AARoads Forum

Since there doesn't seem to be a general thread about bike lanes yet, I guess I'll start one here.

Over the past few weeks, I've been looking at Dutch roads for quite a bit, and noticed how well bike lanes are designed over there compared to here in the US. Note that I'm not going to suggest anything about removing/banning cars in favor of bikes here (unlike some "urbanists"). I think that both cars and bikes can coexist on a road, and with good infrastructure for both.

I've looked up the MUTCD for bike lane design standards here, and something that I don't get is that why does the bike lane have to cross at the start of a right turn lane? To me, it seems safer for the bike lane to stay on the right side of a right turn lane, as when the right turning car stops at the intersection to look at perpendicular traffic, they can also look at the bike lane while on that same stop before turning.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKjbO1x.png)
Continuing from the above image, that "bike lane" suggested in the MUTCD is pretty much a standard road shoulder with a bike symbol painted on it. I've heard it called a "bicycle gutter" before. Is it too much to ask for some separation between a bike lane and the car lanes by default, either with a double white line with some clear space in the middle, or with some sort of physical separation, like those white floppy things? Or even better, a bike path at sidewalk height. I've seen a lot of those here in West Lafayette, IN, and I really enjoy biking on them.

Does anyone else feel like the shared lane symbol is redundant (as cyclists are supposed to bike on the road when no bike lane is present by default), and give a false sense of security to cyclists?
(https://i.imgur.com/VqPNt2w.png?1)

An intersection design that I really like lately, called a "protected intersection" have curbs separating the bike lanes from the car lanes. Here's a satellite view of the first US example in Salt Lake City:
(https://i.imgur.com/FyPGhBm.png?2)

I read up a traffic rule that benefits cyclists called an "Idaho Stop", which allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. Personally, as someone that bikes everyday to get around, I like that new rule, though I can see how some drivers would hate it, as there are tons of road rage issues of drivers against cyclists and pedestrians. Also, doesn't a lot of European cities use yield signs for cars in places where a stop sign would be used in the US?

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 11:27:41 AM
Is it too much to ask for some separation between a bike lane and the car lanes by default, either with a double white line with some clear space in the middle, or with some sort of physical separation, like those white floppy things?

The busy road I most frequently cross as a pedestrian has a 6-foot shoulder with no physical separation. This acts as a bike lane, but it also allows cars to pass other cars turning left, allows cars to pass stopped buses, and in the case of emergency vehicles, cars can move over. Adding a physical barrier would prevent cars from doing this. In addition, if I step into the shoulder, cars will stop for me (almost always the fourth car or earlier), despite not being strictly required. I would probably be less noticeable as trying to cross if there was visible separation.

The Netherlands is a small country with high energy prices and is relatively poorer than the US. It also has a moderate climate for much of the year. Bicycles make some sense there.
Bicycles make little sense in the US, except as a recreational vehicle and on some places like college campuses where a high concentration of low income residents with local transportation needs live.
But generally speaking, bicycle lanes, no matter how you implement them, are simply a barrier to the cars and trucks on the road that we actually need, and are best left out of construction plans.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:55:31 AM
But generally speaking, bicycle lanes, no matter how you implement them, are simply a barrier to the cars and trucks on the road that we actually need, and are best left out of construction plans.

There's the 6-foot shoulder (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7448286,-71.1303015,3a,75y,209.97h,69.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Ib3-75IRG6Kfm1OAornGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that I mentioned above (although this isn't the same road) that has multiple purposes. I've seen it used as a bike lane. There's a bike lane marking (but no change in function) exactly once in the several-mile stretch: here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7613617,-71.1318508,3a,75y,210.52h,78.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smJhF9ORfN2d1Gg_a6CeaSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Do you think this is problematic?

Quote from: 1 on October 01, 2021, 12:02:44 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:55:31 AM
But generally speaking, bicycle lanes, no matter how you implement them, are simply a barrier to the cars and trucks on the road that we actually need, and are best left out of construction plans.

There's the 6-foot shoulder (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7448286,-71.1303015,3a,75y,209.97h,69.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Ib3-75IRG6Kfm1OAornGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that I mentioned above (although this isn't the same road) that has multiple purposes. I've seen it used as a bike lane. There's a bike lane marking (but no change in function) exactly once in the several-mile stretch: here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7613617,-71.1318508,3a,75y,210.52h,78.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smJhF9ORfN2d1Gg_a6CeaSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Do you think this is problematic?

Yep, because some hippy on a bike is going to be riding 1 foot off the side line and then grandma is going to slow to half the speed limit and drive half in the other lane to get around him.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:55:31 AM
But generally speaking, bicycle lanes, no matter how you implement them, are simply a barrier to the cars and trucks on the road that we actually need, and are best left out of construction plans.

Drivers that stay in their lane would have no issues with a bicycle lane on their right side. Do you need the shoulder space to cruise on? That's what car lanes are for.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:06:03 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:55:31 AM
But generally speaking, bicycle lanes, no matter how you implement them, are simply a barrier to the cars and trucks on the road that we actually need, and are best left out of construction plans.

Drivers that stay in their lane would have no issues with a bicycle lane on their right side. Do you need the shoulder space to cruise on? That's what car lanes are for.

Sure, but that is not how people behave. They feel the need to drive half on the other side of the road if a bicycle is there, slow down to half the speed limit, and obstruct traffic.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 12:07:12 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:06:03 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:55:31 AM
But generally speaking, bicycle lanes, no matter how you implement them, are simply a barrier to the cars and trucks on the road that we actually need, and are best left out of construction plans.

Drivers that stay in their lane would have no issues with a bicycle lane on their right side. Do you need the shoulder space to cruise on? That's what car lanes are for.

Sure, but that is not how people behave. They feel the need to drive half on the other side of the road if a bicycle is there, slow down to half the speed limit, and obstruct traffic.

Maybe that's the case for you in Philadelphia. In most places I've been, both driving with a bike lane next to me, and on a bicycle, there's no issues. Drivers didn't need to slow down, especially when there's a couple feet of space (without a barrier), or a street parking spot, between the car lane and bike lane.

Also, have you even walked or biked on the street before? From your posts, it seems like you're dehumanizing everyone that isn't in a metal box with wheels.

One thing I don't like is where a crosswalk crosses a bike lane at a T-intersection (this example is outside the US Treasury in DC) (https://goo.gl/maps/PC1zhVEyXXQtS17X8). Legally, the cyclists must stop when the light goes red so that the pedestrians can cross the street with the "Walk" sign. Take a guess how often the cyclists actually stop. It's a wonder there aren't more collisions and injuries through this area.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:09:33 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 12:07:12 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:06:03 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:55:31 AM
But generally speaking, bicycle lanes, no matter how you implement them, are simply a barrier to the cars and trucks on the road that we actually need, and are best left out of construction plans.

Drivers that stay in their lane would have no issues with a bicycle lane on their right side. Do you need the shoulder space to cruise on? That's what car lanes are for.

Sure, but that is not how people behave. They feel the need to drive half on the other side of the road if a bicycle is there, slow down to half the speed limit, and obstruct traffic.

Maybe that's the case for you in Philadelphia. In most places I've been, both driving with a bike lane next to me, and on a bicycle, there's no issues. Drivers didn't need to slow down, especially when there's a couple feet of space (without a barrier), or a street parking spot, between the car lane and bike lane.

Also, have you even walked or biked on the street before? From your posts, it seems like you're dehumanizing everyone that isn't in a metal box with wheels.

Actually I am basing this more on all the other places I have lived than Philly. In Philly drivers often will blow by a bike at 20 over the speed limit leaving only inches to spare.
I walk on sidewalks, which are designated for walking, and I avoid biking on the road whenever possible. Bike lanes are a waste of funds, particularly when we need so many road projects.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2021, 12:11:18 PM
One thing I don't like is where a crosswalk crosses a bike lane at a T-intersection (this example is outside the US Treasury in DC) (https://goo.gl/maps/PC1zhVEyXXQtS17X8). Legally, the cyclists must stop when the light goes red so that the pedestrians can cross the street with the "Walk" sign. Take a guess how often the cyclists actually stop. It's a wonder there aren't more collisions and injuries through this area.

There's a similar situation near me here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4240579,-86.9123336,3a,20.7y,69.7h,85.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hSkrh8Z2lds96Tvf-3F5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Note that the bike lane is the striped red/gray part. There's even a sign asking for cyclists to yield to crossing pedestrians, though from what I've observed, not a lot of people follow that.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 11:27:41 AM
Since there doesn't seem to be a general thread about bike lanes yet, I guess I'll start one here.

Over the past few weeks, I've been looking at Dutch roads for quite a bit, and noticed how well bike lanes are designed over there compared to here in the US. Note that I'm not going to suggest anything about removing/banning cars in favor of bikes here (unlike some "urbanists"). I think that both cars and bikes can coexist on a road, and with good infrastructure for both.

I've looked up the MUTCD for bike lane design standards here, and something that I don't get is that why does the bike lane have to cross at the start of a right turn lane? To me, it seems safer for the bike lane to stay on the right side of a right turn lane, as when the right turning car stops at the intersection to look at perpendicular traffic, they can also look at the bike lane while on that same stop before turning.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKjbO1x.png)
Continuing from the above image, that "bike lane" suggested in the MUTCD is pretty much a standard road shoulder with a bike symbol painted on it. I've heard it called a "bicycle gutter" before. Is it too much to ask for some separation between a bike lane and the car lanes by default, either with a double white line with some clear space in the middle, or with some sort of physical separation, like those white floppy things? Or even better, a bike path at sidewalk height. I've seen a lot of those here in West Lafayette, IN, and I really enjoy biking on them.

Does anyone else feel like the shared lane symbol is redundant (as cyclists are supposed to bike on the road when no bike lane is present by default), and give a false sense of security to cyclists?
(https://i.imgur.com/VqPNt2w.png?1)

An intersection design that I really like lately, called a "protected intersection" have curbs separating the bike lanes from the car lanes. Here's a satellite view of the first US example in Salt Lake City:
(https://i.imgur.com/FyPGhBm.png?2)

I read up a traffic rule that benefits cyclists called an "Idaho Stop", which allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. Personally, as someone that bikes everyday to get around, I like that new rule, though I can see how some drivers would hate it, as there are tons of road rage issues of drivers against cyclists and pedestrians. Also, doesn't a lot of European cities use yield signs for cars in places where a stop sign would be used in the US?

