|
Not surprisingly, many of the folks on this forum aren't the target users for bicycle infrastructure improvements. There are plenty of methods to evaluate the suitability of a roadway for biking. Bicycle Level of Service, Bicycle Compatibility Index, Bicycle Level of Comfort are all examples of these methods. Many of these approaches map the classification of a roadway's bikeabiltity to a user type. Municipalities typically seek to improve condition for the widest segment of type, sometimes called the 'Interested but Concerned' group. To improve comfort for this group, multi-use pathways, physically-separated cycletrack, striped bicycle lanes are all ways to achieve this.
This main issue is that these initiatives are almost always an afterthought for roadway transportation planners and engineers who focus on moving the greatest volume of vehicular traffic over a certain segment as quickly as possible with the fewest conflicts. Bicyclist improvements are often driven by bike/ped advocacy groups. In my experience, it is rare that roadway operators seek out improvements for bicyclists. It's also pretty typical to install infrastructure improvements iteratively.
NACTO has put out a number of resources that suggest design elements for typical roadway attributes. For instance, a section of the Urban Bikeway Design Guide specifically mentions 'blending lanes' for use as physically-separated bike lanes meet intersections, (especially those with a high percentage of left-turning motorized traffic.)
From my personal perspective, I have definitely gotten harassed less frequently after the city I live in installed bike lanes, shared lane markings, RRFBs, and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signage. When it comes down to it, I'm going to ride in the manner that I feel most comfortable.
|