CDOT is now defining buffered bike lanes as "protected" and counting them towards its 100-miles goal

In his Chicago 2011 Transition Plan, Rahm Emanuel set the extremely ambitious goal of installing hundred miles of protected bike lanes, defined in the document as “separated from traveling cars and sit[ting] between the sidewalk and a row of parked cars that shield cyclists from street traffic,” within his first term. Since then the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) has been doing yeoman's work installing protected and buffered lanes, completing or starting construction on a total of 12.5 miles of protected and 14.5 miles of buffered lanes by the end of 2012.

Recently CDOT began referring to protected lanes as "barrier-protected" and buffered lanes as "buffer-protected," and counting buffered lanes towards the 100-mile goal, changing its definition of what a protected bike lane is. I think it would be terrific if the city installs, say, 65 miles of protected and 35 miles of buffered lanes by 2015. The question is, would it make more sense for CDOT to acknowledge the shift to a more realistic goal, rather than changing the definition of "protected"? CDOT deputy commissioner Scott Kubly gave me the department's perspective on the issue:

http://gridchicago.com/2013/redefining-protected-a-look-at-cdots-ne...

Keep moving forward,

John Greenfield

Views: 2126

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Schmoe on January 4, 2013 at 10:24am

The protected-lanes restrict my ability to take evasive action, and I still don't get how I'm supposed to make a right turn across traffic from a setup like they have on Dearborn.  Bikes are traffic, and integrate the most smoothly when they're treated as such.  I understand that some people are scared to ride in the street.  But guess what?  Some people are scared to ride on the LFP, and some people are scared to ride a bike period.  You have to be able to deal with at least a limited amount of risk of physical harm to ride a bicycle. We all fall/crash eventually.  I would like to see usable, versatile infrastructure for cyclists that gives them space, but encourages compliance with (most) traffic laws, with reasonable safety accommodations made.  I don't like infrastructure that prevents me from passing. I live in Rogers Park. Most of my rides outside of my neighborhood are 8 miles+. I'm trying to make good time to get back home, and I don't like to wait behind slow cyclists on a tiny corner of the road they've blocked off as specifically for cyclists.

Buffered bike lanes all day, e'er day. 

Permalink Reply by Mike Holzer on January 4, 2013 at 12:24pm

i could not agree more about the confusion with the elston protected bike lane.  the old system of buffered lane was much safer and predictable.



Liz said:

I tend to feel less safe in the protected lanes than the buffered lanes and would rather see buffered over protected lanes.  

I'm not sure what if any research exists to say which of these configurations would attract the "interested but concerned" group.  I really think overall safety vs. perception of what would bring more riders in better should be the first deciding factor.  

The Elston protected lanes are a perfect example of buffered lanes being the better option.  All the weaving back and forth is just confusing and makes what was a great cycling route unappealing.  

Permalink Reply by Reba 4.0 mi on January 4, 2013 at 3:39pm

Hmmmm what kind of bike lanes would we prefer? What kind of bike lanes keep riders safe? What kind of bike lanes promote cycling in our city? 

These questions don't necessarily all add up to the same answer.

I'm with Lisa 100% on how people become cyclists - baby steps until they get comfortable with riding in traffic. And, I doubt there are a large number of accidents caused by cyclists passing us slower riders.

As to what we prefer, I think we can agree on two things:

  • we'd like to see more and be seen more
  • intersections need structural alterations to accommodate bike lanes

Incidentally, both times I came close to being hit by a car (I mean close!) was mid block: once by getting doored - went over the hood instead; and the second, by falling off my bike on the railroad tracks and into traffic - the car stopped and literally picked me and my bike up. 

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on January 4, 2013 at 4:44pm


There were conventional lanes, not buffered lanes on this stretch before. Buffered lanes have extra dead space striped on one or both sides of the bike lane, as shown in the photo in my original post.


Mike Holzer said:

i could not agree more about the confusion with the elston protected bike lane.  the old system of buffered lane was much safer and predictable.


 
.  

Permalink Reply by Nancy L. Fagin on January 4, 2013 at 5:43pm

Would you please show a picture of what is being defined as a buffered zone vs the barrier protected zones?  I like the protected zone along Elston, but it is way too short - it has to be long enough to be effective and to make a political statement, i.e. this is the new way of the road.  Also, the customers at Stanley's fruit market use the bike lane/hatched areas to park making the door zone even smaller than any unprotected street.  Also, to cross Ashland on Elston is like playing chicken with a fully loaded gun.  One must move o the left to cross, while cars are moving right to get onto northbound Ashland. Then there is always someone who makes a last minute decision to continue on Elston.  Elston needs line painting, no matter if is buffered or protected - the whole length of it.

