Skip to main content
Mobility and Transport


A cycle track is part of the road network used exclusively by people who cycle, which has physical separation from motorised traffic.

Considerations for applicability

Cyclist icon

Level of cycling

The expected level of cycling influences suitability and design of cycle track. Whilst cycle tracks are likely to be beneficial for all levels of cycling in cities, (provision of dedicated space for cycling), they are likely to be most suited to climber and champion cities.

Topography cityscape icon

Urban layout/topography

Steep gradients can negatively impact the comfort and attractiveness of a cycle track. Cycle track routes should avoid steep gradients, although the directness of a route should also be considered.

People icon


Cycle tracks may be able to support the mobility of seasonal peaks in tourists by offering routes to and around tourist sites. Students often live within cycling distance of their education facility and so cycle tracks may also encourage the use of bikes and improve safety for students who cycle. This is also the case for the provision of cycle tracks connecting various population groups to a range of popular destinations.

Euro coin icon

Finance resources

Cycle tracks can be costly as they require the physical adaption of an existing road or pavement, which may include installing bollards or creating grade differences. Consider the indirect costs of supporting measures such as signage and enforcement. Particular attention should be given to intersection approaches of cycle tracks.

Clock icon representing time

Time & human resources

Cycle tracks can take time and significant human resources to construct and maintain. Time and human resources may be required immediately following their implementation to ensure cars do not enter the cycle track.

Measure impact highlight

Warning sign - safety

Road safety

Cycle tracks provide a physically separated space in which people who cycle can travel without mixing with motor vehicles. Along straight sections of the carriageway, cycle tracks provide greater protection for people who cycle compared with cycle lanes. However, at intersections design must ensure that the visibility of people cycling to motorists is maximised.

Note: An overview of the direct and indirect impacts resulting from correctly implemented cycling measures is available in{Challenges that cities face and how cycling can address them as Link}.

In-depth measure analysis, case studies and further guidance

[collapsed title=Detailed description of the measure]

Key features

Also known as bicycle paths or hybrid bike lanes, cycle tracks are characterised by physical separation, which is achieved by partitioning objects or by raising the level of the track above the carriageway. They can only be used by people using bicycles and motor vehicles are not permitted to drive or park on them. The tracks usually run alongside the roadway but can also deviate from the road network - these are known as solitary cycle tracks [1].

Cycle tracks are most suitable on roads where the traffic speed is high (>60 km/h) or the vehicle or cycle volume is large.

Function and objectives

Due to the physical separation of people cycling on cycle tracks from road traffic, they provide people who cycle with actual and perceived safety benefits. Having a dedicated cycling space that provides efficient connections within an urban area will also increase the appeal and accessibility of cycling.

The Old Shoreham Road cycle track in Brighton provides a route for young people to travel to school on foot or by bike, while also contributing to reducing road congestion during peak times.

The main aim of cycle tracks in Berlin is to increase traffic safety by improving the visibility and protection of people who cycle in road space.

The original objective of Seville’s cycling network was to foster cycling as a sustainable alternative to car transport in an area without any cycling tradition.

Range of alternatives

Traffic calming ({Traffic Restrictions and Charges as Link}) measures can be used as an alternative to cycle tracks by creating conditions that are suitable for traffic mixing.{Cycle Streets as Link} can be implemented on major routes through residential areas.{Cycle Lanes as Link} can be used when space or budget is not available for a cycle track. Furthermore, at adequate traffic volumes and speeds, cycle lanes can be more suitable.

If the volume of people cycling is low, or there is not enough room to have a dedicated cycle lane, a suggestion lane can be used instead. These draw attention to people who cycle but are not exclusively reserved for cyclists. They are not recommended on roads with high heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) use and speeds >50 km/h (SUTP factsheet H-02). Similar to a suggestion lane, bus lanes can be adapted to include people who cycle. The bus lane should be wide enough to allow safe overtaking or narrow enough to prevent overtaking (SUTP – FGSV 2010 pg29). However, high volumes of cyclists will impede bus traffic and high numbers of buses can decrease the appeal of cycling.{Contra-flow cycling as Link}can be used in one-way streets.

