squirtdad

interesting, but not really deep a couple of things to note, not clear which is better bike lanes or separate facilities both help. Sharrows don't count .


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...QQLT_blog.html

and here is the whole thing

https://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/bikepaths.pdf

MattFoley

True, sharrows don't count, but they reinforce to drivers that cyclists can use the lane, so I feel safer on roads with the than without. Physically separated lanes>cycle tracks>bike lanes>sharrows>signed bike routes>nothing is how I view it.

Bekologist

"Buehler and Pucher found that the presence of off-road bike paths and on-street bike lanes were, by far, the biggest determinant of cycling rates in cities. "

Yes, it's quite obvious to all but the doubting thomases. And their methodology is putting to rest the tired 'correlation isn't causation' canards unceasingly uttered in the shrill, insular cliques of bike infrastructure critics.

"this causation question still hasn’t been fully settled, but Buehler and Pucher’s regression analyses — going through a dataset of 90 of the 100 largest U.S. cities — suggest that the relationship between bike lanes and cycling is quite robust."

dynodonn 

As long as municipalities give it some thought be for implementing some 11th hour compromise, otherwise then having a bike lane can be worst than no lane at all.

squirtdad

interresting snips from the abstract (removed the details on what statisctical analysis tools used mostly)

What I think is interesting is that that there is essentialy no difference between bike lanes and separated paths in terms of impact, which suggests to me that more bikes lanes (cheaper) would get more people out than fewer miles of separated paths.

"Abstract This article analyzes the variation in bike commuting in large American cities,
with a focus on assessing the influence of bike paths and lanes, which have been the main
approach to increasing cycling in the USA.

we used a newly assembled dataset on the length of bike lanes and paths in 2008 collected
directly from 90 of the 100 largest U.S. cities.

cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have significantly higher bike commute rates—even
when controlling for land use, climate, socioeconomic factors, gasoline prices, public
transport supply, and cycling safety.

Estimated elasticities indicate that both off-street paths and on-street lanes have a similar
positive association with bike commute rates in U.S. cities.

Our results are consistent with previous research on the importance of separate cycling facilities and provide additional
information about the potentially different role of paths vs. lanes.

Our analysis also revealed that cities with safer cycling, lower auto ownership, more students, less sprawl,
and higher gasoline prices had more cycling to work. By comparison, annual precipitation,
the number of cold and hot days, and public transport supply were not statistically significant
predictors of bike commuting in large cities. "

phoebeisis

Sure-want more people riding-using less fuel-putting fewer $$ in the hands of unfriendly governments-putting fewer $$ up in smoke-more $$ in your pocket-fewer soldiers guarding liquid fuel routes
Build Bike lanes!!
It wouldn't be unrealistic to project(someday) 20,000,000 people saving 1.4 miles per day(one short trip)-500,000,000 gallons per year-or $2 BILLION in fuel +maintenance depreciation savings.
Safer?? Probably- but more people will actually use bikes for transportation if we have bike lanes.
Car drivers are happier also-not having to steer around or be slowed down by bicycles.
Everyone(cars and bicycles) likes bike lanes.
The VC's and other anti-bike lane folks are so tiny-they don't really count.

Shimagnolo

Unless they do what my dumb city did on one street and put the sharrows on the edge of the street in the door zone.

Doohickie

I have to give our city credit; each bike lane they implement is better than the last. There are those that were little more than a shoulder and a sign. Newer lanes include door zone buffer markings (i.e., bike lane completely out of the door zone), and the most recent lanes that are in work will allegedly include green color filled lanes. They are also involving neighborhood associations in plans for bike lanes, effectively getting community buy-in and openly seeking alternatives. That, and our city planner that does cycling infrastructure is putting her money where her mouth is and starting to ride around with various cycling clubs and groups, and it really seems like things are moving forward.

John Forester

The authors of the study state that the demand for bicycle transportation is rather inelastic with respect to facilities. That is, a 10% increase in facilities is associated with only a 3% or 2.5% (depends on type of facility) increase in bicycle commuting.

phoebeisis

But- they don't really know how much riding will increase if/when gasoline hits $6-$8 which it certainly will as China uses more ,and as the oil producers slowly test what we will pay.
I wonder what percentage of folks in European cities ride for transportation?
China shows that folks would rather drive than bike-IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT.When they couldn't afford fuel/vehicles they rode bikes rather than walk.
We might be heading in that direction-fuel up income down!

dynodonn 

Sounds like your local municipality has either some daily or regular cyclists on the board, or is willing to listen to local cyclists. Our most recent cycling infrastructure was a last minute compromise, with the only dissenting vote coming from the only daily commuter cyclist on the board, who was in favor of another (better in my opinion) design.

TheHen

Oh sure, go ahead and rub salt in my fresh wounds. I'm currently looking into suing my city to force them to at least follow the minimum state laws regarding bike lanes.

TheHen

Is this perhaps a consequence of the bike lane to nowhere phenomenon wherein bike facilities don't connect and even recently added facilities don't correct this problem? I've never seen a locale with even 1% of its surface streets with any sort of bike-specific infrastructure, but everyplace I have ever been has a large percentage of streets that are unnecessarily dangerous to ride on. Even increasing the bike lane mileage by 100% wouldn't create a connected network. Perhaps when the bike lanes being put in are creating connected, direct (at least minimal stops) and safe (or perceived as safe) transit networks for cyclists then there will be a better return on investment.

genec

I have often wondered if the folks that "plan" and install bike lanes ever ride them?

