Vehicular Cycling (VC) - What is 'Best Practice for Cyclists?'

Is it vehicular cycling, is it bike lanes outboard of the parked cars, or is it something else? Plenty of choices and I'm not specifically advocating for one over the other...MCA recently toured the new bike facilities in NYC and this is what he has to say about US placement of bike lanes:


One thing that I just don't understand is that there are stretches of bike lane that are not placed along the sidewalk. Parked cars line the sidewalk and the bike lane runs between them and the traffic. So instead of only keeping a sharp eye on opening doors, I had to watch for doors, parked cars pulling out AND the moving traffic.

You'd think that this most basic of Best Practice principles for bicycle infrastructure was the very first thing that would be adhered to. It is clear that in almost all the cities in the world that enjoy high levels of urban cycling and that reap the economic and societal benefits of these levels, the Sidewalk/Bike Lane/Parking/Traffic model is firmly in place.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/new-york-musings.html#

also - some good photos of bike-specific infrastructure in NYC in the link.

In Barcelona they did the same sidewalk/ bike lane/parking set up... but at intersections, the corners of the were cut back to make intersections an octagon vice a square. This first gave head in parking at the corners, but it also moved the bike lanes out into a very visible space where motorists could see them quite well. I wonder if such a thing could be done in NYC and other cities.

Of course if it means cutting back buildings, I doubt it would be done.

to find 'best practices' for bicyclists as part of a transportation network communities should:

look to proven examples of what has worked in cities around the world with high rider share;

never loose sight of who the design bicyclists are;

and understand the mechanisms behind which the public does NOT ride and neuter any segments of transportation planning that serve as barriers to greater participation in bicycling.

'obeying the rules of operators of vehicles' is bottom of the barrel in 'best practices' of infrastructure design - in fact its not considered partof the infrastrcture at all!!! but john freakorester can rest assured, bikeways planning in america is based on lawful and competent cycling behavior.

should communities adopt proven european 'best practices' if they wish to try proven 'best practices' techniques? why not?

40 years ago copenhagen was clogged with auto traffic and suffered from low ridership, but they corrected the path of transportation planning there to recognize bikes in the transportation mix.

locally, along a route in a beach community of seattle where a bike path was continued along a major street, seattle placed sharrows in the road adjacent to the path. a great example of american 'best practice' to reflect the differing needs of differing segments of the public.

american best practice design should continue to predicate no mandatory sidepath laws and recognition there is an imperative to consider and serve public road cycling.

there are a fair bit of americanized 'best practice' designs at AASHTO and the FHWA.

a strategy guide to reducing collisions involving bicycles (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v18.pdf)

this fairly exhaustive overview represents current american best practice design to mix bikes and cars across a transportation network.

"Drive your bike like a CAR!" does NOT represent 'best practice' design for bicyclists although it is sound operating advice.

look to proven examples of what has worked in cities around the world with high rider share;

should communities adopt proven european 'best practices' if they wish to try proven 'best practices' techniques? why not?

See, I don't think the vast majority of American cities will ever have a "high rider share" and to spend a lot of money on infrastructure is, in a lot of cases, a waste of money. You can try the "if you build it, they will come" model, but I think a better model, at least in my city, would be to come up with ideas to allow bicycles to peacefully co-exist with cars within the existing infrastructure with a minimum of investment. Grand projects will never get the support to go forward.

So what works? Sharrows, especially along secondary roads and neighborhood roads. Establishing bike routes running through neighborhoods instead of along busy streets... routes that actually connect and go places... Enhancements in "permeability"; i.e., allowing bicycles to pass through the end of a cul de sac to get to a main road when such access is not desired for cars; putting little cut-throughs where doing so allows a cyclist to pass through an area more efficiently with less extra miles.

best practice design will definetly vary by location.

keep in mind that "paint is cheap" and that as speed differential increases a more seperated approach is 'best practice' by most every measure of LOS, BLOS, or BCI of a roadway.

