What's the point of a door-zone bike lane? [Archive]

derath

10-23-06, 03:57 PM

The point of a door-zone bike lane is the same as the point for any bike lane: to get and keep bicyclists out of the way of same-direction traffic..

I don't even think that is quite true. I think in these cases the only point is:

"So politicians can take credit for adding X miles of bike lanes/alternative travel options"

I have seen more BL's being added on new roads lately in MD. For the most part they are completely idiotic.

There is one section of road, suburban/rural. The BL goes for about 1/2 mile (the new road construction) and ends at nothing, no shoulder. Then it widens to a shoulder. Then the shoulder ends and there is a bike path about 20feet from the road, although there is no connection. You would have to walk from the road over to the path. The path maybe goes about a mile, then ends. At this point the road has no shoulder...

I am convinced this is just a ploy so that come election time, BL construction can be a bullet point in a campaign platform.

-D

CommuterRun

10-23-06, 04:17 PM

There isn't any.

This is one of the inherent problems with bike lanes. When people who don't know what they're doing plan, approve and develop these things.

Helmet Head

10-23-06, 04:28 PM

genec

10-23-06, 04:43 PM

Because, that's X more miles of cyclists clearly knowing their place: out of the way of same-direction traffic.

Do you honestly think that either politicians or traffic planners look at BL this way... "cyclists now know their place."

sbhikes

10-23-06, 04:46 PM

Planned irrelevance.

It's a mistake in the implementation. Good bike lanes will be outside the door zone. Your advocacy organization should be putting pressure on the planners to do it properly.

noisebeam

10-23-06, 05:06 PM

Planned irrelevance.

It's a mistake in the implementation. Good bike lanes will be outside the door zone. Your advocacy organization should be putting pressure on the planners to do it properly.
There should be national level standards and driven by bike lane proponents, not by cycling advocates. Proponents of BL should present and agree upon clear, nationally agreed upon standard for bike lane stripes before continuing to push for more bike lanes that only meet standards that today allow for door zones.

Another problem is that on street parking may be added after a BL is put in place. This very situation has happened a few times, the curb and sidewalk were moved further out and parallel lots were added in front of apartment building along roads with BLs. Bike lane advocates are not involved (and can they reaonably be expected to) in these 'on the surface' minor alterations that occur between properly owner and city. But if guidelines were in place the city may be more likely to not allow these situations to happen.

Al

Helmet Head

10-23-06, 05:09 PM

Do you honestly think that either politicians or traffic planners look at BL this way... "cyclists now know their place."
Not necessarily. They just know they get credit for putting in the bike lanes. They don't care why they get the credit.

Besides, few people think in those terms literally. Most people just support bike lanes, they really don't think about why, much less realize it's because they believe deep down that cyclists should be segregated from motor traffic as much as possible. Since they never realize that, they can never begin to see the problems with believing it.

CommuterRun

10-23-06, 05:16 PM

There should be national level standards and driven by bike lane proponents, not by cycling advocates.
This is true in that any movement in the direction of serviceable bike lanes should be advocated by bike lane proponents. Otherwise you might somebody that thinks like me up there. Multiple narrow lanes. If a car wants to pass, there's another lane right there. They can move over as passing any other slower vehicle.:)

Keith99

10-23-06, 05:18 PM

I actually can think of 2 places where what are technically 'door zone' bike lanes are pretty useful. Oops make that 3. If I keep thinking I can probably come up with an even dozen. These are all in areas where parking is legal, but uncommon. One is about 5 miles long and the last time I rode it I think there were 2 parked cars. Here the bike lane serves to keep the (rather wide) parking area from becoming a defacto extra lane for the impatient. Actually most of these are only borderline 'door zone' bike lanes as if you ride on the extreem left of the bike lane yuo are probably out of range of the door of a legally parked car.

These all also have lines on both the left and right edges of the bike lane so they also encourage cyclists to not be curb huggers.

BTW one of these is on a hill so steep that cyclists are rare (very rare it is the shortest route between my house and my folks only 3 miles away so I end up driving it reasonably oftenyet have seen less than a half dozen cyclists on it total). That bike lane is NOT there for cyclists. It is there because the road is wide enough for 2 lanes each way and home oners did not like the traffic so a bike lane was a good excuse to narrow the road to one lane each way.

genec

10-23-06, 05:29 PM

Not necessarily. They just know they get credit for putting in the bike lanes. They don't care why they get the credit.

Besides, few people think in those terms literally. Most people just support bike lanes, they really don't think about why, much less realize it's because they believe deep down that cyclists should be segregated from motor traffic as much as possible. Since they never realize that, they can never begin to see the problems with believing it.

This is not to support the "segregation mentality," but to point out yet again, that due to the physical differences between the types of vehicles, separation, in some manner, makes sense. You deny this, but at the same time, while riding on a fast (say 50MPH WOL) you are indeed laterally separated. You are not in the main flow of motor traffic, you are beside it. You cannot deny that. That is perhaps where that "mentality of separation" comes in... not due to some "overwhelming conspiracy" to downplay all cyclists. Physics, plain and simple.

