It's happening! Um... sort of.

On 5/15/2014 2:08 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:26:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2014 1:31 AM, James wrote:
On 15/05/14 13:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There are some road-related bike facilities that sound good in the most
simplistic theories, but have been shown to increase crash rates.
Examples are the suddenly trendy "protected bike lanes" or
"cycletracks." Or American-style bike boxes (without separate signal
phases). Despite documented increases in crash rates, these are still
being lobbied for.

Do you have link to stats for that? I presume you mean the bike lanes
that fit between the pedestrian foot path and a barrier of bollards or
parked cars?

Yes we have "Advanced Stopping Boxes" and no separate lights phase.
Wouldn't want to add extra delay to the motorists day.

Portland installed bike boxes at 11 intersections, hoping to prevent
right hooks. Right hooks doubled overall, although most of the increase
was at four of the 11. Others saw some decrease.

An experiment - which is exactly what they called it from
the start. They learned from it. (The best learning must
include things that go wrong.) They modified the four, I
think; and after that I stood and observed traffic at one
of them for a while, struck by how much drivers noticed and
deferred to bikes, how much bike riders knew what to watch
out for from cars, and how much cars handled dealing with
bikes as part of the routine.

Unlike most European
bike boxes, Portland's are "American style," i.e. no separate green
light phase for the bikes.

Portland is also experimenting with separate light phases
for bikes.

See

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes

and

http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf

http://bikeportland.org/2014/05/13/something-has-gone-wrong-in-portland-105851

"What's Happening" is way more than what you see on the gauges.

snip


Is this the situation that was discussed before where there are bike
boxes where cars have right turn on red?

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:26:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

For some data on "protected cycle tracks" (separated from parallel
traffic by either parked cars or curbs, posts, etc.) see Jensen,
"Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: A Before-After Study"

http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/fil...nd%20lanes.pdf

and Agerholm, "Traffic Safety on Bicycle Tracks"

http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/age...ycle_paths.pdf

Both are fairly long-term before-after comparisons of streets to which
cycle tracks were added. Both found increased crash rates, mostly at
intersections; and intersections are a) where most crashes happen, and
b) where cycletracks add complication and confusion. However,
cycletracks also add complication and confusion at non-street
intersections - i.e. driveways and parking lots. FWIW, I think they can
be fine, if well-designed and maintained, on long stretches with no
crossing traffic.

This is awesome to hear from you!

Sure they are apt to increase problems at crossings. That
was even the Dutch outcome, IIRC. But how long is a long
stretch? And by definition, a "protected (separated by
barrier) cycletrack" _has no crossings_. When the end of
a stretch is reached at a crossing to the next stretch,
there is a design challenge. But the Dutch are working
on it. And it's not just in facility design. The culture
that respects bikes is a factor; the savvy of the users
is another.

"... were extensively evaluated on various aspects: their
impact on bicycle use, appreciation by the users, road safety
effects, impact on the local economy and the like. To be
honest: the impacts on road safety were rather limited. The
most striking outcome, though, was that cyclists very much
liked the fact that they could cycle 'undisturbed'. Their
perception of safety improved considerably."

"If our society, our cities, have the ambition to take
advantage of all the benefits that (increased) bicycle
use can yield, then the challenge is to make cycling
attractive."

"Let's face it: a road system, cities, designed primarily
for cars don't offer an attractive environment for cycling."

And then there's e.g. Cincinnati. No place is like any other.
But I think weather and terrain are less important than
culture. Remember that the next time you feel a sneer coming
on about tattoos.

snip

On 5/15/2014 2:08 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:26:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Portland installed bike boxes at 11 intersections, hoping to prevent
right hooks. Right hooks doubled overall, although most of the increase
was at four of the 11. Others saw some decrease.

An experiment - which is exactly what they called it from
the start. They learned from it. (The best learning must
include things that go wrong.)

Yes, an experiment, after the necessity of keeping data was forced on
them. The installations violated codes, but politics allowed the
installations to continue IF they kept data and made them officially an
"experiment."

As I've explained, my initial attitude toward bike boxes was neutral,
but a bit confused - as in, "How would that help?" Yes, with extra
traffic light phases and the resulting traffic delay (where cars sit as
bikes get a head start; or exclusive green for one mode at a time) there
would be fewer hooks; but that was never part of the plan.