Today, while walking across Ashland at Milwaukee (with the walk sign), a woman SUV driver actually stuck her tongue at me because I wasn't moving fast enough or giving her the right of way.  That was a new one for me.

Permalink Reply by We all have an inner Beast... on January 4, 2013 at 9:40pm

Nancy,

I am sorry for your experience with an idiot and impatient driver.

Back in my younger days, if a driver was being impatient (honking their horn while I was crossing with a green and "walk" signal) I would slow down a bit more. Or if they were really rude, I would stop completely and fake that I was getting sick right in front of their vehicle - to include inducing vomiting (directed right onto their hood, of course).

(Manny in day-dreaming mode): Man. Those were the days.

(....and...now....I'm back) Probably not a good idea nowadays. LOL ! But I am a lot older now, and a bit "bigger". Body language and verbal de-escalation are great techniques to use. Calm discussion now works for me. (yeah, right. Not always.)

 

Good luck, Ma'am.

 

Respectfully,

 

Manny
 
Nancy L. Fagin said:

Today, while walking across Ashland at Milwaukee (with the walk sign), a woman SUV driver actually stuck her tongue at me because I wasn't moving fast enough or giving her the right of way.  That was a new one for me.

Permalink Reply by We all have an inner Beast... on January 4, 2013 at 10:04pm

I like the "buffered" lanes (like in the picture) better.

More area/space to react to various incidents, than in the Dearborn lanes. Especially with people trying to cross streets from in between vehicles (or ignorant bicyclists that blow through red lights at intersections).

Has anyone been on the Dearborn bike lanes when they are busy? How much traffic is on them at that time? Seemed like it would be tight for bicyclists to ride on them while busy. Will you be set in the speed of the person at the front of the lane, like on the expressways during rush hours, until you can find an "off-ramp"/cross street?

I rode it for the first time during December's Critical Mass. It seemed very narrow. And when we were riding back (at the end of CCM) you can't really ride side-by-side to have a conversation, because we had a few of those "bike ninjas" come speeding down the oncoming lane with no lights/helmets wearing dark clothing, yelling at us to get out of their way. Just wondering what the benefit of such narrow lanes is ? I would feel safer with the "buffered lane" (in pic) on both sides of the street (following the "rules of the road" by riding on the right side of the road).

(also, it would allow me to pass "slow-pokes" like the dude with the training wheels in the pic...LOL ! Just kidding ! I would protect him from traffic.)

As far as the city (CDOT) renaming "buffered" as "protected" lanes (or vice versa), it seems like they (just like society in general) is trying to NOT have to do the necessary work ! If they add all the "buffered"/"protected"/other bike lanes, they will achieve their goal of "X" amount of miles of biking infrastructure sooner (making them look good in the "public's eye" for finishing a project under budget-attempt to save money that they really aren't, and finishing a project earlier than expected. Both of these sound good in a news blurb, yet no one will ask where the savings went ! We will still be short of our amount of "protected" or "buffered" lanes, and someone within the city will pocket the money.)

Someone is trying to do a magic trick. "Look ! We got you all 100 miles of "protected"/"buffered"/other bike lanes done before the 10 yrs is up !"

And in reality, they will have only done 10 new miles, and just repainted the old lanes (which, obviously, do NOT add up to 100 miles, or they would never have had to make the Dearborn lanes !)

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Manny

Permalink Reply by Nancy L. Fagin on January 5, 2013 at 5:00am

Many thanks - I think there should be zones - denser populated areas need protected lanes (downtown), then phasing into buffered (with good coats of paint) in out lying areas. Gradually, those buffered zones could be reconfigured into protected lanes (curbside or not).

For example, if Elston was completely protected, I'm sure more people would commute on it and even move closer to it...but economics and financing may not be with us for now.  Street usage can change overnight - I remember when parts of North and Division Avenue were basically industrial (Old Chicago Brewing?), the streets were bare.  Not today. Build a shopping mall and forget about pedestrians and bikers - build suburbia in the "inner city".

Also education must be part of the plan.

