City considering REAL Protected Bike Lanes

From 12/20's DNA info.

From 12/12's StreetsBlog. Thanks, Steven.

Imagine that.

Views: 1507

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on December 22, 2013 at 4:00am

The Wells street buffered bike lane was installed in parts. In June 2012 the part from Chicago South to the river was striped.  July 2013 saw the repaving and striping fom Chicago to North Ave. The section from North Ave to Lincoln was done this fall.

h' 1.0 said:

Before posting I researched and found that the Wells street buffered lane was installed in June of 2012, and his death was in October of 2012.  Is that wrong?

Duppie said:

At the time of Neill T.'s tragic death, buffered lanes did not yet exist on Wells. They were installed this July. There was a conventional bike lane on Wells at that time.

h' 1.0 said:

Do we know how many cyclists have been killed in Chicago in what they've been calling 'protected lanes' up until now?
I can't think of any, personally. Unless you count Neill T, who was riding in a so-called "buffered lane."

Am I forgetting someone?

Permalink Reply by S on December 22, 2013 at 4:20am

I don't think that's an useful indicator of anything.  Thankfully cyclist deaths are few enough that it's hard to say much about how infrastructure affects this.  We should really be looking at injuries per cyclist mile or something similar to make fair comparisons of the safety of bike lane designs.

h' 1.0 said:

Do we know how many cyclists have been killed in Chicago in what they've been calling 'protected lanes' up until now?
I can't think of any, personally. Unless you count Neill T, who was riding in a so-called "buffered lane."

Am I forgetting someone?

Permalink Reply by S on December 22, 2013 at 4:42am



Jeff Schneider said:

My point is not that study is not necessary.  I just think we know enough to go beyond that now.

There is already a lot of bike infra in the world.  It is well known how the different approaches work where they have been done.  What we don't know (and probably can't know very accurately via any study) is how well each fits our city.  We need to try some things.

I guess we disagree on how much we know about bike infrastructure.  In regards to your point about not knowing how approaches work here, I agree and a way to fix that would be implement different approaches in a few places and then collect data on those spots for a while to assess how well they work as someone mentioned above.  Trying some things shouldn't involve what looks like CDOT coming up with something for each section of bike lane that they add without an unifying and consistent design (e.g. Milwaukee Ave).  

For example, with the curb protected lanes.  How are drainage issues going to be dealt with?  What about cleaning (summer and winter)? Does the city have a viable way to clean these bike lanes since regular street sweepers and plows aren't going to fit.  And when potholes or other things need to be fixed in the bike lane, what happens? Are we going to get some asphalt patch tossed in and tamped down by hand or is there a chance that they'll be able to resurface the lane as needed?  Looking at how protected bike lanes have been cleaned so far this winter, it doesn't seem like the city has an answer for many of these questions which is troubling.

Also, I would bet that the inadequacies we have with existing infra are not due to planners not knowing how to do something better.  More likely, politics had a hand.  I don't see politics being any less of a limitation 3 or 30 years from now.

BTW, airplanes still crash sometimes.  But I will go ahead and fly because I know that *most* of the time everything works.  Feel free to stay on the ground if you like ;-)

Some of the inadequacies are due to politics which makes it more important that we understand how bike infrastructure works in this city so that we get things as close to right as practical because I think it would be very difficult to convince people to go back and redo bike infrastructure that was done poorly.
I think you missed my point about planes.  I'm aware that flying is pretty much the safest way to get from point a to point b, but that takes a lot of planning and design work in the initial stages.  When people have had to learn from experience because they didn't realize something could go wrong or because they were missing some information, they ended up dealing with crashes.
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on December 22, 2013 at 7:03am

And that was the reason for my questions to you yesterday:

What works and what doesn't with respect to the "as built" Chicago infra?

What infrastructure, "adopted in other places can work here?"

Jeff Schneider said:

Reasonable people can disagree on this point.  Having used bike infra in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Muenster, Paris and Montreal, my impression is that there is already a lot of experience from which to draw.  Others may think that experience is not enough. 

S said:

I guess we disagree on how much we know about bike infrastructure...

