CrankyOne

This is likely the best bikeway design guide yet produced in the U.S.

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/high...signGuide.aspx

genec

No doubt we will hear negative comments from the 1% "Experienced and Confident" crowd about how these bike paths just won't work for them.

CrankyOne

Yep. I see all manner of racing types on the paths in NL including ProTour folks. They work.

One thing I was disappointed about with the MassDOT plan though is that I didn't see anything about designing for speed which is in the CROW manual.

mr_bill

Well the Vassar Street Cambridge separated lane is simple and quite good.

The Western Ave Cambridge separated lane I do not like at all, in fact, actually close to hate.

The shared Washington Street Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit and bike lane is awesome - except it dumps you in traffic hell (conveniently located next to major hospitals).

The proposed Commonwealth Ave designs I will probably love love love for the less than mile it runs.


But understand that I actually *gasp* ride in so-called Door Zone Bike Lanes - DZBLs, but I don't ride in door zones, so go figure.

In Mass, we don't have to use any of this stuff. When it's good, we use it. When it's not, we don't. Feedback loop is swift.


But yes, somewhere on the internut are local "experts" who are criticizing (not critiquing) everything and anything. (How can one local "expert" simultaneously complain about bollards and *lack* of bollards? On the internut, there is no cognitive dissonance I guess.)


-mr. bill

CrankyOne

What specifically do you and do you not like about each? Photos?

B. Carfree

After decades of effort to get traffic engineers to not put bike lanes to the right of right turn lanes, the segregationists have undone all that effort and we now have bike facilities back in the right hook zone.

The cover photo for the design manual depicted what could best be described as ghosts in this setting, which was appropriate, imo. When a new standard violates all the principles of every prior standard, it is best called what it is: substandard.

That said, sure such a lousy set-up CAN function, but it will require that motorists be trained, traffic law enforcement be done, very slow rider speeds and some reasonable, but not too high, rider numbers coupled with low pedestrian numbers. Hmm, it seems like we could make almost anything work with those parameters.

I've seen/ridden on similar set-ups in other locales in the US, and they are generally the locations that record the highest number of collisions per rider. The right-hooks can be prevented at the cost of everyone waiting much longer at every intersection for the extra signal phases, and assuming "No Right on Red" is in place and enforced. In time, those extra phases will either be removed or will evolve to give cyclists very long delays in order to not inconvenience motorists. (Engineers on the (L)east coast may behave differently than ours, and that will be fun to see.)

CrankyOne

What prior standards are you suggesting that this violates? This is largely Dutch/CROW design which has produced the safest place in the world to ride a bicycle and has produced the highest modal share of bicycling in the developed world. And you're saying that it doesn't work?

Where have you ridden on similar setups in the U.S.? I'm not aware of anything like this anywhere in the U.S.

buzzman

B.Carfree's contrarian commentary aside it's nice to feel included in the Overview:

<<A 60-year-old, life-long, dailycommuting bicyclist. He prefers direct routes to his destinations to save time. He is confident riding in mixed traffic and knows to be wary of opening car doors and turning trucks. He enjoys riding on shared use paths, but typically avoids them during congested periods.>>

Could not be more accurate to yours truly. My initial read of the plan is that it is inclusive and open minded and while we can't please all of the people all of the time any change in infrastructure is a series of negotiations and compromises that, hopefully, lead to a positive change. This looks like a substantial shift in the right direction. Maybe B.Carfree prefers the snail's pace that comes when armchair experts roll their eyes and oppose anything that doesn't fit their narrow vision.

In the time since I've been on BF's there have been a series of infrastructural changes here in Boston that have been grist for the BF A&S crowd.

Had Boston followed the advice of BF contrarians over past decade we'd have a significantly lower rider share, no improvements at all to bike lanes or bike paths, no bike share system and basically the status quo broken system we've had for years.

As someone who lives and rides here I'm thrilled with this proposal.

hooCycles

I don't care what crazy infrastructure they build so long as I'm not required to ride in it. I'll ride where I feel I am the most safe. If cars don't have to ride in the segregated bike lane than neither should I.

And no, I also don't care what works in Europe because the US has a completely different driving culture now and ever since the dawn of the motorcar.

buzzman

I am curious as to whether you currently ride in Boston or if you have ever ridden here.