Regarding right turn lanes, I doubt a motorist is going to stop when they have a green light.  They'll just blow through the turn, and probably ignore the bike lane and hit anyone using it.  At least with crossing the bike lane before entering the turn lane, it provides a visual cue that there's something that needs to be checked.

Regarding sharrows, those are meant more for a kind of blended bike lane and travel lane, not simply as a reminder that bikes can use the lane.  They're intended for use on lanes that are at least 14' wide.

Regarding separation, making the shoulder a bike lane is easier.  Even paint-only buffers requires the space for the buffer plus the bike lane, which not all roads have.  Adding physical separation also has the added complication of snow removal in many parts of the country (in addition to the previously mentioned things like emergency vehicles).

Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 01:00:51 PM
Regarding right turn lanes, I doubt a motorist is going to stop when they have a green light.  They'll just blow through the turn, and probably ignore the bike lane and hit anyone using it.  At least with crossing the bike lane before entering the turn lane, it provides a visual cue that there's something that needs to be checked.

I'm more thinking of places with pedestrian traffic, where right turn cars would have to stop and watch for pedestrians anyways. Side note, don't right turn cars have to yield before turning on a green ball, while they can turn without stopping on a green right arrow (where the pedestrian/bike lights would be red anyways in this instance)?

Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 01:00:51 PM
Regarding separation, making the shoulder a bike lane is easier.  Even paint-only buffers requires the space for the buffer plus the bike lane, which not all roads have.  Adding physical separation also has the added complication of snow removal in many parts of the country (in addition to the previously mentioned things like emergency vehicles).

I found this in Copenhagen (a city known for cycling, and have less sophisticated and more easily replicated cycling infrastructure than the Dutch): (https://i.imgur.com/13HvcL2.jpg?1).
How about a small "bump" between the road and bike lane? I think it could make bikers feel safer here, and the bump is small enough that emergency vehicles can drive over it. Though the combined right turn lane/bike lane in the above picture is problematic.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:26:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2021, 12:11:18 PM
One thing I don't like is where a crosswalk crosses a bike lane at a T-intersection (this example is outside the US Treasury in DC) (https://goo.gl/maps/PC1zhVEyXXQtS17X8). Legally, the cyclists must stop when the light goes red so that the pedestrians can cross the street with the "Walk" sign. Take a guess how often the cyclists actually stop. It's a wonder there aren't more collisions and injuries through this area.

There's a similar situation near me here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4240579,-86.9123336,3a,20.7y,69.7h,85.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hSkrh8Z2lds96Tvf-3F5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Note that the bike lane is the striped red/gray part. There's even a sign asking for cyclists to yield to crossing pedestrians, though from what I've observed, not a lot of people follow that.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 12:14:23 PM
I avoid biking on the road whenever possible.

Then you're breaking the law (for most places I know of, at least) that bikes can't use the sidewalk. Would it be nice to change that in low density suburbia where there aren't a lot of bikers and walkers on the major stroads anyways? Of course. But I'm just going off what's written for now.

I am most certainly not breaking the law. Ever heard of a bike trail? How about rails to trails? Before you accuse someone of breaking the law take 3 seconds to consider the alternatives.
And no, I don't want bikes on sidewalks in suburbia either, those walkways are for pedestrians.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 04:07:11 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:26:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2021, 12:11:18 PM
One thing I don't like is where a crosswalk crosses a bike lane at a T-intersection (this example is outside the US Treasury in DC) (https://goo.gl/maps/PC1zhVEyXXQtS17X8). Legally, the cyclists must stop when the light goes red so that the pedestrians can cross the street with the "Walk" sign. Take a guess how often the cyclists actually stop. It's a wonder there aren't more collisions and injuries through this area.

There's a similar situation near me here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4240579,-86.9123336,3a,20.7y,69.7h,85.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hSkrh8Z2lds96Tvf-3F5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Note that the bike lane is the striped red/gray part. There's even a sign asking for cyclists to yield to crossing pedestrians, though from what I've observed, not a lot of people follow that.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 12:14:23 PM
I avoid biking on the road whenever possible.

Then you're breaking the law (for most places I know of, at least) that bikes can't use the sidewalk. Would it be nice to change that in low density suburbia where there aren't a lot of bikers and walkers on the major stroads anyways? Of course. But I'm just going off what's written for now.

I am most certainly not breaking the law. Ever heard of a bike trail? How about rails to trails? Before you accuse someone of breaking the law take 3 seconds to consider the alternatives.
And no, I don't want bikes on sidewalks in suburbia either, those walkways are for pedestrians.

Sorry for the accusation. Thought you meant biking on sidewalks by that "you don't bike on the road"
So it seems like you prefer a parallel network of bike trails away from the road right? I'm fine with this too, and are viable over biking on the street, if the network is large enough to get to most places (like at least to bike from a home to the nearest grocery store), like what I see in some Dutch suburbs. I found out a suburb in Georgia (Peachtree City) with a network of golf cart roads, and because of the low speed of golf carts, are used by bikes to get to school and shopping too.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 05:23:21 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 04:07:11 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:26:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2021, 12:11:18 PM
One thing I don't like is where a crosswalk crosses a bike lane at a T-intersection (this example is outside the US Treasury in DC) (https://goo.gl/maps/PC1zhVEyXXQtS17X8). Legally, the cyclists must stop when the light goes red so that the pedestrians can cross the street with the "Walk" sign. Take a guess how often the cyclists actually stop. It's a wonder there aren't more collisions and injuries through this area.

There's a similar situation near me here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4240579,-86.9123336,3a,20.7y,69.7h,85.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hSkrh8Z2lds96Tvf-3F5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Note that the bike lane is the striped red/gray part. There's even a sign asking for cyclists to yield to crossing pedestrians, though from what I've observed, not a lot of people follow that.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 12:14:23 PM
I avoid biking on the road whenever possible.

Then you're breaking the law (for most places I know of, at least) that bikes can't use the sidewalk. Would it be nice to change that in low density suburbia where there aren't a lot of bikers and walkers on the major stroads anyways? Of course. But I'm just going off what's written for now.

I am most certainly not breaking the law. Ever heard of a bike trail? How about rails to trails? Before you accuse someone of breaking the law take 3 seconds to consider the alternatives.
And no, I don't want bikes on sidewalks in suburbia either, those walkways are for pedestrians.

Sorry for the accusation. Thought you meant biking on sidewalks by that "you don't bike on the road"
So it seems like you prefer a parallel network of bike trails away from the road right? I'm fine with this too, and are viable over biking on the street, if the network is large enough to get to most places (like at least to bike from a home to the nearest grocery store), like what I see in some Dutch suburbs. I found out a suburb in Georgia (Peachtree City) with a network of golf cart roads, and because of the low speed of golf carts, are used by bikes to get to school and shopping too.

"like at least to bike from a home to the nearest grocery store"
Eh...
This is not Holland. Bikes are a form of recreation. How much are you really going to carry back from the grocery store on a bike? Its just not efficient or practical. Europeans shop for groceries every day because the have no choice, Americans do and they strongly prefer going once a week to Walmart and doing it all at once.
A more realistic system would be a network of separate bike routes for recreation. That allows a fair degree of separation from places like roads and parking lots.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 05:38:35 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 05:23:21 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 04:07:11 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:26:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2021, 12:11:18 PM
One thing I don't like is where a crosswalk crosses a bike lane at a T-intersection (this example is outside the US Treasury in DC) (https://goo.gl/maps/PC1zhVEyXXQtS17X8). Legally, the cyclists must stop when the light goes red so that the pedestrians can cross the street with the "Walk" sign. Take a guess how often the cyclists actually stop. It's a wonder there aren't more collisions and injuries through this area.

There's a similar situation near me here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4240579,-86.9123336,3a,20.7y,69.7h,85.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hSkrh8Z2lds96Tvf-3F5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Note that the bike lane is the striped red/gray part. There's even a sign asking for cyclists to yield to crossing pedestrians, though from what I've observed, not a lot of people follow that.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 12:14:23 PM
I avoid biking on the road whenever possible.

Then you're breaking the law (for most places I know of, at least) that bikes can't use the sidewalk. Would it be nice to change that in low density suburbia where there aren't a lot of bikers and walkers on the major stroads anyways? Of course. But I'm just going off what's written for now.

I am most certainly not breaking the law. Ever heard of a bike trail? How about rails to trails? Before you accuse someone of breaking the law take 3 seconds to consider the alternatives.
And no, I don't want bikes on sidewalks in suburbia either, those walkways are for pedestrians.

Sorry for the accusation. Thought you meant biking on sidewalks by that “you don’t bike on the road”
So it seems like you prefer a parallel network of bike trails away from the road right? I’m fine with this too, and are viable over biking on the street, if the network is large enough to get to most places (like at least to bike from a home to the nearest grocery store), like what I see in some Dutch suburbs. I found out a suburb in Georgia (Peachtree City) with a network of golf cart roads, and because of the low speed of golf carts, are used by bikes to get to school and shopping too.

"like at least to bike from a home to the nearest grocery store"
Eh...
This is not Holland. Bikes are a form of recreation. How much are you really going to carry back from the grocery store on a bike? Its just not efficient or practical. Europeans shop for groceries every day because the have no choice, Americans do and they strongly prefer going once a week to Walmart and doing it all at once.
A more realistic system would be a network of separate bike routes for recreation. That allows a fair degree of separation from places like roads and parking lots.

Groceries are one part, but I’m also thinking of kids under 16 not having to ask their mommy to drive them to school or a friend’s house that’s a mile or two away, and could bike there themselves with a bike trails network.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 05:47:19 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 05:38:35 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 05:23:21 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 04:07:11 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:26:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2021, 12:11:18 PM
One thing I don't like is where a crosswalk crosses a bike lane at a T-intersection (this example is outside the US Treasury in DC) (https://goo.gl/maps/PC1zhVEyXXQtS17X8). Legally, the cyclists must stop when the light goes red so that the pedestrians can cross the street with the "Walk" sign. Take a guess how often the cyclists actually stop. It's a wonder there aren't more collisions and injuries through this area.

