Committee: Streets, Sidewalks & Transit
Cost: $50,000
Location: Citywide
Short Description: Improve safety for drivers and bikers by moving bike lanes to be between street parking spots and the sidewalk, reducing car-bike interactions and potential collisions.
Long Description: Moving existing bike lanes to the stationary side of parked cars has been implemented in many cities and countries, including New York City, Portland, and throughout Scandinavia. In fact, Cambridge has successfully piloted this idea on Ames Street in Kendall (see photo A below). A current issue is that cars, unfamiliar with the striping, park in the bicycle lane. The Cambridge Traffic Department suggested that with more than one location, cars would become more familiar and park only in the designated spots. The design possibilities, ranging from simple to decorative, can work to keep out cars using minimal street space (see photo B).
The fact is that traditional bike lanes are good at making cyclists feel safe and do improve visibility, but they do not protect cyclists adequately from harm from dooring or moving vehicles. Protected bike lanes, on the other hand, do reduce conflicts and stress for cyclists. Such an improvement to the bike lane would benefit all cyclists in and around Cambridge, because improving one road improves connectivity throughout the region. This project benefits car-drivers by removing the potential to open a door into a bike lane, as well as reduced stress from not having bicyclists slipping past a blind side. Studies consistently show—and experience corroborates—that for many people, dangerous road conditions is the reason they don’t bicycle. With all of the environmental and social benefits of bicycling, making it accessible to all comfort levels must be a high priority.
A: Aerial view of Ames Street’s protected bike lanes on both sides.
B: Minimal extra space required for a safer bicycle lane.
Showing 13 reactions
Sign in with
Though I can see how the might encourage people to ride, and maybe it has, I don’t see people who might ride if things are safer becoming commuters because the truth is riding is unsafe regardless of traffic, for lots of reasons, and if they aren’t riding because of that I don’t thing things would change unless they took classes, or had some type of encouragement with friends and such.
For these lanes to be safe they need to different. Two safe lanes on each side of the road is a bad idea, having one lane on one side of the with traffic going with bikes riding two directions in that one lane would be much better. it would make it easier for cyclists to dodge obstacles having more width to work with, These current lanes are to narrow and there’s not enough room to pass a random pedestrian that often like to walk on the lane. I’ve had to tell an elderly lady who was walking in the path that she was on a bike path, I shouldn’t have to do that. But really I don’t think these bike lanes are for cyclist, more for motorist who are afraid to ride with cyclists. So much social pressure for people to get mad at things that slow them down, as strange as that sounds that’s how people behave when ever they have to take their foot of the gas and touch the brakes for non normal reasons. The concept of sharing the road is no longer taught, so that’s a problem. Eventually every cyclist who rides of the streets has to deal with traffic and visa versa so maybe these safe lanes are good in certain areas but they make things much riskier for cyclist/pedestrian relationship, and bike hitting pedestrians data won’t get collected unless and insurance claim was made. I’m sure most of them would go unreported as people to think of cyclist and pedestrians as having insurance to be on the roads.
There’s lots of details discussed, but I think these are distractions. The difference of opinion and their consequences are fundamental and simple. As an illustration, it was argued below that “the worst place for a ‘separate bike lane’ would be in a business district…Massachusetts Avenue, in particular, would become completely dysfunctional.” I have exactly the opposite conclusion.
I do not believe you can look at the accident map for bikers along Massachusetts Avenue (http://i.imgur.com/jgy2VTR.png) and argue against protected bike lanes because of hypothetical “dysfunction” given the clear safety benefits of separating bikers from cars. Even in the worst scenario of a crowded bike lane, most bikers would prefer to go slower and negotiate with other bikers or pedestrians along these dangerous stretches of road. Why?
Because when you disagree with a car on a bike, the car always wins. All practicalities of lane design, weather issues, and biking style aside, this is fundamentally why the two traffic streams should be physically separated for the foreseeable future. Even an imperfect system is better and safer than the alternatives. I hope people support this measure.
First: “My worry about dooring is that most of the space in the in-traffic bike lanes, as currently marked, is unsafe.”
My daily experience is that when riding near the left edge of a bike lane there is generally plenty of room between a cyclist and a parked car to his or her right. The danger in a bike lane is when a cyclist rides in the middle of that lane or, even worse, toward the right edge and parked cars. That’s one of the things I like about the “sharrows” that the City put down on Broadway not long ago. They are located at, more or less, the safest place for a cyclist to ride – a reasonable distance into the adequately wide lane and away from parked cars.
Second: “You cite a worry about having very little buffer between parked cars and moving vehicles, but if that lack of buffer is dangerous between cars, wouldn’t it be even more dangerous between cars and bikes?”
