Car Crazy in New Orleans

I'm really not sure how to characterize cycling in New Orleans. Unlike newer southern cities, there's a lot of it going on. It has its fair share of brain-damaged, door zone bike lanes, one of which makes a star appearance in one of this post's videos. The standard of how people ride is generally no better than elsewhere, with wrong-way sidewalk riding abounding, even when bad bike lanes adjoin the sidewalk.

Today, however, I'm going to talk about a small subset of cycling and car culture in New Orleans, namely the French Quarter. The French Quarter was the original part of New Orleans and was mostly built up in the 17th and 18th centuries. After the Americans came around, it expanded greatly, with places like the Garden District.

Sharrows seem to be the fashion statement as you enter the French Quarter. Note that there is car parking on both sides of the street.

One thing that really struck me was the way bicycles were attached to just about anything that made sense, and that cars were parked everywhere. I do not recall, however, a single purpose-built bike rack. What's more, almost all of the car parking was paid parking, even on the street. There were some private lots, and parking there was about $10 for two hours. Doing a little math, with on-street parking costing $1.50 per hour and five or six bikes (average) in a car parking spot, the city would have to charge about a quarter an hour to break even. Can anyone say "bike share?"

There did appear to sort of be a designated bike route of some sort, though I saw no evidence that any of the local cyclists paid any mind to it. Given a sign on the same street, I don't imagine cyclist safety was a high priority in route selection.

Crescent Corridor Sign

In the area around Jackson Square, bicycles were not so welcome. In the Square itself, I'm not sure a person walking a bike would be allowed. Even dogs are forbidden and you might be tasered for feeding a bird.

Despite all this, the French Quarter shows why people ride their bikes everywhere in places like the Netherlands, and why I entitled this post "car crazy in New Orleans." As you may see from the photo below, the purple zone is the French Quarter and there are cars parked all the way along almost every street. What's more, as the videos show, there are cars parked in the traffic lanes of many of the streets.

Four Blocks Stroll from a Parking Garage to the middle of the French Quarter

Now, for notes on the videos. In the first one, shot on Decatur Street on the side with a bike lane, you see a pair of people using the bike lane. While I'm not sure the bike lane does any more than make people feel better about passing on the right, it IS the fastest route along the street. Later in the video, you'll see a guy come the wrong way down the bike lane. Right before he appears, the traffic signals turn red so he's actually riding through a red light on the wrong side of the road. Still, he doesn't appear to be in overly much danger. The first video is 27 seconds long. The light turns red about ten seconds in and the "Gulf Salmon" shows up about 5 seconds later.

In the second video, you can see how the lack of a bike lane distorts things. That skateboarder would have not been allowed had a bike lane been present, and the SUV would not have tried to make a U turn either. BTW, as I recall, someone making a U turn is supposed to yield to all other road users. The second video is 29 seconds long. Originally, the skateboarder was one clip and the SUV was another until I merged them together. You can tell from the music that they were shot one after another.

IMO, this location almost CRIES to be a "nearly motor vehicle free" zone. Sure, delivery trucks need windows to deliver. There are people who have garages on private property who should be accommodated, and parking garages would have to be erected to get all those cars OFF the French Quarter street, but we need to give all those high-falutin' urban planners SOME sort of challenge. Heck, maybe they could put in some streetcars with all those parked cars gone and a bike lane would take on a WHOLE new meaning. How, one might ask, do you protect cyclists from pedestrians? I guess that's one reason they mostly ride slow in Dutch cities...

Looking East along Decatur Street

Looking West along Decatur Street

Respectfully Meaningless

Sharrow on NE 75th Street in Seattle - one of the TOP Cycling Cities in the Entire USA!
I Watched - Every Person on a Bike I saw Rode About Where the Back Wheel Ends.
As "Linda A" Said - "Nobody Cares Where the Arrows Point"

This is a topic where I fear to tread. However, the "Institute for Sharrow Research" can remain silent no more. You see, sharrows are one of the subjects on which bicycle advocates MOST love to argue with each other. Which makes it dangerous for me to tread, for fear of being accused of ridiculing same. And hence the title of this post. I really DO mean that first word. I really like the post that Waco made over on Biking in Dallas - one of the best I've seen on that topic. He didn't get all officious on us. As Dragnet once said - "Just the facts, ma'am."

