National Geographic "A Bicycle Bump"
 

The January, 2009 issue of National Geographic Magazine has a one-page item in the Technology department titled, "A Bicycle Bump" that refers to Portland's position as the best of bigger cities for cycling.

There is also a chart labeled, "Bike Spike" that shows an increase in the use of bike racks on buses in several U.S. cities.

Here in Atlanta that's just not true. There isn't enough physical road available to redivide and repaint. I'm not saying it's impossible to be "as bikeable as Portland" but it's going to take a lot more work. And there are a lot of people here that don't want it done.

I agree with tbdean. Seems it would take a boat load of money to make cities like Portland. Taxes would have to be raised and I doubt that's going to be acceptable anytime in the next decade.

I'm guessing only because you're limiting yourself to not reducing the number of auto lanes.

I know what you're saying though. There are a ton of 5 to 7 lane roads around here that are maxed out space-wise. To the point that they've paved over the gutter pan and run the "lane" all the way to the curb, including the now-sunken sewer grates. Riding safely means being at least 1/3 of the way over in the lane, which tends to annoy motorists. Oh well...

My commute from Lawrenceville to Alpharetta goes through this weird little town called Johns Creek. It's known for two things - 1) ALL of the doctors and dentists within 50 miles are in Johns Creek, and 2) there is only one road with more then 2 lanes that goes anywhere near it. There just aren't any roads to reduce / change to bike lanes. I haven't been here (ATL) long, maybe problems like John's Creek just kinda snuck up on them.

The cool thing is, it takes me an hour to get to work - bike or car. For some reason that makes me happy.

Now that'll create road rage for sure!

The typical eastern city has limits on infrastructure expansion. In some, the congestion is such that traffic doesn't move that fast, which makes it safer for bikes and cars to mingle. Atlanta may not be at that point (yet).

Due to de-population, some northeastern cities, like here, are able to reduce car lanes and increase bike lanes.

The nearest arterial to me was reduced from five lanes to two wide lanes with on-street parking. East Main Street was reduced last year from four to three plus bike lanes. This year another nearby arterial is getting the same treatment.

The average Atlantan drives 66 miles per day. A lot of those miles are racked up driving back and forth between city center and the outlying McMansion suburbs.

IMO, that lifestyle borders on being immoral (from an environmental perspective), and is certainly not sustainable.

My brother-in-law (an indigenous Southerner) lives in Atlanta. He's always saying he wishes General Sherman would come back and finish the job!

The question is not whether there is room in any city to allow space for bikes. The question is whether the civic leaders and the people have the determination to make the city a place that is dedicated to its citizens rather than to cars. Check out this perspective: http://tinyurl.com/7znka2 It is not easy to create change like this; it was not easy for the Dutch, and it will not be easy anywhere in this country. It is, however, worth it. It can be done.

Well, in Little Rock, bike racks on buses have been a big success. I think that making the roads bicycle friendly is a much bigger challenge. The big roads are 4 lanes, two in each direction, and there are just a couple that go any distance. The roads were built in the '20s for Model Ts and there just isn't any room to widen them.

I think we are at 400 km (240 miles) or bike paths, bike lanes, and recreational trails here in Edmonton and we plan on increasing our bicycle infrastructure by over 100% and equipping every bus with bike racks.

Not bad for a city that spends a good deal of it's time buried under snow.

Ridership here is way up (we hit 1% or 25,000 trips per day this summer) but we have a long ways to go to come close to Portland's ridership of 6-7 %.

I agree. People have to rethink how they live entirely. Even if you live in the 'burbs, biking can be a viable alternative in many locations for running errands and getting to commuter/subway stations.

