removing a bike lane

This is actually quite damaging for long term efforts in advocating and planning for bike lanes in a city that still has lots of resistant folks to any form of better cycling infrastructure.

After our city installed a bike lane in the north end, less than a year later the city removed it....after a citizen petition,etc. Ridiculous when the local community originally wanted it!!

Same for Toronto where a well used bike lane in downtown core was removed after it was there for a few years. Because of a decree by its buffoonish mayor who has done other strange, more foolish things there...

Yes, well there are the die-hards who think that more people will want to cycle by simply having wider road lanes shared with cars. Yea, sure. That hasn't happened en masse in North America so we have to try other tactics.

I feel your pain. Where I live, bike lanes, along THE SAME ROAD will appear and disappear depending on the width of the road. So you may travel along a road for a few miles with a nice bike lane and then suddenly at the other side of an intersection, it's gone. Ten blocks later and it's there again. How can you call that "bike friendly"?? Different issue, but the core problem remains the same as what you are talking about. I have lived in Europe a few times in my adult life and do not see these issues, as cycling is part of everyday life. I think until that occurs in North America, we're going to continue to be frustrated as cyclists, especially those that commute in urban areas. Cycling is still not the norm. Sadly, it may never be.

In my area the bike lanes do not allow enough room to stay out of the door zone, usually have debris in them, and if the motorist on your left is turning right you may get hit. I think I would prefer sharrows indicating the cars and bikes are to share the lane.

I'm another who is not necessarily enamored with bike lanes. I often find them to be more dangerous and less preferable to using the normal lane for all of the reasons Megustalaplay states. They give the illusion of safety to newbies and may well encourage some people to ride.... but in the long run I don't know that they are a good thing, because they also encourage bad habits in both cyclists and drivers.

What they said. Roads do need to be wide enough to allow safe passing of much slower road users (wheeled, motorized or not). Adding one teeny half-lane instead of widening the existing lanes causes more problems than it solves.

I do prefer to have sharrows on the pavement, though. I don't know if there are any studies on it, but I always feel like motorists are more respectful when they are there (and at least there's a reminder at regular intervals for cars to behave - whether they obey them or not).

I too prefer sharrows to bike lanes (at least the ones we have). But I worry that they can plant the thought in some drivers minds that only where there are sharrows should they expect to be sharing the lane with bikes, instead of almost all the time...

I respectfully disagree: I already live in a city (over 1 million) with many of streets that have wider car lanes and terrain that is flatter than ie. Vancouver. It definitely has not encouraged more cyclists to use such roads.

And parents here in our sprawling prairie city, do not want to cycle with their children on such roads.

For cycllng commuters into downtown since that's where I cycle daily, it is still very noticeable to me even in spring to fall, the majority cyclists commuting to work that I see are....men, not women. Over and over. And these are cyclists who use part of the route ...on a major bike path because that's where I am. Don't tell me that being in a 4 lane one way downtown street is safer during rush hr. It's not a good feeling. We have lots of such streets flowing one way to give cars the advantage of speed and efficiency.

Have any of you biked in separated bike lanes? Lane that may have a concrete barrier on the road or a whole strip of boulevard planters? ...So far, conversation leads me to believe alot of people here don't live in cities with separated bike lanes? Or some of us just aren't mothers with children on bikes. (I'm not one but have cycled with nieces and nephews over time.)


Now with cell phone use (despite laws in some jursidictions, such as mine) by drivers, I would say it's now even more dangerous. Compared to several decades ago.

I rode a lot in Columbus when it had separated bike lanes. It's EXTREMELY dangerous. Everyone, without exception, was glad when they took them out. I thought you were just talking about paint markings. Separated bike lanes are a recipe for intersection collisions. Plus, since street sweepers can't even get into them, they fill up immediately with debris and broken glass and can't be cleaned except by hand, which obviously no one does.

As far as children ... I agree that there's a need for more places for children to ride, but that's not on the roads, period, end of story. We don't allow children to ride motorcycles on the road. Maybe we need more trails for kids to ride their dirt bikes, maybe we need more parks for kids to ride bicycles, but children just don't need to be piloting vehicles on the road.

I guess different jurisdictions have different problems. It may well be that Vancouver has less snow and hence, less gravel, sand piles around that its separated bike lanes don't have that problem.

Oak, in Vancouver we live within l km. radius of 3 major on road separated bike lanes that run into the downtown core and do connect to some other painted bike lanes.

Just because 1 city/area had 1 bad experience doesn't mean it's applicable to all areas of North America.

