Bike lanes get a lot of opposition. Are there *any* sets of criteria (that bike lanes could meet) that would satisfy? Are there any that would satisfy VC people? Or others? Or you?

Are there good bike lanes?

If so, what do they look like?

(Or if none exist, but could, then what would they look like?)

***
Would it be satisfactory if other criteria were met (in addition to good bike lane design)? -- such as increased levels of cyclist-education and skill development; maintenance or improvement of rights for roadway use by cyclists; accompanying laws that would make a difference? Certain policies? Anything?

***
A variety of results and effects have accompanied the creation of more bike lanes. Are any of the effects seen anywhere good effects?

***
Have actual surveys been done in Portland (or other cities) to determine some of the actual (rather than speculated or imagined) effects and their extents?

Maybe there are some people here on this forum who can comment on some of this -- how bike lanes have affected their riding and their communities, etc., and how they perceive and feel about them, what messages they send to the public, or to you as part of the public....

I am fine with well maintained wide bike lanes on faster/higher volume fully intersectionless roads.

Wide means 6'. Well maintained means regular sweeping to avoid any notable build up and special sweeping for after storms (debris or snow)

I don't prefer this over a WOL on same road, but would not be against having the stripe as long as the maintenance was well planned and there would not be intersections added in the future and if they were they would be properly dealt with by ending the BL stripe 200' before those intersections.

Al

I am fine with well maintained wide bike lanes on faster/higher volume fully intersectionless roads.

Wide means 6'. Well maintained means regular sweeping to avoid any notable build up and special sweeping for after storms (debris or snow)

I don't prefer this over a WOL on same road, but would not be against having the stripe as long as the maintenance was well planned and there would not be intersections added in the future and if they were they would be properly dealt with by ending the BL stripe 200' before those intersections.

Al
I would probably not even complain about bike lanes if they all met noisebeam's standards, but I still wouldn't call them "good".

A "good" bike lane is one where the condition would not be improved if the bike lane stripe was removed.

Maybe on a freeway or a freeway-like road with long intersectionless sections with 65+ mph traffic. Maybe.

Certainly some bike lanes are very good. And certainly static accident statistics with increased ridership after the implementation of bike lanes is good. I believe Portland has statistics on that.

bike lanes are good if you find they are beneficial to you in some way in some cycling situations. if you find they are not useful, don't use 'em. the wider the better, IMHO.

... I believe Portland has statistics on that.
Not really, Portland has done counts of the # of cyclist crossing bridges. Then some people have tried to use those counts to claim that bikelanes = more cyclist and less accidents. Portland and no other proper study has shown improved safety or increased overall cyclist from bikelanes.

Note: of the 4 bridge counts Portland did, only one bridge had a bikelane across it, while 2 other bridges had sidewalks that were simply renamed as MUPs and 1 bridge had its sidewalk widened and then named as a MUP (even though the thing did not meet current MUP design). On the bridge with the bikelane, cycling numbers at best stayed the same and at worst went down after the bikelane was painted on the bridge.

Portland bikelane proponents claim that the bridge count went up on the 3 MUP bridges because of bikelanes (even though there are no bikelanes on these bridges). My guess is that the bridge counts went up on these bridges because when the sidewalks were called sidewalks, most cyclist understood that they were not for cycling. Then by calling the things MUPs, the city conveyed to cyclist that it was OK to ride on these particular sidewalks.

I also would not bother opposing bikelanes that followed noisebeam's standards. But I have never seen a bikelane that meets noisebeam's standards.

I'm not fond of using any bike lanes, but I will use them depending on traffic conditions. As stated by other forumites and by my personal experiences, that motorists give far less passing clearance when there is bike lane present than when one is not. I definitely feel less comfortable riding in a bike lane, and I prefer riding on a wide roadway or one with a wide and well maintained marked shoulder.

Niles asked:


Are there good bike lanes?

If so, what do they look like?


Here's the anti-bl reply:

well maintained wide bike lanes on faster/higher volume fully intersectionless roads.

Wide means 6'. Well maintained means regular sweeping...

Look at all those descriptors explaining what they look like.

Al's description is so good, others (including yours truly) only had to say "me too".

I would probably not even complain about bike lanes if they all met noisebeam's standards,
I also would not bother opposing bikelanes that followed noisebeam's standards.

And what are illuminating descriptions provided by the pro-bl folks?


Certainly some bike lanes are very good
And what do they look like? Who knows...

bike lanes are good if you find they are beneficial to you... Oh, I see... Not.

