sggoodri

I concur with your assessment of this weighting of facility choices made by the City of Cary. I've been saying this all along.

However, ten years ago the arterial situation was worse for cyclists than it is now. Ten years ago Cary's standard for 45 mph arterials was narrow outside lanes. If they designed a "bicycle facility" for an arterial, that facility was a wide (>5' standard) sidewalk designated for bicycle use. Raleigh was the same way, except Raleigh used more bicycle signage for their sidewalks than Cary. Cary had an ordinance mandating cyclists ride on an adjacent path if present, and not on the roadway.

Cyclists argued that it was better for cyclists to be using the roadways, not sidewalk paths, and that engineering should better accommodate that. Eventually Cary adopted 14' wide outside lanes as the standard for arterials and promised to restripe existing arterials to widen the outside lane where possible. I debated with the transportation planning consultants over bike lanes at the time; I asked if bike lanes would be safer and if WOLs increased speeds; the consultants said that there were no overtaking collisions reported in existing wide lanes, that drivers slowed down when encountering cyclists in WOLs and that bike lane stripes didn't calm speeds (all turned out to be true). Also at our urging, Cary repealed the sidepath use ordinance. This took a lot of effort, because some in power were highly resistant to endorsing bicycling on arterial roadways. This appeared to me at the time to be part of the transportation planners' reluctance to stripe bike lanes on arterials - fear of luring novices onto 45 mph roads.

However, given all the cries from parents to make their neighborhood streets safe for children to ride on, the city added bike lanes to the neighborhood streets. Those in charge had been told by bike lane advocates that bike lanes are a safety improvement for novice cyclists, and were told by experienced cyclists that the residential streets were already safe, and so they decided to go with a belt plus suspenders approach. Many of these streets also have 20 mph speed humps to calm traffic. When cyclists like myself complained that bike lane striping on 25 mph residential streets with low ADT was a bad idea, we were dismissed as type-A spandex-clad bikeway obstructionists who didn't respect the preferences of novices.

Cary will soon have its first sharrows as part of a redesign of some downtown streets with on-street parking. The new sections will be three lanes (some sections are currently 4) and sharrows will be placed outside the door zones. I credit this planning accomplishment partially to the completion of the Road 1 class by some of Cary's planning and engineerig staff, who are now confident taking the lane on these exact downtown streets.

danarnold

+1 Hadn't thought of it before, but now that you mention it, about 90% of my punctures have been on bike paths or lanes, while 90% of my riding has been on streets without infrastructure. I don't blame all of that on the stripes, but the lack of sweeping by cars makes sense as a factor.

Re: the rest, it seems your experience with closer motorist driving with stripes mirrors my own, and the Harkey report. As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over. Bike lanes are less safe for cyclists on many roads. Bike lanes give the appearance of safety to some. Bek is revealed as someone who wants the appearance of safety, to increase cycling, but ignores the facts about true safety.

danarnold

You are wrong again. Your inaccurate analysis and clumsy writing are getting tiresome. You cite a study that proves you wrong. I simply went to the conclusion section and quoted it. IF you maintain this is 'cherry picking' your obligation is to go to the same study and demonstrate your assertion.

You can't do that. You haven't even tried. This is because you are wrong and too lazy to actually go to the study itself, read it, and quote from it. It's much easier to just throw labels.

Data, Beek, data. Analysis, not labels. Keep repeating until you get it.

Bekologist

give it up, simpleton.

Bekologist

Where, exactly, are you talking about?

Chapel Hill Road?

looking at the Cary NC bike map there are bikelanes on arterials and collectors with names like "parkway" and looking at google stret view these are NOT all 'neighborhood' low ADT 25mph streets with 16 foot unstriped lanes that may have parked cars outside of residences...


even if steves' descriptions of the bike planning in Cary NC is accurate (a highly doubtful but entertaining narrative!) there's nothing about a local failure to sweep public roads for bicyclist traffic that discredits the design benefits conveyed by preferred class lanes on higher speed, higher ADT roadways.

danarnold

Mere squawking, Beak. Name calling isn't analysis or even argument.

