Bike lanes in middle of the street

[EnigManiac]

Does anyone recall the thread last year regarding a pilot project for bike lanes being situated in the middle of the road? I am pitching the idea to the Bike Committee here in Toronto and would like to provide them with additional information, such as the city, etc. that is testing the idea. Thanks.

[ryang]

That sounds like a death wish if you ask me.

[San Rensho]

Madison WI has (or had) a variation of that idea. Madison has always been bike friendly and had bike lanes on the right hand side of the road along thier main, multi-lane arteries. It also has very good mass transit and cyclists were getting right hooked by the buses all the time.

Thier solution was to put a bike lane between the two right most lanes. Now the buses could stay in the right hand lane, the cyclists were on their left and the first traffic lane was to the left of the cyclists.

[randya]

Portland Oregon sometimes places bike lanes to the left of right-turn-only lanes, and sometimes they paint the bike lane blue through the merge zone.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34826

Transportation Options / Bicycles page: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34772

[galen_52657]

Pitch the idea of no bike lanes.

[Helmet Head]

I assume you are not referring to the relatively short bike lanes mentioned by some above that appear to the left of right only lanes at intersections. You're talking about a pilot project, and bls to the left of rols have existed for a long time.

So what are you talking about?

[EnigManiac]

I don't want this to turn into another contentious thread about bike lanes vs no bike lanes. There was a thread last summer regarding a pilot project (and I found it: Minneapolis) where bike lanes were situated on either side of the centre dividing line. The theory was based on similar ideas tried in Europe and, in some respects, made even more sense here in North America where drivers are on the left-hand side of their vehicles. With a cyclist on the same side, the driver would, presumably, be more aware of the cyclist. the centre-lane bike route also keeps the cyclist well clear of vehicles parked to the right of bike lanes, as they often are here, that place the cyclist smack-dab in the middle of the 'door zone.' The other added benefit is that snow-plows would actually clear the bike lanes for those hearty individuals, like me, that commute year-round. With the lanes the way they are (and, personally, I like bike-lanes, and use them frequently, but I have seen some bike-lane designs that are poorly thought-out and even more stupidly executed, so I understand where folks who are against them are coming from) snow and ice are often left piled there from where folks have shoveled their parked cars out or the plows have either been afraid to clear for fear of getting too near the parked cars or where the plow leaves a mountain of sludge. Cars are inevitably forced into the bike lane if there was a particularly heavy snowfall and that pushes cylcists out into the main road with little escape room to the right. The disadvantages of centre-positioned lanes, of course, are cyclists being vulnerable to speeding cars (but no more than they are now, in my opinion, as many of our bike lanes are adjacent to single lane vehicular traffic and whether I get hit by a speeding car on the right or left, I'm still dead) and being a little more vulnerable to left-turning vehicles. Of course, oncoming motorists turning left across a cyclists path still have trouble seeing a cyclist way over on the other side of the road, so hazards still exist. I see pros and cons with both types of lanes, but with a little ingenuity, and on the right road, the experiment could work.

[Helmet Head]

Hmm. It sounds like these should definitely not be used on high speed roads where they would put slow moving cyclists that are not turning left to the left of high-speed traffic.

But on low speed roads where they wouldn't be as problematic, even many bike lane defenders admit that the "need" for bike lanes is lessened or even nil.

[EnigManiac]

The road that I am proposing it be tried on is a 40km/h (approx 30 mph) that is currently a single vehicular lane in each direction that runs for about eight or nine kilometers, most of it featuring parking on either curb. With rush-hour traffic keeping cars to the speed limit or below, it makes sense to try this particular road. My only concern is left turning vehicles in the same direction as the bike needing to cross from the cyclists right across their path to the left. Perhaps a left-turn signal would help. Perhaps it would also force cyclists to actually come to a stop (as I do) when approaching an amber light, knowing that cars likely will dash across during the few seconds before the crossing traffic gets the green light. And, with being on cars left-hand side, cyclists would easily be able to see left turn signals (for those few motorists who actually use their signals) on their right.

[lsits]

So you would have to cross 1, 2, 3, lanes of traffic to access the bike lane and then 1, 2, 3, lanes of traffic to get out? I don't like the sound of that.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Where do you want to try that in Toronto? As I buzz about this city I am frequently in the middle of the road. When I blast Yonge I hit the yellow line as cars are always turning right but only rarely left. The centre of many 40km streets could be used in this fashion. You would be on the drivers' side as they came up on you as well oncoming would see you as well. When ones rides as fast or faster than traffic the centre is actually a pretty safe place to be. It sure gets the drivers attention when I pass on the left currently. ;)

How wide would this lane be though to accomidate two way biking?