High-cost isolated facility projects (like long cross-town paths with grade-separated road crossings) can attract high volumes of recreational cyclists, who are most elastic in their route choice, but have less effect on utility cycling, particularly outside that corridor. Improved connectivity of the secondary road network and neighborhood streets, and better design standards for the busy arterials, can provide a more widespread benefit. On the road network, vehicular cycling should be considered the best practice; if bike lanes are marked, they should be marked where experienced, defensive bicycle drivers would operate and not in places inconsistent with defensive vehicular cycling or where they would discourage motorists from merging right in preparation of right turns. Traffic laws should be enforced for all road users, and public education and encouragement programs should promote safe and lawful road use. Roadways should be maintained with smooth pavement with frequent sweeping to remove debris that accumulates in bike lanes. Bike parking should be required at important destinations such as commercial properties. Bike route maps and wayfinding signs can help cyclists find pleasant routes for both recreational and utility cycling.

off road bike highway networks have the capability to enhance transportational cycling across americanized landscapes of typisch american sprawl - as seen in denver and minneapolis. Core cross town paths have very realistic potential of enhancing transportational cycling if they are along an identified bike transportation route.

don't discount the potential value of a cross town bikeway path network or conversion of a ill-used cooridor for bicyclist use to enhance communities bikeability and 'best practice' for bicyclists in the highway design process.

off road bike highway networks have the capability to enhance transportational cycling across americanized landscapes of typisch american sprawl - as seen in denver and minneapolis. Core cross town paths have very realistic potential of enhancing transportational cycling if they are along an identified bike transportation route.

don't discount the potential value of a cross town bikeway path network or conversion of a ill-used cooridor for bicyclist use to enhance communities bikeability and 'best practice' for bicyclists in the highway design process.

I expect to see an increase in utility cycling along the American Tobacco Trail route in Durham NC as the rail-trail connectivity increases. It has already increased utility cycling in the immediate downtown area. Other trails in central NC have attracted large increases in recreational cycling in those corridors. I believe the level of use they attract from recreational users alone warrant their construction as park facilities that can also serve utility uses depending on location. Careful planning can improve their utility value.

City-wide, however, the overall street topology/connectivity, land use patterns, demographics, bike parking, and arterial design standards have greater effects on utility cycling levels.

In Barcelona they did the same sidewalk/ bike lane/parking set up... but at intersections, the corners of the were cut back to make intersections an octagon vice a square. This first gave head in parking at the corners, but it also moved the bike lanes out into a very visible space where motorists could see them quite well. I wonder if such a thing could be done in NYC and other cities.

Of course if it means cutting back buildings, I doubt it would be done.

are you talking about hookers or bike lanes? :twitchy:

hookers in the bike lane?

sweet! so long as they are AASHTO compliant and share!

for a price, they will share.

;)

for a price, they will share.

;)

Yeah, but what are they sharing?

are you talking about hookers or bike lanes? :twitchy:

That is "head-in," not "head" in....

OK, enough with the jokes (thanks Chip...), anyone want to seriously discuss the question?

See my post here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9834511&postcount=3)

off road bike highway networks have the capability to enhance transportational cycling across americanized landscapes of typisch american sprawl - as seen in denver and minneapolis....

And everywhere else, including the Greater Seattle Area. There's an old unstated bellief in many prime residential and resort areas. It goes something like, 'After I move here, no one else should.'

Residential sprawl, and I am no fan of it, is a necessary consequence of freedom of choice. Deal with it.

Bek, if you had your way, everyone would be confined to the inner city and only be allowed to move via bicycle. All of those who currently live in suburbia would be required, through eminent domain, to give up their homes and trade them for central city apartments. No individual would be allowed car ownership. Our sole choice would be public transport or the bicycle..

I can honestly see some benefit for all of this, but it ain't gonna happen except in some nightmarish 'utopia' where big sister dictator imposes her will on the individual 'for the good of all.'

Sounds like some great pipe dream by a sophomoric uberidealist college student, but of course it's complete horse puckey.

The only realistic alternative is to 'grandfather' in the existing lucky folk who have their private country homes, and deny this luxury to any one else. All fine and good Bek and it could happen in the former Soviet Union, but not in the United States of America.