Bekologist

Alta planning and design teams pre-ride a city as part of their information gathering.

TheHen

In Eugene, OR the answer is a resounding NO! I've met with the traffic engineer and the head traffic planner a number of times. They are totally addicted to their city-supplied cars. They were both trained by the folks who brought you the 1950s-style infrastructure that is all too prevalent in our country. Sadly, they see no need to change anything. The only parameters that count are traffic flow and throughput. Safety for vulnerable users is their own problem.

Bekologist

if Eugene planners see no need to change anything, the eugene bike master plan for peds and bikes must be divine creation...... a true miracle.



https://www.centrallanertsp.org/sites...al%20small.pdf




Eugene's bike master plan was created with the assistance of Alta design. This indicates that if they sent a crew to Eugene, they rode the streets, gathered information from bicyclists at scoping meetings that solicited comments from bicyclists about what fixes eugene needed, and likely encouraged the current planners to go out on a bike ride around town with the Alta design people.

Doohickie

Well, yeah, if you read my whole post, I mention that the city planner who does the bike lanes also rides. She didn't in the beginning, but even then she was eager to meet with bicycle groups.

Besides the city planner that does the bike infrastructure, we also have a mayor that's a serious rider. In fact, she organizes a weekly bike ride open to the public.

John Forester

Alta Planning and Design is a prominent firm in the bike planning business. One has to assume that they do a thorough job of preparation; after all, thoroughness earns the money. What is far more important than thoroughness is cycling policy. What kind of cycling behavior is being planned for, if there is a particular kind? I have attended a seminar given by Mia Birk, one of Alta's principals, and I was unable to discern how she thought cyclists should operate and how she planned for them to operate.

genec

Jokingly I respond... apparently the policy is for cyclists to magically appear in the middle (at the side) of some street where some bike lanes start, and then later disappear from that bike lane when the bike lane suddenly ends.

Certainly that is the case for some bike lanes I have observed in San Diego. The most classic case of this is on 50MPH Miramar road, where a cyclist riding from west to east confronts a bike lane that ends suddenly (requiring the cyclist to take a lane in 50MPH traffic) and then restarts just as suddenly further down the road.

I asked the city to put up signage, as they would for motorists if a travel lane ends, and the sad response was a Share the Road sign. Of course the sign is placed right were the BL ends, giving the cyclist slim opportunity to negotiate with high speed motor traffic for the cyclist's new place on the road.

Examples of similar situations exist all over San Diego. Motorists are at least warned when their lane is about to end (Lane Ends Merge Left). Cyclists are given no such warning when their lane ends. Astute San Diego cyclists have come to learn that "Share the Road" in San Diego often translates to "get ready to take the lane." (BTW this policy is not consistent either)

CB HI

No, they drive the cars on the roads that they painted the bike lanes to get the cyclist out of their way.

TheHen

Actually, the few people who actually ride bikes in Eugene, as opposed to those who occasionally pose with a bike, saw that the BPAC was stacked with the usual insiders and tuned the whole thing out. The form of the plan was predetermined. It would include some "cycletracks", at least one bike-specific signal, and minimal net increase in bike lanes while focusing on much-needed improvements in sidewalk availability. It would also not include bringing any of the existing infrastructure up to the requirements of state law. The public sessions were devoted entirely to telling people what they would get, in a very vague way.

So far, the implementation has involved primarily removing bike lanes around campus and replacing one with a poor sharrow implementation. One cop half-joked about putting in a kiosk for crash reports since this change involved removing the concrete protections for a contraflow bike lane and depending on paint. (The cars now back into diagonal parking like part of University Way in Seattle, but in a more congested setting. They tend to pull forward into the contraflow lane before backing into the parking.) Thankfully, the plan focuses on the UO area where there are very few people riding.

But the bike and pedestrian master plan is actually irrelevant, believe it or not. The decisions on what to do on the ground are made entirely by the traffic engineer (Tom Larson) and the traffic planner. They answer only to the city manager, who answers to no one. (The city council can fire him, but that is only in theory.) No matter what is in the bike and ped. plan, it only goes in if Tom wants to put it in and only the way he wants it. The city manager has shown no signs of imposing his will on any departments; he's too busy trying to keep the city from going broke.

I'm sure you live in a more civilized locale where you can believe statements made by city staff. Here, those statements are usually propaganda. The required public meetings are held AFTER the decisions have been made for the sole purpose of meeting the state requirements for public input. I was pretty shocked to learn that this is standard operating procedure here.

Bekologist

for a city with over 8 percent rider share for commuting trips, I'm sensing a lot of cynical, selective filtering on thehen's part!

"Eugene has 153 miles of paths, bike lanes and bike routes and a well-developed City bicycle education program, including the Eye-to-Eye traffic safety campaign and a well-organized Safe Routes to Schools program."

And, a recently completed bike master plan - claims of its 'irrelevancy' is a bit saccharine.

Eugene is emblematic of a city that plans for bike traffic, and as a result sees more bike traffic. Something the recent research robustly indicates.

dynodonn 

I've seen Eugene's cycling infrastructure first hand, I'm definitely envious of it when comparing to our local cycling infrastructure. We're pretty much in the Stone Age in comparison.

CB HI

You must have the strongest kool-aid in the USA.