[EnigManiac]

So you would have to cross 1, 2, 3, lanes of traffic to access the bike lane and then 1, 2, 3, lanes of traffic to get out? I don't like the sound of that.

If you had read my posts, you'd have noted that the street(s) being proposed in the experiment are SINGLE lanes in either direction, so cyclists wishing to turn right would only be required to cross one lane, the same as they do now when trying to turn left.

[EnigManiac]

Where do you want to try that in Toronto? As I buzz about this city I am frequently in the middle of the road. When I blast Yonge I hit the yellow line as cars are always turning right but only rarely left. The centre of many 40km streets could be used in this fashion. You would be on the drivers' side as they came up on you as well oncoming would see you as well. When ones rides as fast or faster than traffic the centre is actually a pretty safe place to be. It sure gets the drivers attention when I pass on the left currently. ;)

How wide would this lane be though to accomidate two way biking?

Great pic of Bubbles!

I have suggested to the Bicycle Committee that they consider Davenport Rd from Old Weston Rd to Dupont (where it then becomes two lanes in each direction and likely unfeasible). Harbord is another road they could try it on as it is similar to Davenport Rd. I see that you recognized the benefit of being on a drivers left-hand side where it is hard for him to ignore you. Drivers tend to use the driver-side mirror as well while entirely ignoring their right hand mirror, so there is greater opportunity to be seen. Education and awareness would be required, however, as it would be something new for drivers. I'd be wary trying it at night for the first little while.

[TRaffic Jammer]

I think it's a cool idea, I'm a big centre of the road kinda person, I would be pretty concerned for less experienced bikers though. Just getting on the road is hard enough for some people. It sure is something new for the driver to see someone virtually right in front of them, judging from the looks on their faces they sure see me. If I'm right on the stripe in the middle I rarely don't have enough room to move about and I've never had an OMG moment *knocks on wood*. Can we do something about these damned streetcar tracks though? evil i tell ya.

A fair number of lefties on those roads you're proposing though. Laning is still pretty new in terms of planning and development but I'm pleased to see the city are actually trying stuff. Would the BL have ROW, so that left turning drivers would have to stop in their lane (as they SHOULD do now) before proceeding across? I think we have a scourge lately of partial turning in order to secure positioning in toronto that needs a good crack down.

[recursive]

Here is a [blurry] picture I took last week of the bike lane in Madison that was mentioned earlier. On the left there are 3 unrestricted lanes. On the right, there is a bus/right turn lane. One thing this does is avoid most of the right hook problem

http://tomtheisen.com/images/commute/P3090280-640.jpg

[nicomachus]

That sounds like a death wish if you ask me.

Which part? putting a bike lane in middle of the road or talking with city officials?

[lsits]

If you had read my posts, you'd have noted that the street(s) being proposed in the experiment are SINGLE lanes in either direction, so cyclists wishing to turn right would only be required to cross one lane, the same as they do now when trying to turn left.

I read your posts. Maybe I should have made myself clearer. I should have said 1 or 2 or 3 lanes of traffic. I think that many inexperienced cyclists might be intimidated to cross even one lane of traffic in order to reach the bike lane. Add to this the fact that most of the time they would be riding on the right-hand side of the road EXCEPT for the few roads that this is being tried on. Also, what happens if you have a mirror on the left side of the bike? Do you get another one for use on the right side. I think that this would be much too confusing.

Another question I have is what about cyclists coming the other way? Do you build a divider in the bike lane or do the cyclists need to be on the lookout for cyclists coming the other way?

[AndrewP]

Great idea, they never put storm drains down the middle of the road. Its over 20 years since I lived in Toronto, but I remember street car tracks in the Davenport area - I didnt like them.

[baldylocks]

I lived in Madison for a few years and I think the idea worked there. But here in DC where there is a "Bike Lane" down the middle of 9th st. it does not work. One factor to consider is wheather or not people,(drivers or those that are supposed to enforce trafffic laws), are going to care about/abide a bike lane. The lanes here are inconsistent and sometimes bike/bus lanes and generally ignored by traffic, particularly the one yhat is in the middle of the street. I'm not trying to knock your idea, just suggesting you consider how bike friendly your city is. I think if people paid attention it could work.

