Making wholesale changes (widening a road) is often cost prohibitive--
That’s what a lot of people would like you to think but if you ever seen the cost of streetscapes or just adding a landscaped median the cost is comparatively doable. It is all a matter of priorities.

I will also note in some areas the message that is given by the anti-bike lane crowd is interpreted that cyclists want to be integrated with traffic so they don’t want extra width. The anti-bike lane crowd really needs a better and more concise mission statement as it is it is leaving too many people scratching their heads and is not helping getting cyclists any extra width.

... not helping getting cyclists any extra width.All the marked travel lanes on our roads are already plenty wide enough to cycle down the middle of. Personally, I'm not that interested in advocating for extra width to decrease the average amount of time that drivers of wide motor vehicles have to wait before passing. It's not my fault that their vehicles are not as narrow as a bike or that the marked lanes aren't wider.

That’s what a lot of people would like you to think but if you ever seen the cost of streetscapes or just adding a landscaped median the cost is comparatively doable. It is all a matter of priorities.

I will also note in some areas the message that is given by the anti-bike lane crowd is interpreted that cyclists want to be integrated with traffic so they don’t want extra width. The anti-bike lane crowd really needs a better and more concise mission statement as it is it is leaving too many people scratching their heads and is not helping getting cyclists any extra width.

Which anti-bike lane advocates (as you call them) are saying that they don't ever want extra width? Being integrated with traffic doesn't preclude having extra width; it simply means not defining "your space" and "my space" on a road where there is no such thing (those "spaces" overlap/cross at every intersection).

Just to be clear, I have often said that on a road with many intersections, I would prefer to not have any extra width as it can lead to confusion (motorist: "why won't that cyclist move over?"). On roads with few intersections, wide outside lanes/shoulders allow traffic to flow more freely.

All the marked travel lanes on our roads are already plenty wide enough to cycle down the middle of. Personally, I'm not that interested in advocating for extra width to decrease the average amount of time that drivers of wide motor vehicles have to wait before passing. It's not my fault that their vehicles are not as narrow as a bike or that the marked lanes aren't wider.

haha, and Bruce jumps in before me and replies with something unexpected. Bruce, on a high speed (40+mph, traffic at 45+mph) roadway with few intersections, can you see the benefit of having extra roadway width for slow moving vehicles to move over and allow for easier passing? As a motorist and a cyclist, I prefer wider pavement in these situations. They may be few and far between where you live though.

That’s what a lot of people would like you to think but if you ever seen the cost of streetscapes or just adding a landscaped median the cost is comparatively doable. It is all a matter of priorities.

I will also note in some areas the message that is given by the anti-bike lane crowd is interpreted that cyclists want to be integrated with traffic so they don’t want extra width. The anti-bike lane crowd really needs a better and more concise mission statement as it is it is leaving too many people scratching their heads and is not helping getting cyclists any extra width.

I can understand why such a misunderstanding could come about. I place the blame squarely on the bike-lane advocates, whose advocacy of bike-lanes, being necessarily controlled by the nature of bike lanes and their motivating superstition, necessarily is confused and illogical. The general public can make sense of it only according to their preconceptions, and in the confusion logical thought is hard to find. Wide outside lanes enable motorists to overtake cyclists without delay, thus easing the discomfort of cyclists, without creating the contradictions to the rules of the road, and the discrimination against cyclists, that are created by bike-lane stripes. That's a net gain for both motorists and for cyclists. Of course, an anti-motorist would not approve of that, but, as we know, most bicycling-interested anti-motorists are already arguing for bike-lane stripes, which provide the same convenience for motorists, the convenience that is the design intent of bike-lane stripes in any case.

As I have repeatedly written, the whole bikeway superstition has created such an illogical mess that nobody can understand it and reasonable discussion and agreement, such as that above, is hard to detect.

haha, and Bruce jumps in before me and replies with something unexpected. Bruce, on a high speed (40+mph, traffic at 45+mph) roadway with few intersections, can you see the benefit of having extra roadway width for slow moving vehicles to move over and allow for easier passing? As a motorist and a cyclist, I prefer wider pavement in these situations. They may be few and far between where you live though.

Apparently Bruce doesn't believe in extra width... follow this thread and the ones after it where Bruce says he rides in the middle of 50MPH travel lanes and everyone else just has to deal with it.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=323318&page=2

Start at post 27.

... can you see the benefit of having extra roadway width for ... easier passing? There are benefits for cyclists (such as reducing social pressure) and then there are priorities for advocacy by cyclists. I was primarily addressing the latter.

As a motorist and a cyclist, I prefer wider pavement in these situations. IMHO, there are other factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to advocate for something which helps wide traffic more reliably pass narrow traffic faster, including (but not limited to) the increased:

danger to the public from the higher speeds that typically result
difficulty of crossing the extra width safely
amount of tax payer dollars to construct and maintain
amount of impervious surface (which is "anti-green")

That’s what a lot of people would like you to think but if you ever seen the cost of streetscapes or just adding a landscaped median the cost is comparatively doable. It is all a matter of priorities.

I will also note in some areas the message that is given by the anti-bike lane crowd is interpreted that cyclists want to be integrated with traffic so they don’t want extra width. The anti-bike lane crowd really needs a better and more concise mission statement as it is it is leaving too many people scratching their heads and is not helping getting cyclists any extra width.

Hi Barry,

Just so I understand your first paragraph ... Are you saying that the cost of widening a road is comparable to the streetscapes design (I might know what this is ... fuzzy memory in my head) or adding a landscaped median? I also assumed that the cost of widening roads and other infrastructure improvements also depended heavily on the local environment. For instance, widening the roads in Downtown DC or M St in Georgetown (a heavily trafficked arterial road) would be crazy expensive.

But I think that your point about priorities is absolutely correct. We should be asking ourselves, how many lives do we save by improving roads and encouraging cycling compared to providing health care funds for children? Or to keep the context in the same arena, weighted by their costs, how much do we improve transportation by improving roads/facilities and encouraging cycling compared to providing better bus and train service? Would we be better off lobbying for better designed roads compared to stricter enforcement of present laws and a greater proliferation of red light cameras?

One of the arguments that John F has brought up in the past, to his credit, is the efficient allocation of resources and notions of cost/benefit.

Using an example from this thread, it is entirely plausible that a somewhat narrow two lane road with a 35 mph speed limit--where people speed 10+ mph on a regular basis if I remember Bek's point--could be made safer with a few mobile red light/speed cameras and some signage. Is this less expensive than widening the road? Maybe the combination of the above with an extra 1' or 2' shoulder/WOL would be better, yet still less expensive than a major overhaul with less maintenance than an up to spec's bike lane.

Anyway, any thoughts on whether a BLs versus WOLs on high speed (40-50 mph empirically observed speeds) commercial roads? Anecdotally, they would seem to be the most chaotic with multiple lanes in each direction with distracted motorists.

