spare_wheel

sadly, you are completely mistaken. the copenhagenistas have made no secret that they support mandatory sidepath laws.
in portland, the prominent "advocate" and CEO of alta planning, mia birk, wrote a screed in the local paper about cyclists who ride on commerical streets when there are bike boulevards a few blocks away. apparently the cyclist slowed her down when she and her boyfriend were driving up hawthorne. moreover, the portland bureau of tranportation installed signs on thriving commercial streets urging cyclists to ride in the bike boulevards. in my experience, many advocates of segregation believe that no one should "take the lane" if there is a bike facility nearby.

spare_wheel

stop with the strawmen. neither jan heine nor I are against door zone free bike lanes. to quote jan heine:

"I think you misunderstand. What I am saying is that in the U.S., there currently is a trend to advocate for “protected” facilities everywhere. As a result, Seattle and other cities put in “separated facilities without proper design for the intersections. ... And then everybody congratulates each other and says: “We are well under way to become the Copenhagen of North America.”

And this experiment has already been conducted. I've quoted the numbers ad nauseum but if you are really curious you can either search for my posts or google them yourself. Mode share in the Netherlands increased dramatically prior to the $1 billion construction program that began in the 90s. At best a few percent of dutch mode share can be directly attributed to physically separated infrastructure.

Bekologist

Please, don't engage the forum with such hyperbole and counterfeit riptose.

Seattle is using a whole variety of bike infrastructure, including regular old bike routes, sharrows, bike paths, neighborhood greenways, and yet the vast majority of roadway miles have none, and will get no bike infrastructure. and this protected path Jan is grousing about connects a great separated trail network, this section is one of the missing links in the interurban trail.

and don't group me into your hateclub stereotype. I fought mandatory use laws in washington state. Jan's voice was absent from that endangering fight. At his blog about this subject, he admits he wasn't even aware cyclists faced mandatory laws in Washington state a few years ago.

Doubly clueless.

Ferrous Bueller

For it to have been a strawman, it would have at least needed to have been directed at you or Jan. (For reference purposes, this comment is an example of something directed at you.)

My earlier comment was based on my observations of cycling circumstances in two countries I know well.

Your second paragraph doesn't seem to relate to what I wrote at all. I'll just ignore it.

spare_wheel

since this is a thread supposedly focused on jan heine's blog post you will forgive my assumption.


except for the part where you were imagining a dutch cyclist without all of the current infrastructure.

spare_wheel

I absolutely did not group you in this category...and I appreciate your position on MSPLs.

Irrelevant to my comment which addressed the fact that Mikael Colville-Andersen and many supporters of copenhagen-style infrastructure are supporters of mandatory sidepath laws.

Ad hom.

Bekologist

my assessment of Jan Heine admitting he wasn't aware of Washington cyclists having faced genuine mandatory bikelane/shoulder use laws is attacking the messenger?

....... whatever you say, referee.

Yet, Jan himself admits at this blog post he was clueless about it...... In addition, the strong and the fearless Jan Heine seems to think a miniscule portion of cycle track lane miles in Seattle is going to take away his right to ride on the road.

It's clear Jan's more than a little bit ignorant on cyclists rights issues he's facing as a Washington state rider.

===========================

What's very, very interesting, and damning, are some of Jan's followup comments at his blog....


He paradoxically expresses his trepidation at riding some of the main, alternate routes that parallel the route he criticizes at his blog. Roads which a competent, high mileage guy like Jan should find a piece of cake to ride. Aurora a few blocks north of this cycletrack and a few blocks to the east, it adds dedicated 'bus,bike, and right turn only' lanes. Ride like a dream, for strong cyclists.


Despite which, at his blog comments Jan considers Greenwood and Aurora both unfit for bicycling. I hardly think that's the case, personally speaking. These roads ride FAST out of town N/S for cyclists.

I know all these roads quite well, and it's funny to find a guy like Jan Heine, willing to complain about the cycletrack connector for the interrurban trail in Seattle, then admitting at his blog commentary he considers the nearest main alternate routes unfit for bicycling. Too much traffic for Jan to feel comfortable with cars wizzing by on one side, apparantly.



Interestingly, in his blog comments Jan actually starts endorsing some of the cycletracks in Seattle, so Jan isn't as absolutist about them as his blog post makes him out to be.

He supports the shilshole cycletrack connector for the Burke Gilman, for example, despite it facing several intersection conflicts. He apparently, and rightfully so, considers the intersections on the Shilshole cycletrack manageable.

spare_wheel

really???

and, btw, it is possible to have positions on bike infrastructure that are not black and white.

Bekologist

you mean, like your revisionist historical whimsy about how the dutch built ridershare?

Oh, you mean like Jan! At his blog post where he grouses about the interurban trail in Seattle, then he goes on in the comments to endorse SOME of the cycletrack installations around town, and comments he thinks the nearby alternate main arterial roads that mix cars and bikes not safe for bike transportation.

