The Urban Bikeway Design Guide was released last week by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) at the National Bike Summit in Washington D.C. (See a good overview at The Urban Country).
The guide represents a big step forward in legitimizing (at least for North Americans) what a number of North American municipalities have already begun implementing in the United States and Canada (though Toronto has become a bit of an anachronism in this regard). The policy in Europe (particularly Netherlands and Copenhagen) has been progressive for many decades now. With this document, these city transportation planners are writing off their state counterparts, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which continues to be woefully inadequate in helping planners design for better cycling infrastructure. AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities doesn't even mention cycle tracks (one or two-way separated bike lanes that resemble shared-use paths), an infrastructure that is increasingly being used in large cities such as NYC, San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver, Montreal.
It didn't help that AASHTO was influenced by John Forrester, who held strongly the belief that ‘bicyclists fare best when they behave as, and are treated as, operators of vehicles', "a long-standing, and yet not rigorously proved, philosophy in the USA." (Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street, by Anne C Lusk et al.)
NACTO, on the other hand, doesn't shy away from describing a wide variety of different cycling infrastructure, drawn from the bikeway guides from many cities, including Portland Oregon, Amsterdam, New York City and Copenhagen. Under cycle tracks, for instance, it includes one way buffer tracks, two-way, and raised bed cycle tracks with examples and benefits of each type. Any of these options would be big improvements for bike lanes on our main thoroughfares and for proposed separated bike lanes on Richmond and so on. (I personally think the variety shown above would be a good compromise for narrower roads where a width doesn't exist for a full separated cycle track.)
Comments
Kevin (not verified)
I've got two serious problems
Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:09I've got two serious problems with this standard.
The first is that it is re-inventing the wheel. The Dutch CROW standard is available in English. It is the benchmark standard for cycle facilities. Why waste time, money and resources trying to invent something else? Anyone doing so will inevitably have less experience than the Dutch in creating cycle infrastructure and will therefore come up with an inferior standard. See:
http://www.crow.nl/english
The second problem is that, yes indeed, this is a seriously inferior standard. OK, it is a really lousy standard.
Among other things, it endorses door zone bike lanes. Yes, road design where the most dangerous place on the entire road to ride a bicycle is in the bike lane.
“When placed adjacent to parking, a solid white line marking of four inch width should be used between the parking lane and the bike lane to minimise encroachment of parked cars into the bike lane.”
Note that “parking,” of course, refers to car parking. Bike parking? What’s that?
Or how about this little gem of a bike lane standard:
“The desirable ridable surface adjacent to a street edge or longitudinal joint is 4 feet, with a minimum width of 3 feet. In cities where illegal parking in bike lanes is an concern, 5 foot wide bike lanes may be preferred.”
A three foot wide bike lane? Elbow to elbow, I take three feet just riding. Guess what? There’s also got to be at least 1 1/2 feet of “swerve room” to safely avoid debris or obstacles. A three foot bike lane is a dangerous joke.
And just how is a five foot wide bike lane going to deter illegal car parking in bike lanes?
Instead of wasting large amounts of time, money and resources re-inventing the wheel they could have just used the Dutch CROW bicycle standards. Which, of course, do not allow for lethally dangerous stupidities such as door zone bike lanes or sub-standard bike lane widths.
Kevin Love
herb
Did you actually look beyond
Mon, 03/21/2011 - 12:54Did you actually look beyond the page on conventional bike lanes, Kevin? Maybe you missed the whole part that this is actually a collaboration of all the different city transportation officials (plus a few bike name cycling advocates) to compile most of the existing infrastructure in European and North American cities and provide a guide of best practices.
If you look at their Master Reference Matrix you'll see that they're well aware of CROW. But you'll also see that it's a lot more complicated than that. NACTO is providing some organization and logic to the large number of design guides, existing facilities, and plans that exist for different North American cities.
Look all the way at the bottom of the matrix, you'll see that CROW only mentions four of the 21 facilities listed in the guide. All of these solutions are actually being used in different US cities - it doesn't make sense to ignore them just because you think the CROW is the best ever.
For your reference, here is the list of facilities not listed in CROW: conventional bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, contra-flow bike lanes, left-side bike lanes, raised cycle track, two-way cycle tracks, median refuge island, through bike lanes, combined bike/turn lane, cycle track intersection approach, bike signal heads, signal detection and actuation, active warning beacon for bike route at unsignalized intersection, hybrid signal for bike route crossing of major street, bike route way-finding signage and markings system, colored bike facilities, shared lane markings.
