Physically separated lanes are a great idea, but intersections and turning cars are a huge problem. If you’re cycling along at cruising speed, 15 mph or whatever, and a car from the adjacent street decides to make a turn across your path, there’s a good chance the driver won’t see you. The best example of this sort of situation is the West St bike path south of Chambers, with the many cross streets. The situation gets even worse when there are parked cars. And then there are the pedestrians, who have a tendency to stand as close to the stream of cars as possible to wait for the light, and often get in the way of the bike path. Of course, there are ways of dealing with this: for example, take away a parking space or so at the intersection to add visibility and create a buffer where pedestrians can stand without getting in the way of bikes. And perhaps large angry “WATCH FOR BIKES” signs could hint to turning cars that they should look carefully where they are going.

Of course the video to me isn’t advocating these everywhere just a few important routes and dangerous streets in Manhattan – but which ones? Where should they go? Who should determine that?

It’d be nice to have one on Broadway I think.

Reducing speed limits might make bike lanes less necessary, and would involve a lot less cost and effort…

Why should cars be *allowed* to do 30mph if, because of traffic and other factors, they’re rarely *able* to do 30mph? The knowledge that there’s a legal limit out there that’s much higher than one is typically able to drive just makes motorists *aspire* to reach that speed limit, and therefore accelerate unnecessarily–slamming on the gas to cover some tiny, suddenly open space on the road. That of course is aggressive driving, which is the number one cause of “accidents.”

YES YES YES to Protected Bike Lanes!!!

this is our ONLY hope of significantly increasing the cycling population, and of including new riders, kids, and the elderly.

DOT: START BUILDING NOW!!!

Separated bike lanes would be so great! I feel much more relaxed just watching the video clips and photos from cities that have these kind of facilities. What can it hurt to do this in New York? We’ve already seen the success and proven results (since that’s what the DOT will be most motivated by) on the West Side highway and on Tillary St. in Brooklyn.

I would like to challenge the DOT to use some of these traffic innovations that would indeed put us back in league with other world class cities. Why not?

By all means, this video is not meant to say we should replace all of our painted bike lanes with separated ones, but there certainly are places in the city like 2nd, 5th and 8th Avenues and Houston Street (and probably many others) that I think we need to try something out because it can’t get any more dangerous than it is.

Sometimes a painted stipe works pretty well, esp. in places like Brooklyn & Queens. But in Manhattan below 59th, separated bike lanes should be tried out in a few targeted areas, esp with all the momentum out there. We may not get another chance for a decade.

A Worthwhile Experiment

Of course the City should implement several separated bike lanes. Wouldn’t we all learn something by trying?

I note that my experiences on such facilities in Amsterdam in 2000 were quite mixed. To this day, I distinctly remember being:

1) very frustrated at being stuck behind a 75-year old woman bicycling at 4 mph in a narrow lane (while recognizing that sans bike lane, she’s likely not bicycling at all),

2) pissed off that I was expected to make left turns as a pedestrian and ticking off drivers–I got honked at in Amsterdam!– when I jumped the barrier and merged into traffic to make a vehicular-style left turn,

3) amazed how the separated path mentality led a pack of thirty spandex-clad roadies to approach me on a path just north of Amsterdam that couldn’t have been more than five feet wide, while a nearby road beckoned.

In the end, I fear we’re learning the wrong lessons from Amsterdam and Copenhagen. What makes bicycling wonderful there has less to do with explicity pro-bicycling measures– the lanes, paths, etc– and much more to do with their approach to automobiles. It’s what you DON’T SEE in Amsterdam– huge parking garages, oil change and tire shops, gas taxes, auto dealerships, big roads– that makes bicycling so competitive in the marketplace of consumer choice.

But I know that congestion pricing is on the agenda in NYC, too.

For now, let’s move forward on implementing some separated bike lanes– a victory within our grasp– and see how the public responds. I for one am willing to set aside my concerns for the sake of experimentation.

Here in Montreal the separated bike lanes work well most of the time (I saw a few shots in the video.) I know of two or three intersections that could be a little better designed, but overall it is so pleasant to be able to take your child out for a ride and know they will be in one piece when you get home.