Your apparent reason for being has been exposed as an anti safety fraud, no wonder you can't accept the truth. Data, Beak, data. I actually feel sorry for you that what YOU found, Harkey's data, exposed the truth you can't handle. I'm going to try to be nicer to you now.

Bekologist

what ARE you jabbering about?

hey, danarnold, since this IS a thread about sharrows, tell the forum where you've ridden your bike across sharrowed streets and in what road context.

try to post something relevant for gosh sakes!

Bekologist

Who is the design bicyclist, steve?

you and us "A" types or the other 95 percent of the bicyclists?

SRTS route selection and development is par for the course, steve. think of the kids, steve, the C riders!

think of the reduction of sidewalk cycling with or road facilitation of bike travel from B type cyclists......

your overblown concerns about operational restrictions to A type bicyclists from the bikelane on Crabtree Crossing parkway or Chatam Parkway? are you SERIOUS?

sggoodri

In my earlier post I described two arterials in the area with bike lanes- one in Raleigh, and one in Cary. The one in Cary is a short section of Chapel Hill Road.

All of the other bike lanes streets in Cary are on residential collector streets posted 25 or 35 mph.

Crabtree Crossing Parkway is a 2-lane residential collector street with a 25 mph posted speed limit and numerous 20 mph speed humps marked with triangle stencils as visible in the Google overhead views. Using the Google Street View you can see the 20 mph speed humps warning sign at the entrance to Crabtree Crossing Parkway from Cary Parkway, which, by comparison, is a 45 mph arterial with 13' to 14' wide outside lanes in that area of town.

Note that the center median of 2-lane Crabtree Crossing Parkway makes it a "collector avenue" in Cary's nomenclature. Some other 2-lane "collector avenues" lacking residences fronting them have higher posted speed limits. Lochmere Drive is one example, posted 35 with two divided lanes. Both such streets were built long before the striping was added. The pavement width between curbs was provided to ensure truck drivers could pass parked or disabled cars.

Other, more typical collector streets are not median divided. See James Jackson Ave, a non-residential 2-lane collector street lacking bike lanes, and MacArthur drive, a 35 mph 2-lane residential collector street with bike lanes. Dynasty Drive is 25 mph and has bike lanes on the segment with fewer driveways, but steep hills.

Early on in this retrofit process, Cary also striped bike lanes on residential streets with many more homes and driveways on them, and significant use of on-street parking in front of those homes, and planned to do more. Pictures of these can be seen here:

https://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...ipes/cars1.jpg
https://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...ipes/cars2.jpg

These bike lane stripes were later removed due to homeowner complaints.

invisiblehand

What do you mean by this?

Bekologist

simple- I doubt steve is telling it straight, and steve complaining about the failures of sweeping bikelanes is not a compelling argument.

further, his complaints as an A type cyclist about bikelanes on identified routes for bicycling to serve SRTS and B&C type design bicyclists in Cary doesn't discredit the value in bikelanes and bikeway planning.

the roads steve is complaining about, those bikelanes he's endlessly griping about affecting his operational abilities as a type A cyclist on a slow speed low traffic roads? hilarous! y'all should take a look on Google street view at some of the genteel roads steve is suffering unduly on!

steve your complaints are super-superficial!!

now, if we can stop indulging steves delusional obsessions about the evils of of the bikelane on ho-hum southern boulevards and focus on what he wanted to discuss, sharrows?

slow speed roads with lanes marginally wide and low ADT; 15 feet and above is cosidered too wide as a general travel lane width, so wide as to encourage unafe side by side motorist sharing so an alternative idea to accomodate bicyclists is generally indicated. ADT above 10,000 favors a more channelized approach.

sharrows will be placed as part of hybrid roadscaping including bikelanes or sharrows, sometimes in the same block, depending on localized characteristics like road width, traffic volumes, intersection dynamics, traffic type, etc...

a road diet with sharrows downhill and bikelanes uphill is likely a design other communties will implement depending on localized characteristics.

there are operational benefits to stripes on a road.

Who is "'the design bicyclist", steve? care to illustrate how your complaints are not representative?

sggoodri

The design bicyclist is one who can follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Such cyclists may travel at a wide variety of speeds. They may coast downhill at near the design speed of the road or pedal uphill at near walking speed.