:roflmao:



PORTLAND BICYCLE PLAN FOR 2030
"A healthy community, vibrant neighborhoods... and bicycles everywhere !" Congressman Earl Blumenauer
Bike Day 1979, Portland, OR

Portland’s acclaim as one of America’s most
livable cities is a result of innovative planning
efforts inspired by the vision of involved
residents to rethink how they wanted to live.
Over the past decades Portland has enjoyed a
vibrant transportation system that promotes
bicycling, walking and transit. Th e Portland
Bicycle Plan for 2030 builds upon the City’s
success and aims to transform Portland into a
world-class bicycling city.
Th e Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 advocates
for bicycling as a legitimate and necessary
transportation mode and promotes bicycling
as an increasingly important element in
developing a community that is healthy, safe,
and aff ordable for all its residents. It advances
the notion of bicycling as a reasonable means
of transportation for many common trips and
elevates bicycling to the status of a main pillar in
Portland’s new urban transformation.
Portland’s evolution
In the early twentieth century, Portland, like
most American cities, began to redevelop its
urban transportation network to accommodate
increasing use of the automobile. Th is
redevelopment had signifi cant impacts on the
function and form of downtown and inner
disenfranchised – all to meet the spatial
demands and operational needs of the
automobile.
During this time Portland began experiencing
increased urban growth in once rural areas,
resulting in landscapes designed specifi cally for
the automobile and without basic amenities
such as bike lanes, sidewalks or access to public
transportation. As a result, residents had few
reasonable transportation options beyond the
car. Commercial districts developed as multi-
lane automobile-oriented corridors fronted
with acres of parking lots which made bicycle
and pedestrian access uninviting, indirect and
dangerous.
In the fi nal third of the twentieth century,
concerned Portland residents and business
leaders who were committed to revitalizing
downtown, improving air quality, and
introducing more transportation choices
worked with strong, responsive government
leadership to shift Portland’s direction.
Supported by the introduction of innovative
statewide land use planning, Portland reclaimed
its downtown, rejected planned freeways, and
built the nation’s fi rst light rail system.

yep. my socialistic ideas alone :roflmao:

such wildly inaccurate skew, danarnold.

God damn. Will we ever have a Bek free thread so we don't have to keep going over the same old ground over and over and over and over and over? He turns every thread into the same one.

On topic: one potential problem with sidewalk-bikelane-parking-driving lane arrangement is to figure out how to keep the bikelane clean in areas where cars are allowed to park overnight. We'd have to prohibit overnight parking or go to a rotating "no parking" schedule so that the street sweepers could get in there and clean up (they clearly can't fit between the parking area and the sidewalk, so the cars would have to be removed). Also, in many cities, the curb area is under trees so swapping a bike lane that is out more in the roadway for one that is near the curb instead would mean dealing with a lot more fallen leaves in the fall than current bike lane placement.

Which is worse: dealing with leaves and debris or being closer to moving cars? You choose. I will ride my bike regardless, and think the whole "bike infrastructure" argument is largely mistaken.
There are places that have high bike usage and happen to have good bike infrastructure (copenhagen) and there are areas that have no real bike infrastructure other than parking (japan). What areas of high ridership have that we don't have in the usa is good public transportation and mixed-use neighborhood design. Those two allow one to use a bike for many trips because shops are in the neighborhood, and then ride their bikes part of their trip and then get on the train to go long distances. Without both of those things, people will continue to drive cars and bikes will be either recreational devices or hipster magnets (the latter is what accounts for the high usage numbers is portland, seattle, san francisco and the like).

^^ actually, I'd say there are many more commuter/utility cyclists in inner Portland than hipsters on bikes, although both are pretty common at this point.

God damn. Will we ever have a Bek free thread so we don't have to keep going over the same old ground over and over and over and over and over? He turns every thread into the same one.

On topic: one potential problem with sidewalk-bikelane-parking-driving lane arrangement is to figure out how to keep the bikelane clean in areas where cars are allowed to park overnight. We'd have to prohibit overnight parking or go to a rotating "no parking" schedule so that the street sweepers could get in there and clean up (they clearly can't fit between the parking area and the sidewalk, so the cars would have to be removed). Also, in many cities, the curb area is under trees so swapping a bike lane that is out more in the roadway for one that is near the curb instead would mean dealing with a lot more fallen leaves in the fall than current bike lane placement.

