road widths: sharrows vs. bike lanes

[jrenaut]

@vvill 124496 wrote:

I’d say more “this road is fine for bicycles and cars and other vehicles, just don’t be assholes”.

Which DOT have you been working with that you’d give that much benefit of the doubt?

[Steve O]

@vvill 124471 wrote:

My favourite piece of stepped signage was the “bikes may use full lane” on Lorcom Lane just before Spout Run, followed about 20 yards later by a Bicycles Prohibited sign (meaning on Spout Run, but posted on Lorcom Lane still). Not sure if it’s still like that.

Better! There is now a [URL=”http://”%5Dsharrow immediately adjacent to the “no bikes”[/URL] sign.

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 124505 wrote:

I took the new bike lanes on the western end of Wilson today. There’s no parking there. I was on my road bike, and riding in the middle of the lane (which is the furthest right that’s not gutter), my shoulder was about a foot from the edge of the lane. The travel lane is really wide there, so cars weren’t to the right but if they had been, they would have passed too close.

So from a design perspective, I wonder which would be better if we had an extra foot. (Not knowing exactly how wide the lane is and not being an engineer.)

– Making the bike lane another foot wider, squeezing the car travel lane somewhat (and hopefully encouraging more compliance with posted speed limits)
– Adding a 1-foot wide painted buffer between the outside edge of the bike lane and the car travel lane
– Or similarly, painting a really wide stripe

And if we created that 1-foot buffer, would it be good to add flexi-bollards, too? Given the number of right-hook opportunities along there, I’m inclined against this idea, but what do others think?

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 124505 wrote:

I took the new bike lanes on the western end of Wilson today. There’s no parking there. I was on my road bike, and riding in the middle of the lane (which is the furthest right that’s not gutter), my shoulder was about a foot from the edge of the lane. The travel lane is really wide there, so cars weren’t to the right but if they had been, they would have passed too close.

Many kid-carrying trailers are 3’+ wide. My kid carrying bike is 3′ wide. The edge of that would have likely been on the edge of the bike lane. That would really not be fun to ride there.

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’ve out it.

I am assuming that any new bike lanes will not include the gutter pan. Ms Poole, the complete streets coordinator for the City of Alexandria said as much if I understood her correctly (in the context of why a PBL to the right of parked cars takes more road space than a door zone bike lane) The same approach is not followed in other jurisdictions?

Edit:Perhaps she meant to the joint? AASHTO guide says a bike lanes should be minimum 3 ft excluding gutter, so for a 5 ft lane it should be possible to ride about 6 inches to the right of the center of the lane. I guess not enough for a trailer. Of course cities and counties could follow recommended widths instead of minimum widths.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 124505 wrote:

I took the new bike lanes on the western end of Wilson today. There’s no parking there. I was on my road bike, and riding in the middle of the lane (which is the furthest right that’s not gutter), my shoulder was about a foot from the edge of the lane. The travel lane is really wide there, so cars weren’t to the right but if they had been, they would have passed too close.

Many kid-carrying trailers are 3’+ wide. My kid carrying bike is 3′ wide. The edge of that would have likely been on the edge of the bike lane. That would really not be fun to ride there.

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you’ve out it.

Quite frankly if I had a dollar for every time I have seen a kid in a trailer on a street with a sharrows, or that otherwise is fast and busy enough to have a bike lane, but does not, I would be just as poor as I am now.

Granted I do not spend a lot of time in N Arlington, or in the most bike friendly parts of DC north of the Mall, but I pretty much only see trailers with kids on MUTs, in bike lanes, or on very quiet residential streets. I don’t think I have even seen one on Abingdon, in family friendly, bike friendly Fairlington. Maybe not riding the right time of day, I don’t know.

[lordofthemark]

@Steve O 124508 wrote:

So from a design perspective, I wonder which would be better if we had an extra foot. (Not knowing exactly how wide the lane is and not being an engineer.)