Motor traffic simply can move more people in less time by using higher speeds than bicycles can; which accounts for the desire for those motor vehicles to move fast. Fully integrated cycling occupying the exact same location of otherwise faster capable vehicles will slow down those otherwise faster capable vehicles, thus a form of separation allows the faster capable vehicles to move at rates suitable for their design.

To put this in simple terms. You have mentioned that many of the cyclists at the advocacy meetings drive to save time. If all vehicles were fully integrated on the roads and moved at cyclists' rate of speeds, then no time savings for using faster capable vehicles would result.... and thus there would be no reason for faster capable vehicles. (not that that is a bad thing).

Bike lanes are simply a formalized method of separation that allows for overall better traffic flow.

Properly designing these separated lanes is where advocacy should take the bull by the horns... instead of allowing "others" that have no experiece in cycling to create what we now have.

Helmet Head

10-23-06, 05:42 PM

This is not to support the "segregation mentality," but to point out yet again, that due to the physical differences between the types of vehicles, separation, in some manner, makes sense.
And in the south they used to say (well, I'm sure some still do, and not just in the south), "this is not to support the 'racist mentality', but my daughter will marry that boy over my dead body."

Whether you realize it or not, saying "separation, in some manner, makes sense" DOES support the "segregation mentality".

You deny this, but at the same time, while riding on a fast (say 50MPH WOL) you are indeed laterally separated.
But not because of PHYSICAL differences. Because of SPEED difference I'm further to the right (when faster same-direction traffic is present). That's just standard speed positioning. If that road happens to be a 15% downgrade, our physical differences are no different, but now I'm out there positioned just like the motorcyclists (e.g., El Camino Real going north out of Del Mar, despite the stupid and dangerous bike lane there that encourages 30-50+ mph cyclists to ride 2-3' from the curb!).

You are not in the main flow of motor traffic, you are beside it. You cannot deny that.
I just did.

That is perhaps where that "mentality of separation" comes in... not due to some "overwhelming conspiracy" to downplay all cyclists. Physics, plain and simple.
No, traffic rules, plain and simple. Same traffic rules that apply to all drivers of the road equally.

Motor traffic simply can move more people in less time by using higher speeds than bicycles can; which accounts for the desire for those motor vehicles to move fast. Fully integrated cycling occupying the exact same location of otherwise faster capable vehicles will slow down those otherwise faster capable vehicles, thus a form of separation allows the faster capable vehicles to move at rates suitable for their design.
There are all kinds of vehicles with varying degrees. Bicyclists just tend to be on the slow end of the spectrum much of the time (some more than others), but it's all a difference in degree along a continuum that warrants separation based on speed when applicable to drivers of all vehicles, not a difference in kind that warrants segregation by vehicle type (i.e., BIKE lanes) for bicyclists.

To put this in simple terms. You have mentioned that many of the cyclists at the advocacy meetings drive to save time. If all vehicles were fully integrated on the roads and moved at cyclists' rate of speeds, then no time savings for using faster capable vehicles would result.... and thus there would be no reason for faster capable vehicles. (not that that is a bad thing).

Bike lanes are simply a formalized method of separation that allows for overall better traffic flow.
Well, it certainly allows for better traffic flow for motorists, there is no denying that. And for the cyclist who believes he is obligated to get and stay out of the way anyway, have a designated space to do that might feel comforting.

Properly designing these separated lanes is where advocacy should take the bull by the horns... instead of allowing "others" that have no experiece in cycling to create what we now have.
Can we agree that there is now way to design these "separated lanes" "properly" at least in urban and suburban areas with no long stretches of intersectionless (including no driveways) roadway?

sbhikes

10-23-06, 07:28 PM

Most of the bike lanes that I use are on streets with no parking allowed.

You have look at this more like this: take the free public storage of private motor vehicles out and fill that space with something else that encourages people to leave their cars at home, like how about a bike lane!

You can't have any change at all to our stupid car-centric lifestyle if you don't make some kind of change to the system. If it's just paint on the road without a concomittent inconvenience to cars, it's not doing anything. It has to be done in a manner that is a force for change. Change the culture of the streets.

SingingSabre

10-23-06, 07:43 PM

The point of a door-zone bike lane is the same as the point for any bike lane: to get and keep bicyclists out of the way of same-direction traffic.

What a strong conviction! Why not go a bit simpler and say (with fancy bold and italics to make it seem more valid) "simple oversight from the planning comitee?" I don't know...just a thought.

"They" aren't really out to get us. They are just trying to do their job and satisfy their constituents and, some, keep getting their corrupt kickbacks. That's all.

Whether bike lanes direct cyclists to ride somewhere dangerous or not is irrelevant to their purpose.
In fact, since whether a particular position on the roadway is safe or not depends on an ever-changing variety of factors and conditions, ALL bike lanes (which are inherently static) direct cyclists to ride somewhere dangerous at least some of the time. After all, even door zone bike lanes are safe to ride as long as no one is about to open a door.

Let me restate what you just wrote: Whether bike lanes direct cyclists to ride somewhere dangerous or not is irrelevant to their purpose.