The inability of a bl supports to describe what a "good" bl looks like speaks volumes.
I can't wait for a photo from Bek showing some snippet of a road with a decent looking short stretch of bl, like that shows anything.

good bike lanes provide dedicated road space for bikes, position bikes to the left of right turn only lanes at major intersections.

good bike lanes provide better road position versus curb hugging by average bicyclists. a good bike lane network encourages riding in communities for both transportational and recreational uses.

the fact head can call some bike lanes 'decent' is quite the admission. you use bike lanes when you occasionally bicycle your commute, dontchya, head?

Niles asked:

The inability of a bl supports to describe what a "good" bl looks like speaks volumes.
I can't wait for a photo from Bek showing some snippet of a road with a decent looking short stretch of bl, like that shows anything.

I didn't provide a description, Head, because Al had already provided a good one. why do you care about someone else's reply to the OP? Don't create division where there is none.

There are several thousand miles of "bike lanes" on the Interstate highway shoulders in the western US. Where else can you get a bike lane 6 to 8 feet wide with no pedestrians, no horses, no pets, very few other bikes, and a tailwind in whatever direction you are going? In Colorado some of the Interstate shoulders had signs for the motorists saying the shoulders were used by cyclists definately making that section of road between Denver and Colorado Springs a bike lane.

now, if the interstates just served more utility bicyclists! someone will jump in, complaining the interstate doesn't go right to their doorstep...

The inability of a bl supports to describe what a "good" bl looks like speaks volumes.
Get off. If their opinion was "most bike lanes are good," which it may be, then describing the variety of situations that can create a good bike lane would take up a page. How long is your definition of a bad bike lane?

In Colorado some of the Interstate shoulders had signs for the motorists saying the shoulders were used by cyclists definately making that section of road between Denver and Colorado Springs a bike lane.
That's interesting. Every freeway I've seen has a very different sign at its entrances.

Not really, Portland has done counts of the # of cyclist crossing bridges. Then some people have tried to use those counts to claim that bikelanes = more cyclist and less accidents. Portland and no other proper study has shown improved safety or increased overall cyclist from bikelanes.

Note: of the 4 bridge counts Portland did, only one bridge had a bikelane across it, while 2 other bridges had sidewalks that were simply renamed as MUPs and 1 bridge had its sidewalk widened and then named as a MUP (even though the thing did not meet current MUP design). On the bridge with the bikelane, cycling numbers at best stayed the same and at worst went down after the bikelane was painted on the bridge.

Portland bikelane proponents claim that the bridge count went up on the 3 MUP bridges because of bikelanes (even though there are no bikelanes on these bridges). My guess is that the bridge counts went up on these bridges because when the sidewalks were called sidewalks, most cyclist understood that they were not for cycling. Then by calling the things MUPs, the city conveyed to cyclist that it was OK to ride on these particular sidewalks.

But aren't the bridges just a convenient place to count cyclists? That is, regardless of the bridges themselves, if you wanted to count the number of cyclists in Portland, a good place to do this is at bridges, where cyclists are forced to cross in just a few places.

Were bike paths created in the areas around the bridges, or was the study just about the bridge facilities?

Yes, the bridges are a convenient place to count cyclists. But what data does it yield?

Since all 4 bridges are on the east Portland side, they can only count cyclist coming from the east suburbs. So is the increase on 3 of the bridges do to the growing suburbs. Probably, and would have likely occurred without bike lanes. But we cannot tell because the data has not been normalized to growth or modal split. Why did the 1 bridge with a bike lane not have any increase (but a decrease after the bike lane was painted)?

How do bridge counts tell you if more people living in Portland are riding bikes? The answer is that it does not.

How do bridge counts tell you if more people living in Portland are riding bikes? The answer is that it does not.


Why not? You can't possibly count every bike user, so it's as good of a statistical sample as any.

Now whether or not any conclusion can be drawn from it is another matter. Does anyone have a quick link to this study? Don't make me drag out the search function...

what west side bridges???? :roflmao:

CBHI, clueless. you are way out in left field if you think infrastructure DOESN'T have anything to do with Portland's increase in bicycling.

Portland's increase in bicycling is definetly becuase of bicycling infrastructure and efforts to popularize bicycling via bike lanes, boulevards, MUPs, etc.

what's a good bike lane?

good bike lanes provide dedicated road space for bikes and position bikes to the left of right turn only lanes at major intersections.

good bike lanes provide better road position versus curb hugging by average bicyclists. a good bike lane network encourages riding in communities for both transportational and recreational uses.

