Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists(bicycletimesmag.com)
bicycletimesmag.com
Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists
http://bicycletimesmag.com/if-you-build-it-they-will-ride-pop-up-bike-lanes-prove-that-demand-exists/
145 comments
Amsterdam has figured it out for sure. They even have parking garages for bikes only and they're full. The city is a great reference for others looking to go a similar route. Painting lines on streets can showcase demand, which is smart because you need to validate your product/project with minimal cost. Long term, dedicated lanes are needed, for safety, and someone has to pay for them.
> anyone can do the same, anywhere.
I love Holland and I love biking but you guys have it easy compared to, say, Seattle where I live part-time. The hills make it a very different problem. I bike a lot but will still drive/uber when I can't deal with being crazy sweaty for a meeting or something.
I was very disappointed when they decided NOT to install electric bikes in the bike share system here. Electric bikes are the only way you'll get the ridership numbers needed in a place with the topography of Seattle. I also suspect it rains more in Seattle than Holland.
I love Holland and I love biking but you guys have it easy compared to, say, Seattle where I live part-time. The hills make it a very different problem. I bike a lot but will still drive/uber when I can't deal with being crazy sweaty for a meeting or something.
I was very disappointed when they decided NOT to install electric bikes in the bike share system here. Electric bikes are the only way you'll get the ridership numbers needed in a place with the topography of Seattle. I also suspect it rains more in Seattle than Holland.
AFAICT Seattle has fewer hills than Aarhus, Denmark. 47% of commutes in Aarhus are done by bicycle.
It also does not appear to rain more in Seattle than in, say, Amsterdam:
https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainfall-Tem... https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainfall-Tem...
This is a cultural and legacy infrastructure problem mostly.
https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainfall-Tem... https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainfall-Tem...
This is a cultural and legacy infrastructure problem mostly.
I'm pretty sure Seattle has much more severe hills, though. Just look at Google Maps for each city with the terrain on:
Aarhus: https://www.google.de/maps/place/Aarhus,+Denmark/@56.1613594...
Seattle: https://www.google.de/maps/place/Seattle,+WA,+USA/@47.607081...
That said,
* Electric bikes are making this less important over time
* A lot of trips can still be done without hitting severe hills
* It's possible to deal with hills by installing bike escalators (there's one in Trondheim that seems to work well) if you're really serious
Aarhus: https://www.google.de/maps/place/Aarhus,+Denmark/@56.1613594...
Seattle: https://www.google.de/maps/place/Seattle,+WA,+USA/@47.607081...
That said,
* Electric bikes are making this less important over time
* A lot of trips can still be done without hitting severe hills
* It's possible to deal with hills by installing bike escalators (there's one in Trondheim that seems to work well) if you're really serious
I'm a biker in Boston; I cycle 5 miles to work and 5 miles home on a daily basis. I think the city is doing an amazing job with what they are given but so many of the roads are just too narrow for dedicated bike lanes. Most streets have "sharrows" which is great but honestly what it comes down to is a lack of understanding on how to share the road. I'm constantly honked and shouted at for commanding full use of the driving lane when no bike lane is present, which is perfectly legal but often results in aggression from drivers. I've even had cars tailgate me and hit my back tire with their car.
> so many of the roads are just too narrow for dedicated bike lanes
If a road is wide enough to drive speeds that are dangerous to cyclists it's wide enough to put a cycle lane. Cycle lanes aren't nearly as wide as people think, and car lanes aren't nearly as narrow as people think.
If a road is wide enough to drive speeds that are dangerous to cyclists it's wide enough to put a cycle lane. Cycle lanes aren't nearly as wide as people think, and car lanes aren't nearly as narrow as people think.
It is pretty frustrating to be forced to go 10 MPH on a 30 MPH road. The roads also aren't designed for traffic to go 20 MPH slower than it ought to be, traffic starts to build up, causing more delays and frustration. I think we should be more accommodating of bikers, but asking them to share the road and be treated the same as cars is not the answer.
I mean, if we're talking about Boston then the roads weren't originally designed for cars either: they were created for horse drawn carriages.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dcr/pe/historic-parkways/4d72bd...
They have been engineered to accommodate cars, so now they're undergoing a renovation for bikes.
They have been engineered to accommodate cars, so now they're undergoing a renovation for bikes.
> so now they're undergoing a renovation for bikes.
Good! Renovate them to accommodate bikes. That's great, do more of that. But "sharing the road" is a terrible solution, which leads to the honks and dangerous situations the OP described. Neither the biker nor the drivers in the OP's post are in the wrong. It's just a really terrible situation that really should not happen.
Good! Renovate them to accommodate bikes. That's great, do more of that. But "sharing the road" is a terrible solution, which leads to the honks and dangerous situations the OP described. Neither the biker nor the drivers in the OP's post are in the wrong. It's just a really terrible situation that really should not happen.
> Neither the biker nor the driver in the OP's post are in the wrong
In the OP's situation, the drivers that exhibit aggressive and dangerous behavior are clearly in the wrong. You could argue that their frustration is understandable, but their behavior is certainly wrong.
In the OP's situation, the drivers that exhibit aggressive and dangerous behavior are clearly in the wrong. You could argue that their frustration is understandable, but their behavior is certainly wrong.
So is the guy who steals an unlocked bike. What are you going to do? You're going to not create that situation in the first place. You're going to use a bike lock. "Share the road" is a dumb solution, as evidenced by the OP. It simply does not work. Find another solution.
To be clear: you think that someone stealing an unlocked bike is not "in the wrong"?
I agree I phrased that poorly. My point is humans are predictable. If you leave an unlocked bike, it will get stolen. Yes, it's the thief's fault and the thief is wrong, but you could have done something to avoid it, too.
Sounds like you're really stretching here.
Share the road works fine as a solution without dramatically overhauling current infrastructure. Just don't be a mean driver.
Share the road works fine as a solution without dramatically overhauling current infrastructure. Just don't be a mean driver.
So do you have a solution in mind, or are you asking for one? If the latter, then it's simple: narrower lanes. If you make the lanes 9ft wide in each direction, I promise that you will never again be delayed by the speed of bikers, though the bikers may find themselves upset about motor vehicle speeds being too low.
Sharing the road is dangerous with dangerous, aggressive drivers. Tailgating and bumping bikers is the fault of the driver, not an unavoidable consequence of sharing the road.
So why does it happen, and how do you propose to solve this? Complain on the Internet? Shake your first at those damn angry drivers? Something something driver's education? I mean, this is a real problem. "Share the road" doesn't work, and complaining on the Internet isn't going to suddenly fix it.
What doesn't work about it? The only thing that doesn't seem to be working is that some people feel entitled to go as fast as they can get away with all the time.
It works fine if people adjust their expectations. Cyclists in the way rarely cause real stretches of backed up traffic. Your average speed might go down slightly, big whoop.
It works fine if people adjust their expectations. Cyclists in the way rarely cause real stretches of backed up traffic. Your average speed might go down slightly, big whoop.
It seems like fining and, if necessary, revoking the drivers licenses of dangerously aggressive drivers might be a simple way of solving the problem, no? Sharing public goods is be the norm in other areas of society; why not on the road?
You can't legislate away a cultural problem. See the drug wars, anti discrimination laws, and others. If we're going to be so cheap that we can't add bicycle infrastructure then we need to at least fund a public awareness campaign and possibly start teaching our kids about it.
>You can't legislate away a cultural problem.
[Lots of places beg to differ](https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/dutch-kids-have-different-r...).
You can't bully people into being good, but there are lots of nudges like education and more thoughtful design that can move culture to work better.
[Lots of places beg to differ](https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/dutch-kids-have-different-r...).
You can't bully people into being good, but there are lots of nudges like education and more thoughtful design that can move culture to work better.
You are right. I guess I should have said "you can't punish away a cultural problem." Using legislation to change the culture itself can certainly work if done right.
Although your examples are valid, there are many counter-examples: see increasingly-stringent enforcement of anti drunken-driving laws since the 1970s. Although drunken driving does still occur, it's vastly more uncommon than it was before we began legitimately enforcing the laws we have.
Honking and running your car in to someone because you're mad at them for legally using the road is hardly in the right
Wait, you mean drivers deliberately hitting a biker with their car are not in the wrong?
Heheh, I feel like I'm making my point poorly :) The driver is in a 3000 pound vehicle capable of accelerating from 5 MPH to 60 MPH in a couple of seconds. The biker is an unprotected human capable of traveling 10, maybe 20 MPH as an absolute maximum. My point is that these two objects cannot share traffic on a US street that is designed for cars traveling 30 MPH for more than a brief period of time.
