Standard Bike Lanes

[bbunk]

I have had this thought running around in my head and I need to get it out. I know some people would like to see bike lanes done away with, but I like them. One thing I have noticed is there seems to be no standard design.
When you are driving your car it doesn't matter what state or city your are in (USA) the signs and traffic lights are all the same, mean the same thing. Drivers are use to this and take it in stride while driving. One thing that is not standard is bike lane design, not even in the same city, at least not where I live. If there were a national standard for bike lane design that was uniform in all areas do you think it would help drivers awareness of bikes and bike lanes? If they see the same thing all the time it might help them recognize bike lanes and be more aware, or maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part?

No flames, just ideas.

[Keith99]

I have had this thought running around in my head and I need to get it out. I know some people would like to see bike lanes done away with, but I like them. One thing I have noticed is there seems to be no standard design.
When you are driving your car it doesn't matter what state or city your are in (USA) the signs and traffic lights are all the same, mean the same thing. Drivers are use to this and take it in stride while driving. One thing that is not standard is bike lane design, not even in the same city, at least not where I live. If there were a national standard for bike lane design that was uniform in all areas do you think it would help drivers awareness of bikes and bike lanes? If they see the same thing all the time it might help them recognize bike lanes and be more aware, or maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part?

No flames, just ideas.

The country is not the same everywhere. For example you see lot's of talk about bike lanes in the 'door zone'. In true Urban areas this is a disaster and an accident waiting to happen. But in suburbia there are lots of places where the bike lane is in the 'door zone' but there are very few cars parked. A perfectly valid place for a bike lane as I see it. So what should the standard be? Allow it and you get disaster in the urban areas, say no and you don't put in bike lanes where they not only work but work well and easily.

If a standard exists and is followed the most likely result includes having much fewer bikes lanes put in, because they can not be put in without prohibitive costs and meet the standard.

[* jack *]

No offense, but I think a standard bike lane design would be a bad idea.

Just on my morning commute alone, I ride through at least 3 different speed zones and a variety of roads ranging from narrow one-way streets, to higher speed two-lane feeder roads. Some of these roads have horribly designed bike lanes, which I routinely avoid. Some have on-street parking, some don't, etc etc (you see my point...)

I personally think bike lanes need to be designed in a way and placed only where they will be most effective. Some roads would do well with a 'typical' bike lane, other roads would do better with sharrows, or similary marked WOLs, etc etc... some roads shouldn't have bike lanes at all, IMO.

I would rather support standard lane-rule signage, regardless of the pattern of striping or location of other symbols painted on the roadway. Moreso, I would rather support standard definitions of 'bikes as vehicles' in State statutes across the nation and/or standardized DMV education and vehicular law enforcement as it applies to violations by both cars and cyclists.

[bbunk]

One size does not fit all situations in life. But instead of having poorly designed bike lanes you are not comfortable using a standard design guideline would produce better results. It could have variations for different size/speed roads, urban/suburban, etc. Just seems like a waste when the powers that be put in a bike lane that is not done right and we are supposed to like it.

[* jack *]

One size does not fit all situations in life. But instead of having poorly designed bike lanes you are not comfortable using a standard design guideline would produce better results. It could have variations for different size/speed roads, urban/suburban, etc. Just seems like a waste when the powers that be put in a bike lane that is not done right and we are supposed to like it.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to play semantics, but perhaps we should be arguing for better "bike lane design standards", rather than "standard bike lane design".

[bbunk]

Sounds great.

[Da Tinker]

Ah, but there is a design standard: the American Association of State Highway & Transporation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. It is supposed to be the standard by which all road designers & developers work to in the USA, and any project which receives Federal funding has to comply with it.

It covers everything from MUP's to WOL & sharrows. There are errors and flaws in the standard, the most notorious being where on-street, parallel parking and a bike lane all share 11' (a full size SUV with one door open spans 10'). After a period of informed public comment, this standard is currently under revision.

Government & road designers do not function in a void. There has to be public comment periods for any new road designs or road upgrades. Take part in your local government and atend these meetings or ally yourself with someone who does. Good function for bike clubs.

[bbunk]

Thanks for the info. Now I have something to refer to when I contact the DOT.

[Da Tinker]

I've got the AASHTO guide as a pdf, anout a 2.6 Meg file. PM if you would like a copy emailed to you. Also, you may be able to find it out on the web somewhere.

[sbhikes]

I think what you want are general standards, not specific ones. In other words, in general, do not place bike lanes underneath parked cars, in door zones, to the right of right turn lanes, all the way to the stop line of an intersection etc. The specifics would be free to be set on a regional basis.