There's a similar situation near me here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4240579,-86.9123336,3a,20.7y,69.7h,85.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hSkrh8Z2lds96Tvf-3F5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Note that the bike lane is the striped red/gray part. There's even a sign asking for cyclists to yield to crossing pedestrians, though from what I've observed, not a lot of people follow that.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 12:14:23 PM
I avoid biking on the road whenever possible.

Then you're breaking the law (for most places I know of, at least) that bikes can't use the sidewalk. Would it be nice to change that in low density suburbia where there aren't a lot of bikers and walkers on the major stroads anyways? Of course. But I'm just going off what's written for now.

I am most certainly not breaking the law. Ever heard of a bike trail? How about rails to trails? Before you accuse someone of breaking the law take 3 seconds to consider the alternatives.
And no, I don't want bikes on sidewalks in suburbia either, those walkways are for pedestrians.

Sorry for the accusation. Thought you meant biking on sidewalks by that "you don't bike on the road"
So it seems like you prefer a parallel network of bike trails away from the road right? I'm fine with this too, and are viable over biking on the street, if the network is large enough to get to most places (like at least to bike from a home to the nearest grocery store), like what I see in some Dutch suburbs. I found out a suburb in Georgia (Peachtree City) with a network of golf cart roads, and because of the low speed of golf carts, are used by bikes to get to school and shopping too.

"like at least to bike from a home to the nearest grocery store"
Eh...
This is not Holland. Bikes are a form of recreation. How much are you really going to carry back from the grocery store on a bike? Its just not efficient or practical. Europeans shop for groceries every day because the have no choice, Americans do and they strongly prefer going once a week to Walmart and doing it all at once.
A more realistic system would be a network of separate bike routes for recreation. That allows a fair degree of separation from places like roads and parking lots.

Groceries are one part, but I'm also thinking of kids under 16 not having to ask their mommy to drive them to school or a friend's house that's a mile or two away, and could bike there themselves with a bike trails network.

16? I had a license at 15. (note to self, start thread on driving age reductions)
My thought is working parents can just drop the kid off at school en route to work, those that don't work should have plenty of time on their hands, and for everyone else we are still providing a bus.
In any case, my issue with sending kids too far on a bike is less to do with the trails and more to do with the fact that there are other criminals out there. By the time they are old enough to not worry so much about that they can drive anyway.
But letting the kids go a couple miles on bikes? Eh, not a fan, even if we built a miniature interstate system for bikes (which admittedly would be pretty badass, little freeway ramps, flyovers!)

The intersection helps avoid "right hooks", which is when a right-turning car hits a cyclist who, in a far-rigjt bike lane going straight through the intersection, comes up from behind the driver while the driver is turning.

In theory the same risk applies to pedestrians who have a walk sign in tandem with a green light. The difference is that *usually* pedestrians don't come up from behind at relatively high speeds, as a cyclist could.

This website had a good graphic about the right hook issue. it's most pronounced in urban areas.

https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/

No idea why the OP had to find an example in the Netherlands. We have these all (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.845149,-116.5368946,79a,35y,180h/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) over (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9792563,-117.3312972,61m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) California (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5415268,-121.7439814,107a,35y,180h/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en).

In my experience, bicycle travel efficacy is highly dependent on the locale. It's quite good and useful when I've lived in flat areas like Tidewater and Palm Springs, or in a college town like Madison, WI. I even found it useful and easy when I was stationed in Rota, Spain because of the old narrow streets. It was fairly dangerous when I lived in St Louis.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 01, 2021, 11:32:52 PM
The intersection helps avoid "right hooks", which is when a right-turning car hits a cyclist who, in a far-rigjt bike lane going straight through the intersection, comes up from behind the driver while the driver is turning.

In theory the same risk applies to pedestrians who have a walk sign in tandem with a green light. The difference is that *usually* pedestrians don't come up from behind at relatively high speeds, as a cyclist could.

And this is why I appreciate the way these bike/right turn lanes are designed in most of the US. As a driver I have on more than one occasion nearly hit a person riding one of those motorized scooters on the sidewalk/in a crosswalk when turning right. Even after looking pretty carefully for pedestrians it's still pretty easy to not see them coming as they travel at speeds much greater than your average pedestrian.

And most cyclists are faster than your typical Bird scooter. You might have a bicycle coming up on your right that wasn't there the last time you looked just a few seconds ago. It makes sense to put faster, non-car/motorcycle traffic (bikes, motorized scooters, and the like) to the left of right-turning cars if possible.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 01, 2021, 11:32:52 PM
The intersection helps avoid "right hooks", which is when a right-turning car hits a cyclist who, in a far-rigjt bike lane going straight through the intersection, comes up from behind the driver while the driver is turning.

It's better than the shared bike/right turn lanes I see in Copenhagen, at least.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 11:27:41 AM
Since there doesn't seem to be a general thread about bike lanes yet, I guess I'll start one here.

Over the past few weeks, I've been looking at Dutch roads for quite a bit, and noticed how well bike lanes are designed over there compared to here in the US. Note that I'm not going to suggest anything about removing/banning cars in favor of bikes here (unlike some "urbanists"). I think that both cars and bikes can coexist on a road, and with good infrastructure for both.

I've looked up the MUTCD for bike lane design standards here, and something that I don't get is that why does the bike lane have to cross at the start of a right turn lane? To me, it seems safer for the bike lane to stay on the right side of a right turn lane, as when the right turning car stops at the intersection to look at perpendicular traffic, they can also look at the bike lane while on that same stop before turning.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKjbO1x.png)

Your example doesn't show what continues into the intersection.  If the bicyclist were to continue straight ahead, would they need to then turn to their left to get around a median or perpendicular traffic, or curbing on the opposite side?  Usually straight is best, and a vehicle needing to turn right can usually momentarily slow down if a bicyclist is in the lane.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 11:27:41 AM

Continuing from the above image, that "bike lane" suggested in the MUTCD is pretty much a standard road shoulder with a bike symbol painted on it. I've heard it called a "bicycle gutter" before. Is it too much to ask for some separation between a bike lane and the car lanes by default, either with a double white line with some clear space in the middle, or with some sort of physical separation, like those white floppy things?

A double-white line is just another 4" line, and doesn't provide any additional pavement for bicyclists or offer up any additional separation from vehicles.  Those white floppy things take away pavement from vehicles who need to park on the shoulder, break down, or otherwise need to stop.   And if one gets hit or busted loose, chances are it's going to wind up in the bicycle lane, creating another hazard for bicyclists.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 11:27:41 AM
I read up a traffic rule that benefits cyclists called an "Idaho Stop", which allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. Personally, as someone that bikes everyday to get around, I like that new rule, though I can see how some drivers would hate it, as there are tons of road rage issues of drivers against cyclists and pedestrians. Also, doesn't a lot of European cities use yield signs for cars in places where a stop sign would be used in the US?

Bicyclists like any rule that allows them to ignore the rules. We can talk to one group of bicyclists that are emphatic that bicyclists obey all the laws, then talk to another group of bicyclists that will say the laws are really for motorists, and they're actually dangerous for bicyclists.  And when a bicyclist runs a stop sign because it's a yield sign, and they get hit, they blame the motorist for not paying attention.

Stuff like this happens all the time, and it's why there's a big divide between motorists and bicyclists.  And pedestrians and bicyclists, for that matter.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 05:47:19 PM
Groceries are one part, but I'm also thinking of kids under 16 not having to ask their mommy to drive them to school or a friend's house that's a mile or two away, and could bike there themselves with a bike trails network.

Kids have biked themselves to friends houses forever, using existing streets, cut-thrus, or whatever exists.  Seems like the classic "forgetting that everyone older than you was once young also" syndrome.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2021, 10:17:51 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 05:47:19 PM
Groceries are one part, but I’m also thinking of kids under 16 not having to ask their mommy to drive them to school or a friend’s house that’s a mile or two away, and could bike there themselves with a bike trails network.

Kids have biked themselves to friends houses forever, using existing streets, cut-thrus, or whatever exists.  Seems like the classic "forgetting that everyone older than you was once young also" syndrome.

Which in most cases, can feel unsafe for cyclists (specifically when biking outside of a suburban neighborhood, let alone some place in a city), with the lack of a bike lane or bike trail in most places.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2021, 10:17:51 PM
Kids have biked themselves to friends houses forever, using existing streets, cut-thrus, or whatever exists.  Seems like the classic "forgetting that everyone older than you was once young also" syndrome.

We never were allowed to do that when we were kids. We rode in the yard but never to anywhere else without our parents.

As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 03, 2021, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2021, 10:17:51 PM
Kids have biked themselves to friends houses forever, using existing streets, cut-thrus, or whatever exists.  Seems like the classic "forgetting that everyone older than you was once young also" syndrome.

We never were allowed to do that when we were kids. We rode in the yard but never to anywhere else without our parents.

Neighborhood streets...woods...railroads tracks...little league...high school...pizzeria...convenience store...

Rode all over the place in the 80s and 90s.

Instead of the MUTCD, one of the main US design guidelines for bike infra comes from NACTO: the Urban Bikeway Design Guide (https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/).

Protected bike lanes (with curbs and planters) are far better than a mere line in the road, especially if they can have better signal timing to prevent cars from intruding on turns. And yes, right hooks are a major issue because the majority of our drivers are complete idiots. In Berlin, I observed a lot of very simple bike lanes that would generate those right hook turn issues (especially since bikes didn't have many dedicated signals outside of the busiest areas), but Germany's more rigorous driver ed standards probably helps with people in cars not killing cyclists all over the place.

And a reminder: bicyclists in the road are legal vehicles on just about every city street or country road in the country. Give them space if passing in a legal spot; if you can't pass, then just suck it up and lose a few precious seconds instead of trying to murder people.

Quote from: Bruce on October 04, 2021, 03:32:54 AM
And a reminder: bicyclists in the road are legal vehicles on just about every city street or country road in the country. Give them space if passing in a legal spot; if you can't pass, then just suck it up and lose a few precious seconds instead of trying to murder people.

This is where it's tough to accompany the needs of both modes of transportation.  On normal roads, there are either minimum speeds, or 'obstruction of traffic laws'.  A car wouldn't be permitted to go 15 mph in a 50 mph zone legally.  But bicyclists aren't expected to go nearly 50 mph on a bike.  Also, it's not "a few seconds", but could be several minutes or longer if the road is a long road without passing.   

