Skip to content
Version 1.3
Workspace > PD-11 Bicycle Facilities

Criterion Details

PD-11 Bicycle Facilities

PDF IconDownload as pdf

Project Development Scorecard

  • Urban Basic
  • Urban Extended


Provide safe, comfortable, convenient, and connected bicycling facilities within the project footprint.

Sustainability Linkage

Triple Bottom Line

Planning and designing for increased bicycling supports all of the triple bottom line sustainability principles by improving the safety for all users, enhancing livability and quality of life in communities, improving access to economic and educational opportunities and essential services, supporting local businesses and economic development, promoting physical activity and public health, and reducing vehicle emissions.

Background & Scoring Requirements


To receive credit for this criterion, the project must enhance existing bicycle facilities or provide new high quality bicycle facilities that meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities, and are context-sensitive and appropriate (not just adding facilities where they are not warranted). Reconstruction of bicycle facilities in kind when widening roadways and/or bridges does not meet the requirements of this criterion, although this is still encouraged.

Applicable Bicycle Guidelines

Per the FHWA Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility1 and the Questions & Answers about Design Flexibility for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities2, FHWA recommends a flexible approach to bicycle facility design. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities3 is the primary national resources for planning, designing, and operating bicycle facilities. The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide4, NACTO Urban Street Design Guide5, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach6 guide builds upon the flexibilities provided in the AASHTO guide and can be used when designing safe and convenient bicycle facilities. The NACTO guides do not supersede compliance with 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design7, the Public Rights‐Of‐Way Accessibility Guidelines8 (PROWAG), and The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways9 (MUTCD). Additional FHWA resources include FHWA’s Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks10, Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts11, and the Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide12.

Qualifying Features

For bicycle facilities to meet scoring requirements, improvements must be context sensitive and appropriate, go beyond minimum requirements, meet the needs of users of all ages and abilities, and include features that are safe, comfortable, convenient, and connected, such as those listed below.

  • Examples of Safe and Comfortable  features include:
    • Bicycle-friendly stormwater drains (grates)
    • Resurfaced bike lanes
    • Traffic calming features
    • Buffered bike lanes/ contra-flow bike lanes/ left-side bike lanes
    • Separated bike lanes (also known as cycle tracks and protected bike lanes)
    • Intersection treatments such as bike boxes, median refuge islands, and through bike lanes
    • Separation between high-speed/high-volume traffic and bicyclists, such as
      • Buffered and/or separated bike lanes
      • Parallel bike routes (bike boulevards or bikeways)
      • Shared-use paths
      • Dedicated bicycle bridges and tunnels
    • Bicycle signals, signing, and pavement marking, such as
      • Flashing beacons
      • Signal detection and actuation
      • Colored pavement
      • Bike route wayfinding
    • Landscaping specifically intended to enhance bicycle facilities
    • Lighting
  • Examples of Convenient and Connected features include:
    • Parking and bikeshare docks (except bicycle amenities at park-and-ride lots, bicycle parking is included in PD-12: Transit and HOV Facilities)
    • End-of-trip facilities as appropriate to promote the use of the bicycle facilities
    • Facilities that connect homes to places of employment, schools, shopping, and essential services such as health care, transit, and recreation areas.
    • New facilities that connect to existing bike facilities as part of the project (for example by linking to a regional trail system).

Scoring Requirements

Requirement PD-11.1

1 point. Fill Gaps in Bicycle Network

Review bicycle master plans and other relevant local, regional, and state documents to determine if the project presents an opportunity to incorporate missing bicycle connections AND fill gaps in the bicycle network as part of the project. . High traffic volumes and speeds should not be used as justification for not accommodating bicyclists because destinations may be located along these routes and many of these roadways are the only linkages that connect different parts of communities.

Requirement PD-11.2

1-2 points. Install Safe, Comfortable, Convenient, and Connected Bicycle Features

One of the following requirements may apply:

  • Requirement 11.2a

1 point. Enhance Existing Bicycle Facilities

Implement new features or enhance existing bicycle facilities to include both safe and comfortable features and convenient and connected features. Current facilities do not qualify for this criterion without additional upgrades, improvements, or construction of new bicycle-focused features. The attempt to enhance bicycle transportation should be deliberate and a direct result of the project. One way that an existing bicycle facility can be enhanced is to design and implement improvements at intersections, driveways, and other potential conflict points. Providing greater separation between bicyclists and high speed traffic also enhances an existing facility.


  • Requirement PD-11.2b

2 points. Develop New Bicycle Facilities.

