Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Facilities Supported by Forester and other Vehicular Cyclists

John Forester, vehicular cycling proponent and author of Effective Cycling, is often accused of being opposed to all bicycle facilities, rather than just the problematic ones, and is often accused of not wanting to use engineering improvements to encourage cycling. These accusations are often applied to other vehicular cycling proponents as well. The purpose of this thread is for vehicular cycling proponents to list bicycle-oriented facilities engineering changes that they support to encourage cycling and improve their own cycling conditions. Please refrain from discussing what you oppose or arguing with others who might support something that you don't. Let's at least start this by being informative and positive.

I will start the thread by including some quotes of writing published by John Forester in support of several types of facilties improvements that I have promoted in my area.

-Steve Goodridge, Cary, NC

Excerpts from John Forester's book, Bicycle Transportation, MIT Press, Copyright 1977, 1983, 1994:


Wide Outside Lanes
...Both motorists and cyclists are happier and more comfortable with one another on roads with wide outside lanes. Wide outside lanes reduce the emotional tension between the parties. Cyclists know that there is sufficient room to overtake them even if opposing traffic appears. ... Alleviating the tension between motorist and cyclist encourages cycling in two ways: it makes motorists less intolerant of cyclists, thus reducing the tendency toward discrimination and bad behavior, and it increases the attractiveness of cycling.

Fewer Wide Lanes versus More Narrow Lanes
...It is true that many cyclists, even those with strong traffic skills, don't like to take a full lane in fast urban motor traffic, even when the law allows them to, and particularly not for long distances. It is one thing to control a lane just at an intersection where all the lanes are narrow, but another thing to do so block after block. Even if the cyclists don't feel endangered, they feel that they are made to feel like villains who are delaying traffic, and the motorists behind them probably think so. If cycling transportation is to be encouraged, then we need to provide wide outside lanes on the major streets, both to prevent motorists from objecting to bicycles on the streets and to make cyclists more comfortable about using the streets that provide the most efficient routes for them.

Shoulders
...Most cyclists are happy to ride on a smooth shoulder unless there is some reason to use one of the main traffic lanes, but few cyclists will ride on a rough shoulder...In other words, a smooth shoulder acts just like a wide lane.

Shortcut Bikeways
There may be locations in your area that, either by design or by chance, are connected to the external road system by only a few roads so located that there is no through route. ... Therefore there may well be popular support for bicycle-and-pedestrian paths connecting the adjacent but disconnected neighborhoods. This is particularly true where schoolchildren must travel from one neighborhood to another. Examine your area for such neighborhoods. It may well prove that through the provision of several short paths a continuous, low-traffic, pleasant route may be designed that is more desirable for many cyclists because it is either shorter or has less traffic than the motor route.

Recreational Bikeways
Recreational bikeways serve two different functions. If properly located and designed, they provide an enjoyable park-like experience, and cycling on them partially develops, or redevelops in adults, the childhood ability to pedal and steer a bicycle. The recreational benefit is self-explanatory and is the rationale for many bike paths in parks or parklike areas. ... Recreational routes should be kept well away from parallel heavy motor traffic because motor traffic degrades the aesthetic experience. ... However, good recreational routes may cross heavily traveled arterial roads if they approach and leave the arterial road quickly.

Zoning for Parking
It is much easier to influence new construction than to change existing facilities....One such change is to change the zoning requirements so that new construction of commercial and industrial buildings and multi-occupant housing must include bicycle parking spaces, and commercial and industrial buildings must include showers and locker rooms for cycling employees.

Bicycle Parking
Whenever the building code requires parking spaces, there should be a requirement for part of that space to be for bicycle parking of one kind or another. At an employment center, cyclists either should be allowed to take their bicycles into their workplaces or offices or the employer should provide parking stalls.

So Steve, tell me the difference between a smooth shoulder and a bike lane. Around here, the only difference would be the presence of a curb.

i think the difference, chip, is that cars get to park and use the wide shoulder, and the entire width of wide outside lanes, versus bike specific infrastructure. And with mr foresters allegiance with the american dream coalition, cars should not be excluded from any part of the roadway.

look at what happens in Europe and % of transportation by cycling when you add bicycle specific infrastructure integral with public rights of way, chip.

Can't have all those helmetless, blue jean wearing, wal-mart bike riding transportational cyclists out giving american serious road cyclists a poor image now, can we?

