Sharing v. Segregation

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 22135 wrote:

I think you are setting up a straw man. My point is that separate infrastructure as designed is often less safe than non-segregated.

And in other cases the road infrastructure is inherently unsafe. Cherry picking examples leads nowhere. There’s also an evolution in the design of any infrastructure; we’re certainly not building roads the same way we did 100 years ago–because lessons have been learned. If we took the approach you seem to be suggesting (“well, the first try wasn’t a complete success, let’s give up”) we’d be trying to get around on the rotting remnants of corduroy roads and going nowhere fast.

I also don’t see building substantial amounts of segregated infrastructure (except perhaps bike lanes) as sufficiently inexpensive to be likely.

As others have pointed out, this is a generational question. Look at the amount of money that has been dumped into car infrastructure in the past 50 years, and consider what a small percentage of that redirected into bike infrastructure might look like. It’s somewhat frustrating if the response to planning for 50 years out is basically, “well, the money isn’t there to do it all right now and I don’t want it for myself anyway, so screw it”.

[Greenbelt]

An article with links to some research: http://streetsblog.net/2012/06/12/want-to-increase-cycling-sharrows-wont-cut-it/

[DismalScientist]

@Greenbelt 22142 wrote:

An article with links to some research: http://streetsblog.net/2012/06/12/want-to-increase-cycling-sharrows-wont-cut-it/

The question is not necessarily whether sharrows encourage new bicyclists, but also whether sharrows make bicycling safer.

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 22139 wrote:

As others have pointed out, this is a generational question. Look at the amount of money that has been dumped into car infrastructure in the past 50 years, and consider what a small percentage of that redirected into bike infrastructure might look like. It’s somewhat frustrating if the response to planning for 50 years out is basically, “well, the money isn’t there to do it all right now and I don’t want it for myself anyway, so screw it”.

I think the point that is missed is that most (i.e. with the exception of freeways) car infrastructure is also bike infrastructure. Furthermore, the local attitude on all infrastructure (with the exception of privately-funded and Metro) seems to be that “well, the money isn’t there to do it all right now …, so screw it”

Given the number of drivers versus the number of cyclists, I think dreams of fully built out bike-specific infrastructure is unrealistic.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 22154 wrote:

I think the point that is missed is that most (i.e. with the exception of freeways) car infrastructure is also bike infrastructure.

Which is a ridiculous position given the speed of the local car infrastructure; the line between freeways and non-freeways doesn’t exist around here, and the only through way between two points is often a multi-lane high-speed arterial.

Furthermore, the local attitude on all infrastructure (with the exception of privately-funded and Metro) seems to be that “well, the money isn’t there to do it all right now …, so screw it”

As far as the local attitude on infrastructure, you’re wrong–implementation of stuff that was planned 40+ years ago is still moving quietly along. Short-term politics gets a lot of press and big projects get a lot of excitement, but the day-to-day work of putting in new roads just keeps plugging along every time a developer embarks on a project. You either get on the plans now or face an even harder problem in the future.

[5555624]

@mstone 22136 wrote:

Maybe, but it’s mostly a straw man that hasn’t been proposed in this thread.

I guess I just interpreted “there are many people who simply won’t bike without separate” as meaning there were people who won’t bike without separate facilities. My mistake.

[Mark Blacknell]

Just to nudge things a bit – I don’t think there are really too many people “who simply won’t bike without separate facilities” that extend from their front door. I think the bigger numbers come into play when people reach the edges of their neighborhoods. If folks haven’t seen it already, there’s a City of Portland study that identifies most potential cyclists (60% of all people) as ‘Interested but concerned’. These are people want to ride more, but don’t feel safe near fast moving traffic, even with bike lanes. 60%? That’s a *huge* number of people, and I don’t think it’s good to dismiss their concerns out of hand.