Sharing the road for all means actual *sharing of the road*.  Anytime one group says the other group has to suffer and suck it up erodes any definition of sharing.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2021, 07:48:00 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 04, 2021, 03:32:54 AM
And a reminder: bicyclists in the road are legal vehicles on just about every city street or country road in the country. Give them space if passing in a legal spot; if you can't pass, then just suck it up and lose a few precious seconds instead of trying to murder people.

This is where it's tough to accompany the needs of both modes of transportation.  On normal roads, there are either minimum speeds, or 'obstruction of traffic laws'.  A car wouldn't be permitted to go 15 mph in a 50 mph zone legally.  But bicyclists aren't expected to go nearly 50 mph on a bike.  Also, it's not "a few seconds", but could be several minutes or longer if the road is a long road without passing.   

Sharing the road for all means actual *sharing of the road*.  Anytime one group says the other group has to suffer and suck it up erodes any definition of sharing.

Reply #3 near the beginning of the thread: The speed limit is 40 in the first link and 45 in the second link. This seems like a pretty simple solution.

Quote from: 1 on October 04, 2021, 07:54:44 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2021, 07:48:00 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 04, 2021, 03:32:54 AM
And a reminder: bicyclists in the road are legal vehicles on just about every city street or country road in the country. Give them space if passing in a legal spot; if you can't pass, then just suck it up and lose a few precious seconds instead of trying to murder people.

This is where it's tough to accompany the needs of both modes of transportation.  On normal roads, there are either minimum speeds, or 'obstruction of traffic laws'.  A car wouldn't be permitted to go 15 mph in a 50 mph zone legally.  But bicyclists aren't expected to go nearly 50 mph on a bike.  Also, it's not "a few seconds", but could be several minutes or longer if the road is a long road without passing.   

Sharing the road for all means actual *sharing of the road*.  Anytime one group says the other group has to suffer and suck it up erodes any definition of sharing.

Reply #3 near the beginning of the thread: The speed limit is 40 in the first link and 45 in the second link. This seems like a pretty simple solution.

As long as the room already exists, that works. But if the road is more narrow, it's a very expensive solution to widen it by a few feet.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 03, 2021, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2021, 10:17:51 PM
Kids have biked themselves to friends houses forever, using existing streets, cut-thrus, or whatever exists.  Seems like the classic "forgetting that everyone older than you was once young also" syndrome.

We never were allowed to do that when we were kids. We rode in the yard but never to anywhere else without our parents.

I think I'm seeing where the anti-cycling tripe comes from with you. Since your parents deemed it unsafe, you've deemed it unsafe for everyone. I've met a few like you. Usually old ladies in Subaru Forresters but I guess you can come in all flavors. Kudos on having helicopter parents and now becoming a helicopter parent for adult cyclists that think you know what's best for me.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2021, 11:45:25 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 03, 2021, 10:37:45 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2021, 10:17:51 PM
Kids have biked themselves to friends houses forever, using existing streets, cut-thrus, or whatever exists.  Seems like the classic "forgetting that everyone older than you was once young also" syndrome.

We never were allowed to do that when we were kids. We rode in the yard but never to anywhere else without our parents.

Neighborhood streets...woods...railroads tracks...little league...high school...pizzeria...convenience store...

Rode all over the place in the 80s and 90s.

Indeed, and we rode our bikes outside the neighborhood all the time, especially up to the 7-11 near the Beltway to buy Mad and Cracked magazines every month (this all when I was younger than age 10, as we moved out of that neighborhood when I was 10). It wasn't all that far–only about a mile each way–but parents today would be horrified that we were allowed to cross the street without supervision. Back then I regularly rode my bike to soccer practice a couple of neighborhoods over as well.

I recall riding my bike out to the public library in Fairfax City (maybe four miles each way) when I was in high school prior to getting my driver's license.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 11:27:41 AM
Since there doesn't seem to be a general thread about bike lanes yet, I guess I'll start one here.

Over the past few weeks, I've been looking at Dutch roads for quite a bit, and noticed how well bike lanes are designed over there compared to here in the US. Note that I'm not going to suggest anything about removing/banning cars in favor of bikes here (unlike some "urbanists"). I think that both cars and bikes can coexist on a road, and with good infrastructure for both.

I've looked up the MUTCD for bike lane design standards here, and something that I don't get is that why does the bike lane have to cross at the start of a right turn lane? To me, it seems safer for the bike lane to stay on the right side of a right turn lane, as when the right turning car stops at the intersection to look at perpendicular traffic, they can also look at the bike lane while on that same stop before turning.

Short answer:

In the 1970s, the US and the Netherlands were in the same place. The first bicycle infrastructure was being installed and it looked the same, separate paths.

But then some people in the US, known as vehicular cyclists, starting making a lot of noise and pushing back against this. They said separate facilities would make them "second class road users". Bare in mind, this was a decade after the end of segregation where "separate but equal" was anything but. This group of folks won out in the great debate.

So the MUTCD reflects that. Bikes are treated like cars. So in that first image, right turning traffic should be to the right of thru traffic.

Unfortunately, this practice doesnt take into account comfort and real user behavior. The fact is, bikes arent cars. Theyre pretty damn different, and sharing the road doesnt make a whole lot of sense in most cases.

Thats where NACTO and such comes in. They basically said, correctly, that MUTCD designs are frozen in 1979 and started drawing up modern designs. Modern, being that they take into account 30 years of European experience in bicycle design. 

The proposed MUTCD is supposed to incorporate a lot of that, but even then, it will be a bit outdated when it comes out.

Heres en example of American infrastructure retrofit to a Dutch style intersection*. Note they took the very US frontage road and made that part of the bike path.

*Dutch intersections wouldnt have a billion lanes.

https://twitter.com/Derailluer/status/1444366516166688770

Quote from: jamess on October 04, 2021, 02:42:24 PM
But then some people in the US, known as vehicular cyclists, starting making a lot of noise and pushing back against this. They said separate facilities would make them "second class road users".

I don't get that reasoning from "vehicular cyclists". Bikes are much slower than cars, and ideally should be on their own path, not in the middle of the road. I always imagined bike paths as a win-win for both drivers and bikers. Would pedestrians also protest being treated as "second class road users" for walking on the sidewalk instead of the middle of the road too back then?

Along with Bruce a few posts up, thanks for letting me know about the NACTO. I'll take a look at it.

Also, I just realized that there is already a recent thread about bike lanes  :banghead:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24593.50

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 04, 2021, 02:49:58 PM

Quote from: jamess on October 04, 2021, 02:42:24 PM
But then some people in the US, known as vehicular cyclists, starting making a lot of noise and pushing back against this. They said separate facilities would make them "second class road users".

I don't get that reasoning from "vehicular cyclists". Bikes are much slower than cars, and ideally should be on their own path, not in the middle of the road. I always imagined bike paths as a win-win for both drivers and bikers. Would pedestrians also protest being treated as "second class road users" for walking on the sidewalk instead of the middle of the road too back then?

Along with Bruce a few posts up, thanks for letting me know about the NACTO. I'll take a look at it.

I also think part of the problem in the 1970s is that there weren't a lot of bike friendly roads being constructed.  So bicyclists wanted to make sure they had the ability to "get places" by incorporating bike lanes into road construction, versus waiting for bike only paths to be constructed.  In reality in many places they ended up doing both and leading to kind of a hybrid system that seems rather fuctional.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 04, 2021, 02:49:58 PM

Quote from: jamess on October 04, 2021, 02:42:24 PM
But then some people in the US, known as vehicular cyclists, starting making a lot of noise and pushing back against this. They said separate facilities would make them "second class road users".

I don't get that reasoning from "vehicular cyclists". Bikes are much slower than cars, and ideally should be on their own path, not in the middle of the road. I always imagined bike paths as a win-win for both drivers and bikers. Would pedestrians also protest being treated as "second class road users" for walking on the sidewalk instead of the middle of the road too back then?

Along with Bruce a few posts up, thanks for letting me know about the NACTO. I'll take a look at it.

Well, consider how often sidewalks are rebuilt versus roads repaved. Many sidewalks in this country are in atrocious conditions. Most roads are on a 5 year repave cycle, while maybe we get a new sidewalk surface every 50 years if youre lucky. Or if theres a lawsuit.

So to that end, theyre somewhat right that as long as we keep pouring all the money into roads, the bike path might become unusable.

Heres are examples of those 1970s bike paths.

https://goo.gl/maps/oux45Nhrm7qXkuRm8

If you move onto the main road on this one, the difference in pavement quality is obvious.

https://goo.gl/maps/a6TfQDTHQxA4WuVE7

Of course IMO, the solution is to properly fund the maintenance rather than giving up and not building them at all. This goes for sidewalks and bike paths.

Quote from: jamess on October 04, 2021, 03:23:15 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 04, 2021, 02:49:58 PM

Quote from: jamess on October 04, 2021, 02:42:24 PM
But then some people in the US, known as vehicular cyclists, starting making a lot of noise and pushing back against this. They said separate facilities would make them "second class road users".

I don't get that reasoning from "vehicular cyclists". Bikes are much slower than cars, and ideally should be on their own path, not in the middle of the road. I always imagined bike paths as a win-win for both drivers and bikers. Would pedestrians also protest being treated as "second class road users" for walking on the sidewalk instead of the middle of the road too back then?

Along with Bruce a few posts up, thanks for letting me know about the NACTO. I'll take a look at it.

Most roads are on a 5 year repave cycle?

Eh?  I don't know of a single road repaved that often.

But regarding sidewalks...Once a sidewalk is built, it's usually left to the property owner to maintain it.  And they're going to generally do as little maintenance for something that they mostly see as a benefit to others.  Sidewalks also suffer from bad town planning or wishes, such as planting trees a foot away from the sidewalk.

Some people just don't want to walk on sidewalks. I don't care how new the sidewalk is...you'll find way too many people walking or jogging in the street, even if the sidewalk is in perfect condition as far as the eye can see.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 12:26:16 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2021, 12:11:18 PM
One thing I don't like is where a crosswalk crosses a bike lane at a T-intersection (this example is outside the US Treasury in DC) (https://goo.gl/maps/PC1zhVEyXXQtS17X8). Legally, the cyclists must stop when the light goes red so that the pedestrians can cross the street with the "Walk" sign. Take a guess how often the cyclists actually stop. It's a wonder there aren't more collisions and injuries through this area.