Permalink Reply by Charlie Short 2.9 on December 22, 2013 at 9:12am

I've been lurking on this thread for awhile and Kevin poses a great question. When it comes to feeling safe, perception is king. How you feel in a lane, and how a lane works for you is the most important thing for safety's sake. There are intersections that have relatively low crash rates because people are so scared of them, and others that have higher crash rates because people assume those intersections are safer. I was shocked at how many people tried to ride for the first time after the Kinzie lane was installed, and then after the Dearborn lane was installed. I was not shocked that many of you here were not fond of the designs, for many reasons. I have had to teach myself how to ride in a lot of these lanes, as the dynamic of traffic changes when you use the "chicago" style lanes. After working so hard to find the safest routes without lanes, having "dedicated" lanes might not work for the hardcore rider.

We all have varying opinions about what we feel works, but they only way we are going find the best solutions is by trying different options. Having curb separated lanes should be pretty interesting.


Kevin C said:

And that was the reason for my questions to you yesterday:

What works and what doesn't with respect to the "as built" Chicago infra?

What infrastructure, "adopted in other places can work here?"

Jeff Schneider said:

Reasonable people can disagree on this point.  Having used bike infra in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Muenster, Paris and Montreal, my impression is that there is already a lot of experience from which to draw.  Others may think that experience is not enough. 

S said:

I guess we disagree on how much we know about bike infrastructure...

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on December 22, 2013 at 6:10pm

Thanks Jeff. I've ridden the separate paths adjacent to streets in Amsterdam as well as the ones in Portland, Oregon. I can't think of many areas in Chicago where the constrained infrastructure would make this possible. I concur with your assessment of car speeds in Paris. Add in the fact that some of the street surfaces look like they haven't been maintained since the Roman Empire was in charge, and I think much of Paris is a pretty challenging place to ride a bike. 

At least one writer in Montreal shares my dislike of bi-directional PBLs. I think once you add in the width of the lanes being at or below the bare minimum recommended by NACTO design standards, Dearborn is just a bad design.

Once they start the curb-protected bike lane experiment, they are going to need to grind down the bike lanes and re-pour them to be level or crowned, and install drainage which connects to the storm sewer on both sides of the new curb.



Jeff Schneider said:

In addition to some separated lanes of variable quality, Paris has a lot of painted bike lanes.  Riding in those lanes on major streets (where car speeds are high) can be a bit terrifying.  And we already know from our own experience in Chicago that painted lanes are often unusable by cyclists, due to drivers double parking, taxis, etc. (e.g., Wells in Old Town and Clark in Wrigleyville).

Muenster (like other German towns) has some separate paths adjacent to streets, similar to park paths (the main one making a circle around the center of the city, where the city wall once was).  They also have bike lanes that are just painted on the sidewalks.  These are a PITA with lots of interferences.

Amsterdam and Copenhagen have a lot of cycle paths adjacent to sidewalks.  These are typically raised above street level, so drainage is OK and debris from the street does not collect on them too much.  Sometimes they are lower than the sidewalks, and other times at about the same level, but separated by a little curb.  The norm is to have a path on each side of the street moving in the same direction as the car traffic.

The PBLs I've used in Montreal were, I think, at the same level as the street, but bi-directional, and separated from cars by a curb.  I recall more debris on these than on the paths in Europe.  Also, the bi-directionality makes the transition into and out of the PBL more awkward.

All of these cities are nice for biking, as is Chicago, to the extent that they all have a lot of quiet neighborhood streets where traffic is not too fast.  The difference between the ones that are GREAT for biking (Amsterdam, Copenhagen) and the others is that they have PBLs where fast car traffic would otherwise isolate the neighborhoods from each other.

To sum up, I think PBLs need to be raised to have decent drainage and protection from road debris.  Single direction is less confusing for all.  And they need to be placed where neighborhoods are isolated from each other by fast car traffic (in Chicago, some of these places would be the river and expressway crossings).

 

Permalink Reply by Jane Healy on January 15, 2014 at 8:08pm

Rising to the bait thrown out there…

I like PBLs.  I'm one of those "fearless" riders.  I ride year round, to work, on busy suburban arterials, to the bus or train, into the city… you name it.  But I also ride with children on bikes.  A lot.  And kids LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Protected Bike Lanes.  You can literally see the shoulders dropping as they relax on their bikes from the sheer terror that infects them on the regular streets.  My own kids are pretty hard core, having grown up riding the loop on their bikes, but even they prefer the PBLs.  Since I'm constantly taking friends, visitors and other peoples' kids on bikes into the city, I see on a regular basis how PBLs impact the "concerned yet interested" riders.  

