Why Separation Matters: New Research Shows Protected Bike Lanes Drive More Cycling
Study finds separated cycling infrastructure delivers greater increases in ridership than painted lanes
For many people, the difference between a painted bike lane and a protected bike lane might seem minor. Both provide space for cycling and both signal that bikes belong on the road.
But new research suggests that the distinction is far more important than it appears.
A study published this year in npj Sustainable Mobility and Transport analysed 72 million bike share trips in New York City and found that protected bike lanes were the only type of cycling infrastructure shown to causally increase ridership once other factors were taken into account.
The findings add to a growing body of international evidence showing that if governments want more people riding bikes, physical separation from traffic matters.
Looking beyond the painted line
The researchers examined bike share usage before and after new cycling infrastructure was installed across New York City.
Initially, both protected bike lanes and painted bike lanes appeared to be associated with increased cycling. Stations located near protected bike lanes recorded an 18 per cent increase in trips, while stations near painted lanes and sharrows recorded a 14 per cent increase.
However, after accounting for demographics, land use, surrounding activity and existing cycling demand, the picture changed significantly.
The study found that protected bike lanes produced a measurable increase in cycling activity, while painted bike lanes and sharrows showed no statistically significant increase compared with locations that received no bike lane at all.
In simple terms, protected bike lanes changed behaviour. Painted lanes did not.
Why does this matter?
For experienced riders, a painted bike lane may provide enough comfort to ride alongside traffic.
But transport planners are increasingly recognising that the people who stand to benefit most from cycling infrastructure are often those who are not currently riding.
Children travelling to school. Older adults. Families. People who simply do not feel comfortable riding next to moving traffic.
For these riders, the presence of a physical barrier between bicycles and motor vehicles can make the difference between choosing to ride and choosing not to.
The New York study also found that protected bike lanes had particularly strong effects in areas with higher proportions of older residents, reinforcing the role that safe infrastructure can play in making cycling accessible to a broader range of people.
What does this mean for Canberra?
Canberra is often recognised as one of Australia's most cycle-friendly cities, with an extensive off-road path network and high rates of recreational cycling.
However, many everyday trips still require people to navigate busy roads, gaps in the path network or painted on-road facilities that offer little protection from traffic.
This is why Pedal Power continues to advocate for connected networks of separated cycling infrastructure.
Improvements to key town centre connections and safer links to schools have the potential to do more than support existing riders. They can help make cycling a realistic transport option for people who currently feel unable or unwilling to ride.
The question for the government is not simply whether cycling infrastructure should be built. Increasingly, the evidence suggests the more important question is what type of cycling infrastructure will encourage the greatest number of people to ride.
Building for the next rider
Painted bike lanes can still play a role in the network. They can improve visibility, clarify road space and provide continuity in constrained locations.
But if the goal is to increase participation, improve safety and encourage more people to choose cycling for everyday trips, the evidence continues to point in the same direction.
People are more likely to ride when they feel protected from traffic.
And that means separation matters.
The full study can be read here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44333-026-00107-2