That's a very interesting claim. In order to substantiate that, one would have to figure out what purpose a bike lane serves. I'm 100% certain that the purpose of a bike lane is not a static thing, but rather changes not onle street-by-street and block-by-block, but even from minute-to-minute with traffic conditions. I'd go on and list what I feel these purposes are, but I need to get going soon to go to a family dinner (although with the inanity of my family, I'd rather debate inanities of bike lanes...how pathetic and sad...pathetisad).

Door zone bike lanes are not an exception. They are the norm.

Not in my city. Too general of a statement. Refuted by default.

Do you honestly think that either politicians or traffic planners look at BL this way... "cyclists now know their place."

Har har! Vive la revolucion!

Not necessarily. They just know they get credit for putting in the bike lanes. They don't care why they get the credit.

Besides, few people think in those terms literally. Most people just support bike lanes, they really don't think about why, much less realize it's because they believe deep down that cyclists should be segregated from motor traffic as much as possible. Since they never realize that, they can never begin to see the problems with believing it.

Some bike lanes are created just so the politicians can get credit for putting in bike lanes. Some are created because cyclists want a safe place to cycle on a road and they get to be an integral part of the bike lane planning process.

Take Campbell Ave between Glenn and Speedway, in Tucson, AZ for instance. Two lanes in each direction, a middle turn lane, and no bike lanes. Fairly narrow and extremely dangerous to ride on. So dangerous that I avoid it, and I am quite comfortable riding in dangerous roads in Tucson.

Some planners are working on turning Campbell Ave into a shopping hub for Tucson and part of their plans are to get a bike lane (sans door zone, park in the lots, darnit!) installed for this section. It will make the traffic lanes narrower, but it will make cycling infinately safer there.

HH, you might want to try this road, but beware, during rush hour, I doubt even you would be comfortable on it. It's a hideous road. Bike lanes will make it wonderful!

<snipped for space>
Whether you realize it or not, saying "separation, in some manner, makes sense" DOES support the "segregation mentality".

<spacial snip>

Can we agree that there is now way to design these "separated lanes" "properly" at least in urban and suburban areas with no long stretches of intersectionless (including no driveways) roadway?

Seperating lanes does not support any segregation mentality. Crimony! It keeps things moving smoothly so that people don't get held up by self-righteous cyclists slowing down traffic. Keep cyclists to the side and they won't be in as much danger. If the cyclist needs to take the lane for whatever reason, he can safely exit the bike lane by checking he has ample cushion and signal his change. Just like any other car.

Slower traffic keeps right. It works simply swell on the Autobahn, why shouldn't it work with cyclists and motorists? The effective motorists who know their stuff know to look out for cyclists (and peds, motorcyclists, and various unexpected hazards/traffic considerations). It's the bad apples that spoil the barrel. One bad apple may not spoil the barrel, but it makes them all stink.

It's not about the lanes, it's the bad drivers!

I half expect a brand new thread to debate this point coming up tomorrow. :rolleyes:

joejack951

10-23-06, 08:01 PM

Take Campbell Ave between Glenn and Speedway, in Tucson, AZ for instance. Two lanes in each direction, a middle turn lane, and no bike lanes. Fairly narrow and extremely dangerous to ride on. So dangerous that I avoid it, and I am quite comfortable riding in dangerous roads in Tucson.

Some planners are working on turning Campbell Ave into a shopping hub for Tucson and part of their plans are to get a bike lane (sans door zone, park in the lots, darnit!) installed for this section. It will make the traffic lanes narrower, but it will make cycling infinately safer there.

HH, you might want to try this road, but beware, during rush hour, I doubt even you would be comfortable on it. It's a hideous road. Bike lanes will make it wonderful!

Any pictures of this road? What makes it extremely dangerous to ride on? The narrowness? The speed of traffic? The density of traffic? Just because you avoid it doesn't mean sh!t.

Assuming it's the narrowness of the road in part, when they add bike lanes, are they going to add width to the road as well? Or are they just restriping things?

...Seperating lanes does not support any segregation mentality. Crimony! It keeps things moving smoothly so that people don't get held up by self-righteous cyclists slowing down traffic. Keep cyclists to the side and they won't be in as much danger...

...Slower traffic keeps right.

No one here has a problem with slower traffic (for there to be slow traffic, there must be faster traffic though) keeping right. The question is "how far right?" At intersections where there might be turning traffic, even slower traffic shouldn't be too far right otherwise they are unnecessarily blocking right turning traffic and at the same time putting themselves in a dangerous situation because of their unpredictability. With no same direction, who is being held up when slower traffic rides further to the right than they would be if there was faster same direction traffic?

galen_52657

10-23-06, 08:50 PM

Motor traffic simply can move more people in less time by using higher speeds than bicycles can

This is a fallacy. Single occupancy vehicles can move one person faster than one person on a bike, but considering you could fit 6 bikes in the area taken up by the average car, and maybe 10 bikes in the area allotted to each car in the roadway, you can move more people a little slower by bicycle. Throw in a congested urban area and then more people faster by bicycle.

Helmet Head

10-23-06, 09:16 PM

serpico7

10-23-06, 10:15 PM

To teach motorists yet another way they can take out a cyclist.