[Cycliste]

The theory was based on similar ideas tried in Europe and, in some respects, made even more sense here in North America where drivers are on the left-hand side of their vehicles. With a cyclist on the same side, the driver would, presumably, be more aware of the cyclist. the centre-lane bike route also keeps the cyclist well clear of vehicles parked to the right of bike lanes, as they often are here, that place the cyclist smack-dab in the middle of the 'door zone.' The other added benefit is that snow-plows would actually clear the bike lanes for those hearty individuals, like me, that commute year-round.

When you pitch the Bike Committee, take out the first argument (more sense here..), European countries with the exception of UK and Ireland have the same set up as in the US, and where the steering is on the right, driving is on the left, so this would not make any difference.

Cyclist on the same side is a sensible one. The above pic however only demonstrates this for drivers on right hand lane.

The off parked cars zone and maintenance are two real big advantages. And being off right turn only lanes is a plus. It also places cyclists in a more authoritative position, (by bike lanes standards).

Interesting.

[cooker]

I'm not keen on the centre bike lanes. You'd have to get out to them, and get back to the curb, at some point. That would pose problems. There would be continuous conflict with left-turning drivers. You couldn't have a set of lights and separate signals at every cross street.
My preference would be to close Harbord altogether to cars. Is it still the busiest bike route in the city?

[cooker]

The theory was based on similar ideas tried in Europe and, in some respects, made even more sense here in North America where drivers are on the left-hand side of their vehicles.
You're confused here. Whether in the UK, elsewhere in Europe, or in North America, drivers are positioned on the same side as oncoming traffic, so a centre bike lane puts the cyclist near to the driver in all locations.

Another concern I would have is that this creates a risk of a head on collision with inattentive oncoming traffic who drift over the line. At least if a car driver is following you and drifts into your lane, (s)he has a chance to recover before hitting you, and the impact if it occurs will be lessened by the fact you are going the same direction. With an oncoming crash, there's much less time for the dirver to notice the problem and correct it, and the crash will be at much higher speed.

[TRaffic Jammer]

adding the bike's velocity to the "closing speed" of a potential head on will not make a whit of difference, it's a bike doing a head on with a car, it's bad period. However how many oncoming drifts do you see vs drifting to the right because of phones cds texting etc? For this example you bring up, I can see the head on coming, I can be evasive as well. As for from the back ....well, we're just a rolling leap of faith aren't we? :)

[cooker]

adding the bike's velocity to the "closing speed" of a potential head on will not make a whit of difference,
The main point is that it will happen fast, so it will be hard to avoid, and it won't happen at all with the current outside lane bike position that is the norm.

[TRaffic Jammer]

These aren't jets we're in, it's the road, and not the 401. It will happen in a fashion that the biker has a chance of avoiding it entirely as opposed to relying on the skills of the driver alone. Again how many cars have you ever seen drifting into oncoming traffic head on? Compare that to how many you've seen drifting over to the right.

As it is if I'm on the yellow line I have at least two escape vectors.

[atbman]

As a retired cycling facilities surveyor for a local council (UK), I have very serious misgivings about this.

The key to safety for all road users is consistency of treatment. Here, it would seem that the idea is to treat some roads completely differently for one class of road user. Drivers coming on to this/these streets will suddenly have to change their perception (often already flawed) of cyclist behaviour and positioning. Cyclists ditto.

Scenario 1: drivers will become used to having a reasonably wide section of the highway which is relatively little used and will overtake, not seeing a rider, whether or not the rider is going in the same direction or coming the opposite way. Result - rear ended cyclist (often the most dangerous of all collisions), or, head-on collision. Head-on collisions are relatively rare in normal traffic conditions, the nearest being drivers turning across cyclists. These can be very dangerous, even fatal, but the relative speed is less than car/bike total of, say 50mph/80kph in the layout proposed.

Scenario 2: Consider existing good practice for left turning cyclist. Two-lane highway - occupy lane while signalling left (or move to left of lane signalling ditto, depending on lane width). The rider then turns left into new road while occupying sufficient of the lane to prevent driver overtaking on either side and moving quickly to rh side of lane in new road.
Scenario 2 cont'd:The proposed design, however, will require the cyclist to be completely on the left of drivers (agreed they should be highly visible, being next to the driver's side. Unless the road turned into has the same arrangement, the cyclist has to cross diagonally on to the rh side of his new lane with a driver possibly also turning left on his inside! This set-up will require both kinds of road user to assess what kind of facility is installed on which junction/intersection and react accordingly.