So Steve, tell me the difference between a smooth shoulder and a bike lane. Around here, the only difference would be the presence of a curb.

Here's as neutral a response as I can provide.

Here in NC, striped paved shoulders are typically used only on roads without curb and gutter.

Depending on the state or municipality, a cyclist may be required to use a striped bike lane, but not the shoulder.

A paved shoulder may be any width, and is not marked specifically for bicycle use.

A properly designed bike lane would be striped to the left of a right-turn-only lane. A striped shoulder typically ends or is positioned to the right of the right-turn-only lane.

I have promoted the idea that if a striped shoulder is provided on a busy/fast road with RTOLs, the outside through lane should be widened where there are RTOLs to provide more comfortable space for cyclists left of the RTOL to allow passing in the same through lane.

Please refrain from discussing what you oppose or arguing with others who might support something that you don't. Let's at least start this by being informative and positive.


So Steve, tell me the difference between a smooth shoulder and a bike lane. Around here, the only difference would be the presence of a curb.

i think the difference, chip, is that cars get to park and use the wide shoulder...

Can't have all those helmetless, blue jean wearing, wal-mart bike riding transportational cyclists out giving american serious road cyclists a poor image now, can we?

So much for a positive thread. And I was really hoping we could pull it off...

So in essence, in the case where curb and gutter is present, the only difference between a WOL and a bike lane is paint. So what is the difference between painted bike lanes and painted traffic lanes? I mean both cyclists AND motorists sometimes feel a false sense of security within their bounds and both will attempt to do something stupid to remain within those bounds. It seems to me the problem isn't the paint itself, but rather the cyclist/motorist and their obsession with staying within the paint.

I guess what I am saying is, and I think you, HH and others will agree...whether there is paint or not should not effect how you cycle or drive. But that cuts both ways, both as a reason to not have paint at all, but also as a reason to not be so darned opposed to its existence.

So I guess in the context of this thread, I am just trying to understand why smooth shoulders, which are usually painted, and WOLs are ok, but bike lanes are not...strictly from a physical attribute standpoint.

Edit: I do understand the problems with RTOL, though again it seems the differences between what is acceptable and what isn't goes right back to paint.

So much for a positive thread. And I was really hoping we could pull it off...

We can and are, so far. Despite the result in A Christmas Story, one does not have to respond to every double-dawg-dare and stick their tongue on a frozen pole. ;)

So Steve, tell me the difference between a smooth shoulder and a bike lane. Around here, the only difference would be the presence of a curb.


Bike lane: part of the travelled way, follows ROW rules. Shoulder: nope.

Bike lane: to the left of RTOL lanes. Shoulder: nope.

Bike lane: no parking allowed. Shoulder: parking allowed.

Bike lane: includes traffic loop detectors to trigger lights. Shoulder: nope.

Bike lane: integrated into the intersection. Shoulder: may narrow out of existence at the intersection, may be cut off by a curb, etc.

Bike lane: part of the road, must be maintained to road standards (e.g. pot-holes fixes). Shoulder: nope.


Your bike lanes must suck if they are no better than shoulders!

I think the problem is that right off the bat, the OP's stated intent was entirely ignored.

It will be interesting to see how we can blame HH for turning this thread into yet another bike lane discussion, if he doesn't post.

Your bike lanes must suck if they are no better than shoulders!

Bingo! Around here, with only a few exceptions, 'bike lanes' are either shoulders or gutters.

I think the problem is that right off the bat, the OP's stated intent was entirely ignored.

No, I am sincerely trying to understand why paint seems to a key factor between what is 'supported by Forester' and what is not. That is my take - that the root difference is paint.

Edit: I can start a new thread on this if desired.

A facility I support is having traffic light triggering sensors tuned for bicycles (and marked where needed) in all possible destination lanes.

Al

No, I am sincerely trying to understand why paint seems to a key factor between what is 'supported by Forester' and what is not. That is my take - that the root difference is paint.
Ok. thanks for the clarification.

I don't have a problem with anyone's sincerity, just adherence to the context of the OP's original intent for this thread.

Your bike lanes must suck if they are no better than shoulders!

I think there may be substantial geographic differences which are played out by different state/local standards across the country.

