daihard 

Hi.

Seattle has recently opened two bi-directional bike lanes. They have made the "10 best new bike lanes" of the year.

America?s 10 best new bike lanes of 2014 | PeopleForBikes

It obviously means those bike lanes are welcome additions to the bike community, and the community as a whole.

OTOH, I've never been a fan of those bi-directional bike lanes. Granted I'm an inexperienced cyclist, I don't feel as safe riding in a way-bike lane adjacent to the motorized traffic lanes. I feel as if the turning cars that cut across the bike lane may not expect bicycles to come from the opposite direction. The bi-directional lane on 2nd Ave in Seattle has bike-specific lights that prohibit vehicles from cutting across the bike lane while the bike light is green, which may address my fear, but I don't think the other one, on Broadway, does.

I've also found this entry on Copenhagenize.com.

Copenhagenize.com - Bicycle Culture by Design: Explaining the Bi-directional Cycle Track Folly

So it looks to me as if two one-directional bike lanes are the preferred implementation over one bi-directional lane. This makes me wonder why Seattle decided to build those two-way bike lanes. My rational mind says there must be pros in bi-directional bike lanes. My question is, what are they? Could anyone educate me?

TIA

wphamilton

Just brainstorming: maybe with more room to maneuver it gives the cyclist more options. If they are protected lanes, it takes less space from the lanes to separate one double lane than two single ones. Also if bike lanes are thought to be disruptive, it's only on one side instead of both.

Chris516

The same width as an off-road bike-ped path, w/o the pedestrians. Still no good for any that regularly goes above 15-20mph.

dynaryder

Here in DC,we have a couple bi-directional cycle tracks. They're nice in that they let you go the other way on a one-way without using the sidewalk.

BobbyG

I agree. Cars don't expect "salmoning" cyclists coming from the "wrong" direction. On the other hand, plenty of drivers are oblivious to bikes going with traffic. I now have one two-way bike lane on one of my routes. There is little traffic, but on the way to the office I make a right hand turn across vehicular traffic and it makes me nervous. I've had one bike come at me from the opposite direction and it reminded me how narrow these lanes are.

B. Carfree

If there were no intersections or driveways, they'd be fine. We have just one of these abominations locally, although I have ridden on them elsewhere. I avoid it as best I can, but I still end up on it from time to time. Each time I ride it, I have issues with motorists entering/exiting driveways and at cross streets. Part of it is that motorists don't expect a cyclist to be riding over 20 mph, but even when I'm toodling along slowly with my spouse we have issues there. The bottom line seems to be that this is such a non-standard format that it is de facto sub-standard. In fact, that's most of the problem with the segregationist agenda.

daihard 

Thanks. They are indeed protected bike lanes, separated from the motor traffic by bollards. Having to create two buffer zones instead of one would probably have cost more, though I'm not sure by how much.

daihard 

I'd have no problem with two-way bike lanes as part of MUPs or off-road paths either, since there's little or no interaction with the motor traffic in those situations. For the on-road two-way lanes I mentioned, I don't want to ride there above 15 MPH. That'd make me feel unsafe.

Chris516

While I understand your point about there being less interaction with motorized traffic and the lanes being part of MUPs. If I am not going above 15mph, while in traffic, that would worry me.

daihard 

That's exactly what I mean. I want to ride near and above 15 MPH while in traffic, but I don't think I'd feel safe enough to do that in a two-way bike lane like the one Seattle just implemented.

genec

You pedacyclist folks do realize that not even motorists get to go as fast as they want... all the time... right?

jputnam

The newer of Seattle's two-way sidepaths, 2nd Avenue, incorporated a lot of improvements from the failed Broadway sidepath, the other one that made the "top 10 list."

2nd Ave has separate bicycle signals at intersections, with a separate signal phase so that turning motorists and through cyclists are separated in time since they share the same space in the intersection. This does mean significantly slower trip speeds for both cyclists and drivers, there are only so many seconds in each minute to divide among separate signal phases. But it does address the intersection conflicts manufactured by a two-way sidepath.

Unfortunately, driveways don't have the same controls. In its first month of operation, the 2nd Ave sidepath saw twice the previous rate of car/bike injury accidents, because of these driveway conflicts. (It didn't help that cyclists were "protected" by parked cars approaching the driveways, so they were invisible to motorists until it was too late to avoid collisions.)

SDOT has since removed more parking ahead of the driveway conflicts, so the sidepath appears no more hazardous so far than the substandard-width, wrong-side bike lane it replaced.

jputnam

Actually, if you'll check out SDOT's signs, those are bike *paths*, not bike *lanes.* It's an important legal difference, the right-of-way rules are quite different for both cyclists and motorists.

