BIKE: Bike Lanes versus Wide Curb Lanes - some of the Bike Lane side

[Mike Dahmus]

Yes, I promised this yesterday. Work got busy.

Some statements to keep in mind:

There's no good studies proving that bike lanes or wide curb lanes are 
better than each other. ALL theories you hear on which one is better are 
resting on somebody's opinion. I'm one of the people who thinks we 
overprescribe bike lanes, but it bugs me that so many Forsterites are so 
hostile to them in general. Both bike lanes and wide curb lanes have 
their place.

I'm operating under the assumption that we're comparing bike lanes to 
wide curb lanes; not narrow curb lanes. The theory that we can 
reengineer the 98% of Austin that needs it to a grid pattern like Hyde 
Park where we don't need EITHER facility is just ludicrous.

My general feeling on when bike lanes are appropriate:

1. Where there are lots of inexperienced bicyclists
2. Where speed differential is fairly high
3. Where volume of bicyclists is very high

My general feeling on when wide curb lanes are appropriate:

1. Where speed differential is lower
2. Where bicycle volume (all types) is moderate to low

Where not to put bike lanes:

1. Low-speed or congested roadways where turning volume is very high
2. Residential streets (NOTE: DESPITE NEIGHBORHOOD MISREPRESENTATIONS, 
"RESIDENTIAL STREET" IS A CATEGORY OF ROADWAY SEVERAL LEVELS BELOW SHOAL 
CREEK BOULEVARD).
3. Where they can't be swept or otherwise maintained
4. Where you can't commit to "no parking".

Things I believe that are PROs for bike lanes:

1. Bike lanes attract new cyclists; wide curb lanes do not. I think this 
is self-evident. Patrick agreed, and so do most people who actually work 
in the field (not the people who commute and criticize; but the people 
who are paid to try to increase cycling in their particular city).

2. No amount of education so far has been able to match up against the 
bike lane stripe as a way to get people out on their bikes. Of course, 
this may be a good thing if you think we don't need more uneducated 
cyclists out there.

3. You can't attract new cyclists to a road like Jollyville without a 
bike lane stripe. Period. The automobile traffic moves too fast. A wide 
curb lane simply doesn't provide the space that new cyclists think they 
need in a way which makes sense to them, coming from the world of the 
automobile. (We don't make the right-hand lane up a hill twice as wide 
so trucks can pull to the side; we stripe another lane).

4. If you accept riding on shoulders on 360, you should accept riding in 
bike lanes on Jollyville. The argumentative convulsions some Forsterites 
go through to defend shoulders from the same logic they use against bike 
lanes are breathtaking. (They do this, I think, because they know that 
even most Forsterites don't want to share a lane at 65; the same 
anti-bike-lane reasoning with a few exceptions would logically apply to 
shoulder-riding).

5. Most cyclists for whom bike facilities are built are not the expert 
cyclists that you and I might be. They are instead the novice cyclist 
that I used to be (and presumably you used to be).

6. Even on low-speed roadways, utility for the population AS A WHOLE 
sometimes demands the channelization of low-speed traffic. For instance, 
Speedway and Duval north of UT - car speeds are 25-30; bike speeds are 
10; this isn't normally enough speed differential to justify separation, 
but the volumes of cars and bikes are both high, and the corridor's 
thoroughput for both cars AND bikes is thus improved by partial 
separation of the modes.

7. (this is from the link I gave a few days ago) - it is possible to 
have a better average passing distance on a roadway with a wide curb 
lane, but still have a better overall level of safety in passing 
distance with a bike lane. Whether this happens in practice is debatable 
- but it is a fact that you shouldn't use "average passing distance" to 
compare the facilities.

8. The idea (stolen from a semi-Forsterite) that we can easily get roads 
restriped with wide curb lanes is in reality not true. If you want space 
for bikes to be taken from car lanes, it generally has to be a bike 
lane. (I don't know why this is, but it seems to be true, although 
Austin has an exception or two here).

CONS for bike lanes

1. Car drivers do tend to think you need to stay in the bike lane (even 
when obstructed, unsafe, whatever - they usually can't see the 
obstruction). Also, car drivers often think you should only ride on 
roads that have bike lanes. This problem exists with wide curb lanes 
too, by the way.

2. Bike lanes are theoretically more obstructed than wide curb lanes. I 
don't believe this to be true, but most people do, so I'm listing it 
here. For instance, Bull Creek doesn't seem any less obstructed north of 
45th where there are wide curb lanes. In Austin, at least, BOTH 
facilities need vast amounts of sweeping which they're just not getting.

3. Sometimes cyclists will stay in a bike lane when they need to leave 
it due to an obstruction or intersection approach. This is a sign of bad 
bike lane design in most cases and can be overcome, but is hard to get 
right, judging from how often it's done wrong.

4. Sometimes cyclists will stay in a bike lane when they should be 
leaving it to turn (the "turn left out of the far right lane" 
phenomenon). The problem here is that I see this happen on wide curb 
lanes fairly often as well. The only solution here is heavy enforcement.

5. Bike lanes supposedly encourage wrong-way cycling. (Whatever happened 
to painting arrows, by the way? Jollyville didn't get them...) - again, 
I see this often with wide curb lanes too. Heavy enforcement and more 
arrows.

- MD