In addition, DC hasn't had too many problems increasing bike infrastructure. Like all major cities, DC is old and lacks room for expanding anything. It just takes some common sense and redesigning with bikes in mind. It's all about re-balancing things. Right now, the scales are tipped far too much towards automobile transportation. That needs to change for environmental and health reasons.

we have 1.1 million bike boardings a year

I'm not sure it would be enough, but if more city council members and traffic engineers were active cyclists themselves there could at least be a kernel of local interest in supporting creative multi-modal commuting solutions. I think though it will truly take a quantum change in public perceptions to invest in alternate solutions for the our long-held habit of adding extra lanes of asphalt to feed our national car. It is insane how waist-ful our society has become (that's not a typo.) I can't remember where I saw a recent statistical graphic chart showing several different nations obesity rates in comparison to the use of public transportation, including cycling. I needn't tell you where the U.S. was positioned on that graph.

Our city council is attempting to plan for an infrastructure that would support a lot more cycling commuters. But part of the trick is deciding on how best to implement. Some groups would like to see "bicycle highways", while others would like to see existing lanes changed over to bike lanes. I think it requires a hard look at local conditions to come up with a good solution.

One thing that should be implemented, however, is a good introduction to riding on roads for all cyclists and certainly something of the same for motorists viz-a-viz cyclists.

Whatever happens, it seems like a good portion of future federal project money will be diverted to cycling infrastructure,:thumb:

I learned about "road diets" reading our local transpo plan. One tidbit was that a typical, modern 4-lane undivided street has 15-foot wide lanes and no bicycle provision. One possible "road diet" solution is to restripe the road with a center "left-turn only" lane, one lane each way for through motor traffic, and then the outside lanes for bicycle traffic. Contrary to perception, this arrangement was shown to improve motor traffic flow, since it reduced the necessity of waiting behind left-turning traffic.

Another idea is simply to restripe to 12 or even 10 foot lane widths, adding room on the edges for bikes. The narrower lanes have a calming effect on the traffic, too.

This kind of paint-engineering is a lot more affordable than building seperate bike infrastructure. Estimates from the same transpo plan place restriping a 4 mile stretch near me at about $60-70,000, but building a separated "bikeway" (MUP) at closer to $2 million. Still, I predict the MUP will be built, because it follows what the city has done elsewhere, and because the cost of it can be levied on future developers of the affected land. (Local provision is that "new developments" will incorporate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.)

video from Groningen
 

For those who haven't seen such a design in action, check out the video from Groningen that's available on Youtube as well as Google Video

Thank you for that. Seems so simple to me, but I didn't want to be the one to point that out.

I think of it as a bike lane that cars can use. :thumb:

..... then get the motorists used to doing 50 mph to tool along politely at 8mph behind bicyclists, and those last two posters truly would have a revolutionary idea!

as it stands, that grand unaccomodation plan for bicyclists (coming from other bicyclists) is quite reprehensible.

With a mildly beneficent city council and a few bike lanes here and there, I find Fort Worth to be a great place to ride a bike. It's virtually the same size as Portland (and may pass it in the next census). The reason I think bikes get along so well on the city streets around here? Simple- there just aren't that many bikes.

While I encourage people I know to ride because I think there are real benefits to doing so, I kind of like that bikes are fairly rare around here. Because they are, cars tend to give cyclists ample space because we are such anomalies to them.

I don't know that this is good or bad, it just is.

I wish it could be done here in Detroit ! But I will give you 10 to 1 it a never happen .....

Using the right-hand lane as a "biking lane"
 

We've got a street on one side of a big college campus downtown that's striped with four lanes (no middle turn lane though). I've found that using the right-hand lane as a "biking lane" works pretty well; motorists just move all the way over into the left-hand lane to pass.

It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper for people to learn to share the road than to have to build an entire new bike-specific infrastructure, dontcha think? In case you haven't noticed, the days of easy funny money (credit) growing on trees to fund every tom, dick and project are about over. From here on out, if cyclists want cycling specific infrastructure, they had better be including a funding plan along with their request.

IMO, new and innovative ways to use, share and modify the infrastructure we already have is gonna be the best and most cost effective way to make cities more cycling friendly going forward.