The problem with sharrows is that they're put in place to enable bicycle planners to claim they're connecting bike routes and making stuff better for commuters. Legally, they mean absolutely - NOTHING. Well, another problem with sharrows is that bicycle ADVOCATES seem to LOVE to argue about how far out the sharrow should be painted. Is this one far enough? Well, "AASHTO says" and so on. Perhaps that is the use for sharrows - it keeps ADVOCATES from further belaboring us with stuff that helps nobody.

Personally, I  find sharrows amusing. They come a close second to the "Share the Lane versus BMUFL" debate for useless futility. In either case, regardless of what the advocates decide when they argue with each other, most people on bikes ride close enough to the curb to scare such as me.

For myself, I'd like to see police simply understand the law as its already written - including the exceptions to the discriminatory "Far to the Right" (FTR) language. That'd be a MAJOR advance. So far, I have seen no evidence that the Bedford Police operate otherwise and I salute them. YOU GUYS ROCK! I hope that continues, because Texas law supports my right to ignore sharrows, "share the lane," OR "BMUFL" nonsense. My motorists ignore all that stuff too, so we're in solidarity - well except for a few rare idiots who most readers of this blog have encountered - or at least their cousins in spirit.

Myths in Conflict – Bike Lanes

Part 2 of a Continuing Series

Designated Bike Lane on North Tarrant Parkway in North Richland Hills, Texas. This Bike Lane (a relabeled shoulder) is Now Gone.
In Texas, a Cyclist is REQUIRED to Use a Lane Such as this, and no Excuses About Those Tire Tracks as Evidence of "Auxiliary Passing"

Bike lanes are one of the most contentious subjects in cycling mythology. They seem to be on a par with helmets in the passion they arouse. Bike lanes are a collection of many conflicting myths, but the Safety in Numbers argument in the Minneapolis Star Tribune Story touches on the mythology of bike lanes. So here goes – at the risk of being tarred and feathered. At one end of the spectrum of this body of myth are those that believe that ANY bike lane is good for cyclists, and that bike lanes enable cyclists to ride places which they would be unable do without them. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard “I’d ride my bike to work but there are no bike lanes.” We’ve all read news stories about new bike lanes making it possible for cyclists to go places. I’ve actually seen bike lanes painted that run around residential cul de sacs in Florida. At the other end of the spectrum are those that believe bike lanes are evil. Ironically, at this end of the spectrum, cycling advocates and militant motorists take the same position (no bike lanes), but with entirely opposite motivations and expectations of the alternate results. FULL DISCLOSURE HERE.

The problem with this religious fervor is that it obscures the real situation. And the real situation is, shall we say, real situational. Bike lanes, even the best bike lanes in favorable circumstances, are not painted on streets for me. I will pick a safe line and travel it. On the other hand, if a bike lane is dangerous, I will ride outside it and accept a citation or motorist harassment if that is the price of not needlessly endangering my life. I'm now in a finacial and life situation where such things are a minor consideration. Bike lanes are often put on streets for reasons beyond purely cycling purposes. They are partly to illustrate a community’s commitment to a culture that values transportation as more than simply private motor vehicles. That is certainly part of the Livable Community emphasis in Oak Cliff. Bike lanes are regarded as an after-the fact way to support non-motorized living, and that is part of their popularity. While we might all prefer something better integrated into the community than bike lanes, adding long, safe, separated paths that actually go to useful destinations is usually problematic in an established urban area. What’s more, if the Minneapolis article is even remotely close to truth, reducing sidewalk riding by 87% is almost certain to result in less cycling accidents, EVEN IF the bike lane itself is not well designed and executed. Sidewalk cycling is one of the more dangerous things a person on a bike can do. What’s more, reducing BAD biking behavior even benefits me because it reduces the chance I’ll have to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid one of these wrong-way sidewalk riders. Despite a very low cycling share in Northeast Tarrant County, I get more violations of my right-of-way from people on bikes than from motorists.

The central myth here is not the particulars of bike lanes, nor of the myriad mistakes that designers of bike lanes make, but the notion that poorly designed ones are acceptable, or even that better ones are good enough. I’ll cite a current example. In Charleston, as this is written, a new bike lane has been installed along Chapel Street. It is a narrow bike lane that falls entirely within a door zone. That choice was made to give people taxpayer subsidized, private property storage (free on-street parking). Dave Moulton (yes, THAT Dave Moulton ) pointed out the danger in the facility. It is hard to believe a safer solution can’t be found than the one being implemented. And that is an important point. As in roads, there are few bike lanes that can’t be improved. And that might not be a single step improvement. Simply banning parking might well increase motorist speed, or create new intersection conflicts, which leads to other changes. Go Dave!

