katsrevenge

I bet they only do it once!
But I know when I drive I don't generally jump the curb..... I stay in the road, like I'm supposed to.

Slower traffic brings more business and more life into an area. All in all, slowing it down is good for a city.
As others have already said... it apparently works well.

genec

Yeah, it's like I have no experience what so ever... Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the 10s of thousands of miles of bike commuting.

But hey, like all those years and miles mean anything... right.

And hey all those armchair quarterbacks responding early to the OP, that have never even ridden a mile outside of the US... like their experiences mean a thing either, right?

CommuteCommando

I am a huge advocate with keeping things simple, and this flies in the face of that. It would be so expensive that you could install hundreds of miles of bike lane for the cost of a mile of that stuff. That an they would turn into sidewalks, unused by cyclists, as they have here. https://Goo.Gl/maps/WhG4u

CrankyOne

40 years developing this type of infrastructure has resulted in The Netherlands having the highest modal share and safest bicycling in the world. 40 years of promoting vehicular cycling has resulted in the U.S. having one of the lowest modal shares and most dangerous bicycling in the developed world. Which is the more succesful?

Oh, the U.S. also has higher obesity, more general health problems, and a bit shorter life expectancy. Something like 17% of our education budgets are spent on transporting kids in buses instead of their riding bicycles to school (and the Netherlands scores considerably higher on every aspect of child well-being than the U.S). Promoting vehicular cycling sure has worked well for us.

Why would someone prefer a safer and more efficient infrastructure like in The Netherlands to battling with 4000 cagers?

CrankyOne

This design is used quite extensively. I'll try to find some photos. How does this promote conflict?

curbtender

Only works if everyone is on the same page. Recently found out that riding in the green lane means don't venture beyond the borders unless you are inviting share the lane...

spare_wheel

i disagree. falbo's design does not have good separation between cyclists and pedestrians. the bikeway and the sidewalk are flush with each other creating a conflict zone. in holland there are typically curbs that separate pedestrians from cyclists except for the crosswalk. moreover, the crosswalk is typically angled so that cyclists can clearly see peds as they cross. and last but not least dutch designs are *never* walled in by a cars prior to an intersection. the dutch rejected cycle paths with barriers blocking sight lines decades ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDN9fUlqU8

spare_wheel

LOL! They deal with them by getting rid of them. Cycling infrastructure without parking removal, traffic calming, and road dieting is a half measure.

CrankyOne

I'm not seeing any of the problems that you are. Maybe I'm getting to old and senile. There is no less separation between bicycles and peds on Falbo as in NL. While curb separation between bicycles and peds is desired it is not mandated nor critical and there are many instances of cycletracks being nothing more than different colored pavers on the same level as peds.

The parked cars are not a problem and do not interfere with any sightlines that I can see. This is an issue in Copenhagen where cycletracks lead in to right turn lanes and there is a need for bicycles and cars to see each other prior to this mixing, but that is not happening here or in reality in NL.

Rollfast

That's FINE, if you aren't an American businessman. We've already gone through some of this in Boise. It got howled over so badly it wasn't funny, even if it didn't supposedly back up traffic much at all.

Honestly, it's getting so dead on our streets here in Ontario, Oregon that you have to be even more careful-it lulls you and you start to forget where you are without the constant traffic to keep you focused.

jyl

How is it safe to ride 20 mph right next to pedestrians and their kids and dogs, separated by just different colored pavement?

This design and many others seem to assume we all ride slowly and sedately.

daihard 

That'd be a great solution.

CrankyOne

In the U.S. we seem to think it's safe to drive 30-50 mph right next to pedestrians without even any color separation.

Most people in NL average about 13 mph (prob 11 - 16 range). If you need or want to go faster you almost always can. When I've been in a hurry there've only been a few times when I needed to slow.

From a time from A to B standpoint a bicycle nearly always beats a car. This is largely due to a bicycle network not needing stop lights or signs (except where crossing cars) since bicycle riders can negotiate with each other, so less junction delay. Bicycle riders take up less space so can pass each other far more easily than cars (a 10' lane (cycletrack or motor lane) can handle about 15-20 times as many bicycle riders as cars). Cycletracks and paths function like multi-lane interstates or motorways (except bicycle riders do stay right except to pass, unlike in the U.S.).

Cycletracks can go where roads cannot providing for shorter routes such as through construction areas or being two-way where motor traffic is one-way or being allowed to make turns where motor traffic is prohibited.

CrankyOne

Not necessarily. First you have to think about parking removal not in terms of total spaces, but availability. If people are riding bicycles rather than driving there is need for fewer parking spaces.

Road dieting is somewhat similar (more bicycles = less cars = less need for 60' wide stroads) but there are also many roads that were overbuilt with an expectation of continually increasing traffic that never materialized (and now people are driving less each year). Also, the chaos that many predict with road diets hasn't seemed to materialize.

