Originally Posted by mr_bill

I spoke of the brief period of time when there were advisory bike lanes on Scott Street, and how the local residents "HATED IT," "LOATHED IT."

I was very unfair. I was describing the most vocal residents. Ironically they were probably among the most educated. (They work around the corner at a very old University.)

Anyhow, I loved the advisory bike lanes that were there, but I also love the big green sharrows that are there now.

However, on another road in Cambridge, the advisory bike lanes live on and are actually well liked by most.

Images from Streetview, showing a "pass":



I LOVE LOVE LOVE that the driver of the SUV doesn't want to drive in the door zone either. And I LOVE LOVE LOVE that the driver of the Prius just casually takes the parking lane.

Now as far as statistically meaningful bicyclist safety data about these, there is next to none. Just like there is next to no statistically meaningful bicyclist safety data about taking the lane on stroads. That's a *DATA* problem.

What we have are more descriptive. There were no reports of people on bikes getting injured on Lakeview before the change. (Why? Because few people on bikes used Lakeview.) There are now many more people riding bikes on Lakeview, but still no reports of people on bikes getting injured. (Why? Probably because it's a pretty safe way to share a road.) But it's added another much needed lower stress link to getting around by bicycle.

Finally, a white paper that discusses Scott Street (pre-rebellion) and Lakeview Ave in Cambridge, along with implementations in about a dozen other locations. Among them, Valley Rd in Hanover New Hampshire, still loved. (So please don't stereotype Ivy professors.)

-mr. bill

Originally Posted by livedarklions

That's interesting--if your impression that bike traffic is up on Lakeview, it suggests that the primary function of these advisory lane might be to "advertise" that cyclists can safely use the road which, by itself, might be reason enough to employ them. I think you can conclude that increased bike traffic without injury on Lakeview means that the arrangement is safe, but I don't think you can safely conclude anything about its safety as compared to the prior existing arrangement (or lack thereof) or sharrows as there is no way to tell whether there would have been increased injuries if bicycle traffic had increased on the same road under those arrangements.

I think increasing the bike traffic on these less MV-trafficked roads is a good thing in itself, so I'm curious to know if your impression is they might be more effective at this than a sharrow system. Is bike traffic not increased on Scott St. as well?

Originally Posted by mr_bill

First, there were advisory signs before the "just paint" went down on Lakeview. So, it was advertised and folks on bikes apparently said nope. There was a lot of Waze traffic on that road. With the "just paint" folks on bikes said yep. (For all we know, Waze just gets confused by these "advisory bike lane' streets.) In any event, residents are happy because cut-through traffic has reduced. And people on bikes are happy because it's a safe route.

On Scott (/Irving, it changes name), it used to be a cut-through to avoid most of the Harvard Square chaos. However, now it remains a route if you are riding from Winter Hill (yes, the Winter Hill Gang Winter Hill) to the Charles.

In the meantime, Oxford Street also got the big green sharrows treatment, along with even more recently Quincy Street / Bow Street/ DeWolfe Street changes, so I switched to those streets for my radiation therapy.

As far as your null hypothesis (these changes make no difference), suggest a double blind study to confirm that these changes are good or not. Oh, wait.

-mr. bill

Originally Posted by flangehead

I saw and rode on such roads in the Netherlands and in my very brief exposure it worked fine. In all cases, it was in low-traffic situations.



This is important. One size does not fit all. I'd argue that traffic carnage is a lot like cancer. Each cancer has a very different treatment that, more than anything else, is the result of trial and error. My cancer was relatively rare, but I was fortunate that it had an effective treatment because the cancer community had learned from trial and error.

I don't get the sense that the US traffic engineering community has that same mindset, as it has a specs and standards tradition. Most times, the design is heavily standards-based, and I consistently get the reply that they have no choice due to liability. Using best practices for a good outcome is not the objective.

I can see this being a viable option in some situations.



Yes in theory but my experience is that it is very dependent on the bureaucracy involved. I tried to influence a project and found out that due to the funding sources, for all practical purposes the design had been frozen 10 years earlier. Even though it was clearly a bad idea, and standards had changed, implementation went ahead.

Originally Posted by mr_bill

First, there were advisory signs before the "just paint" went down on Lakeview. So, it was advertised and folks on bikes apparently said nope. There was a lot of Waze traffic on that road. With the "just paint" folks on bikes said yep. (For all we know, Waze just gets confused by these "advisory bike lane' streets.) In any event, residents are happy because cut-through traffic has reduced. And people on bikes are happy because it's a safe route.

-mr. bill

Originally Posted by work4bike

Apparently a neighborhood on the outskirts of San Diego (Mira Mesa) used the lane design (Advisory Bike Lanes, AKA Edge Lanes) in the OP, which the below video references, along with the Engineer in the OP video.

It probably would have worked, if the road wasn't used as a road to bypass heavier trafficked roads, i.e. Cheater Route. BTW, according to the video, it's a well known fact that cars regularly drive about 10-mph faster than the posted speed limit. So, is it the road design or sh*tty drivers....

https://youtu.be/zeynqnirofE