CrankyOne

1. Legally they are supposed to come to a complete stop and make sure that all is clear (including crossings) before making a right turn. Obeying the law is not exactly a strong suit of ours though.

2. This is poor design.

Now think about most of the rest of the world outside of the U.S. Right on Red is illegal and is pretty well obeyed. Off hand I can't think of a country that allows it. In The Netherlands and elsewhere if a junction is signalized (which is rare since they often use roundabouts instead) it will usually have specific signals for turns which assures the there are no conflicts with people walking or riding bicycles. Better yet are junctions with simultaneous green for bicycle riders that stop all motor traffic from all directions and give bicycle riders free reign in every direction which has been found to be very safe and extremely efficient.

jputnam

It makes sense, really. Most Dutch cyclists aren't going fast enough (18 mph) that they'd be allowed off the path under this experiment. They have a very different bicycling environment than the U.S., most trips are much shorter, and flatter, and average people can comfortably ride those distances on roadsters in street clothes.

Urban sidepaths aren't particularly hazardous for cyclists riding at fast-pedestrian speeds, so the slow-moving majority of Dutch riders aren't the target for this change -- they're trying to make the paths safer for the design user by reducing speed differentials on the path.

martl

Herne (westphalia/DE) reduces "protected" bike lanes in favor of bike lanes on the road since 2007.



Modal share went up to ~10%, # of cyclists injured in accidents dropped in the same time significantly, both absolute numbers and %.


Der Radfahrer ist zurück auf der Straße - Herne - lokalkompass.de

spare_wheel

Now that is a freaking bike lane! And note the absence of free vehicle storage.

spare_wheel

NYC just adopted a city wide 25 mph maximum speed limit. Most of Portland's arterials are signed at 25 and many residential streets at 20. If anything, I think it will be easier to find funding for lowering speed limits than finding the billions needed for Dutch-style infrastructure. (Not an agrument against building more Dutch-style infrastructure.)

CrankyOne

Agree. It's not either/or, we should do both. Segregated paths on roads with over 20 mph speed limit, 20mph speed limit on streets without segregated paths. Probably 80% of the streets in The Netherlands have no bicycle facilities at all, but these are all 18 mph or less, often don't allow cars to pass bicycle riders, and intended for short distance local access only. They work very well. Through roads with higher motor traffic speeds then have segregated infrastructure.

CrankyOne

A few questions: How was the protected infrastructure designed, particularly junctions? Was it up to Dutch standards? What have the actual modal share numbers been with the protected infrastructure and the unprotected? What is the speed and daily volume of motor traffic on the road above?

spare_wheel

Something that is lost in the infrastructure debates we have here.

In fact, a recent proposal for commercial greenways in Portland has gained some interest and is a riff on dutch winkelerfen:

Guest article: Envisioning a 'commercial greenway' along 28th Avenue - BikePortland.org

genec

But also keep in mind that in the Netherlands there is bike training and some road use training going on in public schools from a young age... So the population overall has a vastly better understanding of the rules and responsibilities involved for road users.

This holds true in several other EU countries... I tried for instance to put myself in right hook situations in Oulu, only to have motorists stop and yield each time... even when it was quite awkward for them... In the US in the same situations I would have been hit or honked at or gotten several close calls.

When the population is made well aware of rules and responsibilities, the whole environment is different. The US tends to rely on mere 40 hour drivers' ed class as a sole means of road use, responsibility, and sharing education... I think sex ed gets more than that.

CrankyOne

I agree, but I'm not sure how much good it will do without proper infrastructure. Our current infrastructure encourages law breaking and fast no-stop driving. Every driver training course that I'm aware of makes a big deal out of stopping before turning right on red. How often do you see people actually do it?

Even with gobs of really good training though drivers still make deadly mistakes and here to proper infrastructure helps protect vulnerable bicycle riders, disabled, and pedestrians.

genec

The problem is, there aren't gobs of good training available... 40 hours is all it takes to get a drivers' license... and how much of that do you think is retained 6 months down the road... when the new driver is watching all the other poor habits around them.

Many other countries are far far stricter than the US when it comes to training and licensing drivers... We just hand kids the keys to the kingdom and then wonder why 30,000 folks die each year.

Six jours

I doubt it's generally possible to get up to 25 MPH in NYC anyway. And residential streets around the country tend to have 20-25 MPH speed limits. As for arterials, I'm betting we have a definition issue. To my mind, "arterial" implies a divided road of at least four lanes. In my experience, "most" of those roads in Portland are signed at 55 MPH.

At any rate, the argument that because 25 MPH is appropriate in some places, 20 MPH should be the limit everywhere is a non-starter - especially when accusing your interlocutor of pipe-dreaming.

spare_wheel

I live right off a 4 lane arterial signed at 25. This really is the default in Portland. There are very, very few divided arterials in PDX and even the state and interstate highways that run through Portland (the city, not the metro region) are signed at 40-50.

JoeyBike

If 20 MPH were the limit everywhere in my town I would feel like Brad Pitt on the Academy Awards runway with all of the traffic cam flash bulbs popping all around me. As it is there are a couple I routinely set off running red lights. I am fond of throwing my hands in the air like I just won a stage in the TDF while the flashes activate. I often wonder what those poor devils who actually have to look at that footage must think of me every day.

CrankyOne

Agree with your last statement.

I've driven through NYC often and 45 isn't a problem in most areas. A study some time ago of cab drivers indicated that they were often going 60 mph in 30 mph zones and video showed them passing police at 20 mph over a speed limit and not being stopped.

The U.S. hierarchical road system includes: local, collector, arterial, motorway. Arterials are main through roads and may be a single lane in each direction or more. They do not necessarily need to be 4 lanes or divided. Most local streets in the U.S. have a 30 mph default speed limit and many states have laws that they may not be lowered below this unless they are a designated parkway.

Realistically our local roads should all have a speed limit of 15 or 20 mph and no bicycle facilities. Collectors should usually have a segregated bikeway (cycletrack or side path) though a few low volume low speed collectors might be OK with a painted bike lane. Arterials should all have a segregated bikeway or a separate path that provides the same connection (e.g., the path need not follow beside the arterial but should allow bicycle riders, disabled, and people walking to safely and comfortably get to all of the same destinations).

CrankyOne

Keep in mind that there are other reasons for lower speeds than safety. Noise is a significant issue as is comfort (for example, a shopping street with 20 mph traffic is more comfortable to walk along than one with 35 mph traffic). Both of these play heavily in to property values. A house near (within hearing range which can be a 1/4 mile or more) a higher speed road will have a much lower value than if the road has a lower speed and thus lower noise level and higher comfort level.

That said we shouldn't make all roads 20 mph. To Joeybikes point many arterials should be 35 or 40 or 45 (and have a segregated side path) so that people can get where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time.

rekmeyata

Bike paths or lanes are costly with the AVERAGE cost per just 5 feet is $130,000, which is high cost to endure for just few cyclists using them; so depending on the price of land, engineering, etc should determine which will have the least financial impact on taxpayers and build accordingly.

TerraCottaGamer

That price seems a bit ridiculous to me - anything to substantiate that figure?

I live in China and EVERY road has bike lanes that are usually as wide as a car lane. Down side is cars will occasionally use them too. But many of them are sectioned off with some kind of barrier.

rumrunn6

I prefer what India has, one giant free-for-all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdHkRkwJvww

rekmeyata

Yup there is; see: Pedestrian & Bicycle Information Center

genec

Or get a lot more cyclists using them...

CrankyOne

I think you're off by quite a bit (and given you're using PBIC I'm not surprised). A project we are currently working on comes out as:

10' side path = $610k / mile
12' side path = $640k / mile
30' local road (residential) = $4.5mm / mile
28' 2 lane collector = $4.6mm / mile

Note that the cost goes up with expected AADT and speed so replacing that 2 lane collector with a 2 lane arterial would be about $6mm / mile even though the surface area is identical. We are also hoping to get approval for much narrower roadways (24' residential with parking allowed on one side only) and 23' collector (2 10.5' travel lanes and 1' shoulder). These costs do not include any bridges and all junctions are non-signaled so overall this is a fairly low cost project.

The bike paths are expected to last 70+ years with little maintenance. Local roads are expected to need crack seal once per year, chip seal every 4 years, mill & overlay @ years 12 & 30, and replacement at 50. Collectors are roughly similar except replacement at 40 years.

From a city/county monetary perspective the bike paths begin to look good when around 4% of people switch from a car to bicycling for local trips (in reduced maintenance costs and longevity of roads). The bigger payout though is that they increase property values which in turn increases property tax revenue. People walking and bicycling also make areas seem more vibrant.

prathmann

Actually that source gives $130,000 as the average cost PER MILE of a bike lane. But with a very large range (from about $5000 to $535000) - so citing an average isn't very meaningful. I'd also note that the source specifies only bike lanes - so using their figure for both lanes and paths would be misleading.

rekmeyata

Good luck with that because on average across the US cycling commuting while has gone up on average of 47% in the last 10 years you're only dealing with in 2009 the number of bike commuters of about 766,000 thousand which means it should be around 1,126,000 today. While that number may look big but scattered out between all the cities and towns in the US and it's remarkably low, so low that here in Fort Wayne I rarely see a bike commuter and the paths are almost vacant except on weekends and when the weather is decent. So the taxpayers are paying for a system that is being used lightly at best in most states except warmer year round areas which is where most of the bike commuter growth has taken place.

genec

Which comes first... the chicken or the egg.

You are not going to get more people cycling if they have to face the onslaught of angry motorists and have to "become the alpha" and "take the lane."

Just as the motoring public needed a huge infusion of public money to create the national highway system (ostensibly "sold" to the public as a "national defense" item...) we will also need a huge infusion of public monies to create a system of usable bike paths that will both decrease our national dependence on foreign oil and help improve the heath of the nation. (did you see what I did there... I tied cycling to national security and national health... two reasons to encourage a national cycling network similar to the Federal Highway act of 1956)