San Jose new bike lane design... all good?
Mike Jacoubowsky
a bike lane has me perplexed.
I like the idea that the city wants to seriously find ways to encourage more
people to ride. Good for people, good for the environment, good for bike
shops!
But the idea of a bike lane that's separated from the normal traffic is
troublesome. What they showed was a bike lane adjacent to the roadway, with
parked cars *between* the bike lane and the normal roadway. They spoke of
some sort of barrier, either landscape or curb, between the two.
My issues?
First, you're putting bikes into a separate area, not subject to normal
street-sweeping (In other words, I'm concerned about the amount of debris
that's likely to accumulate; an extreme example of this would be the
Dumbarton Bridge bike "lane" where all manner of garbage sits there waiting
to slice your tire open. Obviously it wouldn't be as bad as that, but are
they really going to buy and regularly-use some sort of substandard-width
street sweeper on a regular basis?).
Second, would there be an expectation that the segregated bike lane is where
bikes are *supposed* to ride? If the bike lane is well-used, I would imagine
a lot of slower-moving cyclists and unless it's very wide, a real potential
for conflict with faster cyclists trying to get somewhere in a hurry...
cyclists that would normally have little problem being out in the "real"
lane with the cars.
I respect and appreciate the fact that somebody is recognizing the problems
cyclists have when having to ride in the "door zone" on most roads, but I'm
not sure this is the best way to go about fixing that problem. Nor do I
think that "separate but equal" (having our own place to ride) is workable,
as it sends a message to motorists that we don't belong on "normal" roads...
instead, we should be on the bike way where we belong.
What did others think?
Thanks-
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Skip
news:207tk.19079$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
See Mike's post above for the full scoop.
> What did others think?
>
> Thanks-
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky
Back when we were in High School (so many years ago) and riding together,
rememeber that Palo Alto did the same thing -- using raised "curbs" to
seperate the bike lane.
Both of your points -- lack of street-sweeping and an "expectation" of
this-is-where-bicycles-belong -- were true.
In my experience, the lack of street sweeping (the Palo Alto sweeping
apparatus did not fit in the narrow lanes, and nobody seemed interested in
fixing the problem) was the larger issue.
I had a personal concern about the low "curbs" used as barriers -- an
inadvertent swerve could catapult the rider over the "curb" and into the
traffic lanes. But I never heard that this was ever an issue, so we can
discount this particular item.
Did Ellen Fletcher (our PA Council bicycle advocate) have anything to say at
the time? I don't remember.
- Skip
peter
wrote:
> Reading the piece in Tuesday's SJ Mercury News about San Jose's new idea for
> a bike lane has me perplexed.
>
> I like the idea that the city wants to seriously find ways to encourage more
> people to ride. Good for people, good for the environment, good for bike
> shops!
>
> But the idea of a bike lane that's separated from the normal traffic is
> troublesome. What they showed was a bike lane adjacent to the roadway, with
> parked cars *between* the bike lane and the normal roadway. They spoke of
> some sort of barrier, either landscape or curb, between the two.
>
> My issues?
>
> First, you're putting bikes into a separate area, not subject to normal
> street-sweeping (In other words, I'm concerned about the amount of debris
> that's likely to accumulate; an extreme example of this would be the
> Dumbarton Bridge bike "lane" where all manner of garbage sits there waiting
> to slice your tire open. Obviously it wouldn't be as bad as that, but are
> they really going to buy and regularly-use some sort of substandard-width
> street sweeper on a regular basis?).
I'd also be concerned about safety aspects if this is planned for a
normal street with access from parking lots/garages, driveways, and
assorted business entrances. My experience with such separated paths
is that drivers frequently pull into the path without looking enough
to see cyclists and then stop at the entrance to the street - i.e.
still blocking the path.
And, of course, the cyclists may also need to leave the path to
prepare for a left turn to get to their destination.
At least San Jose wouldn't have the problem experienced by Chicago a
couple decades ago. They put in an extensive system of such divided
bike paths and then discovered with the first snow fall that 1) the
paths couldn't be cleared, and 2) the plows on the street kept hitting
the dividers.
