Re: [CABOforum] DIB-94 approved [Was: COMMENTS BY COB 5/10 on DRAFT DIB-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance]
Jim Baross
In my comments on the draft of this DIB, I pointed out that the selection criteria for Class IV bikeways omit a critical factor--frequency, speed, and volume of crossflows at intersections and driveways--and I elaborated on the geometric conflicts that these facilities can create. Unsurprisingly, nothing has changed. Section 5.1.5 on Class IV Separated Bikeways contains not a word about intersections, cross streets, crossflows, geometric conflicts, or anything of that sort. Rather, it finds that Class IV separated bikeways are "most appropriate for higher speed and/or higher traffic volume environments" and "very desirable" for urban environments, and that they "provide comfortable facilities for all users." The most I can find about crossflows is that "When approaching driveways, either the Class IV separated bikeway may be transitioned to a buffered facility without vertical elements or vertical elements that provide sight distances for drivers can be utilized." Five photos show long stretches of bikeway blissfully uninterrupted by crossings.
But of course this was only to be expected. Admitting that separated bikeways have the potential to create geometric conflicts at intersections and driveways is strictly taboo. The words must never be spoken. Every time I've asked a consultant about intersection conflicts on cycle tracks, my question has been ignored, brushed off, or deflected. Design guidance for separated bikeways treats intersection design, at best, as an enhancement, a nice-to-have to embellish your facility, not a critical safety issue that has been created by the design itself and that should be addressed and mitigated if the facility is to be considered at all. But this DIB will now be cited to push for cycle tracks almost everywhere, and issues of design will come into play only after the planning decision has already been made.
This is the school of bike planning that I call Happy Wheels. The primary purpose of Happy Wheels is to attract casual bicyclists by encouraging their fear of overtaking traffic, and then catering to that fear through separated facilities that bicyclists "of all ages and abilities" (including none) can buzz along carefree, secure that they're "protected" from conflicts with cars (or that if there are any conflicts, it's the exclusive responsibility of motorists to avoid them). Its secondary purpose is to make planners, engineers, and advocates feel progressive and innovative. Issues such as the operating characteristics of the facilities, their compliance with existing standards and practices, or even basic questions about sight lines, stopping distances, and right-of-way are resolutely ignored. I used to think that was just to avoid dispelling the warm, fuzzy Happy Wheels feeling that is the ultimate goal of this approach, but it might also be that Happy Wheelers simply don't acknowledge traffic engineering as a legitimate way of looking at bicycle facilities. There seems to be a heavy dose of groupthink involved as well.
~ Alan
|
Sender notified by Mailtrack | 01/23/24, 02:50:51 PM |