When motorists tell me I should be in the bike lane, I tell them to come take a ride with me and see how many doors in the face they'll take before they change their point of view.

genec

10-23-06, 10:48 PM

This is a fallacy. Single occupancy vehicles can move one person faster than one person on a bike, but considering you could fit 6 bikes in the area taken up by the average car, and maybe 10 bikes in the area allotted to each car in the roadway, you can move more people a little slower by bicycle. Throw in a congested urban area and then more people faster by bicycle.

And yet even bike advocates chose motor vehicles for expediancy.

Of course if folks car pooled... then vans could carry as many as 8.

Oh, there's that "if" statement eh... but then your arguement about bikes "moving more people" involves the "if" of getting people to ride.

SingingSabre

10-23-06, 11:48 PM

Any pictures of this road? What makes it extremely dangerous to ride on? The narrowness? The speed of traffic? The density of traffic? Just because you avoid it doesn't mean sh!t.

Assuming it's the narrowness of the road in part, when they add bike lanes, are they going to add width to the road as well? Or are they just restriping things?

They aren't going to add any width to the road, just take away from traffic lanes, as was stated in my post.

Pictures I do not have. What makes it extremely dangerous to ride on is the fact that people like to drive faster than the size and conditions allow. Throw in the fact that there are almost always 2-3 people lined up in the turning lane during rush hour and you have plenty of hazards and distractions for cyclists.

The fact that I avoid this road does mean, as you so eloquently put it, sh!t. I take the lane when needed and when called for. Taking the lane here will get you almost run over. I know this because I have done it a number of times. There's a much slower, nicer road with huge bike lanes and signs saying "no motorized vehicles in bike lane" just West of it, but it's not always logical to take.

Bike lanes will, from my experience, focus traffic to a slower pace (there are studies which show that when people feel closed in, they slow down significantly) and if not slow traffic down, at least keep people in their lines for this stretch of road.

No one here has a problem with slower traffic (for there to be slow traffic, there must be faster traffic though) keeping right. The question is "how far right?" At intersections where there might be turning traffic, even slower traffic shouldn't be too far right otherwise they are unnecessarily blocking right turning traffic and at the same time putting themselves in a dangerous situation because of their unpredictability. With no same direction, who is being held up when slower traffic rides further to the right than they would be if there was faster same direction traffic?

How far right? How about in the middle of the rightmost lane. You know, the same way cars are supposed to drive in their lanes?

As to blocking right turning traffic, that is a negligible consequence of bike lanes. Attentive motorists will not have any issues with cyclists in a right lane. Again, you're arguing that something is ineffective when it's really the motorists' who cause the problems fault.

Debating the usefulness of general bike lanes defeats the purpose of the OP of this thread.

Finally, speaking of vehicular unpredictability...nevermind. I won't go there in this post.

LittleBigMan

10-24-06, 06:25 AM

What's the point of a bike lane that isn't even as wide as the door zone, I ask?
It's a Commie plot.

:)

I-Like-To-Bike

10-24-06, 07:24 AM

:rolleyes: It's a Commie plot.

:)
Waaaay off. It's a conspiracy of environmentalists and motorists' advocacy organizations. Source? The Best - John Forester Internet Discussion List Rants.

Bekologist

10-24-06, 07:34 AM

i imagine the point of a door zone bike lane is to give a city a substandard facility they can upgrade with parking side buffers, or removing parking altogther or batch it using traffic calming parking inserts.

all roads with well accomodated lane striping should have cars yeild to bikes signage, etc.

bike lanes are to provide preferential space and allocate roadway space for bikes. Almost 40 percent of the population doesn't drive; the new trend in street design is the notion of "Complete streets"- reclaiming the public roadways for ALL users.

We are going to see more facilities and accomomodations in the coming years in america. they aren't going away, and there will continue to be good and bad lane striping patterns that can continually be improved upon.

learing how to recognize a good facility will benefit any vehicular bicyclist.

a vehicular bicyclist will default to a clean and well provided bike lane that is safe to ride in.

I-Like-To-Bike

10-24-06, 07:52 AM

Besides, few people think in those terms literally. Most people just support bike lanes, they really don't think about why, much less realize it's because they believe deep down that cyclists should be segregated from motor traffic as much as possible. Since they never realize that, they can never begin to see the problems with believing it.
Wonderful. Helmet Head knows what everyone else believes deep down without ever realizing it. Amazing the powers of clairvoyance! Or is it the power of an ideologue to believe in his own power of mind reading?

Actually HH can't claim this brilliant wizard like insight for himself. He is just channeling the mantra of the Grand Wizard of Bike Hysterics.

sbhikes

10-24-06, 07:54 AM

Sheesh. Don't you guys all know by now that there's a Black Helicopter hidden in a hangar out in the desert where they store all these manuals for bike lanes? To Serve Bicyclists (after they die in a crash, baste liberally with butter and roast them on a spit). Bike Lanes: the Final Solution (all about segretating and cleansing them from our civilized car culture). And Bike Lane Psy-Ops, HH's favorite. He's got a copy of that one under his pillow.

Personally, I have to drive my car in the door zone more often than I ever see a bike lane in the door zone.

noisebeam

10-24-06, 08:40 AM

Take Campbell Ave between Glenn and Speedway, in Tucson, AZ for instance. Two lanes in each direction, a middle turn lane, and no bike lanes. Fairly narrow and extremely dangerous to ride on. So dangerous that I avoid it, and I am quite comfortable riding in dangerous roads in Tucson.