Yes, I've thought of using Theater/Drama class 101 - grabbing my chest, dragging my damaged leg, swinging a twisted hip.  Sometimes just making a good note of their license plate works

Nancy. 



Manny Fuentes, 9.2 mi. said:

I like the "buffered" lanes (like in the picture) better.

More area/space to react to various incidents, than in the Dearborn lanes. Especially with people trying to cross streets from in between vehicles (or ignorant bicyclists that blow through red lights at intersections).

Has anyone been on the Dearborn bike lanes when they are busy? How much traffic is on them at that time? Seemed like it would be tight for bicyclists to ride on them while busy. Will you be set in the speed of the person at the front of the lane, like on the expressways during rush hours, until you can find an "off-ramp"/cross street?

I rode it for the first time during December's Critical Mass. It seemed very narrow. And when we were riding back (at the end of CCM) you can't really ride side-by-side to have a conversation, because we had a few of those "bike ninjas" come speeding down the oncoming lane with no lights/helmets wearing dark clothing, yelling at us to get out of their way. Just wondering what the benefit of such narrow lanes is ? I would feel safer with the "buffered lane" (in pic) on both sides of the street (following the "rules of the road" by riding on the right side of the road).

(also, it would allow me to pass "slow-pokes" like the dude with the training wheels in the pic...LOL ! Just kidding ! I would protect him from traffic.)

As far as the city (CDOT) renaming "buffered" as "protected" lanes (or vice versa), it seems like they (just like society in general) is trying to NOT have to do the necessary work ! If they add all the "buffered"/"protected"/other bike lanes, they will achieve their goal of "X" amount of miles of biking infrastructure sooner (making them look good in the "public's eye" for finishing a project under budget-attempt to save money that they really aren't, and finishing a project earlier than expected. Both of these sound good in a news blurb, yet no one will ask where the savings went ! We will still be short of our amount of "protected" or "buffered" lanes, and someone within the city will pocket the money.)

Someone is trying to do a magic trick. "Look ! We got you all 100 miles of "protected"/"buffered"/other bike lanes done before the 10 yrs is up !"

And in reality, they will have only done 10 new miles, and just repainted the old lanes (which, obviously, do NOT add up to 100 miles, or they would never have had to make the Dearborn lanes !)

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Manny

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on January 5, 2013 at 10:58am

The photo in the the original post is what the city of Chicago is now calling a "buffer-protected" lane, known elsewhere as a buffered lane. The photo below is a "barrier-protected" lane, known elsewhere a a protected lane.



Nancy L. Fagin said:

Would you please show a picture of what is being defined as a buffered zone vs the barrier protected zones?

Permalink Reply by Marcus on January 5, 2013 at 11:14am

Sorry to get off of the main topic, but how do you take a left turn out of the protected lanes? I figure that you would merge with traffic as usual, but is it any more awkward because of the barrier?

Permalink Reply by prof.gfr on January 5, 2013 at 11:47am

I'm fine with either, but I think I actually prefer buffer-protected rather than barrier-protected. I feel as if cars are MORE aware of me in a buffer-protected lane than if I'm segregated off to a side-channel, and I think increasing car-awareness of sharing the road with other vehicles (be it buses, bikes or vespas) is important. That said, I don't know if there is a one-size fits all solution to a city with as many differently-sized roadways as Chicago.  So I'm accepting of the existence of a variety of approaches.  Then the bigger question becomes driver and cyclist education on how to react to these different approaches. I think the most important element in Chicago's bike infrastructure will be integrating a LOT MORE bike safety components to basic driver's ed and driver's exams.  

Permalink Reply by Anika on January 5, 2013 at 6:09pm
Right now the type of bike lane makes little difference to me. What does matter is education - both for cyclists and cars on all aspects of the roads. With the various different types of lanes going in, drivers (and even cyclists) don't know how to properly/effectively use them. And that's aside from general "share the road" etiquette.

My 6 year old rides the side boulevards regularly in Logan Square with me. Sidewalk riding for her is just too dangerous at the alleys with me and her sibling on the street. But drivers are so anxious coming down those streets trying to beat out the actual traffic on the main thoroughfare that we have yet to take a ride in the last 2 months without a driver laying on the horn at her. It's sad. When people are educated enough to know it is not ok to honk or intimidate a child and to give them the space they deserve as a cyclist, then types of bike lanes might start to matter more.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service