Finally, Kevin, I don't think you realize that NACTO, by highlighting the best practices in cities like Portland, NYC and elsewhere, is revealing the strong influence that Denmark and Netherlands has had on current cycling infrastructure policy in these cities. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, these transportation officials have already learned and implemented infrastructure that is adapted for different contexts. Instead, your whole point is: cycling policy was revealed in the holy CROW standard and nothing shall ever be added or removed from its holy word, least we all be condemned to a damnation of suburbia for ever and ever.
Antony (not verified)
I'd suspect that 5 foot bike
Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:26I'd suspect that 5 foot bike lanes would result in more blockages from parked cars and trucks. After all, it leaves plenty of room so you can park without blocking a real lane.
herb
A video of bicycle planners
Mon, 03/21/2011 - 13:08http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQMTnExzx8Y
A video of bicycle planners getting together in Boston for NACTO, to discuss bike infrastructure and what's been implemented and what's the best of the breed.
Kevin (not verified)
Herb wrote: "Look all the way
Mon, 03/21/2011 - 18:46Herb wrote:
"Look all the way at the bottom of the matrix, you'll see that you'll see that CROW only mentions four of the 21 facilities listed in the guide."
Kevin's comment:
That's simply not true. I interpret this matrix as the items used by NACTO. So, for example, the category "Cycle Track Intersection Approach" is not checked off, but CROW definitely has standards in this area, to wit:
"Where the speed limit is less than 70km/h, as the cycle track approaches the junction it should move closer to the carriageway (< 0.35 metres) to improve the visibility of cyclists to drivers. If the speed is greater, the track should bend away from the road, to leave space for turning cars to give way before crossing the track, and drivers should be warned of the track through signs.
Bus stops and parking should not be allowed within 5m of a junction, and stop lines pulled back, while cyclists are allowed to wait as far forward on the intersection as possible. Bike tracks can be converted to bike lanes also about 5m before the junction to increase visibility and should be coloured."
My fundamental problem with using the NACTO standard is that it is, as the saying goes, "dangerous by design." Door zone bike lanes? Three foot wide bike lanes? Just imagine what happens when "Ford Nation" gets their hands on this - and pushes to downgrade our bike lanes to that standard. "Well, if that's what you want..."
A better idea for the City of Toronto: shell out the 85 euros and use the CROW standards. Until we get more experience of using cycle infrastructure than the Dutch (I'm not holding my breath waiting) we shouldn't try to re-invent the wheel.
herb
That's rather fine
Mon, 03/21/2011 - 22:34That's rather fine cherry-picking and invoking of the "Ford Nation" specter. Yes indeed, what if Ford Nation got hold of a bikeway guide! Woe is us!
There are two things that offend me about your ranting, Kevin. You have no perspective, and you are quite willing to gloss over all the other detailed solutions in the guide. You'd rather berate and belittle this document and collaboration, then see the potential in it. Even five years ago there were zero miles of cycle tracks in American cities and now a number of them do. And from what they've learned in their own implementations in the context of American cities, they've put together a great guide.
Two of the biggest hurdles in getting better cycling infrastructure are the pro-car politicians and the bureaucrats stuck in a different mindset. Until this guide appeared the definitive guide was AASHTO's and it left us all the poorer. AASHTO actually told planners to avoid separated bike lanes because they were considered more dangerous! Luckily places like New York and Portland ignored these recommendations and instead travelled to Copenhagen and Amsterdam to find a better way.
I have little patience for this attitude, Kevin. Your approach is a recipe for burn-out and ulcers. I've got plenty to complain with current Toronto politics and the NACTO guide is like the holy grail in comparison.
You've been very willing to cherry-pick some things out of one page in the document so it fits your doomsday scenario.
The guide actually recommends a 5 foot bike lane from the "curb face" and a ridable surface of 4 feet. The minimum 3 feet is the measurement from the street edge, which, I believe, doesn't include the formed curb, so this comes to about 1.2 metres which is the common bike lane width in Toronto. Nothing great, but also not the end of the world.
As for bike lanes next to parking, it actually recommends 14.5 feet from the curb face. The average car is about 6 feet wide add to that a 5 foot bike lane and that leaves about 3.5 feet for a buffer. This is hardly doomsday. In fact, it is much more generous than almost all Toronto bike lanes which have zero feet of a buffer.
