I have not read the study that the article refers to, but part of the problem with discussing this is that it is not always clear what is being discussed. Specifically, the article Richard linked to seems to use bike "lane" and bike "path" interchangeably when, at least for transportation planners and engineers, those are very different things (though the article qualifies its use of the term "lane" with the adjective "separated") Note that bike path miles in the box in the lower left of the article is defined at the bottom of the box as "a path for bikers with a buffer separating it from traffic."
Bike "Lanes" are, by definition, part of the street and traffic flow, not separated from it (e.g. E Wash, E Johnson, Dayton Streets, etc). "Paths" are, by definition, a facility separate from the streets (SW Path and its "Missing Link", Capital City State Trail, etc.) A newer (to us in the US) is something in between, sometimes called a "cycle track" which is something in between "lane" and "path", often in the street (i.e. between the curbs and sidewalks) but separated by a physical barrier that can be anything from a 5' buffer of paint to an actual barrier such as the 4"? curb separating the eastbound bike lane on University Ave, or a slight grade separation (Chicago has tested or plans to test such a facility that is several inches higher than the adjacent street (and any adjacent sidewalk is several inches higher than the cycle track). I think these new facilities are a great idea that could work wonders in some specific locations, and a wonderful tool to add to the full complement of strategies for making our streets more complete that includes off-street paths and in-street lanes. But since we as a society don't have the money to maintain our existing transportation facility network, it seems infeasible to duplicate our existing facilities (which are primarily designed for cars) with another system primarily designed for bikes, much as I would like to see that happen. I think a more realistic long term solution is to turn many of our existing transportation facilities into something that prioritizes bicycles and pedestrians over motor vehicles (without completely restricting motor vehicles). This is exactly what Portland is doing. Portland's long range plan is to create "bicycle boulevards" one block away from every major arterial in the city. Of course, by bicycle boulevard, Portland means engineering changes (like traffic diverters, chicanes, and speed tables) and regulatory changes (MVs only allowed to use the street for local access, but not through traffic, sometimes by restricting intersections to right turns only). Whereas in Madison, we seem to be taking low volume mostly residential streets that were already pretty safe and convenient for bicyclists and merely adding signs and pavement markings to them in order to call them bicycle boulevards. Chuck Strawser Pedestrian & Bicycle Transportation Planner Commuter Solutions Transportation Services UW-Madison Room 124 WARF 610 Walnut St Madison WI 53726 608-263-2969 www.wisc.edu/trans -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Schwinn Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:29 AM To: Bikies Subject: [Bikies] Article from the Daily on separated bike lanes. The article claims that accidents are reduced not just 28 percent but 28 times! Yes, an analysis of the study is certainly called for. My kids have been commuting to school/work for years in areas with bike lanes, yet both have had "accidents" of one form or another - open doors, side view mirror clips and so on. The more ubiquitous bikes become in urban areas, the more likely these and more serious incidents will occur. The AASHTO response reflects the long standing recommendations promoted by LAW (now LAB) years ago. Sounds like time for paradigm shift. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Schwinn Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:47 AM To: Bikies Subject: [Bikies] Article from the Daily on separated bike lanes. This ought to stir up some discussion, since it questions the philosophy of "mainstreaming" cyclists: http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/02/09/021011-news-bike-lanes-2/ What do you think? Richard _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