Which is worse: dealing with leaves and debris or being closer to moving cars? You choose. I will ride my bike regardless, and think the whole "bike infrastructure" argument is largely mistaken.
There are places that have high bike usage and happen to have good bike infrastructure (copenhagen) and there are areas that have no real bike infrastructure other than parking (japan). What areas of high ridership have that we don't have in the usa is good public transportation and mixed-use neighborhood design. Those two allow one to use a bike for many trips because shops are in the neighborhood, and then ride their bikes part of their trip and then get on the train to go long distances. Without both of those things, people will continue to drive cars and bikes will be either recreational devices or hipster magnets (the latter is what accounts for the high usage numbers is portland, seattle, san francisco and the like).

damning god because my perspective leads towards acomodationalism?

screw your lousy religious smears, dude. lame.

One simple idea to facilitate bike traffic on roads ajacant to separated bikeways is sharrows on the main part of the street in addition to the separate facilities.

simple, easily executed. don't know if portland will do it but here locally they use the sharrows + path right of way design in some spots to great effect.

God damn. Will we ever have a Bek free thread so we don't have to keep going over the same old ground over and over and over and over and over? He turns every thread into the same one.

:thumb:

Answer, no.

Example:

Anyone: "Has anyone ever seen a red throated wood thrush on their rides through the country?"

Bek: "bike lanes are coming and it's high time. Damn the red throated whatsit's habitat. Seattle and Portland have long ago realized the priority of bike INFRASTRUCTURE over woodland idylls. Besides, cars have already run the little buzzards off."

Anyone: "Not buzzards, Bek, red throated wood thrushes."

Bek: "ridiculous! Obviously you are unfamiliar with the latest NASHAATTOF report on buzzards and bike lanes, you lazy lout. you and john forezter and his ilk need to stop fawning over red breasted turkey buzzards and get behind bike lane infestation while there's still time."

damning god because my perspective leads towards acomodationalism?

Not because of your perspective, but because of how you choose to communicate that perspective.

(btw, i don't think accommodationalism is a word, but if it were, it'd probably be spelled the way I just did so if you decide to make it the new buzzword, feel free to borrow that spelling.)

you're just upset you cant' make up new misspelled words like i can!

seriously, dude. whats your problem? woodthrushes? got anything about BICYCLING??? wait, i see. you're concerned about how to keep the bikelane clean. wow. they make machines that do that. i suspect portlands bikelanes get swept by bike tires pretty well anyway.

my quote from Portlands' bike master plan affirms your biatch about public transit


What areas of high ridership have that we don't have in the usa is good public transportation and mixed-use neighborhood design. Those two allow one to use a bike for many trips because shops are in the neighborhood, and then ride their bikes part of their trip and then get on the train to go long distances. Without both of those things, people will continue to drive cars and bikes will be either recreational devices or hipster magnets (the latter is what accounts for the high usage numbers is portland, seattle, san francisco and the like

you think it's recreational riders and the hipsters? fueling the ridership in portland, san francisco and seattle? :roflmao:




In the fi nal third of the twentieth century,
concerned Portland residents and business
leaders who were committed to revitalizing
downtown, improving air quality, and
introducing more transportation choices
worked with strong, responsive government
leadership to shift Portland’s direction.
Supported by the introduction of innovative
statewide land use planning, Portland reclaimed
its downtown, rejected planned freeways, and
built the nation’s first light rail system.

seems we're in agreement.


Randya wants discussion about 'best practices' for accomodating bikes in the transportation mix, and i oblige with thoughtful commentary about how this is done and for whom.

you just want to ***** that there's other ways to plan for bikes in the transportation mix than just forcing everyone to RIDE LIKE A CAR.

Bek - What I think they are saying is don't be the John Forester of facilities, dude!

I'll bet we can have a rational discussion with Dan and pacificaslim without all the rhetoric. In fact, I'll bet we all ride more alike than different.

:)

:beer:

boy, Randya.

when discussing 'best practice' design for bicycling some mention of facilites is inevitable. why call me at fault for discussing a topic at hand?