Traffic calming is only necessary on streets where bicycle riders and motor traffic share space. In NL these streets are usually 18 mph max speed and are sometimes fietstraats (bicycle streets) where bicycles have ROW and cars may not pass. These are always very short distance local access only. They are NEVER through streets of any sort. On major through streets there is no need of traffic calming as bicycle riders have their own cycletrack or path.

Here's a discussion on this in St Paul: https://streets.mn/2014/04/08/st-paul...he-local-mile/

work4bike

Ok, I finally read the entire article and watched the video and I also watched/read all the links provided.

When I posted this I just skimmed over it because I came across it by accident. However, after looking at it more in-depth, I see this is really about separated cycling tracks, which I don't want. But no problem, because there is pretty much zero chance of them coming here to my area. However, I'd love to see them established in some areas just to see how it works. And I agree, you cannot just establish separate cycling tracks, period. You got to incorporate all the other features, especially the special traffic light system.

I have seen cycling first hand in Holland and it's just not for me; I guess you really can't teach an old dog new tricks Sharing the road is just part of me. I've been commuting for over 25 years and my longest commute was a 50-mile roundtrip and when you do long trips it turns you into a sort of speeddemon. I can't ride around at 11-16 mph pace, even if I have the time; my body is just conditioned to riding faster, it just feels natural.

BTW, you all notice that there is no such thing as a bike path in the U.S. They all become MUPs. Wouldn't separated cycling tracks be the same?

CrankyOne

It seems if you'd ridden around The Netherlands you'd know the answer to this.

spare_wheel

i'd be more supportive of north american copenhagenistas if they (generally) had even a smidgeon of the anti-car passion that is at the core of cycling advocacy in continental europe.

intersection timing and intersection design are widely used to calm traffic. no one wants to cycle next to 60 kmh traffic protected only by a miniscule curb.

spare_wheel

i agree. criticisms of dutch infrastructure as being generally slow are definitely off target. it's possible to bike very fast on cyclepaths in the netherlands -- especially outside of crowded centers. separation between peds and cyclists is the key!

CrankyOne

Prepare to be unsupportive. There is extremely little anti-car passion in Europe. Cars are a very useful and appropriate tool for many purposes. Just not perhaps for 1 or 2 or 4 mile trips to the local cafe or school or whatever.

spare_wheel

seriously??? everything about social policy in denmark, holland, and germany has been about discouraging motoring. it's only in the usa that both the VCers and the separation folk are enamored with preserving the car-centric status quo.

CrankyOne

First, Holland is a region in The Netherlands, not a country. The Netherlands is not at all anti-car nor are many (or any?) of her citizens. Their focus is right tool for the job. Short trips always by bicycle, moderately long trips (5 miles each way) often by bicycle, longer trips (10-50 miles) by bicycle when you have time.

Denmark is similar though not quite as bicycle friendly.

Germany, Sweden, some cities in Spain, and elsewhere are implementing some form of the Dutch (Netherlands) model, to a greater or lessor degree, of segregated bicycle infrastructure and encouraging people to ride for short trips rather than drive, and sometimes for other trips. They want to decrease motor use (to lessen the costs, congestion, etc.) and increase bicycle use (they fear becoming obese Americans). They are not, except for an extreme minority, anti-car in any way.

kickstart

But isn't the intent of urban cycling infrastructure, like any other public facility, to serve the average person?

genec

This design and many others "assume" that you can bike responsibly and sanely... at speeds appropriate for the conditions... the very same demands many cyclists put upon motorists. If you can't bike in a responsible and safe manner for the conditions, why do you expect motorists to drive in a responsible and safe manner?

ALL SHARED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRES SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE USE BY ALL USERS.

It really IS that simple.

jyl

Your reply reinforces my suspicion that this sort of cycletrack is designed to SLOW cyclists to someone else's idea of "sane" speeds appropriate for riding in a narrow space between, and always at risk of being encroached by, pedestrians, children, dogs, and people loading/unloading from cars.

No thanks! I ride to get where I'm going and I enjoy the freedom and joy of riding at whatever speed I can and want to, in whatever lane for which my speed is appropriate. Where I have the legs, lungs and sometimes gravity assist, I'll ride 20-25-30 with the cars; other places I'm comfortable riding on the shoulder or in a conventional bike lane.

I'm not going to be forced to ride like an "interested but concerned" 8-to-80'er on a sensible city bike. If that is the implication of this sort of bike infrastructure, then I'll become an active opponent.

jputnam

Just for technical accuracy, in much of the U.S., this isn't a type of bike "lane" at all -- once the bicycle facility is curb separated from the street, it's a "path" instead of a "lane." The difference? You're no longer traffic in the street.

At each intersection, instead of being a vehicle subject to the usual right-of-way rules, you're a path user entering the street, with an entirely different set of right-of-way rules.

You can't simply transplant Dutch infrastructure designs to the U.S. without the legal infrastructure that supports those designs -- a far more complicated traffic code, far more rigorous licensing requirements for those who want to operate motor vehicles, and meaningful enforcement of those rules when an accident occurs.

Putting a typical American driver through this intersection is like dropping them in the seat of a semi and asking them to operate it without any training on the additional complexities of the design.