The case for physically separated bike lanes

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

On Apr 1, 10:06 am, Wayne Pein wrote:
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

A wide lane of 15 or 16 feet accomplishes much/all of what a bike lane
does without segregating bicyclists or reducing their space and rights.
A wide lane is more likely to be free of debris than a bike lane. A wide
lane is more appropriate on "normal" non-freeway type roads where
"accommodating" bicyclists is useful. Really though, a wide lane or a
bike lane is first a way to make it easier for motorists to pass, and
this makes some bicyclists feel more comfortable and safe, but they are
not really operationally benefical to bicyclists.

Well they're operationally beneficial to other users in the presence of
bicyclists.

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything- MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could have
been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty simple.

The right that matters here is often right of way, as in land to build a
wider road, which often isn't available, and if it is, is very expensive.

Slapping 3' of asphalt on a shoulder doesn't work, even though it's done
frequently. It doesn't bear the weight of a motor vehicle, and will
quickly become broken up, eroded, etc., besides not being smooth enough
to ride comfortably on in the first place.

Right now in VA we're adding proper roadbed-supported shoulder during
maintenance repaving projects. It costs $400k per mile. We could build
miles and miles of multi-use path for that, especially if there's already
good roadbed, as with an old rail line.

Matt O.

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:


see above...I agree that a wider road is key, I just think people
somewhat observe lines. If you assume they KNOW how far to move over,
some cyclists will still get nailed. If they know to just stay between
the lines, and us over to the side, I think less accidents.



You fail to recognize that by "us" staying over to the side in a narrow
defined space, turning and merging type collisions are increased. You
also discount our reduced maneuvering space, loss of rights, and the
greater liklihood of debris. This paper describes in detail the problems
bicyclists face by riding near the side:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...High_Speed.pdf
It's a 1.5 mb file.

Designing an infrastructure with shoulders and other "safe crashing"
features more readily enables motorists to go "asleep:" at the worst
actually asleep, at the least in a brain dead fog.

Wayne

On Apr 1, 4:53 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:11 am, (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole wrote:
I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

Only 15 minutes? You were lucky. And you, at least, know who hit
you. Not sure how long I was out; after I was found, response was
called, I was worked on at the scene, transported to the hospital,
etc. etc. I finally regained consciousness while being scanned for
possible brain damage. What/who hit me has never been identified.

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away
from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car
drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars
to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more.

There is a difference between having a wide shoulder and having a
physically segregated lane. Physically segregated lanes are VERY
expensive, probably provide some better protection, but as with most
things some of that protection is an illusion. I can support wider
shoulders; that can be built over time on many roads (not all).
Physically segregated networks will cost many hundreds of billions of
dollars ... for each state. And where will the funding come from?
California estimates that just repairing existing roads to minimal
standards for all users will cost $160B, the cost of catching up after
funding cuts that started in the 70's. A bond measure passed last
year will provide $20B. A $1 increase in the gas tax, if one could
ever pass it, would provide another $20B. Try to argue that the
state should add another $100B+ for segregated bicycle networks and
anyone with any political savvy will laugh uncontrollably. Federal
funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in
controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that
there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real
financing for a proposal like that.

I am on a committee that advises our city council on issues related to
transportation. We have a decent bike network and are always trying
to improve it. But the reality of money continually hits home; we
can get around $250K/year on average for bicycle improvements and that
does not go far. The City Council is quite bike friendly, several of
them ride regularly and some even escort their children to school on
bikes. The $250K is not a pittance thrown to quiet the cyclists, it
is what can be carved out of a tight budget. If fed funds can be un-
frozen we will spend about $6M this year, using federal and county
money to build bridges over two freeways that divide the city both
geographically and culturally. $1M of the cost, more or less, will
come from 'developer mitigation' funds, money the city gets from
developers to help pay for the burden the developments place on they
city infrastructure; I am not sure how much of the mitigation kitty
this will take, as a percentage, but my guess is it is a big chunk. I
see no way we will get money to segregate cyclists. And what money
we do get for striping bike lanes all goes to the faster arterials
and collectors, not quieter residential roads. BTW, we do have a
policy that all re-paving project must include striping of lanes, so
as time progresses we will get much of the city striped.

Money is the 500 lb gorilla in any argument about bicycling
facilities, and so far those advocating for physically segregated
facilities seem to have pie in the sky ideals of where that money will
come from. When we had this discussion locally a couple of months
back, the largest proponents of segregation believed that global
warming concerns would cause the purse strings to loosen and funds to
magically appear for all sorts of alternative transportation
projects. Yes, and the easter bunny will leave a brand new Record
gruppo on my front porch this weekend, too ;-)

- rick

In article ,
Wayne Pein writes:
Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications.