If they do share that traffic lane, bad things will happen. Humans will make bad decisions, because humans are dumb and fallible. My point is that situation should not occur in the first place. It's engineered to fail, and sure enough, it does.
If they do share that traffic lane, bad things will happen. Humans will make bad decisions, because humans are dumb and fallible. My point is that situation should not occur in the first place. It's engineered to fail, and sure enough, it does.
Better to leave the car out of it then. After all, Boston's narrow winding streets aren't designed to accomodate them.
The only people that will make bad decisions are the aggressive angry drivers, which should be removed from the road ways for the benefit of all innocent people.
Well, that's obviously not true. I've seen bicyclists.
Maybe speed limits should be reduced to 25 MPH within cities (a la NYC).
20mph is a nice magic number for speed limits. That's the maximum speed where a collision with a pedestrian is highly unlikely to be fatal.
In Boston city traffic, bikes move faster than cars. The city speed limit is 25 mph, and most narrow roads with sharrows the typical traffic speed is much lower.
Source: Bikes daily in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville on a bike share bike. Passes cars the entire way.
Source: Bikes daily in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville on a bike share bike. Passes cars the entire way.
We need to figure out a harmonious scenario, sharing the road is absolutely the answer right now because the road is all we have to work with at the moment.
In a perfect for me world the CBD would have zero cars and everyone would be on bikes, foot or mobility devices after they parked on the CBD fringe carparks or caught public transport in.
That will never happen.
So the next best step for me is dedicated bike lanes separated with enough room for everyone.
More likely, but not everywhere is getting this right or has enough space.
So what we have to work with until something better arives is what we have now. Cyclists don't want this any more than you do but this is what we have and we would just appreciate some understanding. I try to get out of the way as soon as it is safe and I make sure I am at least trying to keep pace. I have never had cars behind me for more than 30 seconds and I honestly don't think that's much to ask for my safety and ability to get to work. If I were in a car you would be stuck behind me the whole way and then I would take your parking spot.
In a perfect for me world the CBD would have zero cars and everyone would be on bikes, foot or mobility devices after they parked on the CBD fringe carparks or caught public transport in.
That will never happen.
So the next best step for me is dedicated bike lanes separated with enough room for everyone.
More likely, but not everywhere is getting this right or has enough space.
So what we have to work with until something better arives is what we have now. Cyclists don't want this any more than you do but this is what we have and we would just appreciate some understanding. I try to get out of the way as soon as it is safe and I make sure I am at least trying to keep pace. I have never had cars behind me for more than 30 seconds and I honestly don't think that's much to ask for my safety and ability to get to work. If I were in a car you would be stuck behind me the whole way and then I would take your parking spot.
I actually take the bus most places, I only drive once or twice a week, to the grocery store or so. I have no real skin in this game. In my experience, and in the OP's experience, "share the road" is a dumb, dangerous solution that leaves everyone unhappy. Bikers should refuse to put up with it. Demand real lanes.
The vast majority of advocacy groups do demand real lanes.
The thing, I want to commute to work today. Do I just stay home and yell at politicians until a lane is built? Or do I legally use the existing roadways?
The thing, I want to commute to work today. Do I just stay home and yell at politicians until a lane is built? Or do I legally use the existing roadways?
I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for you. I'm just frustrated that all of these threads end up tilting at the "damn drivers!!!!" windmill instead of blaming the actual problem, which is trying to combine car and bike traffic, which cannot be done on most US roads as currently designed.
If we could magically re-do all of the existing infrastructure overnight, then that would be a good solution. But since it's impossible to re-build all roads to have dedicated bike lanes, cyclists will have to use the road at some point.
And once there is the precedent that cyclists ride only in dedicated bike lanes, then you've limited the area that cyclists can ride to dense, affluent areas that have the demand and money for dedicated bike lanes.
And once there is the precedent that cyclists ride only in dedicated bike lanes, then you've limited the area that cyclists can ride to dense, affluent areas that have the demand and money for dedicated bike lanes.
I think "frustrating" is the key word here. My subjective impression is that in the US drivers hate slowing down for bikes more than they hate slowing down for something else, like a car parking or a garbage truck. I think the perception that bikes are dangerous and slow down traffic exceeds the reality. It's about culture, the feeling that bikes don't belong in the road and shouldn't be accommodated in any way.
I'd have more sympathy for your position if auto drivers didn't seem to think they owned the road, margins, turn lanes and basically anything else that isn't a building.
Shared space doesn't mean "shared with other auto drivers only."
Shared space doesn't mean "shared with other auto drivers only."
Okay, so why doesn't it work? You can complain about drivers all you like, but fundamentally car traffic and bike traffic are incompatible. You can't expect a driver traveling at 30 MPH on a 30 MPH road to suddenly and calmly accept that they are now traveling 10 MPH because of the guy in front of them. Swap the biker for a driver going 20 MPH under the speed limit and you're looking at a road rage situation. Sharing the road is a terrible solution. It doesn't work.
Must be so difficult for them sitting down in a temperature controlled environment with audio entertainment burning massive amounts of non-renewable energy while taking up much more than their own width in space in an already cramped urban environment. I'm really feeling for the driver here. It's definitely the cyclist causing all the congestion in the first place.
I most certainly can expect that of them. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If they can't follow the rules of the road then they should not be driving. That's like saying you can't expect a car driving 30MPH to have to stop because their a person in the crosswalk in front of them, pedestrians crossing streets is a situation engineered to fail.
If we view them as incompatible then the solution is rather obvious but to the disadvantage of the car traffic. The current cooperation between bike traffic and car traffic is to allow bike traffic without disrupting existing car traffic.
For roads where there is street parking you simply dedicate that for bike lanes and force car owners to use the more expensive parking houses. This influence the commercial flow a bit unless the space between parking houses is minimal in commercial districts.
In proportion to bike ownership you also need to remake roads which are too narrow and make them dedicated bike lanes. The proportionality clause here is really important to balance the interest of both groups if we want to view roads as incompatible to be used by both.
For roads where there is street parking you simply dedicate that for bike lanes and force car owners to use the more expensive parking houses. This influence the commercial flow a bit unless the space between parking houses is minimal in commercial districts.
In proportion to bike ownership you also need to remake roads which are too narrow and make them dedicated bike lanes. The proportionality clause here is really important to balance the interest of both groups if we want to view roads as incompatible to be used by both.
You're insinuating that since the road cannot be shared then bikes should not be allowed on them. It does work when people are respectful of others and aren't always in such a rush all the time.
Yes, that is the unfortunate truth. Humans are stupid, rushed, and fallible. Expecting them to override 50+ years of cars owning the roads because you put up a street sign is misguided. If it cannot be done safely, it should not be done. If we want more biking, we need to make it safe. "Sharing the road" is stupid and unsafe, like the OP says. We need a different solution.
Strange that is was like that for ages in the Netherlands. On minor residential roads the speed limit is now usually 30 km/h (around 20 MPH), but is was 50 km/h for a long time (30 MPH). Often a car has to wait to overtake a bike.
Of course if cyclists can rely on cars to pass them carefully, they can move all the way to the side to let the car pass. But that doesn't work with aggressive car drivers.
Of course if cyclists can rely on cars to pass them carefully, they can move all the way to the side to let the car pass. But that doesn't work with aggressive car drivers.
If the road/street is wide enough then there should be separated bike paths. If the road is narrow then the speed limit should probably be lower anyway.
And you know what else is a ridiculous demand on drivers: stop signs! When they demand I drop from 40mph to zero, you can't be surprised that I don't just lie down and take it. Sure, I legally "shouldn't" have stolen all the stop signs on my commute, but if that's wrong, then screw being right. What am I stopping for anyway? Nothing in my way deserves to survive the morning.
Add dedicated bike lanes and reduce car lanes. Now cars can sit in traffic more and go 10mph all of the time. Problem solved.
Easily the biggest problem in the US with biking is that the infrastructure is, nearly without exception, absolutely atrocious.
Nobody would accept having only 'painted walk lanes' on busy streets to get around, much less having them appear and disappear from the road seemingly at random, and yet that's the default state of bike lanes in nearly all US cities.
If biking had as much infrastructure as even walking -- meaning, physically protected lanes on most streets -- Americans would bike in enormous numbers.
Nobody would accept having only 'painted walk lanes' on busy streets to get around, much less having them appear and disappear from the road seemingly at random, and yet that's the default state of bike lanes in nearly all US cities.
If biking had as much infrastructure as even walking -- meaning, physically protected lanes on most streets -- Americans would bike in enormous numbers.
