Bike lane design

[rpm]

We have lots of bike lanes in the Twin Cities where the lane is on the outside of parked cars and the parking is next to the curb. But we now have one in downtown Minneapolis where the bike lane is next to the curb and the cars park between the traffic lane and the bike lane.

City planners all seem to think this new style lane is a big improvement, but I hate it. I'm curious as to what you all think.

In one short ride, I experienced:
--cars parked crooked and encroaching on the lane
--people walking in the lane
--a large woman opening the passenger side door in front of me
--a guy rolling cases of beer off his truck into the lane
--a hipster riding the wrong way in the lane
--a right-turning car cutting me off

When you're between the curb and the parked cars, you can't go around any of these things. You either have to slow down or stop. Having turners cut you off stems from being hard to see. The parked cars keep you from being seen by drivers, so they don't know you're there when they turn

Who are the geniuses who came up this design? Is it catching on in other cities?

[MattTuck]

Who are the geniuses who came up this design? Is it catching on in other cities?

They probably took bike lane design 101 in college, but have never ridden a bike.

As far as I'm concerned, consider it a ****ty implementation of a good concept. That is, I'm not one to look at any municipal investment in bike infrastructure as a bad thing. But this is like Jim Crow for cyclists.

Separate but equal.... you have all the rights of a normal vehicle, just go over away from us.

How do you make a left turn?


And from a pure safety perspective, one of the things I (and presumable most of you) learned when riding a bike was to have bail out options no matter where you are. You never ride at the edge of the pavement because if there's a hazard, and a car is coming behind you, you have no where to go.

It sounds like they've literally created a trench (between cars on one side) and a curb on the other that is impossible to get out of if a hazard appears in front of you.

I'd be unhappy about it too.

[cmg]

is the only thing seperating the parking lane from the bike is a painted stripe or a curb? if it's a painted stripe it will soon become the parking zone. great way to get boxed in.

[fiamme red]

Who are the geniuses who came up this design? Is it catching on in other cities?Yes, it's being forced on us on all avenues here by the "genius" in charge of the NYC DOT (Jeanette Sadik-Khan), despite the opposition of local businesses (it makes loading and unloading very awkward), and despite the fact that these lanes are empty most of the time (for one thing, experienced cyclists avoid them). I don't ride in these bike lanes, but in a car lane instead, and get shouts of "Get in the bike lane!" all the time now.

[fiamme red]

But this is like Jim Crow for cyclists.

Separate but equal.... you have all the rights of a normal vehicle, just go over away from us.They think of us more as pedestrians on wheels, who should be sharing an extended sidewalk, than as vehicles.

[rugbysecondrow]

Jim Crow...way to use a historically colorful term. Planning folks do the best they can to seek compromise, but I would look at your local advocacy groups or those who liason with the local governments. It seems that somebody was sleeping on this issue during the multitude of public meetings that likely preceeded this implementation. Time to stop bitching and start organizing. If you don't participate or provide positive input, then you ought not complain about an inferior output.

[torquer]

:cool: Yes, it's being forced on us on all avenues here by the "genius" in charge of the NYC DOT (Jeanette Sadik-Khan), despite the opposition of local businesses (it makes loading and unloading very awkward), and despite the fact that these lanes are empty most of the time (for one thing, experienced cyclists avoid them). I don't ride in these bike lanes, but in a car lane instead, and get shouts of "Get in the bike lane!" all the time now.
The NYC chapter of the American Institute of Architects had a discussion earlier this month where NYC DOT, City Planning & Transportation Alternatives (a private advocacy group) presented largely overlapping Powerpoints showing what progress had been made in making the city "bike-friendly" and what was planned.

I was skeptical, expecting a bunch of crunchy-granola types with utopian visions, but went anyway (besides, I need the continuing education credit offered).

The curb-side bike lane was presented as a great advance over the previous (and still standard, outside NYC) design between parked cars and traffic; the hazards of opening driver-side doors, plus the encroachment by double-parkers (not to mention moving traffic) are obvious problems in crowded urban settings, and the curb-side lane, while not perfect, helps a bunch!
Remember, the city's goal in bike improvements is to increase bike ridership from 1% of trips to 10% (both an awesome increase for NYC but far from Amsterdam's numbers), not to cater to "enthusiasts," who for the most part were OK riding in traffic anyway. Go ahead, but don't disparage measures that will make a lot more occasional riders more comfortable using their bikes for local trips.