There's a similar situation near me here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4240579,-86.9123336,3a,20.7y,69.7h,85.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hSkrh8Z2lds96Tvf-3F5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Note that the bike lane is the striped red/gray part. There's even a sign asking for cyclists to yield to crossing pedestrians, though from what I've observed, not a lot of people follow that.

At Beacon St and Grant Rd in Newton, MA, the eastbound thru bikes are treated like a Continuous Green T. The bike signal in the eastbound direction has an overlap with all phases (2, 4, 5, 6) except with Phase 9 (ex. ped) and only changes to red when Phase 9 (ex. ped) is active:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ew8M-Pskr8

Colorado Springs has painted Northgate Blvd with a bike lane on the outside of the intersection. I don't think it is the best idea, as I have seen many drivers not yield to pedestrians, at one point I almost got run over!

Quote from: fwydriver405 on October 16, 2021, 08:00:36 PM
At Beacon St and Grant Rd in Newton, MA, the eastbound thru bikes are treated like a Continuous Green T. The bike signal in the eastbound direction has an overlap with all phases (2, 4, 5, 6) except with Phase 9 (ex. ped) and only changes to red when Phase 9 (ex. ped) is active:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ew8M-Pskr8

What if you're a cyclist coming south on Grant making the left onto Beacon? Does the DOT expect the cyclist to just ride in the travel lane to just safely merge into the bike lane?

I know it's a stupid thing to plan for (and there probably won't be any situations of congested flow in the bike lane to necessitate the situation), but it has to be done.

Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 16, 2021, 10:53:35 PM

Quote from: fwydriver405 on October 16, 2021, 08:00:36 PM
At Beacon St and Grant Rd in Newton, MA, the eastbound thru bikes are treated like a Continuous Green T. The bike signal in the eastbound direction has an overlap with all phases (2, 4, 5, 6) except with Phase 9 (ex. ped) and only changes to red when Phase 9 (ex. ped) is active:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ew8M-Pskr8

What if you're a cyclist coming south on Grant making the left onto Beacon? Does the DOT expect the cyclist to just ride in the travel lane to just safely merge into the bike lane?

I know it's a stupid thing to plan for (and there probably won't be any situations of congested flow in the bike lane to necessitate the situation), but it has to be done.

At 0:34 you see a bike make the left turn from the vehicle lane.

A less confident cyclist would use the pedestrian phase. Considering its an all-way ped phase, the bicyclist would able able to cross diagonally.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Sounds like an ideal cityscape to me, just like 1970s Houston  :bigass:
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Transportation infrastructure should be used for transportation, not personal private storage.

At least thats why I choose this profession, to move people around. If I wanted to design parking, Id work for a commercial developer or something.

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

OP, I hope I can clear up some of your confusion in your original post... I work as a transportation engineer for a municipality that's head over heels for bike infrastructure.

The transition to stay alongside thru traffic is to avoid the most dangerous aspect of biking, the "right turn hook" . It's much easier to see a cyclist when they're in front of you rather than behind. Most of us lack the sense of awareness to check our blind spot when making a right hand turn. If a cyclist was approaching from behind, you'd slow down and turn directly into their path, so either you would hit them or they would hit you. Now imagine if it was a heavy vehicle... that's a death sentence.

Secondly, sharrows are also a tool for bicyclists, not just motorists. They're strategically placed where cyclists will be the most visible to drivers. This lets cyclists know where to position themselves in the lane. Additionally, sharrows can be used to delineate bike routes. If you have parallel streets with one being posted at 35mph and the other at 25mph, you can place sharrows on the 25mph street to encourage cyclists to opt for this route rather than the faster, more dangerous route beside it. Great, affordable option if you don't have the funds or volume to put in a bike lane.

I like European bike infra just as much as the next guy, but the taxpayers won't put up with spending hundreds of thousands on redesigning an intersection just to cater to 1% of the traffic stream!

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 20, 2021, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 19, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Quote from: behogie230 on October 20, 2021, 11:12:36 PM
OP, I hope I can clear up some of your confusion in your original post... I work as a transportation engineer for a municipality that's head over heels for bike infrastructure.

The transition to stay alongside thru traffic is to avoid the most dangerous aspect of biking, the "right turn hook" . It's much easier to see a cyclist when they're in front of you rather than behind. Most of us lack the sense of awareness to check our blind spot when making a right hand turn. If a cyclist was approaching from behind, you'd slow down and turn directly into their path, so either you would hit them or they would hit you. Now imagine if it was a heavy vehicle... that's a death sentence.

Secondly, sharrows are also a tool for bicyclists, not just motorists. They're strategically placed where cyclists will be the most visible to drivers. This lets cyclists know where to position themselves in the lane. Additionally, sharrows can be used to delineate bike routes. If you have parallel streets with one being posted at 35mph and the other at 25mph, you can place sharrows on the 25mph street to encourage cyclists to opt for this route rather than the faster, more dangerous route beside it. Great, affordable option if you don't have the funds or volume to put in a bike lane.

I like European bike infra just as much as the next guy, but the taxpayers won't put up with spending hundreds of thousands on redesigning an intersection just to cater to 1% of the traffic stream!

That explains it a bit more. Thanks

Regarding the right hook, now that I think of it, I guess our solution is better than a right hook, considering Copenhagen can be called the world's best cycling city, and get away with shared bike/right turn lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6911257,12.5878138,3a,75y,72.7h,65.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT-B7kbs5MpPH8RimstGqyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

No, that's worse yet. If a driver was interested in being parked, they wouldn't be in my way. Adding more parking spots doesn't make people stop taking up space in front of my car.

I'm all in for bike lanes as long as they're used by the bikes. If there's a bike lane, then bikes shouldn't be in the general purpose lane, or else there shouldn't be bike lanes.

On the other hand, there are some bike lanes that are so poorly designed or laid-out that I have to take the lane. One such example is on 2nd Avenue in Downtown Seattle, which has tons of ramps for driveways and pedestrian mixing zones, an uneven application of asphalt, and too much oncoming traffic (as it's a two-way bike lane). If I'm going southbound and downhill, I can generally keep up with rush hour traffic anyway.

Also, sharrows are pretty useless when it comes to being safe infra. It gives false confidence.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 11:14:26 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 20, 2021, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 19, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 01:27:37 PM
Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meh. You could consolidate dozens of acres of parking into a single parking structure (above or below ground), massively reducing the urban heat island effect by potentially increasing green areas, all while keeping cars cooler with the shade of being parked in a covered area. All I see in that picture above is a bunch of baking cars.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 01:27:37 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 11:14:26 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 20, 2021, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 19, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 21, 2021, 01:13:15 AM
I'm all in for bike lanes as long as they're used by the bikes. If there's a bike lane, then bikes shouldn't be in the general purpose lane, or else there shouldn't be bike lanes.

By that logic, there should be no exclusive car lanes including on all interstates.

Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2021, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 01:27:37 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 11:14:26 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 20, 2021, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 19, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Nope add an extra lane to those streets, no one wants to bike in 100 plus degree weather anyway. Give me an extra lane so my town car can get me there faster.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:55:31 AM
The Netherlands is a small country with high energy prices and is relatively poorer than the US. It also has a moderate climate for much of the year. Bicycles make some sense there.
Bicycles make little sense in the US, except as a recreational vehicle and on some places like college campuses where a high concentration of low income residents with local transportation needs live.
But generally speaking, bicycle lanes, no matter how you implement them, are simply a barrier to the cars and trucks on the road that we actually need, and are best left out of construction plans.

Maybe in rural areas, but this is a really not thought out take for suburban or urban regions.


iPhone

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 01, 2021, 11:27:41 AM
Since there doesn't seem to be a general thread about bike lanes yet, I guess I'll start one here.

Over the past few weeks, I've been looking at Dutch roads for quite a bit, and noticed how well bike lanes are designed over there compared to here in the US. Note that I'm not going to suggest anything about removing/banning cars in favor of bikes here (unlike some "urbanists"). I think that both cars and bikes can coexist on a road, and with good infrastructure for both.

I've looked up the MUTCD for bike lane design standards here, and something that I don't get is that why does the bike lane have to cross at the start of a right turn lane? To me, it seems safer for the bike lane to stay on the right side of a right turn lane, as when the right turning car stops at the intersection to look at perpendicular traffic, they can also look at the bike lane while on that same stop before turning.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZKjbO1x.png)
Continuing from the above image, that "bike lane" suggested in the MUTCD is pretty much a standard road shoulder with a bike symbol painted on it. I've heard it called a "bicycle gutter" before. Is it too much to ask for some separation between a bike lane and the car lanes by default, either with a double white line with some clear space in the middle, or with some sort of physical separation, like those white floppy things? Or even better, a bike path at sidewalk height. I've seen a lot of those here in West Lafayette, IN, and I really enjoy biking on them.

Does anyone else feel like the shared lane symbol is redundant (as cyclists are supposed to bike on the road when no bike lane is present by default), and give a false sense of security to cyclists?
(https://i.imgur.com/VqPNt2w.png?1)

An intersection design that I really like lately, called a "protected intersection" have curbs separating the bike lanes from the car lanes. Here's a satellite view of the first US example in Salt Lake City:
(https://i.imgur.com/FyPGhBm.png?2)

I read up a traffic rule that benefits cyclists called an "Idaho Stop", which allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. Personally, as someone that bikes everyday to get around, I like that new rule, though I can see how some drivers would hate it, as there are tons of road rage issues of drivers against cyclists and pedestrians. Also, doesn't a lot of European cities use yield signs for cars in places where a stop sign would be used in the US?

My town in Massachusetts prevents this awkward merge by using a bicycle traffic signal, and a right turn signal with an R10-11b NO TURN ON RED sign. It works very well ! (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220424/23593c226788202c19ccbece975b1a19.jpg)


iPhone

I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

The intersection Amtrakprod showed is one of the handful where it works just because a heavily used rail-trail somewhat bisects the intersection.

But yeah, it would be mostly useless in even many parts of greater Boston.

Quote from: SectorZ on April 25, 2022, 07:07:01 AM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

The intersection Amtrakprod showed is one of the handful where it works just because a heavily used rail-trail somewhat bisects the intersection.