Jan's position on cycletracks isn't as black and white as his blog post implies!!!!

hagen2456

Yes. Though "much" is a large word for a minor increase.

What you fail to tell is that the link I posted in another thread to the paper dealing with these aspect, clearly found that it was an increase in minor accidents. Serious accidents/fatalities are of course decreased by separated bike paths.

hagen2456

As always, it depends on how it's planned.

Now, in Copenhagen, and as far as I know, in the Netherlands, very high speed commuting is a rather recent thing - like, 15 years, I'd say. Before that time, most cyclists puttered along at about 15-20 kmh. At that speed, dooring really isn't that much of an issue, in particular not when you're on a separated bike path. However, these days, a quite large segment is riding a lot faster than that, and that makes dooring a lot more dangerous. The Dutch have been smart enough to plan most of their bike paths with a buffer zone between cyclists and parked cars. In Copenhagen and Denmark as a whole, not so. It's a problem that has to be solved. That said, I believe that dooring accounted for only one fatality in Denmark last year. That's probably because the fast riders are aware of the danger, and because drivers and passengers are aware that there are cyclists out there.

On many high speed roads, wide shoulders is a fine and sufficient thing. That's one thing we could do with a lot more of, too. A very large minority of bike fatalities are on country roads, in spite of their seeing very little bike traffic.

On small country roads, and residential or other narrow streets, there's really no need for bike lanes of any kind. Of course, measures have to be taken to keep car speed down.

But in many places, bike lanes - preferably separated - is the best solution: High speed/heavy traffic streets and alongside highways and large arterials. And all the problems that are lined up by the anti-crowd can be - and have been - solved. This doesn't mean that there are no accidents. You can't have traffic without accidents. But it means that fatality rates are dramatically reduced from what they would be without the bike infrastructure.

hagen2456

That's simply not true. I don't know who or what gave you that idea. Large sums have been allocated to bike infrastructure since the early/mid-70's. And along with that, the Dutch took back their streets for riding a bike - this time on safe bike paths. Or at least, bike paths that were a lot safer than having to fight drivers for the same space. But of course, they've been improving their infrastructure ever since, and not only for bikes. Holland is the safest country in the world for ALL transport modes.

spare_wheel

Love the vagueness of your reply. My point that much of the separated path build out occurred later remains:

Quote from:

The autumn of the Bicycle Master Plan: after the plans, the products.
Ton Welleman
Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Hague, the Netherlands

Bekologist

Spare wheel has obtusely chosen to ignore Jan Heine is a proponent of cycle tracks in Seattle.

At his blog commentory on this topic, he goes about singing the praises of a few of the cycle track designs in Seattle, and path networks as well.

spare_wheel

not ignoring. just not commenting because i agree (and have always agreed) that cycle tracks/paths are a useful treatment when dealing with high speed differential zones.

hagen2456

So... What you try to tell us is that you think the Dutch didn't start making their bike infrastructure untill 1990?

Really? Seriously? Honestly?

spare_wheel

And quite a bit of that earlier infrastructure was not physically separated. I am a fan of wide bike lanes, low car areas, and traffic calmed commercial/residential areas. I am not anti infrastructure! Nevertheless, in the USA there is a battle being fought between those who support multiple forms of infrastructure (especially in the context of budgetary constraints) and those who believe that physical separation is almost always the best solution. One of the main arguments used by separated infrastructure proponents is that it correlates better with increased mode share than other forms of infrastructure. I think there is very little evidence to support this claim. Moreover, I do not believe that one can point to any particular form of infrastructure or statutory reform that magically promotes high mode share.

The dutch doubled their physically separated paths in about a decade and mode share went up a few percent. Even worse, mode share in Denmark actually declined during periods of large-scale investment in cycle tracks. In contrast, Germany has seen an enormous increase in mode share during a period where cycle tracks (very similar to the crappy ones we have here) were being decommissioned and replaced with 2 meter wide bike lanes. ATMO, north america needs more buffered bike lanes and fewer poorly designed cycle tracks.

buzzman

When I first started riding as an adult cyclist for transportation and recreation 42 years ago I didn't think much about bike lanes because they didn't exist most of the places I was riding. Now that I have quite a bit more experience riding in traffic both with and without bike lanes (over 250,000 miles of it) , I'm all for riding in bike lanes in urban areas with high density auto traffic even with parking.

What do you think accounts for our difference of opinion?

robble

Perhaps your bike lanes were painted with more thought than the ones were I live. I don't like riding within a couple feet of parked cars (doors). I also don't like cars thinking they can ride the outer line of the bike lane. Nor do I like that our bike lanes are often filled with gravel or recently worked uneven road. I've come to believe in bicycles being part of the regular traffic flow in town.

Every bike lane I've seen here is in the door zone. Why are door zones bad? https://rwinters.com/docs/DanaLaird.htm

Here is an article on why bike lanes are bad: https://www.tpg1.com/protest/city/nob...kelanesbad.htm

Bekologist

But, Robbie - Jan Heine, one of america's most well known high mileage cyclists - THE randonneur - and all around bike guy thinks bikelanes are a GOOD idea. He even goes about endorsing various protected cycle tracks around Seattle at his blog commentary- just not the way this one currently treats the intersections.

