Explaining the Bi-directional Cycle Track Folly
Explaining the Bi-directional Cycle Track Folly:
In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was removed from Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades ago. That in itself might be an alarm bell to anyone paying attention. These two way cycle tracks were found to be more dangerous than one-way cycle tracks on each side of the roadway. There is a certain paradigm in cities... I'm not saying it's GOOD, but it's there. Traffic users all know which way to look when moving about the city. Having bicycles coming from two directions at once was an inferior design.
This was in an established bicycle culture, too. The thought of putting such cycle tracks into cities that are only now putting the bicycles back - cities populated by citizens who aren't use to bicycle traffic makes my toes curl.
It's really a shame that we keep building things like the Dearborn deathtrap. Its inevitable failure will be used for decades as a cudgel with which to shut down discussion of any new bike infrastructure, just as the poorly-done State Street pedestrianization in the 80s is still invoked to this day whenever there is discussion about closing any streets to cars.
Views: 617
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on
-
On the other hand.... http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140602/downtown/protected-bike-lan...
-
Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on
-
It might be more efficient to keep a single wide bidirectional cycle track clear of snow and debris, than to try to keep two narrow single direction tracks clean. You make one pass with a sweeper with the bidirectional version versus two passes with the singles.
-
Permalink Reply by Eli on
-
The DNAInfo article is very misleadingly worded. It states:
A new study of protected bike lanes in Chicago and cities around the country found that even as biking increased dramatically on streets with such lanes, researchers found no evidence that collisions or even near collisions with cars had increased.
The researchers found no such evidence because they explicitly declined to look for it. The study itself says:
Due to the very recent installation dates, reported crash data were not available for analysis on
most of the facilities.The study authors observed no major accidents during their 144 hours of video (for all bike lanes in the study, not just Dearborn--we have no idea how much time was spent observing Dearborn specifically), but that is so short an amount of time as to be meaningless. And despite what the DNAInfo article claims, there is no comparison in the study of observed safety before and after the installation of the lanes. Very probably they could have collected 144 hours of video of streets without such lanes and seen no bike accidents, either, but we have no idea, because they didn't bother to establish a baseline.
-
-
What on earth is a "deathtrap" about the Dearborn PBL?
I get that a problem with PBLs generally as they are implemented here is the "right-hook" problem of a driver turning into a cyclist who was blocked from view (by parked cars, perhaps). But on Dearborn cars may only turn left when they have a green arrow and cyclists have a red. Maybe you think drivers can't be trusted to follow the signals, but in my experience they have gotten much better over the past year.
-
-
I called it a "deathtrap" because, if there is a safe way to turn east (across all lanes of car traffic) from the bike lane on the west side of the street, I have not figured it out. I have to walk my bike across the intersection with the pedestrians on the cross street. I suspect if I took the Dearborn lane every day I would rapidly grow impatient doing this and start to take the risks that are encouraged by its poor design.
I see that the last time I mentioned this you described how you make these turns, but I didn't really understand your explanation, which was:
If you have a green, signal that you are slowing down/stopping and stop to the right of the northbound cycle lane, in front of the stopped eastbound traffic. Wait until the eastbound traffic has a green light, and proceed.
That seems (a) illegal and (b) likely to cause problems with other cyclists in the lane (because it is so narrow there will not necessarily be room to go around me while I'm stopped in the middle of the intersection, especially if there is oncoming PBL traffic). Moreover, it's just totally counterintuitive to wait until you have a red light to make a right turn, and goes against every instinct that people have developed based on literally every single other traffic situation they have ever encountered. Neither drivers nor other cyclists will understand what you are doing.
That driver heading northbound on Dearborn who is debating whether to try to run the light just after it turns red when there is no eastbound car traffic will never notice you sitting in the bike lane and even if he does he will have no idea that you are about to turn right in front of him.
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on
-
Eli, I don't make many eastbound left turns from the Dearborn PBL, but when I do I ride across the eastbound street (i.e. Washington) and signal that I am making a left turn. I turn left across the northbound Dearborn lane to the bike box that is in front of the northbound Dearborn parking lane and stop there until the light for eastbound traffic is green. Then I move eastbound with the traffic. Not a great situation, but I have not had any problems doing it.
I actually think that all of the driveways and alleys that cross the Dearborn PBL are the biggest problem with it.
-
-
Well, you're certainly being melodramatic about this.
If you're turning east out of the Dearborn PBL, I think the best options are:
- Southbound - hook right to go left. You'll exit out of the PBL to your right and coast up to the southernmost lane of eastbound traffic. Find a point at which you can re-orient your bike eastward without being in bike or pedestrian traffic.