Tom Kunich
news:207tk.19079$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> street-sweeping (In other words, I'm concerned about the amount of debris
> that's likely to accumulate; an extreme example of this would be the
> Dumbarton Bridge bike "lane" where all manner of garbage sits there
> waiting to slice your tire open. Obviously it wouldn't be as bad as that,
> but are they really going to buy and regularly-use some sort of
> substandard-width street sweeper on a regular basis?).
I go over the Dumbarton a lot. There sometimes is garbage there but the
bridge district has a path sweeper that they send over the bridge several
times a year. So it generally doesn't get bad. If there is broken glass and
the like and you don't stop and pick it up and toss it over the side, you
can call the bridge district and report that it needs sweeping again.
> Second, would there be an expectation that the segregated bike lane is
> where bikes are *supposed* to ride?
This is the real problem. What's more, why put the bicycles next to the
pedestrians instead of the cars? How do the drivers and passengers get
across the bike path?
dave a
I think this design is used in some European cities. I seem to recall
seeing them quite frequently in Amsterdam where they worked quite well.
/dave a
Jeremy
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > First, you're putting bikes into a separate area, not subject to normal
> > street-sweeping (In other words, I'm concerned about the amount of debris
> > that's likely to accumulate; an extreme example of this would be the
> > Dumbarton Bridge bike "lane" where all manner of garbage sits there waiting
> > to slice your tire open. Obviously it wouldn't be as bad as that, but are
> > they really going to buy and regularly-use some sort of substandard-width
> > street sweeper on a regular basis?).
> >
> > Second, would there be an expectation that the segregated bike lane is where
> > bikes are *supposed* to ride? If the bike lane is well-used, I would imagine
> > a lot of slower-moving cyclists and unless it's very wide, a real potential
> > for conflict with faster cyclists trying to get somewhere in a hurry...
> > cyclists that would normally have little problem being out in the "real"
> > lane with the cars.
> >
> I think this design is used in some European cities. I seem to recall
> seeing them quite frequently in Amsterdam where they worked quite well.
I can confirm that they are common in Amsterdam, and that I see both
problems Mike mentioned. To the second concern, add that pedestrians (and
bicyclists) don't seem to give them the same level of respect they do to the
normal road. I see people stopping to chat mid bikelane all the time, but
doing the same in the middle of car traffic is a rarity.
Add to that the brick work and reduced maintenance they receive, compared
to the roads they parallel. And there's the issue of having a number of
bicycle lane intersections per street intersection, which seems to promote
gridlock. I think they work reasonably well for people riding slowly, but
in general I prefer not to have them. They do seem to function better in
cities with less bike traffic, but maybe I'm just suffering from the same
lack of perspective short term visitors here have.
Jeremy (in Amsterdam)
Cycle Carl
"Skip" <Sk...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:s%ctk.19087$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
> news:207tk.19079$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> See Mike's post above for the full scoop.
>
>> What did others think?
>>
>> Thanks-
>>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky
>
> Back when we were in High School (so many years ago) and riding together,
> rememeber that Palo Alto did the same thing -- using raised "curbs" to
> seperate the bike lane.
>
> Both of your points -- lack of street-sweeping and an "expectation" of
> this-is-where-bicycles-belong -- were true.
>
> In my experience, the lack of street sweeping (the Palo Alto sweeping
> apparatus did not fit in the narrow lanes, and nobody seemed interested in
> fixing the problem) was the larger issue.
>
> I had a personal concern about the low "curbs" used as barriers -- an
> inadvertent swerve could catapult the rider over the "curb" and into the
> traffic lanes. But I never heard that this was ever an issue, so we can
> discount this particular item.
>
These "curbs" exist on Canada Rd. in Woodside. There was an incident a few
years ago where the curb "resumed" just past an intersection. A cyclist hit
the blunt end of the curb and was thrown. Mike can provide more details, as
he was, I think, first on the scene.
Soon after, the curb was painted and a short flexible pole installed as a
warning. I guess I'm not a very observant rider, because I can't remember
if the pole is still there.
--
Carl
Claus Assmann
> But the idea of a bike lane that's separated from the normal traffic is
> troublesome. What they showed was a bike lane adjacent to the roadway, with
> parked cars *between* the bike lane and the normal roadway. They spoke of
> some sort of barrier, either landscape or curb, between the two.
Deadly design. It's widely used in Germany and it is the cause for
frequent cyclist deaths due to collisions with trucks/cars making
turns at intersection (just see de.rec.fahrrad: almost every week
someone posts about yet another cyclist being killed due to this).
The drivers have problems seeing the bikes. And this happens even
though drivers "should" be used to the lanes being seperated. If
car drivers don't even know about it (as it will be the case here?),
it will be even more dangerous. It also causes problems at entries/exits
to/from parking lots etc, as drivers will pull up to the street and
most likely ignore/block cyclists.
When I was back in Germany for a visit I tried to avoid those lanes,
but most of them are mandatory. It was by far the most annoying
part of my stay, significantly worse than the car drivers who honk
at you because they believe they "own the street". Another (minor)
problem is that those lanes are usually not wide enough to overtake
someone.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> but most of them are mandatory. It was by far the most annoying
> part of my stay, significantly worse than the car drivers who honk
> at you because they believe they "own the street". Another (minor)
> problem is that those lanes are usually not wide enough to overtake
> someone.
It's the potential semi-mandatory aspect that could occur without any
specific intent that adds yet another cause for caution on this one. It's
great that the city of San Jose wants to get behind cycling as a solution to
many problems, but I can't quite figure out why everybody in the article
(including the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition) seemed to be all-smiles
about it.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Claus Assmann" <ca+sendmail(no-copies-please)@mine.informatik.uni-kiel.de>
wrote in message news:g93v60$1b32$1...@mothra.sendmail.com...
danme...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Separate bike lanes = bike ghettos.
Sometimes when I see separate bike lanes I get the impression that
they are there for the convenience of drivers not bicyclists.
Traffic engineers are slowly getting up to speed concerning bikes but
some still don't get it. I recall a student in a traffic engineering
class being assigned the task of comparing transportation options for
the commute from his house to school. He concluded that a bicycle was
the best option but got a poor grade because the professor claimed
that a bicycle was not a viable transportation option. Perhaps it
isn’t on some streets.
Painting “SHARE LANE" or “YIELD TO BICYCLES” along with standard MUTCD
bicycle symbols in the existing right lane might be a better solution.
A full traffic lane of bikes will probably transport more people in an
urban area than a lane of cars. Average bike speed on Santa Clara
Street is probably close to the car speed so traffic flow would
probably be ok.
I took my bike to Sunriver and Bend, OR this summer where I found very
bike aware communities but not always bike friendly or bike safe
communities - I hope SJ can do a better job of it.
Cycle Carl
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
... omitted stuff ...
>
> It's the potential semi-mandatory aspect that could occur without any
> specific intent that adds yet another cause for caution on this one. It's
> great that the city of San Jose wants to get behind cycling as a solution
> to many problems, but I can't quite figure out why everybody in the
> article (including the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition) seemed to be
> all-smiles about it.
... omitted stuff ...
The SVBC list serv is pretty active on this topic. Corinne has posted twice
to explain. My (probably not completely correct) summary:
It is great that the pols want to enhance cycling downtown, we should
support them.
There's lots of time to fix the details.
Because of unfortunate timing, SVBC wasn't able to be involved with the
details before the announcement.
SVBC is now talking with council member Liccardo on the details.
--
Carl
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:qihtk.8695$cn7....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
Relieved to hear that! Which I'd also heard elsewhere earlier today.
Les Earnest
> Separate bike lanes = bike ghettos.
I agree. Here is a letter I sent to the S.J. Mercury News on Monday.
They haven't printed it so far.
---------------------------------------
Wanting "A lane of their own" (SJMN 8/26/08, page B-1) is typical of
naive cyclists and city planners who don't ride bikes. With a bike lane
on the right side of parked cars, how would they make the transition to
a left turn lane when needed?
As a bicycle commuter with over 70 years experience I detest bike lanes
in general, which amount to ghettos that are "separate but unequal".
Instead I seek streets with wide outside lanes that allow motorists to
pass me safely. I, in turn, ride my bike pretty much the same way I
drive my car, including signaling lane changes when needed. This works
well and over all these years I have never had a serious altercation
with a motor vehicle, though I've had a few words with drivers.