Minneapolis, MN is one of the exceptions. The city has invested in good bike lanes and as a result, people do bike in big numbers. Some folks bike year round, even when the temperature is well below freezing.
The city benefited greatly from some disused rail right-of-ways and turned them into completely separated bike highways. Many of the on-street bikeways that have been set up use plastic divider posts to signal to drivers separation. It's much cheaper than building grade-seperated lanes, but gives a real sense of protection to the bikers.
The city benefited greatly from some disused rail right-of-ways and turned them into completely separated bike highways. Many of the on-street bikeways that have been set up use plastic divider posts to signal to drivers separation. It's much cheaper than building grade-seperated lanes, but gives a real sense of protection to the bikers.
The thing is though, even for Minneapolis, the total length of bike lanes/paths amounts to what, maybe 5% of the total length of sidewalks/walking paths? (spitballing here looking at Google Maps)
Which just strengthens my point: even quite modest efforts can result in big biking gains. And that's in Minneapolis, who nobody is going to accuse of having great weather for biking.
Which just strengthens my point: even quite modest efforts can result in big biking gains. And that's in Minneapolis, who nobody is going to accuse of having great weather for biking.
Bike lanes are a step in that direction. SF is starting to gain more protected bike lanes, it would definitely be nice to have more. The bike lane itself is a great initial way to measure bike interest.
Though honestly, nearly every street in the city should have at least a painted bike lane.
Though honestly, nearly every street in the city should have at least a painted bike lane.
Here in the netherlands, cyclist paradise, we don't even have a painted bike lane on nearly every street.
There are also streets where biking isn't allowed. These are mostly major car arteries. It is imperative to realize there are places where cyclists don't belong. Just like it is imperative to realize that in most places in the city, cyclists do belong.
There are also streets where biking isn't allowed. These are mostly major car arteries. It is imperative to realize there are places where cyclists don't belong. Just like it is imperative to realize that in most places in the city, cyclists do belong.
It was my understanding that major car arteries in the Netherlands usually had adjacent bike paths that were slightly set apart from the road, ala: https://www.google.de/maps/@52.1084742,5.0647,3a,75y,172.64h...
> Here in the netherlands, cyclist paradise, we don't even have a painted bike lane on nearly every street.
With narrow streets and low speeds, cyclists and cars can effectively mix. It's just that in the US, politically that's an even harder sell than protected bike lanes, most of the time.
> Here in the netherlands, cyclist paradise, we don't even have a painted bike lane on nearly every street.
With narrow streets and low speeds, cyclists and cars can effectively mix. It's just that in the US, politically that's an even harder sell than protected bike lanes, most of the time.
Indeed most major roads have adjacent bike paths. Certainly not all though. No highways do, and there are some other roads where it doesn't make sense.
Cycling on highways is a total no-go here. I've never heard of it happening, and I'd expect the police to be called whenever someone sees it.
You're right on the narrow streets and low speeds. That is a much bigger cultural / civil-engineering thing. It makes me wonder how cycling infrastructure is done in Rotterdam. It's city centre needed to be completely rebuild after WW2. The result is regarded by some as ugly or 'american'. Perhaps this has affected cycling, or perhaps that was taken into account in the rebuild.
Cycling on highways is a total no-go here. I've never heard of it happening, and I'd expect the police to be called whenever someone sees it.
You're right on the narrow streets and low speeds. That is a much bigger cultural / civil-engineering thing. It makes me wonder how cycling infrastructure is done in Rotterdam. It's city centre needed to be completely rebuild after WW2. The result is regarded by some as ugly or 'american'. Perhaps this has affected cycling, or perhaps that was taken into account in the rebuild.
In the US you can't bike on freeways either (I avoid saying 'highways' as technically the term can refer to a number of different types of roads, whereas freeways only mean roads that have completely controlled access (on ramps and off ramps, no stoplights or stop signs)).
I was thinking of [1], ever since I saw that, I thought Americans were crazy cyclists. Upon further research that video is from Russia. Seems like american cycling is much better than I thought.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hVXhg8zvkI&ab_channel=Stree...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hVXhg8zvkI&ab_channel=Stree...
I've been a cyclist in DC (and Boston) for almost 20 years, and the changes over that time have been fairly astounding. Overall, DC is doing a pretty good job [0]. The gradual transition from a little stripe to demarcate the bike lane to protected cycle tracks that take up a full lane of traffic has made a huge difference.
[0] - http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/03/08/street-by-street-dc-bu...
[0] - http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/03/08/street-by-street-dc-bu...
To be sure, the progress made in recent years in progressive cities is heartening, and the more people we get into cycling via modest means, the easier it is politically to get more substantive changes, like protected intersections or complete networks of physically protected bike paths.
A lot of places have quite a lot of streets that don't even have sidewalks.
I occasionally see people walking to the hospital here, in the lane on a 25 MPH street.
I occasionally see people walking to the hospital here, in the lane on a 25 MPH street.
You're right, but nevertheless in most cities, sidewalks on nearly every street are the norm.
My point is really to just illustrate a mentality difference. If cyclists clamor for a handful of protected bike lanes, they get accused of wanting 'special treatment'. And yet, what they ask for is at least an order of magnitude less than what everyone takes for granted about walking, let alone the resources we allocate to cars.
My point is really to just illustrate a mentality difference. If cyclists clamor for a handful of protected bike lanes, they get accused of wanting 'special treatment'. And yet, what they ask for is at least an order of magnitude less than what everyone takes for granted about walking, let alone the resources we allocate to cars.
This in Milan, Italy three weeks ago: https://www.wired.it/lifestyle/mobilita/2017/06/01/milano-pi...
It's on a narrow bridge quite dangerous for cyclists as cars tend to cut the turn to the left. After years of asking somebody decided to help themselves.
It's on a narrow bridge quite dangerous for cyclists as cars tend to cut the turn to the left. After years of asking somebody decided to help themselves.
I'm a bit confused there, though. The signage clearly marks this as a road you're not allowed to enter from that side, regardless of vehicle and forbidden for pedestrians. The guerilla bike lane thus is not supported by the existing signage and if behaviour prior to this matched what the lane now codifies, then it's worrisome as well.
As a cyclist, I'm all for making cycling safer, but breaking road laws to achieve that goal is not the right way. That's a one-way street, clearly marked as not a sidewalk and definitely not a bike lane against the one-way street direction. Guerilla bike lane or not, imho it's a stupid and dangerous idea to walk or cycle there, especially in that direction.
As a cyclist, I'm all for making cycling safer, but breaking road laws to achieve that goal is not the right way. That's a one-way street, clearly marked as not a sidewalk and definitely not a bike lane against the one-way street direction. Guerilla bike lane or not, imho it's a stupid and dangerous idea to walk or cycle there, especially in that direction.
I guess this is the picture you're writing about https://images.wired.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/01132104/...
You are right, because the signs are, roughly in this position:
1) One way road. 2) Pedestrian crossing, the one the kid is standing on.
3) No pedestrians allowed.
So yes, bikes shouldn't go down that bike lane. If it were an official one they would have changed the road signs to allow it. However I know that's a slow road, so combined with the white line it's probably safe at least during the day. In the night not so much, by direct experience, but bikes were going down there in the forbidden direction anyway.
You are right, because the signs are, roughly in this position:
1) One way road. 2) Pedestrian crossing, the one the kid is standing on.
3) No pedestrians allowed.
So yes, bikes shouldn't go down that bike lane. If it were an official one they would have changed the road signs to allow it. However I know that's a slow road, so combined with the white line it's probably safe at least during the day. In the night not so much, by direct experience, but bikes were going down there in the forbidden direction anyway.
I'm not familiar with Italian road signs but I'd interpret that sign to mean the exact opposite: pedestrians only.
Then it would be blue, not white with a red border. The latter always signifies a forbiddance, while blue signs are an allowance (and often implicitly disallowing everything else).
Interesting, in Ireland we don't have the red and white pedestrian sign, but we do have the likes of this[0] red and white taxi sign signifying a taxi rank (implicitly disallowing parking for non-taxis).
For "no pedestrians", we have what to my eyes much more sensible: the same sign as the Italian one but with a strike through it [1]
[0]http://st2.depositphotos.com/7458252/11066/i/950/depositphot...
[1]http://www.gettyimages.es/detail/foto/no-pedestrians-in-irel...
For "no pedestrians", we have what to my eyes much more sensible: the same sign as the Italian one but with a strike through it [1]
[0]http://st2.depositphotos.com/7458252/11066/i/950/depositphot...