In Maryland luckily there are very few bike lanes. The ones we do have are far inferior to a standard shoulder. Why? Bike lane = 4' wide. Shoulder = 9' wide. Bike lanes are painted to close to on-street parking (door zone). Shoulders only have parked cars in emergency situations. Bike lanes are haphazardly laid out without any thought to connectivity. Shoulders are routinely along MD state routes and continue on for miles and miles and connect to other MD state routes that continue on and so on. Not all MD state routes have shoulders so it's not a sure thing on every state route in which case one will ride in the travel lane (no biggie to me).

Here are 'facilities' I support to encourage transportation cycling as well as walking in metropolitan areas:

1) Repeal of right turn on red
2) Removal of right turn yield lanes at intersections
3) Reduce speed limits to 30 MPH on all roads but limited access roads
4) When roads are reconstructed build curb lane 14' wide or greater
5) Re program traffic lights to respond immediately to a pedestrian pushing the 'walk' button - all lanes stop and pedestrian can cross intersection in any direction
6) Repaint intersections to show entire intersection is a crosswalk
7) When roads are reconstructed remove road-grate inlets and replace them with curb opening inlets.

I propose that we not strictly limit this thread to a narrow definition of "Vehicular Cyclists," since the definition can be too exclusive and prevent much valuable information from being gathered. "Vehicular Cyclists," being synonymous in the minds of many with "Foresterites" (if I may call them that,) excludes many very experienced cyclists with much to contribute.

That said, I would like to see (or see more):

1) Speed limits enforced, and perhaps lowered.
2) Conspicuous "Share The Road" signage.
3) Sharrows.
4) Bike lanes when present should be 6 feet wide and swept clean regularly, with no bike-unfriendly pavement. (I realize this one might be too much to ask for, 5 feet is almost as good, but 4 feet including the paint is not my cup of tea; I've seen them about 3 feet wide.)

The purpose of this thread is for vehicular cycling proponents to list bicycle-oriented facilities engineering changes that they support to encourage cycling and improve their own cycling conditions.
I support:


Well-designed bike paths for transportational (short cuts, freeway bypass) and recreational ("family") purposes. By "well-designed" I mean good surface, sufficient width (at least 12'), center stripe, good sight lines, no blind corners, and, most importantly, well integrated intersections with roadways.
Good smooth clean pavement.
Traffic signal detectors that are triggered by bicyclists.
Wide outside lanes on 2-lane roads.
Narrow (9-10') outside lanes on multi-lane roads, perhaps with sharrows painted in the center (I say "perhaps" because the sharrow might inhibit cyclists from merging left in order to make left turns). Cyclists should control the full slow lane on multi-lane roads, particularly if there is any onstreet parking and/or frequent intersections (including driveways, commercial entrances, alleys, etc.).
Roundabouts instead of traffic signals or stop signs (no one benefits more from not having to stop than a cyclist!)
Traffic calming measures in certain areas.

I'd like to see more well designed bike lanes, not because I want to use them, but because the public in general seems to prefer them.

I think there may be substantial geographic differences which are played out by different state/local standards across the country.

Countries - this is an international forum.

I think it has been established and accepted (by all but a few) long ago that regional variations are extreme and may outweight all other factors. I am hoping that we (this forum) can take the next step and realise the *implementation* of faccilities may be just as important.

And when I say "bike faccilities", I always mean every possible bike faccility, including plan old generic lanes.

I'd like to see more well designed bike lanes, not because I want to use them, but because the public in general seems to prefer them.

How novel, someone on BF.net who is willing to look beond his own wants.

How novel, someone on BF.net who is willing to look beond his own wants.

... and it's this kind of thinking that is truly advocacy, not black and white views of this or that dogma.

Facilities or changes to facilities I support :


Removal of on street parking (no more door zones).
Wide outside lanes.
“Cyclist may use full lane” signs on narrow outside lane roads.
Well-designed bike paths for transportation (that actually go to destinations cyclist desire to travel to) and recreation (that have scenic value). I am currently advocating a bike path as an alternate route through a gulch for cyclist, particularly kids that want to ride bicycles to a large park on the other side of the gulch.
Idaho’s law that cyclist can treat stop signs as a yield (for all states).
More freeways open for cyclist use (particularly the H-3 freeway in Hawaii).
Bicycle friendly rumble strips on freeways.
Secure parking facilities/lockers.
Shower facilities.
Remove road-grate inlets and replace them with curb opening inlets.
Change all beer bottles to plastic.
Bicycle friendly traffic signal detectors.
Cycle boxes in the right lane, at traffic signals with traffic lights that allow cyclist to start first (on multi-lane roads).