That was really my whole point. Prior to excessive narrowing of the travel lane that generally accompanies the installation of a “cycle track” type of facility, there was usually more than enough of a buffer in the travel lane. It is precisely because the “protected bike lane” is installed that this buffer goes away and makes traveling in the roadway MORE dangerous for cyclists. I could give plenty of examples, but the most obvious one is Vassar Street where I have no choice but to ride as fast as I can in the roadway in order to minimize any interaction with motor vehicles. Some people tell me that I should just use the cycle track, but that is usually just an obstacle course of pedestrians and wrong-way cyclists (as well as turning vehicles, construction areas, temporarily parked vehicles, taxicabs picking up passengers, etc.). I liked Vassar Street so much more before the cyclists were effectively forced onto the sidewalk.
Third: “As for trash pickup, pedestrians crossing the lane, and the like, I think that gets at appropriate siting of separated bike lanes. I’m assuming these would be sited on bigger roads with businesses and traffic signals and not on small neighborhood streets.”
We likely all agree with the value of separated bike facilities alog roads where there is a great speed differential; between cyclists and motor vehicles, e.g. Memorial Drive, McGrath-O’Brien Highway, the Jamaicaway, or any highway or twisty-turny road along which drivers drive at excessive speeds. We probably also agree that they make little sense on small neighborhood streets punctuated by stop signs and other measures that regulate speed. However, I would argue that the worst place for a “separate bike lane” would be in a business district where a high degree of crossing pedestrian activity or loading and unloading of vehicles is expected to take place. Massachusetts Avenue, in particular, would become completely dysfunctional, especially in the vicinity of bus stops and loading zones.
I’m not too concerned about snow removal, as the current in-traffic bike lanes are generally unusable after plowing and bikers and cars have to share the narrowed road. My worry about dooring is that most of the space in the in-traffic bike lanes, as currently marked, is unsafe. There shouldn’t be a marked lane for bikes where most of the lane is actually dangerous to be in. A solution is to have some sort of buffer between parked cars and the bike lane (whether on the left or right of parked cars). You cite a worry about having very little buffer between parked cars and moving vehicles, but if that lack of buffer is dangerous between cars, wouldn’t it be even more dangerous between cars and bikes?
As for trash pickup, pedestrians crossing the lane, and the like, I think that gets at appropriate siting of separated bike lanes. I’m assuming these would be sited on bigger roads with businesses and traffic signals and not on small neighborhood streets.
As for the “transaction between parked cars and the sidewalk”, this is not simply a matter of passengers exiting and entering the right side of a parked car. This includes cars and trucks loading and unloading, buses picking up and discharging passengers, rubbish and recycling set out at the curb being collected, pedestrians pausing before crossing a street, and more.
As for the matter of dooring, a cyclist maintaining a sufficient distance between his or her line of travel and any parked vehicles removes almost all of the risk of being doored. Unfortunately, in some road projects done recently in Cambridge, the travel lanes have been narrowed to the point where a road cyclist often has little choice but to “take the lane” rather than comfortably share it. This is also hazardous for motor vehicle operators trying to park on these streets with very little buffer between the parking lane and moving vehicles. In most locations where a “separated bike lane” might be installed, the only way to do this without completely eliminating parking is to narrow the travel lanes substantially leaving very little buffer between parked cars and moving vehicles.
I will add that, unlike the Netherlands, we also have to contend with snow in New England, and the most logical and available place to move the snow is to the curb. Unless you intend to truck away all of the snow, which is often expensive and impractical, it is quite likely that the “separated bike lane” will become unusable during winter conditions.
I understand that some bikers are worried about getting stuck behind a slow biker in a separated bike line. I suppose there is a trade-off there, although many of those faster bikers are going so fast they can safely move with the flow of car traffic. In the end, if we really want more people to choose the bicycle, we’re going to have to make the journey safer. Separated bike lanes are a big part of that.
You may hear philosophical disagreements that cars should learn to respect bikes as equal vehicles, and therefore separate bike lanes are the wrong direction. The day may come where such a situation exists, but currently, it is not a coincidence that places where bikes are common forms of transportation (e.g., The Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc), bicyclists are separated from traffic in some form.
In addition to safety, protected lanes make for a less stressful and more comfortable ride (current “comfort levels” for bikers are low in the major arteries: http://bit.ly/1hPeNv7). This will encourage more bikers to join the road, which will in turn encourage a more respectful relationship between cars and bikes on the road. In the meantime, faster or more confident bikers that prefer to bike in the regular lanes are still welcome (and have the legal right) to do so. But the option for a protected ride should be available for everyone. Separate bike lanes can be provided at reasonable cost to the city, and will immediately begin preventing injuries and fatalities of bicyclists.
Please vote for protected bike lanes, and send a welcome message to all bikers as they cross the Charles River: Cambridge wants you safe.
It will be a much better future when we have as many bicycles as there are motor vehicles in the roadway – and not relegated to narrow cattle runs wedged between cars and the curb. I urge people to instead vote for better marked bike lanes in the roadway.