[1]http://www.gettyimages.es/detail/foto/no-pedestrians-in-irel...
> i milanesi hanno percorso in media 18,6 miglia
> in bici per andare al lavoro...
> velocità media a Milano 14,8 miglia all’ora
Or is this per week? Is it current to talk in "miglia" in modern Italian? (though even km would be high IMHO).
That's so weird: nobody uses miles in Italy (or Europe, except the UK). I checked the article and the source is Strava Insight which probably defaults to miles. The journalist copied and pasted without converting the units into something readers would understand.
14.8 miles per hour is 23,68. I usually do 20 when I move in the city because I don't want to sweat and I don't see many bikers going faster than me. Maybe that's because only fast bikers use Strava and it skews distances and speeds.
14.8 miles per hour is 23,68. I usually do 20 when I move in the city because I don't want to sweat and I don't see many bikers going faster than me. Maybe that's because only fast bikers use Strava and it skews distances and speeds.
The average speed is kinda fast but not insane, especially if most of the ride is on a stretch without many intersections (which you'd expect to be true of a 9 mile ride). I average around 15 mph in a mostly flat area where I stop every few blocks. TBF I'm probably riding a bit more aggressively than a typical Milanese bike commuter.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the average American bike commuter averages 15 mph. But I'd also expect the average American bike commuter to be much faster than the average Milanese bike commuter because in the USA most bike commuters are dedicated enthusiasts.
18.7 miles per day seems like a really high average, but is entirely believable. I used to do something close to that, and our summers were also hot.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the average American bike commuter averages 15 mph. But I'd also expect the average American bike commuter to be much faster than the average Milanese bike commuter because in the USA most bike commuters are dedicated enthusiasts.
18.7 miles per day seems like a really high average, but is entirely believable. I used to do something close to that, and our summers were also hot.
I can add something about Milan that could explain those data. Milan has some water channels going at least halfway into the city. Some bicycle roads follow the channels and they don't have many intersections. Some 10 miles each way are believable. People doing 10+10 miles each day on those roads could be the kind of people that also record their commutes with Strava. However people that have to commute on normal roads shared with cars probably can't be that fast.
I live inside the city and I never mount my bike computer when moving around in there. The normal cyclists that use a bicycle to go shopping probably don't do more than 12 km/h, twice as much as a fast pedestrian. Obviously they don't record their journeys.
So, still skewed data but with an explanation.
I live inside the city and I never mount my bike computer when moving around in there. The normal cyclists that use a bicycle to go shopping probably don't do more than 12 km/h, twice as much as a fast pedestrian. Obviously they don't record their journeys.
So, still skewed data but with an explanation.
[deleted]
The "miles per day" would suggest 9.35miles each way, so ~40 minutes each way, which seems more likely.
The arguments for segregated cycle tracks (physical barriers) rather than cycle lanes (paint) can be answered by one question: "Would you let your child cycle here?" https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/15/urban-planner...
However the argument against cycle tracks focuses on resident car parking and becomes extremely political. So a key part of developing a good end to end cycle network, given that a network is only as good as its weakest link, is parking control. This is where paint fails and you create these bitty networks where drivers feel happy to park their cars in the cycle lanes, because they can.
A more interesting approach is to look at road capacity. A typical road consists of:
footpath|parking|lane|lane|parking|footpath = 19,000 pedestrians + 2000 drivers per hour => 21,000 people.
Converting this to: footpath|cycle track|lane|lane|cycle track|footpath = additional 14,000 cyclists per hour = 35,000 people
Providing a 67% increase in road capacity while protecting pedestrians, reducing congestion, and making a population healthier is a big win for any urban environment. Politcally this is finally becoming easier, but it is a fundemental recognition that our roads are not there to store private property.
More interstingly is that many cities are focusing on routes to centres of employment. The focus needs to be more on connecting schools to communities. An immense amount of congestion is caused by parents dropping their fat little kids off at school.
Analysis I did on UK Census 2011 data looking at range traveled across 112 towns and cities in England and Wales indicate 6 million residents drive to work in the city/town they live in. 1 million live within a 20 minute (2km) walk of work 3.5 million live within a 20 minute cycle ride of work.
Looking at Bath,UK that's about 20,000 local car journeys in a city that is 3miles in diameter. Add in the 5,000 kids being dropped off at school and you end up with 40,000 local car journeys.
BUT unless people feel there is a safe alternative choice this is not going to change and for some reason the UK seems fixated on strategic networks and hub centric public transport systems. Not actually fixing local journeys.
However the argument against cycle tracks focuses on resident car parking and becomes extremely political. So a key part of developing a good end to end cycle network, given that a network is only as good as its weakest link, is parking control. This is where paint fails and you create these bitty networks where drivers feel happy to park their cars in the cycle lanes, because they can.
A more interesting approach is to look at road capacity. A typical road consists of:
footpath|parking|lane|lane|parking|footpath = 19,000 pedestrians + 2000 drivers per hour => 21,000 people.
Converting this to: footpath|cycle track|lane|lane|cycle track|footpath = additional 14,000 cyclists per hour = 35,000 people
Providing a 67% increase in road capacity while protecting pedestrians, reducing congestion, and making a population healthier is a big win for any urban environment. Politcally this is finally becoming easier, but it is a fundemental recognition that our roads are not there to store private property.
More interstingly is that many cities are focusing on routes to centres of employment. The focus needs to be more on connecting schools to communities. An immense amount of congestion is caused by parents dropping their fat little kids off at school.
Analysis I did on UK Census 2011 data looking at range traveled across 112 towns and cities in England and Wales indicate 6 million residents drive to work in the city/town they live in. 1 million live within a 20 minute (2km) walk of work 3.5 million live within a 20 minute cycle ride of work.
Looking at Bath,UK that's about 20,000 local car journeys in a city that is 3miles in diameter. Add in the 5,000 kids being dropped off at school and you end up with 40,000 local car journeys.
BUT unless people feel there is a safe alternative choice this is not going to change and for some reason the UK seems fixated on strategic networks and hub centric public transport systems. Not actually fixing local journeys.
The arguments for segregated cycle tracks (physical
barriers) rather than cycle lanes (paint) can be answered
by one question: "Would you let your child cycle here?"
| C |
----------------------------------| a |--------
Cycles ◅ | r | ▷
----------------------------------| s |--------
divider | |
----------------------------------- Δ ---------
Cars
-------------------------------------------------
This leads to a demographic split in cyclist behaviour. For children and cyclists who aren't in a hurry, the segregated path is more friendly - but for 'serious' cyclists and people in a hurry, staying on the road makes more sense. Especially if there's a high density of T junctions, which isn't unusual in some urban areas.
Fortunately, in my country there aren't any laws that force cyclists into bike lanes, so it generally isn't a problem. But any urban planner who wants 100% of cyclists segregated from traffic is going to have a difficult time on their hands :)
This is solved in the Netherlands, pretty much universally, by making the cars coming in from the side wait for the bike lane as well:
| C |
-----------------------------------Δ Δ Δ----
Cycles r
----------------------------------- s ---------
divider | |
-----------------------------------Δ Δ Δ---------
Cars
-------------------------------------------------
This is how it's done in my area of the US, but I can tell you American drivers almost universally ignore where you're supposed to stop at a T junction, especially when turning right. It's maddening, multiple times I've had to leave the bike lane into traffic to get around a vehicle that isn't where it's supposed to be. I've never seen anyone get pulled over for this either because cycling isn't recognized as a "real" thing police need to take care of.
In short: The issue in the US anyway I think has a lot more to do with culture than with road safety and structure. If people gave a shit we'd make it work, but few here do (at least around where I live, northern midwest.)
In short: The issue in the US anyway I think has a lot more to do with culture than with road safety and structure. If people gave a shit we'd make it work, but few here do (at least around where I live, northern midwest.)
Vehicles turning right is a big problem in the Netherlands as well. Not so much that they block intersections, but that bikes going straight have priority over the vehicle turning right, bikes take priority and then get in an accident. It doesn't matter who was right if you are dead.
In my experience, separate bike lanes are great for long stretches of road without intersections. Also quite safe on intersections with traffic lights if the bikes have their own dedicated time slot. (That's not always the case)
But when bikes going straight are encouraged to pass right turning vehicles on the right, it becomes a serious risk.
In my experience, separate bike lanes are great for long stretches of road without intersections. Also quite safe on intersections with traffic lights if the bikes have their own dedicated time slot. (That's not always the case)
But when bikes going straight are encouraged to pass right turning vehicles on the right, it becomes a serious risk.
