Originally Posted by
wsbob
Many people apparently need that physically separated distance away from passing cars that cycle tracks provide, for them to feel that a bike can be a viable choice of transportation for them.
Do you have data demonstrating that there is a large group of cyclists who will use cycle tracks but not buffered bike lanes. I'm not at all convinced. Moreover, bike lanes and bike boulevards have facilitated mode share as high as 40% in some Munich neighborhoods.
Because it seems they may take a lot of land and money to build, the cycle-track design doesn't seem likely to replace bike lanes on all thoroughfares around the U.S., or even in Portland. Paralleling some thoroughfares though, cycle-tracks could be a wonderful thing for many people. I'll give bikeportland's publisher-editor a little pitch here...he's been in the NL and Copenhagen the last couple weeks, writing articles with accompanying photos showing some of that cycle-track infrastructure with people using it; they...people and pics...make a strong case that cycle-tracks well sited, work well.
Given that Maus' trip was planned and sponsored by the cycle track advocacy group, bikes belong, this is hardly surprising.
Cycle tracks are desirable when speed or traffic density can only be mitigated by increased separation. Given the high-speed of vehicle traffic on Foster, a properly-designed cycle track would have been a good option. It was dropped due to funding limitations. That being said I still favor traffic calming, speed limitation, and non-separated infrastructure in dense urban areas with lots of intersections. Cycle tracks work best in situations where there are high speeds and few intersections.