it sure would be great. DC just refuses to try the cheap fixes. i'm sure gabe klein could be a great ddot head, but he needs to just have some guts and try some stuff without waiting for months of studies, etc.

if an easy restripe like this blows up in your face, and traffic gridlocks, then just apologize, say "we thought we'd give it the old college try," and put things back to the way they were.

ddot is too risk-averse.

by IMGoph on Sep 19, 2009 6:11 pm • link • report

For the cycle track, how do you deal with right turning cars? They'll be crossing your path but you're hidden behind a row of parked cars.

by Michael Perkins on Sep 19, 2009 7:25 pm • link • report

Why not move the bike lane to the center of the road?
One wouldn't have to deal w/ cars parking in it and it would be easier for drivers as they sit on the left hand side of the car.

by shy on Sep 19, 2009 7:29 pm • link • report

Minneapolis tried that with the bike lane in the center, on Hennepin Ave. Didn't work out so well because of left-turning vehicles...

by Froggie on Sep 19, 2009 7:40 pm • link • report

Michael, this section was chosen for Portland's first cycle track because there are no right turns on this section of street.

The most interesting thing about Portland's track is how it deals with bikes looking to make a left turn. See the green box behind the cyclist in the upper-right photo in the post or go to this image.

NYC's cycle tracks along 8th and 9th Avenues (which, unlike Portland's, are more than just restriping) do have auto turns across the cycle track. They deal with it by having a turning signal for cars crossing the cycle track. Incidentally, this has benefits for peds, who no longer have to keep an eye out for turning vehicles while they have the "walk" signal.

by Stephen Miller on Sep 19, 2009 7:40 pm • link • report

Good question Michael Perkins.

When/where I lived in Denmark, there were separate signals for bike lanes configured this way. It does seem like a potential problem because bikes could effectively be passing on the right side of car traffic.

by spookiness on Sep 19, 2009 9:48 pm • link • report

In Holland they deal with the right turns with separate lights for the car lane and bike lane. You cant turn right onto a street when bikes have a green.

by Boots on Sep 19, 2009 10:01 pm • link • report

This would be great! I live in Arlington at Clarendon and there is a newly striped short segment of street in Courthouse where the bike lane is to the left of the right car turning lane.

On the opposite side of that street are some metro bus stops and _every single time_ I've ridden through a bus has crossed into the bike lane right in front of me. I realize they have no choice but that doesn't change my perception of the drivers as unsafe, inconsiderate, and dangerous.

by james on Sep 20, 2009 10:01 am • link • report

I think that this would be great in DC. I predict more cyclist v pedestrian conflict. This is much better than cars v either one, with less chance of serious injury, but will take time and education. My concern: No enforcement (e.g. people using the lanes to park, travel etc), especially during rush hour when there is no parking.

by SJE on Sep 20, 2009 11:13 am • link • report

@ Boots: I am not sure what you mean there. The turn-on-red doesn't exist in Holland (or the rest of the world except North America). Furthermore, there is an iron-clad rule in Dutch (European?) traffic, that straight going traffic has the right of way on turning traffic. A turning car has to wait for a biker going straight.

In driver's ed (with a practical minimum of 30 hours), it is hammered on that you check your right mirror for bikers at every turn. Remember that in the Netherlands, the car is at fault by default when hitting a biker or pedestrian.

On Portland: Coloring bike lanes works incredibly well. Green, red, whatever. Don't just paint a line. Color the lane. From experience (biking on the same street with just a line and a completely colored lane) I can truly say that the colored lanes are a much larger psychological barrier for cars to swerve into.

by Jasper on Sep 20, 2009 9:35 pm • link • report

Don't forget that more than half of the traffic fatalities in the USA are people on the sidewalk or crossing the street. cities in the USA need to start using actual dividers between automobile traffic and bicycle traffic on their bike tracks (this protects pedestrians on the sidewalk too). NYC did it right on a few of theirs with jersey barriers, but bollards like they use in europe would be a lot prettier.

Curbs don't stop cars from killing people walking or biking - especially SUVs. Curbs only make you THINK you are protected. In the USA you only see bollards protecting utility boxes - never people (says something doesn't it?). Dividers (even a row of parked cars) would go a long way towards preventing cars parked in the bike lane. And where are the bicycle light signals in DC??? you get more cyclists by building the infrastructure that will support them. Copenhagen was a city of cars 30 years ago - they got 30% bicycle mode share by building the infrastructure to support this goal. Now they're aiming for 50% or higher. What mode share of bicycles is DC building for? Why not more? Give me a reason why we should set our sights lower, and what can be done to change that.

by Lee on Sep 20, 2009 10:02 pm • link • report

Just last weekend they added buffered bike lanes on a low traffic couplet in the heart of downtown, made one of the two travel lanes on each of the streets a bike lane...
Portland Office of Transportation: Stark & Oak Buffered Bike Lanes

Portland Office of Transportation: PSU Cycle Track Demonstration

yeah some of the exurbanites that never go downtown are angry about these.

by jon on Sep 21, 2009 2:04 am • link • report

Jasper: I think we are thinking of the same thing. My memory is a little fuzzy from my trip two years ago, but I do recall turning right is not much of an issue there. All I recall is that cars, streetcars and bikes all have separate signaling at intersections, making for a much better interaction of cars.