All the marked travel lanes on our roads are already plenty wide enough to cycle down the middle of. Personally, I'm not that interested in advocating for extra width to decrease the average amount of time that drivers of wide motor vehicles have to wait before passing. It's not my fault that their vehicles are not as narrow as a bike or that the marked lanes aren't wider.

Just wait until legislation passes that makes your riding in the middle of the road illegal.

amount of impervious surface (which is "anti-green")

This is totally false! The problem is storm water run off from impervious surfaces and a small reduction in the amount of impervious surface does not do much of anything.

In reaction to Montgomery County's road code that just reduced road width to be "green":
We have several major concerns about the proposed bills, however. First, the bills fail to appropriately treat bicycling as an important part of the transportation system. Second, the bills miss opportunities to adopt more proactive and state-of-the-art stormwater management practices.
...
Green Streets Standards

We concur with the bills that street design should be improved to reduce stormwater runoff. We recommend incorporating green streets standards as a part of this legislation. Green streets concepts integrate a system of stormwater management within the public right of way and reduce the amount of water that is piped directly to streams and rivers. We recommend the City of Portland Oregon's Green Streets program and publications by Portland's regional government Metro, "Green Streets: Innovative solutions for stormwater and stream crossings." It is crucial to recognize the need to use green design approaches that do not conflict with creating a good urban walking environment. Portland provides many examples of achieving both goals - reduced stormwater runoff through innovative design while offering high quality built urban environments.


19. Environmentally-friendly roadways: The County's environmental goals should be reflected in the creation of alternative roadway standards, DPWT's design policies, and the use of alternative materials such as porous pavements where appropriate. Cross sections should allow for stormwater management to be incorporated into medians and linear roadside features for better infiltration and to reduce the area needed for ponds and underground storage facilities.
http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=2007012507012487&query=stormwater

There are benefits for cyclists (such as reducing social pressure) and then there are priorities for advocacy by cyclists. I was primarily addressing the latter.

IMHO, there are other factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to advocate for something which helps wide traffic more reliably pass narrow traffic faster, including (but not limited to) the increased:

danger to the public from the higher speeds that typically result
difficulty of crossing the extra width safely
amount of tax payer dollars to construct and maintain
amount of impervious surface (which is "anti-green")


Bruce, I have no problem with the theory... but the reality is a a whole lot different.

Fortunatly we do not have 50MPH arterials with narrow lanes here. But I can tell you that riding down the middle of the lane on a 35MPH arterial does not bring the best reactions from motorists that have plenty of room to move to the other lane.

I'd love to have any other "enlightened" cyclist spend time riding down the middle of my local 35MPH roads with me.

Hmm, you ignored my public speaking example what is the difference between talking one on one and speaking to a large audience? Can’t answer that one eh? Being comfortable in doing something has a positive influence on behavior and being uncomfortable has an adverse effect on behavior.


With this analogy you are supporting John Forester's view of fear of traffic cycling as being an irrational phobia, except that you suggest that bike lanes be promoted as a placebo. Of course, the only way that a placebo can be effective is if we do not tell the truth about its efficacy. I don't care to knowlingly mislead people; it's against my ethical standards as an engineer.


What is the difference between riding on quite residential roads and riding on fast urban arterials? My understanding is the VC assertion is that it is the same skill set so there is no difference.


No, every vehicular cycling advocate I know has claimed that greater skill is required on fast urban arterials. Just read John Forester's writings about teaching cycling to kids as an example. He even goes to far as to say that despite children below a certain age having difficulty with destination positioning, low-traffic 2-lane neighborhood streets are sufficiently safe for them to cycle without this skill.

My own advocacy for better connectivity between low-volume low-speed 2-lane streets (many without centerlines) is that these streets provide a more desirable and likely safe transportation network than arterials for novice and traffic-averse cyclists. Merging/turning left on high-speed high-volume roads requires more skill than doing so on low-volume, low-speedstreets (and a bike lane stripe does not do anything to help with this).


It has never been my assertion that the bike lane stripe provides any significant additional safety benefits over a WOL but it does provide a good many cyclists additional comfort while riding in traffic. Without this comfort too many cyclists resort to sidewalk riding or ridding against traffic even in a WOL which does adversely affect safety. So my point is comfort is critical for safe riding and I don’t care how I can increase comfort here for cycling wither it is through bike lanes or through a whole bunch of LCIs. If there is a way I can rent 50-100 or so LCIs send me info and I’ll try and make it happen. Till then it is the anti-bike lane crowd that has no substance and is not making the slightest dent in cyclists’ safety.

By teaching traffic cycling to traffic engineers, transportation planners, and police, I hope to encourage our government to move beyond its current emphasis on placebos in favor of a more rational approach to traffic cycling. I believe this is the most effective way to slow or stop the trend toward shoe-horning in badly designed and substandard bike lanes into door zones, curbside intersection locations, and quiet neighborhood residential streets where on-street parking is desired, and to build support for government education of the public about traffic cycling. If the government can pick up the message, that will be more effective than scores of LCIs.

With this analogy you are supporting John Forester's view of fear of traffic cycling as being an irrational phobia, except that you suggest that bike lanes be promoted as a placebo. Of course, the only way that a placebo can be effective is if we do not tell the truth about its efficacy. I don't care to knowlingly mislead people; it's against my ethical standards as an engineer.

No what I am saying is most people do not ride vehicular naturally, they have to be taught. And how is that going to happen without teachers? Should we totally ignore all the carnage that is happening? I have over 200 kids a year getting into accidents and ~175 of them are getting seriously messed up. As I have mentioned before Baltimore is a VC paradise but look what your ideal world does to kids who are not taught, this is seriously not right and a crime against humanity for allowing this to go on. Baltimore has a bike crash rate/million population that is almost 3 times higher then New York City with bike lanes. This is the ideal VC place in action, this is the result of no bike lanes... lots and lots of people dead and in the hospital. And JF is supposed to be concerned about the welfare of cyclists? Ya, right.

And WOLs are supposed to be the answer to that? They do not work as you would like them to work without education. Around here kids ride on the sidewalk even on really nice WOLs where the motoring traffic stays primarily to the left.

If I can't get VC taught to kids who are suffering the most under VC idealism you are essentially telling me to ignore the problem. Sorry I can't do that. I am open to any workable solution that gets results. We have waited 35 years for something significant to get off the ground from the anti-bike lane VCers and nothing has happened yet and it does not look like it is going to be coming around the corner anytime soon. Bike lanes are not a placebo they work a whole lot better then VC engineering with essentially no VC being taught.

No what I am saying is most people do not ride vehicular naturally, they have to be taught. And how is that going to happen without teachers? Should we totally ignore all the carnage that is happening? I have over 200 kids a year getting into accidents and ~175 of them are getting seriously messed up. As I have mentioned before Baltimore is a VC paradise but look what your ideal world does to kids who are not taught, this is seriously not right and a crime against humanity for allowing this to go on. Baltimore has a bike crash rate/million population that is almost 3 times higher then New York City with bike lanes. This is the ideal VC place in action, this is the result of no bike lanes... lots and lots of people dead and in the hospital. And JF is supposed to be concerned about the welfare of cyclists? Ya, right.

