this study that links network classification to available
facility types by calling for exclusively low-stress facilities
to be used in the Citywide network so that Citywide routes
are accessible to all ages and abilities. In practice, this
means that some facility types, such as bike lanes, that
may result in a low-stress riding environment on lowvolume, low-speed roads are not included in the Citywide
network. The classifications are defined as below:

Legend from network map in Seattle Bike Plan

Citywide Network:
o Provide short distance connections to neighborhood destinations, as well as
connections to destination clusters across neighborhoods and throughout the city
o Allow people of all ages and abilities to access all major destinations on this network
o Composed of cycle tracks, neighborhood greenways and off-street multi-use trails

Local Connectors:
o Provide access to and parallel the Citywide Network and serve destinations
o Lower level of separation with bike lanes, buffered bike lanes and shared roadways also
in facility toolkit
o May provide a more direct route, but may include facility types and streets that are not
appropriate for all ages and abilities

The Citywide and Local classifications have little bearing on facility implementation other than to
prescribe a set of facility options. While the plan identifies high-demand segments of the Citywide

DRAFT 03/31/2016
Network as a near-term priority, further project prioritization does not rely on a bikeways classification
as Citywide or Local.
Portland, Oregon
Portlands 2010 bicycle plan10 classes facility types by level of separation. These classes are:
Trails
Separated in-road bikeway
o Cycle track
o Buffered bike lane
o Bike lane
Shared roadway bikeway
o Bicycle boulevard
o Advisory bike lane
o Enhanced shared roadway
The enhanced shared roadway facility type is used in locations where bicyclists are not given priority,
but signage and markings are used to increase driver awareness and traffic calming or signalization may
ease bicyclist travel. These facilities may be later upgraded as money and willingness to adjust the
allocation of roadway space to various modes allow.

Legend from Recommended Bikeway Network map in Portland Bicycle Plan

Portland includes a robust, policy-level classification of bikeways by functional class. These classes
include:
Major City Bikeway
City Bikeway
Local Service Bikeway

10

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597

DRAFT 03/31/2016
This policy-level classification exists for other modes in the city, so adoption of this system for the
bicycle mode is recognized as bringing consistency and parity to the modes. Functionally, Major City
Bikeways are the most important routes in the citythose that carry the highest volume of bicyclists,
connect to major commercial areas or bridges, a long corridor that serves many neighborhoods, or serve
to collect traffic from other routes that feed into them. City Bikeways provide direct and convenient
access but are do not fit the characteristics of a Major City Bikeway. All modes in the city have a local
service class that simply includes all other unidentified streets.
The Major City Bikeway designation allows City staff to advocate strongly for the highest order bike
facility on those streets. Where trade-offs are needed to accommodate space for these facilities,
planners in the bicycle program are in a better position to press their case. The policy that defines each
of these types specifically states that travel lanes and/or on-street parking may be removed to
accommodate bicycle facility space on streets under both bikeway classes. The designation as a Major
City Bikeway does not dictate the facility type recommended for that route; any facility type may be in
place on that bikeway as long as it provides an appropriate level of accommodation suited to the street
characteristics.
Summary
Municipalities vary in their facility classification schemes. Grouping of facility types was most often
based on the level of separation a facility provides the bicyclist from automobile traffic. Bostons
grouping is slightly more granular in that it differentiates shared roadway conditions between those
with higher and lower automobile volumes, and Minneapolis does this to some extent, too, by
separating bicycle boulevards from other shared roadway facility types.
While approximately half of the examined jurisdictions further differentiate their networks by functional
class in some manner, only Seattle and Portlands network classification schemes have direct
implementation impacts by prescribing facility types and a level of importance in trade-off discussions,
respectively. In other cities, a projects network classification may be one factor in the project
prioritization process, but network classification does not imply priority in terms of implementation
timeline.