I hope we can all agree that peoples’ safety is a greater need than convenient, taxpayer-subsidized car storage, and that an improved bike lane is probably better than the initial one. The installation of a bike lane, ANY bike lane, should mark the start of a harder task; getting it made better. We should not forget that many of these facilities are not designed by people that ride bikes, that fewer yet are designed by people that understand the fundamentals of safe cycling, or who will actually be riding the routes, and that politicians occasionally need reminding of who they work for. Come to think of it, sometimes bike advocates need the same reminder. But THAT would be another myth entirely and y'all have already had your myth for tonight…

Taking Streets Back

I ride from point to point as safely as I know how, whether my route has bike lanes, paths, potholed two-lane roads or whatever. This does not mean I don’t have views on these various things, nor a vision of what might be better than what we have today. Certainly, I’m a fan of smooth pavement. You might infer that I am not an uncritical fan of bike lanes, or even MUPs. All my most spectacular owies have occurred on such things. What I have not talked about in this blog is what I think would be better. One such I ran across thanks to Bruce Rosar.

Bruce Rosar was a Bike League Director until he was killed on his bike last year. Bruce was also involved in urban travel corridors that go far beyond the bike lane/path/sidewalk/sign/barrier mania that grips us. It is called “Shared Space.”

One BIG problem with all the plethora of modern traffic controls and safety devices (including bike lanes) is that their engineering, and apparent safety, leads to reduced road user attention, which leads to yet more engineering, even less user attention, and the humanity of the transportation route gets eroded as the spiral continues. Throughput becomes an end in itself, and channeling leads to marginalizing road users other than the motor vehicle driver, whose speed and destructive potential overwhelm everything else. The “roads were built for cars” refrain becomes true, which leads to it becoming even truer. People recognize this instinctively, because anything else is inconvenient, ridiculed, or even officially discouraged. When I was growing up, there were no bike lanes or helmets, and it was expected that we would ride on the road. There were a lot less traffic lights and signs. People drove slower on the same roads they drive today, despite the addition of many engineering items intended to help. Seeing the spiral, one might wonder if this might be a case of paving the road to hell with good intentions.

Shared Space takes a different approach. Instead of reducing the driver thought necessary to get places without collisions, Shared Space recognizes that NOT being insulated and separated from other road users is not necessarily a bad thing. Shared Space removes the barriers, stop signs, and most of the channeling devices. What? That would produce a bloody chaos, you might think! And so it might, except for the same factor that makes my current riding approach safe. People don’t want to run into stuff, and they will proceed to minimize that risk in accordance with what they have learned and experienced in the past. If the Armco barriers, stop signs, traffic lights, and lane markers are gone, motorists slow down – and pay attention. Pedestrians look before they leap. The video below shows a Shared Space from a road user perspective. The particular video was shot in Bohmte, Germany, which removed most of its road signs back in 2007.

Because people have to actually pay attention to where they are going, it turns out that collisions drop. More than that, they drop DRAMATICALLY. What’s more, this has occurred in many different places. If you think about it, it isn’t so silly – you really can’t text message people when you have to pay attention. People text in situations when they think there’s nothing much that they have to worry about – like at stop lights and on boring, over engineered roads.

Certainly, Shared Space cannot be used everywhere. I-30 in North Texas or the M1 in Britain cannot be adapted readily. It works best in places where things are urban, but traffic is not so heavy that terminal gridlock would result. There are many areas in Dallas and Fort Worth Shared Space might work. Less certain would be suburban areas. Certainly, an awful lot of signs could be ripped out, and new development can take advantage of the principles, but I fear places like Colleyville and areas of Orlando might be just a bit TOO post-auto dominance.

Shared Space has been adopted in other places. In the UK, for example, Seven Dials and Kensington High Street in London have both implemented variants of Shared Space. They claim a 43% reduction in collisions when two-year reference periods are compared. Brighton High Street claims a 93% reduction, along with doubling of cycling and pedestrians. That is CERTAINLY a lot better than what has been achieved in places like Portland or Davis.

Perhaps, what we need is not more infrastructure, but less...