From what I know, NYC should go for it.

i disagree that infrastructure doesn’t change attitudes… the physical presence of a bicycle infrastructure would go a very long way toward legitimizing bikes as a form of transportation.

a big part of the problem is that bicycles don’t have a truly designated place — sorry, a few lines painted on the street does not an infrastructure make. thus the very justified fear of pedestrians when they see a cyclist on the sidewalk (or cutting them off in a crosswalk), and the unjustified but constant disregard for bike lanes by motorists (some of whom claim to not even realize what they are, which is semi-believable when the lanes are filled with drivers and double-parkers).

and although i think steve’s idea is great, most of my non-cyclist friends will NOT be persuaded to ride a bike in NYC until there are safe and secure lanes to do so. i myself have been unable to overcome my fears these days and go back out into traffic, especially every time another cyclist is killed out there. the cycling experience i want for NYC would look like Montreal, Munich, or Amersterdam: separated lanes with NO cars in them. NYC deserves a REAL bicycle infrastructure, no more compromises.

I hear you Anne and I did qualify my statement in saying that infrastructure doesn’t change attitudes and behavior *directly* . . . what I meant is that experience of that infrastructure does. The West Side Greenway, the Park Loop when motorist-free, or even the East Side Greenway could be a great first step in getting a friend or acquaintance bicycling, or getting back into it yourself. And bicycling together feels and is safer than bicycling alone. The key is just getting out there and “doing it.” This unnervingly warm winter removes the weather as an excuse not to.

On Class II lanes, I have observed that they do influence the behavior of appriximately 20% – 40% of motorists (depending on street and other traffic conditions). I think they are better than nothing and are a necessary supplement (from an optimal planning as well as a pragmatic political perspective) to an arterial network of Class I, physically separate bike lanes.

Friedrich, a lot of motorists here think bikes belong on the sidewalk, but I’m pretty sure that the majority of all New Yorkers, including motorists, know that bikes are supposed to be on the street.

Also, I love the “Every road is a bike lane” slogan. But I would clarify it with another–Highways are for cars. Streets are for humans.

Ian,

If any road is candidate (other than large six lane avenues) it is clearly Houston Street. And I believe it would work there and undoubtedly save lives.

Perhaps this should be the site of a demonstration? And maybe we could demonstrate it using cones?

Unfortunately, this video is so biased that an objective discussion based on it is impossible. There are certainly problems with bike lanes, but there are also major problems with sidepaths that other comments have mentioned. Many of the problems shown in the video, between turning motorists and through cyclists for instance, are often even worse with sidepaths/separated bike lanes due to sightline problems and motorists not expecting cyclists approaching from the opposite direction. And with all the pedestrians in NYC, more effort should be made to state the likely problem of peds spilling into bike space.

I’ve been working on bicycle facility design and implementation for 7 years, and am open to the idea of sidepaths/separated bike lanes in certain situations, but first there must be an honest discsussion of the pros and cons of all designs.

One thing the video shows (perhaps inadvertently) is that separated bike lanes are the PRODUCT of a bike-friendly culture, not the result of one.

Actually, it’s probably more accurate to say that there is a dialectical relationship between bike-friendly amenities and bike-friendly culture — they reinforce each other to form an upward spiral (or at least, they should). But bikers need sufficient cultural acceptance and political strength before than can even dream of paths like the ones in Copenhagen and Amsterdam.

First of all, a separated path — especially those nice paths in the video, with tree-line barrier zones — take a lot of space. That space generally has to be taken from cars and trucks (and sometimes, defended from hordes of pedestrians). To give bikes that space, officials have to go up against entrenched and powerful interests, and they have to believe that tilting in favor of bikes will not hurt them in the next election.

And once the bike lanes are in place, you have to rely on the prevailing culture to resplect the integrity of the lanes and the safety of the bicyclists. In cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, drivers yield to bikes at intersections and pedestrians stay out of the bike lanes, so the bike lanes work. But what would they do in New York? The conflicts and crashes on the Hudson River greenway might be a sign of the problems bikers would face on on-street separated bike lanes.

If I’m right, this doesn’t mean there’s no hope for making New York bike-friendly, but the real issues, in my opinion, are cultural and political.

Perhaps all this is obvious, but I get the impression that some people see physically-separated bike lanes as the solution to bike safety problems in New York. I think it’s more likely that you have to work on underlying problems first. And then the bike lanes are the icing on the cake.

I’ve got to argue with those of you who warn AGAINST the idea of forcing double-parkers to double-park OUTSIDE of Class II bike lanes and IN an adjacent CAR lane. Some of you fear that that would “force cyclists to ride between two columns of parked cars,” increasing the chance of dooring and collisions. I think the adjacent car lane IS the best place for double-parkers to stand.