I'd like to see more well designed bike lanes, not because I want to use them, but because the public in general seems to prefer them.
The "public in general" seems to prefer - no bicyclist period!
Do you support that?

... 4) Bike lanes when present should be 6 feet wide and swept clean regularly, with no bike-unfriendly pavement. (I realize this one might be too much to ask for, 5 feet is almost as good, but 4 feet including the paint is not my cup of tea; I've seen them about 3 feet wide.)
From inside strip to inside strip, I can show you a 2 foot wide bike lane in Hawaii on a heavy tourist bus and truck traveled highway. And it is located on a curve.
2 foot bike lane on curve (http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5348/dcp03400pu8.jpg)

Plus, the travel lane adjacent to the bike lane is only 9 to 10 feet wide.

Slow / traffic-calm all free merges and diverges.

The "public in general" seems to prefer - no bicyclist period!
Do you support that?

Then who are all those people on bicycles that use them and lobby for them whenever a road project comes up? But this is a subject for another thread, debate about such things is off limits in this one. You want to start it or shall I?

Edit: sorry, this just in. I didn't realize that the general public was the enemy. Forgive my ignorance.


The least organized of our enemies is the general public, who are powerful despite their lack of organization because they are numerous, because as motorists they both dislike and are afraid of VC, and because they are the customers of the highway establishment. The highway establishment fears going against the public's wishes, for obvious reasons. The general public fear that, as motorists, they will either be delayed by cyclists or will get into nasty accidents because cyclists are using the roads, and they fear, when considering cyclists, that VC is much more dangerous than cycling on bikeways of various kinds, or than cyclist-inferiority cycling on normal roads. Almost by definition, the members of the general public are not professionals in either the highway or the cycling fields.

Change all beer bottles to plastic.


That's a good one that I hadn't heard before. It would sure make the section of the asphalt to the right of a solid stripe more friendly to my tires.

Slow / traffic-calm all free merges and diverges.

What do you think of this:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/de/curb1.cfm?codename=15b&CM_maingroup=Roadway%20Design


Improved Right-Turn Slip-Lane Design
...
The design of corner islands, lane width, and curb radii of right-turn slip lanes should discourage high-speed turns, while accommodating large trucks and buses.

http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/cm_images/slip.gif

I think this might help reduce the speed of traffic entering the merge. I don't know that it would help the diverge, though.

A facility I support is having traffic light triggering sensors tuned for bicycles (and marked where needed) in all possible destination lanes.


That's an important one that I forgot to add in the OP.

I got so interested in promoting it that I researched and wrote a rather technically involved paper about it:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/detection.htm

I propose that we not strictly limit this thread to a narrow definition of "Vehicular Cyclists," since the definition can be too exclusive and prevent much valuable information from being gathered. "Vehicular Cyclists," being synonymous in the minds of many with "Foresterites" (if I may call them that,) excludes many very experienced cyclists with much to contribute.


I agree. What I meant was that any cyclists who prefer to operate according to the ordinary vehicular rules of the road, and usually feel comfortable doing so. Oftentimes our distaste for engineering strategies that would require cyclists to operate contrary to the normal rules is interpreted by facilities advocates as an ideological opposition to all facilities improvements for cycling. Forester's lack of tact in making his arguments against poorly designed facilities and his attacks on bikeway advocates has exacerbated this problem. I thought, then it would be constructive to show just how many types of facility improvements are supported by cyclists who prefer to operate according to vehicular rules and which are usable without any conflict with the normal vehicular rules of the road (e.g. destination positioning at intersections, speed positioning between intersections, and so forth).

3) Sharrows.

I think Sharrows have a lot of potential. I wrote most of the section on sharrows published in our Capitol Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's Bicycle Facility Planning and Engineering Guidelines

http://www.campo-nc.us/BPSG/docs/CAMPO_Bicycle_Facility_Planning_and_Engineering_Guidelines_2006_02_20.pdf


Shared Lane Markings

DEFINITION

A shared lane marking (also known as “sharrow”) is an experimental pavement marking intended to
remind road users that cyclists are permitted and expected to operate in the same travel lane
space as other drivers.