And where in the US have you ridden or currently ride?. And where in Europe have you ridden to make such a blanket statement of comparison?

CliffordK

A couple of comments.

Chapter 3, Page 42&43, there is a discussion about storm sewers, with the sewer grates IN THE PATH. They can do better than that.
I'm not quite sure what the perfect storm sewer design is. The vertical dropoff just outside of a curb is scary. But, there are some where they put the storm sewer entrance entirely under the curb, without that vertical dropoff.

Chapter 4, Page 77 (and elsewhere), they introduce a triangle yield marker. I don't think I've ever seen those, but they are redundant, and confusing. One already is required to yield to a crosswalk. What do those triangles do other than confuse with direction indicators?

Bus stops are a pain. The Constrained Bus Stop, Chapter 5, p 104 looks exceptionally annoying. The islands and other designs would likely be acceptable.

As far as the separate paths in general, I don't know. The concept is good for long routes where they paths can be unbroken for an extended distance. I'd be less convinced about the applicability if it is broken up every block.

We've got one path, (Pioneer Parkway/Rosa Parks), which is elevated to sidewalk level. For a portion, it drops down through a curbcut, through the gutter, and across the cross-walk at every block. I find that section of the path most annoying.

Visibility is key. I still have troubles imagining whether it is better or worse. I suppose I expect the cars to see me if I'm on the road, but not necessarily paying the same attention to the "sidewalk". I would remove any visibility impediments near the corners including lamp posts and shrubbery. Find a way to not have tall stuff between the road and the bikes.

mr_bill

Both streets are slow speeds, so according to some "advocates", there's absolutely no reason for putting bike lanes let alone separated bike lanes on these streets.

Vassar St: This street view is still pretty current.

There are two one way separated bike lanes on each side of the street - wide enough that you can comfortably pass.

Very few driveways, all with wonderful sight lines and generally inactive usage - most often some sort of service/delivery vehicle occasionally pulling in or out.

Lots of pedestrians, but WIDE sidewalks - rarely even have to ring a bell.

WIDE parking buffer, but not many people coming in and out of the parked cars anyway.

The lights are amusingly timed. When I get the green at Galileo Galilei Way to cross Main St, the first car usually just catches me at the slight bend at the entrance to Vassar St, so I usually coast across the later part of crossing Main St so I land in the gap between the first and second car at the slight bend. The speed of motor traffic is just *barely* faster than the speed of bikes on the separated lane, and the light at Mass Ave is *always* red for them, so all those people in their cars hurried up and are stopped waiting at the red.

Western Ave: This street view is from a few months back while it was still under construction, but this section is close to final form just waiting for paint.

The separated lane is narrow, and very narrow in spots, and way too close to trees and poles.

Sidewalk is also too narrow, parking door buffer too small.

It's a one way bike lane, but there is often someone on a bike going upstream.

There are too many driveways and too many street crossings.

Damning with faint praise - faster during rush hour to use the separated lane, but only because the general travel lane is bumper to bumper and stopped or barely moving.

-mr. bill

mr_bill

Huh. Again, in Massachusetts, we don't have to use *any* of this stuff. When it's good, we use it. When it's not, we don't. They are *just* restricted/diamond lanes - just like HOV lanes or Bus lanes or Emergency Vehicle lanes.

It's odd.

I've never ever ever heard two people in a car complain about the HOV 2+ Occupant Lanes. They aren't *FORCED* to use them either.
I've never ever ever heard a bus operator around here complain about the bus only lanes - in general they can leave them too.

But I hear lots of solo people in cars complaining about HOV lanes however, since they "took away one of my lanes."
Lots of solo people in cars complaining about bike lanes, since "they took away one of my lanes."

Unique is *SOME* people on bicycles - they don't want this bike lane or that path or this protected intersection because *THEY* don't need it so therefore *NOBODY* should have it. They'll point out EVERY flaw, real or imagined, of ANYTHING bicycle specific - that they've never even seen or used, even before it's built.


I always enjoyed riding all alone out there. But it's really nice to have company out there now.


-mr. bill

genec

+1000. Some people just can't stand a gift horse.

mr_bill

Uh, only in some circumstances do they put the storm sewers in the bike lane, you'll notice that most of the designs don't. Don't get too enamored with curb inlet drains - they have a whole lot of bad tradeoffs. But yes, every time there's a new build out and they put utility service covers in the bike lane, I just wonder sometimes.

