Niten

I've been handed an amazing opportunity: I have the chance to provide extensive input into the Mobility & Transportation: Bicycles section of my city's Comprehensive Plan, the guiding document for the future development of Lincoln. (The cycling-specific portion begins at the bottom of page 9 of the document to which I linked, above.)

Current conditions are pretty good, but there's a prevailing sense that cycling is primarily a recreational activity, as opposed to a viable mode of transportation, and a trend toward a separate infrastructure (in the form of MUPs) for bicycles (but also for pedestrians, joggers, etc.). An example that combines both these ideas is that there is already an extensive and growing MUP network, but its construction and maintenance is the responsibility of the Parks & Rec Department, while all other transportation-related facilities are the responsibility of Public Works.

I already have some ideas, drawing on input from other intelligent and informed cyclists, but I wonder if there's anything I'm overlooking.

If you had the chance to guide the future of bicycling in your city, how would that future (2030, in this case) look?

Roody

It would look pretty congested with cyclists. By 2030, gas might cost at least $9/gallon, and there might be times when it isn't even available. Cars will not be the predominant form of transportation unless another energy source is unexpectably found. If you're really looking that far ahead, you should keep in mind the probablility that the transportation mix will be drastically different. We won't need bike lanes because all the lanes will be bike lanes.

Of course you probably won't be able to sell this idea to local politicians. They will want a pie-in-the-sky solution: "Some people will ride their little bikes, so we want to move them out of the way so all the grownups in their hovercars won't get slowed down." That'll make everybody feel nice, even if it's only a crack dream.

John E

With a few admittedly very nice opportunistic exceptions, MUPs generally do not serve the needs of the transportation cyclist. Roads can, provided that we calm high-speed freeway-style free merges and diverges and ensure that all traffic signals can be triggered by bicycles. Avoid painting bike lanes in door zones or on 25mph streets. Provide wide, well-maintained shoulders on prime arterials.

EnigManiac

What a timely post. I am meeting with the Chairman of the Toronto Bicycling Committee this coming week to propose feasibility studies for expansive and innovative concepts. In advance of that, the papers are reporting our Mayor is about to sign-off on a Bicycling Manifesto that appeared early last week in the papers, at the beginning of Bike Week. Our Mayor is a (part-time) cyclist and even drives a hybrid Toyota, in keeping with his leftist (for you guys 'Democratic') political leanings and much of the council is alleged to be pro-bicycling, so it is astounding and confounding that more effort hasn't been expended on the official Bike Plan until very recently. In fact, what was once a very bike-friendly city has since fallen behind many American communities as well as other Canadian and European cities. Quite frankly, I'm profoundly dissapointed, considering that the streets have become more hostile and dangerous when they should have been safer during the past few years.

I see our city---a city with an estimated 900,000 seasonal cyclists and 350,000 year-round cyclists---having as many as 40% of commuters using bicycles (of all types) by 2020, using a combined system of dedicated full-lane bike routes similar to Copenhagen's surface route system, elevated and enclosed tube-system (Velo-city) and Bike Stations. I have no difficulty with admitting that one of my aims is to eventually decrease the number of motor vehicles trips and the number of motor vehicles operating in the city by a significant margin. It will mean a shift in attitudes, a shift in lifestyles and a shift in philosophy for residents and politicians, but I believe if the current trends of outrageous fuel prices, expensive insurance and the high cost of maintaining a vehicle continue, people will both grudgingly and willingly accept and embrace the idea. Cars are a good form of transportation, but they are neither an efficient means nor worth the cost when one factors in the number of casualties and deaths resulting from accidents, contaminents and other extraneous impacts. In most cases, at least in the city, car trips are unnecessary and once we drill that message home while expanding and promoting public transportation and alternative transportation, we can reach an equitable balance. Someone with the courage, vision, political will and know-how, personality and charisma has to lead the charge. I'm not that guy, but I'll glady do all the leg-work in advance of that person. Great accomplishments start with idealistic thinkers, after all, and while I didn't conceive of the ideas, I fully endorse them and will commit myself to their realization.