Complementary measures

The correct design of{Intersections as Link} along a cycle track is key to ensuring safety.

Strategically positioned{Cycle Parking as Link} along a cycle route can encourage more people to cycle due to improved attractiveness, accessibility and inter-modality. On busy routes, repair stations can also be a value added service that will increase the attractiveness of the cycle track.{Grade Separated Crossings as Link} such as bridges and tunnels can also improve the performance of a cycle track as part of a wider network of measures by ensuring route continuity and improving coherence and directness of the cycle network.

There are several complementary information and awareness raising measures, including{Cycle Maps as Link},{Cycle Events as Link} and{Signage and Wayfinding as Link}. These measures contribute to raising the profile of the cycle track and increasing its coherence and attractiveness, resulting in greater use.


The most important impact of cycle tracks is improved road safety resulting from the separation of bicycles and motorised road traffic. Seville have seen a reduction in the percentage of people who cycle involved in fatal or serious accidents, since the introduction of its cycle network (see case study below).

Cycle tracks can be used to improve connectivity and the accessibility of a city. In Brussels, the development of the inner ring road will provide people who cycle and pedestrians with a network that links busy metro stations with green space and commercial areas.

The increased safety and accessibility that cycle tracks can provide may often result in a modal shift from private cars and public transport to cycling, as measured in Seville. As well as health and environmental benefits, a reduction in motorised traffic will reduce congestion, a major issue facing many European cities. In some cases, taking away space for motorised traffic may result in increased congestion. If this is anticipated, space may be taken away from pedestrians or the cycle track may deviate away from the carriageway.

While cycle tracks can offer a safe and direct route for cyclists using the road network, consideration must be given to the design and number of intersections. The sudden mixing of people who cycle and road traffic at intersections can result in dangerous situations, and cycle tracks with many intersections will increase waiting times. Intersection design options and examples of best practice are presented in a separate factsheet.

Parameters of success or failure

Underpinning many parameters for a successful bike route is a good understanding of where the bike track will be built. This includes understanding the stakeholders affected, the opinion of the public, the characteristics of the road and existing initiatives and agendas. This understanding can be achieved through extensive stakeholder consultation and/or by building a multidisciplinary team to deliver the project, such as the Brussels Mobility team.

Effective consultation with local residents, people who cycle and businesses will ensure support and approval for the cycling infrastructure. In Brussels, visuals were used to help clearly communicate the vision of the project. In Brighton, extensive consultation allowed the bike track to be designed so that it supported the way in which local citizens and students used the area, as well as how future users could potentially use the scheme.

Opposition to the implementation of cycle tracks can be a challenge for any city. As demonstrated by the Brussels case study, an effective traffic management plan can alleviate the negative impacts that may result from reduced parking spaces or the removal of motor vehicle lanes. Furthermore, each of the case studies below comment on the importance of strong political and citizen advocacy. Demand for the measure is an effective way of generating political support and will be a key selling point. In Brighton on the Old Shoreham Road, large volumes and high speeds of traffic resulted in safety concerns and generated demand for action.

In Berlin, there is also public pressure calling for better conditions for people who cycle, especially in terms of safety and the inefficient use of space.

Key lessons for transferability

Political and citizen advocacy is key to overcoming challenges during the planning and implementation stages of the measure.