Calgary does have enough snow where gravel, sand gather on the sides in bike lanes. Then the city does sweep it...later in spring. It has strong policy that it carries through to clear significant km. of its interconnected bike pathway systems during winter whenever there is a snowfall. I live near one of the major arteries, so I know. I will credit the municipality for this work.

Well, I give a lot of credit to places that have special machines narrow enough to sweep separated bike lanes, but I've never seen one. And I doubt that any place, in any country, that doesn't have that kind of machines now, is going to get them in this economy.

But debris removal is only half of the equation, and the smaller half, IMO. There's no way to avoid intersection conflicts when there are separated lanes, and guess who always loses when there's an intersection conflict.

I may only have been in my 20s at the time, I was old enough to be aware of all the long-time cycling advocates in Columbus's highly developed cycling community, advocating for the lane separators to be removed.

I'm extremely happy to have a Greenway multi-use path in my new home town, but I was confused as to why you couldn't access it from the bike lane. You have to know to get on the sidewalk early, stop and lift your bike over the curb, or simply ride on the sidewalk all the time. I prefer the bike lane, because people just don't check the sidewalk at intersections, often they do funny turns at roadways instead of continuing in a logical path, and in my old town they were littered with glass and had annoying dips constantly at driveways as well as mailboxes cemented into the middle of the concrete. Here the sidewalks are better, but I still prefer the predictable bike lane.

I've never had a separated bike lane. I did enjoy the very wide roads in the town I moved from- I felt very safe and cars were almost always courteous and passed safely.

I understand your frustration with having the bike lanes removed, but I think they are the wrong approach. Why don't drivers' tests have questions that address the rights of cyclists on the road? I see plenty of ads on TV and billboards telling drivers to keep an eye open for motorcycles. We should have the same thing for bicycles. They could address the misconception that we should be riding on the shoulders, when the shoulders are so much more dangerous than the road.

I'm willing to be open minded about the concept that bike lanes could work in some places ... but I'm (1) curious about the execution and (2) also afraid that those places might be used as examples by planners in other places where they would clearly be dangerous - as you're informally doing.

So enlighten me on the two most common issues.

(1) Proceeding straight through an intersection. How are the bike lane separators designed so that cyclists are clearly visible to vehicles that are turning right from the cyclists' left? How do vehicles intending to turn right from the cross street, onto the street where the cyclist is, pull up so that they can see the traffic running parallel to the bike lane, without interfering with the cyclists' ability to go straight?

(2) Turning left. How, when and where does the cyclist exit the separator and weave their way over to the left traffic lane?

A while back someone posted an example of how intersections would be handled with separated cycle tracks. Crosswalks were moved back and a ring of green zones were painted in front of them. There was a gap in the curbing at each crooks walk/ geen zone, but the corner itself was curbed. Cyclists were expected to travel around the long way - in essence creating a traffic circle, but just for the bikes.

I prsonally thought it looked a bit nightmarish, as I view every intersection as a potential left/right hook and with that scenario the number of intersections is tripled......

Sounds like atypical install for a sesparated bike lane, Eden.

No matter what separated bike lane is installed, there does need to be lights installed at the intersections particularily for busy roads. Preferably with green bike lights, pedestrian-cyclist activated lights...which are found at various bike routes in Vancouver. NOT in Calgary. (It's so sad, to be pedestrian or cyclist in our downtown area while you wait.)

The reality in some areas, the cars have to slow down in general. The car drivers are forced to be less important and slow down by having less car lanes on a road. (This is road diet..reducing the number of car lanes, installing pedestrian-cyclist activated traffic lights so that the street area is more pedestrian-bike friendly.) So where do cars go?:...that's why a city tries to have public transit...


Or the bike lane intersects a one way street...which doesn't even permit a right hand turn.

As for the right hand turn...it's less of problem if it's only 1 car lane that can turn right. Not 2 lanes of car traffic turning right...really intimidating in Calgary. A bike lane running through this road configuration could not be done in this type of situation. Very common in this city. I've never seen it downtown Vancouver. I don't recall 2 lanes of right hand turning traffic in downtown Toronto or maybe I avoided it. I have cycled downtown Vancouver and Toronto alot since I lived/worked in these areas for several years.

This bike path is over 15 km. long 1 way. At one point it devolves into a bike lane from the bike path. So there needed to be physical barrier separation from trucks.
By Toronto's Waterfront, on other side is a community garden around for the last 20 yrs. See thumbnail at end of my email. I can't seem to attach the photo correctly.