It seemed to me that most of the conflicts occur not at the start of a
green phase, but while the green is in progress. (And conflicts due to
right turn on red could be prevented by simply prohibiting right turns
on red.) So what, I wondered, keeps a straight-ahead cyclist from riding
up alongside a turning truck and getting hit? The answer turned out to
be "Nothing." And other vehicular cyclists had correctly predicting the
results.

So you can characterize the bike boxes as an experiment. It's akin to
an experiment testing whether painting a rock green will cause it to
fall more slowly. To those who understand the science, the answer is
obvious. But the utopians still want to try, because it's "Innovative!"

They modified the four, I
think; and after that I stood and observed traffic at one
of them for a while, struck by how much drivers noticed and
deferred to bikes, how much bike riders knew what to watch
out for from cars, and how much cars handled dealing with
bikes as part of the routine.

Science isn't done by having one dreamer watch for a while and say
"Oooh, I think it's nice!"

Unlike most European
bike boxes, Portland's are "American style," i.e. no separate green
light phase for the bikes.

Portland is also experimenting with separate light phases
for bikes.

And that will doubtlessly reduce car-bike crashes. It will also
increase traffic congestion. If society chooses to accept that
tradeoff, then so be it. But I don't think it's going to be very
popular across the U.S. IOW, it won't be "happening."


See

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes

and

http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf

http://bikeportland.org/2014/05/13/something-has-gone-wrong-in-portland-105851

"What's Happening" is way more than what you see on the gauges.

The point of the article is that your daydream doesn't seem to be happening.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2014 2:31 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:26:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

For some data on "protected cycle tracks" (separated from parallel
traffic by either parked cars or curbs, posts, etc.) see Jensen,
"Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: A Before-After Study"

http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/fil...nd%20lanes.pdf

and Agerholm, "Traffic Safety on Bicycle Tracks"

http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/age...ycle_paths.pdf

Both are fairly long-term before-after comparisons of streets to which
cycle tracks were added. Both found increased crash rates, mostly at
intersections; and intersections are a) where most crashes happen, and
b) where cycletracks add complication and confusion. However,
cycletracks also add complication and confusion at non-street
intersections - i.e. driveways and parking lots. FWIW, I think they can
be fine, if well-designed and maintained, on long stretches with no
crossing traffic.

This is awesome to hear from you!

Sure they are apt to increase problems at crossings. That
was even the Dutch outcome, IIRC. But how long is a long
stretch? And by definition, a "protected (separated by
barrier) cycletrack" _has no crossings_.

Sorry, but that is (unfortunately) NOT the definition of a protected
cycletrack. They are defined and touted as going on for block after
block; yet every street intersection and every driveway intersection is
unprotected, and it's those crossing points that have always generated
the most conflict and crashes.

It is possible to have a reasonably long, protected cycletrack with no
crossings. One way to do it is have it installed out beyond the city
limits, where there are no cross streets or driveways; but low usage
means those are seldom justified. Another is to place it along a river,
although again, there will eventually be intersections where protection
ends. Another way is to make the cycletrack an elevated structure,
which would cost a fortune. But even in those cases, if the cyclist
wants to actually get somewhere practical, he's going to have to have
difficulties, because the same barriers that "protect" the cyclist means
he has difficulty getting off the cycletrack to get to mid-block
destinations.

You simply can't have a separate, parallel network of facilities that
accesses all the places people need to go.

When the end of
a stretch is reached at a crossing to the next stretch,
there is a design challenge. But the Dutch are working
on it. And it's not just in facility design.

Sure. Some Europeans say it's terrible that those installing
cycletracks in the U.S. allow gaps at intersections. Look at what
they're proposing for every city intersection! What odds do you give
for this being done everywhere?

http://vimeo.com/86721046

Just think: If we spend the money to do that everywhere, we _might_ get
bike mode share up to, oh, perhaps 3%!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2014 11:31 AM, Dan O wrote:

"... were extensively evaluated on various aspects: their
impact on bicycle use, appreciation by the users, road safety
effects, impact on the local economy and the like. To be
honest: the impacts on road safety were rather limited. The
most striking outcome, though, was that cyclists very much
liked the fact that they could cycle 'undisturbed'. Their
perception of safety improved considerably."

snip

The reality is that you can ride on regular streets, with no bicycle
infrastructure, and achieve the same level of safety as on bicycle
infrastructure, but it won't be pleasant. That's not just perception,
that's reality.