Some cyclists, especially children and novices may find complex intersections challenging if they must merge left across multiple lanes. It is therefore useful to limit intersection complexity on roads expected to be frequented by novice cyclists. Similarly, some novice cyclists are more likely to make errors than more experienced cyclists. It is therefore useful to limit motor vehicle speeds on roads expected to be frequented by novice cyclists. It is also usefult to limit traffic volumes on residential streets frequented by child cyclists. Lastly, it may also be useful to alert motorists to the potential presence of cyclists on the roadway, especially if those cyclists are novices prone to errors.

So, what engineering features may be used to accommodate the above range of users? If the cyclist will be coasting downhill near the design speed of the roadway, it would be good to encourage the cyclist to operate away from the right edge of the road, preferably taking the center of the downhill lane. Sharrows in the center of the downhill lane may assist with this. If the cyclist traveling uphill or on level terrain may be traveling slowly, it is desirable to provide ample roadway width for other traffic to pass safely and comfortably.

If it is desirable to reduce intersection complexity for novices, then the number of travel lanes may be reduced, particularly the number of through lanes and right turn only lanes. Since right hooks is a common cause of collisions to novice cyclists, curbside bike lanes at intersection locations should be avoided, in order to avoid a common source of confusion. Turning left from the right edge of the road is another common mistake by novices, which may be exacerbated by misleading curbside bicycle markings at intersection approaches.

If it is desirable to limit motor vehicle speeds, the number of through lanes may be limited to one in each direction, speed limits may be set low, and speed humps may be installed. Also, the use of traffic structuring elements such as edgeline and centerline striping may be minimized (removal of such striping elements has often been shown to reduce speeds; addition of such elements has often been shown to increase speeds, especially at night).

If it is desirable to limit through traffic on residential streets frequented by child cyclists, then maintaining arterials at a higher level of performance (shorter trip times) while maintaining slower speeds and somewhat less direct connections on the residential collector streets is desirable. Good street connectivity and redundancy combined with indirect routing and traffic calming on residential streets can accomplish this.

If one wants to alert motorists to the use of the roadway by cyclists, "share the road" signs and sharrows may be effective. Bike lanes might be effective as well, but undesirable on low ADT low speed roads, epsecially due to contraindications described above.

Now, what of other legitimate slow-moving vehicle users, such as moped operators, golf car drivers, and so forth? Which of the above engineering accommodations work for them? Which create potential confusion? Should those that create potential confusion and stigma be avoided unless their operational benefits to the public overall clearly outweigh the disadvantages?

Lastly, how do bike lane stripes improve operational conditions for novices compared to slow-moving experienced cyclists? Which errors or capability limitations of novices are mitigated by bike lane striping instead of sharrows if the other engineering elements (limitation to two lanes, slow speeds, low traffic, simple intersections lacking RTOLs) have already been included?

Here in NC, some public schools that have the rare distinction of being sited where they are easily accessible by bike-laned and/or traffic-calmed low-adt residential streets and off-road greenways still prohibit children from bringing bikes to school grounds. They wish to avoid all liability issues entirely, regardless of road design. Education is badly needed. One elementary school in Apex recently received a grant for a SRTS program where they have proposed to fund education for students on safer cycling. Bruce Rosar was offered the opportunity to teach 40 classes to elementary students in that school next spring. I have been approached to teach these classes in his place, but I don't think I will be able to spare that much vacation time or leave without pay off from work. So, if you know any cycling education instructors in who have experience in teaching elementary school students, and they could teach classes here or have advice to give, please let me know.

Bekologist

BZZZT! INCORRECT! Steve, you use a vehikularists' muddle to cook up that doozy!


Steve, stop the misdirect. there is considerably more to roadscape design than expectations of bicyclists compliance to traffic sorting rules!


There are two types of design bicyclists, advanced bicyclists like you and I, the 5 percent A team and the other 95 percent comprise the B&C design bicyclists.

B&C design bicyclists are the bicyclists targeted by many infrastructure enhancements.



Steve, why do you think YOU are the design bicyclist for which the bikelanes on the collector roads are designed? (hardly 'neighborhood' streets.... those puppies where you live are bikelanes on suburban dystopian sprawlsville collectors.)

