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

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on January 4, 2013 at 5:19am

I really don't like the idea of being sandwiched between the curb and parked cars so something like the lane pictured would be best for my sense or safety. Just keep the paint fresh so cabs have no excuse when they inevitably use the lane to ace out cars at intersections.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on January 4, 2013 at 5:46am

It does seem like many "strong and fearless" cyclists prefer buffered lanes to protected ones. The goal of protected lanes is to attract the "interested but concerned" contingent.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on January 4, 2013 at 5:57am

Buffered vote here.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by blair on January 4, 2013 at 5:59am

Agreed. I like both, but think we need more protected lanes. There are still a ton of people that would like to bike in the city, but think it's too dangerous.

John Greenfield said:

It does seem like many "strong and fearless" cyclists prefer buffered lanes to protected ones. The goal of protected lanes is to attract the "interested but concerned" contingent.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Potts on January 4, 2013 at 7:01am

Anything is a step up from a sign on the side of the road with a pic of a bike on it and an arrow.

This (or no bike mention at all) is most of what I get here out south.

I DO NOT like protected lanes. Protected I have to almost stop and look behind me as my sight/sound is thrown off by being so seperate from the cars on the road. Conceptually cool but poorly executed @ intersections.

Lets go for a elevated bike highway... :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on January 4, 2013 at 7:37am

Parked cars aren't very protective when it comes to doors, visibility for pedestrians and bikers, intersections and callous people parking or making deliveries. If we want a true protected lane the city needs to be a grizzly, give up some street parking and put in something like this. If someone doesn't feel safe here nothing's going to get them riding.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on January 4, 2013 at 7:52am

That's lovely, and it must be in the U.S -- I have never seen roads patched like that in Europe. ;-) Not being familiar with Canadian road maintenance, I guess I should say it must be in northern North America.

So where is it?

Tricolor said:

Parked cars aren't very protective when it comes to doors, visibility for pedestrians and bikers, intersections and callous people parking or making deliveries. If we want a true protected lane the city needs to be a grizzly, give up some street parking and put in something like this. If someone doesn't feel safe here nothing's going to get them riding.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on January 4, 2013 at 9:00am

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on January 4, 2013 at 9:01am

I took that picture in Montreal last month. The weather was temperate like Chicago and there were a lot of bikes around, mostly without helmets or lights.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark on January 4, 2013 at 9:22am

I agree. Crashes are more likely to occur at intersections than from being hit from behind. Visibility and predictability are key for avoiding crashes. Riding behind parked cars make bikers less visible and give them restricted options at intersections - like avoiding a right hook. Unless parking is eliminated like in the photos, buffered lanes are the way to go!

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.