I would probably not even complain about bike lanes if they all met noisebeam's standards, but I still wouldn't call them "good".

A "good" bike lane is one where the condition would not be improved if the bike lane stripe was removed.

Maybe on a freeway or a freeway-like road with long intersectionless sections with 65+ mph traffic. Maybe.
Why are you so obsessed with the lane stripes? No sensible automobile driver objects to lane markings. They serve a valuable purpose. Why ought cyclists be so upset about them?

haven't you heard? stripes are powerful. they induce incompetent cycling and give motorists notions. eventually they will turn on us all and get us banned from the road.

Portland's increase in bicycling is definetly becuase of bicycling infrastructure and efforts to popularize bicycling via bike lanes, boulevards, MUPs, etc.
http://www.graduate.technion.ac.il/Theses/Abstracts.asp?Id=11541

Case study analysis of a bicycle plan that was implemented in Irvine, California. Evaluation of the plan and its results is according to the criteria derived from the literature review and by comparisons to the bicycle plan that was implemented in Portland, Oregon.

Irvine is a place with near-optimal conditions for bicycling, such as suitable geographical and weather characteristics. It is a new city that had a bicycle plan incorporated into its general plan. It has very few physical or planning constraints. Around 80% of the proposed infrastructure is already completed, and Irvine’s population has high potential for bicycling. Nevertheless the percentage of bicycling in Irvine is not higher than the national or regional rates. Portland, as opposed to Irvine, has succeeded in raising the percentage of bicycling in the city.

haven't you heard? stripes are powerful. they induce incompetent cycling and give motorists notions. eventually they will turn on us all and get us banned from the road.

Maybe they can use the bikelanes like they did HOV lanes where I used to live. Put them in and after a while say no one uses them and convert them into another lane of regular traffic.

Bike lanes get a lot of opposition. Are there *any* sets of criteria (that bike lanes could meet) that would satisfy? Are there any that would satisfy VC people? Or others? Or you?

....

Here in Minneapolis we have a couple of bike paths that all types of cyclists choose to use over the adjacent roadways. And I mean all kinds, be they DUI guy with the turned up handlebars, sans bell racerboy, or Burley hauling soccer mom. One looks like this (the midtown greenway):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/415995934_ce3b2d5bae.jpg
Dedicated directional bike only lanes and dedicated ped lane. Limited grade level crossings and on off ramps to return to motor vehicle allowed traffic roads. The adjacent road way is a four lane urban commercial district with lights at each intersection and 30 mph speed limit. I bet a bike could cross border to border in Minneapolis on the Greenway in about 75% the time that a car could do the same on the Lake Street (mostly due to congestion and prevalent traffic control devices).

Don't like dedicated bike infastructure?....ride Lake Street with my blessing, but I'll be Hopkins before yeeeeeeeeee.
Scot

Scot_Gore,
That would classify as a "bike path" rather than "bike lanes".
And a very nice bike path at that.

Here in Minneapolis we have a couple of bike lanes that all types of cyclists choose to use over the adjacent roadways. And I mean all kinds, be they DUI guy with the turned up handlebars, sans bell racerboy, or Burley hauling soccer mom. One looks like this (the midtown greenway):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/415995934_ce3b2d5bae.jpg
Dedicated directional bike only lanes and dedicated ped lane. Limited grade level crossings and on off ramps to return to motor vehicle allowed traffic lanes. The adjacent road way is a four lane urban commercial district with lights at each intersection and 30 mph speed limit. I bet a bike could cross border to border in Minneapolis on the Greenway in about 75% the time that a car could do the same on the Lake Street (mostly due to congestion and prevalent traffic control devices).

Don't like dedicated bike infastructure?....ride Lake Street with my blessing, but I'll be Hopkins before yeeeeeeeeee.
Scot

Thanks for that, but I couldn't bring up the picture.

[later note: it's working now.]

Hit the my Flickr link
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/415995934_ce3b2d5bae.jpg
Scot

Here in Minneapolis we have a couple of bike lanes that all types of cyclists choose to use over the adjacent roadways. And I mean all kinds, be they DUI guy with the turned up handlebars, sans bell racerboy, or Burley hauling soccer mom. One looks like this (the midtown greenway):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/415995934_ce3b2d5bae.jpg
Dedicated directional bike only lanes and dedicated ped lane. Limited grade level crossings and on off ramps to return to motor vehicle allowed traffic lanes. The adjacent road way is a four lane urban commercial district with lights at each intersection and 30 mph speed limit. I bet a bike could cross border to border in Minneapolis on the Greenway in about 75% the time that a car could do the same on the Lake Street (mostly due to congestion and prevalent traffic control devices).