In the Bay Area, a lot of the improvements in infrastructure have made
riding to work, and riding for utilitarian purposes, a lot more
pleasant. The biggest improvement has been a number of freeway
underpasses and overpasses for bicycles that eliminate the necessity of
traversing freeway entrances and exits where vehicles are traveling at
high speed and cyclists have to be extremely cautious, i.e.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/don-burnett-bicycle-pedestrian-bridge-cupertino.
It connects to quiet residential streets with bicycle lanes that then
connect to a multi-use trail that goes over by Google and on to Palo
Alto, and which eventually will reach Facebook.

If we want to get "regular people" out of their cars and onto bicycles
then we need to make it more pleasurable to cycle. The VCZs maintain
that cyclists can use the roads just fine, but in doing so they're
intentionally limiting the number of cyclists willing to endure that
situation.

The VCZs should look at what transpired in the Netherlands to achieve
their cycle-centric transportation. A good place for people like $%^& to
start would be he https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o. But
don't expect the VCZs to want to work towards such a system since it
directly contradicts their views.

On 16/05/14 02:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2014 1:31 AM, James wrote:
On 15/05/14 13:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:

There are some road-related bike facilities that sound good in the most
simplistic theories, but have been shown to increase crash rates.
Examples are the suddenly trendy "protected bike lanes" or
"cycletracks." Or American-style bike boxes (without separate signal
phases). Despite documented increases in crash rates, these are still
being lobbied for.

Do you have link to stats for that? I presume you mean the bike lanes
that fit between the pedestrian foot path and a barrier of bollards or
parked cars?

Yes we have "Advanced Stopping Boxes" and no separate lights phase.
Wouldn't want to add extra delay to the motorists day.

Portland installed bike boxes at 11 intersections, hoping to prevent
right hooks. Right hooks doubled overall, although most of the increase
was at four of the 11. Others saw some decrease. Unlike most European
bike boxes, Portland's are "American style," i.e. no separate green
light phase for the bikes. See
http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes
and
http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf


For some data on "protected cycle tracks" (separated from parallel
traffic by either parked cars or curbs, posts, etc.) see Jensen,
"Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: A Before-After Study"
http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/fil...nd%20lanes.pdf

and Agerholm, "Traffic Safety on Bicycle Tracks"
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/age...ycle_paths.pdf

Both are fairly long-term before-after comparisons of streets to which
cycle tracks were added. Both found increased crash rates, mostly at
intersections; and intersections are a) where most crashes happen, and
b) where cycletracks add complication and confusion. However,
cycletracks also add complication and confusion at non-street
intersections - i.e. driveways and parking lots. FWIW, I think they can
be fine, if well-designed and maintained, on long stretches with no
crossing traffic.

There was one highly promoted pro-cycletrack paper, written by the
American team that is at the forefront of segregated facilities
promotion. That's Lusk, Furth et. al., "Risk Of Injury For Bicycling On
Cycle Tracks Versus In The Street." But it's a fanciful piece of
propaganda, comparing very different parallel streets (rather than the
same street before and after), using wildly inappropriate data and
statistical tricks, etc. That team is working hard to keep its paper
prominent, much like the team that did the "85%!" helmet paper. But a
thorough criticism can be found he
http://john-s-allen.com/reports/mont...y.htm#agerholm



Thanks.

--
JS

On 16/05/14 04:31, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:26:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

For some data on "protected cycle tracks" (separated from parallel
traffic by either parked cars or curbs, posts, etc.) see Jensen,
"Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: A Before-After Study"

http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/fil...nd%20lanes.pdf

and Agerholm, "Traffic Safety on Bicycle Tracks"

http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/age...ycle_paths.pdf

Both are fairly long-term before-after comparisons of streets to which
cycle tracks were added. Both found increased crash rates, mostly at
intersections; and intersections are a) where most crashes happen, and
b) where cycletracks add complication and confusion. However,
cycletracks also add complication and confusion at non-street
intersections - i.e. driveways and parking lots. FWIW, I think they can
be fine, if well-designed and maintained, on long stretches with no
crossing traffic.