I leave it up to forum members to decide, from their own experience, whether or not this will lead to confusion, collision and corpses.

What I suggest to the OP is that he asks the city's traffic engineers to describe the safe behaviour required of drivers and cyclists for all possible variations on intersection manoeuvres where such a central lane arrangement is proposed. Then ask them how these manoeuvres would square with existing good practice (whether called Effective Cycling or not). They would not square...etc. and would require your current laws/regulations/traffic behaviour codes to be rewritten in order to take into account a layout which would not be feasible in the vast majority of conditions

We already have behaviour (driver and rider) which does not accord with good practice, even where the basic principles are, or should be, understood. This design would complicate, not simplify.

The proposal is unthought through and, frankly, barking.

Please cover your ears: THE IDEA IS ABSO-BLEEPING-LUTELY BLANKETY ABSURD, DANGEROUS AND IDIOTIC!

[AndrewP]

There is a 5 lane road near me, where the centre lane is for cars making left turns only in both directions. This is an uncommon configuration but it doesnt cause any confusion, and cars dont use it for overtaking. It is clearly marked with yellow lane markings and Left Turn arrows. I think if it were marked clearly as a cycle lane it would be similarly well understood.

[EnigManiac]

I read your posts. Maybe I should have made myself clearer. I should have said 1 or 2 or 3 lanes of traffic. I think that many inexperienced cyclists might be intimidated to cross even one lane of traffic in order to reach the bike lane. Add to this the fact that most of the time they would be riding on the right-hand side of the road EXCEPT for the few roads that this is being tried on. Also, what happens if you have a mirror on the left side of the bike? Do you get another one for use on the right side. I think that this would be much too confusing.

Another question I have is what about cyclists coming the other way? Do you build a divider in the bike lane or do the cyclists need to be on the lookout for cyclists coming the other way?

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound confrontational. I'm not convinced that inexperienced cyclists find either proposition particularly favourable. I think any novices willing to attempt centre lane cycling would approach the lane from a cross-walk whereas more experienced cyclists would merge at the appropriate moment. I'm respectful of motor vehicles, but not intimated, after all. As for the mirror, that is an excellent observation, and one that needs to be considered by the cyclist: they should likely install one on the right if thewy were to ride on these paticular steets. If it becomes commonplace, they would become accumstomed to using both mirrors, like motorists are supposed to.

[EnigManiac]

Great idea, they never put storm drains down the middle of the road. Its over 20 years since I lived in Toronto, but I remember street car tracks in the Davenport area - I didnt like them.

It has been some time since you've been here then. I've lived near Davenport for more than twenty years and do not recall streetcar tracks on Davenport during that time whatsoever. A bike lane on either side of the street was created about ten years ago and has proven to be a popular commuter route since motor vehicle traffic was reduced to one lane.

[EnigManiac]

As a retired cycling facilities surveyor for a local council (UK), I have very serious misgivings about this.

The key to safety for all road users is consistency of treatment. Here, it would seem that the idea is to treat some roads completely differently for one class of road user. Drivers coming on to this/these streets will suddenly have to change their perception (often already flawed) of cyclist behaviour and positioning. Cyclists ditto.

Scenario 1: drivers will become used to having a reasonably wide section of the highway which is relatively little used and will overtake, not seeing a rider, whether or not the rider is going in the same direction or coming the opposite way. Result - rear ended cyclist (often the most dangerous of all collisions), or, head-on collision. Head-on collisions are relatively rare in normal traffic conditions, the nearest being drivers turning across cyclists. These can be very dangerous, even fatal, but the relative speed is less than car/bike total of, say 50mph/80kph in the layout proposed.

Scenario 2: Consider existing good practice for left turning cyclist. Two-lane highway - occupy lane while signalling left (or move to left of lane signalling ditto, depending on lane width). The rider then turns left into new road while occupying sufficient of the lane to prevent driver overtaking on either side and moving quickly to rh side of lane in new road.
Scenario 2 cont'd:The proposed design, however, will require the cyclist to be completely on the left of drivers (agreed they should be highly visible, being next to the driver's side. Unless the road turned into has the same arrangement, the cyclist has to cross diagonally on to the rh side of his new lane with a driver possibly also turning left on his inside! This set-up will require both kinds of road user to assess what kind of facility is installed on which junction/intersection and react accordingly.