[collapsed title=Infrastructure quality design guidance]

Overall recommendations

  • Cycle tracks should be physically separated from the main carriageway – through either a physical barrier or raising the track to a higher level (or both), incorporating appropriate side clearance.
  • Buffer zones between cycle tracks and parked vehicles or moving car traffic are strongly recommended.
  • Cycle tracks should be wide enough for people who cycle to feel comfortable and safe.
  • Where space allows, cycle tracks should be wider to accommodate people cycling side-by-side, larger bicycles (such as cargo bikes), and overtaking by faster cyclists/people using electric bicycles.
  • Where cycle tracks allow two-way cycling, centre line marking should be used along the track and at intersections to raise awareness.
  • The surface of cycle tracks should be smooth (closed surface paving) and level.
  • Clear markings and accompanying signage should be in place to increase the visibility of the cycle tracks.
  • Preferably, the surface of cycle tracks should be coloured and cycling symbols can be used to improve coherence and visibility.
  • Cycle tracks should avoid detours and frequent street crossings.
  • Where possible, priority should be awarded to people who cycle at intersections on cycle tracks (esp. where it is given to traffic on the adjacent carriageway).
  • Cycle tracks should be well-lit (particularly if on a utility route or a recreational route/short-cut away from a main carriageway).
  • At traffic lights, a cyclist going straight ahead on a cycle track should be served by a different phase to ensure conflicts with turning motor vehicles are reduced.
  • Visibility of cyclists using cycle tracks should be increased at intersections, through ensuring that there are not any narrow angles (e.g. right turn angle or vision in rear-view mirror)

Considerations for cities

Where provided, cycle tracks in starter cities may be used in two directions. However, they should be used in this manner with caution, as smooth access to the track is unlikely to be given on the other side of the street.

City practitioners should consult national cycle infrastructure design standards or regulations (where available) regarding the appropriate implementation of cycle tracks in respective Member States (including cycle track, materials, signage etc.).


[collapsed title=Case studies]

[collapsed title=Old Shoreham Road ‘stepped track’ segregated cycle lane, Brighton (United Kingdom)]

  • Location: North, North West
  • Population: Medium urban areas (447,000)
  • Cycling Modal Share: Climber (5%, 2011)

Note: While described as a cycle lane, due to the physical grade separation of the lane from the carriageway, we have interpreted this example as a cycle track. Overlap does exist between lanes and tracks, especially in these highbrid approaches.

Background and context

The sustainable transport policy of Brighton's Development Plan identified the Old Shoreham Road as one of the areas in which investment would be made to improve the public realm by encouraging and enabling cycling and walking. Consultation with local residents had previously identified support for more cycle facilities along this part of the road network.

The Old Shoreham Road is an A-road (A270) that connects the city centre to locations to the west of the city. Prior to the completion of the A27 bypass around Brighton, the Old Shoreham Road was the main coastal route through the city from the west, but the road continues to carry substantial amounts of traffic. Prior to the introduction of the scheme, speeding was an issue on this section, with vehicles regularly speeding over 45 mph (the speed limit is 30 mph).

Details of the scheme

The Old Shoreham Road cycle lane scheme involved the introduction of an off-road cycle lane along a 1.5 km section of the road. As the section links a number of schools and further education colleges, the aim of the scheme was to provide a route for young people to travel to school on foot or by bike. This would also contribute to reducing road congestion during peak times. In the longer-term, the intention is to extend the scheme further west along the Old Shoreham Road, but funding and stakeholder support will be needed for this.

Road space was reallocated to provide space for the segregated cycle lane, while new pedestrian crossings and bicycle priority lights were also provided at junctions.

The measure included:

  • Fully segregated one-way cycle lanes on each side of the road. This was achieved with a low kerb edge, often referred to as a ‘stepped track' or 'hybrid' cycle lane, whereby the cycleway is built higher than the carriageway, but lower than the footway.

  • Improvements to junctions including side road entry treatments. This ensures continuation of the route, makes crossing the road easier for pedestrians and people with mobility problems and improves awareness of the cycle track amongst drivers.

  • Shared areas for people who cycle and pedestrians at bus stops.

  • Toucan crossings for pedestrians and people cycling.

  • A new zebra crossing, with a shared area for people who cycle and pedestrians around the crossing.





The cycle track is along a key route that provides access to educational establishments and the city. Therefore, an increasing number of people use the route to get to school, college or work - a bicycle counter has demonstrated that cycling on that proportion of the road continues to increase (A).