Don't like dedicated bike infastructure?....ride Lake Street with my blessing, but I'll be Hopkins before yeeeeeeeeee.
Scot
A bike lane is a bikeway comprised of a painted-stripe-demarcated space intended primarily for cyclists on roads used by motor vehicles.

A bike path is a bikeway that is physically separated from the roadway.

That's no bike lane, that's a bike path. But I really like the separate ped lane and the directional lanes for bikes. I wonder how much everyone obeys the rules with respect to lane usage.

I respect the anti-BL argument, but for me the BL I use almost daily as 1/2 of my commute is much more relaxing to ride than the non-BL 1/2 of my ride. And the bike lane in question isn't particularly known for being especially good.

I'm definately for all of the above in terms of bikeways.
The only time it gets a bit sticky for me is when a disproportionate ammount of resources are spent on big fancy bikelane or bike path projects but the city hasn't botherd to do the little things (ie signs/ sharrows) necessary to make sure bikes can travel safely to actual destinations when they exit the larger bikeways.

Its like bulding a freeway that only has dirt and gravel roads coming off of it.
Bike lanes can be fine. I'll take any bike infrastructure I can get at this point.
But yes ... transit agencies need to pull their head out and not get lost in old ideas of what real bike infrastructure could or should be.

here is a good article by a bike lane critic from the la times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-campbell19may19,0,6391618.story?coll=la-home-commentary)

I respect the anti-BL argument, but for me the BL I use almost daily as 1/2 of my commute is much more relaxing to ride than the non-BL 1/2 of my ride. And the bike lane in question isn't particularly known for being especially good.

I'm definately for all of the above in terms of bikeways.
The only time it gets a bit sticky for me is when a disproportionate ammount of resources are spent on big fancy bikelane or bike path projects but the city hasn't botherd to do the little things (ie signs/ sharrows) necessary to make sure bikes can travel safely to actual destinations when they exit the larger bikeways.

Its like bulding a freeway that only has dirt and gravel roads coming off of it.
Bike lanes can be fine. I'll take any bike infrastructure I can get at this point.
But yes ... transit agencies need to pull their head out and not get lost in old ideas of what real bike infrastructure could or should be.

here is a good article by a bike lane critic from the la times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-campbell19may19,0,6391618.story?coll=la-home-commentary) But is the BL 1/2 of your commute "more relaxing" because of the BL? In particular, would it be any less relaxing if the BL stripe was removed and everything else stayed the same? You would still be able to ride in the same space that you do now, with just as much space to your left for motorist to use to pass you.

Also, is it really "more relaxing", or does it simply feel that way because you're succumbing to the false sense of security often associated with bike lanes? That is, are you letting yourself feel more relaxed than you should be? Or is it possible that you over-stressing yourself on the part without a BL?

Those beautiful bike path pictures people like to post of Minneapolis here and on other forums I've visited almost makes you want to leave California.

jeez, helemt, the more you post, the clearer it becomes you are clueless, if you see no discernable differences between motorist behavior when you're riding in a bike lane, versus a wide outside lane.

criminy. I do know you drive a lot, but unable to feel any tangible difference between facilitated, bike laned roads, versus a wide lane? posh, it makes me think you hardly ride during rush hour, at night, solo, or transportationally. a lot of your arterials in SD have bike lanes up to or exceeding AASHTO standards, don't they? I've seen pictures of your 'bicycle' commute route posted by Pete Fagerlin.

A good bike lane network encourages bicycling for transportation and recreation alike.

jeez, helemt, the more you post, the clearer it becomes you are clueless, if you see no discernable differences between motorist behavior when you're riding in a bike lane, versus a wide outside lane.

criminy. I do know you drive a lot, but unable to feel any tangible difference between facilitated, bike laned roads, versus a wide lane? posh, it makes me think you hardly ride during rush hour, at night, solo, or transportationally. a lot of your arterials in SD have bike lanes up to or exceeding AASHTO standards, don't they? I've seen pictures of your 'bicycle' commute route posted by Pete Fagerlin.

A good bike lane network encourages bicycling for transportation and recreation alike.

I wouldn't say any of our local BL exceed AASHTO standards... generally width is fudged. The clear give-away is when the stencil doesn't fit into the lane. Our lanes do "dot" before they end, and generally end well before a major intersection.