Some planners are working on turning Campbell Ave into a shopping hub for Tucson and part of their plans are to get a bike lane (sans door zone, park in the lots, darnit!) installed for this section. It will make the traffic lanes narrower, but it will make cycling infinately safer there.

HH, you might want to try this road, but beware, during rush hour, I doubt even you would be comfortable on it. It's a hideous road. Bike lanes will make it wonderful!

Seperating lanes does not support any segregation mentality. Crimony! It keeps things moving smoothly so that people don't get held up by self-righteous cyclists slowing down traffic. Keep cyclists to the side and they won't be in as much danger. If the cyclist needs to take the lane for whatever reason, he can safely exit the bike lane by checking he has ample cushion and signal his change. Just like any other car.

Slower traffic keeps right. It works simply swell on the Autobahn, why shouldn't it work with cyclists and motorists? The effective motorists who know their stuff know to look out for cyclists (and peds, motorcyclists, and various unexpected hazards/traffic considerations). It's the bad apples that spoil the barrel. One bad apple may not spoil the barrel, but it makes them all stink.

It's not about the lanes, it's the bad drivers!

I half expect a brand new thread to debate this point coming up tomorrow. :rolleyes:
What makes Campell so bad? How is it different than busy arterials in a larger city to your north? I've driven around Tucson a lot, rush hour included.
The main concern I'd have about a BL is all the side streets and driveways going into Campell and also the many places a cyclist will want to turn left - are they going to widen the road to install RTOLs for every one of these intersections. Putting a BL in makes that negotiation across the lanes significantly harder. It is much easier to get motorist response if one is already using a primary lane.
Yes, calm traffic, plant trees in the median and along the sidewalks, narrow the inner lanes and widen the out one, but don't paint a BL stripe. Post the SL at 35mph - after all it will be a shopping center area with increase in pedestrians.
Also avoid promoting the alternate route you mention as for 'cyclists' - that will create the perception they should not be on Campell.
Al

AndrewP

10-24-06, 08:41 AM

The bike lanes I see around here are 2 way on one side of the street, with no parking for 6 months of the year. For the other 6 months they are parking lanes. Parking is allowed on the other side of the street all year. No door zone problem, but I never ride in the bike lanes going on the wrong side of the road.

sggoodri

10-24-06, 08:51 AM

Planned irrelevance.

It's a mistake in the implementation. Good bike lanes will be outside the door zone. Your advocacy organization should be putting pressure on the planners to do it properly.

Many road widths won't accommodate the addition of proper width bike lanes plus proper width travel lanes outside the door zone.

The problem I see is that when local governments and the more vocal bike lane advocates have a choice between doing wrong or not doing it at all (e.g. leaving an unsegregated wide lane), they prefer to do the striped facility wrong.

It all ultimately devolves into a "stripes for the sake of stripes" policy. Safety isn't the motivation behind those who insist on adding these stripes where they don't belong.

DCCommuter

10-24-06, 09:02 AM

Many road widths won't accommodate the addition of proper width bike lanes plus proper width travel lanes outside the door zone.

The problem I see is that when local governments and the more vocal bike lane advocates have a choice between doing wrong or not doing it at all (e.g. leaving an unsegregated wide lane), they prefer to do the striped facility wrong.

It all ultimately devolves into a "stripes for the sake of stripes" policy. Safety isn't the motivation behind those who insist on adding these stripes where they don't belong.

Bingo. That's what I see around here. There seems to be a belief that painting stripes somehow makes the road wider. Bike lanes are painted on roads that weren't wide enough to share to begin with. The people striping know how much space a car needs, but have no clue what a bike needs, so they give the cars what they need and give the rest to bikes.

I live on a residential street that is two-way, even though it's not wide enough for two cars to pass at the same time when cars are parked on the sides, which is the norm. There is no yellow dividing line on my street. Why? Because the traffic engineers figure out that painting a line doesn't make the road any wider, and the presence of the line communicates the wrong message about how to use the roadway. For some reason they haven't figured out the same thing with bike lanes.

sggoodri

10-24-06, 09:10 AM

Take Campbell Ave between Glenn and Speedway, in Tucson, AZ for instance. Two lanes in each direction, a middle turn lane, and no bike lanes. Fairly narrow and extremely dangerous to ride on. So dangerous that I avoid it, and I am quite comfortable riding in dangerous roads in Tucson.

Some planners are working on turning Campbell Ave into a shopping hub for Tucson and part of their plans are to get a bike lane (sans door zone, park in the lots, darnit!) installed for this section. It will make the traffic lanes narrower, but it will make cycling infinately safer there.

SingingSabre later clarifies that the addition of bike lanes to this road will be provided by removing one ordinary travel lane in each direction.

This type of road modification is known as a four-to-two or four-to-three lane conversion. It is especially popular on roads with no center turn lane, where turning traffic delays drivers in the inside lanes and increases turbulence, rear-ending collisions (car-car), and sideswipes (car-car). These conversions can also be performed to create a wide landscaped center median, making the road more attractive, especially to pedestrians.