- Northbound - if bike traffic permits, I would hand-signal your intention to turn left across the SB bike lane and situate yourself as above. If it's too busy, then you might hand-signal a movement right, and exit the PBL to the right, if there's enough non-traffic space (e.g., parking lane with buffer) to wait, again roughly in the southernmost lane of eastbound traffic. You might be able to merge from the crosswalk into traffic, once the light changes, if you keep a sharp eye on oncoming traffic and assume that the first car in line will ignore you.
I don't recall if they have them at every intersection, but I know that some intersections along the Dearborn PBL will have green bike boxes for precisely this purpose. If you see them, they might help you to figure out how you're supposed to do it where they're not painted.
This isn't something that has to be done on instinct or silently understood rules. Communicate your intention to drivers and cyclists, and most of them will understand what you're trying to accomplish. A few tries and you'll figure out what works best for you. It's really not a deathtrap; I'd much rather try to pull an EB turn off of the Dearborn PBL than figure out how to survive on State or Michigan (much less get into the turn lanes for either).
Eli said:I called it a "deathtrap" because, if there is a safe way to turn east (across all lanes of car traffic) from the bike lane on the west side of the street, I have not figured it out. I have to walk my bike across the intersection with the pedestrians on the cross street. I suspect if I took the Dearborn lane every day I would rapidly grow impatient doing this and start to take the risks that are encouraged by its poor design.
I see that the last time I mentioned this you described how you make these turns, but I didn't really understand your explanation, which was:
If you have a green, signal that you are slowing down/stopping and stop to the right of the northbound cycle lane, in front of the stopped eastbound traffic. Wait until the eastbound traffic has a green light, and proceed.
That seems (a) illegal and (b) likely to cause problems with other cyclists in the lane (because it is so narrow there will not necessarily be room to go around me while I'm stopped in the middle of the intersection, especially if there is oncoming PBL traffic). Moreover, it's just totally counterintuitive to wait until you have a red light to make a right turn, and goes against every instinct that people have developed based on literally every single other traffic situation they have ever encountered. Neither drivers nor other cyclists will understand what you are doing.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on
-
Thunder Snow said:
It might be more efficient to keep a single wide bidirectional cycle track clear of snow and debris...
But, but but... The Dearborn bike lane isn't wide, at least not wide by my standards. It certainly doesn't seem twice as wide as the northbound bike lane on Franklin. So, you have a not-overly-wide bidirectional track. Half of its users salmon. (In the morning, most riders will be coming from somewhere north, traveling against the flow of auto traffic and those people parking their cars to provide protection.) I still don't understand how that is preferable to providing two one-way bike lanes.
-
Permalink Reply by David Barish on
-
Its not ideal but I really have no problem with the lane. Of course, if I was king of the world there would be a Northbound lane on Dearborn and a Southbound lane on Clark. But who am I, what do I know and who is my Chinaman? Negative answers there. I understand the problem with eastbound turns when riding southbound on the lane. I think its best to just make a perpendicular turn meaning you have to stop at two lights to accomplish a left turn I think "deathtrap" is a bit of a rhetorical flourish. If I had to give it a one word label mine would be "clunky".
The lane that needs to be redesigned is the lane on Church St. in Evanston. its a mostly one way east bound lane. However, for about a block or two I see it going two ways just east of Dodge. Everybody is confused. I see two way traffic in the lane at all locations all the time. It should only be a one way lane.
-
-
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/02/get-ready-for-a-landmark-stud... -- the study was not solely based on video, and 20,000 vehicles/16,000 bikes is actually a PRETTY large sample size.
As for turning - I don't know why people keep saying you get "stopped at two lights" - generally, I make it through this kind of turn in 1 change of the lights (proceed to other direction on a green, go when light in my direction turns green.) Only VERY rarely do I have to wait at the red in both directions to go. Even so... it makes turns so easy and stress free I don't actually see a problem with waiting, and I am not the most patient human being there ever was, by a lonnnnng shot.
-
-
As a not frequent but not really in-frequent visitor of evanston... I find the whole area confusing when driving OR biking. I think it's that the blocks in the downtown area are short and the streets aren't gridded? IDK I can never find my way there. And every time I've ridden my bike up there this summer (and only there!) I've gotten a flat. :)
-
-
You ain't seen nuthin' yet. Try Wilmette. The names of many of the streets are the same as those in Evanston, but they run in different directions and don't have anything to do with their E-Town counterparts! Think: Lake, Ridge, Church, etc. :-)
Michelle Milham said:As a not frequent but not really in-frequent visitor of evanston... I find the whole area confusing when driving OR biking.
Groups
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