[dasgeh]

So I’m late to the party here and have lots of comments. I’ll divide them into a couple posts.
It does seem like there is one point of agreement here: optimally, cyclists should be segregated from pedestrians (at least for “through”) trips. Sounds like we’re going to get that at Gravelly Point (YAY) and hopefully that example will encourage more of that along the MVT. Maybe if we can widen local trails and sidewalks, we can put in markings to indicate the “ped” areas and the “moving” areas. (I hesitate to ban our local eliptigo)
As far as the mixing of bikes and cars, I agree with Mark B. here that either “purist” answer doesn’t fit with the realities of our situation. There are streets where it makes sense to have bikes and cars ride together (e.g. most neighborhood streets). There are streets where bike lanes will do (though with my increased experience with Lee Hwy in Cherrydale, I’m beginning to doubt where). And there are streets where only a separate trail/cycletrack will work.
As to gaining acceptance with motorists, I think that once the “rules of the road” are better established and communicated, and there are more people on bikes obeying them, drivers will get it. Hopefully signs and pavement markings will be part of the plan. But drivers understand that the rules vary with the type of road – e.g. it’s fine to make left turns through cut outs on divided streets, but not through the cut outs on interstates. They’ll get used to the idea that bikes ride in bike lanes in some places and not in others. And we should listen to their feedback as to the best way to communicate to them (and in some cases in road design).
Another example to think about: in places where we have bike lanes along side 4+ lane roads, does it really make sense to expect bikes to cross 2+ lanes of traffic to turn left? Or should we have bike waiting areas at lights, so that bikes are expected to cross through the intersection in the bike lane of the road they’re on, then wait in the bike box for the other direction to have green, and proceed forward with that green? Again, my experience biking on Lee Hwy between Quincy and Spout Run makes me think the latter would work better in some cases.

[dasgeh]

@DaveK 22117 wrote:

As much as I’d like to agree with you, this just isn’t so. Look at NYC’s example – the Prospect Park West bike lane required removing a travel lane to put in. NYC DOT did studies showing that not only did vehicle speeds decrease on the adjacent roadway, improving safety for all parties, but travel time through the corridor for vehicles remained unchanged before and after. And cyclist volume went up by a huge percentage. Win-win, right? Wrong. The city will be sued over the installation by nearby residents who have a whole host of objections. And that’s just one example.

My understanding of the conflict over Prospect Park West is that a small but vocal minority is still upset about the bike lanes, and that most users are fine with it, many even favor it. It only takes one plaintiff to sue, and having one plaintiff sue doesn’t mean that plaintiff actually has a case. I also understand that their case is mainly administrative – i.e. about the process involved in getting the bike lanes installed.
What’s interesting about political action is that you usually have vocal minorities either pro, con or both. We have our organized, vocal minority of bike advocates. Particular projects usually garner a vocal minority of opponents who are directly affected (e.g. their street is being painted green or losing parking spaces). I think it’s the job of elected officials to balance the concerns of these minorities and see through to the greater good. I’ve generally been impressed by the ability of the elected officials and county staff in Arlington to do so, especially as it relates to biking (though not always). DaveK is right that the real test of that will come as there are more “losers”, but I’m optimistic.

[dasgeh]

I agree with KLizotte that a lot of this starts with urban planning, and feel lucky that Arlington (at least partially) “gets it” (e.g. few cul de sacs). But that doesn’t get us all the way there, and the question is how to we get from a pretty good urban design to bike-friendly living. E.g. Where are the gaps where you can’t get from A to B on neighborhood roads – what can we do for those? How can we make the MUPs that we have work better and safer? (A few ideas: signs!!!!! Enough room for separation of pedestrians from those on wheels)

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 22120 wrote:

the transitions between segregated and streets and the intersections between streets and segregated facilities can be quite problematic. Witness the Lee/Lynn situation, the crossing of the trails and the GW parkways, potential left and right hooks from on-street cyclotracks, left hooks involving cyclists on sidewalks.

I agree with your first point, but your examples are off. When a segregated becomes a shared facility, we need to pay special attention to the transition to ensure safety (I can use the Lee Hwy in Cherrydale example again, where the bike lane suddenly disappears).
Additionally, where segregated uses cross, we need to pay attention. Lee/Lynn and the GWP crossing are simply poorly thought out crossing. There are no shared facilities in those spots (I’m assuming cyclists get on either the trail or sidewalk from Lee to Lynn there – besides the conflict is with the drivers coming off I66 – no sharing on the off ramp).
@DismalScientist 22120 wrote:

One argument against my claim that on-street cycling is likely safer that segregated facilities is one of sample selection. On street cyclists are likely more experienced than those that stick to segregated facilities.