Best practices and safer bicycling facilities are actually central to the conversation aren't they?

you are aware VC is most emphatically NOT 'best practice' design for bicyclists by any metric. look at ridership in other countries, look at cycling rates by the elderly in countries that plan more considerately for bikes as transportation. compare to the USA and Britain.


griping that facilities are inseparable from discussion of 'best practices' and are part and parcel of 'best practice' design?

a huge inability to see reality for what it is.

are you just upset with cycletracks or something?

Bek - What I think they are saying is don't be the John Forester of facilities, dude!

I'll bet we can have a rational discussion with Dan and pacificaslim without all the rhetoric. In fact, I'll bet we all ride more alike than different.

:)

:beer:

:thumb::beer:

I'll bet we can have a rational discussion with Dan and pacificaslim without all the rhetoric. In fact, I'll bet we all ride more alike than different.

:)



I bet we do too.

But bear in mind that "our current riding style" has only resulted in an average cycling modal share of about 2% in most areas of the country. Places that emphasize "better practices for cyclists" have reached a modal share closer to 6%.

This report: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v18.pdf outlines that walking and cycling together have a modal share of about 7%, and they strive to reach over 15%. That report outlines quite a few "better practices for cyclists."

you are aware VC is most emphatically NOT 'best practice' design for bicyclists by any metric.

I guess that depends upon if you mean VC the wacky dogma or vc the practical concept of operating according to the rules of the road...like even you do, Bek. ;)

I'll bet we can have a rational discussion with Dan and pacificaslim without all the rhetoric..

don't be so sure, randya. danarnold's a facts-lite idealogue that considers sprawl inevitable and a desired consequence of the american economic engine despite ample evidence to the contrary.

I bet we do too.

But bear in mind that "our current riding style" has only resulted in an average cycling modal share of about 2% in most areas of the country. Places that emphasize "better practices for cyclists" have reached a modal share closer to 6%.

This report: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v18.pdf outlines that walking and cycling together have a modal share of about 7%, and they strive to reach over 15%. That report outlines quite a few "better practices for cyclists."

It's very difficult to demonstrate cause and effect here. More bicycling may have caused the emphasis on
"better practices for cyclists"

From vol. 18, I-2:

"Progress has been made on the two NBWS goals. The goal of reducing injuries and fatalities by
10 percent has been surpassed. The number of bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities decreased
by 18 percent from 1993 to 2003; bicyclist fatalities dropped by 23.3 percent. The number of
bicyclists injured in collisions with motor vehicles decreased by 35.3 percent over the same
time period (Raborn, 2004), but these decreases may reflect a downward trend in overall
bicycling as much as they indicate safety improvements. Since 2003, however, these trends
have reversed: as of 2005, the decrease in bicyclist fatalities from 1993 had decreased to less
than 4 percent. So, progress has been made on reducing bicyclist injuries and fatalities,
but that progress appears now to be eroding.
The NBWS goal of doubling the percentage of walking and bicycling trips has not been
accomplished, although the number of trips increased and perhaps doubled. In 1990, there
were an estimated 1.7 billion bicycling trips; in 2001, that number had almost doubled to
3.3 billion. Combined walking and bicycling trip numbers increased from 19.7 billion to
38.6 billion. The percentage of bicycle trips, however, increased a mere one-tenth of a percent
(from 0.7 percent to 0.8 percent), while combined trips increased from 7.9 percent to 9.5 percent.

I guess that depends upon if you mean VC the wacky dogma or vc the practical concept of operating according to the rules of the road...like even you do, Bek. ;)

right, chip. imagine this - best practice of lawful road bicycling on 'best practice' designed roadways. (how john forester would ride lemon grove ave. in lemon grove CA)

in communities with cycletracks, sharrowing the street ajacent would negate any dogmatic vehikularist complaints. developing intersection treatments for cycletracks are key to their safe implementation in the USA.

regardless of how cycletracks catch on in portland, there's going to be a VAST MAJORITY OF STREETS COMPLETELY UNMODIFIED in any way- bikeways networks work in conjunction with the remaining unmodified streets. cycle tracks will never become a majority roadscape design and will likely see limited implementation in America.

i suspect streets will simply get lanes of traffic completely blocked off from traffic and parking removed in creation of large bikelanes in portland if ridership continues to grow there.

don't be so sure, randya. danarnold's a facts-lite idealogue that considers sprawl inevitable and a desired consequence of the american economic engine despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Wrong again Bek. I said:

"Residential sprawl, and I am no fan of it, is a necessary consequence of freedom of choice. Deal with it."