– Making the bike lane another foot wider, squeezing the car travel lane somewhat (and hopefully encouraging more compliance with posted speed limits)
– Adding a 1-foot wide painted buffer between the outside edge of the bike lane and the car travel lane
– Or similarly, painting a really wide stripe

Do you want to give cyclists more flexibility (because they know what is safest, and will go to the left edge of the lane where conditions warrant) or less (because clueless newbs who may ride too far left for reasons I can’t think of off the top of my head)

I think the tendency is to keep the bike lanes narrow and add a buffer – perhaps to discourage tight bike bike passes within the bike lane? In some places it is to make sure the bike lane doesn’t look like a parking lane.

[scoot]

@Steve O 124508 wrote:

would it be good to add flexi-bollards, too?

Who are you, and what have you done with Steve O?

[TwoWheelsDC]

I don’t know what the dimensions are here, but they’re not good…I find myself regularly having to take the lane because of car doors here (Westmoreland at Pimmit Run).

**edit** there was no one even in the freaking car…it was just parked with the door open across the entire bike lane.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 124509 wrote:

I am assuming that any new bike lanes will not include the gutter pan. Ms Poole, the complete streets coordinator for the City of Alexandria said as much if I understood her correctly (in the context of why a PBL to the right of parked cars takes more road space than a door zone bike lane) The same approach is not followed in other jurisdictions?

Edit:Perhaps she meant to the joint? AASHTO guide says a bike lanes should be minimum 3 ft excluding gutter, so for a 5 ft lane it should be possible to ride about 6 inches to the right of the center of the lane. I guess not enough for a trailer. Of course cities and counties could follow recommended widths instead of minimum widths.

The Wilson Blvd bike lanes were installed earlier this year.
@lordofthemark 124511 wrote:

Quite frankly if I had a dollar for every time I have seen a kid in a trailer on a street with a sharrows, or that otherwise is fast and busy enough to have a bike lane, but does not, I would be just as poor as I am now.

My point is we should be designing for bikes that are at least 3′ wide, because that will accommodate all the bikes. I understand that many people wouldn’t ride somewhere like western Wilson (where the new painted lanes are) with kids, but (1) isn’t that the goal – to make it safe to ride with kids? and (2) I actually see a fair number of people who drop their kids off and continue on. In fact, I usually ride my kid-toting, 3′-wide bike without kids.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 124549 wrote:

The Wilson Blvd bike lanes were installed earlier this year.

My point is we should be designing for bikes that are at least 3′ wide, because that will accommodate all the bikes. I understand that many people wouldn’t ride somewhere like western Wilson (where the new painted lanes are) with kids, but (1) isn’t that the goal – to make it safe to ride with kids? and (2) I actually see a fair number of people who drop their kids off and continue on. In fact, I usually ride my kid-toting, 3′-wide bike without kids.

I agree that the AASHTO minimum (3 feet of rideable area when a gutter pan is present) is problematic, and a wider bike lane is preferred. I am wondering though, about the tradeoffs in cases where a wider lane is not possible – where a 3 foot lane (not in a door zone) is one choice, and no bike lane at all (either painted sharrows or nothing) is the other choice. Consider all cyclists in a 2 by 2 matrix – A. confident cyclists with conventional bikes, B. confident cyclists with trailers or bakfiets, C. Cautious cyclists with conventional bikes D. B. confident cyclists with trailers or bakfiets,

On a road like this D won’t ride anyway. If we stripe the lane, A and C can use it, but B will have the discomfort of needing to take the general travel lane on a road with a bike lane. If we do not stripe the lane, A and B can take the general travel lane, but C will avoid this road. So the number of B vs the number of B matters (granted that the number of C – those unwilling to ride without a bike lane – will depend on the particulars of the road)

Note also I have not included the possibility that an inferior (but not door zone) bike lane will preclude some treatment on a parallel street.