This is awesome to hear from you!

Sure they are apt to increase problems at crossings. That
was even the Dutch outcome, IIRC. But how long is a long
stretch? And by definition, a "protected (separated by
barrier) cycletrack" _has no crossings_.

Pedestrians tend not to observe the cycle track, and there are
pedestrian crossings, and our tracks seem to be too narrow for
comfortable bicycle overtaking (where riders are often a bit wobbly).

You see, it's not that all infra is bad, just that the majority of infra
is bad - at least what I've seen and tried to use.

There's a lot of mistakes being made and not much done to rectify the
problems.

--
JS

On Thu, 15 May 2014 09:35:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/15/2014 8:14 AM, Duane wrote:
On 5/15/2014 8:47 AM, Duane wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 5/14/2014 7:02 PM, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with
traffic.

The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure
like bike lanes are
not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the
zealots.

Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed
bicycle infrastructure.


I think that is untrue.


Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of
any sort.


I think I can safely say that he likes paved roads. As do I.

Me too, depending on the paving.
http://www.mypotholes.com

Ok, I should have said infrastructure specific to cycling.


For a more local perspective:
http://tinyurl.com/m66dvb9


I can only laugh when defenders of the statist point of view
in exasperation descend to 'what about the public roads?'

Right. No better example of selfless meticulous efficiency.
No waste or corruption in road work contracts!

I remember reading a newspaper article that stated "Every paving
contractor in Illinois is a member of a consortium which ensures that
paving costs are kept high and outsiders are prevented from getting
contracts".

But perhaps this is partially an effect of some companies being more
successful then others. After all how many U.S. companies can bit for
the design and construction of a new airliner.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:42:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2014 2:08 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:26:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Portland installed bike boxes at 11 intersections, hoping to prevent
right hooks. Right hooks doubled overall, although most of the increase
was at four of the 11. Others saw some decrease.

An experiment - which is exactly what they called it from
the start. They learned from it. (The best learning must
include things that go wrong.)

Yes, an experiment, after the necessity of keeping data was forced on
them. The installations violated codes, but politics allowed the
installations to continue IF they kept data and made them officially an
"experiment."

My dog that is a *huge* chip on your shoulder!

As I've explained, my initial attitude toward bike boxes was neutral,
but a bit confused - as in, "How would that help?" Yes, with extra
traffic light phases and the resulting traffic delay (where cars sit as
bikes get a head start; or exclusive green for one mode at a time) there
would be fewer hooks; but that was never part of the plan.

Separate light phases (which Portland is also experimenting
with) would not be as effective (and probably problematic)
in the land of the car culture.

It seemed to me that most of the conflicts occur not at the start of a
green phase, but while the green is in progress. (And conflicts due to
right turn on red could be prevented by simply prohibiting right turns
on red.)

We hashed all that out in your other thrread - something
about "Bike Boxes Failed!" I won't say what's in my mind
right now but jb (lowercase) used to say it in response to
you at such moments, IIRC.

So what, I wondered, keeps a straight-ahead cyclist from riding
up alongside a turning truck and getting hit?

A lick of common sense (?)

The answer turned out to
be "Nothing." And other vehicular cyclists had correctly predicting the
results.

I'd tend to excuse the idea that people have a lick of
common sense and ultimate responsibility for their own
safety. Portland learned, and one of the modifications
is bold written warnings on the paving well ahead of the
intersection advising bicyclists to "watch out for right-
turning cars".

So you can characterize the bike boxes as an experiment. It's akin to
an experiment testing whether painting a rock green will cause it to
fall more slowly. To those who understand the science, the answer is
obvious. But the utopians still want to try, because it's "Innovative!"

Well, we could eschew innovation, but it's not nothing at
all like your "dropping a rock" experiment. It is a learning
opportunity for the users, too. It is experience that other
places can draw on. It is progressive action.

They modified the four, I
think; and after that I stood and observed traffic at one
of them for a while, struck by how much drivers noticed and
deferred to bikes, how much bike riders knew what to watch
out for from cars, and how much cars handled dealing with
bikes as part of the routine.