You post two claims, both of which are patently false, as I just demonstrated. You claim I think sprawl is 'desired' when I said I'm no fan of it. You claim I said it was an inevitable consequence of 'american [sic] economic engine,' when I attributed it to freedom of choice.

You are correct on one count, it is hard to have a rational discussion with you, if you insist on lying and misstating what people say.

Bek, what is YOUR plan to get rid of our current urban 'sprawl' without impacting freedom of choice?

I bet we do too.

But bear in mind that "our current riding style" has only resulted in an average cycling modal share of about 2% in most areas of the country. Places that emphasize "better practices for cyclists" have reached a modal share closer to 6%.

This report: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v18.pdf outlines that walking and cycling together have a modal share of about 7%, and they strive to reach over 15%. That report outlines quite a few "better practices for cyclists."

The vast majority of this report addresses what can be done for roadways and facilities...there is much less regarding best practices for cyclists beyond the usual wear a helmet, be visible, be alert and follow the rules of the road (which is the meat of vc, no?).



• Wear a helmet every time you ride.
• Ride with, not against, traffic.
• Don’t ride on sidewalks—drivers don’t expect it.
• Obey traffic laws and signs, and use proper hand signals.
• See and be seen—wear brightly colored or reflective clothing; use lights and reflectors.
• Stay alert—always look and listen for traffic, pedestrians, and other bicyclists.

the OP references best practice design of roads, different from best practice of operation.

vacuous complaint about rhetoric instead of substance......

Bek, what is YOUR plan to get rid of our current urban 'sprawl' without impacting freedom of choice?

:roflmao:

whatever dude, you consider sprawl and auto centricity 'inevitable' which has been readily proven patently false by citizens' efforts in Portland and other communites (Golden CO as an example) that fight sprawl to increase livability.

Danarlond, rallying false cries against developing new urbanism and best practices of urban design (still applicable in suburbs!) that encourage livable walkable communities is so last century. Autos first and foremost, sprawl, intolerable commutes, high transportation costs, congested roadways, because americans want it that way? a laughable misread of current urban planning in america, dude.

go read the quote from the portland bikemaster plan draft- seems citizens there had an effective course of action despite claims of inevitable sprawl..... and exercised their freedom of choice thru the political process to enact it.

the OP references best practice design of roads, different from best practice of operation.

ahh, my bad, I must have been distracted by the hookers. :o

vacuous complaints...

Nothing 'vacuous' about them. You made two statements, both obvious lies you got caught in. You avoid admitting it by calling them 'vacuous.' You are hopeless.

You are so caught up in what you want to preach and what you want to attribute to others that you are reduced to lying about what they say. Pathetic.

actually, my criticisms of your opinion about community planning and the UN-inevitability of sprawl are quite cogent.

I've quoted some of Portland's bike master plan 2030 draft as an example of community planning that rejects sprawl in favor of more liveable communities.

sprawl is not inevitable. usually, better bike ride share is a result!

ahh, my bad, I must have been distracted by the hookers.

Me too- Well, Randya DID wonder if 'best practices' was vehicular cycling or bikeways planning.

I think street infrastructure should support vehicular cycling. The reality of any bikeways acommodated city is that the vast majority of streets will remain unenhanced for bicycling. vehicular cycling is expected in portland. planning for lawful road operation of bikes is imperative in american bicycle planning,

in the case of seperated cycletracks, a community could easily do, as Seattle has done, is place sharrows in the road adjacent to the bike path or cycletrack.

I think street infrastructure should support vehicular cycling.

I think we can all agree on that, Bek...the devil is in the details, implementation and unintended consequences (like mandatory use laws).

got to stand against mandatory bikelane and sidepath use laws. FRAP is applicable to all vehicles regardless of specificity of traffic code.

the devil IS in the details.