**btw, forgive me if I’m using the phrase “Class II” wrongly. I believe it refers to the “standard bike lane”—i.e., the kind on the side of the road with just two white stripes a few feet apart (and sometimes a buffer area)—that’s what I mean when I say “Class II” in this comment. (Someone tell me if that’s wrong, please!)**

First, I, for one, can’t imagine any real likelihood of “columns” of double-parked cars forming alongside bike lanes, because you rarely see a column of double-parked cars anywhere. Yes, double-parking is pathologically common, but not so common that “columns” often form.

Second, cyclists in such a lane, riding between legal parkers and, more realistically a HANDFUL of double-parkers, can generally see into the double-parked cars, and tell whether those cars are likely to suddenly invade the cyclist’s space.

Third, I actually saw such an arrangement, and it looked and felt quite safe! As luck would have it, just yesterday I happened upon the following scene in Manhattan’s 8th Ave. Class II lane in W. 50s. From left to right: 1, the normal column of legal parkers, 2, the bike lane, then 3, some double-parkers (clear of the bike lane, and fully in the CAR lane). I must say that was the ONLY time that that lane has ever looked to me like a safe place to ride—and surprisingly, between the legal parkers and the one or two double-parkers, it actually seemed roomy (but only for single-file cyclists, of course)!

Fourth, and most importantly, I suspect that staying in a straight line in such a clear bike lane, even “between two columns of parked cars,” is safer (and more fun) than weaving into and out of car traffic (and into and out of visibility) almost once every block.

Of course I wish we weren’t even discussing this, because as I’ve often blathered, I don’t even like Class II lanes. I think Class II lanes and, to a lesser extent, even buffered Class II lanes, are fatally flawed by being on the road’s margin. BUT, I make this lengthy rebuttal because I suspect they’re going to be with us for a while, even in spite of the City’s planned expansion of bike routes, in spite of the excitement here about physically separated lanes, AND even if I magically get the City to look at (and like) my soon-to-be-finished alternative bike lane design!

To recap this treatise, I have long thought that the most effective way to protect Class II lanes from being rendered useless by double-parkers (like they are every day, at almost every other block!) would be to 1. acknowledge that condoned double-parking is probably not going away soon, plus 2. compel double-parkers to park not in a bike lane, but in the adjacent car lane.

Remember, double-parking in a bike lane hurts three groups of people (cyclists, legal parkers, and other motorists, because a car in a bike lane is so wide that it obstructs the adjacent car lane too)—double-parking in a CAR lane hurts only one group (motorists)—who are hurt by double-parking in a bike lane! For all this, I suggest that double-parking in a car lane adjacent to a Class II lane is indeed better for cyclists, and in fact everyone. If Streetsblog were my 8th Grade English class, I’d totally be getting an A for this one.

WOW! Thanks for these strong videos (Separated Bike Lanes and Penalosa and David Byrne Ride Bikes)- and delightful, too. The BIG question is does Mayor Mike see these…and if not how to arrange…John Liu? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Love the video but this will be a tough sell. Still – keep it up, it seems you guys are providing leadership and research that your government will hopefully use.

Another good video – this site is outstanding. I am on a great Boston listserve which linked to you guys.

http://www.livablestreets.info/node/925

Chris,

Hopefully with the energy being generated by the video, NYC and other cities will now start to consider some separated paths and get us more in line with the rest of the civilized world.

Appreciate the feedback as always. If you need some copies on DVD to help advocate, make sure to hit me at trorb(at)earthlink.net

Clear, concise, a great primer for how to design safe, comfortable and workable bike lanes. Now to get these changes into action – we need them desperately!

Jonathan,

Geez, way to go above and beyond! Thanks for the linkage and all, and as I always say, just contact us if you want DVDs to support your mission. All of our stuff is Creative Commons, so the pieces exist for the good of the world and changing it for the better.

Just past the 3:00 mark in the video, Caroline Samponaro of Transportation Alternatives mentions the London design manual. Is this document publicly available online and is it any good?

IMHO, the NHTSA’s* video does a better
job of explaining how to deal with the challenges of cycling for transportation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4

*National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Bruce,

I might be a little biased since I am the filmmaker, but I agree with Aaron.

It might be useful for the beginning cyclists but I have no idea how there is any comparision. None was meant. The NHTSA video is what it is, but we still would like the city to try some separated bike lanes.