But yeah, it would be mostly useless in even many parts of greater Boston.

It's used pretty vastly over the greater Boston area. Smarter new installations have blank out signs and bike signals that only turn green when bikes are present, which results in less delay for vehicles and safer crossings when bikes do cross.


iPhone

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 12:04:26 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

Right on red is generally prohibited in the Boston metro. The default is always no, with the restriction lifted only after analysis.

RTOR is very dangerous with the number of pedestrians in the area. Drivers only look left for a gap in traffic and fail to see the pedestrian stepping off the curb immediately to their right.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 12:54:49 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 12:04:26 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

But many drivers have have proved inept in urban areas at determining safe times to turn. Ergo, they lose the privilege to turn on red. Better than banning turns completely, that happens a lot in Seattle these days.

Quote from: jamess on April 25, 2022, 02:04:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

Right on red is generally prohibited in the Boston metro. The default is always no, with the restriction lifted only after analysis.

RTOR is very dangerous with the number of pedestrians in the area. Drivers only look left for a gap in traffic and fail to see the pedestrian stepping off the curb immediately to their right.

I mean, pedestrians need to pay attention too; as a distance runner I personally defer to cars and check if someone could potentially turn every time I cross a road (in town, of course, out by home I can do 10 mile runs without seeing a single vehicle). In my 13,000+ miles and 3500+ runs I've only had a driver almost run into me once, in high school. Then again, my local population density is much much lower than the Boston metro.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 07:15:54 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 12:54:49 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 12:04:26 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

But many drivers have have proved inept in urban areas at determining safe times to turn. Ergo, they lose the privilege to turn on red. Better than banning turns completely, that happens a lot in Seattle these days.

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Oh no, not this again... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28799.0) (kernals12)

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

Quote from: SectorZ on April 25, 2022, 10:26:04 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 10:46:43 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on April 25, 2022, 10:26:04 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Dpesnt matter. The conversation is about local roads with signals, pedestrians, and bikes. Those are generally funded via property taxes.

Little bit shocked to see people on a road forum not understanding how roads are funded.

Quote from: SD Mapman on April 25, 2022, 08:01:06 PM

Quote from: jamess on April 25, 2022, 02:04:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

Right on red is generally prohibited in the Boston metro. The default is always no, with the restriction lifted only after analysis.

RTOR is very dangerous with the number of pedestrians in the area. Drivers only look left for a gap in traffic and fail to see the pedestrian stepping off the curb immediately to their right.

I mean, pedestrians need to pay attention too; as a distance runner I personally defer to cars and check if someone could potentially turn every time I cross a road (in town, of course, out by home I can do 10 mile runs without seeing a single vehicle). In my 13,000+ miles and 3500+ runs I've only had a driver almost run into me once, in high school. Then again, my local population density is much much lower than the Boston metro.

Its fine for a hobbyist to defer in this way. But we're talking about transportation, and the pedestrian with the walk signal has absolute priority over the driver with a red light. You cannot operate a transportation system where some roadway users have to operate under the assumption that the signal assigning them the right of way is wrong.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 10:46:43 PM
No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Don't say that on Twitter. It's new owner won't take kindly to the implication that the products of one of his other companies deserve to be treated as second class because they don't run on dead dinosaurs.

I live in a country where fuel tax is higher than the US. That, even when coupled with other taxes paid by motor vehicles, doesn't cover the expense of roads.

Roads are a subsidised public good. They are not the private reserve of those who are burning petroleum products as they do so.

Quote from: jamess on April 26, 2022, 12:53:59 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 10:46:43 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on April 25, 2022, 10:26:04 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Dpesnt matter. The conversation is about local roads with signals, pedestrians, and bikes. Those are generally funded via property taxes.

Little bit shocked to see people on a road forum not understanding how roads are funded.

Nice high horse you got there, buddy.  But, it appears you don't know how roads are funded, either.

You have to be careful with what you call a "local" road.  If your criteria is just "signals, pedestrians and bikes," you would be surprised how many are federal-aid eligible given their functional class.  In fact, the majority of functional classes designated by FHWA are federal-aid eligible.

This would also be a reason why municipalities and counties are members of metropolitan planning organizations, which control the federally-funded capital programs in any urban area with 50,000 people or more, per federal law.

And that's only the federal side of things.

Here in NY, you also get into state assistance through programs like CHIPS or, more recently Touring Route funding or PAVE-NY ot Pave Our Potholes...all sorts of state initiatives that fund local projects.  That said, a lot of these are funded through borrowed funds (bonds) rather than through tax revenues due to funding eligibility (in NY, you can't use State Dedicated Funds on roads not owned by the State).

Granted, every State is different -- Virginia's "we own everything" being a notable extreme.  Still, the idea that roads with "signals, pedestrians and bikes" are only funded through property taxes is a sign of true ignorance of how transportation is funded.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 07:15:54 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 12:54:49 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 12:04:26 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

But many drivers have have proved inept in urban areas at determining safe times to turn. Ergo, they lose the privilege to turn on red. Better than banning turns completely, that happens a lot in Seattle these days.

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 26, 2022, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 07:15:54 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 12:54:49 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 12:04:26 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

But many drivers have have proved inept in urban areas at determining safe times to turn. Ergo, they lose the privilege to turn on red. Better than banning turns completely, that happens a lot in Seattle these days.

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Laws can be changed.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 26, 2022, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2022, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 26, 2022, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

That's one area I'm unsure of:  How Minneapolis and Duluth paid for and got their skywalk/skyway systems built.  Wouldn't be surprised if they had private investment (this will be a boon to your building and business!).  I don't know if the transportation revenue would have taken a hit because of them.  They're different than your typical pedestrian bridges.

Quote from: Rothman on April 26, 2022, 09:12:23 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2022, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 26, 2022, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

That's one area I'm unsure of:  How Minneapolis and Duluth paid for and got their skywalk/skyway systems built.  Wouldn't be surprised if they had private investment (this will be a boon to your building and business!).  I don't know if the transportation revenue would have taken a hit because of them.  They're different than your typical pedestrian bridges.

Most likely it was an agreement between the owners of the buildings.  Chicago's Pedway has been there for decades, but it was only recently that they put up signs directing pedestrians to/through it.

Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

Guys, guys: HighwayStar is saying that people who ride bikes don't have jobs.

Quote from: abefroman329 on April 26, 2022, 10:07:22 AM

Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

Guys, guys: HighwayStar is saying that people who ride bikes don't have jobs.

You're right.  By ellipsis I omitted the portion of his post that said "and keeping the economy running".

The lady driving her '95 Toyota Tercel to her job selling lottery tickets and Red Bull at the corner convenience store:  she's paying for the road and keeping the economy running.

The vice-president of a software company walking to the commuter rail station on her way to work:  she's not.

Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2022, 10:17:41 AMThe lady driving her '95 Toyota Tercel to her job selling lottery tickets and Red Bull at the corner convenience store:  she's paying for the road and keeping the economy running.

But she's selling them to black people lazy moochers who are stealing the tax dollars paid by God-fearing white people people who keep the economy running, so...kinda.

Quote from: abefroman329 on April 26, 2022, 10:57:47 AM

Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2022, 10:17:41 AM
The lady driving her '95 Toyota Tercel to her job selling lottery tickets and Red Bull at the corner convenience store:  she's paying for the road and keeping the economy running.

But she's selling them to black people lazy moochers who are stealing the tax dollars paid by God-fearing white people people who keep the economy running, so...kinda.

Hey, as long as those lazy moochers drive to the convenience store instead of free-riding on their Taiwanese-made bicycles...

Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2022, 11:08:24 AM

Quote from: abefroman329 on April 26, 2022, 10:57:47 AM

Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2022, 10:17:41 AM
The lady driving her '95 Toyota Tercel to her job selling lottery tickets and Red Bull at the corner convenience store:  she's paying for the road and keeping the economy running.

But she's selling them to black people lazy moochers who are stealing the tax dollars paid by God-fearing white people people who keep the economy running, so...kinda.

Hey, as long as those lazy moochers drive to the convenience store instead of free-riding on their Taiwanese-made bicycles...

In their Obamacars, fueled by Obamagas?!  Not on my watch.

Quote from: Rothman on April 26, 2022, 06:54:53 AM

Quote from: jamess on April 26, 2022, 12:53:59 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 10:46:43 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on April 25, 2022, 10:26:04 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Dpesnt matter. The conversation is about local roads with signals, pedestrians, and bikes. Those are generally funded via property taxes.

Little bit shocked to see people on a road forum not understanding how roads are funded.

Nice high horse you got there, buddy.  But, it appears you don't know how roads are funded, either.

You have to be careful with what you call a "local" road.  If your criteria is just "signals, pedestrians and bikes," you would be surprised how many are federal-aid eligible given their functional class.  In fact, the majority of functional classes designated by FHWA are federal-aid eligible.

This would also be a reason why municipalities and counties are members of metropolitan planning organizations, which control the federally-funded capital programs in any urban area with 50,000 people or more, per federal law.

And that's only the federal side of things.

Here in NY, you also get into state assistance through programs like CHIPS or, more recently Touring Route funding or PAVE-NY ot Pave Our Potholes...all sorts of state initiatives that fund local projects.  That said, a lot of these are funded through borrowed funds (bonds) rather than through tax revenues due to funding eligibility (in NY, you can't use State Dedicated Funds on roads not owned by the State).

Granted, every State is different -- Virginia's "we own everything" being a notable extreme.  Still, the idea that roads with "signals, pedestrians and bikes" are only funded through property taxes is a sign of true ignorance of how transportation is funded.

We're talking about a specific intersection where a photo was provided. It is on Mass Ave, in Arlington, MA.

There's no need for hypotheticals.

So it's on a state highway, then.

Quote from: jamess on April 26, 2022, 12:04:32 PM

Quote from: Rothman on April 26, 2022, 06:54:53 AM

Quote from: jamess on April 26, 2022, 12:53:59 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 10:46:43 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on April 25, 2022, 10:26:04 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road ...

False.  Only around 50% of road construction and maintenance (both nationwide and in Massachusetts specifically) comes from gas taxes and other user fees.  The rest comes from general taxes, meaning pedestrians pay for the roads too.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

To him, owning a car = must be richer than someone riding a bike or walking.