Here's what the Federal highway administration has to say about design bicyclists, not steve's thinly disguised "gots to ride like a vehikle" constructs.

the last paragraph spells it out up nicely.

Who is the design bicyclist? sums up in part with:


.

Steve, stop bringing your concerns to the table as if your operational concerns were the most important considerations in your community.

GET OVER YOURSELF.

If you want to throw sharrows into the discussion of design of street infrastructure to support the design bicyclists, fine, because that's what I've been doing all along.

But lets get past your screed and move back to what you wanted to discuss - sharrows.

sggoodri

I wrote that the design user is one capable of obeying the rules of the road, at a variety of speeds.

You disagree. Okay, are your envisioned design users capable of obeying the rules or not? If not, which rules are they incapable of or unreliable at obeying, when and why, and how do your design recommendations address these specific problems?

If they are capable of obeying the rules, how are they operationally different from other cyclists?

It is important to match the engineering solution to the problem; this requires that we have an accurate understanding of the problem and of the real-world effects of different engineering treatments.

Perhaps your problem is really one of marketing. I have a problem getting my 6-year-old to eat vegetables. He wants ice cream instead. I could give him what he wants, but he isn't the best judge of what's best for him in the long run. So, I analyze his nutritional needs and give him what's best, including some ice cream to make him happy, but not too much. I mitigate the whining by marketing the vegetables as making him faster, stronger, and smarter, and educating him about the drawbacks of ice cream.

Bekologist

I disagree?

YOUR flights of fancy disagree with federal policy guidelines about the design bicyclist.

your understanding of the concept of "design bicyclist" in roadway engineering is INCORRECT.

yes the federal government considers all design bicyclists to be expected to follow the rules of the road. (but not put 6 year olds unsupervised on 45 mph arterials! )


the federal governmental policy on encouraging road use by bicyclists supports my position.

a problem with marketing? really, steve? that glib? icecream?
I thought we were talking roadway design for kids and other cyclists to get to the icecream.

given the stated federal policy goals of retaining and encouraging greater roadway bicycling while enhancing safety, a supply-driven approach of providing designated bicycle facilities to encourage increased roadway use by group B/C riders (i.e., "if you build them they will come") is warranted.





the federal government recommends, for a variety of operational and safety issues, to develop networks of bike infrastructure on collectors and arterials.


are you familiar with federal guidelines spelled out in the FHWA policy paper, "Who is the design bicyclist?"

sggoodri

The policy states that children and their parents express preference for separation by vehicle type. I fully agree with that statement.

This fact doesn't mean that separation by vehicle type is the best engineering solution for them on low traffic, low speed residential streets. Ethical engineering policy cannot be dictated by the opinions of the most ignorant. It is a balance between operational realities, competing concerns, practical limitations, and public opinion.

The descriptions of residential roadway designs and connectivity I provided above address all of the concerns you quote for facilitating travel by child cyclists except separation by vehicle type. I therefore add that I endorse greenway paths and motor-vehicle-free short-cut paths that provide additional connections, and happen to separate cyclists from motor traffic in a manner that does not conflict with vehicular rules of the road.

The single point of contention is whether separation of traffic by vehicle type is good policy within the right of way of a low-volume low-speed residential collector street; my clearly stated position, since first experiencing such almost ten years ago, is that their operational disadvantages outweigh any possible advantages to any user on such streets. You said yourself, earlier, that bike lanes on such streets aren't desirable. Now you are reversing yourself, not to address an important operational consideration, but to cater to the preferences of the ignorant.

Meanwhile, I'm busy teaching my 6-year-old how to ride on the local residential streets this year. I don't think the lack of striping will be an issue, although getting him to stop and look when leaving the driveway and at stop signs more reliably than his peers do may be an issue. That's where we get collisions around here. Cary lost a 9-year old on a skateboard that way last week.

Bekologist

'the single point of contention?'-

steve-

our discussion is not limited to your idealistic low speed, low volume collector streets nonetheless identified by the federal government and developed by your local transportation planners as part of a roadway route network for A/B/C cyclists.

stone way ave N, my local example with hybrid road infrastructure with a climbing bikelane is NOT a slow speed, low ADT street.

and our discussions of how to best facilitate safe bicycling road behaviors is totally dependent on road context.