WHEN TO CONSIDER THIS TYPE OF FACILITY

Shared lane markings may be considered where it is desirable to remind road users that bicyclists
operate in the same travel lane space and same direction as other drivers. In locations where
narrow lanes or on-street parking make it unsafe for cyclists to ride far enough to the right to
facilitate same-lane passing by automobile traffic, shared lane markings have been used to
encourage cyclists to operate closer to the center of the lane. Shared lane markings are also
intended to reduce sidewalk cycling, discourage wrong-way cycling, and promote courteous
treatment of bicyclists by motorists. Shared use arrows are sometimes used as a tool to promote
awareness of bicyclists’ right to the road without marking striped bicycle lanes that segregate
users by vehicle type. A shared use arrow is typically placed in a narrow travel lane where
automobile drivers must move into the adjacent lane to overtake, but may also be used in a wide
lane where same-lane passing can be done safely.

PRINCIPAL PLANNING CONCERNS WITH SHARED USE ARROWS

Bicyclists choose different lateral positions in the travel lane based on their destination, existing
traffic conditions, and potential hazards they perceive. Shared use arrow installations may be
designed to allow ambiguity in the expected lateral positioning of bicyclists within the lane. If a
shared use arrow is instead designed to prescribe a particular lateral position for cyclists, that
position will be incorrect for at least some cyclists some of the time.

Shared use arrows should not be used to encourage cyclists to operate closer than normal to the
edge of the road or to hazards such as parked cars for the purpose of promoting easier overtaking
by automobile traffic. If the lane width does not facilitate safe and easy same-lane overtaking of
cyclists operating normally, then use of markings to promote side-by-side same-lane operation
may elevate risk for cyclists.

Given that bicyclist collisions with opening car doors often outnumber overtaking-type collisions
in urban areas, some communities have strategically positioned shared use arrows well outside of
the door zone of parked cars to encourage cyclists to ride safely outside of the door zone. Often
this results in the shared use marking being located near the center of the lane, such that
automobile drivers must move into the adjacent lane space to overtake bicyclists. The city of San
Francisco, California reports that such installations have effectively increased the average
distance between cyclists and parked cars, while at the same time increasing the distances at
which overtaking motor traffic passes bicyclists. (Source: San Francisco's Shared Lane Pavement
Markings: Improving Bicycle Safety, Final Report, San Francisco Department of Parking and
Traffic, February 1994)

Cycle boxes in the right lane, at traffic signals with traffic lights that allow cyclist to start first (on multi-lane roads).

What is a cycle box?

Removal of on-street parking is more of a wish list ... but I certainly understand the motivation. Now that I think about it, such a move could be possible in some "downtown" districts.

I think that the wide outside lane (WOL) is straightforward. But I still like the "fuzzy" bike lanes; i.e., without the solid stripes. I think that it serves as a reminder that cyclists belong on the road yet doesn't explicitly confine the cyclist to a narrow slot.

There was a thread on traffic calming a while back. I can see how a well designed strategy would be great for cycling and cycling commuters.

There was also a thread on red light and speed cameras a while back. I would be willing to give them a try while good data was collected on their effects.

I can see a purpose for multi-user paths. I think HHs recommendation for the width is absolutely necessary. I would also insist that they are called MUPs instead of bike paths: I don't think that you can exclude pedestrians and so one from the path. Calling it a bike path in my experience, confuses the non-cycling public on many issues.

Just a thought, in downtown DC, the lights are coordinated for pedestrians. That is, there are moments when the lights specifically stop automobiles but allow pedestrians to cross in the same direction. What is the opinion on how bicycles should be treated in this situation?

Here are 'facilities' I support to encourage transportation cycling as well as walking in metropolitan areas:

1) Repeal of right turn on red
2) Removal of right turn yield lanes at intersections
3) Reduce speed limits to 30 MPH on all roads but limited access roads
4) When roads are reconstructed build curb lane 14' wide or greater
5) Re program traffic lights to respond immediately to a pedestrian pushing the 'walk' button - all lanes stop and pedestrian can cross intersection in any direction
6) Repaint intersections to show entire intersection is a crosswalk
7) When roads are reconstructed remove road-grate inlets and replace them with curb opening inlets.