There may be a wide lane here and there, but the road engineers don't go out of their way for cyclists here. Sorry, just doesn't happen. If there are any exceptional bike lanes, cyclists fought for them...

Believe me.

As far as "network" goes... well what looks good on paper may be a joke in reality... one such situation is on a very busy 50MPH arterial I know of... on paper it appears to be well connected. In reality there is a bike lane that runs from the west to the east that vanishes for about 2 city blocks. So there you are riding along on the wider part of the road in the BL, and suddenly without warning, the BL ends. The Bike Route continues... BFD, as if "Bike Route" means anything but "go this way." The motorists don't get any warning either... suddenly you are riding along parallel to 50MPH traffic, the road narrows and you must take the lane... no one is warned, it just happens. Nice "network," eh?

BTW on roads where lanes end for cars, they put up signs... "merge left, lane ends" that sort of thing. Bikes... you are just left out there right next to that sign that says "BIKE LANE ENDS," sort of holding your arm out hoping to make a gap... :eek:

Network eh?

In another area... you have a nice wide road, good bike lane, then suddenly the bike lane ends... for one block exactly. Again, no warning. Take a lane... at least in this case the traffic is generally not that heavy. Oh and why did the bike lane end? Oh yeah, mini transit stop for short hop buses. They park right where the bike lane might have been. They could park around the corner... but no, right where the bike lane should be... blammo. Nice touch by the Transit Department, eh? Kinda shows you the attitude toward bikes in the area.

There are discontinuities all over town like this. These are just a couple of cases I know of and ride myself.

I fought one for about 2 years before it was fixed. Genesee, near the UCSD. Bike lane runs along nearly the whole length of this entire street... it then suddenly stopped on this 45MPH arterial... to allow on-street parking for 2 blocks. Motorists were none too happy when you suddenly had to take the lane in front of them. This was a while back... it has long been fixed... but it was just another sign of the local attitude.

One local really poor path is only accessable by stairs... nice trick in bike shoes and if loaded for touring... but it's OK, the path really sucks anyway. Great discouragement. Just a straight line on paper. Looks great.

maybe you fellas down there need to work on accomodations improvement, instead of buying into the foresterite nonsense.

again,

"A good bike lane network encourages bicycling for transportation and recreation alike."

maybe you fellas down there need to work on accomodations improvement, instead of buying into the foresterite nonsense.

again,

"A good bike lane network encourages bicycling for transportation and recreation alike."

Just another proof of the power of the cyclist-inferiority superstition in setting bicycle transportation policy in America. Your own words say it quite plainly.

Here is how Hawaii treats bikelanes at intersections:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.jpg

Those beautiful bike path pictures people like to post of Minneapolis here and on other forums I've visited almost makes you want to leave California.

Come for a visit. We'll ride the Oberstar 100 route and show off all the facilities Jim helped us get.

Scot

I'd love to go to Minnesota. I haven't been there since 1983 when I and my 2 blond girlfriends drove my 1972 VW Beetle all the way from California. People thought we were movie stars. They would take pictures of us in our "fancy California car" as we were driving. I used to be an heiress to an island on a lake in Ely. Oh how sad I was when my mother sold that island and it wouldn't be mine.

Here is how Hawaii treats bikelanes at intersections:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.jpg
Thanks for posting this. Would like to see it, but it isn't coming up. I'll try again later.

[later: it's coming up now]

needs to be a little wider at the intersection proper, but it IS routed to the left of right turning traffic, and continuing past the intersection with a bike lane stripe. got to get your traffic engineers on task to remove that diagonal stripe and work on the striping a little bit, improve the width at the islands....

why is that bad? it didn't get the bicyclist in the picture out of the crosswalk position? looks like you were riding in it when you took the picture, CBHI....whassamatter, can't understand how to ride roads with painted lines on them? experiencing white line phobia?

would you rather see LESS bicyclists? that's it, the bicyclists aren't forced to claim position in the rightmost thru lane, it's baaad :roflmao:

here's a couple like it up north here. they are NOT bad.

~and a bike lane even a rabid VCist could ride in vehicularily ~ look ma, out of the door zone!

Those beautiful bike path pictures people like to post of Minneapolis here and on other forums I've visited almost makes you want to leave California.
California is better. In Minneapolis I got honked at or yelled at about once every 20 miles or so. I've done 250 miles in the south bay this summer and been yelled at once. The bike paths are nice, but there are only two like that in town as far as I've seen, and the other one goes through train station waiting zones.

And then you have beauties like on my commute home from school. It's a short ride, about a mile and a half. I turn onto 4th street right after the bike lane switches from the right side of the one-way road to the left side. The bike lane disappears in Dinkytown, three blocks later, then appears again on the left after three more blocks. Then, another three or four blocks later, it disappears for good - one block before there are two lanes of traffic turning left onto a freeway. That intersection backs up several blocks during rush hour.

I gave up on that bike lane and started riding on the right. I have to take the lane most of the way because the right lane is too narrow to share.

Minneapolis loves putting bike lanes on the left side of one-way roads. It might be for the buses, I don't know. It's not bad but it gets annoying to cross over and back. They make sense downtown, which is full of one-way roads with lanes for buses and bikes in both directions.

Bek, no surprise that you think a bike lane that directs cyclist into a curb is just fine.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6294/dcp03395bj8.jpg

The bike paths are nice, but there are only two like that in town as far as I've seen, and the other one goes through train station waiting zones.
There's 4 like the Greenway. With dedicated directional bike lanes and seperate pedestrian section. They are The Cedar Lake Trail, The Midtown Greenway, The Kenilworth Trail, and The Shepard Road Bikeway. There's more if you count the Lakes, Minnehaha Creek, and River Road sections of the Grand Rounds. Those bike lanes have 10 mph speed limits, so I don't consider them transportion lanes. They are parks you can ride your bike in.


And then you have beauties like on my commute home from school. It's a short ride, about a mile and a half. I turn onto 4th street right after the bike lane switches from the right side of the one-way road to the left side. The bike lane disappears in Dinkytown, three blocks later, then appears again on the left after three more blocks. Then, another three or four blocks later, it disappears for good - one block before there are two lanes of traffic turning left onto a freeway. That intersection backs up several blocks during rush hour..
Check out the TLC project list. http://www.tlcminnesota.org/Resources/NTP%20Program/bwtcprojectlist.pdf
I think project IOR15 directly addresses your pain.

Scot

There's 4 like the Greenway. With dedicated directional bike lanes and seperate pedestrian section. They are The Cedar Lake Trail, The Midtown Greenway, The Kenilworth Trail, and The Shepard Road Bikeway.
Okay, I never came across those in the nine months I lived in the city. Cedar Lake and Kenilworth I considered more like the Gateway, a way to get out of town. Shepard Road is pretty far south from the corridor between the downtowns.

Check out the TLC project list. http://www.tlcminnesota.org/Resources/NTP%20Program/bwtcprojectlist.pdf
I think project IOR15 directly addresses your pain.
Nope, bridge #9 is about half a mile from the U of M transitway. I lived in southeast, not downtown. I had wondered if it was possible to bike on that path since you can't miss seeing it from Dinkytown. In fact, I never noticed bridge #9 at the time. I used the Stone Arch bridge a lot to get downtown.

That's an impressive list. It's encouraging that they're willing to reduce parking and traffic lanes to promote biking.

I think the question is too ambiguous. By "good", do you mean merely well-done technically, or do you mean bike lanes that make the road they are on better for cyclists than it would be without them. And by "better", do you mean safer or more comfortable?

There's 4 like the Greenway. With dedicated directional bike lanes and seperate pedestrian section. They are The Cedar Lake Trail, The Midtown Greenway, The Kenilworth Trail, and The Shepard Road Bikeway. There's more if you count the Lakes, Minnehaha Creek, and River Road sections of the Grand Rounds. Those bike lanes have 10 mph speed limits, so I don't consider them transportion lanes. They are parks you can ride your bike in...
Scot
Most would call these "Bike Paths" or "MUPs", is there a reason you call them "bike lanes"?

But aren't the bridges just a convenient place to count cyclists? That is, regardless of the bridges themselves, if you wanted to count the number of cyclists in Portland, a good place to do this is at bridges, where cyclists are forced to cross in just a few places.
You are absolutely correct, CB HI just doesn't want to accept what the results of the Portland counts might signify.

I don't like bike lanes in an urban setting.

I want a nice narrow lane where I can take it. If we had safe drivers we wouldn't need a special lane.

I think the question is too ambiguous. By "good", do you mean merely well-done technically, or do you mean bike lanes that make the road they are on better for cyclists than it would be without them. And by "better", do you mean safer or more comfortable?
Maybe "good" and "better" are in the "faring best" play book. Vague enuff to be anything you want it to be.

You are absolutely correct, CB HI just doesn't want to accept what the results of the Portland counts might signify.
I accept the bridge count with the bike lane that shows bike lanes = less cyclist.