Bike lane design aside, I was impressed by the city's commitment to integrating bike and mass transit; the lack of secure bike parking at transit stops is one of those hidden problems that can be addressed fairly easily (and that local merchants, at least as reported by the presenters, actually appreciate, even if one or two auto parking spaces are lost.) Bike racks on busses would be nice, sure, but these folks were realists, too. (And express busses can take bikes in the luggage area! Who knew?)

Anyway, despite my natural pessimism (about government, cycling in the city, life in general), I came away felling pretty good about the city's efforts. At least until the next mayoral election. :cool:

[thegunner]

there was also the proposal on the UWS of a center of the road design for a bike lane, where you'd be offset by medians on both sides. i actually really liked this idea for NYC, but it seems it didn't catch on as much as the cars / parked cars / lane idea.

[MattTuck]

:cool:


The curb-side bike lane was presented as a great advance over the previous (and still standard, outside NYC) design between parked cars and traffic; the hazards of opening driver-side doors, plus the encroachment by double-parkers (not to mention moving traffic) are obvious problems in crowded urban settings, and the curb-side lane, while not perfect, helps a bunch!
Remember, the city's goal in bike improvements is to increase bike ridership from 1% of trips to 10% (both an awesome increase for NYC but far from Amsterdam's numbers), not to cater to "enthusiasts," who for the most part were OK riding in traffic anyway. Go ahead, but don't disparage measures that will make a lot more occasional riders more comfortable using their bikes for local trips.



Agreed about the occasional riders comment. And as i said in a previous comment, I'm happy when any municipality invests in biking infrastructure. But still, to increase from 1% to 10%... that means about a 10x increase in bike infrastructure (assuming same capacity utilization as today). The reality is, they hope that once the infrastructure is there, usage will scale.

And, here's the thing about those curb bike lanes, they're not scalable. There is no way to pass the person in front of you (and yes, even occasional riders ride at different speeds, and don't want to be caught behind a Herby).

So, then you face the question: What's the next evolution (assuming more people want to start riding) of these curb lanes? Make them wider and push the parked cars even further away from the curb? Eliminate parking on one side of the street entirely? If they are effective in increasing biking, they'll be victims of their own success because they've solved a long term problem with a short term solution.

The laws in virtually every city of the US treat bikes equally as vehicles just like cars. Cycling infrastructure should be complementary to, not in opposition of, that equivalence. (that means passing, turning left, etc.)

Atleast if a car is double parked in a normal bike lane, you can go around it. If a curb lane is blocked, you're pretty much screwed.

But hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

I'm also a student of evolution and survival of the fittest. and for that to work, you need some new ideas to be implemented and tried. MAYBE they'll be better. In the spirit of the great experiment, I look forward to seeing results.

[Ray]

Bike lanes on either side of a parking lane present their own set of problems. But the potential problems and risks associated with putting the bike lane between the cars and the sidewalk are a lot less lethal than those with bike lanes on the traffic side of the parking. In either case, if someone parks in or otherwise obstructs the lane, there will be inconvenience and this will happen regardless.

But the bigger problem is the whole "dooring" issue where someone opens the door into the path of an approaching cyclist. If you're riding along the passenger side of the car, there will be far fewer car doors opened in your path because every car has a driver but too damn few of them have passengers as well. So your odds are better on the passenger side. And then, if the door DOES open in your path and you have to take evasive action, if you're on the driver side, you basically swerve into traffic and risk getting run over (which happens from time to time - we've all seen the stories). If you're on the passenger side, you swerve and either avoid everything or at worst, crash onto the sidewalk - painful and dangerous and inconvenient, but very very rarely fatal! So I see a lot of rationale for this approach if you're going to put bike lanes in the city.

Arguably, for experienced cyclists comfortable with traffic, there's no need for bike lanes at all. When I'm riding in an urban area with relatively short blocks, I tend to just take my place in traffic and become another vehicle. I'm not really holding anyone up and I'm dealing with the same obstacles and pains in the ass that every other driver is. But the point of bike lanes is for those who aren't comfortable with traffic and won't ride otherwise. And, like 'em or not, they WORK in getting more people out on bikes. Philly has done a pretty aggressive job of adding bike lane miles and its had a dramatic effect on how many people get around by bike. And, ultimately, the most important thing that makes cyclists safer on the road is having MORE cyclists on the road and having drivers get used to and comfortable with us being there. And bike lanes, for all of their faults, have been very successful in this regard almost everywhere they've been put in. The biggest problem is that when there are bike lanes, sometimes cyclists are required to ride in them or drivers THINK we are and then its a problem for the experienced cyclist who's better off riding in the lanes with the cars.