AGAIN, are you familiar with the FHWA policy paper, "Who is the design bicyclist?"

it outlines a variety of criteria you should familiarize yourself before you continue your conflationary misdirects about how and where to facilitate bike traffic and by which methods for whom.

sggoodri

Of course I am. It makes some useful points about facilitating useful local destination access to traffic-averse cyclists via low-traffic low-speed streets and off-road connectors. That has been a major part of my advocacy for cyclists, and in fact pedestrians as well, when influencing transportation plans, design standards, site plans, rezonings, greenway plans, etc. over the last decade. Such strategies are compatible with vehicular cycling principles as well as providing reasonable efficiency for other drivers.

In terms of encouraging cycling by both novice and experienced traffic-averse cyclists, their preferences are important to consider. This is a reasonable marketing issue. However, this marketing does not override valid operational concerns including potential conflicts with the rules of the road and with defensive bicycle driving. These conflicts are issues for the novices as well as more experienced cyclists as they increase their cycling in the future. It is therefore interesting to consider alternative marketing strategies that do not create such conflicts.

One possiblity is sharrows. In areas where indicating constraints on lateral positioning by vehicle type may create conflicts with other safety and efficiency concerns, shared use arrows may be an attractive option. You have pointed out areas where right-biased sharrow placement may create problems or where sharrows don't mitigate all of the problems of boorish motorist behavior. Inadeqate lane width contributed to most of these issues, and so I agree that with inadequate lane width, the best position for the sharrow is the center of the lane. So once the lane width is adequate, but specificity in cyclists' positioning is inappropriate due to other issues, where should the sharrow be placed for the purpose of marketing cycling? Is the center of the lane still correct? Or is the right side okay? The sharrow does not indicate the degree of constraint that a bike lane stripe does, making it less problematic where cyclists' positioning needs to be flexible, but right-side positioning may still be a problem in some adequately wide lane locations.

I must admit that I am fond of the painted Long Beach sharrow lane, effectively democratizing use of the entire lane by all cyclists. It is marketing genius, and maybe such treatment will only work in a few places, but it does not conflict with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles or defensive bicycle driving practices (and in fact reinforces the latter), and so I can support it.

Bekologist

......one possibility is sharrows on low ADT, low speed streets without adequate width to stripe a preferred class lane when a transportation coorridor is noted as significant for use by B&C type cyclists.

another possibility is a hybrid roadscape like Stone Way AVe N with a climbing bikelane and sharrows downhill, where operational advantages from a bikelane exist for A,B and C cyclists on one side of the street (high speed differnetial) but less so on the side with lower speed differential.

Bekologist

oh, i see. so, sharrows but NOT on collector roads with adequate width and striped with bikelanes like Crabtree crossing parkway or chatham parkway, where the roads have been identified as significant for B&C type cyclists and bikelane striping does not cause undue safety and efficiency concerns (except for hysterical vehikular cyklists like steve !!) and will serve 95 percent of bicyclists in a beneficial operational manner (reduced sidewalk cycling, etc).

the only reason i initially agreed with you about the poor designs of the bikelanes in cary was your misleading misrepresentation of where they were placed, your fuzzy depictions of what a neighborhood street is versus bonifide collector without reasonable alternative suburban divided thoroughfares.

I see steve. and if you're already familiar with the FHWA "design bicyclist" you blatantly misled the forum as why bike infrastructure is placed where and for whom.

Bekologist

if you want to continue to discuss sharrows, a few more caveats:

sharrows will not move bicyclists laterally away from right side hazards in the presence of passing in lane same direction traffic. I mean, approaching an intersection in a wide lane where a safe lane position is left biased to increase cyclist visibility or avoid right hooks from significant right turning traffic,

a sharrow on the OTHER side of a wide lane after a track of sharrows that was previously right biased is not going to move bicyclists to the left in the presence of overtaking or parallel slow moving traffic. better roadscaping can position bikes to the left of right turning traffic in a dedicated thru bike pocket lane to the left of right turning traffic with an emphasized crossing zone for both cars and bikes.

the FHWA has significant guidelines on redesign of road networks to facilitate safe bicycling by the design bicyclist for a roadway, steve. they often include bike specific striping.