Actually, turning right is mostly a solved problem in the netherlands. If you ever run into a situation where it's dangerous they just haven't upgraded that intersection yet. The solution here is to make sure a car has the space to make the full turn to the right before encountering the cycle lane. That way the car driver doesn't have to look behind them for bikes, but can see them clearly out the front window.
Every time I cross in front of a car I have both hands sitting on the handlebar brakes. On one occasion I actually had to kick the car, someone started moving forward while I was right in front, I kind of bounced off the bumper with a foot and managed to maintain my balance. Thankfully didn't mess up their car, and they got out of the car to make sure I was alright.
It's not hostility very often, it's just not paying enough attention to things that aren't cars.
It's not hostility very often, it's just not paying enough attention to things that aren't cars.
In Copenhagen, bike lanes and turn right lanes often overlap. Not bike lane left of the turn right lane, but actually sharing the space, like a C union type. I think it is much safer to merge than to cross.
This always infuriated me. Cyclists are treated like second class citizens even when designing cycling infrastructure. Then we get yelled at for riding on the road. On top of this often the cycling lanes on the edge of main roads also double up as puncture hazards making it risky to use them.
Why? It's pretty universal that smaller crap yeild to bigger crap. Forklifts yield to service trucks. Service trucks yield to heavy equipment. Heavy equipment yields to bigger heavy equipment. Big heavy equipment yields to trains. Trains yield to ships.
It is exactly the opposite in Germany. When you make turn on the road, pedestrians and cyclist have the right of way, even though they also will cross a road (the one you are turning into). It is the key principle in German traffic laws: You have to pay attention to what smaller and weaker vehicles are doing. Even when you are technically right, you can still be hold partially responsible for damages caused.
Cars yield to (much smaller) pedestrians, though. Clearly this model needs some work.
Only in areas where pedestrians specifically are given the right of way (e.g. crosswalks). Outside of specific structured instances like that small yields to big.
Of course if you just ignore that you don't have the right of way and just go people will slam on their brakes for you because that's the least costly option for dealing with the situation.
It's like taking a left turn across traffic. Some people may stop and let you go if they deem it appropriate but the burden is on the you to turn when it is clear to do so, not on them to stop.
Of course if you just ignore that you don't have the right of way and just go people will slam on their brakes for you because that's the least costly option for dealing with the situation.
It's like taking a left turn across traffic. Some people may stop and let you go if they deem it appropriate but the burden is on the you to turn when it is clear to do so, not on them to stop.
Depends where you are. The city in Asia where I am at the moment turning cars pretty clearly don't yield to pedestrians walk signs notwithstanding.
> It's pretty universal that smaller crap yeild to bigger crap.
Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might is right. Surely, we can do better.
Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might is right. Surely, we can do better.
My City, Allentown, PA was going to do that with two one way roads roads that travel East West. Making the two roads 1 lane each. Got shot down hard. Instead they placed share road markers. After being flipped off, beeped at and treated like I should die I never bike in my city.
> This means cyclists using the segregated path have to stop to give way to cars at every T junction
That is a very car-centric design. In the Netherlands these kind of junctions within city limits tend to give the bicycle path the right of way. Bicycle lanes are also mandatory when they are provided; this makes everything a lot safer for all parties concerned.
That is a very car-centric design. In the Netherlands these kind of junctions within city limits tend to give the bicycle path the right of way. Bicycle lanes are also mandatory when they are provided; this makes everything a lot safer for all parties concerned.
[deleted]
As someone who doesn't take a lot of taxis and related services while traveling, I've wondered about how many rides people take when I would just be inclined to walk. I actually don't bike on roads-wasn't in an environment where I really could growing up-but I usually just walk in many of the cities I travel to even if it's a mile or three.
There's a sweet spot for bicycle travel: journeys between 2km and 5km are too far for most people to walk, doable on a bike in most climates/terrains without breaking a sweat, and faster on a bike than a car when you account for parking time. Cycle infrastructure is about enabling that sweet spot at both ends, getting people out of cars as well as enabling non-car owners to travel around their whole neighbourhood.
Please don't design cycle infrastructure for children. Bikes can be toys, but they can also be so much more. Designing for children locks bikes into the toy-role. Do I have to arm myself with a car to be treated like an adult?
This gets into the vehicular cycling argument. If you want an inclusive cycle network that works for all the population, not just the physically fit and brave, design for those that want to cycle but feel they can't as it is too dangerous.
That does not mean design a two tier infrastructure, that is kids using shared pavements and real men riding with HGVs. Take a universal approach that enables all ages and all abilities to cycle safely.
That does not mean design a two tier infrastructure, that is kids using shared pavements and real men riding with HGVs. Take a universal approach that enables all ages and all abilities to cycle safely.
It's indeed somewhat close to the vehicular cycling argument, but far from identical. I see a lot of cycling infrastructure that follows the philosophy of "better force them to dismount, someone might hurt themselves here" and it's really not caring of cyclists but disrespectful towards them. I fear that overuse of childproof-argument will only strengthen that mindset.
"Really, you have to take that nice, scenic, ten minutes detour because I would not let my child ride the direct route. If you're in a hurry, take a car". This is not how you make people switch to bikes, this is how you teach them that bikes are merely toys for a nice Sunday afternoon ride.
I'm fine with designing for humans, but not all infrastructure has to be child proof, as the interstate network clearly shows. We have the technology to create motor vehicle infrastructure ready for unattended children (bumper car floors, yay!), but for various reasons we chose to take very different tradeoffs.
Two tier infrastructure can by the way also mean that children up to a certain age legally share the sidewalk, which is a much better place than sharing even the most segregated bike lanes with texting pedelec pilots.
"Really, you have to take that nice, scenic, ten minutes detour because I would not let my child ride the direct route. If you're in a hurry, take a car". This is not how you make people switch to bikes, this is how you teach them that bikes are merely toys for a nice Sunday afternoon ride.
I'm fine with designing for humans, but not all infrastructure has to be child proof, as the interstate network clearly shows. We have the technology to create motor vehicle infrastructure ready for unattended children (bumper car floors, yay!), but for various reasons we chose to take very different tradeoffs.
Two tier infrastructure can by the way also mean that children up to a certain age legally share the sidewalk, which is a much better place than sharing even the most segregated bike lanes with texting pedelec pilots.
Dedicated bike lanes will also have people walking in them, as well as casual cyclists riding slowly side by side. If you're a fit cyclist, you're doing 25-30 MPH so it's safer to just ride in the road.
Do you object to using sidewalks which are also suitable for children to walk on?
If that means that you either get a sidewalk covered in the expensive soft rubber floor used on modern playgrounds or no sidewalk at all, then sure, I will definitely prefer a complete network of hard sidewalks where it hurts to fall over insular sprinklings of rubber-sidewalks here and there.
It may have escaped your notice that sidewalks like these don't exist outside of children's playgrounds, yet children successfully use sidewalks safely worldwide. The same can be true of bike tracks - have you not seen any videos of what has been achieved in the Netherlands?
In my day job I have simulated the effects of segregated cycle infrastructure on demand
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692316...
(above is out of date, more recent work under review: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/sdna/european-transport-conference-... )
So far I have shied away from simulating on-road cycle lanes, e.g. where motor vehicles and bikes are separated by a line of paint.
Firstly because the quality is so variable - hilarious examples about on the internet, and many cyclists would argue that a bad cycle lane is worse than none at all as it creates an expectation they should be riding in it rather than sharing the road.
Secondly because data on what's there - width, quality, obstructions - is so thin on the ground. (any time anyone wants to use deep learning to harvest this from streetview please go right ahead!)
Where am I going with all this? It's heartening to see a case where lines painted on the road actually made a tangible difference. I wonder how much came down to the temporary nature though - like some kind of campaign - as cultural effects are known to have a huge impact on cycling as well.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692316...
(above is out of date, more recent work under review: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/sdna/european-transport-conference-... )
So far I have shied away from simulating on-road cycle lanes, e.g. where motor vehicles and bikes are separated by a line of paint.
Firstly because the quality is so variable - hilarious examples about on the internet, and many cyclists would argue that a bad cycle lane is worse than none at all as it creates an expectation they should be riding in it rather than sharing the road.
Secondly because data on what's there - width, quality, obstructions - is so thin on the ground. (any time anyone wants to use deep learning to harvest this from streetview please go right ahead!)
Where am I going with all this? It's heartening to see a case where lines painted on the road actually made a tangible difference. I wonder how much came down to the temporary nature though - like some kind of campaign - as cultural effects are known to have a huge impact on cycling as well.
There have been a lot of lanes going in around Dublin, and frankly, most of them are useless.
Some of them are grade separated from the main road by a inch high curb. Just high enough to catch a wheel and cause a wreck.
Most of them just collect road debris like the shoulders.
Some of them are de-facto parking lanes.
Some of them are confusing enough that it's seriously unclear what the lane actually means. (I say this as someone who had to go through the whole driver licensing scheme here after 20 yrs driving in the US, so I've seen all the rules from the POV of an experienced driver.)
For example: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6089878,-6.1934201,90m/data=...
What the hell are those cycle turn boxes in the middle of the car lanes? They have a solid border, so they're 'mandatory'. They're unavoidable by cars. And if you're in one, you better have right of way already, because squishy. (and fwiw, the one other cyclist I saw at that junction was using the crosswalk).
And then there's the cycle lanes near Greystone where they exist for one block, then there's something that looks like a crosswalk for bikes, and they dissappear for a block, then they reappear again.
At some point, you just have to assume that some one with a can of paint is taking the piss and you just ride in a straight line like any other vehicle.
Some of them are grade separated from the main road by a inch high curb. Just high enough to catch a wheel and cause a wreck.
Most of them just collect road debris like the shoulders.
Some of them are de-facto parking lanes.
Some of them are confusing enough that it's seriously unclear what the lane actually means. (I say this as someone who had to go through the whole driver licensing scheme here after 20 yrs driving in the US, so I've seen all the rules from the POV of an experienced driver.)
For example: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6089878,-6.1934201,90m/data=...
What the hell are those cycle turn boxes in the middle of the car lanes? They have a solid border, so they're 'mandatory'. They're unavoidable by cars. And if you're in one, you better have right of way already, because squishy. (and fwiw, the one other cyclist I saw at that junction was using the crosswalk).
And then there's the cycle lanes near Greystone where they exist for one block, then there's something that looks like a crosswalk for bikes, and they dissappear for a block, then they reappear again.
At some point, you just have to assume that some one with a can of paint is taking the piss and you just ride in a straight line like any other vehicle.
I noticed that the lane itself is a safe distance from the door zone and has a sensible, safe boundary marker between the cycle lane and standard highway. A cycle lane done properly - ironically, with some spray paint!
Ironically (perhaps?) I think in the US the cities are often doing a good job but suburbs are awful.
At least where I live, I can bike in my own neighborhood but to get from my neighborhood to the commercial districts where the actual jobs are I need to essentially go on a highway and share the road with 40 MPH cars.
When neighborhoods are spread out it makes biking hard. Where I am at least, neighborhoods tend to be connected to main (high speed) roads like Christmas lights. Thing is they aren't even far away... work to my house is 5 miles. An easy bike ride. Except part of that ride is a highway that I'd need a death wish to bike on and there are no back roads.
At least where I live, I can bike in my own neighborhood but to get from my neighborhood to the commercial districts where the actual jobs are I need to essentially go on a highway and share the road with 40 MPH cars.
When neighborhoods are spread out it makes biking hard. Where I am at least, neighborhoods tend to be connected to main (high speed) roads like Christmas lights. Thing is they aren't even far away... work to my house is 5 miles. An easy bike ride. Except part of that ride is a highway that I'd need a death wish to bike on and there are no back roads.
In my state it is illegal for anything but a motorized vehicle to be on the highway (and rightfully so as most traffic is 70 mph+ outside of rush hour). With rare exception I've seen cyclists on most of the busy multi-lane surface streets where it is 45+ and traffic is going 10-15 faster than that.
What metro area are you in? It seems odd that there are no surface streets at all between two points just a few miles away.
What metro area are you in? It seems odd that there are no surface streets at all between two points just a few miles away.
I'm in New Hampshire. Part of the Manchester-Nashua metro region or the Boston metro depending on which survey you use.
I think the word highway might have some regional nuance. Around here there are often open highways (highways with stop lights and connected side roads) and bikes are allowed to go on them. Although I wouldn't feel safe doing it. Bikes are not allowed on the kind of highway you are thinking of here either.
The speed limit on those roads tends to be 35 or 40 MPH. Not 65 like it would be on a large highway.
Edit: Here's an example from Nashua, NH (for privacy I found a place similar to where I live but not actually where I live).
Notice how the residential on the left is completely separated from the commercial on the right by "Daniel Webster Highway"... one could easily bike on that road if there were bike lanes but it is an extremely busy road and there is no safe way for a bike to take a left hand turn to get to the other side.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Daniel+Webster+Hwy,+Nashua...
I think the word highway might have some regional nuance. Around here there are often open highways (highways with stop lights and connected side roads) and bikes are allowed to go on them. Although I wouldn't feel safe doing it. Bikes are not allowed on the kind of highway you are thinking of here either.
The speed limit on those roads tends to be 35 or 40 MPH. Not 65 like it would be on a large highway.
Edit: Here's an example from Nashua, NH (for privacy I found a place similar to where I live but not actually where I live).
Notice how the residential on the left is completely separated from the commercial on the right by "Daniel Webster Highway"... one could easily bike on that road if there were bike lanes but it is an extremely busy road and there is no safe way for a bike to take a left hand turn to get to the other side.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Daniel+Webster+Hwy,+Nashua...
"highway" has lots of definitions. Lots of people don't mean a limited access road when they say highway.
London has been doing a great job lately at improving cycle infrastructure. There is a new concept of a "cycle superhighway" - sometimes that means a segregated bike path, like CS3 that goes from The Tower Of London, straight through to Westminster, sometimes it is paint on the ground. However it is much clearer to motorists as they paint the entire line bright blue.
What I've noticed too is you get increasing returns the more you build. Given a scenario where a chosen route is covered 50% by acceptable infrastructure, it makes you think if it's worth taking a bike. Improve some strategic junctions and roads, and the coverage of acceptable infrastructure may increase to 90%, at which point it's a no brainer taking the bike.
What I've noticed too is you get increasing returns the more you build. Given a scenario where a chosen route is covered 50% by acceptable infrastructure, it makes you think if it's worth taking a bike. Improve some strategic junctions and roads, and the coverage of acceptable infrastructure may increase to 90%, at which point it's a no brainer taking the bike.
In SF there are plenty of bike lanes that are painted a vivid green (the whole lane, with a white lane marker line). I think it's fantastic. It's really very difficult to not notice that the bike lane exists.
That hypothesis does not seem to apply to Lisbon, Portugal so far. We have now around 60km of dedicated bicycle paths in Lisbon (not just cycle lanes, but actual separated paths) all built in recent years (and plans to double that very soon).
But, simply put, they are barely used.
A few things are different in Lisbon from a lot of Northern Europe cities: it's very hilly and windy, it has temperatures close to 40 degrees in the summer (we have AC throughout the tube network) and in the winter, when it rains it really pours (not that drizzle that you get in London for example).
I may be too early to call it, but not all cities are alike and many people here are very skeptic about whether general adoption will ever be reached.
But, simply put, they are barely used.
A few things are different in Lisbon from a lot of Northern Europe cities: it's very hilly and windy, it has temperatures close to 40 degrees in the summer (we have AC throughout the tube network) and in the winter, when it rains it really pours (not that drizzle that you get in London for example).
I may be too early to call it, but not all cities are alike and many people here are very skeptic about whether general adoption will ever be reached.
I was just in Lisbon (lovely city). Hills aside, the metro is so good, it seems like a bike is just unnecessary (you have to store a bike, can't easily walk into shops, etc etc).
That's a problem that can be solved easily just by having a good and cheap city bike system. Oslo is also really hilly and the weather isn't the best, but since the city bike system was revamped in 2016 biking has exploded here.
https://oslobysykkel.no/en
One thing I really like about the Oslo system is how startup-like it is, unlike a lot of other systems which feel arcane.
The apps are flawless (there's no card), the design profile is fantastic [1], the bikes are good and light and they do a good job of communication [2].
[1] http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/bysykkeloslo/videos/144834624185549...
https://oslobysykkel.no/en
One thing I really like about the Oslo system is how startup-like it is, unlike a lot of other systems which feel arcane.
The apps are flawless (there's no card), the design profile is fantastic [1], the bikes are good and light and they do a good job of communication [2].
[1] http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/bysykkeloslo/videos/144834624185549...
Cheap bike sharing schemes usually don't have gears. If you've ever been to Lisbon you'll know that will be an issue. Lisbon needs electric assist bike for a bike sharing scheme to work.
The Oslo city bike system costs 249 NOK/3 beers for a year and has 3 gears. More gears could likely be implemented if needed for not much more.
I don't see why city biking would be any different than other biking.