In a citiy with 5 percent enhanced bikeway'd roads (still allowing operation in accordance with the rules of the road), the remaining 95 percent of the roads remain unenhanced. communities have expectations of lawful, vehicular cycling on all the roads and notably, the vast majority of unenhanced streets.

just a relevant aside...


but to address concerns about a few hundred yards of cycletrack spelling the demise of roadway cycling in Portland, I say, REALLY?

municipalities can easily place sharrows adjacent to a cycletrack or bike path. Perhaps this should be part of MUTCD but i can see problems implementing this. Yet federal design guidelines are pretty clear that roads should be designed to acommodate bicyclists.

in the case of urban cycletracks sharrows in road adjacent make the most sense IMO.

you are aware VC is most emphatically NOT 'best practice' design for bicyclists by any metric. look at ridership in other countries, look at cycling rates by the elderly in countries that plan more considerately for bikes as transportation. compare to the USA and Britain.


Why not look at cycling rates in countries that don't plan at all for bikes (in the ways you want to) and still have ridership rates much, much higher than the USA and Britain? My other home, Japan, for example. If you looked at that, you may see that ridership rates are symptoms of how a city is organized overall and what its population is like, independent of any bike infrastructure.

In Portland and San Francisco it's a combination of decent public transportation (and car-share programs), mixed-use neighborhoods, and a large percentage of "hipsters" living in those cities who are riding bikes because it's "cool" (and would therefore do so whether it makes sense as the best form of transportation or not). It is not bike lane infrastructure that is driving high ridership in places like that, or any college town for that matter. San Francisco has been prohibited from doing any bike infrastructure for many years and still ridership has increased: because of the trend.

Spend the money and effort on public transportation and people will ride bikes. Otherwise, it simply doesn't make sense for most people, in most cities, to choose a bike over a car. The choice to give them is train over car and then they'll use the bike and walking to fill in the gaps between home and subway/train station.

seriously, dude. whats your problem? woodthrushes? got anything about BICYCLING??? wait, i see. you're concerned about how to keep the bikelane clean. wow. they make machines that do that. i suspect portlands bikelanes get swept by bike tires pretty well anyway.

I work in municipal public works and was bringing up a practical issue about bike lane placement between parked cars and the curb: existing street sweepers used in most cities will not fit in that small of a lane to remove the trash and leaves that will tend to fill in that area. You will need to ban the cars part of the day (practical in downtown areas, but may be difficult to get applied in residential streets).


you think it's recreational riders and the hipsters? fueling the ridership in portland, san francisco and seattle? :roflmao:


Of course I believe that. I've lived in both Portland and San Francisco and its clear that those cities attract people who are different from mainstream america and move to (or choose to stay) in those cities because the city matches their worldview. These people are already more likely to be fit, be outdoorsy, be intellectual, and therefore more likely to ride a bike around regardless of what lines you paint on the ground, then people in a place like, say, Fresno. Surely, you can't seriously argue with me about this. Take a look around! Ask yourself: do you see more bikes in hipster neighborhoods or in the "hood" or "blue collar" neighborhoods?

As for recreational: those types of bikes and those types of riders still far surpass any sort of "transportation" commuting type bike sale and ridership in San Francisco and I suspect the NW as well. Don't kid yourself about that.

the OP references best practice design of roads, different from best practice of operation.

You believe, and you argue, Bek, that the design of highways is separated from the design of the way they are used? Not very consistent are you, Bek, because you consistently argue for specific designs that are designed for a specific way to be used. Or, rather, the other way around. You argue for a specific way of cycling that determines the designs of the highways.

no john, i separate operating behavior from design of the environment. Riding versus the road i ride on.

like this, john. you have a degree in english:

I ride my bike on roads.

but in discussions of both riding style and road design i endorse lawful road bicycling johnny!


pacificslim, must be hard to ride a bike on the bus :D

just kidding.

they make smaller street sweepers, likely less expensive. in use around here and everwhere.

if you lived in San Francisco, you know how effective the city is at ticketing for street sweeping, eh? and that was just for the cars, imagine the revenue added from ticketing for regular bikelane maintenence!

