Green Lane Project – Could we do it?

[chris_s]

I would love to see Arlington apply for this project – I’m willing to commit to being out there advocating with the rest of the community for why better bike infrastructure is good for everyone, whether you bike or not.

So many people would like to bike but don’t feel safe starting off with nothing (or nothing but paint) separating them from car traffic. I think some protected, separated infrastructure would allow a lot more people to get other there cycling and as they do so, they will become more comfortable biking in traffic and the net change will be more people biking on the roads, not less. I agree with the point Allen has been making a lot lately too, which is that more Bike Boulevards can help immensely in this pursuit as well (at significantly lower cost). Bike boulevards increase cycling visibility in the community and also create facilities that feel safe for new folks to ease-in with.

[eminva]

Thanks for the clarification, Chris.

I know there are pros/cons for bike lanes and cycle tracks, but overall I am in favor of them for the reasons Greenbelt cited. Like DismalScientist, I prefer vehicular cycling myself, but I understand the purpose here is to get more people out cycling, not accomodate the die hards like us who are already out there. I think (hope) the incidence of right hooks, etc. will go down as drivers get more accustomed to interacting with cyclists.

Of all the local jurisdictions, I think Arlington is best positioned to take advantage of this opportunity and I would love to see the county set an example for other parts of our region and our continent. Having said that, I am not an Arlington resident so I’m only shouting for the sidelines here.

Liz

[DismalScientist]

There is an ongoing controversy between the Ohio Bicycle Federation and the League of American Bicyclists as to what constitutes safe bicycling infrastructure. See http://www.ohiobike.org/advocacy.htm Before advocating more infrastructure, I would like to know what it is.

I read somewhere that bicycle facilities in Europe (and Montreal) are designed for slower speeds than to what American cyclists are accustomed.

[KLizotte]

In the Netherlands, there are cities/towns with 40-60% biking mode share(!). The Netherlands has a much lower incidence of traffic accidents overall (bike, ped, auto) because they believe in combining only “like with like”. That is, bike trails/lanes are only for bikes, sidewalks are only for people, streets are only for autos, etc. Most buses get their own lanes. Their policies may be summed as follows:

– Keep cyclists away from cars absolutely as much as possible.
– Make all residential streets no-go areas for through traffic (preserving segregation of modes without cyclepaths).
– Provide bikes with more direct routes than cars.
– Remove cars from minor rural roads.
– Produce a high degree of subjective and social safety everywhere.

They also believe that “green means go”; that is, cars should not have to stop or slow down because traffic is cutting across their lane. Therefore, they do not allow cars to make right turns on red nor left turns at intersections on plain green (not sure if they have green arrows though most intersections are round-abouts with cyclepaths anyway). They also strongly believe in segregating traffic according to speed. Traffic engineers major aim is to reduce “interaction opportunities” at all times between like-like, and like-unlike, modes.

They also have sensors that automatically detect the presence of bikes/peds and will stop traffic almost immediately so they can cross; this has the effect of virtually eliminating jaywalking (since bikers/walkers don’t get impatient waiting for the light to change). In busy intersections, all traffic stops for bikers/peds thus allowing bikers/peds to make diagonal crossings which speeds up the number of people that can get thru an intersection at one time (it’s safer too since all auto traffic is at a standstill).

The US could learn so much from the Netherlands on how to make our streets safer. An excellent blog from across the pond on this subject is http://hembrow.blogspot.com/

[dasgeh]

I’m a firm believer that the way to make cycling safer is to get drivers to expect bikes to be there. The way to get drivers to expect bikes is to (1) make cycling a visable part of the infrastructure; (2) educate drivers (signs, campaigns); and most importantly, (3) get more people out on bikes. It seems like green lanes would do that…

@chris_s 14750 wrote:

I would love to see Arlington apply for this project – I’m willing to commit to being out there advocating with the rest of the community for why better bike infrastructure is good for everyone, whether you bike or not.

So many people would like to bike but don’t feel safe starting off with nothing (or nothing but paint) separating them from car traffic. I think some protected, separated infrastructure would allow a lot more people to get other there cycling and as they do so, they will become more comfortable biking in traffic and the net change will be more people biking on the roads, not less. I agree with the point Allen has been making a lot lately too, which is that more Bike Boulevards can help immensely in this pursuit as well (at significantly lower cost). Bike boulevards increase cycling visibility in the community and also create facilities that feel safe for new folks to ease-in with.

What Chris wrote is pretty much the rest of what I would have written. Thanks, Chris!

[Greenbelt]

@DismalScientist 14771 wrote:

I read somewhere that bicycle facilities in Europe (and Montreal) are designed for slower speeds than to what American cyclists are accustomed.

In Montreal, I think it’s a mix. The cycletrack system is really not that extensive, but it was designed smartly so that you can use a cycletrack to get almost everywhere in the city — at least within a mile or two of any destination. Montreal is more spread out than a typical European city, and one of the cool things they’ve done is extend the cycletracks/bike trails well out into the suburbs. So you can actually go pretty darn fast once you get out of the center city. Within the downtown area, it’s slower, of course, but not much slower than traffic. Montreal is sort of like DC in some respects, built around the same time L’Enfant designed our place. A few wide boulevards, but mostly medium-sized streets. Mostly a grid.

I think of Montreal as a solid three-mode city. If all you want to do is drive, you can. Traffic isn’t horrible and lots of people drive everywhere. Parking is pretty available, though not always free. If all you want to do is bike, you can. Cycletracks are sufficient to get you close to any location, and there are good suburban commuter routes. If you just want to take transit, that’s fine too: they have a good Metro like ours and a decent bus system. (It’s a nice city to walk too, but not in mid-winter…) So if you want to drive, it’s not bad. But if you don’t want to have a car, that’s fine too.

A big part of reducing traffic is persuading people to buy fewer cars (one per family instead of two or more etc.). If all the infrastructure is designed for cars, people buy cars! Otherwise, they’re wasting taxpayer funded resources. And once you’ve decided to carry the sunk the cost of an extra car, people feel obligated to use them!

For a North American city, Montreal does a nice job of allowing the choice to own a car or not, depending on your preference.

[Arlingtonrider]

Is Alexandria looking into this too? In general, I think a cycletrack would be most helpful in areas that aren’t currently accessible (or nearly so) by trail and that are not easy or safe for biking.

[Author]

Posts