At an intersection, you're not in a lane of the street that continues through the intersection, you're on a path intersecting the street, so you're entering the street at the intersection. That puts more responsibility on the cyclist to enter the street safely than if you'd already been in the street.

Away from intersections, drivers aren't crossing a lane of the street, they're crossing a separate path. That means they aren't required to merge into the bike lane before turning, and they're under a higher responsibility to yield to any traffic on the path than if it were a lane of the street.

daihard 

Thanks! I never realized the 2nd Ave infrastructure was not considered traffic "lanes."

Now with that said, I don't feel much more inclined to use the new 2nd Ave paths, even knowing that the motor vehicles have a higher responsibility to yield to the bike traffic. I've seen cars ignoring (or missing) the bike-specific light and turning left. Before I got off the bike due to an injury, I would always ride down 3rd Ave for commute instead. Now I'm back in the saddle, I should probably try it first to see how I like it.

[ADD] Also, the distinction between "bike lanes" and "bike paths" doesn't address my question on why they chose to install a bi-directional path on 2nd Ave instead of keeping the existing one-way lane there and enhancing the other existing one-way lane on 4th Ave.

CliffordK

For an off-street "trail", then bi-directional just makes sense. Around here, the lanes are not marked.

On the street, I'm not sure. Perhaps it depends a bit on the amount of bicycle traffic, and whether there is some kind of buffer zone between cars and bikes. For space, as has been mentioned, the two lanes might require a single buffer zone, and depending on the number of cyclists, the width of the lanes might also be narrowed slightly.

I suppose, if there is a street crossing every block, I'd rather the bike lane be part of the traffic lane (and thus bidirectional is bad, except perhaps for one-way streets).
On the other hand, if there is some kind of an "express lane" that goes for 1/2 mile or more between street crossings, I'm happy to have it separate from traffic (and thus bidirectional is good).

spare_wheel

Bidirectional protected bike lanes are an attempt to build separation on the cheap and the results are often worse than "mere paint on the road". That being said, Broadway in Seattle is not a terrible design. On the other hand, 2nd Ave and the narrow bidirectional bike lanes in Montreal and Vancouver are mediocre at best and it's sad that fans of these facilities often hold them up as examples of progress.

spare_wheel

IMO, the Broadway cycle track does a far better job of intersection control than the 2nd Ave protected bike lane.

kickstart

Rather than attempting to fit a preconceived opinion to the infrastructure, I decided to ride it and form an opinion based on actual experience....Yes, a total A&S faux pas.......sorry.

Got on the Soos Creek trail in Covington north to Fairwood, headed west down into the valley then headed north on the Interurban trail in Renton, in Tukwilla I turned on to the Duwamish River trail north to Seattle, at Boeing field I cut east over to Airport way to Sodo and headed north on 1st ave, rode past the stadiums which was interesting since there was a Seahawks game in progress, got on the 2nd ave bike path at the south end and rode it north against street traffic to where the northbound lane ended, cut over to 3rd and up to Denny, headed east up Capitol hill on Denny to the Broadway bike path, went south on it to where it ends at Yesler and its semi segregated bike lane , continued on east Yesler to 20th ave to the I-90 trail, crossed the lake on east I-90 to Bellevue and went south on the Lake Washington loop trail, in Renton I got on the Ceder river trail east to Maple Valley, up the hill south to Fairwood and the Soos creek trail, and finally home. Just short of 53 miles, roughly 75% of it on trails, MUTS or paths.

I found the the bi directional paths through downtown Seattle to be easy and enjoyable to ride, the only issue was a tourist standing in the lane who moved after I tooted my horn without any drama. The bike paths supposed shortcomings are still a significant improvement over where there's no infrastructure, anybody who can't ride them safely should probally refrain from street riding in an urban environment alltogather.

I only saw one cyclist choose to not use the path on Broadway, he could ride significantly faster on some sections of road, but ultimately there was no difference as on some sections the signaling and ROW made the path more efficient and we both got to the end at the same time.
I found that 15 mph was about my comfortable limit on speed, but that wasn't really markedly slower than 3rd ave where there's no path, so again efficiency makes up for a slightly slower speed for all but the extreme kamikaze scofflaw.

