In this Section
The completely revised and updated third edition of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, published in 2025, sets a new standard for street design in North America. Developed for cities, by cities, the third edition is more than a permission slip for better street design—it’s a prescription for safe, connected, equitable bike networks. It captures lessons learned and emerging practices to set a new bar for the design of city streets.
Using this Guide
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides design guidance for the development of bike facilities on city streets based on other design guidance, city case studies, best practices in urban environments, research and evaluation of existing designs, and professional consensus. These sources, as well as the specific designs and elements included in the guide, are based on North American street design practice.
Structure
The contents of the Urban Bikeway Design Guide are presented in the order that matches the timeline for development of a city bike infrastructure program.
- Broad policy and casemaking topics are covered in Envisioning a Bikeable Future.
- Network planning and development is discussed extensively in Planning and Developing a Bikeable City.
- Design guidance for the midblock portion of bikeways is provided in Designing Bikeways for All Ages and Abilities.
- Intersections are covered in depth in Designing Safe Intersections.
- Topics pertaining to operations make up Maintenance and Operations.
- Internal cross-references, footnotes throughout, and a list of further resources by topic assist the reader in developing a deep understanding of the subject are provided at the end of the guide.
Dimensions & Levels of Guidance
The extent and quality of bicycle infrastructure varies so widely among North American streets that in most cases, no sole dimensional standard can be applied without either unduly restricting the construction of future bikeways or compromising the best-practice guidance.
Dimensional guidance is often presented in multiple levels within this guide, to be applied based on the specific needs and constraints of real streets.
Minimum dimensions are presented for use in geometrically constrained conditions. Bikeways or adjacent elements built to minimum dimensions will typically not support comfortable use over long distances, but can help achieve a continuous bicycling facility. Where minimum dimensions for a particular facility type are not achievable, other facility types should be used.
Preferred minimum dimensions offer a minimum acceptable operating space in normal conditions. Larger dimensions are generally encouraged and have comfort and operational benefits for people biking and walking or otherwise using the roadway. Where dimensions below the preferred minimum are necessary, consider that other facility types may operate better.
Recommended dimensions offer a comfortable operating space in many common conditions. Where a range of dimensions is provided, choose a dimension based on location, context, and local experience. In the presence of factors not considered in the guidance, such as underground infrastructure or local maintenance agreements, smaller or larger values may operate better than the recommended dimensions.
Maximum dimensions and preferred maximum dimensions are listed for conditions where using a larger dimension may result in undesirable uses, such as motor vehicle incursions into a bikeway or high-speed turns. In most cases, these dimensions are the largest suitable for a particular facility type, and other bikeway types should be considered.
In dimensional guidance, the words “must,” “should,” and “may” have specific meanings.
Must” directives refer to required practices and features. These are typically used where regulatory standards are applicable or where existing practices are in need of correction. These directives are relatively rare.
Should” directives refer to recommended and preferred practices and features or elements for which there is a strong consensus of added value. Most dimensions and other parameters, as well as the vast majority of elements in the guide that are nearly always desirable but not universally feasible, are discussed as “should” directives to provide a degree of flexibility in design.
May” directives refer to optional features and elements that vary across cities and may add value, depending on local conditions.
Engineering Judgment & Documentation
City streets are complex. The treatments and topics discussed in this guide must be tailored to individual situations and contexts. NACTO encourages good engineering judgment based on a deep knowledge of safe street design and bike transportation. Decisions should be thoroughly documented. To assist with this, the Urban Bikeway Design Guide links to companion reference material and studies.
Guide Adoption & U.S. Federal Recognition
It is recommended that municipalities and states adopt this guide as a standard. NACTO guides have been adopted through several methods including:
City ordinance
Inclusion in an adopted plan or larger guide, such as a municipality’s transportation plan
Technical memorandum, typically by the jurisdiction’s chief engineer or a similar official
Citation as the standard of reference for a specific project or component of a project
For more information on adoption, read our blog post or contact us directly.
NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide, along with NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide and Transit Street Design Guide has been recognized by FHWA and can be used as the standard of reference for federally-funded projects. U.S. cities are permitted under federal law to adopt this guide as the standard for any city street that is not part of the National Highway System, even if state design standards contradict this guide. A list of recognized guidance has been published by FHWA and is available at fhwa.dot.gov/design/altstandards/index.cfm.
Relation to Other Guidance
Accessibility and the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
All street designs in the United States must be accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This guide refers to the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) adopted by the U.S. Access Board in 2023. The PROWAG serves as the de facto national accessibility standard for streets as of its publication and is cited where applicable. On topics for which the PROWAG does not provide guidance, best practices from cities are cited to provide practitioners with guidance for accessible streets.
In Canada, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and similar provincial and municipal laws and standards should be used. In Mexico, the General Law for the Inclusion of People with Disabilities and the National Law of Mobility and Road Safety provide legal protections, with standards provided at the state level. As in the U.S., existing national standards generally do not cover all accessibility topics, and this guide is a necessary addition.
Traffic Control Standards and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) guides the use of signs, signals, and markings in the U.S. The vast majority of traffic control devices included in this guide are fully consistent with the standards outlined in the 11th edition of the MUTCD.
The 11th edition of the MUTCD added several important traffic control devices that were first promoted in the second edition of the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, such as the use of green-colored pavement, bike boxes, two-stage turn queue boxes, and some uses of bike signals.
In instances where a particular traffic sign, signal, or marking is a standard feature in the MUTCD, this guide highlights its specific reference therein. This guide does not refer to state-level MUTCD provisions or the MUTCD for Canada published by the Transportation Association of Canada.
Where this guide describes solutions not covered by the MUTCD or affected by a restrictive ‘shall’ or ‘shall not’ clause therein, the experimental status of the solution is noted. NACTO encourages the use of the FHWA’s experimentation process for new or innovative traffic control devices as an important method of expanding the options available to designers and engineers.
Where official experimentation is not available for locally-funded projects–a common issue due to project timelines–the Urban Bikeway Design Guide should still be used. Engineering judgment is permitted by the MUTCD in cases where a sign, signal, or marking is needed that the MUTCD does not cover.
Custom text signs and pavement markings are allowed under the MUTCD. The MUTCD also provides flexibility in making minor modifications to approved signs, symbols, and markings based on engineering judgment, as long as symbols and colors are not changed. Modified signs and markings appear in this guide with their sign number (e.g. “MUTCD R10-15 (modified)” for the Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrian and Bike sign).
By law, the MUTCD does not regulate or guide the geometric design of streets, such as the vertical and horizontal elements of the street. Per Section 1A.05 of the MUTCD: “The MUTCD is not a roadway design manual, and engineers seeking guidance on design should refer to appropriate roadway design guides recognized by the Federal Highway Administration as needed for the design application.” FHWA has stated clearly that separated bike lanes are a geometric design feature, not a traffic control device. Geometric design concepts and criteria, such as lane widths, corner radii, or design vehicles, and broader concepts, such as design year and mobility performance indicators, are also not regulated by the MUTCD.