Science isn't done by having one dreamer watch for a while and say
"Oooh, I think it's nice!"

**** you!

Unlike most European
bike boxes, Portland's are "American style," i.e. no separate green
light phase for the bikes.

Portland is also experimenting with separate light phases
for bikes.

And that will doubtlessly reduce car-bike crashes. It will also
increase traffic congestion. If society chooses to accept that
tradeoff, then so be it. But I don't think it's going to be very
popular across the U.S. IOW, it won't be "happening."

The 1967 Monterey Pop Festival wasn't very popular across the US,
either, but *damn* was it _happening_!

See

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...crease-crashes

and

http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...etter_merc.pdf

http://bikeportland.org/2014/05/13/something-has-gone-wrong-in-portland-105851

"What's Happening" is way more than what you see on the gauges.

The point of the article is that your daydream doesn't seem to be happening.

Whoosh!!

(Double whoosh - as it's abundantly clear you don't understand my
dreams and make up what fits a handy strawman for your own purposes.)

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:01:11 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2014 2:31 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:26:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

For some data on "protected cycle tracks" (separated from parallel
traffic by either parked cars or curbs, posts, etc.) see Jensen,
"Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: A Before-After Study"

http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/fil...nd%20lanes.pdf

and Agerholm, "Traffic Safety on Bicycle Tracks"

http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/age...ycle_paths.pdf

Both are fairly long-term before-after comparisons of streets to which
cycle tracks were added. Both found increased crash rates, mostly at
intersections; and intersections are a) where most crashes happen, and
b) where cycletracks add complication and confusion. However,
cycletracks also add complication and confusion at non-street
intersections - i.e. driveways and parking lots. FWIW, I think they can
be fine, if well-designed and maintained, on long stretches with no
crossing traffic.

This is awesome to hear from you!

Sure they are apt to increase problems at crossings. That
was even the Dutch outcome, IIRC. But how long is a long
stretch? And by definition, a "protected (separated by
barrier) cycletrack" _has no crossings_.

Sorry, but that is (unfortunately) NOT the definition of a protected
cycletrack.

*You* rather extensively defined it as "separated from parallel
traffic by either parked cars or curbs, posts, etc."

By that definition, it can have no crossings. I was charitable,
though, and referred to "stretches".

So, how long is a long stretch?

They are defined and touted as going on for block after
block; yet every street intersection and every driveway intersection is
unprotected, and it's those crossing points that have always generated
the most conflict and crashes.

Imagine that. These are also the same points of conflict
and crashes on ordinary roads.

(Did you need "science" to tell you that?)

It is possible to have a reasonably long, protected cycletrack with no
crossings. One way to do it is have it installed out beyond the city
limits, where there are no cross streets or driveways; but low usage
means those are seldom justified. Another is to place it along a river,
although again, there will eventually be intersections where protection
ends. Another way is to make the cycletrack an elevated structure,
which would cost a fortune. But even in those cases, if the cyclist
wants to actually get somewhere practical, he's going to have to have
difficulties, because the same barriers that "protect" the cyclist means
he has difficulty getting off the cycletrack to get to mid-block
destinations.

Oh, so "long stretches" are simply impractical. How convenient
for your objection to facilities of any kind any place any time.

You simply can't have a separate, parallel network of facilities that
accesses all the places people need to go.

Obviously. So 1) let's not have any anywhere, and 2) let's
not even try to work out the problem (ostensibly because of
the problems, but really because it goes against the way of
doing things that suits Frank Krygowski as a big, strong,
admired, manly man.)

When the end of
a stretch is reached at a crossing to the next stretch,
there is a design challenge. But the Dutch are working
on it. And it's not just in facility design.

Sure. Some Europeans say it's terrible that those installing
cycletracks in the U.S. allow gaps at intersections. Look at what
they're proposing for every city intersection! What odds do you give
for this being done everywhere?

http://vimeo.com/86721046

I only watched not quite half of it, but _that looks great_!


Just think: If we spend the money to do that everywhere, we _might_ get
bike mode share up to, oh, perhaps 3%!

Smarmy, bitter, biased old coot.