Bohmte, Germany. Note the Lack of Advisory Signs

Go HERE for a good, though lengthy, English video on the subject

Fort Worth is Kind to Cyclists!

Old Denton Road, Newly Widened to Two-Lane Width! Looking North

In my "Lane Position Gone Wild" post, I bemoaned the deterioration of Old Denton Road in Fort Worth from a 45MPH Speed Limit two lane road to a 45MPH Speed Limit 1 1/2 lane road. Well, the powers that be in Fort Worth must be reading my blog, because while I was on vacation and then in the hospital, they improved the pavement! While I would not go so far as to claim it has become SMOOTH pavement, it has at least become pavement wide enough that the natural motoring lane position no longer proceeds directly down the center of the road. As a result, the motorists have returned to their natural inclination to simply give me LOTS OF ROOM when they pass. Yippee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thank the city fathers. My BIKE thanks the city fathers. My motoring companions thank the city fathers. This is about the second best solution I could have imagined. The only one better would have been for them to simply leave the road untouched and instead build the bike path along the creek that is in the Fort Worth Bike Plan. Then I'd have had a smooth road all to myself (it'd be a short cut as well) since cyclists are rare in the area. It'd also be a bit shorter. I guess they're not in a rush to implement that new plan. Still, thanks to Fort Worth, my stress level has dropped considerably on this stretch of road and my tire choices have been validated.


Old Denton Road, Where the New Blacktop Meets the Concrete. Close to the Summit of "Old Denton Pass." Looking South

Come to think of it, it gives the term FALL COLOR CHANGE a whole new meaning!


Looking North Before the New Blacktop

 

Stinky Road

Westport in the "Good Old Days" When it was Just Rough

Thanks to a gas well drilling operation and other construction, Westport Parkway no longer looks as pretty as it did in my previous "rough road" post. NOW, it looks like the road below. NOW, it literally DOES stink, especially when it gets hot out. And yes, potholes are still present, but they're now camouflaged by the black asphalt/tar. Speaking of which, I still haven't figured out how, or why, Fort Worth plans to paint bike lane stripes as is specified in their bike plan. "Buycycling Magazine" may complain about Dallas not being "bike friendly," but I'll trade Westport for Preston any day. At the moment, it's not the favorite part of my commute.

Stinky Westport Proudly Remains Rough

Actually, thanks to the magic of Photoshop, I HAVE figured out how they can put bike lanes on this road. All they have to do is put it on a "Road Diet," as shown below...

Westport Parkway After Road Diet. Those West-bound Cars Will Have to Find Another Route!

Traffic Engineering Paradox

Basel Bike Facility Violates No Real Traffic Principles at this Turn Onto a One-Way Street

Some of the Signals Seem a Little Conflicted, However. I'll Bet Bike-on-Bike Collisions are Frequent

Europe is a mixed bag when it comes to cyclists. There are certainly a lot of bikes in the compact, congested cities. There are lots of special cycling facilities, ranging from pretty nice, to conflicted, to downright confusing things worthy of Warrington.

One of our building’s bike commuters, Sheila, just got back from visiting Europe, and she was kind enough to get a lot of cycling-related pictures. Today’s photos were shot in Zurich and Basel. As Sheila notes, it all seems to work, though a bicycle traffic engineer would recoil in horror.

This Poor Zurich Design Works Well Because Everyone Is Cautious Due to the Confusing Alignments

MOST of the Cyclists Ride Pretty Slow, Making it Easier for the Motorists to Miss Them

The variety of approaches reveals the paradox. Sometimes, dangerous facilities are safer, and safer ones are more dangerous. As a case in point, take Orlando, Florida. As noted in “Traffic” by Tom Vanderbilt, East Colonial Drive consists of two portions. One is the older portion. It has traffic conflicts galore. Poles, driveways, strip malls, the works. The other is the newer, “properly engineered” portion that removed the dangers in the older portion. Guess which one has overwhelmingly higher crashes and fatalities? Yup, the “safe” portion is one of the most dangerous roads in the US. Which one would I prefer to ride on? Yup, the “dangerous” portion would be my choice. Which one do people drive faster? You got it, the “safe” portion approaches Interstate speeds. Let’s just hope they don’t “fix” the “dangerous” part of the road.

I have no idea WHAT all this Nonsense is About - I Think This is Zurich

From Tom Vanderbilt’s book (Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do - and What It Says about Us), read about the Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde personality of Orlando’s East Colonial Drive for yourself: here.

