As to practical alternatives to the door zone, the easiest is usually to simply swap the door zone bike lane and parking; put car parking next to motor vehicle travel lane and put the bike lane between the parked cars and sidewalk (where parking had been). Ideally though, there should be a 3' buffer between the parked cars and bike lane (now cycletrack) which may require narrowing the motor vehicle travel lane widths.
Last edited by CrankyOne; 01-15-14 at 02:34 PM.
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 United States 0.53% 0.55% 0.55% 0.48% 0.45% 0.40% 70 large city average
1.02% 1.02% 0.93% 0.79% 0.72% 0.75% Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFC) 1.42% 1.39% 1.29% 1.09% 1.00% 0.97% Non-Bicycle Friendly Communities 0.55% 0.57% 0.50% 0.42% 0.39% 0.43%
during the zeros portland, san francisco, and seattle had little new cycling infrastructure but all these cities at least doubled their mode share. san francisco is particularly illustrative in that there was a moratorium on new infrastructure but mode share still somehow increased enormously. and then there are the examples of NYC and vancouver. two cities that have arguably added the most european-style protected infrastructure with piss poor increases in mode share (on a percentage basis).The regions leading the curve on growth all added infrastructure.
Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-15-14 at 04:38 PM.
And it's not just me saying it.
You must be familiar with this report from Pucher, Buehler and Seinen, which states unequivocally-
And why didn't cities like Dallas, Detroit, Memphis and regions like the US southeast, despite being hard hit by gas prices and the recession, have no increase at all? Read the report linked above to see why.Originally Posted by Bicycle Renaissance in North America
Last edited by buzzman; 01-17-14 at 06:55 PM.
jennifer dill recently investigated the preference of cyclists in the Portland area for particular types of infrastructure based on Roger Geller's categorization of cycling types. In the Portland area this study found 6% strong and fearless, 9% enthused and confident, and 60% interested but concerned.
Moreover, Dill's study reported an average comfort level of 2.7 for a crappy conventional door zone bike lane and a comfort level of 3.2 for a protected bike lane (scale of 1-4).
i wonder how an 8-12 foot buffered german-style bike lane would have fared?
stripe it and they will come?
professor dill of PSU's OTREC institute actually performed a study to determine which facility people prefer and it turns out that there was very little difference between a facilitythat i think most of us agree is sub-par (the door zone bike lane) and a protected bike lane.
Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-15-14 at 10:07 PM.
"Protected bike lanes" in dense urban areas with heavy traffic demand? Not too likely to be found in many places, if at all in the U.S. The choice taken by most urban cyclists is riding "unprotected" to the right with or without painted lines; the painted lines at least provide some visual guidance for motorists to stay to the left of where most cyclists will place themselves, despite what you and "most of us" think about it.
I don't think the you intended to use the league's report which shows faster growth than the norm in bike friendly communities, but....
Buffered Bike Lane demonstration project.
Last edited by mr_bill; 01-17-14 at 11:22 AM.
Some more recent examples:
A major reason I support infrastructure...something likely to be carved out of crowded traffic lanes in dense urban areas?
Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-16-14 at 10:20 AM.
'82 Nishiski commuter/utility
'83 Torpado Super Strada ... cafe commuter
'89 Miyata 1400
Soma rush Fixie
06 Haro x3 (son's bmx)
Electra cruiser (wife's bike)
• These streets were selected for the Buffered Bicycle Lane demonstration project because they have light traffic flows.
• Traffic analysis indicates that the loss of one travel lane on both SW Stark and SW Oak will not create significant delays or queues for vehicles. "
Not exactly the answer for most city centers with dense traffic with all travel lanes in heavy use.
When measuring and evaluating risk, one could also suppose for the sake of an argument that "crashes" that produce insignificant injuries or none at all are equal to those that produce moderate and severe injuries. Some of the so-called, self-styled "bicycle traffic engineer" ilk do just that when manipulating data to reach a desired conclusion and consider a "crash" with a skinned knee result as equal to a "crash" that results in paralyzing or traumatic amputation injuries.
No credible person or organization responsible for safety decisions would make that supposition when evaluating risk.
Locally they changed a wide two lane road with center shared turn lane and wide shoulders to a narrow two lane road with center median and bike lanes. I used to take my son to school in trailer on this road every weekday, never an issue, I rode towing trailer in the wide shoulder, motorist passed in the main travel lane.
Then they did this 'complete streets' thing and removed over half the asphalt width of the road, but even worse put in these things called chicanes every 100 yards which artificially narrowed the lane even more with concrete curbs and also short sections of separated bike lane that were too narrow to ride thru safely with trailer. At each of those points I had to negotiate a merge into the main travel lane partly out the bike lane as I needed ~1ft clearance between the trailer outside wheel and curb, which required the inside wheel go over bike lane into very narrow shared lane. To do so required I merge ahead of motor vehicles every 100 yards - this pissed off too many motorists (on a road I had never prior had an issue on) with regular honking and attempts to squeeze by me and yelling to stay in bike lane. I did not want to subject my son in trailer to this abuse so I stopped cycling him to school and my wife had to start motoring him there - it was previous one of the more enjoyable things I did and it saddened me to have to give it up. So they built it and I left.
Last edited by noisebeam; 01-16-14 at 02:13 PM.
Why hide the data? I'm not saying they should be treated as "equal".
Why do you presume that there's no "manipulation" going on here?
Why include "moderate" injuries? Why lump "moderate" with "severe"?
"Moderate" injuries are the same as "paralyzing or traumatic amputation injuries"? The data that was shown is calling them "equal".
How many "severe" injuries where there?
Maybe, "severe" injuries have stayed the same or increased.
If the total crashes are high (we have no idea), maybe, the small difference in "moderate and severe injuries" is random.
If you include all of the data, you might be able to start to understand why there are fewer "moderate and severe injuries".
That is, that an effect is a reduction of "moderate and severe injuries" rather than total crashes might be useful to know.
Also, the number of moderate/severe accidents for this one stretch of road seems oddly high.
Last edited by njkayaker; 01-16-14 at 06:04 PM.
My primary purpose in quoting the Pucher report was for this conclusion:
You extrapolate from the whole quote a reference to studies which show a strong preference for separated infrastructure and turn it into an argument about preferences between "door zone bike lanes" and protected lanes.Results from aggregate cross-sectional studies indicate that there is a positive correlation between cycling levels and the supply of bike paths and lanes, even after controlling for other explanatory factors such as city size, climate, topography, automobile ownership, income and student population.
I think the Pucher reference to that preference was a pretty simple one. For example, I have two routes to downtown Boston. An 8.1 mile streets route with almost the entire distance with bike lanes and sharrows. The alternative being a 10.2 mile route which includes one mile of back street riding to a separated bike path for 8 miles and another mile of sharrows to my destination. I would answer that my preferred route was the one with the separated path. I do the other one when I'm in a hurry. It doesn't surprise me at all that there is a strong preference for separated infrastructure when placed in that context, which may be different from Professor Dill's study if the choice was "door zone bike lanes" vs "protected lanes".
Last edited by buzzman; 01-17-14 at 06:56 PM.