So hold your damn fire for a minute. We planners (I'm kind of an ex, but its still sort of in my blood) are not all idiots - in fact I've only met a few that were idiots as far as I could tell. Its about tradeoffs - what doesn't work really well for the experienced cyclist might work REALLY well for the inexperienced, frightened potential cyclist. And getting those folks on the road in greater numbers is ultimately good for ALL of us, experienced and not, cyclists and not.

-Ray

[torquer]

Good points, Matt, although I don't see that a ten-fold usage increase requires a ten-fold increase in infrastucture; after all, one criticism of bike paths (of any design) is their under utilization in all but the rarest cases.

I would propose looking at bike paths as transitional tools, which enable ridership to increase to a critical point where bikes become "normal' traffic, and where bike riders are treated as having equal rights to all traffic lanes. But it will take more than just us lycra-clad die-hards swerving around taxis and delivery trucks to get to that done.

The NYCAIA presenters mentioned the examples of Copenhagen and Amsterdam a few times, but with caution (I said they were realists, right?)
In those cases, bike lanes were a response to heavy use, complete with their own traffic signals. They even suffered their own congestion! And a photo of a huge bike parking area in one of those cities drew gasps from the audience. But the more general lesson to be learned from Europe is that biking is safer because it is more familiar to drivers, who therefore share the road without being prompted. This is a goal we should be working towards, though it may be more difficult, ultimately, than painting some lines on the pavement and installing some bike racks.

[flydhest]

I personally would rather have the lane near the traffic, but I agree with some that have posted that it is not a clearly stupid design to have the bike lane "guarded" from traffic. I think that is the point. I think of the average joes who would possibly be on a hybrid or city bike to do short trips, but don't because they do not want to ride in traffic. I don't really blame them, I'm not one of them. I love urban riding and really don't care if there are bike lanes or not . . . for me. For some of the doughy bureaucrat-types here here at work who have expressed interest, but trepidation, about biking to work, it sort of seems like a plausible solution.

Here in DC, I'm going from uber-skeptic about cranial-rectal planning (they had their heads in their . . . ) to seeing that the planning is coming together. In most places we have the curb-parking-bike lane set up and now there are more and more miles linked together. On a one-way street, however, there is a whole right hand lane with big signs everywhere that say "bikes may use whole lane" and on the other side, a so-called "contraflow" lane that is the curb-bike lane-parking arrangement with bike traffic going against the one-way car traffic.

One thing I will say about the OP's point, though, is that parking s/he refers to seems to be parallel parking and having the passengers' doors next to the bike lane is dangerous. Drivers opening into traffic look for oncoming traffic about 3 times in 10 from my casual observation. I would be shocked if passengers ever do.

[uno-speedo]

I saw this system for the first time in Budapest, Hungary last month. From my brief observations the causal rider would take the bike lane whilst the more pro level cyclists i.e. you and me ;) would just take the road. Although I did see on a few occasions cyclists able to pass one another whilst in the bike lane.

[Benjamin]

i've been riding and commuting in NYC for about 14 years now, and i gotta say that for all the points one could nitpick, the new bike facilities are pretty great.

back when i started riding, the bridge bike paths were terrible, all potholed and cracked, and many had flights of stairs on one or both ends. there were only a couple of on-street bike lanes, and they ran 4-5 block stretches, then abruptly ended.

there were very few bikes on the road, and the only riders were gritty guys who were not afraid to thread the needle between two busses at 25 mph or skitch off a box truck for a few blocks to get out of traffic. this cemented the image of cycling in the city as something for "crazy" people with a deathwish.

back then, i was one of only a handful of people i knew who had a bike, and the only person who rode more than once every few months, never mind every day. the people who rode were almost forced into dangerous behavior at times, and that has not helped the image that city cycling still has. (and i fully admit that i've done some very bad things on bikes, blown tens of thousands of lights and stop signs, cut people off, buzzed by peds, and many other things that current me would wave my mental cane at).

anyway - now almost everyone i know has a bike, or wants one, it's largely due to the bloomberg/JSK bike infrastructure movement, and no matter how i reason it, i can't see how that's a bad thing.

sure there are problems with some of the lanes - take a ride on the broadway bike lane through midtown. 50th down to 30th are basically unrideable. there are so many pedestrians, strollers, delivery guys, etc occupying the space.