I take this shit sometimes cycling from people who scream at me, failing to understand I likely outpay them in taxes 9 out of 10 years. It's just the malignant narcissism of the anti-cycling/walking/anything else Hwy Star finds offensive...

No, its a matter of fuel taxes. How much gasoline is a bicycle using?

Dpesnt matter. The conversation is about local roads with signals, pedestrians, and bikes. Those are generally funded via property taxes.

Little bit shocked to see people on a road forum not understanding how roads are funded.

Nice high horse you got there, buddy.  But, it appears you don't know how roads are funded, either.

You have to be careful with what you call a "local" road.  If your criteria is just "signals, pedestrians and bikes," you would be surprised how many are federal-aid eligible given their functional class.  In fact, the majority of functional classes designated by FHWA are federal-aid eligible.

This would also be a reason why municipalities and counties are members of metropolitan planning organizations, which control the federally-funded capital programs in any urban area with 50,000 people or more, per federal law.

And that's only the federal side of things.

Here in NY, you also get into state assistance through programs like CHIPS or, more recently Touring Route funding or PAVE-NY ot Pave Our Potholes...all sorts of state initiatives that fund local projects.  That said, a lot of these are funded through borrowed funds (bonds) rather than through tax revenues due to funding eligibility (in NY, you can't use State Dedicated Funds on roads not owned by the State).

Granted, every State is different -- Virginia's "we own everything" being a notable extreme.  Still, the idea that roads with "signals, pedestrians and bikes" are only funded through property taxes is a sign of true ignorance of how transportation is funded.

We're talking about a specific intersection where a photo was provided. It is on Mass Ave, in Arlington, MA.

There's no need for hypotheticals.

Mass Ave is definitely federal-aid eligible.  I take it you don't know what I meant by "functional class," then, and didn't even bother to Google it to correct yourself.

Just eat the crow.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 26, 2022, 09:01:10 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 26, 2022, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 07:15:54 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 12:54:49 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2022, 12:04:26 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 25, 2022, 09:48:11 AM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 24, 2022, 10:51:12 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 09:40:38 PM
I would imagine the vast majority of bike lanes in the US don't get enough cycle traffic to make the reduction in vehicle throughput caused by that right-turn restriction worth it.

With modern technology, reliably detecting bike traffic should be a solved problem. Actuate the bike movement and the delay will match the minimal bike traffic.

Okay, but that's only half the equation. You've also removed the ability to turn right on red when cross traffic has a green.

NTOR is often considered a good thing in urban areas.

Not by my standards, sitting at red lights when you could turn is a waste of time.

But many drivers have have proved inept in urban areas at determining safe times to turn. Ergo, they lose the privilege to turn on red. Better than banning turns completely, that happens a lot in Seattle these days.

As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Laws can be changed.

Then it's not a "right."

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2021, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 01:27:37 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 11:14:26 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 20, 2021, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 19, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Nope add an extra lane to those streets, no one wants to bike in 100 plus degree weather anyway. Give me an extra lane so my town car can get me there faster.

Houston only gets to 100°F during the summer. Temps are good-to-great for biking the other nine months.

Quote from: skluth on April 26, 2022, 03:46:44 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2021, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 01:27:37 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 11:14:26 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 20, 2021, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 19, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Nope add an extra lane to those streets, no one wants to bike in 100 plus degree weather anyway. Give me an extra lane so my town car can get me there faster.

Houston only gets to 100°F during the summer. Temps are good-to-great for biking the other nine months.

There are perhaps 3 months a year tops where Houston is good for biking. March through November the average high is over 70 degrees, plus high humidity. That is not good weather for anything but recreational biking. For transportation it needs to be cooler and drier.

Keep in mind that people in Houston are used to higher temperatures. 80° there is nothing, while it's moderately hot where I live (Massachusetts) and where you live (Pennsylvania).

On the flip side, I can handle mid-50s without a jacket if I'm moving and not just sitting, but someone from Houston probably can't.

Quote from: 1 on April 26, 2022, 09:10:15 PM
Keep in mind that people in Houston are used to higher temperatures. 80° there is nothing, while it's moderately hot where I live (Massachusetts) and where you live (Pennsylvania).

On the flip side, I can handle mid-50s without a jacket if I'm moving and not just sitting, but someone from Houston probably can't.

Heh.  A friend of mine from Gardner, MA moved to Texas and shared a video of the Texans freezing in 50° weather at a football game while she layered up a little.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 26, 2022, 09:03:57 PM

Quote from: skluth on April 26, 2022, 03:46:44 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2021, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 01:27:37 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 11:14:26 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 20, 2021, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 19, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Nope add an extra lane to those streets, no one wants to bike in 100 plus degree weather anyway. Give me an extra lane so my town car can get me there faster.

Houston only gets to 100°F during the summer. Temps are good-to-great for biking the other nine months.

There are perhaps 3 months a year tops where Houston is good for biking. March through November the average high is over 70 degrees, plus high humidity. That is not good weather for anything but recreational biking. For transportation it needs to be cooler and drier.

Singapore is far worse for heat and humidity than Houston most of the year, and yet their residents manage to cycle in it just fine.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 26, 2022, 09:03:57 PM

Quote from: skluth on April 26, 2022, 03:46:44 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2021, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 21, 2021, 01:27:37 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 20, 2021, 11:14:26 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 20, 2021, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: Bruce on October 19, 2021, 12:49:38 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 19, 2021, 12:09:25 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 11:34:22 PM
As a driver I want more bike lanes and more people using them. The more people in the bike lane, the less people in my way in the general purpose lane.

Better yet, ban the bikes from the road, and use the space of the bike lanes for more parking.

Why don't we get rid of the parking spaces for more through lanes, pave over the sidewalks for through lanes, and demolish a few cities for even more through lanes.

Because when you get where you are going you need to be able to park.
Classic case of optimization over 2 goods in Econ 101.

This is why I posted an image of 1970s Houston and asking for your thoughts on the cityscape back then.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 19, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hWR4orQ.png?2)

Love it. When its 100 degrees outside and 90% humidity you can drive right up to the store you want to go to and park close and not walk out in the heat. Ditto for rain. Works great.

Meaning there's no need to have any parking along the street and plenty of room for a couple streets to have bike lanes.

Nope add an extra lane to those streets, no one wants to bike in 100 plus degree weather anyway. Give me an extra lane so my town car can get me there faster.

Houston only gets to 100°F during the summer. Temps are good-to-great for biking the other nine months.

There are perhaps 3 months a year tops where Houston is good for biking. March through November the average high is over 70 degrees, plus high humidity. That is not good weather for anything but recreational biking. For transportation it needs to be cooler and drier.

What was that you were saying the other day...ah yes:

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 18, 2022, 07:45:38 PMI would say it is much more ignorant for someone to claim they single-handedly know what is better for these thousands of people than they themselves do.

Quote from: SectorZ on April 27, 2022, 08:35:29 AM
Singapore is far worse for heat and humidity than Houston most of the year, and yet their residents manage to cycle in it just fine.

They should all be driving a 1977 Buick Estate Wagon instead.

Quote from: 1 on April 26, 2022, 09:10:15 PM
Keep in mind that people in Houston are used to higher temperatures. 80° there is nothing, while it's moderately hot where I live (Massachusetts) and where you live (Pennsylvania).

On the flip side, I can handle mid-50s without a jacket if I'm moving and not just sitting, but someone from Houston probably can't.

If it's windy, then no, absolutely not. If not, then yes.

My two cents is that outdoors exercise or strenuous activity (such as biking) should generally be avoided in the Houston area from May to November from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM, unless you have plenty of water on you (not sweat on your back!) and are willing to wear a T-shirt and shorts to wherever you are going. I've had too many heat-related headaches from doing things outside in the summer without adequate water to know that biking in the summer here is a horrible idea.

On the other hand, late fall, winter, and early spring are absolutely great times to ride a bike in the Houston area, and I would still support bike lanes in certain areas.

Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2022, 10:37:07 AM

Quote from: SectorZ on April 27, 2022, 08:35:29 AM
Singapore is far worse for heat and humidity than Houston most of the year, and yet their residents manage to cycle in it just fine.

They should all be driving a 1977 Buick Estate Wagon instead.

Unfortunately the country is not rich enough for that. So instead everyone shows up to work drenched in sweat and the office smells like a locker room.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2022, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 26, 2022, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

Actually many of them are privately funded as they connect private real estate. So in fact sky walks would not need public funds at all, instead real estate developers could pay for them.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 27, 2022, 11:21:17 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2022, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 26, 2022, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

Actually many of them are privately funded as they connect private real estate. So in fact sky walks would not need public funds at all, instead real estate developers could pay for them.

Wow.  Somebody is the Internet Explorer in this thread.  Look above...

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 27, 2022, 11:21:17 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2022, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 26, 2022, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 25, 2022, 08:32:13 PM
As those drivers are the ones paying for the road and keeping the economy running I would say its more of a right for them than a privilege.
Sky walks seem like a better solution here, grade separated and conflict free.

Outside of those pesky laws that say otherwise.

Here's the Catch 22 highwaystar must've forgotten about; if we were to build skywalks to separate pedestrians from vehicles, that money will come from transportation funds, reducing the money available to be spent on roads.  Pedestrians bridges are expensive.

Actually many of them are privately funded as they connect private real estate. So in fact sky walks would not need public funds at all, instead real estate developers could pay for them.

That is generally true as a condition of building at the property. But once the property is built, it's nearly impossible for the municipality to force a property owner to build something that isn't to their sole benefit...especially something like a Skywalk which is better to be incorporated into the original design of a new building or area.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 27, 2022, 11:19:57 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2022, 10:37:07 AM

Quote from: SectorZ on April 27, 2022, 08:35:29 AM
Singapore is far worse for heat and humidity than Houston most of the year, and yet their residents manage to cycle in it just fine.

They should all be driving a 1977 Buick Estate Wagon instead.

Unfortunately the country is not rich enough for that. So instead everyone shows up to work drenched in sweat and the office smells like a locker room.

It appears you may have missed the sarcasm in my comment.

I'm also curious to know how many office environments you've been to in Singapore.

 :banghead:

(https://momentummag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-08-at-11.04.02-AM.png)

Dadgum.

