RobertHurst

In my experience with well-designed class I bikeways, which also function as MUPs on which wandering pedestrians not only exist but have the right-of-way, there are going to be occasional problems with having to slow down or ride more gingerly than you would like. But around here the paths, while extremely popular, still function more like bicycle highways than sidewalks. I routinely cruise these paths at 20 - 30 mph for several miles at a time, which I imagine is illegal, but the option is available most of the time. I don't have to slow down for pedestrians very often, nor do I have to stop for any stop signs or red lights. Limited only by wind resistance and the lack of strength in my legs. Right in the middle of the city. That is in stark contrast to the 'cycletracks.'

RobertHurst

I like the separation as well. Sure, why not. But with the 'cycletrack' any benefit from separation between intersections will be canceled by additional problems at the intersections themselves. At best, it's a psuedo-separation.

You keep referring to 'cycletracks' as Class I Bikeways. Let's get this straight ... Cycletracks are not Class I Bikeways. A lot of people in Portland are under the impression that they are getting the beginning of some kind of fully-separated Class I Bikeway system with this 'cycletrack' program. N't.

Class I Bikeways exist in their own right-of-way. They are fully separated from the street grid. When traveling on a Class I Bikeway, there are no intersections of any kind with streets for considerable distances. The paths function as bicycle highways which pass beneath the street grid along with rivers, canals, highways or rail corridors. Cyclists access the Class I Bikeway via on- and off-ramps leading to street level. Class I Bikeways are extremely special, and I think have proven themselves in select locations to be extremely important facilities for transportational cycling.

I'm not sure what 'cycletracks' are, but they're definitely not Class I Bikeways. Probably they should be classified as a sort of Class II Bikeway; traditional bike lanes would be Class IIa and buffered bike lanes and 'cycletracks' would be Class IIb.

Although many people around the US associate Class I Bikeways with recreational riding and consider them to be generally useless for transportation purposes, it doesn't have to be that way. Here in Denver commuters roll for miles non-stop on paths that lead directly into the heart of the city from the suburbs. Leaving town in the evening a commuter can ride over six miles out of downtown on the Cherry Creek Path before encountering a real street intersection; headed south on the Platte trail one can ride, geez, something like 15 miles before having to deal with the possibility of motor traffic. These are the kind of facilities that 'facilities advocates' should be focused on.

RobertHurst

These are excellent points.

People should also consider that the Dutch bicyclist must leave the cycletrack network at some point, and when they do they enjoy riding on streets with much lower speed limits and much more accomodating drivers than we find here in the US. And I'm not sure there is such a thing as an Old Navy parking lot entrance in all of Holland.

To change Portland into a city more closely resembling Amsterdam, one would first have to change the laws, raise gas prices dramatically, and add canals, among other features. Then we could go forth and install the 'cycletracks' on the new improved Euro-grid.

danarnold

I agree and your experience with Class I bikeways is the same as mine. I typically ride in the street until I pass the sections of the MUPs that generally have pedestrians, then the rest of bikeway is free and usually represents the fastest, easiest way to travel cross town. As mentioned before, these paths are generally along rivers and parks and are designed whenever possible to connect when necessary, to little used roadways. I'm all for them.

A cycletrack sounds more like a bike lane. I gather the only distinction is somewhat more separation from traffic, until they arrive at an intersection, where there is even more of a problem with the interface with other traffic than a bike lane represents.

danarnold

BTW, Bek, I'd appreciate it if you would not speak for me. I have enough trouble being diplomatic with out your 'help.'

For the record, I like Class I bikeways and MUPS. I do not like or want cycletracks and agree with Hurst that they are a step backwards.
I prefer sharrows to bike lanes. Tho there are times I appreciate a well designed bike lane, they seem to me to be almost as problematic as cycletracks/sidepaths.

My main concern about bike lanes is that the stripe has the unintended consequence of informing motorists we MUST ride there, that the bike lane is mandatory when it is not. I'm also aware of the studies that coincide with my own experience that motorists tend to drive closer to cyclists when the stripe is present.

squirtdad

+1

squirtdad

Robert,

I don't know what the criteria is for 'well designed", but my personal experience with MUPs (primarily the los gatos creek trail in San Jose) differs from yours.

This trail has a posted limit of 15 mph. It is narrow and during peak commuting hours, especially during the summer is heavily used by a wide variety of uses. Often I am under 10 mph in order to be safe, either waiting to pass or going slow by inattentive dog walkers.