So, in sum, go read the damn manual.
Kevin (not verified)
Herb, Why are you so
Tue, 03/22/2011 - 01:54Herb,
Why are you so emotionally invested in this standard?
I can tell you, in graphic, bloody detail, why I am emotionally invested in categorically rejecting any standard that embraces door zone bike lanes where the most dangerous place on the entire road to ride a bicycle is in the bike lane.
Herb wrote:
"Your approach is a recipe for burn-out and ulcers."
Kevin's comment:
Your approach is a recipe for dead and broken bodies. Do you really believe that riding in the door zone isn't going to get people dead or seriously injured?
Herb wrote:
You've been very willing to cherry-pick some things out of one page in the document..."
Kevin's comment:
I actually referred to two different places in the document, but if you want more, how about this little gem from their cycle track standard:
"The desired width of a cycle track should be 5 feet. In areas with high bicyclist volumes or uphill sections, the desired width should be 7 feet to allow for cyclists passing each other."
I note that, elbow to elbow, a cyclist measures approximately one metre. I've measured myself and I am a tad more, but I'm a big guy. Cyclists also requre 1/2 metre "swerve room" on either side to avoid debris, obstacles, potholes, etc. This gives a minimum width for a cycle track of two metres (6.6 feet). Where the 5 foot NACTO standard came from, I don't know. But I do know that it is dangerously inadequate by providing only half the swerve room that safety requires.
But wait... it gets worse. Two people passing in a 7 foot (2.1 metre) space? That gives each person a not-so-whopping total of 2.5 cm swerve room on either side. That's a good way of ensuring collisions.
These serious dangers can be avoided by simply using the CROW standards. Anyone who has been cycling in The Netherlands can attest that they work. And once you get used to safe Dutch standard infrastructure, I predict that you too will be strongly emotionally invested in rejecting dangerous, unsafe, inferior standards.
herb
Maybe you should take a
Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:06Maybe you should take a breather, Kevin.
A tsunami is dangerous. A rampaging herd of bison is dangerous. Taking the lane on the 401 is dangerous. A bike lane? Not so much.
Kevin (not verified)
Herb, You do not regard
Tue, 03/22/2011 - 14:58Herb,
You do not regard cycling in the door zone as dangerous?
If you classify cycling in the door zone as "not dangerous," then I suspect that your risk tolerance may be radically different than mine.
This difference in risk tolerance may be the fundamental reason why you are OK with the NACTO standard putting cycle lanes in the door zone, etc. and I am not.
That difference in risk tolerance is probably an irreconcilable difference between us. Please accept my sincere prayer that you do not get doored.
Seymore Bikes
Two things to keep in
Tue, 03/22/2011 - 19:48Two things to keep in mind:
We are not Holland, they have great infrastructure, but it is unreasonable to simply impose what works there, here.
Bike Lanes (separated or not) are proven safer than no lane at all.
Kevin (not verified)
But not if that lane puts me
Wed, 03/23/2011 - 09:27But not if that lane puts me right in the door zone. That's the most dangerous place on the entire road to ride a bike.
Even trying to use a door zone bike lane causes me extreme stress. Every door might fly open at any time without warning. It is like playing some video game where monsters pop out - except this is real life.
So as a result, I refuse to use such dangerous infrastructure. On roads with a door zone bike lane, you will find me taking the lane in the general traffic lane, riding in the Primary Cycling Position and exercising proper lane control. This means that I get a nice wide lane with plenty of swerve room for safety, good sightlines and a nice, calm relaxing cycling experience.
I will admit to ducking into the DZBL if there are five gazillion cars blocking the road between where I am and the next intersection. This is Toronto, after all. But I do so VERY carefully with full awareness that a door may fly open at any time.
hamish (not verified)
I'm still awaiting an
Tue, 03/22/2011 - 21:55I'm still awaiting an explanation from Dan Egan about why we can't manage to get coloured paint on our roads/asphalt here in Caronto, as Mr. Heaps said would happen as he axed that question from a TCAC agenda.
Having colour on our roads to mark bike lanes or conflict zones, in red, green or blue, would be a Major Step forward here.
But maybe we should actually try for some smooth roads first. That'll take this century eh?
Kevin (not verified)
Hamish, There is some red
Wed, 03/23/2011 - 09:32Hamish,
There is some red coloured paint on parts of the Richview cycle path. It seems to work quite well in sending the message "This part of the road belongs to bikes."