I leave it up to forum members to decide, from their own experience, whether or not this will lead to confusion, collision and corpses.

What I suggest to the OP is that he asks the city's traffic engineers to describe the safe behaviour required of drivers and cyclists for all possible variations on intersection manoeuvres where such a central lane arrangement is proposed. Then ask them how these manoeuvres would square with existing good practice (whether called Effective Cycling or not). They would not square...etc. and would require your current laws/regulations/traffic behaviour codes to be rewritten in order to take into account a layout which would not be feasible in the vast majority of conditions

We already have behaviour (driver and rider) which does not accord with good practice, even where the basic principles are, or should be, understood. This design would complicate, not simplify.

The proposal is unthought through and, frankly, barking.

Please cover your ears: THE IDEA IS ABSO-BLEEPING-LUTELY BLANKETY ABSURD, DANGEROUS AND IDIOTIC!

You make some very valid points, particularly regarding perception and that is a concern for me as well. It is something new, after all. In spite of recent crack-downs and increased education regarding dangerous driving as there tends to be an upsurge currently in relation to reckless driving, I still think these lanes have a potentially positive benefit for cyclists. Think of perception this way: if cyclists are forced to the outside of the street they are perceived as inconsequential, little more than pedestrians, but positioned in the centre of the street, they would be perceived as the primary users and, therefore, given the ROW. Thinking clearly, I believe that signage, education and advance awareness will need to be instituted prior to implementing such a plan, but I think it would be a benefit to all users of the road if more equal positioing was introduced. The more intrepid of cyclists would be willing to attempt it first, I would think, and I would be in the vanguard. It is a step. but a singles step, in the evolution of the road: I am not entirely convinced that it will work, but I am optimistic.

[AndrewP]

I find an eye glass mounted mirror perfectly adequate for monitoring traffic merging from my right on an expressway exit. However most cyclists manage without mirrors.

[TRaffic Jammer]

The shoulder check works for me. That way I know if they are closer than they appear. :)

[San Rensho]

Here is a [blurry] picture I took last week of the bike lane in Madison that was mentioned earlier. On the left there are 3 unrestricted lanes. On the right, there is a bus/right turn lane. One thing this does is avoid most of the right hook problem

http://tomtheisen.com/images/commute/P3090280-640.jpg

Is that University and Lake?

[recursive]

Is that University and Lake?

Close. University and Charter.

[San Rensho]

Not too bad an educated guess considering its been 25+ years since I lived there.

[chephy]

Ugh... Don't like the idea. It just contradicts the general idea that slower vehicles keep to the right.

What am I, as a cyclist, supposed to do if I want to turn right onto the street, go for two blocks, and then turn right again? Cross a lane of traffic, go two blocks, cross the lane again? Makes no sense. Since cyclists are not restricted to bike lanes, I'd be inclined just ignore the bike lane and keep to the right side of the road. However, this will cause confusion and irritation among car drivers: they can't pass me because there are bikes on their left as well! And I presume the "car" lane, after the bike lane in the centre has been added, isn't wide enough for sharing. So here you go: I need to cross a lane of traffic TWICE where previously I had to cross none. Moreover, when turning left, I have to cross a lane anyway, just like I did before. Add to that the fact that I will be conflicting with left-turning cars that are now positioned to my right, whether I am doing a left or a right turn or just going straight... Total nightmare! I think this would be a good idea to implement if you wanted to DISCOURAGE cycling along that road.

Other things have been mentioned here as well such as possibility head-on collisions with oncoming traffic including oncoming cyclists.

Now, what are the advantages of centre bike lane anyway? The "empowerement" argument isn't quite convincing to me. The only valid argument I see right now is getting the cyclists away from parked cars. Well, I think the solution there is to widen the bike lane, if you want a bike lane there at all. If that can't be done, prohibit car parking on the street (I know, the local businesses will want to eat you alive for this...) Or close the road to the cars completely, like someone already suggested. And, best and toughest of all to implement, educate cyclists and motorists about the rights of cyclists, and where they should ride ,and that it's perfectly all right for a cyclist to slow down motor vehicles by taking up the whole lane for as long as it's necessary. Not a quick fix, I know. But, actually, neither can bike lanes in the middle of the road be called a "fix". While fixing one problem it would create several.