These rules wouldn't do anything where I live. We have plenty of rules, they just aren't enforced. People regularly speed, run red lights, etc with no penalty. I have NEVER seen anyone come to a complete stop at the stop sign on my street. There is a highway exit near my house where people REGULARLY turn left on red. Writing down more laws somewhere isn't the answer.

I'm a vehicular cyclist and I support bicycle specific infrastructure integrated with public rights of way.

I support any and all facilities developments that will bring more cyclists to a community.

I know well placed bike lanes put the average riders in a more visible road position than wide outside lanes, which encourage curb hugging. I support bike lanes to get riders in a more visible road position than wide outside lanes alone provide for the majority of riders.

I am a vehicular cyclist and I support integrated roadway bike lanes to benefit ALL cyclists in a community, not just me and my vehicular traffic jammin'.

What is a cycle box?

...
I think that the wide outside lane (WOL) is straightforward. But I still like the "fuzzy" bike lanes; i.e., without the solid stripes. I think that it serves as a reminder that cyclists belong on the road yet doesn't explicitly confine the cyclist to a narrow slot.

...


I can see a purpose for multi-user paths. I think HHs recommendation for the width is absolutely necessary. I would also insist that they are called MUPs instead of bike paths: I don't think that you can exclude pedestrians and so one from the path. Calling it a bike path in my experience, confuses the non-cycling public on many issues.

Just a thought, in downtown DC, the lights are coordinated for pedestrians. That is, there are moments when the lights specifically stop automobiles but allow pedestrians to cross in the same direction. What is the opinion on how bicycles should be treated in this situation?

BikeBox (http://www.bayareatrafficsignals.org/toolbox/Tools/BikeBox.html)

Advantage of a WOL is that motorist tend to use a line to tell them where to drive. When there is no bike lane line on the right, motorist tend to hug the left line more, giving cyclist much more room. And motorist do not even realize this is happening.

The Pearl Harbor Bike Path is by law a Bike Path since activities other than cycling, law enforcement and maintenance are prohibited by City Ordnance. Sadly, the City chooses to ignore these laws as they are politically inconvenient.

At lights, cyclist should behave as a motorist unless there is a specific cycling facility that designates other behavior. Cyclist should rarely if ever behave like pedestrians.

John Forester, vehicular cycling proponent and author of Effective Cycling, is often accused of being opposed to all bicycle facilities, rather than just the problematic ones, and is often accused of not wanting to use engineering improvements to encourage cycling. These accusations are often applied to other vehicular cycling proponents as well. The purpose of this thread is for vehicular cycling proponents to list bicycle-oriented facilities engineering changes that they support to encourage cycling and improve their own cycling conditions. Please refrain from discussing what you oppose or arguing with others who might support something that you don't. Let's at least start this by being informative and positive.

I will start the thread by including some quotes of writing published by John Forester in support of several types of facilties improvements that I have promoted in my area.

-Steve Goodridge, Cary, NCThanks for starting this thread and thanks for your efforts on behalf of bicyclists. This has been a very productive discussion.



So Steve, tell me the difference between a smooth shoulder and a bike lane. Around here, the only difference would be the presence of a curb.
Around here, the main difference would probably be more debris in a shoulder and either a pavement crack or a curb instead of paint.



Here in NC, striped paved shoulders are typically used only on roads without curb and gutter.Here in Missouri, you will find the infamous MoDOT shoulder, with a curb, debris and, possibly, driveways. It is evil.



Depending on the state or municipality, a cyclist may be required to use a striped bike lane, but not the shoulder.And, depending on the state or municipality, cyclists could be required to ride on the shoulder.



A paved shoulder may be any width, and is not marked specifically for bicycle use.A bike lane doesn't have to be marked specifically for bicycle use. Actually, about the only bike lane I ride on with any regularity isn't marked specifically for bicycle use. There are "Share the Road" signs, but those are everywhere around here.



A properly designed bike lane would be striped to the left of a right-turn-only lane. A striped shoulder typically ends or is positioned to the right of the right-turn-only lane.I've always thought that a properly designed bike lane would end before an intersection (and would therefore be nothing but speed positioning between intersections). If a shoulder is to the right of a RTOL, then that would seem to be worse than even a moderately well-designed bike lane.