rando

bike lanes, and where you don't have those, "bikes have a right to full lane" type signage-- lots of it, everywhere, especially on heavily travelled roads. sharrows. you'd get some kind of tax deduction for biking to work. Companies get incentives for providing showers, storage, etc for bikers. you'd be able to deduct bike expenses.

sbhikes

A bike plan that isn't about bikes as transportation, and bikeways as transportation corridors, is nothing but a feel-good neighborhood beautification and weekend, suburban recreation project.

oilfreeandhappy

I believe it's high time to convert some road thoroughfares into trolley, pedestrian, bike, (perhaps scooters) only transportation. If this takes roadways away from motorists, so be it. We have a major problem in this country with our oil dependence and usage, along with the associated trade deficit. Convenience for other transportation modes, and inconvenience for cars - that's my answer.

sgtsmile

So true, right up until it is put into place. Waterloo has a bike plan. Well, actually the whole region does. Every time a main arty road is widened, or has significant work done on it, a bike lane is put in place. From what I have seen riding in the city recently, the newly expanded system works. I would bet that there are more km of bike lanes in Kitchener-Waterloo than in Toronto (sad, but I think true - there are only 64km of them in TO, right?)

For recreational use, it is possible to skirt the older part of town - burb hopping - and almost never leave a bike path / MUP. Not for me, and not for transportation, but it does provide a venue for part time cyclists to get out and enjoy the evening. And this is a GOOD THING since these people use cars during the day, and may "graduate" (no elitism meant here) to road use later as their skills and confidence build. Besides, from my perspective as a quiet bike advocate, more bums on bikes is a good thing, no matter what.

Kitchener-Waterloo also has an artery trail system which punches right through the middle of both cities. The laurel trail goes from the north of Waterloo and passes through the University of Waterloo and near Wilfrid Laurier University. It goes directly through the High Tech park (Waterloo is often refered to as "silicon valley north") and by the Perimiter Institute into Uptown. That trail links to the Iron Horse trail which is a rail trail that goes VERY close to Uptown Waterloo and Downtown Kitchener. It is flat, and paved, and very fast.

Most of the suburban artery roads have bike paths. Sadly, some of the fastest and most congested lack this. If you live on the Guelph side of the Conestoga Parkway, you have difficulty getting around on nice to use roads since a big river (the Grand) and the highway block you in. Some of the burbs that way are ok, but near the older highway out of town, it can be pretty grim (doable, just not fun).

Cambridge is a mess. I lived there for a while and HATE biking there. There are some truly beautiful newer roads that are well maintained with good bike routing, and ROOM for us, but the majority of the north south roads are a real mess with way too many lanes and way too many cars. Cambridge is also hemmed in by the highway 401, highway 6, and a couple major rivers, which all tend to bottleneck traffic. Having said that, Cambridge has one of the best transportation oriented MUP that I have ever seen. It is paved in parts, and needle straight. It runs from the north of the city north of the 401, and under a couple of major freeways. You can bail from it at strategic spots and then go where you need to. Cambridge is made up of 3 forcablely algemated cities and this trail hits the downtown of 2 of them (but access is badly marked, big time!) With a little wiggling about, it links to another system which takes you to the southern most part of the city (Galt). Here, you can link to a lovely rail trail which takes you to Paris, a town about 21km south of Cambridge (nice trail, ran it once). Personally, I would not bike it as this part of the region has some of the BEST and quietest glorious delicious road riding roads I have ever seen. Period. Bar none.

Sadly, getting between KW and Cambridge by bike is a real challenge. It is a mess. Rivers and highways bottleneck traffic badly.

To the OP: hopefully this gives some ideas for you.

trackhub

You are so right. There was a ton of this during the 70's, with the "bike boom", and the environmental movement going big time. A lot of "bike paths" were built. When they were completed and opened, there were ribbon-cutting ceremonies, complete with smiling politicians and and photo shoots. Only problem was that most of these bike paths went from nowhere to nowhere. A perfect example is in Lexington, MA.
It's a mup that runs along a brook. It begins along one side street, and follows the brook for not quite a mile, before it ends at another side street. It's not near anything, and it serves no purpose. Today, it's used by some joggers and teenaged potheads after dark, ( it goes through some woods, and is somewhat isolated) but that's about it. You can still spot the green and white "Bike Route" signs here and there. There are some others, and a few are nothing but paved rings around recreational fields.