This is a well-known separated bike lane that runs into downtown Vancouver, Dunsmuir St.
http://thirdwavecyclingblog.files.wo...n3364-480w.jpg

http://thirdwavecyclingblog.files.wo...9/dscn1443.jpg

Why are bike paths so evil to some cyclists? I firmly disagree. Otherwise you end up on the major Trans-Canada highway with cars gunning down at 110 km. per hr. beside you on wide shoulder.
This is a new bike path that's 24 km. long one way between a Canmore and Banff National Park. Now there are more cyclists --experienced and newbies. As well as children.

http://thirdwavecyclingblog.files.wo...eparation1.jpg

Dearies' blog just on the front page has a range of photos illustrating some bike lanes, some good, others not great when he cycled across U.S. this summer-fall and earlier in Europe. Actually his blog has a ton of examples....it's part of what he does when he cycle-touring: http://thirdwavecyclingblog.wordpress.com

So is this a terrible thing below? Or should there be a slightly raised curb for this/barrier?
http://thirdwavecyclingblog.files.wo...rough-city.jpg

In other forums, this topic comes up very quickly and instantly turns into a flame war. People feel so strongly on the subject. It's interesting that I haven't seen the bike lane argument on TE before (I've been here 2008, but I don't read it exhaustively, so it's possible I missed it if it has been discussed).

As always, we manage to be civilized in our discussions. :)

Personally I just don't have strong feelings about bike lanes and bike paths. Some of them are really nice and some are awful. Some lure the cyclist into door zones and debris, and some are well designed and clearly indicate where the cyclist should take the lane for a left turn. The arguments end up being "all bike lanes are evil" or "bike lanes are great" but the reality is that thoughtful design is what matters. Increasing the number of bike-car conflict points is poor design. Failing to consult cyclists who will be using the facility is poor design. Letting the facility be hijacked by the loudest protest is poor design. Too many bike lanes and paths have been designed for purpose other than cyclist convenience and safety--to get "them" our of "our" way, as a way to increase their safety without inconveniences like speed limits and wider roads.

It's sad when paint is thrown on or taken off capriciously. It's sad when facilities aren't maintained. Those sorts of things send the message that bicycling isn't important, it's not a legitimate way to travel. It's even sadder when a well meaning government pours a lot of resources into a badly designed facility.

Okay, I thought we were talking about streets in town.

I have zero problem whatever with bike paths that parallel limited-access highways in remote areas where there are no general use roads. When non-motorized transport *can't* use the road, and when vehicles can't turn left or right except at exit ramps that over/underpass the bike route, then that's completely different from what I thought we were talking about. (You don't picture the ramps ... and if the bikes have to share the ramps with cars on the exits then again I think it's extremely dangerous ... but I'm going to assume that if someone went to the trouble and expense to build that, then there are over/underpasses and separate bike entrances to the crossing roads, as well.)

But, those are expensive to build and maintain, and another thing that probably isn't going to happen in the current global economy.

I am a little bit surprised to see the bike route separated only by curbing and "median," without any fencing, in your bottom picture. I'd be less worried about the cars, than I would be about uneducated cyclists trying to cross the road away from the exits.

Quote:

---

So enlighten me on the two most common issues.

(1) Proceeding straight through an intersection. How are the bike lane separators designed so that cyclists are clearly visible to vehicles that are turning right from the cyclists' left? How do vehicles intending to turn right from the cross street, onto the street where the cyclist is, pull up so that they can see the traffic running parallel to the bike lane, without interfering with the cyclists' ability to go straight?

---

One way to deal with improving the visibility of cyclists stopping at an intersection in a separated bike lane, is to have the roadway markings for stopping the cars, that is slightly staggered behind the first cyclist that stops at the corner.

I'm not confident that just having wider roads is going to get car drivers to pay attention or more respectful. I just don't think car drivers think that widening a road is for cyclists (without a painted bike lane), they tend to think widening a road lane is for them as car drivers and to move more quickly. Let's get real.

Dearie and I were cycling on one of the San Juan Islands and were stunned how wide some the road lanes were....on an island. It made no sense. The traffic was quite moderate. We were cycling in some small towns on a weekday when people were working... a more accurate reflection of regular traffic patterns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

But, those are expensive to build and maintain, and another thing that probably isn't going to happen in the current global economy.

---

A pretty good argument can be made for bike infrastructure because even bike paths are a tiny fraction of the cost of a highway. When gas goes up, more people bike, so there's another argument for more bike paths when the economy is bad.