And so it is with bike facilities. With traffic congestion, lots of cyclists, and strict treatment of any motorist hitting one, the perceived danger in Zurich and Basel causes motorists to drive cautiously, and sometimes more around the worst facilities. It is one element that makes proper lane control of a narrow lane so safe, despite “feeling” suicidal –the motorist knows that bad things WILL happen without a proper lane change, and so they change lanes, mostly without even realizing it. As I said, it’s a paradox. Even small changes in the environment will cause motorist behavior changes, such as the addition of a sound barrier wall on a freeway, tunnels, or narrower lanes; which all cause motorists to slow down. The same principle achieves dramatic crash reductions in the “Shared Space” approach. Motorists actually HAVE to pay attention.
 
While I don’t advocate designing dangerous facilities to make users cautious, we should recognize that dangerous facilities are mostly dangerous to and from those too inexperienced, or clueless, to recognize them AS dangerous. The rest of us adjust our behavior to bring the risk back down. John Forester noted the necessary adjustment (either ride slowly and cautiously or take the longer street route and ride faster) when he considered Seattle’s Burke Gilman trail. As a cyclist, riding from point to point, my focus is with dealing with whatever facilities I encounter, as safely as I know how. My route selection is a balance that avoids danger while taking a direct route. As always, the winning combination includes experience, education, AND vigilance against complacency. Much as I hate to admit it, engineering has its limits.

Bike Lane Teaching

Designated Bike Lane Along North Tarrant Parkway
North Richland Hills, Texas

The Bike Lane is Worse, In Reality, Than it Appears

In the Photo. The Debris has Since Been Replaced With
Construction. Should I Not Tell People How to Deal With This When I Know How?

I received an email, from a very savvy reader, who inquired about how I would teach students about bike lanes. This reader attached what appeared to be a policy statement on the subject. I confirmed his attachment IS a LAB document and it may be found here. Unfortunately, the document really doesn’t explain what to instruct cycling students to do when they encounter specific bike lane situations, in accordance with sound traffic operating principles. It’s all very nice and good to want motorists better educated and to know that problems can be worked around, but I think I’ll be dealing with the other portion of the traffic equation – the cyclist who cannot count on superior motorist education or maybe even enlightened local officials. While I might quibble with some details, the document, in one fundamental regard, is COMPLETELY ON TARGET – namely that to ignore and disparage the continuing and growing presence of bike lanes to the general (mostly ignorant) public really IS to court irrelevance. Like them or loathe them, since there WILL be bike lanes, and since some places they might be mandatory, it would do cyclists a disservice to not instruct about sound techniques in using them. A cyclist should be able to operate safely either with or without bike lanes, and an instructor’s job is to tell the student how to accomplish that objective. I have done a few bike and bus lane posts on this blog, collected here, and what I said is completely consistent with that document.

So, in response to the email, THIS is what I’d teach students. Keep in mind that I have not gone through the LCI seminar yet and so it’s entirely possible that added learning will creep into my pea brain. Also keep in mind that I don’t really do a lot of MUP or bike path riding, but I’ve done enough.

BIKE LANES ARE HERE
Bike lanes are put in place for a variety of reasons by municipalities, just as are other special purpose lanes such as bus and HOV lanes. Some of these bike lanes are much better than others. If you are lucky, there will only be the best ones along your route, but most of us live in the real world. Just as for other road situations, there are actions you can take while riding in bike lanes in order to be safer.

WHAT IS A BIKE LANE?
Fundamentally, a bike lane is another lane on the road, with some special rules and restrictions. As a cyclist, your proper action is to use it as such, and to use it within the guiding context of “use the rightmost lane that serves your intended destination.” Bike League instruction policy specifically indicates that a cyclist should always be able to move out of a bike lane for safety reasons. In this case, I’ll take the Bike League’s guidance over the misbegotten notion that these things should be mandatory. This statement of policy is a principle that cannot be compromised when it comes to riding. Safety is just too dependent on circumstances. As a cyclist, the narrowness of a bike lane, its placement on the road, and its exclusive bike provision all create risks that you must deal with in order to remain safe.