I have promoted the idea that if a striped shoulder is provided on a busy/fast road with RTOLs, the outside through lane should be widened where there are RTOLs to provide more comfortable space for cyclists left of the RTOL to allow passing in the same through lane.How does designing a striped shoulder for bicycle use not make it a bike lane?

I hope that some day bicyclists will move past worring about what one person said or didn't say (as if it matters all that much). I'm sure lots of bicyclists have experience, knowledge, intelligence and opinions, and are capable of thinking for themselves, even if it does take a consious effort sometimes not to either have a knee-jerk reaction or give too much weight to an idea simply because a particular person said it or wrote it.

It would be nice if people on both sides found some common ground. We all want the same thing. We differ only in our opinions on the best way to achieve it.

I'm a vehicular cyclist and I support bicycle specific infrastructure integrated with public rights of way.

I support any and all facilities developments that will bring more cyclists to a community.
This is an interesting point. It's one of those things that has been mentioned so much that I sometimes "fast forward" over it's mention, but miss the point.

Bringing more cyclists to a community would increase our collective power in that area. When we are dispersed, our collective effect is diluted or eliminated. When we are gathered in a geographical area, we demonstrate through increased influence of cycling culture the positive benefits of cycling. This becomes a model for other cities or communities.

I think the concept of "bike facilities" can mean any facility that is suitable for cycling purposes, including unmodified streets. I don't think that means all streets are as suitable as they could be, just as all bike facilities are not as suitable as they could be. But an intelligent, comprehensive effort to include cyclists in all current and future road development and off-road facility development is essential in making the cycling environment better.

I think the concept of "bike facilities" can mean any facility that is suitable for cycling purposes, including unmodified streets. I don't think that means all streets are as suitable as they could be, just as all bike facilities are not as suitable as they could be. But an intelligent, comprehensive effort to include cyclists in all current and future road development and off-road facility development is essential in making the cycling environment better.

Well said!

I think the concept of "bike facilities" can mean any facility that is suitable for cycling purposes, including unmodified streets. I don't think that means all streets are as suitable as they could be, just as all bike facilities are not as suitable as they could be. But an intelligent, comprehensive effort to include cyclists in all current and future road development and off-road facility development is essential in making the cycling environment better.

Bravo. :beer: :beer: :beer:

What do you think of this:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/de/curb1.cfm?codename=15b&CM_maingroup=Roadway%20Design



http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/cm_images/slip.gif

I think this might help reduce the speed of traffic entering the merge. I don't know that it would help the diverge, though.

How about some sort of narrowing "funnel."

As traffic leaves a freeway it should be allowed to gradually slow down... and a road that narrows and guides could provide that slowing effect.

How does designing a striped shoulder for bicycle use not make it a bike lane?


The same way that providing ADA ramps, generous width and good sight lines on a sidewalk doesn't make it a bike path.

The issue is labeling for intended use. I promote the idea that facilities be designed consistent with the principle that cyclists are intended users of ordinary travel lanes. I strongly support making striped shoulders safer for cycling (e.g. better maintenance and continuity) as well as making sidewalks safer for those cyclists who chose to use them. (I often use wide paved shoulders or ride the fog line to provide more space for car and truck drivers to pass.) However, I prefer that the travel lane be considered the default, intended location for cyclists, and that this not be contradicted by signs and stencils elsewhere.

The UVC, as far as I can tell, does not compel cyclists to use striped paved shoulders, but does compel them to use that delinated space if a bike stencil is applied to it. Here in NC, cyclists are not required to use striped paved shoulders, but might be required to use marked bike lanes depending on how one interprets state law or if local ordinances apply.

Anyway, I don't want to debate bike lane issues in this thread, other than to say that I promote making shoulders and wide lanes work well for cycling, since these facilities are widespead and installed routinely now.

BikeBox (http://www.bayareatrafficsignals.org/toolbox/Tools/BikeBox.html)



Still a little difficult for me to picture. Is it an area next to the crosswalk?

I think the concept of "bike facilities" can mean any facility that is suitable for cycling purposes, including unmodified streets. I don't think that means all streets are as suitable as they could be, just as all bike facilities are not as suitable as they could be. But an intelligent, comprehensive effort to include cyclists in all current and future road development and off-road facility development is essential in making the cycling environment better.
Allow me to lay on the accolades for this as well...
:beer: :beer: :beer:

I can only add, then, that every road (where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited) is a "bike facility".

and that is a dubious proclamation, mr. head, but coming from your advoacy platform, understandable.