I don't see why city biking would be any different than other biking.
Interesting. For the cyclists out there, would you pay out of pocket for a bi-directional elevated bike/walk-run track, with access from every street intersection, Japanese-style underground bike garages and automatically-cleaning showers/toilets at public transit intersections? If so, how much? I would, at $0.25-0.50 per mile, $0.25 per hour storage, and $2 per use of showers. I don't know if that would pencil out even in heavy cyclist commuter traffic, though.
I envision a high-tech track that uses redox batteries around its foundations, replaceable solar panels around the sides, is very brightly-lit, uses every 10 meters PTZ lenses on fiber optics leading back to a centralized, multiplexed bank of 2K and 4K video cameras backed by a deep-learning vision system, and easily-accessible emergency boxes every 20 meters to put female customers at ease. Emergency boxes vend bike repair kits (tire, chain, hex wrench, etc.), vend first aid kits, have an omnidirectional microphone listening for calls for aid, and of course a Big Red Button. Water is captured, filtered and stored for a cleaning robot to use later to maintain the track, solar panels, and awnings. Clear awnings automatically come out of housings, then raise and lower to shield from excessively-hot sun and inclement weather. Cleaning robot runs along a high-speed rail hanging on outside of track, multi-purposed to perform simpler replacement-style maintenance duties (replace vending supplies, replace awning, etc.).
I envision a high-tech track that uses redox batteries around its foundations, replaceable solar panels around the sides, is very brightly-lit, uses every 10 meters PTZ lenses on fiber optics leading back to a centralized, multiplexed bank of 2K and 4K video cameras backed by a deep-learning vision system, and easily-accessible emergency boxes every 20 meters to put female customers at ease. Emergency boxes vend bike repair kits (tire, chain, hex wrench, etc.), vend first aid kits, have an omnidirectional microphone listening for calls for aid, and of course a Big Red Button. Water is captured, filtered and stored for a cleaning robot to use later to maintain the track, solar panels, and awnings. Clear awnings automatically come out of housings, then raise and lower to shield from excessively-hot sun and inclement weather. Cleaning robot runs along a high-speed rail hanging on outside of track, multi-purposed to perform simpler replacement-style maintenance duties (replace vending supplies, replace awning, etc.).
What are you talking about? Can you define some of the problems you're trying to solve? It feels like you're writing a parody of something. The post is about keeping bike lanes simple and cheap so we'll just build them already. Yours is the opposite, no?
In the US, obtaining right-of-way to build bike lanes in metropolitan areas is infeasible. I've sat in neighborhood meetings with my state's Department of Transportation engineers and planners discussing main artery expansions, and they explained that there isn't sufficient demand for bike paths to include them in any new planning funded by taxpayers; whenever they've tried to include dedicated bike lanes in the past, they were shot down first by politicians looking to curry the fiscal conservative votes, then by special interest groups protecting a car-based culture (housing developers, chambers of commerce, etc. all see dedicated bike lanes as yielding less traffic to their planned projects). However, obtaining right-of-way to privately build an elevated path, they conceded, while not easy, was more feasible because someone else foots the bill. The problem is no one has figured out a design that can feasibly pay off.
If you can obtain the right-of-way for an elevated path, then what would you design for it that makes it pay off at least a little above break-even?
Generally, I take this as a sign that in the US, unless you deliberately attract a demographic to a specific concentrated area that consciously chooses biking as a major transportation mode, namely, a master-planned community/town built around biking and public transit, cyclists are SOL to comprehensively expand biking for the foreseeable future in most US metro areas outside of "bike ghettos" where there is a strong cycling culture. I'd love to see as much biking for normal daily activities as we saw in mainland China before they opened up to the West, but in the US in many areas it is legitimately risky to bike (despite the actual risk of fatality on a bike gradually dropping over the past three decades).
So a related hypothetical is, if you were in a high-density (say, 30K per square mile scale density) city designed from the beginning for walk/run/bike/public-transit transportation, what kind of bike paths would you want?
The article describes intra- and inter-neighborhood scale at best, but doesn't address efforts to solve US commuter distances, which invariably involve highways. That seems an insoluble challenge at the moment in the US.
If you can obtain the right-of-way for an elevated path, then what would you design for it that makes it pay off at least a little above break-even?
Generally, I take this as a sign that in the US, unless you deliberately attract a demographic to a specific concentrated area that consciously chooses biking as a major transportation mode, namely, a master-planned community/town built around biking and public transit, cyclists are SOL to comprehensively expand biking for the foreseeable future in most US metro areas outside of "bike ghettos" where there is a strong cycling culture. I'd love to see as much biking for normal daily activities as we saw in mainland China before they opened up to the West, but in the US in many areas it is legitimately risky to bike (despite the actual risk of fatality on a bike gradually dropping over the past three decades).
So a related hypothetical is, if you were in a high-density (say, 30K per square mile scale density) city designed from the beginning for walk/run/bike/public-transit transportation, what kind of bike paths would you want?
The article describes intra- and inter-neighborhood scale at best, but doesn't address efforts to solve US commuter distances, which invariably involve highways. That seems an insoluble challenge at the moment in the US.
I hope this isn't too unfair an analogy, but your idea reminds me of trying to get wealthier people to ride buses with wifi and frills, when it's consistent, frequent, reliable service that they want (just like everyone else; the difference is the poorer people on the bus don't get to fall back on anything else.) In the same way, the staples for biking are probably safe/moderately convenient access to many places (not a single or even a couple of linear paths) and safety from negligent drivers.
Like buses, I'm afraid that you're just throwing yourself at a wall as long as our development pattern provides such an enormous subsidy for cars. Also like with buses, I would love to be proven wrong.
Like buses, I'm afraid that you're just throwing yourself at a wall as long as our development pattern provides such an enormous subsidy for cars. Also like with buses, I would love to be proven wrong.
This doesn't really prove anything. My observations from Vancouver where a lot of time and money has been spent on bike lanes over the last few years: (I'm a non car owner, mostly pedestrian)
- Pilot projects are not representative of actual long term use. When Burrard bridge lost a footpath to a temporary cycle lane, as a regular pedestrian commuter I saw a brief spike in cycle traffic but then a big drop off again.
- Cycle lanes have a negative impact on both car and foot traffic. The Burrard cycle lanes increased the length of my commute on foot (footpaths were converted to cycle lanes that went empty much of the time) and disrupted car traffic causing delays to drivers.
- Expensive but poorly thought out physically separated bike lanes made intersections more dangerous for cyclists (who would go faster and slow down less for cars) and pedestrians (cyclists are silent and frequently ignore traffic lights)
- On street parking is frequently lost to new cycle lanes that frequently sit unused.
- There are a lot of 'fair weather cyclists' who only ride in good weather. Pedestrian traffic seems much less weather dependent.
A pilot project like this doesn't necessarily reflect actual long term usage and also ignores the many negative effects and costs associated with cycle lanes. Existing cities that grew up around mixed pedestrian and car traffic are not necessarily well suited to increased bike traffic. Bikes are dramatically more dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians and take up disproportionate space relative to their contribution to transport options.
- Pilot projects are not representative of actual long term use. When Burrard bridge lost a footpath to a temporary cycle lane, as a regular pedestrian commuter I saw a brief spike in cycle traffic but then a big drop off again.
- Cycle lanes have a negative impact on both car and foot traffic. The Burrard cycle lanes increased the length of my commute on foot (footpaths were converted to cycle lanes that went empty much of the time) and disrupted car traffic causing delays to drivers.
- Expensive but poorly thought out physically separated bike lanes made intersections more dangerous for cyclists (who would go faster and slow down less for cars) and pedestrians (cyclists are silent and frequently ignore traffic lights)
- On street parking is frequently lost to new cycle lanes that frequently sit unused.
- There are a lot of 'fair weather cyclists' who only ride in good weather. Pedestrian traffic seems much less weather dependent.
A pilot project like this doesn't necessarily reflect actual long term usage and also ignores the many negative effects and costs associated with cycle lanes. Existing cities that grew up around mixed pedestrian and car traffic are not necessarily well suited to increased bike traffic. Bikes are dramatically more dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians and take up disproportionate space relative to their contribution to transport options.
You don't cite a single source for any of these propositions.
Frequently sit unused? Brief spikes and big dropoffs? How do you know? I'll bet your local department of transportation is conducting traffic counts though. I know mine does.
"poorly thought out physically separated bike lines made intersections more dangerous"? You really need a cite on that because this study--conducted in Canada--says the opposite: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.3...
"Bikes are dramatically more dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians" Really? How many pedestrians were killed by cyclists in your city last year? How many by motor vehicles?