Tokyo, where more riders bicycle daily than the entire USA, but mostly on the sidewalks and ample crosswalks in a culture more respectful of others and larger penalties for traffic infractions. sure.

bike facilities that encompass the entirety of current best practice american road design accommodates bicyclists wanting to use public roads for transportation. why do you have a problem with that?

pacificaslim you think american ingenuity can't figure out how to sweep some cycletracks? John Forester, you're a bicycle transportation engineer :roflmao: maybe you can design some smaller streetsweepers to address pacificaslims' facility maintence concerns :D

bike facilities that encompass the entirety of current best practice american road design accommodates bicyclists wanting to use public roads for transportation. why do you have a problem with that?


i don't have a problem with it if we could afford everything. but i'd rather have my tax dollars spent first on a decent public transportation system so i could get rid of my car and live like i did in tokyo. once that is completed, sure, paint as many lines on the road and build as many bike paths as you'd like.

p.s. i know the make smaller sweepers - our city has one, for downtown sidewalks. i was speaking more from a fiscal standpoint: when asking cities to put the bike lanes between sidewalk and parking instead, realize there is more expense involved in that than just paint on the ground. they'll have to totally redo the way they clean the streets.

so, design cities like san francisco or dallas?

i think the upkeep of a few hundred yards of cycle track can get addressed rather easily in a progressive city like portland.

why do you think a bike master plan and enhancements to transportation networks with relatively minor road restriping represents a huge cost to communities? the costs are so small and such a slight fraction to the cost of the rest of the public works associated with transportation infrastructure.


Investments in bicycling infrastructure actually reap fiscal benefits to communities as the green quotient of bicycling compares to the social costs of motoring and automobile infrastructure...... seems theres a net-net to design of roads to facilitate bike traffic. however it's done, paint is cheap and planning for bikes is less expensive over a wide variety of community, livability, environmental, maintainence and governmental/ operational concerns.

actually, my criticisms of your opinion about community planning and the UN-inevitability of sprawl are quite cogent.

I've quoted some of Portland's bike master plan 2030 draft as an example of community planning that rejects sprawl in favor of more liveable communities.

sprawl is not inevitable. usually, better bike ride share is a result!

It is one thing to write a plan that "rejects sprawl". It is another matter entirely to view the actual events that occur after writing such a hope into a plan. The plan to be adopted in 2010 is an update of the plan adopted in 1996, and, I presume, there is a sequence of plans before that. It is wise to consider the effects of these earlier plans, to see which parts of them have come to pass, and what unplanned events have occurred.

It has been stated many times in these discussions that the basic urban pattern has an enormous effect on the utility, and therefore the use, of both bicycle transportation and motor transportation. The proposed 2010 plan indeed refers to this effect and indicates a desire to remodel Portland to be more medieval, less useful for motoring and more useful for bicycling and walking. Bek obviously supports this plan.

The past effects of past plans with similar goals need to be considered when predicting the effect of the 2010 plan. Those who consider urban patterns have two different views about the success of the past Portland plans. Those who consider the purely local, and largely environmental, effects seem to consider Portland a success. Those who consider the larger effects seem to consider Portland a city that has planned its way into decay. Indeed, one calls Portland a failed city. In my opinion, there is some evidence for the former view, and a lot stronger evidence for the latter view.

Therefore, even Bek's argument that bikeways produce transportationally significant increases in bicycle transportation is not supported by the Portland draft 2010 bicycle plan. Such increases will occur only with significant assistance from anti-motoring programs.

Therefore, if we are to consider the best practices for cyclists, we need to consider them in relation to the real world, not in relation to some idealized world that exists in only two types of places, in medieval cities and in the minds of anti-motoring planners. This means cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and designing the road to best accommodate that method.

no john, i separate operating behavior from design of the environment. Riding versus the road i ride on.

like this, john. you have a degree in english:

I ride my bike on roads.

but in discussions of both riding style and road design i endorse lawful road bicycling johnny!




Then, Bek, why do you advocate highway designs that are based on cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways?