Fwd: FW: Comments on Buffered, Contra Flow and Intersection Bike Lane Markings

[Jim Baross]

The State is to be considering adding guidance to the CA-MUTCD re: buffering Bike Lanes. Although anyone is free to make public comment at the meeting of the CTCDC when this comes up, I and Alan Wachtel are positioned to potentially get appropriate information/recommendations/comments into the agenda for prior consideration. A protocol isn't in place yet for compiling that submission, but in the meantime....

I would appreciate reading helpful information and ideas as I work up what I would submit. Especially useful would be actual experience with new, trial, experimental or other current or past uses of "buffering" of Bike Lanes in California... right-side, left-side, both-sides, avoiding Door Zones, discouraging close passing, etc. 

Thanks.

Jim Baross

San Diego, CA

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Lynch, Deborah D@DOT <debora...@dot.ca.gov>
Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:36 AM
Subject: FW: Comments on Buffered, Contra Flow and Intersection Bike Lane Markings
To: 

​- snipped - ​

Please see Devinder’s request below.  Thank you and have a great day!

 

Best Regards,

 

Deborah Lynch

Active Transportation Program Coordinator

Bicycle Transportation Account Program Coordinator

Transportation Enhancement Program Coordinator

Division of Local Assistance, Caltrans

1120 N Street, MS #1

Sacramento, CA  95814

Phone:  (916) 653-0036

Email:  debora...@dot.ca.gov

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/programInformation.htm

 

From: Singh, Devinder@DOT
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:03 PM
To: Lynch, Deborah D@DOT
Subject: Comments on Buffered, Contra Flow and Intersection Bike Lane Markings

 

- Lynch – Could you email to Allan, Jim, Michelle, Dave Snyder and anyone else who you think can provide comments.

 

Please ask them to compile their comments at one place and email to me by August 15, 2014.

 

Thanks!

 

Devinder Singh

Senior Transportation Engineer

Executive Secretary - CTCDC & TDNPC

Office of Traffic Engineering

Division of Traffic Operations

1120 N St., Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 654-4715

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ctcdc/index.htm

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/NewProducts/index.htm

 

[Alan Forkosh]

2 comments:

1. The buffer should not have any posts, or raised obstructions that may restrict bicyclists from crossing the buffer to enter or exit the bike lane. in accordance with Vehicle Code section 201208. In fact, many bicyclists have found that where  a buffer exists, it is often more comfortable and easier to ride in the buffer as there is less loose debris, glass, etc. in the buffer than in the bike lane proper. 

Note: I assume criteria for appropriate means to more fully separate a bicycle facility will be part of the standards and guidelines developed for optional use cycletracks.

2. [Perhaps more relevant to a standard for parking stalls] Here is comment on the illustration at lower right corner of Figure 9C-104 (1 of 2) on page 4 of the attachment.  I believe that the standard parking stall delimiter should include a line projecting into the travelled way at front of the zone. The marking should be as wide as a design vehicle’s open door. I see 2 advantages to this:

a) For people parking—In most vehicles, there is blind spot directly in front of the vehicle extending forward for a substantial distance. This makes the standard marking quite useless to the parker. By extending the stripe on the outside of the space, a driver can use that extension to assure that her vehicle is actually within the marked space.

b) For bicyclists (or even other vehicles on a narrow street—The outside line provides a gauge for how far away the vehicle should be driven to not interfere with people opeing and closing the door of parked vehicles.

For examples of the type of marking I mean (although perhaps not long enough) see the photos at http://photos.al4kosh.com/Cycling/Cycling-Transportation/Bike-Lane-and-Parking-Ts/ of a recent remarking of a street.

Alan Forkosh                    Oakland, CA
afor...@mac.com

http://al4kosh.com

[Michael Graff]

Right, and if I'm traveling in a straight line, parallel to the travel lanes, I don't want to slalom around like an Olympic skier.

The paint used for the buffer should be perfectly flat and not slippery. Don't used raised thermoplastic or other lumpy treatments.

[David Takemoto-Weerts]

Re the use of thermoplastic for buffers and other roadway markings:

 

The city of Davis installed its first buffered bike lanes over the past year. I’m annoyed by the fact that they effectively narrow the bike lane and put me closer to the curb than I would normally ride otherwise. I wouldn’t have a problem riding on the 2’ wide buffer itself if it wasn’t a thermoplastic application. The raised surface makes for a bumpy ride; not as bad as rumble strips, but annoying nevertheless.

 

In addition, the city is almost finished with its first “road diet” conversion on 5^th St. (from A St. to L St.) from 4 lanes to the typical “2-lane/center turn lane/bike lanes” configuration. As each bike lane approaches an intersection and the lane striping becomes dashed, the city chose to follow FHWA’s green bike lane suggestion and striped a green panel immediately on the right side of each dash stripe across the lane to the gutter pan. Also done in thermoplastic, and unlike the buffered lane striping they are impossible to avoid. I understand the cost advantage of thermo vs. paint, but I don’t like riding over it to this extent.

 

Furthermore, this particular green marking treatment may send two wrong messages: 1) it makes the dashed, terminated bike lane look very uninviting to motorists setting up for a proper near-curb right turn, so I suspect more motorists will make right turns without doing the correct merge; and 2) cyclists may feel that they must stay in the bike lane when going straight (or turning left!) rather than merging left to give right-turning motorists space to turn right, especially when facing a red light.

 

In any case, the green lane markings seem overkill to me. FWIW, the new bike lanes themselves are not green.

 

David Takemoto-Weerts

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Graff]

I think this is really the crux of the problem. There are two fundamentally opposite views of how bicycle traffic should work. *WE* think those are the wrong messages, but the dominant view is that those are wonderful messages. "Uninviting to motorists" is a feature. "Staying in the bike lane" is the holy grail. "Giving right-turning motorists space to turn" is a bug.

Being aware of, and cooperating with, the traffic around you? Inconceivable!

It's the same thing with the buffers. *WE* think left-side buffers create all kinds of conflicts and send all kinds of wrong messages. But the dominant view is that separation is good, and more separation is better. The manufactured conflicts are intentional (and never the cyclist's fault).

At best, we can hope for a little bit of damage control, discouraging the most egregiously bad design features, or at least tweaking them so we can choose to avoid the manufactured conflicts.

[John Forester]

Michael Graff is exactly correct. One view of how cyclists should operate is driven by people who are ignorant, frightened, mentally lazy, and traffic incompetent and require facilities that reduce their fears without them being required to do anything for themselves. I have nearly completed a review of Furth's paper on Low Stress Cycling and Network Connectivity. This paper is completely based on this cyclist-inferiority superstition and thereby produces self-contradictory results.

The other view, our view, is that cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

No matter how society tries to foist the cyclist-inferiority cycling pattern on all cyclists, those of us who recognize the advantages of operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles must work together to preserve this right.

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481    fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com