(the 'long beach' sharrow lane? pffft. I'd rather bicyclists have a few more feet, and get their OWN green bikelane, screw getting stuck in congested traffic.

Remember: congested traffic will ALWAYS impede bicyclists in narrow lanes, sometimes impede bicyclists and force unsafe lane sharing and weaving between congested traffic in marginally wide lanes, and rarely if ever impede bicyclists along ample AASHTO compliant bikelaned bikeways.

this unimpeded operating space is one of a myriad of operational advantage to bikelanes versus sharrows in congested conditions for all bicyclists A, B and C!!!

John Forester

There is very little difference between American Basic and Child cyclists. In fact, the FHWA document establishing these types lumps Bs and Cs together in nearly all respects. The big difference is between the combined B and C types and Advanced cyclists, the big difference being that Bs and Cs are too frightened and subservient to obey the rules of the road while As either obey the rules of the road (the majority of As) or follow Hurst's precepts by using great skill to circumvent those rules for their own advantage (the minority of As). The FHWA document describing these types of cyclist recommends that all roads with significant motor traffic be fitted with bike lanes, specifically to accommodate B and C cyclists.

Therefore, the FHWA and bicycle advocates such as Bek are advocating that the highway system be redesigned, in this particular case with bike lanes, to accommodate roadway users who are too frightened and subservient to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It has already been established, even this group, that bike lanes do not reduce car-bike collisions; they simply make cycling more comfortable. This conclusion supports the conclusion produced by examining the Cross statistics of thirty years ago: bike lanes are designed only to suit the motorist-overtaking-cyclist situation (both to make motoring more convenient and to make cycling safer), and, in daylight and urban areas, these constitute only about 2% of car-bike collisions. That is the total possible reduction in car-bike collisions that bike lanes could produce.

How about the other 95% or so of car-bike collisions, those caused by turning and crossing movements? Bike-lane stripes are not designed to reduce these car-bike collisions, and in fact they do not have such a happy unintended side-effect. Therefore, at the very best, they cannot reduce these car-bike collisions, while, at the worst, they introduce complications into these movements that are outside of both normal traffic engineering and the normal human factors for drivers, introducing new conflicts that are more difficult to handle and therefore more dangerous. As I have always written, bike lanes may either slightly reduce or more than slightly increase car-bike collisions, with the probabilities in favor of an increse.

The FHWA has no answer for this problem. Bek and other bicycle advocates say that this doesn't matter, because Type A cyclists know enough to disobey the bike-lane stripes in the course of cycling properly in the vehicular manner. But Type A cyclists don't need bike-lane stripes, so that's no reason for producing bike-lane stripes. Bike-lane stripes are specifically advocated for B and C cyclists who don't obey the rules of the road, who are mendaciously attracted into bicycle transportation by the false superstition that bike-lane stripes make cycling safe for them.

We are persuading people who feel frightened of, and subservient to, motor traffic, to take up bicycle transportation by means of the false safety attraction of bike lanes, while simultaneously persuading them that they have no need to learn the only way to operate safely. That's thoroughly immoral.

And that has further consequences. It jeopardizes the status, legal and social, of lawful, competent cyclists who provide the safer and more effective bicycle transportation. If carried to its necessary safety conclusion, it adds a third class of operator to highway operating capacity problem. That class requires its own space and, more importantly, its own operating rules, with the conflicts between those rules and the rules for drivers and pedestrians resolved by a third set of traffic signal phases, in both existing and many new sets of signalized intersections, with the inevitable consequence of producing additional delay for all three sets of highway users.

This is a very poor choice all round. But there is another consideration. This is to be done for the purpose of persuading many motorists to switch many trips from motor to bicycle transportation. The only so-called evidence for the occurrence of such a change is from walking cities famous among bicycle advocates. In those cities, cycling volume was very high because cycling suited the topological and sociological layout of those cities. Cycling volume fell with the introduction of motoring. But, as the difficulties of motoring in those cities became appreciated and bicycle facilities introduced, cycling volume regained part of what it had lost.