And WOLs are supposed to be the answer to that? They do not work as you would like them to work without education. Around here kids ride on the sidewalk even on really nice WOLs where the motoring traffic stays primarily to the left.

If I can't get VC taught to kids who are suffering the most under VC idealism you are essentially telling me to ignore the problem. Sorry I can't do that. I am open to any workable solution that gets results. We have waited 35 years for something significant to get off the ground from the anti-bike lane VCers and nothing has happened yet and it does not look like it is going to be coming around the corner anytime soon. Bike lanes are not a placebo they work a whole lot better then VC engineering with essentially no VC being taught.

The problem is that VC does work, but hinges on three things... the cyclists understanding what they are supposed to do, the driving public treating cyclists as drivers of vehicles, and the driving public obeying the rules of the road... if any of these things is not followed, VC fails.

Bike lanes on the other hand are far from perfect... they tend to teach motorists that cyclists should be in bike lanes, they do not indicate the proper place for cyclists at intersections or other low visiblity areas, and they may have maintenance problems.

Bike lanes have never been proven to actually help cyclists ride safer... although they do seem to encourage cyclists to ride in places where the BL exist.

Looking at all the above, the safest thing is to get all parties out there using the road correctly... both cyclists and motorists.

While cyclists will be difficult to round up and train, the larger group that already requires some form of training AND is part of the whole traffic picture, are motorists... get them to understand that they should treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles, and that motorists should adhere to the rules of the road, then some progress can be considered to be accomplished.

Since it is obvious that motorists do not follow the rules of the road, but instead follow the rule of "what works best for me," I would say there is a lot that has yet to be accomplished.

Even if all cyclists could be trained... there is still the larger component of motorists, with the attitude of "what works best for me." Bike lanes won't help there either.

haha, and Bruce jumps in before me and replies with something unexpected.
Hardly unexpected at all for anyone who has read Mr. Rosar's Internet correspondence on this and other bicycling lists.

Bike lanes ... work a whole lot better then ...cycle tracks but worse than roads without either, according to a recent Danish study of cycle facilities: Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen (http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf)

An excerpt from the preface:This before-and-after study covers the construction of one-way cycle tracks* and lanes**, blue cycle crossings and raised exits. It is the biggest study of its kind so far carried out in Denmark.* A cycle track is separated from other roads or other parts of the same road by structural means
** cycle lane - a part of a road designated for cycles

From the introduction: ...a comprehensive study to examine the effects cycle facilities in Copenhagen were having on road safety, traffic volumes and perceived risk... The amount of data is enormous with more than 8,500 accidents, 1,500 traffic counts and 1,000 interviews investigated and many results are therefore statistically significant.
From the body of the study:
Road safety of cycle tracks*
The construction of cycle tracks has resulted in a slight drop in the total number of accidents and injuries on the road sections between junctions of 10% and 4% respectively. At junctions on the other hand, the number of accidents and injuries has risen significantly, by 18%. A decline in road safety at junctions has undoubtedly taken place after the construction of cycle tracks. If the figures for the road sections are combined with those for the junctions, an increase of 9-10% in accidents and injuries has taken place.

From the body of the study again:
Road safety of cycle lanes**
The construction of cycle lanes has resulted in an increase in accidents of 5% and 15% more injuries. These increases are not statistically significant. The decline in road safety can be seen both at junctions and on sections. The increases occurred especially amongst cyclists and moped riders where increases in injuries is tendential amounting to 49%.

The problem is storm water run off from impervious surfaces ...
FYI from Stormwater (http://www.forester.net/sw_0203_green.html), a Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals:
Polluted runoff from impervious road surfaces is a major source of environmental and aquatic degradation. Construction, roads, parking lots, and roofs play a role in reducing the natural ground cover and increasing the impervious area, leading to an accompanying rise in the volume of surface runoff.

Looking at part of your quote from the Montgomery County Planning Department:
The County's environmental goals should be reflected in ... the use of alternative materials such as porous pavements where appropriate.I note that according to ConcreteNetwork.com, highways aren't one of the appropriate uses for pervious concrete (http://www.concretenetwork.com/pervious/limitations.html):While this thirsty pavement is an excellent option for certain situations, it may not always be a viable choice...

The main reason pervious concrete is not used for high-traffic pavements, such as highways, is surface raveling, says Youngs, who notes that tire sheer can loosen the aggregate at the surface.

Road safety of cycle lanes**
The construction of cycle lanes has resulted ... not statistically significant.

Meaning they did not study enough cyclists in cycle lanes to reach any conclusion what so ever. Or put another way we had one county with a 200% increase in cyclists fatalities and of all bicycle crashes there was a 100% fatality rate. Sounds like a terrible place to ride right? Wrong, this county goes years without an incident and one year they had two cyclists hit and killed. While this is sad this county still remains one of the nicest places to ride. The smaller the number the harder it is to make any inference about change.

And WOLs are supposed to be the answer to that? They do not work as you would like them to work without education. Around here kids ride on the sidewalk even on really nice WOLs where the motoring traffic stays primarily to the left.

If I can't get VC taught to kids who are suffering the most under VC idealism you are essentially telling me to ignore the problem. Sorry I can't do that. I am open to any workable solution that gets results. We have waited 35 years for something significant to get off the ground from the anti-bike lane VCers and nothing has happened yet and it does not look like it is going to be coming around the corner anytime soon. Bike lanes are not a placebo they work a whole lot better then VC engineering with essentially no VC being taught.

Here in NC, I see plenty of teenagers riding against traffic or on sidewalks on streets with striped bike lanes. Education is required regardless of the stripes. If you absolutely must have pavement markings to tell cyclists to travel on the correct half of the roadway for their direction, and as a reminder that cyclists are expected to operate on roadways rather than sidewalks, I suggest sharrows.

Just before I turn the TV off for bed, I occasionally see the intro for re-runs of Good Times. It features a busy city street scene with a kid riding on the right side of the road, perhaps a little too close to car doors, pausing at a stop sign, looking for traffic, and proceeding to turn right. He does better job of driving his bike than 90% of the kids in my comparably affluent neighborhood do on streets with less than 10% the traffic. Here they ride against traffic and/or on the sidewalk more often than not, always without lights when cycling at night, frequently with their parents doing the same. This is a cultural phenomenon that isn't being improved with bike lane striping and off-road greenways.

My friend Steve, who owns a couple of bike shops, told me this morning that his daughter's school principal still refuses to lift the ban on cycling to her school, even though the surrounding streets and greenways are an ideal environment for kids her age to ride. The only way to fix this type of problem is education, starting with parents and faculty. But who will educate them? This requires the combined efforts of experienced cyclists who are also parents, police, city planners, and the DOT/DMV. (For example, our city has been publishing basic vehicular cycling information on the back of the bike maps for a few years now.) As an LCI, I have more ability to affect those groups in power and promote education than I did before. I hope that, by the time I think my son is ready to start riding his own bike to school, I will have created a more accepting political environment for what I hope will be his competent roadway cycling.

Polluted runoff ... is a major source of environmental and aquatic degradation.
In other words it is the runoff that needs to be managed more then a small change in square footage of impervious surface.

the use of alternative materials such as porous pavements where appropriate.
... highways aren't one of the appropriate uses for pervious concrete:
FWIW their is also porous asphalt or popcorn asphalt and I do not know if this is suitability for roadways either but I know from various discussions that there are trying to get things like this used in low load situations like parking lots.

If you are into this kind of stuff I like this site: http://stormwater.wordpress.com/

no road rage directed towards taking the lane in Atlanta, little big man? UNBELIEVABLE. completely unbelievable.
Guess you don't know everything, do you? :D

Go back to riding around your own town. That's what you know. (And good luck, with all your talk of "ragin' cagers." I'm not sure I want to ride, there.)

I do not believe you, little big man, that Atlanta is a city populated soley with polite drivers that do not honk at bicyclists exercising their right to the lane.

you are sugar coating and fantasizing road conditions in your city. I call your bluff.

Meaning they did not study enough cyclists in cycle lanes to reach any conclusion what so ever. Another possiblity is that the Danish to English translation of that particular sentence is misleading us. Here are two quotes from the conclusion section of that study, the latter of which indicates that the cycle lane data was sufficient for the general conclusions reported in the study but not for an analysis as detailed as the one that they performed on the cycle track data:
The cycle tracks* constructed have resulted in increases in accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed roads.

... cycle lanes** have resulted in increases in accidents and injuries of 5% and 15% respectively on the reconstructed roads. The worsening in road safety occurs almost exclusively as a result of considerable increase in accidents and injuries among cyclists. More detailed traffic and design conditions were not studied in relation to cycle lanes, because the number of road sections and junctions was too restricted to offer any relevant statistical conclusions.

* A cycle track is separated from other roads or other parts of the same road by structural means
** cycle lane - a part of a road designated for cycles

Another possiblity is that the Danish to English translation of that particular sentence is misleading us.
An interesting idea but too tired to investigate that now.

... it is the runoff that needs to be managed more then a small change in square footage of impervious surface.FYI from Paving Our Way to Water Shortages (http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/PavingOurWayToWaterShortages.pdf?docID=164):
... the excessive transformation of natural areas to hard surfaces, such as ever widening roads, parking lots, and roofs. These “impervious surfaces” significantly change natural patterns of water movement, affecting river flows and the recharge of underground water supplies.

putting four lane roads without a center turn lane on a road diet, adding center turn lane and bike lane buffered from parking keeps carrying capacity of the road the same or increases it slightly.

no addition of pavement, no cost aside from paint and design.

increase carrying capacity, increase the 'bikeability' of the road.

chestbeating alludes like bruce's to taking the lane on 50 MPH roads does NOTHING to increase bicycling in communities.

FYI from Paving Our Way to Water Shortages (http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/PavingOurWayToWaterShortages.pdf?docID=164):... the excessive transformation of natural areas to hard surfaces, such as ever widening roads, parking lots, and roofs. These “impervious surfaces” significantly change natural patterns of water movement, affecting river flows and the recharge of underground water supplies.

I just spent the last 6 months or so dealing with this kind of junk that was interpreted that extra width for cyclists is bad for the environment so it is better that they don’t have any safe place to ride (you can read that as no more shoulders on highways) and people should only travel in cars as that is better for the environment. This is just plain and simply wrong.

The major point is if all run off is contained at the site so it recharges the underground water supplies how does it affect river flows and negatively affect the underground water supply?

The evil that is implied here is the traditional storm water sewer system that pipes runoff directly into the local streams.

The EPA also chimed in on this point but I do not have an electronic copy of their testimony.

My friend Steve, who owns a couple of bike shops, told me this morning that his daughter's school principal still refuses to lift the ban on cycling to her school, even though the surrounding streets and greenways are an ideal environment for kids her age to ride. The only way to fix this type of problem is education, starting with parents and faculty. But who will educate them? This requires the combined efforts of experienced cyclists who are also parents, police, city planners, and the DOT/DMV. (For example, our city has been publishing basic vehicular cycling information on the back of the bike maps for a few years now.) As an LCI, I have more ability to affect those groups in power and promote education than I did before. I hope that, by the time I think my son is ready to start riding his own bike to school, I will have created a more accepting political environment for what I hope will be his competent roadway cycling.

Schools banning kids from biking and walking came up at a local bike/ped meeting and one of the county’s rep related that some schools were sued due to the lack of safety at some bus stops. So the courts ruled that the schools were responsible for kids’ safety in getting to school. So to prevent more law suits the schools decided to ban walking and biking and bus all kids to school. – Our education system at work.

Anyway I appreciate your note and I wish you a lot of luck in what you are doing and trying to accomplish. Currently we have got the Mayor, her cabinet and some City Hall employees going out for occasional pre workday rides around the city. These have been a lot of fun and on roads with no bike lanes I might add. There is some definite excitement happening in the city revolving around bikes.

... that was interpreted that extra width for cyclists is bad for the environment... None of the interpretations that I've read so far mention cyclists.

... so it is better that they don’t have any safe place to ride ... A study of traffic collisions in my town shows that, within the right-of-way of public roads, the travel lanes are the safest place to travel as long as you:

don't try to share one that's narrower than about 13 feet
pedal according to the rules of the road that are shared by all drivers

My own experience bares this out; I've been pedaling that way for about half a century, and I haven't been hit yet (knock on wood :o.

... if all run off is contained at the site ...Given that the "site" is a large and complex network of roads, each of which may be many miles in length (creating the potential for a huge amount of runoff during major rain events), that seems to be (IMHO) a very iffy "if".

Anyway, there are other factors that should also be taken into account when deciding whether or not to advocate for something which helps wide traffic more reliably pass narrow traffic faster, including (but not limited to) the increased:

danger to the public from the higher speeds that typically result
difficulty of crossing the extra width safely
amount of tax payer dollars to construct and maintain

and one of the county’s rep related that some schools were sued due to the lack of safety at some bus stops. So the courts ruled that the schools were responsible for kids’ safety in getting to school.
Were any actual cases discussed where any school district or school officials, anywhere, were successfully sued or found liable for walking or cycling issues that were not on school property?

I suspect that this "court ruling" is an urban legend. Not that some school principal might not have nightmares about it, or believe that the legend is reality.

None of the interpretations that I've read so far mention cyclists.
But they do mention the problem of wide roads or widening roads and they don't explicitly state that the problem is with additional travel lanes for cars. With no mention of cyclists means consideration for our needs are not in the picture at all.

A study of traffic collisions in my town shows that, within the right-of-way of public roads, the travel lanes are the safest place to travel as long as you:

don't try to share one that's narrower than about 13 feet
pedal according to the rules of the road that are shared by all drivers

IMHO 13' travel lanes are pure evil, I would love some sort rule that said lanes can be 10' or 14' but nothing else.

My own experience bares this out; I've been pedaling that way for about half a century, and I haven't been hit yet (knock on wood :o.
Hmm, maybe being superstitious is a good thing for cyclists. :p

Given that the "site" is a large and complex network of roads, each of which may be many miles in length (creating the potential for a huge amount of runoff during major rain events), that seems to be (IMHO) a very iffy "if".
I believe the site does not have to do better then the natural landscape it replaces so if there is a real heavy and long rain some runoff would be tolerable but under normal conditions they usually use a retaining pond to collect large amounts of water.

Anyway, there are other factors that should also be taken into account when deciding whether or not to advocate for something which helps wide traffic more reliably pass narrow traffic faster, including (but not limited to) the increased:

danger to the public from the higher speeds that typically result
difficulty of crossing the extra width safely
amount of tax payer dollars to construct and maintain
If you don't want any extra width for cyclists this is good stuff otherwise be careful, this stuff can come back and bit you in the foot.

Since it is obvious that motorists do not follow the rules of the road, but instead follow the rule of "what works best for me," I would say there is a lot that has yet to be accomplished.

Even if all cyclists could be trained... there is still the larger component of motorists, with the attitude of "what works best for me." Bike lanes won't help there either.
I agree but I don’t agree. “What works best for me” generally comes down to a set of agreed upon unwritten rules that you can figure out and work around. I forget which state but apparently it is the norm when the light first turns green that one car from the left hand turn lane goes first. This can totally freak you out the first time someone cuts you off like that but after while it is expected so everyone just adapts.

One of my theories on what is safer and what is not really comes down to it is not that one design is safer then the other it is just changing the roadscape from time to time to keep everyone on their toes is what works for safety.

One of my theories on what is safer and what is not really comes down to it is not that one design is safer then the other it is just changing the roadscape from time to time to keep everyone on their toes is what works for safety.

The problem with "keeping everyone on their toes" is all the distractions that keep everyone off their toes... from cell phones, to ipods to DVD players to GPSs to that drivethru burger... all taken at higher and higher speeds...

putting four lane roads without a center turn lane on a road diet, adding center turn lane and bike lane buffered from parking keeps carrying capacity of the road the same or increases it slightly.

no addition of pavement, no cost aside from paint and design.

increase carrying capacity, increase the 'bikeability' of the road.


I agree that this sort of conversion applied to overbuilt roadways makes the road more desirable for cycling by most cyclists. (And I think a 4-lane to 2-wide lane conversion will do just as well as the version that includes a bike lane stripe.) However, road dieting only applies to a small number of overbuilt existing roads (most wide roads will have too much traffic demand for a diet to be politically acceptable even if strategically reasonable) and is irrelevant to building new roads.

IMHO 13' travel lanes are pure evil, I would love some sort rule that said lanes can be 10' or 14' but nothing else.


I prefer the two extremes as well. Here the state DOT's standard travel lane is 12', 11' being acceptable where ROW width is tight. Older ones are 10'. (As an aside, police here have stopped cyclists for not staying right in an 11' lane to allow same-lane passing.)

Cary's standard for new and upgraded thoroughfares is a 14' outside lane, next to a gutter pan that's at least 18" wide. Cary is also restriping roads with two 12' lanes in each direction to provide an 11' inside lane and 13' outside lane, next to the gutter pan. If the gutter pan is flush with the pavement, 13' isn't too bad for lane sharing, especially if the speed limit is more modest, say 35 mph, and it's mostly modest-sized passenger vehicle traffic.

My preference is 15-16' lanes. These exist mostly on our collector roads, but a few arterials have them.

steve- studies have been done that converting 4 lane roads with daily 130,000 traffic counts without center turn lanes, into two lane roads with center turn lane (and bike lanes, btw) keeps carrying capacity the same or increases it slightly.

not 'overbuilt' roadways, not politically irresponsible. it maintains or increases carry capacity of the roads.


yeah, yeah, and you think bike lanes do nothing positive. how lame.

I predict Cary's plan for wide lanes as the dominant accomodation will continue to marginalize bicycling for transportation in your community.

Wide lanes= encouraging curb hugging, dodging in and out of parked cars, less visible road position, improper destination positioning at intersections, sidewalk cyclists.

steve- studies have been done that converting 4 lane roads with daily 130,000 traffic counts without center turn lanes, into two lane roads with center turn lane (and bike lanes, btw) keeps carrying capacity the same or increases it slightly.
not 'overbuilt' roadways, not politically irresponsible. it maintains or increases carry capacity of the roads.


There are some places where this is true, and other places where it is not. If there is much turning traffic at nonsignalized intersections and driveways, then the 4 lane -> 3 lane conversion (or 2-lane with turn pockets) can maintain or even increase capacity. On the other hand, if the existing capacity bottleneck is through traffic at signalized intersections, then reducing the number of through lanes reduces capacity.

For instance, let's say you have a 4-lane road with a left turn only lane at each signalized intersection. Removing one through lane in each direction reduces its through capacity substantially.

By contrast, let's say you have a busy 4-lane road with no left turn only lane at the signalized intersections (a really antique design). Here waiting left-turning traffic delays through traffic in the inside lane, which attempts to merge into the other lane, which also includes some right-turning traffic. The turbulence at slow speed reduces capacity of the outside lane. Convert that to a 2-lane road with left turn pockets, and you reduce the turbulence effect, with shorter average time gaps resulting between through vehicles.

One could also include a right-turn-only lane in addition to the left turn lane at signalized intersections. This would make the 2-lane road perform very close to that of a 4-lane road with a left turn only lane if turning traffic is significant.

Turning traffic is likely to be high for intra-neighborhood collector streets and minor arterials. It is smaller compared to through traffic when considering inter-neighborhood, inter-city streets / major arterials.

(As an aside, police here have stopped cyclists for not staying right in an 11' lane to allow same-lane passing.)

Unfortunately, individuals have experienced this in MD and VA as well.

Apparently Bruce doesn't believe in extra width... follow this thread and the ones after it where Bruce says he rides in the middle of 50MPH travel lanes and everyone else just has to deal with it.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=323318&page=2

Start at post 27.

In case you've forgotten, I've discussed with you before situations where I will ignore wide shoulders and ride in the middle of 50mph traffic lanes and let everyone else deal with it. One roads with multiple lanes and many intersections, it works quite well for me. It sounds like Bruce is dealing with the same thing.

There are benefits for cyclists (such as reducing social pressure) and then there are priorities for advocacy by cyclists. I was primarily addressing the latter.

IMHO, there are other factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to advocate for something which helps wide traffic more reliably pass narrow traffic faster, including (but not limited to) the increased:

danger to the public from the higher speeds that typically result
difficulty of crossing the extra width safely
amount of tax payer dollars to construct and maintain
amount of impervious surface (which is "anti-green")


Ok, I would definitely put cyclist education as a higher priority than wider outside traffic lanes if that's what you mean by priorities.

I think if extra width was added appropriately, there'd be a lot of roads that could be narrowed considerably and some roads that get an extra 2-4 feet along certain stretches.

Regarding lane width and traffic speed, the only times I've seen lane width have an effect on traffic speed is when the lanes are so narrow that two normal sized cars can barely fit past each other with clearance between their mirrors. And even then, speed is only decreased when oncoming traffic is present.

Tax payer dollars are wasted on far worse causes than maintaining an extra 4 feet of pavement width.

If roads with wide lanes were narrowed at intersections, the effect on pedestrians would be basically nothing.

When I see some Bek's favorite roads, I cringe at the amount of wasted pavement.

In case you've forgotten, I've discussed with you before situations where I will ignore wide shoulders and ride in the middle of 50mph traffic lanes and let everyone else deal with it. One roads with multiple lanes and many intersections, it works quite well for me. It sounds like Bruce is dealing with the same thing.

I have forgotten. Frankly, here, I would think that would be difficult... strictly from the standpoint that motorists will not put up with it... it would start with honking and I hesitate to think where it might go from there. ( outrageous road rage is not unheard (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=323666)of... )

I have done this (heck I have done everything at least a few times on a bike) on a local 35MPH arterial where there is no other choice... the reaction of motorists ranges from aggressive tailgating (with an empty lane to my left) to group honking and yelling. It is certainly not a wonderful experience that makes one clamor for more. Yes I continue to do this... as it is the only road available in my area to get in and out of the area, and no I have not been killed... but the urge to ride on the sidewalk like the other cyclists, is rather strong. Motorists believe I should not be there and make their opinions strongly known.

On the other hand I have found that on narrow 2 lane roads out in the country... this level of anomosity does not exist... there seems to be an acceptance of reality in those situations. In the city, it is a whole 'nother story.

Have you read it?

He effectively dismisses utility cyclists... the ones that ride a bike because they have to. He then concludes that there are two groups that voluntarily cycle... the anti car extremists who he dismisses as anti-car, and then ultimately he cites the voluntary cycling professionals... thus filtering out anyone that does not fit his ideal picture... the college students, the elementary school kids, the older folks seeking exercise. The folks that may not be comfortable in high speed traffic with multiple lanes (the very conditions that ADC is working to achieve.)

What you see as a dismissal, I see as addressing the audience appropriately. The "niche" cyclists that Forester refers to would probably never be found using the types of roads the ADC people are looking for even with reasonable 35mph speed limits. Why even bother going into how those types of cyclists get around? You always like to point out how you see so many sidewalk cyclists on multilane 35mph roads (that I view as perfect cycling environments). What would addressing these cyclists add to Forester's presentation? What can cyclist advocates really do for these types of cyclists other than education?

In other words, he dismisses anyone except his model of the perfect cyclist, and then declares that nothing else is required to suit these strong riders. Meanwhile, the rest, those that have the potential to simply ride the 3 miles that the NHTSA encompass most local car trips, have been dismissed as inadequate.

The same types of road features and facilities that serve the voluntary transportational cyclists will suit all the others just as well. Wide, smooth, clean pavement and end of trip facilities don't care how fast you cycle or what type of job you have. By letting these ADC folks know that cyclists need to use the roads too, don't you think that some of the higher speed limits might get questioned when they realize that a 10mph cyclist will be using the same road?

With his vision, we end up with school kids being driven the couple of miles to school; with folks driving a mile or two to get milk or bread; and with college students who have experienced cycling and the discomfort of high speed roads seeking to drive rather than continue cycling. Even the paperboy drives.

We lose the "Mayberry" feeling of any town, which in the hands of the ADC now becomes a stripmall with a big drivethru and a gas station along a 60MPH corridor to support the "freedom" of the motor vehicle... and the cycle of Big Gulps, stage 2 diabetes and overweight Americans continues under smog filled skis.

Drive on America, drive on... 'cause the only people cycling are the Voluntary High Speed cyclists... meanwhile watch that addiction to oil.

Ever notice that the roads are filled with a wide variety of motor vehicles.... from big trucks to mopeds to sport cars to hybids... yet in Forester's eyes, only one type of cyclist should be on the road.... to heck with variety. Couple Forester with the ADC and you end up with high speed roads and only Lance wannabes...

Yeah, have you really read it? And then taken a look around to see who really rides a bike and where? Not everyone is a "sportscar." A bike trip doesn't have to be high speed nor long distance to be "Effective."[/QUOTE]

The only thing causing what you've described is the persistent fear of faster motorized traffic. As the cyclists are cleared off the streets by bike lane advocates and their message that bike lanes are the only way to safe cycling, there is no longer any reason to control speed limits.

I have forgotten. Frankly, here, I would think that would be difficult... strictly from the standpoint that motorists will not put up with it... it would start with honking and I hesitate to think where it might go from there. ( outrageous road rage is not unheard (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=323666)of... )

Personally, worrying about the 1 lunatic in a million that might actually try to harm me simply for cycling in the traffic lane is not worth the effort. I get my fair share of honking and ignorant comments for doing what I do but everyone still gets to where they need to go and I get a few chuckles out of people's irrational tirades (like those who honk and yell with a clear lane to their left).

I have done this (heck I have done everything at least a few times on a bike) on a local 35MPH arterial where there is no other choice... the reaction of motorists ranges from aggressive tailgating (with an empty lane to my left) to group honking and yelling. It is certainly not a wonderful experience that makes one clamor for more. Yes I continue to do this... as it is the only road available in my area to get in and out of the area, and no I have not been killed... but the urge to ride on the sidewalk like the other cyclists, is rather strong. Motorists believe I should not be there and make their opinions strongly known.

On the other hand I have found that on narrow 2 lane roads out in the country... this level of anomosity does not exist... there seems to be an acceptance of reality in those situations. In the city, it is a whole 'nother story.

haha, I have to laugh because I have experienced by far the worst treatment on narrow 2 lane country roads. A whole line of motorists honking and yelling, then each one taking their turn buzzing me (and my 65 year old dad) while passing around a blind uphill curve, one motorist even driving straight at oncoming traffic forcing them off the road. Unbelieveable stupidity at 9am in the morning on a relatively quiet road leading towards a state park. I've seen nothing even close on the major arterials during rush hour. People honk, then change lanes and pass. It's nothing short of a miracle when you compare it to what I've seen elsewhere.

Personally, worrying about the 1 lunatic in a million that might actually try to harm me simply for cycling in the traffic lane is not worth the effort. I get my fair share of honking and ignorant comments for doing what I do but everyone still gets to where they need to go and I get a few chuckles out of people's irrational tirades (like those who honk and yell with a clear lane to their left).



haha, I have to laugh because I have experienced by far the worst treatment on narrow 2 lane country roads. A whole line of motorists honking and yelling, then each one taking their turn buzzing me (and my 65 year old dad) while passing around a blind uphill curve, one motorist even driving straight at oncoming traffic forcing them off the road. Unbelieveable stupidity at 9am in the morning on a relatively quiet road leading towards a state park. I've seen nothing even close on the major arterials during rush hour. People honk, then change lanes and pass. It's nothing short of a miracle when you compare it to what I've seen elsewhere.

Interesting... your narrow two lane county road treatment is what I get on the narrow multilane (where it should not matter as there is a whole lane or more to pass me) .

If it was one lunatic I could brush it off (and still rant about it) but I have been ganged up upon these roads where multiple drivers suddenly decide that I am their favorite target. The insanity is that both times this has happened, the motorists could have easily just kept going in the other lane...

Most of the time it is nothing more than a tailgator and maybe some honking... however, when the rage grows to the point of more than one motorist, ya start to wonder how hard they are willing to "push." (group dynamics can be quite strange)

On narrow country roads... I have never gotten anything more than a close pass... really.

Sadly I only get this treatment on the one road in and out of my neighborhood area... and I ride that road often. It doesn't happen every time... (maybe a couple times a year) just enough for me to want to retaliate... :mad: And of course I can't do that. :o

What you see as a dismissal, I see as addressing the audience appropriately. The "niche" cyclists that Forester refers to would probably never be found using the types of roads the ADC people are looking for even with reasonable 35mph speed limits. Why even bother going into how those types of cyclists get around? You always like to point out how you see so many sidewalk cyclists on multilane 35mph roads (that I view as perfect cycling environments). What would addressing these cyclists add to Forester's presentation? What can cyclist advocates really do for these types of cyclists other than education?


Well the point is he dismisses these niche cyclists that in reality make up the majority of the cyclist I see. Now granted they may not be lifelong cyclists, and they certainly don't cover the milage of the other cyclists, but they do encompass the vast majority of cyclists. So in effect if he were talking about drivers, he would dismiss the soccer moms and focus only on the delivery drivers... yet the soccer moms are making daily trips on a road that a deliver driver may hit only once a day.

What can cyclist advocates to for these cyclists... well in an address to a group such as ADC, he might stress that wider lanes and lower speed limits can accommodate both motorists and cyclists. But instead he goes along with the "quest for speed" and then emphasizes that cyclists need nothing. Fully overlooking the fact that these utility cyclists retreat to the sidewalks in the absence of wide roads. Yet Forester et. al. fully acknowledge that sidewalks and sidepaths are more dangerous than the streets... so there is a clear dichotomy in his presentation.



The same types of road features and facilities that serve the voluntary transportational cyclists will suit all the others just as well. Wide, smooth, clean pavement and end of trip facilities don't care how fast you cycle or what type of job you have. By letting these ADC folks know that cyclists need to use the roads too, don't you think that some of the higher speed limits might get questioned when they realize that a 10mph cyclist will be using the same road?



No, that is the main issue I see... ADC and motorists in general don't envision what is good for cyclists, only motorists...



The only thing causing what you've described is the persistent fear of faster motorized traffic. As the cyclists are cleared off the streets by bike lane advocates and their message that bike lanes are the only way to safe cycling, there is no longer any reason to control speed limits.

Bike lanes are not the solution... that I fully understand... they really are nothing more than a psychological gimmick to increase the comfort of cyclists and a way to guide motorists. (and there is precedence to lanes on the road... as they are used everywhere now to guide motorists)

However what I do find disappointing is the ever increasing speeds of motorists, coupled with isolation of motorists from their environment, coupled with an ever increasing number of distractions. All of which are based on a Car is King mentality that is fostered by groups such as the ADC.

Here in San Diego the local advocacy group never asks for bike lanes... They offer guidance should a bike lane be deemed necessary (by the road engineers) but in public meetings all that is ever asked for are lower speeds and wider roads... and that IS the tactic I would expect of someone that truly supports cycling.

Here in San Diego the local advocacy group never asks for bike lanes... They offer guidance should a bike lane be deemed necessary (by the road engineers) but in public meetings all that is ever asked for are lower speeds and wider roads... and that IS the tactic I would expect of someone that truly supports cycling.


Since the local towns in our county, as well as the county itself have small roadway budgets, they rely on grant monies to do a considerable number of roadway improvements (street widening/side walk improvements) which the grant usually has a some sort of BL clause in it. The only drawback is a lot of the BLs implemented are of minimum recommended standards thus making it rather uncomfortable of riding the fine line of trying to stay out of the "door zone" and the motorist's perceived "territory".

Since the local towns in our county, as well as the county itself have small roadway budgets, they rely on grant monies to do a considerable number of roadway improvements (street widening/side walk improvements) which the grant usually has a some sort of BL clause in it. The only drawback is a lot of the BLs implemented are of minimum recommended standards thus making it rather uncomfortable of riding the fine line of trying to stay out of the "door zone" and the motorist's perceived "territory".

This is precisely the kind of institutionalization of bikeways about which I have been complaining. In the national highway funding acts, the money for bicycle transportation (not that for parking and such) is tied to "lanes, paths, or shoulders for the use of bicyclists." That language is in there for two reasons: the motorists (who are paying the bills) like this view of bicycle transportation, and the bicycle advocates have spent a great deal of their lobbying efforts initiating and maintaining this view.

steve- studies have been done that converting 4 lane roads with daily 130,000 traffic counts without center turn lanes, into two lane roads with center turn lane (and bike lanes, btw) keeps carrying capacity the same or increases it slightly.
.

working on that very solution here. we have a 2 lane road (with bike lanes) that turns into a 4 lane road near a commercial district. the whole tranistion is messed up, including an ugly slip lane highway type merge that is totally uncalled for. after about 1/2 mile the road goes back to 2 lanes, with wide outside lanes, and no bike lanes.

the local bike group is working on a proposal to come up with some sort of road diet - and still maintain traffic flow. since the left lane in either direction is used for left turns traffic gets snarled anyways - the solution i'm pushing for is a 3 lane road - center turn lane with 1 travel lane in each direction. my rough guess leaves enough room left over to get a nice safe bike lane in each direction...

whats funny about this road is that aside from an 2 lane bypass that plugs into it, the only way to get to it is on 2 lane roads... so why the 4 lanes in the com district? it just doesn't make sense... a smart solution would be to figure out how to minimize the turning traffic... as thats happening now, with all that real estate being used by cars!

Hi Barry,

Just so I understand your first paragraph ... Are you saying that the cost of widening a road is comparable to the streetscapes design (I might know what this is ... fuzzy memory in my head) or adding a landscaped median? I also assumed that the cost of widening roads and other infrastructure improvements also depended heavily on the local environment. For instance, widening the roads in Downtown DC or M St in Georgetown (a heavily trafficked arterial road) would be crazy expensive.

But I think that your point about priorities is absolutely correct. We should be asking ourselves, how many lives do we save by improving roads and encouraging cycling compared to providing health care funds for children? Or to keep the context in the same arena, weighted by their costs, how much do we improve transportation by improving roads/facilities and encouraging cycling compared to providing better bus and train service? Would we be better off lobbying for better designed roads compared to stricter enforcement of present laws and a greater proliferation of red light cameras?

One of the arguments that John F has brought up in the past, to his credit, is the efficient allocation of resources and notions of cost/benefit.

Using an example from this thread, it is entirely plausible that a somewhat narrow two lane road with a 35 mph speed limit--where people speed 10+ mph on a regular basis if I remember Bek's point--could be made safer with a few mobile red light/speed cameras and some signage. Is this less expensive than widening the road? Maybe the combination of the above with an extra 1' or 2' shoulder/WOL would be better, yet still less expensive than a major overhaul with less maintenance than an up to spec's bike lane.

Anyway, any thoughts on whether a BLs versus WOLs on high speed (40-50 mph empirically observed speeds) commercial roads? Anecdotally, they would seem to be the most chaotic with multiple lanes in each direction with distracted motorists.
In streetscapes can have any of the following: redoing the sidewalk, add tree/flower beds with a nice little fence around it, ornamental light posts, benches, rearranging parking/travel lanes and medians just to name some things. From my observations all streetscapes are capital budget items which puts them in the six figure range. Capital budget items get reviewed about every five years and some of the bike related projects I was pushing got rejected because (are you sitting down) they were not expensive enough to go into the capital budget. So a lot of bike related projects fall into the no-mans land of not being expensive enough for the capital budget and being too expensive to come out of the general budget.

The cost of widening the road is a complex answer as it depends if the ROW (Right Of Way) is already there or if it has to be acquired. When state roads are expanded that also need additional ROW they generally get more ROW to cover the next expansion. So basically we have a good mix of state roads that are ROW maxed out and where ROW is available. Safe Routes To School gives $25K-$75k/mile for adding a bike lane to a road. That is not the cost of just adding a stripe to existing roadway and does not include acquiring additional ROW. I’m not sure what to say about adding extra width to already heavily developed areas as that can have a whole bunch of different problems and solutions. Which leads to one of my issues is the state does not generally take into account the needs of cyclists in newly developed areas because there is no need/demand but once it is developed there is no space or it is expensive compared to adding bike facilities to new development. (Note the circular argument.)

For more info: Benefit/Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/index.cfm (And I really wish I new how to use this tool better.)

I am a big supporter of using every tool in the book, supporting cyclists should not be confined to just engineering roadways but should also include enforcement and education (which should be a heck of a lot more then just a pamphlet.) Political support for speed cameras in this area is a real touchy subject. If my memory is correct, last legislative season narrowly reversed Montgomery County’s total ban on speed cameras and they are now allowed to be used in school zones (like that is the only place where kids get hit by cars.) From memory a portable speed camera trailer is around $5k about the same price as one speed hump.

My thoughts on BL vs WOL? First off I think the visual distinction needs to be clearer to both cyclists and motorists so I am for striping set lane widths of only 10 or 14-15 feet so people can tell one from the other and any excess should be striped as a gutter area. Without such a marked distinction motorists and cyclists get confused on proper operation. My next thought is for shared use roadways the speed differential between motorist and cyclist should be kept at 25mph or under so depending on what kind of cyclists are going to be using the route and how fast the motorists travel should have a barring on the treatment. Another problem is a WOL gives motorists the blessing for speed which may or may not be a problem along a particular roadway but it is a major problem for cyclists crossing the roadway. I personally don’t mind a WOL but I do like stripes as when I am on one side I clearly say to the motorists “I am in your lane and you will have to change lanes to pass” and when I am on the other side of the line I am saying “I am not in your way” the stripe removes ambiguity and the temptation for drivers to unsafely pass. So now getting to your question, the higher the speed differential between cyclists and motorists the larger the distance is needed to pass safely especially as motoring speeds exceed 45mph. We could start increasing the WOL width to 16-18 feet but it has been my experience at that width motorists will start to split the lane in congested or near congested traffic, not at all good for cyclists. But on the opposite side a 4 foot bike lane next to a 10 foot travel lane with cars going really fast is not cool at all either but a 6-10 foot wide bike lane with 50mph traffic that might work. But what if we can’t get extra width? One idea I thought of for 4 lane roadway is to introduce a UNOL (Ultra Narrow Outside Lane) that is make the outside lane 9 feet wide and less desirable for traffic but still usable. I think a lane like that would strongly say this is not a car only lane and a cyclist in that lane would be more readily accepted then other designs. Just one of my random thoughts.

My thoughts on BL vs WOL? First off I think the visual distinction needs to be clearer to both cyclists and motorists so I am for striping set lane widths of only 10 or 14-15 feet so people can tell one from the other and any excess should be striped as a gutter area. Without such a marked distinction motorists and cyclists get confused on proper operation. My next thought is for shared use roadways the speed differential between motorist and cyclist should be kept at 25mph or under so depending on what kind of cyclists are going to be using the route and how fast the motorists travel should have a barring on the treatment. Another problem is a WOL gives motorists the blessing for speed which may or may not be a problem along a particular roadway but it is a major problem for cyclists crossing the roadway. I personally don’t mind a WOL but I do like stripes as when I am on one side I clearly say to the motorists “I am in your lane and you will have to change lanes to pass” and when I am on the other side of the line I am saying “I am not in your way” the stripe removes ambiguity and the temptation for drivers to unsafely pass. So now getting to your question, the higher the speed differential between cyclists and motorists the larger the distance is needed to pass safely especially as motoring speeds exceed 45mph. We could start increasing the WOL width to 16-18 feet but it has been my experience at that width motorists will start to split the lane in congested or near congested traffic, not at all good for cyclists. But on the opposite side a 4 foot bike lane next to a 10 foot travel lane with cars going really fast is not cool at all either but a 6-10 foot wide bike lane with 50mph traffic that might work. But what if we can’t get extra width? One idea I thought of for 4 lane roadway is to introduce a UNOL (Ultra Narrow Outside Lane) that is make the outside lane 9 feet wide and less desirable for traffic but still usable. I think a lane like that would strongly say this is not a car only lane and a cyclist in that lane would be more readily accepted then other designs. Just one of my random thoughts.

Nice thoughts... I had never thought of the use of the BL as an indicator to motorists that you are out of the BL and therefore motorists would have to change lanes... Good stuff based on the basic "stay between the lines... "

Perhaps the UNOL should be marked in some way to indicate a slower lane... for transition into business driveways and such. Sharrows anyone?

I like very much the fact that you acknowledge the issues of speed differential.