Here are some nice photos of a grade-separated greenway in my town that is very popular with cyclists. I ride it regularly with my son in his trailer to get to nearby parks, or by myself to go mountain biking. The greenway path is paved all the way to Lake Crabtree (with no at-grade crossings north of Dynasty Drive where I pick it up) but becomes a fairly smooth unpaved path in the state park. I see a lot of hybrids and sometimes even road bikes on the unpaved portion.

The photos were taken by Scott Chilcote, president of the NC Bicycle Club, of which I am advocacy officer.
http://www.trilug.org/~chilcote/Bike/umstead-ride.html

http://www.trilug.org/~chilcote/images/park/weston-pkwy-s.jpg

http://www.trilug.org/~chilcote/images/park/cary-parkway-s.jpg

http://www.trilug.org/~chilcote/images/park/big/crabtree1.jpg

-Steve Goodridge

Here's a new greenway bridge over the I-440 freeway in Raleigh, allowing cyclists a redundant, more pleasant, low-traffic route from West Raleigh into the inside of the beltline.

I fully support using transportation funds to build greenway bridges over freeways in places where they provide a transportation benefit to cyclists.

http://www.thespincycle.com/files/BikeBridge11.jpg

-Steve Goodridge

Cary also recently built a new greenway bridge over a freeway, US1/64, when it was widened. The new greenway connecting it has not yet been completed, afaik, but I plan to look at it as soon as it opens.

http://www.townofcary.org/depts/prdept/parks/64bridge.htm

http://www.ncdot.org/projects/us1wake/graphics/photorenderingofbridgefull.jpg

-Steve Goodridge

Here are some nice photos of a grade-separated greenway in my town that is very popular with cyclists. I ride it regularly with my son in his trailer to get to nearby parks, or by myself to go mountain biking. The greenway path is paved all the way to Lake Crabtree (with no at-grade crossings north of Dynasty Drive where I pick it up) but becomes a fairly smooth unpaved path in the state park. I see a lot of hybrids and sometimes even road bikes on the unpaved portion.


-Steve Goodridge


While these are indeed "nice," what I find quite dissapointing is that they are speed limited. Had the path been wider and the curves shallower, then the path might be used more often by those wanting to quickly move from one area of town to another. Also it is my experience that narrow paths are more difficult to maintain... regular service equipment does not easily access these sorts of paths and before too long they degrade.

I like the grade separation, but the limitation of speed negates the aspect of an intertia preserving "bike freeway."

While these are indeed "nice," what I find quite dissapointing is that they are speed limited. Had the path been wider and the curves shallower, then the path might be used more often by those wanting to quickly move from one area of town to another. Also it is my experience that narrow paths are more difficult to maintain... regular service equipment does not easily access these sorts of paths and before too long they degrade.

I like the grade separation, but the limitation of speed negates the aspect of an intertia preserving "bike freeway."

Agreed. The Black Creek greenway paths in the photos are at least 8-10 years old and are only 8 feet wide with lots of tight turns and limited sight distance. Some of the old greenways in Cary do not even have ramps and curb cuts at street junctions; one must jump a curb to reach them from the roadway. This is a result of their pedestrian-oriented origins.

Thanks to advocacy by cyclists, the new and rebuilt greenways are now built to 10' wide standard and are much straighter. However, they are still designed and maintained by the Parks and Rec department; they are primarily for recreation, are closed in darkness and have an official speed limit of 15 mph. This is certainly not as convenient as roadways for many cyclists to travel - but it is still enjoyable if speed is not a primary concern.

I appreciate having recreational greenways and support spending public recreation dollars on building them. I support spending transportation dollars on greenway bridges over major highways. I also support spending transportation dollars on making recreational greenways function better for transportation purposes, such as making them open at night, filling in gaps to create more useful routes, etc. I support designing greenways such that they better support exercise-oriented cyclists traveling at their typical cycling speeds, which requires that vehicle physics and vehicular traffic safety principles be considered in their design. Lastly, I support operating on greenways according to vehicular rules, including using lights at night, riding on the right, yielding at junctions with more important routes, etc.

-Steve