Also, many of the streets that are cycled on are safer – e.g. lots of people bike on 2nd Street South, fewer on 50. Few accidents on 2nd Street does not imply that there would be few accidents on 50.
@DismalScientist 22120 wrote:

Lastly, on segregated facilities encouraging more bicycling because of the perception of safety, I would suggest that learning to ride and gaining confidence is much better done on quiet neighborhood streets than on multiuse trails.

It’s not about the first time in the saddle. It’s about the first ride to the store, once you learn/remember how to control the bike. Then about the first ride to work. Of course, a person has to be able to control the bike to go anywhere, but there’s more involved in controlling a bike on a busy street than on a MUT/cycletrack. They could get enough experience to start running errands on a bike pretty quickly on those quiet neighborhood streets, then use the trails/cycletracks to connect to stores, restaurants and eventually work.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 22135 wrote:

My point is that separate infrastructure as designed is often less safe than non-segregated.

What in the world do you mean? I can think of a few examples (say, a blind curve and downhill on FMRT) but “often”? Do you mean less efficient/usable (e.g. Lee/Lynn isn’t really unsafe if you wait for the very beginning of the light cycle when you have the protected walk – it’s just annoying to wait an entire light cycle).

PS. Having to wait 30 secs. between posts is annoying.

[mstone]

@5555624 22172 wrote:

I guess I just interpreted “there are many people who simply won’t bike without separate” as meaning there were people who won’t bike without separate facilities. My mistake.

I guess I’d assumed that could reasonably be assumed to not extend from door to door, and would take effect once you get out of the quiet back streets and onto the main roads.

[KLizotte]

@5555624 22130 wrote:

For your first two examples, I’d say they should not be operating a vehicle on the road. Is a 10-year-old going to know all the traffic laws? (I’m not sure I’d even want her riding on the Custis or MVT by herself going to school.) Should someone 90-years-old with bad vision be operating a vehicle on the road? I’m not sure I’d want either one riding in a marked bike lane, since I have seen cars drive several blocks in bike lanes and I’ve even been overtaken by a scooter in a bike lane. Granddad with bad vision is probably going to get doored in a bike lane.

I saw these cyclists riding trails – on cruisers without helmets – in Palm Coast, FL on the rather extraordinary trail network they have there. If I lived on one of the trails I would not hestitate to let my child or granddad use them by themselves. I cannot say the same for Arlington.

[acc]

Different needs require different solutions.

Whether dedicated bike infrastructure is necessary comes down to several things: the importance of the road as a major throughway, the posted speed limit, and available alternatives.

When I plan out a route I look for the one with the least risk. And sometimes I purposely stay off the MUTs. The longer I ride, the more dangerous they seem. Out in traffic I have a certain level of expectation about what the cars around me are going to do. On a MUT who knows what the little kid learning to ride his two-wheeler is going to do, or the lady with the ten yard leash on her dog, or the joggers moving along three abreast. For me, the MUTs are a real crap shoot this time of year.

But for many people, it’s either the MUT or nothing and I understand that. The MUT is a great place to start, a wonderful place to ride for recreation and I don’t mean at 25 mph leaning on aerobars. It’s a good place to get away from the urban landscape and look at trees, creeks and assorted green stuff (besides what grows in my refrigerator).

On busy thoroughfares where the posted speed limit is over 35 mph, I’d like some physical separation between me and the cars that amounts to something more than paint.

On roads with posted speeds of 35 mph or less, I prefer sharrows over the “Share the Road” or “Bicycle Can Take the Full Lane” signs. As a driver I tune out signs like those while sharrows are harder to ignore. When I ride on sharrows I believe the cars have an immediate visual clue that running me off the road might be a bad idea.

I am a big supporter of road diets where bike lanes are added and the car lanes are narrowed. The car speed comes down significantly and I feel safer on the bike lanes as a consequence.

My commute out here in Fairfax County involves an MUT, residential streets, main thoroughfares, and a bit of sharrows. I would appreciate a separate bike path that runs parallel to Fairfax Blvd but I don’t see that coming anytime soon.

But all of this aside, the more people ride the more accidents we are going to have regardless of the infrastructure. It’s just a matter of numbers. No matter what type of road I’m on the best defense is to scan and anticipate what’s happening around me.

ann

[Author]

Posts