On street yield lines (aka shark teeth) are standard markings. See Oregon Driver Manual, p. 30.

The Constrained Bus Stop is the last alternative. It's less annoying for some people on bikes then attempting to pass a bus on the left.

That's where the new protected intersection design comes in. Why don't you give us time to build it here in Boston and see if they come?

-mr. bill

CliffordK

Yeah, I found Google Maps of one of the biggest roundabouts in the area and it has them. I still don't think they add anything to the driving experience, but perhaps don't appear as much as arrows as jagged lines (when more are used). The crosswalks appear as regular stripes or zebra stripes. Having all three, the sharks teeth, cross stripes, and zebra stripes seems rather redundant.

I do, however, like the green bike boxes and lane markers (in a few areas) which I don't remember noticing in the MassDOT manual.

It depends on the timing of the bus. If a bus looks like it is ready to pull out, I'll stop and wait for it.
If it appears as if I can pass and generally drop the bus, then I'll go ahead and pass it. This constrained bus stop leaves little alternative. What if they're picking up a wheelchair for 10 minutes? Loading bikes? Huge crowd of passengers getting on/off/paying fares?
It will be interesting to see the paths.

Like I said, we have several MUPS around here (not separate from walkers). Some paths are busy, others are less so. For the more isolated paths, walkers/bike interactions aren't a big problem, except perhaps at night. There is no need for redundant infrastructure.



Here is a path through Springfield, Pioneer Parkway, Rosa Parks. Path is marked in red dots.

First image, path goes for quite some distance as a median strip path. Occasional major interchange, traffic lights & island bus stop (red arrow). It does cross the bus lane at a right angle (I almost got wiped out by another cyclist there) (blue arrow).

Just south of the first image, it starts being crossed by almost every street, right image. I haven't had any problems with it, but I find the street crossings slow, bumpy, and not safety inspiring. If I need to be southwest of this point, I usually bounce over a couple of blocks to a low traffic street (with parallel parking).

CrankyOne

These are common throughout most of the world except the U.S. They indicate right-of-way. As a driver approaching a bicycle crossing if you have the teeth then you must yield to any bicycle riders approaching the crossing. Those bicycle riders are not required to stop or yield. Alternatively, if the bicycle riders have the teeth and you don't then you only yield to those already in the crossing. Those approaching the crossing (from right or left) must yield to you. This eliminates ambiguity over who has right-of-way and makes crossings safer and more efficient.

mr_bill

First, you really want clear indication of who belongs where, especially in conflict zones. So that's why zebra crossing (for pedestrians or pedestrian/bicycle) and dot crossing (bicycle).

Second, while you don't think yield lines add anything, actual research on implementation of yield lines says that they improve yielding behavior.

(It's similar to the opinions on sharrows. Some people think that the are redundant. Yet studies on their effectiveness show that they aid people on bicycles to move away from door zones and aid people in cars to give space to bicycles. While some might think this is just academic, I don't. I was one of the many study subjects of one of the early papers on sharrows. Not only do we have great bicycle laws in Massachusetts, we have a lot of people in colleges and universities who like to publish studies on interesting, especially "controversial" questions.)

One quirk in Massachusetts by the way - each city and town chooses its own design(s) for crosswalks and bike lanes. Officially, there is no shared bicycle/pedestrian crosswalk (that's finally changing with Bill S.1809, hopefully).

But there are brick crosswalks, blue crosswalks between parallel white lines, some ladders, some ladders with diagonal rungs, and this pair of pedestrian crosswalks with a brick bicycle crossing between them, and on and on and on. Same with bike lane colors, how to mark merge/conflict, etc. Until recently, many lanes were marked with two variations of a bicycle, but now Mushroom Humanoid on Bicycle seems to have been on sale recently.

You'll have to take another look - they are repeatedly shown - especially in chapter 4.

What do you mean redundant infrastructure?

-mr. bill

CrankyOne

Bus stops are indeed a pain. No solution is perfect though a well designed floating bus stop generally works best. The constrained bus stop is a last resort when there is no way to do something better. These are extremely rare in The Netherlands but somewhat common in Copenhagen. They do work in Copenhagen but that I think is much to do with Danes very high regard for consideration for others and hygge.