And Jan's a high mileage guy. Buzzmans a high mileage kind of guy. And so am I, we've all got decades and hundreds of thousands of miles of cycling behind us. As well seasoned and experienced cyclists, we understand the value of well implemented, context specific bicycle infrastructure, including but not limited to bikelanes, riding in the traffic lane, and cycle tracks.(Pardon me if i overstate your position, buzzman)

B. Carfree

There's the key. For some of us, well implemented excludes door-zone bike lanes (Buzzman seems fine with these, I'm not). For some of us, well implemented excludes the sort of cycle tracks that bring cyclists to intersections in such out-of-the-ordinary ways or from behind barriers such that we lose control of our safety (that would be Spare_Wheel, Jan Heine and myself). We're not opposed to well implemented bicycle infrastructure, but we oppose implementations that we feel do more harm than good.

This isn't a battle of ideology. We (almost) all want abundant, safe, effective infrastructure for cyclists. We differ on the details and where we would compromise. For example, I find door-zone bike lanes to be worse than no bike lane at all, since I won't ride in them (after 500,000 miles, I have had quite a few doors open as I rode past). Slower cyclists or those who are more trusting of their ability to determine whether a door will open disagree with me, but likely wouldn't fight against changing the dzbls to buffered bike lanes that are no longer dzbls, which I would consider to be the best solution.

Bekologist

Right.

and on this section of a build up of the interurban trail network, the problematic intersections can, and should, be redesigned to more safely address these concerns. Jan really mischaracterizes this road as having a lot of intersection conflicts. some of this backs up on a Kmart and mall, for instance. NO intersection conflicts whatsoever. and a lot of the streets to the east of the cycletrack have very limited ( a block to three) street lengths.

People need to understand the cycle track Jan is being critical of is a build up of the interurban trail - a major, mosty off road path network N/S into seattle that is a MAJOR commuting route into downtown, with greater cycle transportation potential.

from Wiki - "The Interurban Trail North begins as a signed bicycle route in downtown Seattle running through the Fremont neighborhood, through Phinney Ridge and Greenwood, to 110th and Fremont where it becomes a paved rail trail until 128th and Linden where it will become a cycletrack to the City of Shoreline Border.[1][2] At the City of Shoreline the route becomes a wide non-motorized route for 3 miles until the Snohomish County line."

it will be easy for the city to mitigate the issues Jan has identified along the track, assess and modify any genuinely problematic crossings.

robble

^bingo. The bike lanes I have access to are NOT well implemented as are not the one in the article I linked. Are you willing to ride 20mph+ in a bike lane that is in a door zone?

The door zone is the worst danger I see but there are also bad things at intersections too where cars cross the bike lane. Wish I could take pictures of some of the worst parts of the lanes around here where the lanes are covered in gravel and it looks like a pipe had been dug up and replaced along a bike lane . However that part is in a high traffic zone in a large intersection where it would be suicidal to stop long enough to snap a picture.

You can also note that this particular bike lane is on "University Avenue" - the main road to get to the largest university in Hawaii therefore having high bike traffic too.

Bekologist

Robbie - it sounds like you want improvements to bike infrastructure in honolulu, just like Jan wanting improvements to the infrastructure in Seattle. Both cities suffer from congested traffic and a lot of pent up demand for safer bicycling.

As to the 'door zone' you've just learned about - make no mistake, the door zone lurks on streets without bikelanes as well. So do intersection conflicts and crossing and hook maneuvers. All of these hazards exist on roads without bikelanes. Those bikelanes you are so newly critical of are shown to move cycle traffic further from the parked cars then if there were no bikelane and they also provide a host of other benefits including greater visual presence of bike traffic, lessened incidences of wrong way and sidewalk cycling, etc.

Does the bicycling infrastructure need to be improved in Honolulu and Seattle both? Absolutely. wider bike lanes and better intersection treatments where needed? absolutely. cycletracks on select routes? absolutely.

Jan Heine, the worlds' most renown randonneur, seeming critic of cycletracks and author of this critique, thinks so. Jan concedes that cycletracks make sense in context appropriate placements in Seattle.

spare_wheel

And bekologist is trying to paper over the deep divisions in the cycling community over the direction of infrastructure. There are those who favor separated bike lanes and those who favor non-separated bike lanes (me). Since bekologist was cheerleading the crappy physically separated lane on market street its pretty clear which camp he is in. Morover, market's few blocks of cycle track represent exactly the kind of ridiculous conflict prone infrastructure that Heine was criticizing. I would love bekologists to list some examples of places where he thinks a bike lane is preferable to physically separated infrastructure. Come on bekologist, name some commercial streets in a large city where you would *PREFER* a bike lane to a dutch-style cycle track.