My point about all of this is that IT IS BEING DONE, and all the senseless and wasteful spending on studies is pointless. Doing this is no more dangerous than what is already out there (see the ghost bike). Certainly there will be crashes, these things do happen, but getting more people to feel like they can ride will increase awareness of bikes by motorists, and this is a good first step.

by Boots on Sep 21, 2009 8:27 am • link • report

Oh and Lee: the cycle track is the one mentioned in your link, I was just out there that week :)

The tucked bike lane behind the transit stop is just plain brilliant, and having to dodge around buses in Arlington I couldn't agree more with James.

by Boots on Sep 21, 2009 8:28 am • link • report

A concern of mine with the boxes at the front of the lanes is that cars don't always stop at the line for whatever reason. Not saying the cars will hit bikers, but they already drift into the bike lanes. Wouldn't some just coast past the line into the box - I've done this for various reasons myself on occasion. It is something that happens and will probably continue to happen once the boxes are there.

I believe some of this has to do with the traffic signal being located on the far side of intersections. When I visited Moscow I noticed that traffic signals were on the near side of the intersection, thus, if you went past the line you didn't know when the light changed.

Has this been tried anywhere in the US and would this make things safer for pedestrians/bikers in an urban environment?

by Rob on Sep 21, 2009 8:50 am • link • report

I, too like the idea of coloring the bike lane. Makes it much more visable to other vehicles.

by Winston on Sep 21, 2009 10:25 am • link • report

@ Boots: You are correct. Safe biking is easy. It is being done on Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, and London is starting. Or anywhere in Asia. There is no need for studies. Just call any of those country's ministry of infrastructure and ask them for a copy of their design rules.

[If you want the thick version, call the Germans. If you want a readable one, call the Netherlands or Denmark. If you want a messy one in three languages, none being English, call Belgium. Want the funny one? Call the mayor of London.]

BTW: The same goes for roundabouts.

by Jasper on Sep 21, 2009 11:00 am • link • report

I think most of the comments here are pretty one-sided. Even in Portland, the cycle track doesn't enjoy wide popularity and it is an experiment that may not last.

As pointed out already, it isn't cost free. All that green paint costs money, and it looks nice and fresh now, but it won't in a few weeks. And then you have to repaint. Adding traffic signals for bikes definitely costs money.
The cycle track comes at a soft cost too. If you prevent right turns along the cycle track, they will happen somewhere else, which means needing a longer turn light, a second turn lane, reinforced roadbed to handle extra traffic, etc.

It is also disingenuous to present the cycle track as risk free. Now cyclists are protected from cars but they have to contend with pedestrians who view the cycle track as a widening of the sidewalk and meander into the cyclists' path. This is especially common with people returning to their parked cars and not looking for cycle traffic. Of course pedestrians aren't as dangerous as moving vehicles are, but it is still a problem.

The argument that it works in Europe or China is just pontless. First of all, China is definitely not a bike culture any more, and they haven't been for more than a decade. And Europe's bike culture is supported in thousands of ways beyond traffic lane lines--it is in their child rearing habits, their labor laws, their climate and environment, the type of homes they build, their social habits, their medical infrastructure, and on and on. It is stupid to think we can import cherry-picked parts of their culture and make it work here.

by ogden on Sep 21, 2009 12:32 pm • link • report

@ogden

It's reasonable to say that the comments are one-sided, but maybe that's because we are discussing a system that, at very low cost, can improve road safety. From a cost-benefit/risk analysis, cycle lanes like those discussed are pretty much a no-brainer. Perhaps you are just playing devil's advocate, but seriously? Do you really think that 'all that green paint' would amount to a significant expense? Supposing it saved one life, would it be cost-effective then?

If there really is opposition to this scheme in Portland, I imagine it comes from people who think these lanes don't go far enough! I think it would be better to have a physical barrier separating a cycle track, but the Portland initiative is certainly better than what we have in DC at the moment.

As for 'soft costs', there are potentially more significant 'soft benefits' from this investment, in terms of improving the quality of our neighborhoods by providing human-scale transit options. You'd see many more cyclists if there was a network of cycle tracks throughout the city, because the key thing that prevents people from cycling is the danger from being hit by a motor vehicle.

The argument that we should learn from the experiences of other countries seems far from pointless to me! People in every country share a common imperative, that is, how to get around in a safe and efficient way. Why wouldn't we learn from best practice overseas? (Also, please tell me how the medical infrastructure in for example the Netherlands informs their choice of cycle lanes????)

by renegade09 on Sep 21, 2009 2:29 pm • link • report