This is the problem: For bikeways to work, they have to be usable as transportation by cyclists.

So, looking to the future of biking in my town, I would look at some European countries such as Denmark and Holland. How do they have their infrastructure laid out and planned to include the bicycle as viable transportation. Then I'd ask planners and engineers to look into the cities' past, when bicycles were manufactured here, (Waltham Orient Manufacturing Company.) and the city actually had a velodrome. (Waltham Bicycle park) In the local public libary, there are pictures taken of downtown during the 1890's. Trolley tracks in the middle, some horse drawn wagons, and cyclists. Not a car to be seen. It looks so nice and un-congested....

Needless to say, you need to be cautious with this subject. In another forum, (not cycling related) I brought up the way cycling is done in some European cities. Well,,,, One individual launched into an explosive diatribe about the evils of "socialized Europe", then suggested that I must be some kind of "blue state communist". He then pulled the time-honored stunt of using mathmatical BS, to prove that "it doesn't work!!!" Such people must breed near a toxic waste site. It's the only explanation.

My thoughts on politicians, regardless of party: " I don't trust men who smile too much". Old Klingon proverb.

DCCommuter

For once I find myself agreeing with you!

And the corollary to this thought is that people using bikes for transportation are going to want to go to pretty much the same places as people using cars for transportation, so that the most good is done by addressing the routes that carry the most cars. The paradox is that traditionally bike plans have been designed to get bikes off of these routes.

Brad Smith

Living in Lincoln myself and just getting into serious cycling for transportation (work, errands, etc.), I am extremely interested in this. Let me know if you want to chat sometime!

Roody

+1

Roody

I fully agree that full use of all roads and streets is the backbone of a good cycling plan. For me, bike lanes are optional, but if you have them they must be well designed, preferably by engineers who are experienced cyclists themselves.

However, I do see a use for fully segregated bike paths or MUPs as an adjunct to sharing the streets. These can encourage utility cycling by making it more pleasant. The following criteria must be met:

• The path must be well designed and well maintained.
• It must run through the heart of the city.
• It must run close to common destinations like schools, hospitals, workplaces, shopping districts, etc.
• It should connect the city to it's suburbs.
• It should be fully segregated from motor traffic, with underpasses and overpasses at street connections.
• It should be scenic and connected to parks if recreational use is a part of it's purpose.

PS. I think you are making a grave error if you do not research the likelihood that urban transport is poised for some tremendous changes in the near future. Cars are a thing of the past if there is no miraculous development of new energy sources.

nydanskeren

Trackhub is right. The US could definatley learn a bit about commuting from Europe -and Denmark and Holland in particular (I am though biased ).
A good place to start would be the Danish Traffic Ministry . Here you can find (among other things) a 34 page pdf-file (in English at the lower-left of your screen) describing the 11,500 kilometers of bicycle trails which criss-cross the 43,094 sq km country.
I am also in agreement with Roody's comment on the advantages of MUPs. The majority of my 21 km commute to work is on a segregated bike path and I think that this type of solution is one of the primary reasons the Danes cycle as much as they do. If I find some more "authentic" cycling info from the Traffic Ministry in English, I'll be sure to post it here.
Good luck with your project Niten, that's really exciting!

sggoodri

A city bike plan should start with the established premise that the roadway portion of every street is a bicycle facility. Some streets could be designed or modified to include some form of enhanced passing facility, such as wider outside through lanes or striped bike lanes if easier passing is desirable, but the bicycle facility must be understood to be already there. Accordingly, education and enforcement of the laws that allow all users to share the roads should be a strategic part of any bicycle transportation plan.

Streets can be made better for cycling by maintaining them well, providing wider pavement where easier passing can reduce social friction between user groups, making traffic signals respond to bicycles, and improving connectivity between local streets so that cyclists are not forced to use arterials for every trip (this is mostly a problem in newer suburbs).