Design and construct new bicycle facilities that include both safe and comfortable features and convenient and connected features. New facilities include physical or constructed changes to the roadway structure, dimensions, or form that provide bicycle access within the right-of-way (ROW) or roadway corridor. To earn points, the bicycle facilities must be Class I (separated) or Class II (bike lanes). Lanes shared with motorized vehicles and shoulders do not meet this requirement. Reconstruction of facilities with the same features does not meet this requirement (e.g. widening road and replacing bike lane, or constructing a new bridge with the same bicycle facilities as a prior bridge, etc.). Transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient bicycling facilities.


Above-Referenced Resources

The following resources are referenced in this criterion and consolidated here:

  1. FHWA, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility (2013),   
  2. FHWA, Questions & Answers about Design Flexibility for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities (2014),
  3. AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition (2012),
  4. NACTO, Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition (2014),
  5. NACTO, Urban Street Design Guide (2013),
  6. ITE, Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach (2010),
  7. United States Department of Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design,
  8. United States Access Board, Public Rights‐of‐Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) (2011),
  9. FHWA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (2009 with Revisions 1 and 2, May 2012),
  10. FHWA, Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (2016),
  11. FHWA, Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts (2016),
  12. FHWA, Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015),

Additional Resources

The following resources provide information on this criterion topic in addition to the sources directly referenced:

  1. FHWA, Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015),
  2. FHWA, Bicycle & Pedestrian Design Guidance website (2015),
  3. United States Access Board, Shared Use Paths Guidelines and Standards (2011),
  4. FHWA, BIKESAFE Bicycle Safety and Countermeasure Selection System,

Case Studies & Criterion Examples

NOACA - Evaluation of Regional Safety Program Using INVEST: The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordination Agency (NOACA) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Greater Cleveland area. NOACA used the INVEST self-assessment tool to evaluate its current Regional Safety Program (RSP), to identify improvements, and to identify where sustainability principles can be better incorporated. The ultimate goal was to improve the region’s sustainability by reducing fatal and serious injuries that negatively impact the social and economic principles through loss of life, injury and damages to personal and public property. Since 2008, NOACA has been actively analyzing crashes in the region and conducting road safety audits at various intersections. The Cleveland metropolitan region does not currently have an adopted goal or performance target related to transportation safety. To better focus efforts on reducing fatal and severe injury crashes in the Cleveland metro region, NOACA began revamping its Regional Safety Program (RSP) in the fall of 2013. To assist with the changes to the RSP, NOACA applied for an INVEST grant.

TxDOT - Embedding INVEST in Contracting for the Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge: The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) used INVEST during the procurement process for the Harbor Bridge Project in Corpus Christi. TxDOT’s request for proposals (RFP) required that bidders describe how their proposal would meet a “Platinum” rating on the INVEST PD module and a “Silver” rating on the INVEST OM module. The sustainability score, along with price and other factors, was part of the total score for selecting among the four bidders. This provided a strong incentive for bidders to achieve high sustainability at low cost. The winning bidder committed to a range of sustainability practices that will bring tangible benefits to the community.

Arizona DOT - Using INVEST to Integrate Sustainability: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) decided to use all three modules of INVEST – System Planning, Project Development, and Operations and Maintenance – to help the agency meet its sustainability goals across the transportation life cycle.  ADOT used INVEST to integrate and advance existing sustainability efforts and to push forward new efforts.  INVEST’s comprehensive sustainability framework and criteria helped ADOT institutionalize sustainability across the agency and with local partners through inclusion in manuals, trainings, and awards.  This case study focuses on ADOT’s use of the Project Development module.

RIDOT - Optimizing Economic, Social, and Environmental Sustainability in Project Planning: RIDOT used the INVEST, Version 1.2 Project Development (PD) module to evaluate the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of its Dexter Street rehabilitation project. After the Dexter Street roadway project was completed in July 2016, RIDOT determined that assessing the sustainability of its project development and construction process would provide substantial value to the project team and the agency by helping to guide future projects in a more sustainable direction. Specifically, RIDOT used INVEST to identify areas of strength in its current project planning and construction process, as well as areas in need of improvement. By highlighting and noting the criteria that did not achieve full scores for the Dexter Street project, RIDOT is now in a better position to improve on these areas for future projects.

Scoring Sources

The project is considered to have met this criterion if the requirements above can be reasonably substantiated through the existence of one or more of the following documentation sources (or equal where not available):

  1. Purpose and Need addressing bicycle access within the roadway project, including how it fits with existing land uses and/or existing General and Transportation Plans, project analysis, or a Bicycle Master planning process.
  2. Results of public input on proposed bicycle facilities, if any.
  3. Copy of the contract specification and plans for proposed bicycle facilities.
  4. Total cost associated with new or improved bicycle facilities.