Or, for the totally clueless, the message "There's something weird going on here."
herb
We were told by Dan Egan that
Wed, 03/23/2011 - 15:08We were told by Dan Egan that they have experimented with coloured paint (blue) in the lane (at the bottom of Strachan) and found it wore away too quickly and that no colour was as visible as white. The durable alternative is coloured asphalt which is common in Europe, but hard to get in North America. He'd be open to using coloured asphalt if he could get it.
White paint would be fine if we could push for a lot more bike symbols in the lanes and a lot more sharrows at intersections, and to provide buffers. The current technique looks quite durable.
Antony (not verified)
This summer I'll finally get
Wed, 03/23/2011 - 14:29This summer I'll finally get around to marking the "door lane" on College St.
Seriously, after you account for terrible parking jobs (1ft.) and coupe or SUV door wingspan (3ft), there's about one foot of actual bike lane left, if that.
Kevin (not verified)
Or, someone could simply pick
Wed, 03/23/2011 - 21:43Or, someone could simply pick up a telephone and ask the government in Copenhagen what paint they use. It seems to be quite effective, even over the last winter, which was quite nasty. And they use a lot of it. It works.
I never cease to be amazed at the effort put into re-inventing the wheel.
See:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/11/copenhagen-blue.html
hamish (not verified)
With coloured bike lanes and
Fri, 03/25/2011 - 09:15With coloured bike lanes and conflict zones, what's different about the Portland asphalt and paint chemistry than what we have in TO? Vancouver uses red paint it seems, and NYC has green.
The Strachan Ave paint started eroding away about the day after installation, indicating to me a surface preparation issue, or maybe latex (the paint/marking chemistry is quite chemical). I do not think it is the bike or pedestrian traffic that wears off all the markings of our roads - and like repainting a street with white lines beside a major subway - how hard can it truly be?
Kevin (not verified)
Hi Hamish, At the link I
Sun, 03/27/2011 - 09:23Hi Hamish,
At the link I previously posted, Mikael contacted the Copenhagen city staff, and writes in the comments:
"The blue lanes are made of thermo-plastic with a mix of sand for traction and non-slipperyness."
He also writes that they last for up to two years, depending upon how much traffic they get.
locutas_of_spragge
Ideally, we would never build
Sun, 03/27/2011 - 21:46Ideally, we would never build bike lanes close enough to parked cars that drivers or passengers could "door" cyclists. How many roads in Toronto have room to do that? In a perfect world, we could wave a wand and eliminate parking on the roads where we want to build bike lanes. But as a veteran of the bloody and literally block by block political battles waged over the Annette Street bicycle lanes, I know better. Merchants on most Toronto streets believe that their businesses depend on parking. They have their dreams at stake, rent to pay, and a sense of responsibility to the families their business supports. Right or wrong, they will fight tooth and nail for those spaces.
As a practical matter, on most roads in Toronto, at least the old city of Toronto, we have a choice between the admittedly imperfect bicycle lanes we have, and nothing. Since I believe that an effort to encourage cycling, plus the escalating price of gas, will bring out record numbers of cyclists, perhaps enough to tip the balance toward a major cycling presence on our streets for the long term. I don't think this will happen if we insist on waiting until the city puts in bicycle lanes built to Dutch standards.
Kevin (not verified)
John, I am not defeatest
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 06:30John,
I am not defeatest about human safety. History is full of examples of business owners who are perfectly prepared to endanger others to make a dollar. They have a habit of losing and of being rejected by their fellow business owners with some ethical standards.
Mine owners fought tooth and nail against mine safety regulations. They lost, and now have to provide their employees with a safe workplace. They got over it. Food safety laws? Fought against tooth and nail. But they lost. Factory safety regulations and labour laws? Same thing.
I vividly remember all the bar owners in Toronto who said that they would forever defy the government's smoking ban. Turned out that "forever" didn't last too long.
It will be the same thing with safe streets. Wherever this has been done, business owners quickly realised that cyclists make excellent customers. This is already going on with Bloor Street. I already posted a link to the study that only 4% of merchants believe that most of their customers arrive by car.
Unfortunately, there will always be with us a few scumbags who think that it is acceptable to endanger people's lives in order to make a dollar. We'll fight them, they'll lose and they will get over it. Always has been that way. Always will be.
Kevin Love