The reduction in turbulence in 4-lane to 2/3 lane conversions has some benefits for cyclists in addition to those for motorists. Left turns become easier, with better protection. If the pavement post-conversion is wide enough, it also allows car and truck drivers to pass cyclists without merging with adjacent traffic and thus reduces stress between cyclists and motorists.

I strongly support 4-2/3 lane conversions as an improvement to cycling comfort and safety.

However, all of this is irrelevant to whether or not a bike lane stripe should be added. Once adequate pavement width is provided for drivers to pass without changing lanes, the vast majority of passing-related safety and comfort issues are resolved. WOLs work perfectly well in these locations, and are in fact superior in my opinion, as I have cycled many 2-lane roads with 16-18' lanes divided by raised center medians. Some of these roads later had bike lane stripes added, which then accumulated extra debris, causing me to ride farther left, which caused drivers to have more difficulty overtaking me between me and the median.

sbhikes

10-24-06, 09:19 AM

Many road widths won't accommodate the addition of proper width bike lanes plus proper width travel lanes outside the door zone.

Yes they will if you remove the parking.

LittleBigMan

10-24-06, 10:33 AM

:rolleyes:
Waaaay off. It's a conspiracy of environmentalists and motorists' advocacy organizations. Source? The Best - John Forester Internet Discussion List Rants.
My favorite bike lane was the one that led you through a door zone, over a huge drain grate and into a giant vat of acid.

sggoodri

10-24-06, 12:30 PM

Yes they will if you remove the parking.

Political reality makes this extremely unlikely in most places where on-street parking is actively used.

In Cary, NC where I live, the city recently ADDED on-street parking to a road that previously had striped bike lanes near the curb. The bike lanes were moved and restriped from the curbside out to what is now the door zone in order to create the parking lane.

On another Cary street, the city started ticketing motorists for parking in a newly striped bike lane. Motorists complained enough that the city removed the bike lane. On still another street, Cary proposed to mark a double-yellow centerline and possibly add other signage in order to make it unlawful to park on a narrow road. Neighbors complained and the plan was abandoned.

In Raleigh, a proposal to remove a short section of on-street parking on a major thoroughfare in order to make space for striped bike lanes or wide outside lanes was abandoned due to neighborhood opposition. The city is also considering removing bike lanes from sections of Ridge Road in order to provide on-street parking near a school. This is the oldest section of striped bike lane in Raleigh, and one of only three such roads in the city that I know of.

This is why many or most plans to retrofit urban streets with bike lanes end up with door-zone bike lanes. The planners and engineers understand and care more about motorists' complaints over removal of parking than they do cyclists' complaints of door zone problems.

I-Like-To-Bike

10-24-06, 12:31 PM

My favorite bike lane was the one that led you through a door zone, over a huge drain grate and into a giant vat of acid.
Yeah. I heard about that one too; think it was a joint project of General Motors and Halliburton for the "point" of putting their arch enemies, the evil doing dim bulb cyclists in their proper place.

Further I heard local environmental groups were seen singing Kumbaya with these death dealing bike lane building conspirers for reasons known only to Psycho Mind Reading Wizards,

joejack951

10-24-06, 12:33 PM

Personally, I have to drive my car in the door zone more often than I ever see a bike lane in the door zone.

Did you read the story about the driver who was killed when a door was flung open in front of his car?

sbhikes

10-24-06, 12:53 PM

Political reality makes this extremely unlikely in most places where on-street parking is actively used.
It's only unlikely if you let it be. We removed some on-street parking just recently. You just have to have the political will. Clearly you guys want more and more of the same.

Helmet Head

10-24-06, 01:24 PM

It's only unlikely if you let it be. We removed some on-street parking just recently. You just have to have the political will. Clearly you guys want more and more of the same.
Careful what you wish for.

On my commute a 4 lane road with onstreet parking was recently converted to 6 lanes + bike lanes. First, the speed of motor traffic has gone up noticably. Normally, I wouldn't care, except that I need to merge across this traffic to make a left turn (the alternative, using ped rules, requires waiting for two long DONT WALK signals).

Before, because of the onstreet parking, prior to getting to the intersection along the fairly steep uphill grade (steep enough for me to hit 40+ mph going the other way in the morning), I was controlling the rightmost lane, and had only one more lane to merge across to get to the left turn lanes. Plus, like I said, traffic would be moving slower than it is now.

Now, I'm climbing in the bike lane because of the 50+ mph traffic in the main traffic lanes, when I need to start thinking about merging. There are three lanes between me and my destination left turn lane.

Believe me, removing onstreet parking and replacing it with a bike lane and an extra traffic lane (there was some physical widening too) made this situation much worse for bicycling.

In The Complete Book of Bicycling, Eugene Sloan recommends avoiding riding on streets without onstreet parking. Why? Because traffic tends to move slower on streets with onstreet parking than those without. Bike lanes also enable even higher speeds. The effect of increased motoring speeds that results from removing onstreet parking and adding bike lanes is not positive for bicycling.

I-Like-To-Bike

10-24-06, 01:43 PM

It's only unlikely if you let it be. We removed some on-street parking just recently. You just have to have the political will.
And available off street parking.