Is Chicago's adoption the gold standard?  No.  Is there room for improvement?  Heck, yeah.  But I think that PBLs are a powerful way to make riders feel more comfortable and confident… and sooner than you think, those riders start to chance riding in dicier conditions.  Before you know it, you have more cyclists in traffic.  This is a good thing!

Yes, I hate the manhole covers, the man-eating puddles/skating rinks, the debris, etc.  But I still think that PBLs can make a difference and DO make a difference in encouraging cyclists to brave Chicago traffic.

Permalink Reply by Josh L. on January 16, 2014 at 3:10am

You guys have more experience than me riding these dedicated lines on Kinzie, Dearborn, etc.  However, I ride them a few times a month and have found them great and extremely helpful. As to manholes etc. I am not sure what you expect..we are working with existing infrastructure for God's sake.  We should be grateful that the city built out the dedicated lanes.  Yes, we'd all love a super duper elevated lane but let's walk before we run.

I did  notice that snow was built up in the Kinzie lanes a few weeks ago and apparently the City realizes they fell behind. I have biked behind that mini snow plow that does the bike lanes and it's pretty fun to watch (City only has one of them apparently).

Permalink Reply by David Barish on January 16, 2014 at 4:51am

I took the time to read the well thought posts on this thread this morning. I tend to prefer a marked lane with sharrows and nothing more. That being said, I understand the need for  PBL's to encourage greater and wider use of roads by bikes. I have no opposition to them. My beef is with PBL's that are counter intuitive such as the lane in Evanston. Bikes are on the far right and literally nobody knows what to do. Drivers and parkers are confused with bikes coming up on the right rather than the left. After the fire on Davis St. the bike lane is cut off. I see cars parked in both the bike lane and the parking lane because its very unclear where you are supposed to go. Also, the Evanston lane on Church is two way for a very short space near the high school and riders are then misled into thinking its two way all the way.  Its well intended but not well executed. 

One other semi related rant is with the plastic barriers in the middle of the road all over the world that remind drivers to stop for pedestrians at marked cross walks. Great idea and bad idea.  I want drivers to stop. However, the plastic barriers make the road smaller and make less room for a bike and a car to get through the area.Older and less experienced drivers sometimes think they are supposed to stop all the time and will stop in the middle of the road surprising their fellow travelers.  Drivers are supposed to stop when there is a pedestrian standing there.  As a pedestrian I always wave the drivers through as I think its very dangerous for them to stop in the middle of the block. I am essentially jaywalking if I am at one of these crosswalks and have no problem waiting for traffic to pass. I see this all the time at my local Metra station. I find these barriers highly dangerous.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 16, 2014 at 5:32am

Yes, the buffered lanes WERE added later. I believe it was the following spring.

Michelle Stenzel said:

h', the buffered lanes in that section of Wells were added later. I took pictures throughout my commute home the day Neill was killed -- I was really saddened and didn't know what else to do but document the crappy current bicycling conditions, I guess. Below is the picture I took that day of the intersection of Wells and Oak, and you can see they were just the regular old-style lanes.

Permalink Reply by J.P. on January 16, 2014 at 9:48am

I actually like the bike paths that are part of the side walk. Yes, it slows you down, but they work and give you a feeling of safety. 

I think it is sometimes forgotten that the main purpose of these infrastructure projects is to attract new people to ride bikes. It is not about us ('the fearless maniacs who take the lane and ride in the winter'). And to do this, you have to design them in ways so that people who haven't considered cycling on city streets perceive them as being safe and give it a try. The Muenster design actually fits the bill in this regard. A lot of women cycle (unlike in most American cities and London) and a fair share of school children.  



Jeff Schneider said:

Muenster (like other German towns) has some separate paths adjacent to streets, similar to park paths (the main one making a circle around the center of the city, where the city wall once was).  They also have bike lanes that are just painted on the sidewalks.  These are a PITA with lots of interferences.

Permalink Reply by Alex Z on January 16, 2014 at 1:36pm

This is false; the law is that the cars must stop for you when you are in a crosswalk. (Or by "essentially" jaywalking did you just mean, as far as the cars behave it is essentially jaywalking?)

David Barish said:

 I am essentially jaywalking if I am at one of these crosswalks and have no problem waiting for traffic to pass.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service