What I find most abominable is not the lanes themselves,
but the Raised Features that always get mentioned when such
lanes are suggested or proposed. And not just big stuff like
abutments and bollards. As we all know, sticky-uppy bumps that a
pedestrian might trip over in the dark can be a downright recipe
for catastrophe for a bike + rider. Sometimes even the bike lane
itself is a Raised Feature, with a little curb sharply dropping
off to the adjacent "real" street. I picture urban designers
gleefully wringing their hands with anticipation, hoping to
get a chance to go all artsie-fartsie with Raised Features.
Those thinks that do all the "physically separating" can be
hazards themselves, if poorly or improperly implemented.

Some folks maintain different-coloured pavement for the
bike lane enhances visibility and safety. Maybe it does?

I looked at the link Matt provided (didn't look at the
video though, I've only got dial-up.) The diagram on
the front page shows a physically separated bike lane
situated between a sidewalk and a parking lane.
That puts the bike lane out of the driver's side door
zone, but into the passenger side door zone.

I think this would tend to put parked cars in the
position of obscuring sightlines, both for riders
looking out for drivers getting out of their cars &
making for the sidewalk, and for those drivers looking
out for oncoming cyclists as they attempt to walk across
the bike lane, to the sidewalk.

In short, this placement of the bike lane looks to me
like it forces pedestrians (who have just gotten out of
their cars) onto it as jaywalkers. Same thing for people
going from the sidewalk, across the bike lane to their cars,
but at least they'll be more visible.

In that situation, both rider and driver have to be heads up;
one can't do all the attention paying for the other guy, too,


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 06:01:24 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything- MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor
Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really
follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either
repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic
lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the
U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and
basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at
the current repainting cycle for that roadway.

Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs
and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges
of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I
can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would
have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly
(basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of
concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still
left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of
disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists,
but it never happened.

In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could
narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then
whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of
adding asphalt.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Looking at the above kind of 'How things work in the real world'
explains a lot. We have bike lanes, but only on one side of the road, so
they are bidirectional, since you can't ride safely on the other side of
the road. In town at least they have a parking lane on both sides, but
every car is a 'door zone' so caution is always in order.
Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the
planners are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than
health. That's real world.
Bill Baka

Wayne Pein wrote:

Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The
problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their
limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere.

Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone
else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an
abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have
long since left the building.

Like it or not, many of us live where workable bicycle lanes add to
the enjoyment of riding. You'd be much better off realizing that it's
not about politics or virtual car/penis envy or anything else - but
just getting to work or the grocery store with the least drama.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:49:10 -0700, Rick wrote:

Federal
funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in
controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that
there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real
financing for a proposal like that.

There are no frozen fed funds. TEA continues as usual, albeit with some
cutbacks.

I am on a committee that advises our city council on issues related to
transportation.

Great.

Matt O.

Mark Hickey wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:


Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The
problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their
limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere.


Wayne, I think that you're solidly a zealot, unlike almost everyone
else in this discussion. When you consider separate bike lanes "an
abomination of abomination", it's clear that reason and logic have
long since left the building.

Mark,

Perhaps you should read more carefully. Bike lanes are merely an
abomination. *Physically separated* bike lanes are an abomination of an
abomination.

Frankly, I think the numerous papers I've written on the topic are chuck
full of logic and reason, whereas the position of bike lane supporters
is bereft of it.


Like it or not, many of us live where workable bicycle lanes add to
the enjoyment of riding. You'd be much better off realizing that it's
not about politics or virtual car/penis envy or anything else - but
just getting to work or the grocery store with the least drama.


Can you describe to me how/why "getting to work or the grocery store" in
a 16'lane is more "drama" than getting there in a narrower Bike
Reservation?

Wayne

On Apr 3, 9:27 am, Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:49:10 -0700, Rick wrote:
Federal
funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in
controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that
there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real
financing for a proposal like that.

There are no frozen fed funds. TEA continues as usual, albeit with some
cutbacks.

No, they are effectively frozen. They are allocated in the budget,
but not being disbursed at this time until new guidelines for review
are finalized. Once the guidelines are in place then there will be a
bottleneck as projects slowly get reviewed. Without disbursement,
projects which have allocations cannot be contracted. Having funds
available, and writing checks are distinctly different; you are
talking of funding being in the budget. That does no good until they
are allowed to write the checks.

- rick

Like it or not, many of us live where workable bicycle lanes add to
the enjoyment of riding.

Here in Britain, nearly fifty years ago, in 1958, Professor Sir Colin
Buchanan, one of Britain's most famous town planners and traffic
engineers, wrote in his book "Mixed Blessing, The Motor in Britain"
"The meagre efforts to separate cyclists from motor traffic have
failed, tracks are inadequate, the problem of treating them at
junctions and intersections is completely unsolved, and the attitude
of cyclists themselves to these admittedly unsatisfactory tracks has
not been as helpful as it might have been."

Actually, back in those days bike lanes had not been invented. There
were only cycle tracks. Nowadays, because cycle tracks are as bad as
they always were, they have become the cycle facility that dare not
speak its name. People have to use euphemisms, like "segregated bike
lane"

Jeremy Parker