Not every city is a Sun Belt city built up in the middle of a desert after the advent of the automobile age. Or the car ownership and travel mode of the public virtually mandated a garage or added parking for every home and business establisment.

sggoodri

10-24-06, 04:09 PM

And available off street parking.

Not every city is a Sun Belt city built up in the middle of a desert after the advent of the automobile age. Or the car ownership and travel mode of the public virtually mandated a garage or added parking for every home and business establisment.

Our city is trying to revitalize and expand commercial development in our downtown, the only area with any significant combination of motor traffic and on-street parking. The business owners located in older, pre-automobile storefronts depend on convenient on-street parking in front of their shops in order to stay in business. Making patrons walk a few blocks will just send them out to the strip malls where parking is easier. Building off-street parking in parking decks, the only viable solution without reducing downtown density, will cost on the order $10,000 per parking space.

There have been no overtaking-type car-bike collisions reported on these downtown streets with on-street parking. The annoyance to motorists delayed by cyclists plus the annoyance to cyclists by motorists honking is less than the annoyance to motorists who face losing the parking. And cyclist advocates here don't want to needlessly damage the commercial viability of downtown. Therefore, the parking will stay.

SingingSabre

10-24-06, 04:11 PM

SingingSabre later clarifies that the addition of bike lanes to this road will be provided by removing one ordinary travel lane in each direction.

I did no, but thanks for supporting me.

What I did say is that the planning board is looking at narrowing the current lanes, not reducing the amount of lanes.

What makes Campell so bad? How is it different than busy arterials in a larger city to your north? I've driven around Tucson a lot, rush hour included.
The main concern I'd have about a BL is all the side streets and driveways going into Campell and also the many places a cyclist will want to turn left - are they going to widen the road to install RTOLs for every one of these intersections. Putting a BL in makes that negotiation across the lanes significantly harder. It is much easier to get motorist response if one is already using a primary lane.
Yes, calm traffic, plant trees in the median and along the sidewalks, narrow the inner lanes and widen the out one, but don't paint a BL stripe. Post the SL at 35mph - after all it will be a shopping center area with increase in pedestrians.
Also avoid promoting the alternate route you mention as for 'cyclists' - that will create the perception they should not be on Campell.
Al

There isn't enough space on Campbell to put in a median and/or RTOL's.

As to making left turns, Campbell has an interesting rhythm to it. There are a few breaks in traffic, just enough to make it possible to turn left. There is also the option of crossing it with a perpendicular light (my preferred option with this road).

The speed limit is either 30 or 35, IIRC, but people gnereally go 40+ when given the opportunity. Narrowing the lanes would likely slow traffic down a degree.

How is this road different than a busy arterial? It's not, it is a busy arterial. The problem is that it's currently a pooly designed busy arterial. Restriping it should help the pace and safety of this road.

noisebeam

10-24-06, 04:20 PM

IThere isn't enough space on Campbell to put in a median and/or RTOL's.

As to making left turns, Campbell has an interesting rhythm to it. There are a few breaks in traffic, just enough to make it possible to turn left. There is also the option of crossing it with a perpendicular light (my preferred option with this road).

The speed limit is either 30 or 35, IIRC, but people gnereally go 40+ when given the opportunity. Narrowing the lanes would likely slow traffic down a degree.

How is this road different than a busy arterial? It's not, it is a busy arterial. The problem is that it's currently a pooly designed busy arterial. Restriping it should help the pace and safety of this road.
Without RTOLs the BL is going to put more cyclist in right hook danger vs. current NOL design.
A 40mph actual arterial is a slow arterial actually, makes it seem even more comfortable for cycling.
Instead of looking for breaks in traffic to merge left, have you tried negotiating a space?

Anyway, what specifically makes it poorly designed arterial?

Al

sbhikes

10-24-06, 04:22 PM

Our city is trying to revitalize and expand commercial development in our downtown, the only area with any significant combination of motor traffic and on-street parking. The business owners located in older, pre-automobile storefronts depend on convenient on-street parking in front of their shops in order to stay in business. Making patrons walk a few blocks will just send them out to the strip malls where parking is easier. Building off-street parking in parking decks, the only viable solution without reducing downtown density, will cost on the order $10,000 per parking space.

There have been no overtaking-type car-bike collisions reported on these downtown streets with on-street parking. The annoyance to motorists delayed by cyclists plus the annoyance to cyclists by motorists honking is less than the annoyance to motorists who face losing the parking. And cyclist advocates here don't want to needlessly damage the commercial viability of downtown. Therefore, the parking will stay.
How lucky do you ever get to get the parking spot right in front of the store you want to go to? I never do. Build a parking garage.

Brian Ratliff

10-24-06, 04:45 PM

There should be national level standards and driven by bike lane proponents, not by cycling advocates. Proponents of BL should present and agree upon clear, nationally agreed upon standard for bike lane stripes before continuing to push for more bike lanes that only meet standards that today allow for door zones.

Another problem is that on street parking may be added after a BL is put in place. This very situation has happened a few times, the curb and sidewalk were moved further out and parallel lots were added in front of apartment building along roads with BLs. Bike lane advocates are not involved (and can they reaonably be expected to) in these 'on the surface' minor alterations that occur between properly owner and city. But if guidelines were in place the city may be more likely to not allow these situations to happen.

