4 ms·

Every suggestion I've seen was to make car infrastructure significantly worse in order to add a bike lane to an existing road, while also making that road signi

Every suggestion I've seen was to make car infrastructure significantly worse in order to add a bike lane to an existing road, while also making that road significantly slower and worse for cars. I don't think I've ever seen real suggestions to make a seperated infrastructure grid for pedestrians and bicycles that isn't just a sidewalk or bike lane on an existing road.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
I'd recommend Vancouver as a decent example of how segregated lanes can work in a North American city. That said, can you give specific examples of what you mean by "make car infrastructure worse"? Usually segregation is just a matter of putting a barrier on an existing bike lane and painting lines, which doesn't actually change anything for drivers who stay in the lines. In some cases, a lane may be converted, but this rarely impacts travel times much for the same reasons adding additional lanes doesn't improve travel times. Vancouver did lots of traffic studies on this criticism in particular that you can read if you're interested.
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
> add a bike lane to an existing road Are you imagining an alternative in which a bike network is added to a city, but not using "existing roads"? Where would these entirely-new roads be placed? Would you knock down the buildings between two car-infrastructure-roads, to pave it for bicycles? I suppose you could remove the car-infrastructure-road entirely and make it just a bike-road / linear park. Or you could put the bike lane underground? Or build a separated-grade elevated parkway network above the city?
- Moru 2y ago
  You put a sign at the start of the road. "Bike street". This means cars allowed but at bike speeds. You have different paint on the street too, to make it very different from a normal road. I have seen them popping up here and there and it works very well in the towns I bike in. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/e0qxxz/we_just_got_an_upgrade_to_one_of_our_bicycle/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/e0qxxz/we_just_g...
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    As reasonable as that sounds, I think this would fall into the GP's complained-of category of "making that road significantly slower and worse for cars", and does not meet their ask for "a separated infrastructure grid for pedestrians and bicycles". I remain very curious to hear their vision!
    - Moru 2y ago
      You don't need to make every street a bike street. It's enough if there is a way of getting safely close to your destination. Both for cars and bikes. The car drivers can drive on the next street unless this is their destination location. Works just fine in other big cities so it's just a question of getting used to a slightly different road to work/home.
      - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
        To be clear, I definitely agree with you, I just don't think ThunderSizzle would. So it's ThunderSizzle's ideal that I am confused about, and trying to clarify. I think ThunderSizzle has asked for a (to my imagination) impossible-to-reach standard, and you have provided a very practical compromise, but exactly the sort that they would probably reject as infringing too much on existing car infrastructure.
        ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        I said roads, not streets. I've seen high-speed highways that have been modified to add a bike lane to the middle of no where for miles on end. This is beyond useless, and is very dangerous as your combining high speed vehicle travel with bikes and pedestrians. The typical response is to then convert the road to a street (e.g. lower the speed limit, reduce lanes, etc) instead of moving pedestrian traffic away from roads. The traffic is still there, because it's the only route, but now you've added the occasional brave and stupid bicyclist or pedestrian. Beyond that, it's more inefficient for pedestrians, because road layouts tend to follow inefficient directions that add unnecessary travel time for pedestrians.

AlotOfReading 2y ago

I'd recommend Vancouver as a decent example of how segregated lanes can work in a North American city. That said, can you give specific examples of what you mean by "make car infrastructure worse"? Usually segregation is just a matter of putting a barrier on an existing bike lane and painting lines, which doesn't actually change anything for drivers who stay in the lines. In some cases, a lane may be converted, but this rarely impacts travel times much for the same reasons adding additional lanes doesn't improve travel times. Vancouver did lots of traffic studies on this criticism in particular that you can read if you're interested.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

> add a bike lane to an existing road Are you imagining an alternative in which a bike network is added to a city, but not using "existing roads"? Where would these entirely-new roads be placed? Would you knock down the buildings between two car-infrastructure-roads, to pave it for bicycles? I suppose you could remove the car-infrastructure-road entirely and make it just a bike-road / linear park. Or you could put the bike lane underground? Or build a separated-grade elevated parkway network above the city?

Moru 2y ago
You put a sign at the start of the road. "Bike street". This means cars allowed but at bike speeds. You have different paint on the street too, to make it very different from a normal road. I have seen them popping up here and there and it works very well in the towns I bike in. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/e0qxxz/we_just_got_an_upgrade_to_one_of_our_bicycle/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/e0qxxz/we_just_g...
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  As reasonable as that sounds, I think this would fall into the GP's complained-of category of "making that road significantly slower and worse for cars", and does not meet their ask for "a separated infrastructure grid for pedestrians and bicycles". I remain very curious to hear their vision!
  - Moru 2y ago
    You don't need to make every street a bike street. It's enough if there is a way of getting safely close to your destination. Both for cars and bikes. The car drivers can drive on the next street unless this is their destination location. Works just fine in other big cities so it's just a question of getting used to a slightly different road to work/home.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      To be clear, I definitely agree with you, I just don't think ThunderSizzle would. So it's ThunderSizzle's ideal that I am confused about, and trying to clarify. I think ThunderSizzle has asked for a (to my imagination) impossible-to-reach standard, and you have provided a very practical compromise, but exactly the sort that they would probably reject as infringing too much on existing car infrastructure.
      - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        I said roads, not streets. I've seen high-speed highways that have been modified to add a bike lane to the middle of no where for miles on end. This is beyond useless, and is very dangerous as your combining high speed vehicle travel with bikes and pedestrians. The typical response is to then convert the road to a street (e.g. lower the speed limit, reduce lanes, etc) instead of moving pedestrian traffic away from roads. The traffic is still there, because it's the only route, but now you've added the occasional brave and stupid bicyclist or pedestrian. Beyond that, it's more inefficient for pedestrians, because road layouts tend to follow inefficient directions that add unnecessary travel time for pedestrians.