It is definitely less efficient than streets, other than it's direct path between a couple of places i travel. I mostly use it to add a few miles of distance to my commute, it is pretty and becasue it brings me close to the club I use for swimming and weights.

I have seen a lot of similar experiences posted over time

John Forester

AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities

Bekologist

I think that's all well and good, Robert. a cycletrack is still considered a class I bikeway.

However, consideration of roadway design with bicyclists in mind predicates some sort of bicycle specific on road or near road facilities, instead of either sharrows/or Denver sprawlopolis' seperated grade bikeways.

but wait! minneapolis installed seperated grade bikeways too!

how far do the intersections have to be apart before the social benefits from city cycletracks override concerns over intersection conflicts?

Keep in mind there there is NO WAY to remove the condition of bikes and cars crossing paths, regardless of how you stripe the city, except by putting 10 MPH governors on all the cars!) you can't put all the cycling traffic on seperated grade bikeways! it does sound nice...

I think that common ground needs to be reached in cyclists like Dan Arnold, who admits he likes wide shoulders for bicycling on some higher speed roads but dislikes planning for bikes if its part of bikeways planning, and dislikes near identical conditions to a wide shoulder if it's called a 'bikelane'.

Other cyclists too, need to reach common ground and understand that what works in one community may have a different implementation in another, subject to roadscape and traffic quotients.

Cycletracks won't work with frequent intersections? again, they seem to work in cities in many countries with traffic crossing cycletracks. maybe its just an american thing to think this cannot work?

Do i want a lot of near-proximity cycletracks installed in downtown street grids?

no.

. Could I endorse a few, select, dedicated cross town networks of a few greenwaved cycletracks, with limited intersection conflicts from effective placement and considerate road grid planning (one way cross streets, NO TURN designations, emphasized crossings and/or separate signal phases)

sure. I can envision limited numbers of well implemented cycletracks working in cities across america.

common ground to be reached by all, however:

The majority of cycling in communities will always be on-road miles; consideration for how to better facilitate on road bicycling will prove to be the lions' share of bikeways planning.

and its not just sharrows.

To facilitate integrated, on road bicycling, class II bikeways will likely be a majority of bikeways miles in a community. buffered class IIs on 50mph arterial cooridors with intersection treatments? better than sharrows

danarnold

Bek, please don't speak for me or or attempt to paraphrase what I've written. Every time you do so, your inaccuracies overwhelm your effort to represent.

You are conflating cycle tracks with Class I bikeways. Even if you were correct to include them in the same category, by using the terms interchangeably you more than blur the distinction between bike paths that are totally separated and distinct from roadways, and those paths that run right along roadways. Cycletracks are similar to bike lanes in that they run parallel to motorized traffic. However you choose to use labels, it's helpful to be able to keep the different types of infrastructure distinct, if only for clarity.

randya

you can build all the cyclist specific infrastructure you want, but if a majority of motorists continue to be clueless and inattentive or, even worse, rude and disrespectful towards cyclists, the benefits of any on-road cyclist-specific infrastructure will be minimal.

Furthermore, American cities, exemplified best by Portland, appear to think that they can educate motorists through engineering improvements, rather than through traditional means of education, and it's not working. I think a major part of the blame lies with the poor quality of the cyclist-specific infrastructure provided, partly because it is either designed by people who don't cycle, or because it is constrained by the cars-first engineering mentality, or because it is designed with the motorist superiority/cyclist inferiority concept in mind.

I think that if the motorists were better trained and had better skills, and the quality of the cyclist-specific infrastructure provided was better, very little cyclist specific infrastructure would actually be necessary, and the infrastructure that was provided would be a whole lot safer. In other words, we should be aiming for quality, not quantity. Keep in mind that the LAB rates cities based primarily on the quantity of cyclist-specific infrastructure provided, and not on its quality.

randya

Bek is actually agreeing with John Forester in this regard, John says the AASHTO Guidelines don't make a distinction (see posts 46 and 58 above)

Bekologist

John and i are both in agreement this is how AASHTO classes 'cycletrack' . john is incorrect about a lot of AASHTO guidelines, but he does have that definition correct!

has anyone seen this video? streetfilms' Bikelanes in the Big Apple? pretty good treatment of bikeways in a dense urban city.

bikelanes in the big apple

RobertHurst

The latest version of the AASHTO guide that I've seen does not even use the term Class I Bikeway, if I recall correctly. I believe this has been the case for at least ten years but would defer to anyone producing an actual citation. They refer to 'bikeways' in general. They refer to 'shared roadways' and then to 'shared-use paths' if my memory serves.

Furthermore, from the AASHTO copy about different types of bicycle facilities one gets the impression that they never yet considered the existence of sidepaths or 'cycletracks' within the subset 'shared-use paths' or the subset 'bicycle lanes.' Maybe they would just rather not mention it. Their idea of 'shared-use path' seems to be an MUP, fully-separated from the grid and in its own right-of-way, formerly known as a Class I Bikeway. Maybe I'm wrong, will gladly admit it if so, but I don't believe AASHTO ever explicitly put cycletracks into that category or any category.

In any case it's clear that new American 'cycletracks' will have more in common with Class II bikeways than righteous Class I bikeways in their own rights-of-way. Conflating these two very different sorts of facilities will not be helpful.

danarnold

I agree with Robert, whatever you call them, we need a distinct name for paths that are totally separated from traffic, such as MUPs, and those that run parallel to road and are more akin to bike lanes than MUPs.

danarnold

You raise good points I would think we could all agree with. I have little doubt that a sufficient, and intelligently designed education campaign designed to teach motorists about the benefits and rights of cyclists could be carried out effectively if there was the political will to do so. Such a campaign would be assisted by a law that created a rebuttable presumption that when a car strikes a bicycle, the fault is with the motorist. It would not so much be the law that would help, but the publicity about the law.

Bekologist

the qualitative implementation of bikeways would include installation guidelines similar to what already exists as federal roadway design guidelines for bikeways:

low speed, low volume streets: as they stand

low speed moderate volume streets: sharrows and class III designations with minor enhancements.

moderate speed, higher volume streets and collectors without viable alternate routes: class II bikeways

higher speed arterials: class II bikeways

and quality implementations of class I bikeways for both transportation and recreation across communities.

and better shoulder treatments in rural areas.

these can serve as starting points for common ground behind which all cyclists should be able to get behind.

Even experienced, roadworn cyclists can appreciate some degree of separation from high speed, high volume traffic.

joejack951

If you want to start seeing cyclists rights to use all public roads quickly eroded, keep gunning for a law like that. I can picture the bans for "safety" reasons popping up everywhere after any incident involving a cyclist and a motorist.

randya

exactly!

Bekologist

its not whatever I call them, councilor, it's how the federal government officially classes them. Mind your incorrect assumptions about bicycling infrastructure, you're making it abundantly clear you lack the rudiments of much more than just how traffic laws apply to bicyclists.


yeah, maybe they couuld be called "Class I cycletracks" versus "Class I pathway" perhaps?

-but how much separation from the motor vehicle traffic is going to be ENOUGH to please youse guys anyways **********

randya

I agree with Dan here; as long as there are judges like Judge Pro Tem Zusman in the courts spooging up the works, some sort of vulnerable users law is quite desireable; otherwise, in the absence thereof, a motor vehicle is virtually the only deadly weapon you can commit a crime of bodily harm against another person with in the US and get off scot free.

randya

they shouldn't be called 'Class 1' anything if they are inherently unsafe at each and every location where it counts, the multiple intersections that users must negotiate

Bekologist

what? unsafe crossings? HOW unsafe, and why?

bikes and cars cross paths,

restricting and structuring the remaing conflict points and neutralizing hazards of crossing traffic can be quite effective at enhancing safety if done well.

Brownwashing cycletracks because of worries about 'intersection conflicts' completely ignores intersection conflicts will occur at EVERY intersection bicyclists and cars share unless speeds are totally equal. The slightest hint of a speed differnential can create intersection conflicts in even a narrow lane, as motorists attempt to squeeze by a slower bicyclist.

crossing, intersection conflicts between bikes and cars can only be mitigated by drastically reducing speeds of motorists, educating motorists, and/or roadscape enhancements.

randya

you know what, Bek? You've gotten to be as rude and ossified as your old nemesis, Mr. Forester.

joejack951

I think your best bet would be changing the f'ed up infrastructure and laws surrounding that infrastructure before instituting a blanket at-fault law for motorists which is sure to bring with it a huge backlash from the affected group, which just happens to be a bit larger than the "vulnerable user" group.