Frequently sit unused? Brief spikes and big dropoffs? How do you know? I'll bet your local department of transportation is conducting traffic counts though. I know mine does.
"poorly thought out physically separated bike lines made intersections more dangerous"? You really need a cite on that because this study--conducted in Canada--says the opposite: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.3...
"Bikes are dramatically more dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians" Really? How many pedestrians were killed by cyclists in your city last year? How many by motor vehicles?
The original article is also entirely free of statistics or sources which was kind of my point. My comments were intended as a counterpoint to the unsupported assertion in the article that the increased cycle traffic observed in a two week trial would translate to a sustained increase and to the unspoken assumption that increased cycle traffic is clearly and obviously a good thing and worth the costs and negative impacts on other road users.
The dangers of cycling itself are pretty well known I thought, it is far more dangerous than driving, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219
I don't know of any figures comparing the relative risk to pedestrians of cyclists vs cars. I would expect that pedestrians are less likely to be killed if hit by a bike than a car but I would also guess that adjusted for relative miles traveled you are more likely to be hit by a bike as a pedestrian than a car. Certainly as a pedestrian in Vancouver I am more concerned about bikes than cars due to the silence and lack of respect for the rules of the road I mentioned.
If the changes made here were based on solid research, I never saw it presented to the public. It was just 'Cycling is great! And green! Yay cycling!' and PR shots of the mayor on a bike to justify the money spent and disruption to other road users caused.
The dangers of cycling itself are pretty well known I thought, it is far more dangerous than driving, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219
I don't know of any figures comparing the relative risk to pedestrians of cyclists vs cars. I would expect that pedestrians are less likely to be killed if hit by a bike than a car but I would also guess that adjusted for relative miles traveled you are more likely to be hit by a bike as a pedestrian than a car. Certainly as a pedestrian in Vancouver I am more concerned about bikes than cars due to the silence and lack of respect for the rules of the road I mentioned.
If the changes made here were based on solid research, I never saw it presented to the public. It was just 'Cycling is great! And green! Yay cycling!' and PR shots of the mayor on a bike to justify the money spent and disruption to other road users caused.
Sounds like Vancouver is seeing fastest growing number of cycling trips in the world - do you think it's possible your experiences might not have been representative, or is there an effect you believe the stats aren't capturing?
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/02/eco-counter-cycling-index...
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/02/eco-counter-cycling-index...
Lots of effects yes. I never suggested that bike lanes don't increase bike traffic however, I think it's pretty obvious that they will to some extent. I merely suggested that the large increase that might be observed in a temporary and well publicised pilot project likely greatly overrepresents the actual sustained usage.
Questions I would ask that I haven't seen addressed as part of Vancouver's bike lane push:
- Given the higher risks of cycling relative to driving or walking, how many extra deaths and injuries are associated with increased cycle use substituting for other forms of transport?
- How many people are switching to cycling from driving because you have made things worse for drivers, pedestrians and transit users by installing cycle lanes (less parking space available, fewer car lanes, dramatically more congestion during the construction process)
- Are pedestrians at greater risk due to the increased cycle use? (anecdotally it appears to me they are)
- Given all the other ways the transport budget could be spent and road space used, is building cycle lanes the best bang for the buck?
- What exactly are the goals of transport policy (hopefully not just 'increase the number of cyclists') and how are you measuring your success?
Questions I would ask that I haven't seen addressed as part of Vancouver's bike lane push:
- Given the higher risks of cycling relative to driving or walking, how many extra deaths and injuries are associated with increased cycle use substituting for other forms of transport?
- How many people are switching to cycling from driving because you have made things worse for drivers, pedestrians and transit users by installing cycle lanes (less parking space available, fewer car lanes, dramatically more congestion during the construction process)
- Are pedestrians at greater risk due to the increased cycle use? (anecdotally it appears to me they are)
- Given all the other ways the transport budget could be spent and road space used, is building cycle lanes the best bang for the buck?
- What exactly are the goals of transport policy (hopefully not just 'increase the number of cyclists') and how are you measuring your success?
For anyone who has even read a bit on infrastructure, this is a no brainer. The problem with alternative transportation is you have to go all in to see the benefits. Half assing it won't work. But half assing it is what a lot of places do, and then they say "see, ridership didn't increase, going further is just a waste of money."
Anecdotal I know however my wife only learnt to cycle properly this year. She is (rightly) terrified of riding on the road. If we had a better dedicated cycle road network (not paths but actual bicycle dedicated roads) she would be able to use it as a mode of transport. She has expressed interest however the network, while pretty good in Singapore (the park connector network is a good safe cycling option), is not continuous enough to allow commuting as an option.
As someone who didn't bike as a child and won't bike on a road, I suspect that there isn't just about anywhere one can commute on a bike and totally avoid roads with cars on them. Including places like Amsterdam or other cities with a lot of dedicated lanes.
They could have at least made a better effort to keep cyclists and cars separate.
In the photo a cyclist is still on the road which should not happen.
I also remember seeing a video where a guy got some kind of ticket for not cycling in a cycle lane, so he made a point by cycling only in the cycle lane and deliberately crashes into a police car because they were parked in the cycle lane...
In the photo a cyclist is still on the road which should not happen.
I also remember seeing a video where a guy got some kind of ticket for not cycling in a cycle lane, so he made a point by cycling only in the cycle lane and deliberately crashes into a police car because they were parked in the cycle lane...
MVP-infrastructure, interesting. There are always pilot-projects, but they cost a lot of money, takes a lot of time, and are set in stone.
What was the temporary bike lane made of? Chalk?
Road marking paint, looks like.
Normal white lines etc are made by melting plastic onto the road. They're very thick.
Normal white lines etc are made by melting plastic onto the road. They're very thick.
From the picture, it looks like spray paint. For permanent road markings, the paint would have to be DOT approved, professionally painted by the transit authority, etc. Spray paint would go away a lot sooner than the paint for road markings.
That cheeky Field of Dreams reference
One of the problems with more bicycle infrastructure I see is the current regulatory environment promotes the extremes only.
A nice intermediate step would be if states would make moped registration less onerous. As it stands most states require a motorcycle license ($), insurance ($) and registration ($) for anything more than a bicycle with an engine kit. If more people rode those parking would be less of an issue and it would be easier to get support for bike infrastructure since bike infrastructure is common with moped infrastructure in many cases.
Edit: I don't care how the moped is powered. I'm just pointing out that a moped that can keep up with 30mph traffic is a huge increase in utility over a bicycle while not taking up appreciably more space.
A nice intermediate step would be if states would make moped registration less onerous. As it stands most states require a motorcycle license ($), insurance ($) and registration ($) for anything more than a bicycle with an engine kit. If more people rode those parking would be less of an issue and it would be easier to get support for bike infrastructure since bike infrastructure is common with moped infrastructure in many cases.
Edit: I don't care how the moped is powered. I'm just pointing out that a moped that can keep up with 30mph traffic is a huge increase in utility over a bicycle while not taking up appreciably more space.
Having been in Taipei where mopeds were illegal until ~20 years ago and then unleashed on the city like a plague I can only hope that if any city were to do this they would add the caveat that the mopeds must be electric.
Or just incentivize electric by discounting public transit passes for people with electric mopeds, etc and let attrition of old stuff run its course.
In many states, riding a moped, scooter, or motorcycle with a maximum top speed or engine displacement is legal without need for a motorcycle license, insurance, registration, etc.
I know the septic tank of a state in which I reside specifically crafted their regulation to force anything more than a bicycle with an engine kit to confirm to motorcycle regulations and sets performance limitations that limit the utility to the same as a bike.
Mopeds (e.g a 150CC vespa) on the other hand can keep up with non-highway traffic (although their manufactures may configure them in a way that prevents this), come equipped with turn signals, lights and mirrors, can maintain speed up a hill without slowing to a crawl and are an all around massive upgrade in safety and utility over a bicycle (motorized or human powered) without taking up more parking space or having the ability to rocket down the highway.
I think it's likely the insurance lobby leaned on legislators to make it that way.
Mopeds (e.g a 150CC vespa) on the other hand can keep up with non-highway traffic (although their manufactures may configure them in a way that prevents this), come equipped with turn signals, lights and mirrors, can maintain speed up a hill without slowing to a crawl and are an all around massive upgrade in safety and utility over a bicycle (motorized or human powered) without taking up more parking space or having the ability to rocket down the highway.
I think it's likely the insurance lobby leaned on legislators to make it that way.
That is to say: anyone can do the same, anywhere. So get on with it.. :)