Al

Interesting idea... First, most bicycling advocates in places where cycling advocacy is effective are supportive of bike lanes and are constantly trying to make bike lanes, as well as other, more forward looking cycling accomodations, more effective. Second, bike lanes, like all other road markings, evolve over time. They are quite good in places now. What else do you want?

As far your language goes, there is no such thing as a "bike lane advocate." It would imply that there were, in existence, a single interest group to diametrically oppose the Vehicular Cycling Advocates. There is not. There are only "VC advocates" and "Bicycling advocates." That most bicycling advocates advocate for bike lanes is simply that the "VC message" has not shown to be practical to those cyclists who are not in the 5% crowd who are "fearless cyclists." Most cyclists have been shown to enjoy bicycle accomodations in places where the accomodation is to help the cyclist, such as in Portland, OR.

As for the bike lanes in door zones... There are many reasons those might come about, outdated standards, political points, convenience, etc. I urge you all, if you have a "door zone bike lane," you should take it up with your cycling advocacy group to get them to either 1) restripe the street, moving the bike lane further out, 2) get ride of on street parking, or 3) remove the bike lane, perhaps placing sharrows instead. I would suggest you advocate in that order as well.

sbhikes

10-24-06, 05:12 PM

That most bicycling advocates advocate for bike lanes is simply that the "VC message" has not shown to be practical to those cyclists who are not in the 5% crowd who are "fearless cyclists." Most cyclists have been shown to enjoy bicycle accomodations in places where the accomodation is to help the cyclist, such as in Portland, OR.

Or else it simply means that most bicycling advocates are deluded into a false sense of security and have internalized their irrelevance to such a degree that they willingly accept and ask for more segregated facilities as if they were Stockholm syndrome sufferers. :rolleyes: You know, because we are stupid, ignorant, ascared, and don't know any better.

Brian Ratliff

10-24-06, 05:18 PM

Or else it simply means that most bicycling advocates are deluded into a false sense of security and have internalized their irrelevance to such a degree that they willingly accept and ask for more segregated facilities as if they were Stockholm syndrome sufferers. :rolleyes: You know, because we are stupid, ignorant, ascared, and don't know any better.

I suppose. Aw well. I've said my part.

LittleBigMan

10-25-06, 06:43 AM

My favorite bike lane was the one that led you through a door zone, over a huge drain grate and into a giant vat of acid.

Yeah. I heard about that one too; think it was a joint project of General Motors and Halliburton for the "point" of putting their arch enemies, the evil doing dim bulb cyclists in their proper place.
I'm not sure it was General Motors. I had a brand new Plymouth that leaked water on my clutch foot every time it rained.

sggoodri

10-25-06, 08:25 AM

I did no, but thanks for supporting me.

What I did say is that the planning board is looking at narrowing the current lanes, not reducing the amount of lanes.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I think I read "some" instead of "from" when you wrote: "They aren't going to add any width to the road, just take away from traffic lanes"

Many cities, including Cary, NC, restripe existing roads to create wide outside lanes. For example, when Maynard Road was being resurfaced between East Chatham Street and Harrison Ave near my house, I contacted the DOT to make sure the restriping was done according to Cary's Bicycle Plan. They shifted the lane stripes to turn two 12' lanes into an 11' inside lane and a 13' outside lane. The outside lane is next to an 18" or so gutter pan, making it wide enough to share, better than the previous 12' lane.

The DOT won't restripe a 45 mph major arterial with lanes any narrower than 11', and since the raised center median and outside curb can't be moved without major expense, a 13' lane is the widest we could get there. But other roads with painted medians could have their outside lanes widened further.

NCDOT recommends that bike lane striping and stencils not be added unless the bike lane is at least 4' wide not including gutter or drain grates, and the travel lane is at least 11' wide. They recommend a bike lane wider than 4' if the travel lane is narrower than 12 feet, so 16' is the magic number. None of our lane-stripe shifting opportunities will free up that much space. However, cyclists report that the 13' and 14' lanes are a big improvement over the 11' and 12' lanes we usually have.

sggoodri

10-25-06, 08:47 AM

How lucky do you ever get to get the parking spot right in front of the store you want to go to? I never do. Build a parking garage.

Removing on-street parking from both sides of half a mile of street would cost about two million dollars in parking garage construction, and it would be less convenient to many of the patrons.

Chatham Street through downtown Cary has a 2-lane section on the East side with on-street parking, and a 4-lane section on the west side. The 2-lane section is seeing revitalized business with pedestrian-oriented urban design and substantial pedestrian traffic. The 4-lane section sees far fewer pedestrians and is somewhat bleak. The city of Cary has developed a plan to convert the 4-lane section to 2-lanes with on-street parking as part of their beautification and revitalization efforts to make it both pedestrian-friendly and business-friendly.

Similarly, Raleigh's pedestrian mall was recently converted to allow motor traffic in order to revitalize the businesses there. On-street parking was an important component of their "Livable Streets" plan:

http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_306_200_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/project/public/livable_streets/Fayetteville.htm

On the other hand, here's an article from our web site discussing the problems on-street parking can create for cyclists, and how to mitigate this:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf