Commuting - Dedicated bike lanes

Vancouver, BC has today opened a dedicated bike lane on one of it's busiest cross-town bridges, leading to the downtown core.

A poll at a local radio station (http://www.news1130.com/) asks SHOULD LOWER MAINLAND BRIDGES HAVE DEDICATED BIKE LANES?

Of course, I think all roads and bridges should have at least one bicycle lane. Maybe cars should be banned entirely from crowded downtown cores. But I'm kinda biased. What do you think?

I think it's awesome.
I only hope that when Seattle re-does the 520 bridge across Lake Washington they put a bike lane on it like they did with the I-90 bridge. Right now the only options are a 25 mile detour to the north, a 20 mile detour to the south, or wait for a bus and hope there's an empty spot on the bike rack.

If the bridges are already a bottleneck to get into the city, I think it's a bad idea, just like I think the moronic empty hov lanes we have are a bad idea.

An intelligent solution would be making the right lane bike friendly. Mark it as a bike/car lane with a strictly enforced 15 mph speed limit. Make it know that it is a bike/car lane, as opposed to a car/bike lane. Aggressively prosecute cagers who speed in it or harass bikes.

Making it a 100% bike lane would make sense if there was heavy enough bike traffic, but, if the cagers parked in the other lanes see a cyclist whiz by every 5 minutes, they'd be pissed, as well they should be.

A poll at a local radio station asks SHOULD LOWER MAINLAND BRIDGES HAVE DEDICATED BIKE LANES?Only when it make sense. I have a feeling that Vancouver just wants to promote a "green" image to the world prior to the Olympics. Putting white stripes and a bike icon on every road for the sake of it doesn't always equate to it being well used.
As for the Burrard Bridge, time will tell whether it is useful or not. I do not use this bridge in my commute. Are they alot of cyclists on it to warrant eliminating one lane? Or is the money better spent on building a separate bike/ped bridge across False Creek. I think that would be a safer option. Besides who would want to inhale all the toxic fumes while crossing the bridge thanks to the traffic jam on rush hour?
I rather the city planners to put together a well thought-out bike path that has less traffic, stop signs, minimal elevation gain etc. Like what they are doing with the Central Valley Greenway. But hey, having bike lanes on main busy streets look good when CNN or BBC points their cameras around the city come 2010. :)

I like the idea about sharing the right hand lane with cars. This more or less happens on roads with out bike lanes.

Of course, I think all roads and bridges should have at least one bicycle lane. Maybe cars should be banned entirely from crowded downtown cores. But I'm kinda biased. What do you think?

I think we should all have free ice cream on Mondays, with hot fudge sauce, and I think YOU should pay.

Since we're apparently making up "shoulds" where we get the goodies and other people have to pay the freight, that is...

Why not just lower and heavily enforce the speed limits to a more bike friendly and care safe speed? Like 10-15 mph? Wonder how many fatalities would be eliminated if all urban speed limits were lowered as such.

Why not just lower and heavily enforce the speed limits to a more bike friendly and care safe speed? Like 10-15 mph? Wonder how many fatalities would be eliminated if all urban speed limits were lowered as such.

No

Bike lanes on bridges make good sense: no intersections and speeding traffic. Also, it is crucial that cyclist can ride over bridges, since there usually are no alternative routes for bridges within reasonable distance.

I don't think a bike lane is too much to ask for. A 15-mph speed limit idea is a joke: it will never happen, and if it happens, it will not work. If there are few cyclists who use the lane, drivers will speed anyway, making it no different from regular lane. If there are many cyclists... then a dedicated bike lane is justified anyhow.

Do I understand correctly that the bridge connects the downtown core and a more suburban part of town? If a bike-friendly route into downtown (and bike-friendly streets downtown) existed, perhaps a lot more people would ride and congestion would actually lessen. At any rate, what's so great about encouraging people to drive downtown? Maybe increasing congestion (while providing safe alternatives) is a good thing.

A 15-mph speed limit idea is a joke: it will never happen, and if it happens, it will not work. If there are few cyclists who use the lane, drivers will speed anyway, making it no different from regular lane. If there are many cyclists... then a dedicated bike lane is justified anyhow.


Bull.

You put up signs, preferably lit ones and you aggressively enforce it for a while. All the commuters that make that trip daily will get the idea quickly and comply.

you will have a very hard time enforcing differential speed limits on a bridge! how idiotic!

bikelane all the way for Vancouver cyclists win! bridge access is important for bicyclists. barriers to participation in bicycling from daunting infrastructure need to be addressed if cities like Vancouver are to equitably accommodate bicyclists.

a differential speed limit isn't going to cut it.

I think we should all have free ice cream on Mondays, with hot fudge sauce, and I think YOU should pay.

Since we're apparently making up "shoulds" where we get the goodies and other people have to pay the freight, that is...

What infrastructure do Vancouver drivers pay for that cyclists and pedestrians do not?

What infrastructure do Vancouver drivers pay for that cyclists and pedestrians do not?

Exactly, and we will be paying for the pollution created by too many vehicles. An annual fee for a tag doesn't come close to paying for the infrastructure for vehicles.

Bull.

You put up signs, preferably lit ones and you aggressively enforce it for a while. All the commuters that make that trip daily will get the idea quickly and comply.

Having prior law enforcement experience, I would say this is an extremely bad idea. Having different speed limits for different lanes and particularly large differences in speed limits would result in a more dangerous road. Plus, aggressively enforcing it for a while would only result in compliance for "a while." As soon as the aggressive enforcement stops, so does the compliance.

Yes, all bridges should have bike lanes. I live on an island and many bridges aren't accessible by bike. I live next to a bridge and although there's a sidewalk (more like a giant curb), bikes aren't allowed. If I want to go across legally, it's at least 35km.

Lower the speed limit to 40 ( assuming moderate-heavy traffic ) and place signs indicating cars to yield to cyclists.

The one thing that DC and Northern VA have done correctly, IMO, is to not just put bike lanes on bridges, but to separate them from traffic with barriers - pretty much a MUP going across the bridge.

Wouldn't something like this

http://www.green-wheels.org/files/shared/bikes_use_full_lane_sign.jpg

do a similar job?

I'm probably going to get kicked in the head for saying this, but when I was in Vancouver, the motorists seemed to be actually yielding to pedestrians and stuff. It was weird. Maybe I was just there on an off week.

Reduced speed zones with lit up signs work well, as long as the locals realize they will be nailed by the cops if they don't obey them. A good point was brought up about speed differentials between lanes.

A solution could be some sort of barriers between the slow bike/car lane and the higher speed car only lanes.

If there is sufficient bike traffic to merit a bike only lane, fine, but, if it means that the car bottleneck is squeezed even further because a lane is taken away for the occasional bike, it is a very bad idea.

What infrastructure do Vancouver drivers pay for that cyclists and pedestrians do not?

Carbon tax, transit system, road infrastucture. These levies are tagged on the gas, road tax, automobile insurance.... stuff that us non-car owners cyclists do not pay.
Vancouver's road transportation is poorly designed. This has to do with the old socialist centric government. It has steadily improved with the new government of late. We are getting new bridges, upgrades to roads, new rail transit. However it's not enough. Bicycle is great. But is not the answer :innocent:. There are alot of tasks that bikes just can't do. Given the diverse geographical elevation, you can be sure the mass public will not be bothered with self-propelled transportation. What Vancouver would benefit more is better transit connections.

Carbon tax, transit system, road infrastucture. These levies are tagged on the gas, road tax, automobile insurance.... stuff that us non-car owners cyclists do not pay.


In Toronto, up until last year, all taxes on automobiles, insurance, and gas are provincial and federal.

So all non-freeway roads (and some freeways) are paid for entirely by property taxes, regardless of the taxpayer's vehicle use or ownership. A vehicle municipal registration tax was introduced in Toronto last year, which I pay as a car owner in the city of Toronto. It wasn't much compared to the cost using a road network.

Even with gas tax in the local road funding formula, this is still an odd motorist angle. Large trucks pay greater fuel taxes and registration costs than passenger cars, perhaps they think everyone should get out of their way as well.

Congrats on Vcr's new bike lane. I'm assuming you're talking about the Burrard St bridge. About time! I lived there off and on 10 years ago and found it a very car-centric city. I'm a native Torontonian.

The Burrard bridge is a tough case, however, due to the competing interests. The preservationists didn't want to widen it at all because of the historic value of the existing bridge. That made any changes more complicated politically.

I hope it's safer now than it was before. It seemed like a death trap when I was there before with its two-way sidewalks on the west side of the bride. Just crazy. (of course, if it isn't the Burrard bridge, then you can ignore all this)

The problem with most of Vancouver's bridges and roads is that the traffic is too fast. I wouldn't have a problem 'sharing the road' with cars if their speeds were more manageable. But in too many places, cars are going at 50 kmh and when there's no dedicated lane, it's too dangerous. Shared lanes can be workable if speeds are reduced closer to 40 kmh or less, especially when traffic is heavy at rush hour.

In Toronto, there is a lot of debate about bike lanes on Danforth Av. now. Rush hour feels like Monte Carlo. It's thrilling and dangerous at the same time, but really kinda scary in winter when the bike lane has been replaced by a 'snow lane'. No thanks.

The problem again is speed. Danforth probably isn't wide enough to accomodate proper bike lanes, but if they could reduce the speed then that would improve the cycling situation.

^I miss Danforth and Pape's Greek festival. The one here in Kitsilano is a joke in comparison.

Yup, well that's Vancouver for you. Everything is smaller. :-)

I loved a lot about Vancouver but in the end, I felt lonely there. There just aren't enough people. Too many cars perhaps....

But as a Torontonian, I'm biased towards busy cities I guess.

I used to live in TO. Company moved us to Vancouver. I like TO for its cultural diversity, heritage etc. Vancouver has its +ves. I thought TO has way more cars than Vancouver for sure though.

I think all new bridges should have at least a wide smooth shoulder and side walk. Bike lane is better but I can live without if it is not a really steep grade.

I'm about having fits because the bike lanes are so full of crap around here. When present everybody expects you in them and not in a lane. Repeated requests to run a sweeper through have gone unanswered. I'm still seeing the same pair of brake shoes that I was seeing in May....of 08. :( It is to the point where I am riding the lanes more to avoid debris. Then to add insult somebody lost a bag of concrete and of course it landed in the bike lane on the approach to a bridge and got rained on. Now there is a nice 3 inch high elephant turd in the lane. :mad:

With the crappy roads we have here in Dallas, I say "no thanks" to bike lanes. I already have the whole lane and road to myself, why do I want to get restricted to a lane full of debris, road damage and piles of sand and gravel?
Ernest

Most of my daily 29 mile roundtrip bike commute (in Orange County, CA - south of Los Angeles) is along suburban main artery streets that have a dedicated bike lane. The bike lane in most places is 4 to 5 feet wide, beyond the concrete curb and gutter. The other good thing is that parking is prohibited along the curb along these main artery streets, so I have minimal places to deal with the car door flying open into bike lane danger. I have commuted along these streets consistently for a decade and enjoy it very much. Nothing is perfectly safe, but the bike lanes around here are for the most part designed to allow a cyclist to get from A to B with less risk than in other metro areas where there are few accomdations for cyclists along the roads.

Bike lanes in busy cities that are designed right along the edge of a row of curb side parallel parking spaces for cars scare me more than if there was no bike lane there. The reason those are so bad is if a cyclist is staying as far away from those parked cars as safely required to avoid flying doors, they are probably near the "line" between marked bike lane and regular traffic lane. The car drivers are less likely to give the cyclist adequate clearance because they might think "hey, how come that bike is hanging on the edge of my lane instead of in the middle of their lane."

So my take from many years of using them is most bike lanes are OK if the roads that they occupy restrict on street parking, and are wide enough for bikes to use them without being forced into the gutter or encountering other hazards. Here in Orange County there are over 1000 miles on on street bike lanes, and my take is that 90+ percent of those bike lanes do a good job of allowing a cyclist to get from A to B with a reasonable level of safety.

So my take from many years of using them is most bike lanes are OK if the roads that they occupy restrict on street parking, and are wide enough for bikes to use them without being forced into the gutter or encountering other hazards..

Have you ever had any problem with cars drifting into the bike lane? That is my main fear with bike lanes. Though drivers do see you they don't make any adjustments to their driving. So they continue doing their multitasking which has the risk of drifting into your lane.

Bike lanes in busy cities that are designed right along the edge of a row of curb side parallel parking spaces for cars scare me more than if there was no bike lane there. The reason those are so bad is if a cyclist is staying as far away from those parked cars as safely required to avoid flying doors, they are probably near the "line" between marked bike lane and regular traffic lane.

Um, yeah, most people on BF are aware of this issue.

But this thread is about bike lanes on a bridge. I doubt there is parking on the bridge.

I think all new bridges should have at least a wide smooth shoulder and side walk. Bike lane is better but I can live without if it is not a really steep grade.

I'm about having fits because the bike lanes are so full of crap around here. Obviously, bike lanes, once installed, should be maintained. That includes sweeping them of debris, clearing them of snow, repaving as necessary etc. If they aren't going to be, then it's better to do without them.

But in too many places, cars are going at 50 kmh and when there's no dedicated lane, it's too dangerous. Shared lanes can be workable if speeds are reduced closer to 40 kmh or less, especially when traffic is heavy at rush hour. Huh? 50 km/h is too dangerous? I think that's still quite reasonable. The trouble is that when the official speed limit is 50, people go around 60-70. That starts getting uncomfortable.

"Sweeping of debris" is a waste of resources. Some gas-hog pollutant-producing vehicle driven by a union dude with a mighty pension has to go around and do that over and over. Just get tougher tires and ride on through it.

I'm still on the fence regarding bike lanes. I like that they increase awareness, but a poorly thought out bike lane is way worse than no bike lane at all.

Also, when there's a bike lane, drivers of motorized vehicles seem to get even more agitated when you are not well within the confines of the two painted lines. About a month ago, a cabbie went ape-s**t on me when I started to move left out of the bike lane so that I could take a left turn on my way into work. He was easily 100yds back when I started to move over, and he started honking his horn and driving aggressively at me. He started screaming about how I am required to stay in the bike lane. If the lane wasn't there, he'd just have to be angry instead of angry with a sense of validation and righteousness.