A landmark US study has delivered compelling evidence for what cycling advocates have argued for years: not all bike lanes are created equal. Sure, painted bike lanes are a solid start, but only truly separated infrastructure makes the real difference.
Researchers from New York University analysed over 72 million trips from New York City's Citi Bike system between 2013 and 2024, comparing the real-world impact of protected bike lanes, painted lanes, and shared lane markings.
'Using propensity score matching and difference-in-differences analysis to compare bike stations with similar surrounding social and built-environment characteristics, we found a causal effect on bikeshare ridership only after the installation of protected bike lanes, with an average monthly increase of 379 rides per station...'
The results speak for themselves - bike lanes with physical barriers separating cyclists from traffic led to almost 20% more usage per station per month. For comparison, painted lanes produced no significant change in behaviour by those renting the share bikes.
The findings carry direct lessons for our cities, planners and governments. Despite years of investment in cycling infrastructure, much of what gets touted or designated as a bike lane is nothing more than paint with the occasional bike-shaped stencil sprayed onto the roadway.
Paint is cheap to put down, easier and quicker to approve, and tends to make local councils feel good about themselves. Yes, it's a great start and way better than nothing, but those who regularly ride in painted bike lanes will know it doesn't provide the same level of safety - perceived or otherwise - as physically separated cycleways.
The comprehensive findings of the study can be read here https://www.nature.com/articles/s44333-026-00107-2