[atbman]

Agree with Chephy: he covers another area of inconsistency of behaviour (RH turns) forced on both riders and drivers by this idea.

The existing driver and cyclist codes of practice are more than adequate to protect riders, if followed. Unfortunately, many drivers/riders don't do so. If a single code of behaviour is, apparently, difficult to enforce, how can it be of benefit for road users to suddenly encounter a new highway layout which requires a second code of practice?

Even if local users become familiar both with the layout and the changes in driver/cyclist interaction it requires, there would still be many newcomers, each day, who would be expected to automatically folllow the correct way of dealing with such an unfamiliar set-up.

Again, I suggest that the city council's highway engineers be required to produce a new code of practice for this layout for all possible traffic manoeuvres, assess the likelihood of people being able to follow them and to cost the necessary publication of the code of practice. And all for a proposal which is unlikely to be feasible except in rare circumstances.

Unless they do so, they leave themselves open to legal action against them for what any competent litigation lawyer would be able to show was a dangerous layout

[chephy]

I think a big objection to this centre bike lane business is that it reinforces the idea that cyclists are some very special group to which normal traffic laws do not apply. It seems that most VC cyclists are not very strong opponents of bike lanes, and I think that's because the lanes generally do not interfere with the cyclist's ability to ignore them when necessary. But bike lane in the centre of the road is HARD to ignore because unlike the "regular" bike lane it screws up the normal traffic pattern. As I said before, cars can't pass me if I keep to the right, because they can't cross into the bike lane! And that is BAD since it forces me either into a very unnatural position in the middle of the road or into blocking motor traffic for miles on end. Or right next to those parked cars. Or onto the sidewalk. Not appealing alternatives...

Hey, I just got an idea! If you want to eliminate the dooring dangers, let's put *parked cars* in the middle of the road! :D Makes about just as much sense as putting bikers there if you ask me.


The existing driver and cyclist codes of practice are more than adequate to protect riders, if followed. Unfortunately, many drivers/riders don't do so. If a single code of behaviour is, apparently, difficult to enforce, how can it be of benefit for road users to suddenly encounter a new highway layout which requires a second code of practice?

Even if local users become familiar both with the layout and the changes in driver/cyclist interaction it requires, there would still be many newcomers, each day, who would be expected to automatically folllow the correct way of dealing with such an unfamiliar set-up.

+1. Very good poing eloquently expressed. It alone suffices to show why this idea will never work.

P.S. atbman, I'm actually a girl. :)

[skanking biker]

Madison WI has (or had) a variation of that idea. Madison has always been bike friendly and had bike lanes on the right hand side of the road along thier main, multi-lane arteries. It also has very good mass transit and cyclists were getting right hooked by the buses all the time.

Thier solution was to put a bike lane between the two right most lanes. Now the buses could stay in the right hand lane, the cyclists were on their left and the first traffic lane was to the left of the cyclists.


Yeah, except last summer madison decided to run a bike lane down the middle of the inner capitol loop after adding additional parking spaces. After the construction, there was 1 lane of parking of the left, a very small lane of traffic, a bike lane in the middle, a very small lane of traffic to the right, and another lane of parking to the right. I observed on a number of occassions large metro buses that would take up an entire lane of traffic and the bike lane. Essentially, the city tried to take a two lane street and turn it into a five lane street (2 parking, 2 driving, with a bike lane down the middle). IMHO, this was completely idiotic and was an accident waiting to happen. They since removed the bike lane from this particular stretch of the road.

[recursive]

Yeah, except last summer madison decided to run a bike lane down the middle of the inner capitol loop after adding additional parking spaces. After the construction, there was 1 lane of parking of the left, a very small lane of traffic, a bike lane in the middle, a very small lane of traffic to the right, and another lane of parking to the right. I observed on a number of occassions large metro buses that would take up an entire lane of traffic and the bike lane. Essentially, the city tried to take a two lane street and turn it into a five lane street (2 parking, 2 driving, with a bike lane down the middle). IMHO, this was completely idiotic and was an accident waiting to happen. They since removed the bike lane from this particular stretch of the road.

Yeah, that was horrible. Possibly the worst bike lane I've ever seen.