No they are not "perfect", those with a glass-half-empty outlook will find fault, but my personal experience and observations of other cyclists showed me that they are a big step in the right direction

B. Carfree

There are many places where I will have a happy, carefree ride during Duck games that I don't happen to enjoy during the Friday afternoon commute. The roads near a stadium during a game are generally far different than the other 356 days per year. You seem to think the issue is the concrete and paint. It's not and never has been. It's all about motorist number and behavior. The infrastructure is just a way of attempting to bend their behavior towards sanity.

kickstart

No,
I have learned through experience that "concrete and paint" can be successfully used to improve an areas overall cycling experience by improving accessibility in challenged locations as part of the bigger picture.
I see no value in judging workable real world improvements by unobtainable utopian ideologies.

Keith99

Yea, I was thinking totally worthless for me. Actually less than worthless because motorists on those roads would get upset it I rode on the street. Permanent relegation to the kiddie pool.

kickstart

Keep in mind they are in the downtown core of Seattle with short city blocks. Path or lane, prevailing conditions are the real factor that limits speed, by the time one gets up to 20 mph its more than likely they'll be preparing to stop.
There are no mandatory use laws, and the one cyclists I saw that chose to not use it did so without any issues...or advantage.

CliffordK

Yeah, I had someone complain to me in Missouri when I jumped onto the road next to the Katy Trail (fine gravel) for a few miles of easier wheeling.

I can often hit the 15-20 MPH range, but rarely above 20 MPH.

Around here:
42nd Street, Springfield, Rails to Trails. About a half mile of off-road bike path along the side of 42nd street. I usually take it if I'm going that way. That road also has two road-side bike paths, but I'm not sure I've ever seen any other bicycle other than myself on those roadside bike paths. They aren't great paths with lots of dirt and debris. Connections to the main path are a bit of a pain, but I do prefer getting off of the main road, so they are barely tolerable.

Rosa Parks Park, Pioneer Parkway, Springfield. Another rails to trails project. It runs down the median strip of Pioneer Parkway. Quarter to half mile stretches of uninterrupted pathway. My biggest complaints are that the lights are designed for pedestrians not bicycles, and going southward, I usually like to jump off onto the street where the bus expressway crosses, just before the path starts getting crossed every block with side streets, but connections weren't designed for bikes (with a grass strip in the bus expressway). Nonetheless, it is good to get off the roads.

Alton Baker Park, Skinners Butte Park, and related bike paths THE BEST WAY TO GET FROM SPRINGFIELD TO EUGENE BY BICYCLE. This is a huge, and very convenient bike path system along the river. In some places, the bike path is as wide as 20 feet (road to bike path). Numerous sawdust trails separate many of the joggers from bicycles. And, one can go for miles without cross streets. There are at least 4 dedicated bicycle only bridges across the Willamette river. The alternative roads to these paths are just truly wicked. If going from Springfield to Eugene, 99.9% of the time, I will choose these paths.

Amazon and West 11th Paths I rarely hit that section of town, but good off-street paths for people heading that direction.

Doris Park to Jasper Road, Springfield Actually, I've only hit this one a few times. Connections onto it are a bit inconvenient. It would be nice if it was connected to the Alton Baker Park paths, but that hasn't been done yet. Nor have I found enough connections onto and off of the path.

Anyway, I would say that a well designed bicycle path system with off-street "expressway" bike paths are much preferable to on-street riding, or on-street bicycle paths.

I will comment a bit about Portland.

There are many good street-side paths.

Terwilliger One of the few roads that has both street-side paths PLUS a MUT. However, the MUT gets so hammered with foot traffic that bicycles are discouraged from using it.

Downtown Portland is interesting. Going downhill (northbound), I'd prefer being on the streets moving with the traffic. Going back uphill (southbound), streetside paths are nice.

I have hit bits and pieces of paths near the Sellwood Bridge, but it is never quite convenient. The old bridge, however, is quite narrow for riding, and even the walkway is narrow. I am hoping the new bridge will be better. I think there is a good rails to trails project in the Tacoma-Johnson Creek area, but it never had good connections (perhaps they improved it recently as it has been several years since I was down there)

A big part of this is really putting some thought into designing the paths for the needs of the bicycles (and pedestrians and joggers and dogs).

daihard 

It is crucial that we aren't required to use the 2nd Ave bike paths. If you ride southbound on 2nd Ave and need to turn right, you'd be much better off riding in the rightmost (motor traffic) lane.

daihard 

That's one of the issues I have with dedicated bike lanes / paths along the motor traffic lanes. I'd be happy to use the ones that make me feel safe riding in them, but many of the local bike lanes / paths aren't designed so that they are more dangerous to use. Yet if I choose to ride in the motor traffic lane instead of the bike lane due to its dangerous nature, it makes some motorists upset.