Off-road paths can provide extra connectivity and alternative routes for some cyclists. In a well protected corridor with few interruptions, like an abandoned rail line or along a river, that connects to important destination they can attract significant utility transportation traffic, but otherwise they will carry a very small percentage of bicycle traffic in an American city, and are best considered as linear parks. The worst type of bike path is the urban sidepath, running alongside streets and crossing numerous streets and driveways much like a sidewalk does. These paths have much higher crash rates per mile of cycling than to ordinary roadways, and should be avoided. Unfortunately, some cities are tempted to build sidepaths as retrofits to try to create segregated bikeways in existing urban areas with a high concentration of destinations. A superior solution would be to improve normal on-roadway cycling through those areas, and concentrate development of segregated bikeways where the fewest crossing conflicts exist, such as rail and stream corridors.

LittleBigMan

I think it's important to ask cyclists what they want/need. Our needs are different for many reasons, and it's important to encompass a wide range of cyclists when looking at what kinds of routes they prefer. In general, I think it's possible to accomodate most of us, if only planners realize we don't all fit into the same box.

I prefer fast, safe, direct and convenient road accomodation because I ride to work and use my bike for transportation. Others might prefer the slower, more scenic facilities, separated from motor traffic as much as possible. Still others might want a combination of these two.

It's also important to recognize that a lot can be accomplished with small efforts. For example, road accomodations might be perfect between points A and B, except for a few small bottlenecks or other problems like older railroad tracks, potholes, problem intersections, etc. Some have offered shortcuts in neighborhood routes to connect residential roads that are otherwise "no outlet." Giving cyclists more options is always a good idea, and it doesn't have to cost a lot with a little creative thinking.

Overall the best chance to get us cyclists what we want is to include all of us in the planning process.

EnigManiac

You make some very valid points. It is, indeed, vital to ask for and consider many points of view. As this forum illustrates perfectly: we do not all agree on even the most fundamental issues. The official Toronto Bike Plan calls for more Bike Lanes, for instance, conected to one another and it seems it is an assumption that ALL cyclists want bike lanes. Clearly, there are very strong opinions against Bike Lanes. I understand both points of view and have observed that certain Bike-Lane routes here in the downtown core are very very popular, perhaps suggesting that the majority of cyclists will go out of their way to select a route they feel safer on. There are other routes that do not have Bike Lanes, in spite of repeated requests from the cycling public,and they are quite busy as well and that may well indicate that cyclists will simply choose the most convenient and direct route regardless of whether it has a Bike Lane or not. We should be asking all of those cyclists what they want, what they prefer, what they would settle for and what they will find absolutely intolerable.

noisebeam

Here are links to the 2030 plan for the town I live in. Some I agree with, some I don't, just wanted to provide as an example which may lead to some ideas for yourself.

https://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/comprehensiveplan.htm

Al

o-dog

can't say I'd change all that much... things are pretty decent right now although there's definite room for improvement.

if possible, I'd add a frontage/residential access road (NOT a bike lane) to both sides of New Hampshire Avenue between Metzerott and Piney Branch Road. this would be a good, fast and direct way to get to Takoma Park and Silver Spring from College Park if New Hampshire Avenue wasn't so crazy (lots of fast traffic).

I'd also see to it that the paths and roads are maintained better and build more overpasses or underpasses at some of the really bad crossings (CP Trolley Trail @ Greenbelt Road, Sligo Trail @ East West Highway, etc.).

not to mention an awareness/PR campaign about bicyclists' rights and responsibilities aimed at both motorists and cyclists.

nydanskeren

Odense city (3rd largest Danish city) ran a project from 1999-2002 to improve the cycling infrastructure. The result was good (35 million new bicycle trips in the period of the project -pop. 150,000). One of the more forward thinking (and cheap) ideas was the set up of 6 speedometers so that cyclists can measure their speed in the most congested part of Odense city. The purpose of the speedometers is that the cyclists can adjust their speed to the "green wave" (22 km/h). It is called the green wave when bikes don’t have to stop at a red light (instead bikes flow through green lights). An extra advantage was that injuries went down as bike/auto accidents in the city often happen when the cyclist starts again after a stop. By regulating traffic lights based on bikes not cars, driving also got less appealing...