3 ms·

So his solution for cyclists feeling uncomfortable is to take away a lane of traffic at every intersection? And he wants a special light for cyclists to procee

So his solution for cyclists feeling uncomfortable is to take away a lane of traffic at every intersection? And he wants a special light for cyclists to proceed while all the cars are stopped? This would be a traffic nightmare.

raldi 12y ago
Which lane of traffic has been taken away?
- redthrowaway 12y ago
  The curb lane in every direction.
  - lowboy 12y ago
    The curb lane looks like a dedicated parking lane.
    - redthrowaway 12y ago
      I can only speak to my own experience, but in both cities I've lived in (Vancouver and Victoria), there's basically no such thing during working hours. Dedicated parking lanes start at 6pm, before that they're normal traffic lanes.
      - raldi 12y ago
        Most US cities aren't like that. (Regrettably.)
      - Rapzid 12y ago
        In this presentation that lane ends at the intersection after it's been made "safe". Not sure how well that would work as a traffic lane.
    - ffumarola 12y ago
      That is correct. Typical separated/protected bike lane setup.
    - baddox 12y ago
      It is, but not all real roads have that.
  - raldi 12y ago
    Take another look at the video's "before" and "after" scenes -- no lanes are removed.
stingraycharles 12y ago
I agree that the taking away the lane would likely be a problem for traffic, the special light for cyclists works very well over here in The Netherlands. Once every few minutes the green light turns on for all cyclists and is red for all cars -- cyclists can manage having a "free for all" while crossing the intersection where cars cannot. Before you say "but that means that there is less time for cars to cross the intersection", consider the fact that a lot of the people using bikes would otherwise have to use other means of transportation, resulting (at least partially) in reduced traffic.
- micro_cam 12y ago
  Does the bike free for all really work that well on popular routes? In my old bike commute there were a couple spots where lots of cyclists would pile up (draw bridges, stop lights on a bike path) and I can't imagine having that many cyclists having to wait and then crossing each others direction of travel at every intersection.
  - stingraycharles 12y ago
    Well most of the time it does. Whether to go for a free for all or more "complex" strategies depends upon the complexity of the intersection. For a lot of the less popular intersections, free for alls work good enough and trying to be clever would be a premature optimization. In other situations, there are generally two approaches: * implement a more complex routing strategy that can route both cyclists and cars concurrently; an example would be [1], where the blue line is how the cyclist should travel. * avoid the intersection al together with tunnels[2] or bridges[3] -- this is the most desirable strategy, but probably the most expensive one. It is used fairly often in popular-by-cycle cities such as Utrecht and Amsterdam. [1] http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg [2] http://www.n246.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg http://www.n246.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg [3] http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeelding1.jpg http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeeldi...
ffumarola 12y ago
No lane is taken away. This image is showing two cross roads with separated bike lanes. So the curb stop is in the lane where parking exists. If anything, the additional bike infrastructure would keep cars within the box and stop them from cutting it really close to the corner. Regarding the lights - sure. Cars have a special light, pedestrians have a special light. Why wouldn't bikes? Having a usable bike infrastructure that doesn't make bikers feel like they're going to die at every intersection would promote safer biking. I'll run a red light on my bike because I can see the cars coming from my left and right, but I can't see the car coming from behind and turning right into me.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  The right turn lane is removed. Now, instead of having straight traffic moving through while right turn traffic shifts to the right out of the way, that traffic will have to slow behind the right turning cars. The added set-back of the cross walk helps, since one car can wait for e.g pedestrian traffic completely out of the flow of through traffic, but there is little doubt the traffic will flow more slowly. As somebody elsewhere said, if you get more people riding, you are removing their cars from the road, but there is a real chicken and egg problem, as drivers will be very upset if they see their commute lengthen.
quadrangle 12y ago
And? You think the alternative of removing bicycle space in favor of cars works better?
bluthru 12y ago
These are city streets, not highways. We want to encourage more pedestrians and cyclist, not merely bow to the demands of automobiles. Being auto-centric creates poor urban environments.
dohertyjf 12y ago
Not if more people committed to riding bikes...