DRAFT 03/31/2016
Recommendations for Montgomery County
Given the above review of recent bicycle planning efforts and understanding of the Montgomery County
context, the following recommendations are made for bikeway classification. These recommendations
will help the County achieve its ultimate goal of implementing an extensive, low-stress network. The
most important characteristics of this network will be its connectivity and density.
Network Classification
The County should refine its County/Local network classification framework in favor of a policy-level
network classification in the style of Portland, OR. An adopted system of Major County Bikeways (MCB)
and County Bikeways (CB) would provide a framework for discussions about bikeway design in areas of
constrained rights-of-way. All other roadways where bicycle travel is permitted could be designated as
Local Serving Bikeways (LSB) if full coverage of county roadways is desired. Similar to Portland, a MCB
would be a bikeway of the highest importance in the county, meaning that the bicycle
accommodation should be prioritized in discussions related to limited space and trade-offs between
various travel modes. Similarly, MCBs should be designed to a higher standard (e.g., separated bike
lanes that are wider than typical conditions) in anticipation of large bicycle volumes.
Unlike Seattles network classification, it is not recommended that the County use the MCB/CB structure
to require a specific facility type for these bikeways. Not all MCBs would be high-investment facilities
such as separated bike lanes on large arterial streets. Some MCBs will be important connections that can
be made via low-volume, low-speed streets with facilities such as advisory bike lanes.
The definition of criteria for MCBs should occur during the network-development process. It is
impossible to know before the entire network is developed what criteria will best capture those streets
that serve a critical network function. A preliminary list is given below, but this list should be viewed as
draft and subject to change during the plan development process. One or more of the following could be
required for MCB designation:
Access to major destinations: employment centers, key commercial zones/corridors, transit
facilities
Access to multiple neighborhoods
Connections to major trails
Network classification should not be viewed as a prioritization scheme, however. The class of a bikeway
project will need to be combined with a number of other factors determined by the County in order to
create a prioritized project list for the bike plan.
Facility Classification
The County should adopt a grouped classification of facility types in order to make the network easier to
comprehend and to better reflect the Countys interest in Level of Traffic Stress. Some of the 12 facility
types noted below share functional characteristics, and it is unnecessary to differentiate them on a plan
map. The simpler map will provide an adequate level of understanding while not being overly detailed.

DRAFT 03/31/2016
By defining facility groups based on level of separation from traffic provided, planners with knowledge
of the street network will be able to understand how comfortable a given facility type recommendation
will be on that street.11
It should be noted, however, that the same facility type has different stress levels in different
applications. For instance, a buffered bike lane can be a low-stress facility where speed limit and
number of lanes are low, but the extra width between the rider and automobiles cannot overcome the
stress of higher speed traffic or a wide roadway.
The County should classify bikeway facilities as outlined below: [Note that signed shared roadways and
dual bikeways are not included in this scheme as their continued use by the County in network planning
will be addressed in the Facility Types paper at a later date. This section will be updated as needed, or
not, with those facility types.]
Shared use paths
o Trail
o Sidepath
Separated bike lanes
Bike lanes
o Buffered bike lanes
o Bike lanes
o Climbing lanes
o Contraflow lanes
o Advisory bike lanes
o Shoulder accommodation [Discussion of whether this should be a facility type will
come up in the signed shared roadways paper, but it is left in for now.]
Bicycle boulevards12,13
Shared roadways
o Priority shared lane markings
o Shared lane markings

11

The full level of facility specificity should be maintained in the project/bikeway table portion of the plan so this
information is available to readers.
12
Bicycle boulevards are separated from other shared roadway facilities because they provide a different level of
comfort for bicyclists. A bicycle boulevard design will include traffic calming, intersection improvements to ease
crossing major streets, and may include some traffic diversion to lower volumes. These elements are not included
in the other shared roadway facilities.
13
Montgomery County may wish to begin discussions regarding the nomenclature used for these facilities. While
bicycle boulevard is used by some communities, with Berkeley, CA being a notable pioneering user, many
jurisdictions are beginning to use terms that reference the benefit of these streets to a broader audience.
Neighborway, Neighborhood Greenway, Neighborhood Bikeway and Neighborhood Slow Street have all
been used for this facility type and imply a benefit to pedestrians and residents as well as bicyclists.