i feel like this is, in part, because it's a new creation, and by nature, people are drawn to any open space (which says something about NYC's need for more car-free public space). as cycling increases, more bikes fill the lanes at more times, and it really becomes the norm (and we can stop using terms like "enthusiast" and "cyclist"), things will work themselves out.

conservative media outlets representing "old world" NYC views love to quote the angry driver, or the pessimist who says that this will never work because "this is new york" or "things never change" or whatever, but suddenly and forcefully has always been the best way to get things done in this city. design by committee (or by city council) generally fails to produce timely or satisfactory results. when a bureaucrat bangs his or her fist, stuff gets done. sometimes you like it, sometimes you don't.

i use these lanes regularly, as do many of my friends. my girlfriend, who had never ridden in her life and was previously scared of city streets, decided to get a bike and now rides to work, from brooklyn to manhattan, regularly.

for hardened riders user to the city, bike lanes mean slowing down a bit and losing some of that agro edge, but it'll benefit everyone in the long run.

[rpm]

I'm reviving this thread because a cyclist was killed yesterday in the very bike lane that I was ranting about:

http://www.startribune.com/local/105714093.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUi D3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU

Killed by a right-turning car, which is the concern I had because when the lane is inside of parked cars, turning cars can't see you as well.

Actually the city has made changes which I thought would help alleviate my concerns--they added a small buffer zone between the cars and the lane, flexible plastic poles to mark the edge of the lane, and a space at intersections where cars can't park. I was ready to pronounce the bike lane fixed, but yesterday's incident makes me not so sure. I think I'm going to avoid it in the future.

[John M]

That is terrible!

I live in Seattle, and the city is improving bike lanes/signage, but one issue I am concerned about is that with a designated bike lane, cyclists may be forced to use that "facility" (the word that is used to describe such things here) and not allowed to use the rest of the road. This would be bad for cyclists as in the case your lane when the designated bike space is not very safe.

[fiamme red]

i feel like this is, in part, because it's a new creation, and by nature, people are drawn to any open space (which says something about NYC's need for more car-free public space). as cycling increases, more bikes fill the lanes at more times, and it really becomes the norm (and we can stop using terms like "enthusiast" and "cyclist"), things will work themselves out.For your information, cycling in NYC was actually slightly down in the last year, despite all the new bike lanes that have been foisted upon us by Sadik-Khan.

http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/2009_bike_small.pdf

The new separated bike lanes are empty most of the time, no matter what DOT propaganda says. And that's even in nice weather; in the winter, they're totally empty except the delivery guys.

[Ti Designs]

They probably took bike lane design 101 in college, but have never ridden a bike.

This is the issue with just about everything cycling related. People see cycling as simple, where you don't need to ride a bike to understand everything about it. In most cases people get insulted if you tell them otherwise base on experience.

The new bike lanes make for a good example as they go against what the experienced riders do - and nobody at the planning board seemed to notice this. Experienced riders do what they do and ride where they ride from real world experience - I'm not saying it's always right, but on average it's better than what someone who doesn't ride would come up with in on their own.

Being fall time, my frustration is about winter clothing - it's somewhat related as an issue. The people who make the clothing, who market the clothing and who sell the clothing often don't ride. Much like the city planners who make decisions about bike paths without every turning a pedal, they take what the experienced riders know and toss it out.

I can boil all this down to one simple concept. Anyone who is an expert on something based on their title, not their experience is really an idiot posing as an expert.

[fiamme red]

This is the issue with just about everything cycling related. People see cycling as simple, where you don't need to ride a bike to understand everything about it. In most cases people get insulted if you tell them otherwise base on experience.

The new bike lanes make for a good example as they go against what the experienced riders do - and nobody at the planning board seemed to notice this. Experienced riders do what they do and ride where they ride from real world experience - I'm not saying it's always right, but on average it's better than what someone who doesn't ride would come up with in on their own.

Being fall time, my frustration is about winter clothing - it's somewhat related as an issue. The people who make the clothing, who market the clothing and who sell the clothing often don't ride. Much like the city planners who make decisions about bike paths without every turning a pedal, they take what the experienced riders know and toss it out.

I can boil all this down to one simple concept. Anyone who is an expert on something based on their title, not their experience is really an idiot posing as an expert.Well said. It's obvious that the people who design bike infrastructure in NYC (and elsewhere) don't ride bikes. They think that the greatest danger to cyclists is getting hit from behind, so they segregate cyclists into narrow and unrideable lanes (usually full of pedestrians and wrong-way cyclists).