Parameters of success

  • The City Council had a good understanding of the local area. The various elements of the scheme were designed to facilitate the way in which local citizens and students used the area, as well as how future users could potentially use the scheme.

  • Extensive consultation was undertaken on the detail of the scheme. This also helped to deliver the second important element behind the success of the scheme, i.e. that it had the approval of local residents and potential users.

  • Additionally, the segregated track was implemented on the most direct route in the area, and so minimised travel time for people cycling. From the perspective of planning a journey, this is the most convenient approach for the user.


The scheme is transferable to a situation of similar circumstances, i.e. where there are high volumes of vehicles and where there is concern about the speed of the motorised traffic. The stepped track design was used to make the most of the limited space, which did not allow for a fully segregated cycle lane to be introduced.

The location of the scheme also tied in well with other initiatives, such as 'safe routes to school' and the desire to encourage young people to cycle safely within the city. The need to improve road safety in this context was an important selling point of the scheme.

Key insights and lessons learned

The consultation with local residents and potential users was important. This enabled the city Council to understand local concerns and needs, as well as the future potential use of the scheme. It also helped to gain the support of the local residents and has helped to ensure that the segregated lane is used.

In order to promote the scheme locally, it was important to link the scheme to other agendas, such as the need to improve road safety and to encourage young people to cycle.


A. (see counter 720001) (accessed 18th June 2018)



[collapsed title=Brussels, BE – Cycle tracks on The Little Belt, Brussels (Belgium)]

  • Location: North, North West
  • Population: Metropolis (2,927,000)
  • Cycling Modal Share: Starter (3%, 2010)

Background and context

The centre of Brussels is surrounded by an inner ring-road, the City Ring, which links busy metro stations with green space and commercial areas. This part of the network is under redevelopment to improve the environment and infrastructure for pedestrians and people who cycle, resulting in wider pavements for pedestrians and comfortable cycle routes separated from motorised traffic.


Since the City Ring is a wide road, the Brussels Region has opted for two bidirectional cycle highways, one on the inside and one on the outside. There are two types of infrastructure used:

  • A (bidirectional) separated bicycle lane that is 2.5 metres wide
  • A (bidirectional) cycle street of 4 metres in width, which has priority for people who cycle and is only accessible for local access (e.g. delivery and private parking)

The total length of the cycle highway will be 12 kilometres and it will cross four local boroughs, costing more than €20 million. The relevant building permits have been obtained and as of 2018, works have already started at three different places with one separated bicycle lane open for the public to use.


The first separated bicycle lane is operating effectively and has been welcomed by the public. Since the removal of a car lane, air quality has improved, and counters installed by Brussels Mobility are tracking bicycle numbers. Initially, cars were sometimes misusing the infrastructure, but police intervention and separation poles are now preventing this from happening.

Parameters of success/failure

As the scheme involved a number of stakeholders in a complex city, Brussels Mobility established a multidisciplinary team to deliver the project. This included:

  • mobility experts,
  • a design team,
  • a communication team,
  • a team to manage and coordinate public works
  • an advocacy and political team

The visuals that were delivered by the communications team throughout the project are considered to have been key to establishing support from the public, who were able to understand clearly the vision of the project.

The traffic management measures were important in addressing potential concerns resulting from the change to the road network. Car fluidity was improved in the central part of the City Ring and the Parking Study argued that removing 600 parking places was possible on the road, as more than 10,000 off-street parking places were available off-road. This also demonstrates the importance of understanding the area and having the information and plans in place to address the potential concerns of those with whom you need to engage.

It is also important to have political support and in Brussels, the Mobility Minister, Pascal Smet, put a lot of energy into convincing the local boroughs, which still have political power on regional projects. Throughout all stages of the project, there has been extensive stakeholder engagement.