Les Earnest
Timothy J. Lee
Mike Jacoubowsky <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>But the idea of a bike lane that's separated from the normal traffic is
>troublesome. What they showed was a bike lane adjacent to the roadway, with
>parked cars *between* the bike lane and the normal roadway. They spoke of
>some sort of barrier, either landscape or curb, between the two.
In addition to the problems you mention, another problem is that
bicyclists would not be able to merge into the appropriate lane
when approaching an intersection, particularly when the bicyclist
is turning left, or the bicyclist is going straight when car are
allowed to turn right.
Here is the article on the on-line SJMN in case anyone was looking
for it: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10300289
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
> In addition to the problems you mention, another problem is that
> bicyclists would not be able to merge into the appropriate lane
> when approaching an intersection, particularly when the bicyclist
> is turning left, or the bicyclist is going straight when car are
> allowed to turn right.
>
Apparently the assumption is that cyclists will dismount and walk
through all intersections.
73, doug
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:48b5bbda$0$17176$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> In article <207tk.19079$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> Mike Jacoubowsky <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>>But the idea of a bike lane that's separated from the normal traffic is
>>troublesome. What they showed was a bike lane adjacent to the roadway,
>>with
>>parked cars *between* the bike lane and the normal roadway. They spoke of
>>some sort of barrier, either landscape or curb, between the two.
>
> In addition to the problems you mention, another problem is that
> bicyclists would not be able to merge into the appropriate lane
> when approaching an intersection, particularly when the bicyclist
> is turning left, or the bicyclist is going straight when car are
> allowed to turn right.
Very true. Each and every intersection would be essentially the equivalent
of two intersections. Twice as many opportunities for conflict, plus the
cars just aren't thinking about looking for cyclists outside their lane.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:g94ddv$f20$1...@news.stanford.edu...
Les: I'm not convinced bike lanes are a bad idea. Badly-designed bike lanes
are definitely worse than no bike lane at all, but a proper design, such as
you'll find in San Francisco, doesn't just enhance safety, but also
advertises that cycling is something practical to do. An in-your-face sort
of thing.
You and I feel very comfortable acting like cars. We take the lane as
needed, assert our rights but aren't so dumb as to think that we can win a
battle with something that outweighs us 10-to-1. And, like you, I've had
very few incidents with cars over the years; so few, in fact, that the ones
that do happen are quite memorable.
But there are an awful lot of people who didn't grow up in a bike culture
like we did, and that goes for both cyclists and car drivers. Giving new or
insecure cyclists the idea that the streets are there for them to use isn't
a bad idea (and that's one of the things that marked bike lanes do). What we
have to guard against is the idea that a street with a bike lane is the only
place that's safe to ride, and we have to be especially vigilant of our
rights to the normal roadway and not some mandated bike path.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Timothy J. Lee
Mike Jacoubowsky <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>"Timothy J. Lee" <remo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:48b5bbda$0$17176$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> bicyclists would not be able to merge into the appropriate lane
>> when approaching an intersection, particularly when the bicyclist
>> is turning left, or the bicyclist is going straight when car are
>> allowed to turn right.
>
>Very true. Each and every intersection would be essentially the equivalent
>of two intersections. Twice as many opportunities for conflict, plus the
>cars just aren't thinking about looking for cyclists outside their lane.
Yes, and drivers may not even know that there is the bike lane
intersection right after they make a turn at the main intersection.
Also, in this proposal, the presence of parked cars between the main
traffic lane and the bike lane will make it hard for drivers who are
looking to see if there are bicyclists in the bike lane, and vice-versa.
Especially if there is a large cargo van or similar vehicle parked there.
Even worse would be if such a design were used on roads with numerous
driveways to parking lots, etc..
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> bicyclists would not be able to merge into the appropriate lane
>>> when approaching an intersection, particularly when the bicyclist
>>> is turning left, or the bicyclist is going straight when car are
>>> allowed to turn right.
>>
>>Very true. Each and every intersection would be essentially the equivalent
>>of two intersections. Twice as many opportunities for conflict, plus the
>>cars just aren't thinking about looking for cyclists outside their lane.
>
> Yes, and drivers may not even know that there is the bike lane
> intersection right after they make a turn at the main intersection.
>
> Also, in this proposal, the presence of parked cars between the main
> traffic lane and the bike lane will make it hard for drivers who are
> looking to see if there are bicyclists in the bike lane, and vice-versa.
> Especially if there is a large cargo van or similar vehicle parked there.
>
> Even worse would be if such a design were used on roads with numerous
> driveways to parking lots, etc..
Right. It wouldn't be such a bad design if it ran along a restricted-access
highway, where there would be long distances without crossings. But that's
not the way cities are built!
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Timothy J. Lee" <remo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:48b63c4e$0$17235$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Ravi
> Les: I'm not convinced bike lanes are a bad idea. Badly-designed bike lanes
I think bike lanes are a good idea (only when it is properly designed).
There are lots of advantages to bike lanes, here's a different perspective:
When i started driving my car, i was scared to drive on a lanes adjacent
to that where a big truck is traveling. The only thing that gave me
confidence then was the lane marking...
Same applies when car drivers deal with cyclists - if the cyclist is
well within the bike lane - it gives the car drivers the assurance that
if they continue to drive straight in their lane (car lane), it will all
be ok. The other side of the bike lane gives them the confidence that
they can pass safely. I think the DMV should have the new test takers
drive on roads with bike lanes and may be have some cyclist dummy on the
road and see how they pass safely...
my 2cents,
+ravi
Mike Jacoubowsky
> within the bike lane - it gives the car drivers the assurance that if
> they continue to drive straight in their lane (car lane), it will all be
> ok. The other side of the bike lane gives them the confidence that they
> can pass safely. I think the DMV should have the new test takers drive on
> roads with bike lanes and may be have some cyclist dummy on the road and
> see how they pass safely...
>
> my 2cents,
> +ravi
Ravi:
> I think the DMV should have the new test takers drive on roads with bike
> lanes and may be have some cyclist dummy on the road and see how they pass
> safely...
"Dummy" cyclists on a safety course? Would that be like the dummy deer they
put up near the roadways in WI, so they can bag folk shooting deer from
their cars? I dunno... drivers might regard it as target practice rather
than avoidance!
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Ravi" <tor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TGUtk.35970$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
Timothy J. Lee
Mike Jacoubowsky <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>Les: I'm not convinced bike lanes are a bad idea. Badly-designed bike lanes
>are definitely worse than no bike lane at all, but a proper design, such as
>you'll find in San Francisco, doesn't just enhance safety, but also
>advertises that cycling is something practical to do. An in-your-face sort
>of thing.
San Francisco is not really a good example of well designed bicycle
facilities. The bike lanes on Embarcadero are within the door range
of where cars may be legally parked.
sally
news:48c9683e$0$17220$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> facilities. The bike lanes on Embarcadero are within the door range
> of where cars may be legally parked.
San Francisco is not perfect, but it is pretty good considering the
population density and congestion and age of the streets.
Timothy J. Lee
On the other hand, putting a bike lane within the door range of legally
parked cars is worse than no bike lane at all. Motorists may expect
bicyclists to ride in such an unsafe bike lane (and get road rage if
they see bicyclists riding on the road outside of the bike lane), even
though it is unsafe. Perhaps it is no surprise that most bicyclists
I see there are riding on the sidewalk (not very safe either, due to
intersection conflicts, and an annoyance to pedestrians).
Jym Dyer
>> doesn't just enhance safety, but also advertises that cycling
>> is something practical to do. An in-your-face sort of thing.
> San Francisco is not really a good example of well designed
> bicycle facilities. The bike lanes on Embarcadero are within
> the door range of where cars may be legally parked.
=v= Those bike lanes were made without input from the local bike
advocacy community. (We had much to say after the fact, and
what you see there is actually an improvement, but it's agreed
all around that these aren't the best bike lane implementation.)
=v= A better San Francisco example would be Valencia Street, a
reconfiguration of a four-lane road into a liveable, walkable,
bikeable space that thrived almost instantly.
<_Jym_>