[closetbiker]

Ah, but there is a design standard: the American Association of State Highway & Transporation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. It is supposed to be the standard by which all road designers & developers work to in the USA, and any project which receives Federal funding has to comply with it.

It covers everything from MUP's to WOL & sharrows. There are errors and flaws in the standard, the most notorious being where on-street, parallel parking and a bike lane all share 11' (a full size SUV with one door open spans 10'). After a period of informed public comment, this standard is currently under revision.

Government & road designers do not function in a void. There has to be public comment periods for any new road designs or road upgrades. Take part in your local government and atend these meetings or ally yourself with someone who does. Good function for bike clubs.

We have a similar situation in Canada with the Transportation Association of Canada guidelines providing the designers of the facilities with common guidelines and standards accepted federally.

The rub comes of course, is in the word, guideline. Weather or not the guideline is followed is anyones guess and it doesn't even have to be followed.

I'd also agree with the importance of sitting in on the meetings before a facility is completed. They are often planned far in advance and to make a point after something is implemented is often not very effective in getting changes made, but may have some impact on future designs.

[patc]

I've got the AASHTO guide as a pdf, anout a 2.6 Meg file. PM if you would like a copy emailed to you. Also, you may be able to find it out on the web somewhere.

If you want to email me a copy, I can host it on my server for whoever else wants to download it.

[Da Tinker]

If you want to email me a copy, I can host it on my server for whoever else wants to download it.

On the way, and many thanks for the offer.

[77Univega]

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to play semantics, but perhaps we should be arguing for better "bike lane design standards", rather than "standard bike lane design".--- This is one of the most constructive bike lane threads I have ever read thanks to bbunk et al.

[Dogbait]

Here is the Bicycle Master Plan from the city of Portland, OR. The bike lane info is in Appendix A, Bikeway Design and Engineering Guidlines. Appendix A is 41 pages long and has a fairly complete discussion of standards and practices with numerous illustrations. This is a .pdf file of 1.55 Mb, fair warning to dial-uppers.

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN (http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=40414)

Note:
The most recent update is shown as 1998 but I believe it is currently in use.

Dogbait

[patc]

On the way, and many thanks for the offer.

Got it, thanks.

For anyone who wants to download it, the file is in .PDF (Adobe Acrobat) formet, 2.4mb

ASHTO Bike guidelines (http://clients.patcroteau.com/pat/ASHTOBikebook.pdf)

[* jack *]

Here are the draft guidelines we've been working on for Durham's bike plan:

Durham Draft (http://www.jackedinger.net/pdf/DurhamDraft.pdf)

I'm on the steering committee, my first foray into advocacy. It's been quite an experience.

[DCCommuter]

Here is a critique of the AASHTO standards: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/AASHTO_DZBL.pdf

The problem that traffic engineers face is that bike lanes are often installed not as an amenity for cyclists, but to get cyclists out of the way of motorists. Unfortunately, bike lanes do not make the road wider, so if the road is not wide enough for motorists and cyclists to share safely without a lane, painting a lane doesn't make it any more shareable. But it is roads where sharing is difficult where there is the most public demand for bike lanes. The poor engineers are stuck between giving people what they want, and the laws of physics, and physics loses.

Here is an article about a cyclist who was killed in a bike lane that meets AASHTO standards: http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm

Judging from the photos in the story, I wouldn't ride in that bike lane.

[closetbiker]

Here is an article about a cyclist who was killed in a bike lane that meets AASHTO standards: http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm

Judging from the photos in the story, I wouldn't ride in that bike lane.

I used that story among other stories printed in the press, with our local city bike co-ordinator because the city had just put in lanes like that one and I wanted to get those lanes removed before someone got hurt.

The citys stance was, it was better to have a lane of that type than no lane at all.

With friends like that, who needs enemys?

[sbhikes]

In Santa Barbara the tendency (it's not a hard and fast rule) is not to put bike lanes on roads that are too narrow to accomodate them. For the most part, bike lanes are away from the door-zone when parking is allowed, or else there is no parking. That, I think, should be another standard for bike lanes. It would help to alleviate a lot of the problems that some people have with them.

Another thing, at least in the downtown area where the streets are laid out in a grid, there are a couple of streets that were just a tad too narrow for two lanes, so they took one lane out and put a bike lane in instead. They are both one-way streets.

Now, as a cyclist, if you don't want to share narrow lanes with cars you can go a block or two over and use the bike lane. Works pretty well. I sometimes do that.