Brussels Mobility undertook extensive consultation in the development of the proposals and meetings were held with local residents in the few places on the ring where there are a significant number of residents. This engagement will continue throughout the project and is in addition to the public consultation that takes place for each of the building permits that were needed. For the more ambitious parts of the Ring, e.g. at junctions or where squares lie on the Ring, there was an active programme of participation led by a dedicated project manager. For these locations, there were a lot of meetings with local businesses and residents. An architect was also involved in order to draw up and demonstrate alternative designs.

Brussels Mobility recognised the importance of staggering the works, to minimise disruption and opposition to the project. The project was split into a number of phases, which also allowed contentious areas to have more neighbourhood participation or more consideration given to the local architecture.


A number of key requirements were identified that may be needed to implement a cycling infrastructure project such as The Little Belt.

It is important not to only focus on the people who cycle but also to have a related plan for car use. This needs to demonstrate that it is possible to reduce car capacity and parking spaces without there being significant impacts, and how the redesign will deal with both the reduced capacity parking once the cycling infrastructure is in place.

It is important to communicate effectively from the early stages of the planning, through the design phase and on to the construction and operation of the new infrastructure. Communication should include visuals as these are more useful and comprehensive than simple plans.

It is important to have strong political and citizen advocacy. Brussels Mobility engaged with local people who cycle, including the local Critical Mass group, to secure their support and to ensure that they engage with the process at appropriate times. By engaging with all people who cycle, it is possible to win their support and develop a demand for cycling infrastructure form the public.

It is important to have good management during and after the works. In the construction there should be coordination between those doing the works, the local authorities involved and other local services. After the works, once the infrastructure is in operation, it is important to ensure that the police control the use of the cycling infrastructure and ensure that other road users respect the bike lanes.


[collapsed title=Cycling network, Seville (Spain)]

  • Location: Southern/Mediterranean
  • Population: Larger urban zones (1,542,000)
  • Cycling Modal Share: Climber (6%, 2011)

Background and context

The main objective of the cycling network was to introduce and foster cycling as a sustainable alternative to car transport in an area without any cycling tradition. The aim was to create a network not only attractive for existing people who cycle but mainly to attract new potential ones.


Between 2006 and 2011, a 300 km network of protected bi-directional cycle tracks was constructed. The space for the tracks was taken mostly from space previously used for car parking, but some space was also taken from road lanes and pedestrian space. Bi-directional paths were chosen due to space restrictions and to avoid people on bikes using a path in the wrong direction. The paths were located between the motorised traffic and the pedestrian area, either at the level of the pavement or at the road level with bollard separation. In the historic centre of the city, the streets are too narrow for cycling infrastructure, and so restrictions were implemented for motorised traffic, which supported walking and cycling.


Oficina de la Bicicleta, 2019.…

Other important features of the bike network are:

  • Continuity and connectivity: the network was designed with the aim of connecting, through a continuum of bike paths, the main attractions and residential areas of the city.
  • Cohesion and homogeneity: the design of bicycle tracks are very similar throughout the whole network so that people who cycle can easily follow them. This was achieved by using a green pavement throughout the network, as well as a uniform morphology.
  • Directness and visibility: as the network follows the main streets of the city it is visible. Moreover, as a general rule, detours and multiple street crossings were avoided.
  • Quick building: the basic network (77 km) was built in less than two years (2006 and 2007), which was managed by the newly created Bicycle Office (Oficina de la Bicicleta).

The costs of constructing the network between 2006 and 2011 were about €32 million, or €0.27 million/km. In comparison, metro lines constructed in Seville cost €35.2 million/km and the city highway costs €30.8 million/km. These carry around 50,000 trips or vehicles per day, while the cycling network currently accommodates up to 70,000 trips a day.


Modal split: Counts of people cycling have been performed along the network in several years since implementation. The figure below presents estimates of daily and yearly cycling trips between 2006 to 2011, with data collected by cycle counters operated by Sevci (a community bicycle programme). Strong seasonality of cycle use is observed with peaks in May and October to November, and troughs in August.