Let me repeat that Bike League Policy Statement again:
"Cyclists should always have the right to leave the bike lane if their safety

is threatened due to surface conditions, obstructions, and dangers such as
opening car doors. This has always been, and remains, a core principle of
the League."
Yup, I can certainly agree with that. What's more, I'll exercise that right anytime I need to do so in order to protect my safety, because I have a very low pain threshold.
PARKED CARS
First, if the bike lane is adjacent to parked cars, you should ride in such a manner that a door will not hit you if it is unexpectedly opened. Duh. The door on some two-door coupes will open nearly four feet, so you might want to avoid riding that close to parked cars. I’ve seen many news stories about thoughtless people opening a door and the cyclist going “smack!” The collision is bad enough, but it is all too often followed by the stunned cyclist falling into the traffic lane right before a bus comes along, creating a fatality. For some reason, these “door zone” fatality stories seem to come out of Boston more than anyplace else. Anyway, the smart approach is to ride out of the door zone, just as you would if riding in any other lane. If you can reach out and nearly touch car mirrors, you are TOO CLOSE to those cars. If, by following this advice, you are outside the bike lane, it was poorly designed anyway.

CONFLICTED INTERSECTIONS - WARNING - CONFUSING PARAGRAPHS FOLLOW!
Second, at intersections, a conflict will often exist. Specifically, there may be a “right turn only” lane to the left of the bike lane or other hazardous situations that put the cyclist at risk of a “right hook.” While motorists have a due care responsibility, they can easily become confused in the presence of bike lanes. As a cyclist, you would be foolish to make your safety dependent on a motorist’s due care understanding, or even on a traffic engineer’s ability to clarify things. What’s more, since the bike lane often encourages the cyclist to pass to the right of traffic, the right hook can occur due to a motorist turning right while completely unaware a cyclist is to his right. THESE stories seem to come out of Portland and invariably involve dump trucks squashing cyclists that stopped to their right. The smart, defensive cyclist should take charge! Whether there is a likely “right hook” trap or NOT, the savvy cyclist should do a head check to assess the traffic situation behind and to his left. If you know where the other traffic is and the ways it can operate, you are halfway towards being safe.

If advisable, abandon the bike lane in advance of the intersection, to avoid falling afoul of motoring crossing and turning movements. Well designed bike lanes are dashed as they come up to major intersections to encourage this sort of cyclist behavior. Similarly, if you are going to make a left turn, abandon the bike lane and move into the rightmost left turn lane. Basically, “use the rightmost lane that serves your intended destination.” The key to doing all this safely is to communicate your intentions to your fellow road users before executing movements, and BE PREDICTABLE. In the mind of most motorists, a predictable cyclist is a welcome novelty and they will watch you very patiently as you operate to where you want to go.

Keep in mind that, at intersections, if the bike lane is at the right side of the road, you should be extra cautious about oncoming traffic, as well as traffic crossing from your right. You are NOT in the primary attention field of oncoming motorists so there may be an increased risk of a “left hook.” Watch and be aware! Whether bike lane or regular lane, the cyclist should never forget that he has a LOT more experience dealing with motorists than the motorist has dealing with cyclists. The good news (well, not actually all THAT good) is that intersections are places people get hit and it isn’t a problem limited to cyclists, or bike lanes.

ONE SPOT WHERE LAB POLICY FALLS SHORT
There IS one regard in which Bike League education policy about bike lanes falls short – maintenance around bike lanes. Regardless of why debris is in a lane, it may be encountered by a cyclist using a bike lane and that cyclist must deal with it, just as on any road surface. When encountering a debris-filled bike lane area, the correct action is to move left onto clear road surface and call to inform the traffic department of the hazardous situation on their roadway (don’t do both of these actions at the same time). And DO call, so that the situation is either corrected or at least put on the record! In this regard, debris is no different than a pothole, drain grate, or other obstruction (including a slower cyclist) that may be encountered on a daily basis. If 500 cyclists a day call to complain about debris in a bike lane, that situation WILL get attention. It is a situation where the cyclist may need to leave the bike lane for safety reasons, and THAT is the educational point. Really, on this last point, I think I’m unlikely to be strung up by the Bike League for unorthodox views, even though the policy document shrugged it off. I think the document missed an opportunity, in an attempt to avoid yet another “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” debate, nothing more.

ADVOCATES GO ELSEWHERE
As for the matter of whether we ought to ENCOURAGE bike lanes, I’ll leave that to advocates and policy wonks, and I can’t think of why anybody I was teaching would ask me such a fuzzy wuzzy question in the first place. MY job is to know how to ride safely when bike lanes are present (or not), to understand and mitigate the dangers associated with them, and, if I should happen to teach others, to understandably explain how they may operate safely. Is my correspondent suggesting I should shrink from teaching others how to operate their bikes as safely as possible under conditions they are likely to encounter? I think not. Is the Bike League document suggesting that I teach students they can ONLY ride in bike lanes? I think not. Perhaps they're not as far apart as it might appear...

