Our town is holding two workshops on bike lane Master planning. This was the recent announcement in our community paper. I know there are wildly divergent views on this subject. So, what input would you provide?
The Town, with the help of the State Department of Health and Environment, recently began the process
of developing a Bike Lane Master Plan and we are looking for your input.
The Master Plan will help in determining appropriate locations for bike lanes and provide preliminary design
guidance. The Town will be holding two workshops on Tuesday, May 17 and Wednesday May, 18 from 6
to 8 p.m. at Town Hall. Light snacks and drinks will be provided.
Parker is committed to providing our citizens with recreation and transportation options and we look
forward to your input. For more information, please call (incorrect number) or
email (please PM me if you would like to email - DnvrFox)
genec
05-06-05, 12:46 PM
Never put any bike facilities next to parked cars.
noisebeam
05-06-05, 12:53 PM
, what input would you provide?
-Don't put BLs on streets with 25mph or less speed limit. This can be a hard sell since many community activists want them in their immediate neighborhood.
-Make sure BL striping end 100yrds before every intersection, major or minor, unless the intersection has a dedicated right turn only lane. If the striping is not ended, at least make it dashed 100yrd before intersection (a compromise)
-Get some discussion about WOLs instead of BLs as they cost less per mile in addtion to the other benefits they provide over BLs.
Al
DnvrFox
05-06-05, 12:56 PM
WOLs ??
Stubacca
05-06-05, 01:03 PM
WOLs ??
Wide outside lanes, usually about 15ft instead of the standard 12ft. Usually less complex for drivers to understand and don't formally separate (and therefore segregate) the cyclist, but probably more intimidating for novice cyclists (???).
noisebeam
05-06-05, 01:05 PM
WOLs ??
Wide Outside Lane. This gives some explaination as well as pros and some cons compared to BLs.
Not to hijack the thread, but you should tell them to do the exact oppossite of what the city of madison is doing. The city of madison is adding parking to the right side of the "inner loop" arounf the capitol. Currently, the road has metered parking on the left and 2 lanes of traffic with a bike lane on the right. A whole lot of delivery trucks and city busses use the road. Now, there is going to be metered parking on the left AND right with a bike lane down the middle of the road. As such the road will now be (from left to right) metered parking, a narrow lane of traffic, a wide bike lane, a narrow lane of traffic, and metered parking. There is no way the busses, delivery trucks and suvs are going to be able to do down that street in two lanes of traffic if there are cars parked on both the left and the right and bikes in the middle. Its a recipe for numerous accidents.
DnvrFox
05-06-05, 04:02 PM
Thanks for all the input. I have forwarded the article from Chapel Hill to the coordinator as "food for thought."
I think we are going to have bike lanes, though. I would guess it is pre-determined.
CommuterRun
05-06-05, 06:00 PM
Here are some of the concerns I have with bike lanes: they often put the cyclist too far to the right, not only removing him from the traffic lane, but also removing him from effective sight lines not only of vehicles approaching from the rear, but particularly of vehicles crossing or turning onto the road from side streets; bike lanes are where the road debris collects on roads that have them, requiring the cyclist to periodically travel in the traffic lane; bike lanes are often seen by motorists as a handy place to park, in order to avoid the door zone the cyclist must, again, take to the traffic lane; typically traffic lanes with adjacent bike lanes are too narrow to share so the cyclist takes the traffic lane triggering, "He's not riding in the bike lane," complaints; when bike lanes are added to existing streets by widening the street, it often leaves a seam between the old and new road material, this creates a linear hazard, the worst kind because the cyclist cannot get away from it, that can crash a bicycle; bike lanes give both the motorist and the cyclist a false sense of security typically encouraging high speed and often close passing by the motorist when traffic is moving and by the cyclist when traffic is stopped as if the painted line were some kind of physical wall that cannot be breached.
Wide outside lanes are cheaper to install and cheaper to maintain.
Helmet Head
05-06-05, 06:05 PM
Consider the pros and cons of bike lanes before going forward.
I've put together a summary of the bike lane debate on Wikipedia (free online encyclopedia).
Check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate
PaulH
05-06-05, 07:08 PM
How about, "don't waste the taxpayer's money on them?"
Paul
atbman
05-07-05, 02:46 PM
The greatest determinant of cyclists safety is, I suspect, good training. It's weird that we generally regard driver training as natural and essential, but cyclist training is rarely given any consideration.
Yet knowing how to ride in traffic saves more lives/injuries/collisions than any number of bike lanes.
Get the town council to sponsor some people to take an appropriate instructors course, such as Forrester's Effective Cycling programme.
Trouble is, we (nearly all) learn to ride a bike as kids and then regard riding a bike as the simple act of balancing and steering. Yet no-one, strange people in T...s, excepted, thinks that driving a car is all about co-ordinating brakes, steering, mirror, signalling, etc. They are merely the prerequisites or learning to drive in traffic
catatonic
05-07-05, 08:17 PM
very true, there is far more than moving forward.
It's all about awareness.
As for that I hate narrow bike lanes, since they don't allow for proper visibility of a intersection to the right, or a driveway...this can cause plenty of accidents.
I'm a fan of the wide right lane.
I also wish cities would put out little 15-20 seconds things on TV about ways drivers should respond to bike traffic, such as passing maneuvers, intersctions, etc. That may help some, but at the least it would say "hey these guys are actual traffic, play nice".
noisebeam
05-09-05, 10:11 AM
I also wish cities would put out little 15-20 seconds things on TV about ways drivers should respond to bike traffic, such as passing maneuvers, intersctions, etc. That may help some, but at the least it would say "hey these guys are actual traffic, play nice".
I would support the same. PSAs supported with funds from an additional $0.05 tax per gallon of gas ;) (in my dreams)
I think they could be designed to both educate about rights of and how to best drive with cyclists on the road as well as encourage others to cycle more as a mode of transportation and demonstrate proper traffic riding skills. If done right right they could be fun and engaging, not drab monotone type PSAs.
Al
Toyman991
05-09-05, 11:31 AM
Aside from all the excellent comments that have already been posted, make sure that your town budgets for and uses a streetsweeper on their new BLs. I have some roads near my house with BLs and they are always full of glass/gravel and other debris.
AndrewP
05-09-05, 11:58 AM
I prefer the WOL. In addition to sweeping debris from BLs, get the town to move the storm drains from the BL or the side of WOLs under the edge of the sidewalk. Cyclists could then ride in a predictable line close to the edge of the road, without swerving around these obstructions.
John E
05-09-05, 02:20 PM
Great thread. I concur with most of the responses. In most instances, I prefer wide outside lines over bike lanes, but the one place I still defend bike lanes is BETWEEN the rightmost through lane and a right-turn-only lane, where the bike lane further emphasizes: 1) expect bikes here, not to the right of the right-turn-only lane; and 2) merge into the proper lane BEFORE you get this close to the intersection. For all of you San Diegans, one prime example is southbound Gilman Dr. at the southbound I-5 onramp.
Instead of spending money on bikelanes, convice your city to spend money on bike-sensitive traffic signal loop detectors, pothole repair, and traffic calming of any high-speed freely-flowing intersections.
noisebeam
05-09-05, 02:31 PM
..but the one place I still defend bike lanes is BETWEEN the rightmost through lane and a right-turn-only lane,...
Instead of spending money on bikelanes, convice your city to spend money on bike-sensitive traffic signal loop detectors, pothole repair, and traffic calming of any high-speed freely-flowing intersections.
I find a WOTL to the left of a RTOL works the same if not better than a BL sandwiched between the TL and the RTOL. The BL really only sends the message to cyclists to use the TL.
But as to you second point about $... yes, yes, yes - sensors, good roads, calm traffic. These three are what makes cycling most enjoyable and safe.
Al
John E
05-09-05, 08:48 PM
I find a WOTL to the left of a RTOL works the same if not better than a BL sandwiched between the TL and the RTOL. The BL really only sends the message to cyclists to use the TL. ...
In the specific example I cited, we have a HUGE problem with speeding motorists illegally crossing over the SOLID white line separating the through lane from the RTOL. I find that an apalling number of California motorists do not understand the distinction between a solid and a dotted demarcation between two lanes. Replacing a single solid line with two framing a bike lane just might help.
I have another, semi-related rationale. I don't know how much jogging or walking you do, but I run about 4 miles / 6km as part of my weekday morning commute. Pedestrians can get right-hooked, just as cyclists can. I encounter two signal-controlled intersections with right-turn-only lanes at which I often jog in the solid-striped portion of the bike lane for the same reason that an effective cyclist would seek out that area, i.e., to avoid being right-hooked by some bozo who is not watching for me. Contrary to popular wisdom and advice, on a road with shoulders, sidewalks, or bike lanes, walking/jogging WITH the flow of traffic is far safer at intersections than going contraflow, just as it is for cyclists, and for the same reasons.
noisebeam
05-10-05, 09:52 AM
I have another, semi-related rationale. I don't know how much jogging or walking you do, but I run about 4 miles / 6km as part of my weekday morning commute. Pedestrians can get right-hooked, just as cyclists can. I encounter two signal-controlled intersections with right-turn-only lanes at which I often jog in the solid-striped portion of the bike lane for the same reason that an effective cyclist would seek out that area, i.e., to avoid being right-hooked by some bozo who is not watching for me. Contrary to popular wisdom and advice, on a road with shoulders, sidewalks, or bike lanes, walking/jogging WITH the flow of traffic is far safer at intersections than going contraflow, just as it is for cyclists, and for the same reasons.
That running bit is interesting. I used to run quite a bit (before replacing with cycling) but never ran on very busy roads. I always ran contraflow on the road itself, and hopped on sidewalk when a car or cyclist approached. It is so sad how drivers don't look out for peds, even more sad is that when they do see them they drive around them like obsticals instead of waiting for them to clear the intersection.