Sevici, 2011.

A net shift from private car to cycling and public transport has been observed, although the economic crisis is also considered to have had an impact. New cycling trips came from:

  • Walking (26-28%)
  • Public Transport (37-40%)
  • Private Car (31-32%)

Safety: Since the introduction of the network, the percentage of people cycling involved in fatal or serious accidents has declined from 10% to 5.4%. Furthermore, the number of bicycle injuries per 100,000 trips has reduced from 1 824 in 2007 to 545 in 2011.

Air quality: According to ECF methodology, 8,000 tonnes CO2 equivalents or 26,000 barrels of oil are saved annually. This amounts to savings of around €2 million in fuel imports.

Health: Using the WHO HEAT tool, an estimated 24 deaths per year are avoided because of the development of cycling in Seville.

Public opinion: There was support for the development of the cycling network throughout the project, especially as it was considered necessary for the safety of people who cycle. Since the implementation of the network, people who cycle have emerged from being a marginal group to an accepted and integrated group in Seville. There was some controversy following the loss of 8 000 car parking spaces and some road and pedestrian space.

Key parameters of success/failure of the measure

Two factors that contributed to the success of the measure were the clear political support for the cycling network and the quick construction of the basic network (77 km). In the planning phase, Contramano (a cycling association) managed the public participation and a Civic Committee "Comisión Cívica de la Bicicleta" was created. A group would meet regularly, which included a number of members: Contramano, pedestrians, skaters (allowed to use the bike network), bike shops, bike rental firms, consultants, and other active mobility professionals. The Committee discussed network development and bike sharing systems, and was also involved in promotional activities such as bike demonstration, car-free-day, bike-to-work, bike-to-school, and bike-for-health. This helped to improve the designs of the network and improve communication between the city and the citizens.

During construction, some complaints were received from car users and pedestrians about the loss of space, but the administration took the position that people were in favour of building the network and followed the rapid construction plans accordingly. Additionally, the design features of the network such as separation from road traffic and clear signage have helped to accommodate users to the network.

The success of the network has also resulted from support from the University of Seville. The university buildings are spread out across the city with many locations in the central areas and since the late 1990s, the university has been promoting cycling by offering parking facilities. They also have their own website ( and specific research group on cycling (SIBUS). The modal share of trips to and from University varies between 11-14%, which is double the average across the city.

The importance of constructing the basic network quickly and considering the connectivity of the cycle tracks from the start was also important, as was also highlighted.


The measure is considered to be clearly transferable, although local conditions such as topography and climate need to be considered.

Insights and lessons learned

It is a challenge to accommodate a cycling network in a dense city, as it requires taking space away from motorised traffic or pedestrians. In the case of Seville, this challenge was overcome due to strong political will and effective stakeholder engagement via the civic committee.


[collapsed title=Protected Cycling Lanes, Berlin (Germany)]

  • Location: North, North West
  • Population: Metropolis (5,066,000)
  • Cycling Modal Share: Champion (13%, 2008)

Background and features

Berlin aims to increasing traffic safety by improving the visibility and protection of people who cycle on roads. As part of this aim, Berlin has designed "protected cycling lanes", improving the actual and perceived safety for people who cycle. Although part of the carriageway is described as protected cycling lanes, the physical separation provided by bollards results in this infrastructure example being categorised as a cycle track. The protected cycle lanes are due to be implemented in August 2018, and will have the following features:

  • Minimum width of 2 m.
  • An additional 1 m buffer between people who cycle and motorised transport.
  • Bollards at 0.9 m intervals
  • A continuous green coloured surface with cycling symbols

The bollards will prevent cars from driving or parking on the cycling lanes. Interruptions to the lanes are planned for crossings and for public transport stops.

Budget, time and manpower: The protected cycling lanes are still in the planning phase, but estimates for the additional costs compared to a simple cycle lane are €20,000 - 30,000 /100 m.

The costs are largely attributed to the green surface colouring and the bollards. The variation in the price of different bollard models accounts for the range of costs quoted. Berlin is aiming to test different bollards in the first implementation as pilots in order to gather experience and so to identify the most suitable solution. The time and manpower required varies significantly from case to case and depends on a number of factors including, where space is taken from and the number of stops and crossings.


As the cycle lanes have not yet been constructed at the time of writing, there is no performance data, although traffic counts and video surveillance will monitor usage.

Parameters of success/failure

An important contextual factor that is supporting the implementation of the measure is public pressure calling for better conditions for people who cycle, especially in terms of safety and the inefficient use of space. Public opinion is positive, as demonstrated by the passing of the mobility law. There is some opposition from political parties and economic organisations to the reallocation of road space, although shopkeepers can see the benefit of improving public space and accessibility for people who cycle.

Furthermore, part of the route will be an adaption of existing cycle lanes, which reduces the construction costs required.

It is considered that the measure will act as a push measure to reduce car use. Space is mostly taken from motorised traffic lanes or parking spaces.


While no evaluation data or experiences from implementation are available, important considerations have been identified for the implementation of protected cycling lanes:

  • Broader width of the lanes needs to be checked against a consideration of the needs of firefighters, especially for ladder usage in case of emergencies.
  • The addition of 1 m to the width of existing cycle lanes needs to be assessed against the potential negative impacts such as increased road congestion and practical problems like trees in the road space.
  • It is important to clean the surface, especially in the winter, but the bollards do not allow the usual service vehicles to access the protected cycling lanes and so narrower vehicles (max. 2 m) have had to be designed.

Key insights and lessons learned

The measure faced political opposition from some parties that were against taking space from motorists, but the government stated and stuck to the policy of "safety is more important than traffic flow", which is regulated in the respective Road Act.



[collapsed title=Key guidance, further reading and references]

PRESTO / Rupprecht (2012) “Cycle Lanes"

20 JULY 2021
(196.73 KB - PDF)

PRESTO / Rupprecht (2012) “Cycle Tracks"

20 JULY 2021
(210.12 KB - PDF)

The Sustainable Urban Transport Project’s factsheet H-02 considers cycling facilities on the Road

20 JULY 2021
(1.67 MB - PDF)

The Sustainable Urban Transport Project’s factsheet H-03 considers cycling facilities off the Road

20 JULY 2021
(638.48 KB - PDF)

CROW (2017) Design manual for bicycle traffic. Chapter 5

Cycle Nation - Making Space for Cyclists, Chapter 1 on Cycle Tracks

20 JULY 2021
(2.98 MB - PDF)

The Sustrans Design Manual ‘Principles and processes for cycle-friendly design’

20 JULY 2021
(2.28 MB - PDF)

The Cycling Embassy of Denmark’s Collection of Cycle Concepts, Chapter 8 and 9 on planning and designing the cycling infrastructure

20 JULY 2021
(14.46 MB - PDF)

Transport for London’s ‘International Cycling Infrastructure Best Practice Study’, Pages 23-27

20 JULY 2021
(5.08 MB - PDF)

Copenhagen’s guidelines for the design of road cycling projects - Focus on Cycling, Chapter 2 "Sections"

20 JULY 2021
(17.53 MB - PDF)

The Sustrans Handbook for cycle-friendly design, Guidelines for cycle tracks (page 21)

20 JULY 2021
(8.34 MB - PDF)

Mobile 2020 ‘More biking in small and medium sized towns of Central and Eastern Europe by 2020’ handbook on cycling inclusive planning and promotion, Pages 78-79 on cycle lanes

20 JULY 2021
(32.57 MB - PDF)




[1] ‘Solitary tracks’ is a term used by the Dutch. They may also be known as cycle paths or cycle trails, although the terms are quite ambiguous.


[1] ‘Solitary tracks’ is a term used by the Dutch. They may also be known as cycle paths or cycle trails, although the terms are quite ambiguous.