Bicycle advocates argue that this return was produced by bicycle facilities, and that therefore such an increase would be produced by producing bike-lane systems in the USA. However, the situations are entirely different. Only a few cities in the USA grew up as walking cities, and even these have expanded as motoring cities. In none of these was a major portion of transportation by bicycle. Therefore, there is no long-lost base to be recovered. More to the point, since American urban cities and life developed so much according to the ability of motoring, there is real doubt, and no evidence, that the presence of bike lanes will persuade many motorists to switch many trips from motor to bicycle transportation.

In short, should America take the gamble of upsetting its present urban transportation system to accommodate a deficient form of bicycle transportation when there is no evidence that this would produce the desired reduction of motoring?

sggoodri

I understand why some experienced cyclists who know how to filter forward carefully, and not put themselves in the right hook area at stop lines, would like bike lane stripes designed to facilitate passing on the right on congested urban streets. Sharrows won't provide this advantage. However, in suburban areas with limited congestion, and especially on residential collectors, passing stopped motor traffic is of little benefit compared to the potential hazard. In my last ~10 years of cycling, I've never filtered forward, because only on rare occasions have I ever missed a traffic signal cycle waiting in line. The traffic queues simply aren't that long on the routes I've used. With very rare exception does queued traffic delay me more than the time it takes for the queue to start up again - usually several seconds for a few cars. At collector intersections, It's rare to have more than one or two cars stopped at an intersection, so there is very little benefit to passing on the right. However, the risk of filtering forward is significant independent of the advantage, since it is the first or second vehicle that poses the most risk.

Adding a right turn pocket to the right of the bike lane can often be done on new arterials, but it is rare on residential collector streets, since the traffic volumes normally do not warrant it, and there is a desire to limit intersection width for the benefit of pedestrians in crosswalks. Therefore, at normal 4-way intersections, the collector street typically features a combined right turn/through lane and a separate left turn only lane, which is normally the minimal-delay configuration for two lanes of pavement space. On some of these collector streets Cary has striped the bike lane curbside to the stop line, on others where space is tighter, Cary has ended it just prior to the intersection.

The bike laned section of the newly widened 4-lane 45mph Chapel Hill Road arterial features bike lanes striped to the left of RTOLs. I have noticed cyclists filter forward past short lines of stopped traffic on that arterial, which gets heavy traffic, and might occasionally suffer from multiple cycles of delay. Because of the RTOL being to the right of the bike lane, there is little right hook danger to those who ride and/or stop in the bike lane at the stop line. However, this filtering advantage and relative safety does not apply to the local collectors in Cary due to different intersection designs and traffic characteristics. And in downtown areas, where there may be more congestion, there may be less space available for adding a right turn only lane.

randya

here's a counterintuitive article from Crosscut in Seattle; the author apparently prefers bike lanes to sharrows, but also appears to close with a statement suggesting that sharrows are a vehicular cycling treatment, go figure...

https://crosscut.com/2009/09/03/transportation/19210/

Bekologist

That article echoes some of what the A-Team, experienced rider experience in seattle - broadly, that sharrows are NOT the end all, be all road treatment. that bit about roads with lanes too narrow not being safe is NOT what most A teamers think around here, but that's a minor point of contention.

his statements about narrowing car lanes, road diets to allow bikelanes etc ring true. sharrows full in lane where bikes easily reach or exceed the speed limit are a good treatment - but only for A and B teamers. ( I suspect sharrows downhill full in lane would, perhaps provide an educative effect similar to pocket bikelanes to the left of all right turning traffic..... improve traffic skills of B teamers)


john. you are obviously confused as to the purpose, effects and raimifications of bicycling infrastructure.

sorry to see you are confused to the extent of delusion about how bikeways are vetted, for who, to what effect and why.

the hybrid roadscapes are pretty nifty around town. I make take some time tomorrow and videoride some hybrid streets, where the road goes from sharrow to bikelane to sharrow and back again dependant on road width, presence of parked cars, grade of road, traffic patterns. etc. to show how vehicular these treatments are designed to ride.

since sharrows are to only be placed in lanes considered narrow or marginally wide, i propose sharrows ALWAYS be striped from the center line, and not the edge of road as a way to uniformly apply sharrows on those low speed, low ADT roads with some compelling (i.e. NOT sgoodris~!) reason not to stripe a bike lane.