Curb cuts are a pain, especially those with curved jolting gutters. So are poorly designed driveway crossings. In The Netherlands (and some of this is covered in the MassDOT guide) a bikeway crossing a residential or commercial drive or a minor road will continue across unbroken at bikeway grade with consistent material and color. This provides a smoother ride for bicycle riders and makes it clear to drivers that the bikeway exists and that bicycle riders have right-of-way. This also acts as both a speed bump for drivers and being raised allows rain and melting snow to run off easier. At larger junctions if the bikeway changes grade it is always done gradually and smoothly.

I think the guide covers visibility fairly well?

CrankyOne

How is that bike lane during winter and snow? Debris during summer? I think in temperate climates, with good maintenance, and slow vehicle speeds those lanes would likely work quite well. The Netherlands has largely stopped using them because many people felt uncomfortable on them from a safety standpoint a decent percent of fatalities were indeed people in lanes like that being hit from behind. Here's an example of one that was recently converted: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...onal-cycleway/

In many norther climates these would be unusable much of winter due to snow buildup and until sweeping of sand/salt was completed in spring.

CrankyOne

How wide is it? It does look narrow but that could be camera angle. Overall it doesn't look too bad. Keep in mind that only about 1 in 9 cars has a passenger so getting doored is much less likely here. A wider door zone buffer would be nice but not nearly as critical as avoiding the driver side door zone.

I couldn't find any driveways along here. The street crossings aren't very good but not so bad either. The one below looks like there's a bit of a bump that they could have done much better on but several others looked much better. This is far from an ideal bikeway but not too bad either. If it encourages more people to ride bicycles instead of drive then maybe one day it will be possible to eliminate one of the vehicle travel lanes, parking, or both and give more space for a much better bikeway.

This actually looks very much like the bikeways that The Netherlands was building in the 70's and 80's when they had much more car traffic. Today they are replacing these with much better bikeways because they don't need as much space for cars.

This bikeway is likely quite good for 99% of the population and only really substandard for people who want to be able to ride 20 mph.

mr_bill

Uh, we are a northern climate. What "these" are you talking about? The separated bike lanes on each side of the street or the bike lanes leading to/from the separated bike lanes?

*EVERYTHING* collapsed this past winter in Boston - highways, roads, separated bike lanes/paths, rail transit, sidewalks, *EVERYTHING* was a mess.

Ironically, the separated bike lane and sidewalk on Vassar St were probably better maintained than the roads this winter.

-mr. bill

CrankyOne

Last winter was unusual for you guys. In many northern EU areas with an event like that they'll clear protected bikeways before roads because one pass on a bikeway provides transportation for over 10 times as many people as one pass on a road.

During snow cars will push snow/slush in to painted bike lanes making them unusable until the plows come through. And then it builds up again until the plows come through again. There is also the problem of slush wakes from passing cars and trucks. Once the snow stops and sun comes out they may be OK for a few days until the next snow but will often also be quite thick with sand and salt residue that doesn't get swept up until Spring. Overall they are not as consistently useable as protected bikeways.

mr_bill

First, really, I was *NOT* going anywhere close to 20 mph. I am *NOT* a 1%-er complaining about infrastructure.

The problems are real and there *ARE* driveways all up and down the street, with frequent cross blocks.

I didn't show you these sections since the last street views here were in the MIDST of the project.

Here's the section under EARLY construction. Here's where it starts near Central Square.

I've ridden in many locations in the US and Canada, and this new separated lane on Western Ave in Cambridge really truly disappointed me.

Anyhow, we'll see what the usage looks like, this leads to one of the major river crossings between Cambridge and Boston.

-mr. bill

CrankyOne

Driveways should not be an issue if designed correctly. In Netherlands it's not unusual to have a driveway crossing a bikeway every 40 feet and they are not a problem.

Here's a review of the MassDOT guide with a quick discussion on driveways (about halfway down the page):

MassDOT?s New Bikeway Guide is the Beginning of Good Things | streets.mn

Here's another photo of how a bikeway should be continuous across driveways. This makes the bikeway obvious to people driving and indicates who has priority and right-of-way.



I do think that designs new to the U.S. will take some time for people to get use to. Over time drivers should become more accustomed to bikeways and accord them appropriately.

Edit: There are actually a few more photos from whence that one came:

https://streets.mn/2014/07/15/a-kid-s...eer-on-a-bike/