Not quite a bike lane, but would any of you feel comfortable biking on this officially marked bike route? (https://goo.gl/maps/fqPnM3C7qH1rqpYA6)
(https://imgur.com/rK4bFs4.jpg)

Especially with this bridge right down the line? (https://goo.gl/maps/i24W6ADg5qYh1ZeF6)  And this? (https://goo.gl/maps/aCuKaUEu8DV4dLEm8) I'm not sure I would like to share the road in this circumstance.

Quote from: CoreySamson on April 29, 2022, 03:22:16 PM
Not quite a bike lane, but would any of you feel comfortable biking on this officially marked bike route? (https://goo.gl/maps/fqPnM3C7qH1rqpYA6)
(https://imgur.com/rK4bFs4.jpg)

Especially with this bridge right down the line? (https://goo.gl/maps/i24W6ADg5qYh1ZeF6)  And this? (https://goo.gl/maps/aCuKaUEu8DV4dLEm8) I'm not sure I would like to share the road in this circumstance.

The highway in general, yes.  The bridge, no.

Quote from: CoreySamson on April 29, 2022, 03:22:16 PM
Not quite a bike lane, but would any of you feel comfortable biking on this officially marked bike route? (https://goo.gl/maps/fqPnM3C7qH1rqpYA6)
[img]
Especially with this bridge right down the line? (https://goo.gl/maps/i24W6ADg5qYh1ZeF6)  And this? (https://goo.gl/maps/aCuKaUEu8DV4dLEm8) I'm not sure I would like to share the road in this circumstance.

Checking the Strava heatmap for that particular stretch, it seems to be pretty used. I probably would not mind riding on it, even with the bridge (though I will obviously be looking over my shoulder before crossing it) though I don't like the full rumble strips along the fog line since I might need to take the lane to avoid any crap in the road, like what is there downstream of the bridge in your first link. The milled roadway is a temporary condition and I would look forward to the fresh pavement.

New project in Portland imported dutch traffic signals

(https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Better-Naito-observations-48-1200x852.jpg)

(https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Better-Naito-observations-56-1200x803.jpg)

https://bikeportland.org/2022/05/05/first-look-at-the-new-lanes-and-paths-on-naito-parkway-353232

That page had a video showing a ride-along of the route in both directions. Overall, it looks pretty cool and works effectively, at least from a cyclist's perspective. I'm not a huge fan of some of the striping used. The symbols used didn't seem particularly standardized. And to nitpick even further, I don't think I want to see Arial Narrow on the road either.

I also think the usage of green paint could've been significantly toned down and replaced with more traditional "road striping" with a yellow centerline. But overall, this configuration looks to be well thought out.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 06, 2022, 12:04:28 AM
That page had a video showing a ride-along of the route in both directions. Overall, it looks pretty cool and works effectively, at least from a cyclist's perspective. I'm not a huge fan of some of the striping used. The symbols used didn't seem particularly standardized. And to nitpick even further, I don't think I want to see Arial Narrow on the road either.

I also think the usage of green paint could've been significantly toned down and replaced with more traditional "road striping" with a yellow centerline. But overall, this configuration looks to be well thought out.

I think the extreme use of green in this type of facility is more to try and keep pedestrians out of it

Very awkward zebra striping for the bike and ped crossings. Just on the left and center is odd.

Very cool bike signals. But really don't see why they are using massive 12-12-12 bike signals on the far-side (especially hilarious given the very small nearside signals). 8-inch signals are more than enough for far-side bike signals.

↑ Does the MUTCD have a carveout that allows primary bike signals to be smaller? 12" is the minimum for car signals, so it could be worded in such a way that it applies to bike signals too.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:53:28 PM
↑ Does the MUTCD have a carveout that allows primary bike signals to be smaller? 12" is the minimum for car signals, so it could be worded in such a way that it applies to bike signals too.

Most new bike signals I've seen are 8", so I think there's probably something in there allowing for smaller bike signals. Could check later to confirm. Makes sense if so, as bikers don't need as large signal heads for visibility as drivers.

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 06, 2022, 10:55:25 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:53:28 PM
↑ Does the MUTCD have a carveout that allows primary bike signals to be smaller? 12" is the minimum for car signals, so it could be worded in such a way that it applies to bike signals too.

Most new bike signals I've seen are 8", so I think there's probably something in there allowing for smaller bike signals. Could check later to confirm. Makes sense if so, as bikers don't need as large signal heads for visibility as drivers.

That, however, is offset by the signal not being fully lit inside, only the outline of the bike is, meaning overall it's giving off much less light per square inch than a standard signal. Making it smaller in that case already makes it harder to see. I've not personally had a problem with them but I am wearing prescription sunglasses while riding. Someone with their vision cut a bit from that, add in the sun in the background, and I can see those 8" heads that are effectively half-lit being hard to see in certain situations.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:53:28 PM
↑ Does the MUTCD have a carveout that allows primary bike signals to be smaller? 12" is the minimum for car signals, so it could be worded in such a way that it applies to bike signals too.

Yes.  The IA specifically allows smaller sizes to be used for bicycle signals.

Quote from: MUTCD – 2009 Edition
Section 4D.07 – Size of Vehicular Signal Indications

02.  Except as provided in Paragraph 3 below, 12-inch signal indications shall be used for all signal sections in all new signal faces.

03.  Eight-inch circular signal indications may be used in new signal faces only for:

  A.  The green or flashing yellow signal indications in an emergency-vehicle traffic control signal (see Section 4G.02);

  B.  The circular indications in signal faces controlling the approach to the downstream location where two adjacent signalized locations are close to each other and it is not practical because of factors such as high approach speeds, horizontal or vertical curves, or other geometric factors to install visibility-limited signal faces for the downstream approach;

  C. The circular indications in a signal face that is located less than 120 feet from the stop line on a roadway with a posted or statutory speed limit of 30 mph or less;

  D. The circular indications in a supplemental near-side signal face:

  E. The circular indications in a supplemental signal face installed for the sole purpose of controlling pedestrian movements (see Section 4D.03) rather than vehicular movements; and

  F. The circular indications in a signal face installed for the sole purpose of controlling a bikeway or a bicycle movement.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf

Quote from: MUTCD – Interim Approval for Optional Use of a Bicycle Signal Face (IA-16)
4.  Design of Bicycle Signal Faces:

b.  Size:  The provisions of Section 4D.07 apply to the sizes of bicycle signal faces except as follows:

  i.  There shall be three nominal diameter sizes for bicycle signal indications: 4 inches, 8 inches, and 12 inches. The bicycle symbol used for bicycle signal indications shall be proportioned to fit within the signal lens.

  ii.  All signal indications in a bicycle signal face shall be of the same size, including both signal indications that display arrows and signal indications that display bicycle symbols. As a specific exception to Paragraph 2 in Section 4D.07, 4-inch and 8-inch arrow signal indications may be used in bicycle signal faces.

  iii.  Four-inch signal indications shall only be used in supplemental, post-mounted, near-side bicycle signal faces. If used, 4-inch signal indications may exclude the accompanying visor(s) and backplate. Near-side bicycle signal faces may alternatively be either 8-inch or 12-inch.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia16/

Quote from: jakeroot on May 06, 2022, 07:41:26 PM
Very awkward zebra striping for the bike and ped crossings. Just on the left and center is odd.

I believe they are placed so that the car tires normally run in the gaps and are less likely to rub the paint away

Quote from: jamess on May 09, 2022, 08:03:53 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 06, 2022, 07:41:26 PM
Very awkward zebra striping for the bike and ped crossings. Just on the left and center is odd.

I believe they are placed so that the car tires normally run in the gaps and are less likely to rub the paint away

That explains the gap, but there should be an additional stripe on the right edge of the roadway. There is only striping on the left and center.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:53:28 PM
↑ Does the MUTCD have a carveout that allows primary bike signals to be smaller? 12" is the minimum for car signals, so it could be worded in such a way that it applies to bike signals too.

8" signals for standard signals are still permitted in certain circumstances...

Quote
Section 4D.07 Size of Vehicular Signal Indications
Standard:
01 There shall be two nominal diameter sizes for vehicular signal indications: 8 inches and 12 inches.

Option:
03 Eight-inch circular signal indications may be used in new signal faces only for:..

C. The circular indications in a signal face that is located less than 120 feet from the stop line on a roadway with a posted or statutory speed limit of 30 mph or less;
D. The circular indications in a supplemental near-side signal face

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2022, 10:18:16 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:53:28 PM
↑ Does the MUTCD have a carveout that allows primary bike signals to be smaller? 12" is the minimum for car signals, so it could be worded in such a way that it applies to bike signals too.

8" signals for standard signals are still permitted in certain circumstances...

Kphoger already shared this a few posts up.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2022, 04:17:00 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2022, 10:18:16 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:53:28 PM
↑ Does the MUTCD have a carveout that allows primary bike signals to be smaller? 12" is the minimum for car signals, so it could be worded in such a way that it applies to bike signals too.

8" signals for standard signals are still permitted in certain circumstances...

Kphoger already shared this a few posts up.

So he did.  I just saw "Yes.  The IA specifically allows smaller sizes to be used for bicycle signals." and glared over the rest, thinking he was posting about signal sizes for bikes.

Technically, I didn't include paragraph 01.   :biggrin:

My preference bike signal size wise now is 4" nearside, and 8" far-side, but it all depends on the size of the intersection. If you noticed in that Portland post, there is an addition section on the bike signal that has a countdown to green. Pretty interesting ! https://bikeportland.org/2020/08/07/nifty-new-bike-signal-added-to-broadway-williams-intersection-319054

I prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.

Quote from: Georgia Guardrail on July 18, 2022, 09:20:23 PM
I prefer wider sidewalks verses bike lanes because that way cyclists are separated from the cars.  Also if a cyclist takes a spill on a sidewalk, it would be a lot less dangerous then taking one on a narrow road with cars speeding behind you.

Also something for cities and Live Work Play communities to consider would be instead of crosswalks to implement pedestrian/bicycle bridges over busy intersections and/or lit tunnels underneath the roads.

Shared bike/pedestrian paths suck, especially in built-up areas. Too many points of conflict.

Bridges and underpasses also take too long for cyclists and pedestrians. It's pretty common for them to be bypassed entirely in favor of just running across lanes of traffic.