[hozn]

@Steve O 124508 wrote:

– Making the bike lane another foot wider, squeezing the car travel lane somewhat (and hopefully encouraging more compliance with posted speed limits)
– Adding a 1-foot wide painted buffer between the outside edge of the bike lane and the car travel lane
– Or similarly, painting a really wide stripe

I like the idea of the 1-foot wide painted buffer [not raised]. I don’t think the lanes in N Arl are too narrow (I pull a double chariot trailer in them), but I’d like a little extra visual buffer for my son. He is generally good about staying in the lines, but when he’s struggling on hills he tends to weave a bit and cars pass pretty close to that white line. Not sure if the cars could get too much more squeezed on Patrick Henry south of Wash Blvd, which is where I’d like the extra buffer, but in general I think the buffer would be great for kids.

I don’t like the idea of bollards or raised “median” as it’d probably result in crashes for my kid, potentially throwing him into the traffic lane.

I’m mostly just grateful that most of the larger roads around me have bike lanes. I think of them like the lines in coloring books. On roads where there is no bike lane, I want my son to learn to ride in what would be the middle of the bike lane, so he’s not bombing down the hill at 20mph swerving into the gutter and then back out into the road to go around parked cars. That’s terrifying; I’m drawing him a picture after school today to hopefully communicate this point more constructively than just yelling at him to “ride straight”.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 124551 wrote:

I agree that the AASHTO minimum (3 feet of rideable area when a gutter pan is present) is problematic, and a wider bike lane is preferred. I am wondering though, about the tradeoffs in cases where a wider lane is not possible – where a 3 foot lane (not in a door zone) is one choice, and no bike lane at all (either painted sharrows or nothing) is the other choice. Consider all cyclists in a 2 by 2 matrix – A. confident cyclists with conventional bikes, B. confident cyclists with trailers or bakfiets, C. Cautious cyclists with conventional bikes D. B. confident cyclists with trailers or bakfiets,

On a road like this D won’t ride anyway. If we stripe the lane, A and C can use it, but B will have the discomfort of needing to take the general travel lane on a road with a bike lane. If we do not stripe the lane, A and B can take the general travel lane, but C will avoid this road. So the number of B vs the number of B matters (granted that the number of C – those unwilling to ride without a bike lane – will depend on the particulars of the road)

Note also I have not included the possibility that an inferior (but not door zone) bike lane will preclude some treatment on a parallel street.

Maybe. Honestly, this is why I’m wishy-washy about this sort of thing. I can’t see spending much energy to fight for it, and of course I’m not going to fight against it if it’s all we got, because I do think painting a picture of a bike on a street is better than nothing.

But the Crystal Drive situation is a good example: If we can convince the County we have a few extra feet, is it better to make the painted southbound bike lane protected and have no north bound bike lane (that will be on Clark/Bell), or is it better to have 2, paint-only bike lanes, one of which is to the right of a transitway, and the other to the left of parking?

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 124555 wrote:

If we can convince the County we have a few extra feet, is it better to make the painted southbound bike lane protected and have no north bound bike lane (that will be on Clark/Bell), or is it better to have 2, paint-only bike lanes, one of which is to the right of a transitway, and the other to the left of parking?

I’m going with A. My reasoning is that creating more and more of real 21st-century bike facilities helps in the effort to accelerate the creation of even more. Just having same-old painted bike lanes doesn’t help us as much in the long run.

[wheelswings]

@dasgeh 124555 wrote:

is it better to make the painted southbound bike lane protected and have no north bound bike lane (that will be on Clark/Bell)…

Do we ever put up signs on uni-directional bike lanes telling riders which street has the return lane? It seems like that could be helpful to newer riders.

[dasgeh]

Maybe the answer is to take “regular” painted bike lanes out of the equation, and instead use “advisory bike lanes”. These could be painted properly, with a buffer from the door zone (not shown below), then broken lines at least 6′ wide (for a bike up to 3′ wide and a 3′ passing buffer), and bonus points for colored paint. That would show bikes where to ride, and cars where to pass bikes, when they’re there, and alert drivers to look for bikes…. Discuss

@Fairlington124 117679 wrote:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8827[/ATTACH]

[Author]

Posts