raldi 12y ago

Which lane of traffic has been taken away?

redthrowaway 12y ago
The curb lane in every direction.
- lowboy 12y ago
  The curb lane looks like a dedicated parking lane.
  - redthrowaway 12y ago
    I can only speak to my own experience, but in both cities I've lived in (Vancouver and Victoria), there's basically no such thing during working hours. Dedicated parking lanes start at 6pm, before that they're normal traffic lanes.
    - raldi 12y ago
      Most US cities aren't like that. (Regrettably.)
    - Rapzid 12y ago
      In this presentation that lane ends at the intersection after it's been made "safe". Not sure how well that would work as a traffic lane.
  - ffumarola 12y ago
    That is correct. Typical separated/protected bike lane setup.
  - baddox 12y ago
    It is, but not all real roads have that.
- raldi 12y ago
  Take another look at the video's "before" and "after" scenes -- no lanes are removed.

stingraycharles 12y ago

I agree that the taking away the lane would likely be a problem for traffic, the special light for cyclists works very well over here in The Netherlands. Once every few minutes the green light turns on for all cyclists and is red for all cars -- cyclists can manage having a "free for all" while crossing the intersection where cars cannot. Before you say "but that means that there is less time for cars to cross the intersection", consider the fact that a lot of the people using bikes would otherwise have to use other means of transportation, resulting (at least partially) in reduced traffic.

micro_cam 12y ago
Does the bike free for all really work that well on popular routes? In my old bike commute there were a couple spots where lots of cyclists would pile up (draw bridges, stop lights on a bike path) and I can't imagine having that many cyclists having to wait and then crossing each others direction of travel at every intersection.
- stingraycharles 12y ago
  Well most of the time it does. Whether to go for a free for all or more "complex" strategies depends upon the complexity of the intersection. For a lot of the less popular intersections, free for alls work good enough and trying to be clever would be a premature optimization. In other situations, there are generally two approaches: * implement a more complex routing strategy that can route both cyclists and cars concurrently; an example would be [1], where the blue line is how the cyclist should travel. * avoid the intersection al together with tunnels[2] or bridges[3] -- this is the most desirable strategy, but probably the most expensive one. It is used fairly often in popular-by-cycle cities such as Utrecht and Amsterdam. [1] http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3652/kruispunt2pz8.jpg [2] http://www.n246.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg http://www.n246.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/4398.jpg [3] http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeelding1.jpg http://www.provincie.drenthe.nl/publish/pages/72918/afbeeldi...

ffumarola 12y ago

No lane is taken away. This image is showing two cross roads with separated bike lanes. So the curb stop is in the lane where parking exists. If anything, the additional bike infrastructure would keep cars within the box and stop them from cutting it really close to the corner. Regarding the lights - sure. Cars have a special light, pedestrians have a special light. Why wouldn't bikes? Having a usable bike infrastructure that doesn't make bikers feel like they're going to die at every intersection would promote safer biking. I'll run a red light on my bike because I can see the cars coming from my left and right, but I can't see the car coming from behind and turning right into me.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
The right turn lane is removed. Now, instead of having straight traffic moving through while right turn traffic shifts to the right out of the way, that traffic will have to slow behind the right turning cars. The added set-back of the cross walk helps, since one car can wait for e.g pedestrian traffic completely out of the flow of through traffic, but there is little doubt the traffic will flow more slowly. As somebody elsewhere said, if you get more people riding, you are removing their cars from the road, but there is a real chicken and egg problem, as drivers will be very upset if they see their commute lengthen.

quadrangle 12y ago

And? You think the alternative of removing bicycle space in favor of cars works better?

bluthru 12y ago

These are city streets, not highways. We want to encourage more pedestrians and cyclist, not merely bow to the demands of automobiles. Being auto-centric creates poor urban environments.

dohertyjf 12y ago

Not if more people committed to riding bikes...