One Way to Avoid a "Right Hook" From a Bike Lane

This is Not Alwasy The Best Approach. It Depends on Traffic

Fort Worth Bike Plan

Fort Worth Bike Plan, including the full version of this map (without arrows)

may be found here

This is news to me. Though I went to the BPAC Meeting in June where this was presented, this is the first time I've actually SEEN what Fort Worth has in mind in the area I ride. Accordingly, I sent the following email:
-------------------------------------
From: Steve A

Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:27 PM
To: JULIAXXXX(at)fortworthgov.org
Cc: DON_KOSKI(at)fortworthgov.org

Subject: Bike Fort Worth Plan Comments

I bicycle commute to the Alliance Airport daily, and have comments about the designated proposed bike infrastructure in that area. Specifically:

Westport Parkway east of I35W, Old Denton north of Hwy 170, and Alta Vista between Westport and Keller Haslett, and Keller Hicks are all too narrow to include on-street bike lanes without major reconstruction of those roads. Due to the distances and relatively light population along these streets, I doubt that regular sweeping of dedicated bike lanes as specified in the plan would be the best use of city resources compared to a more multi-purpose approach. Placement of sharrow symbols and elimination of double yellow lines in areas with good sight distance on these roads would, however, help encourage Fort Worth Police not to pull over cyclists riding in a safe and legal lane position and would facilitate legal passing by motorists.

Westport between I-35W and Old Denton is particularly sensitive to bike commuters because it is currently the ONLY road other than Hwy 170 available to a cyclist coming from the southeastern direction. It is indicative of its suitability for cycling that I ride to work on Hwy 170 in preference to Westport.

Heritage Parkway and Timberland Parkway would work better as “on street designated bike routes” rather than with bike lanes. With bike lanes, traffic lanes would be narrower than desirable for motor traffic (especially trucks) without reconstruction of the street because the median and curbs are already in place and, being new, would not normally require work for many years into the future. Sharrows would be sufficient because motor traffic isn’t heavy. Should this change, reconstruction could easily be incorporated into the plan later. In addition, Timberland has a large school zone west of Alta Vista that acts to calm motor traffic in the area. In addition, Timberland is not a through street east of Excelsior due to barbed wire fences. I can’t understand why such fences (they even preclude easy pedestrian passage) would be present if this were City right of way. Nor is Park Vista a through street as shown in the plan.

Construction of the off-road bike path that roughly parallels Golden Triangle would provide good recreational riding improvements in conjunction with the existing Keller Path. However, it does not lead to any major employment areas, has relatively low resident population, and should be carefully questioned as a potential commuter route unless and until a practical connection with the employment center at Alliance can be completed.

One item not on the plan is I-35W. An off-road bike path on the west side of I-35W might provide cost effective access from the south. Currently, the I-35W Service Road is not continuous south of Alliance and there is right-of-way that might make such a route affordable.

Katy Road also is not on the plan. However, it provides a direct route to the southeast, and motor traffic is such that sharrows would work very well. With bicycle crossing over the railroad tracks at Johnson Road in cooperation with Keller, access to the east would be dramatically improved over present for relatively little cost.

Caylor Road also is not on the plan. It is the current preferred southerly leg when riding towards from Alliance between Keller Haslett and Katy Road. As in the case of Katy, sharrows would work well because motor traffic is not heavy.

If nothing else is done in far north Fort Worth, Westport and a finished southerly route should take precedence over all else. As I indicated to Don at the BPAC Meeting last summer; this area is not fully constructed and implementation of cyclist-friendly routes is a small fraction of the cost of trying to fix things later. I am sad to say that the new road construction to date near Alliance gives little consideration to movement of people by any means other than private motor vehicle.

I would be happy to ride along any of these routes with either of you so that you may see these roads from a cyclist’s standpoint firsthand. I may be reached at this email or via phone at 817-XXX-XXXX to answer any questions you may have. Please feel free to forward this email to whoever may be most appropriate within the Fort Worth City Government or wherever else might help (after deleting my phone/email contact info).

Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to hearing back.

-Steve A
-------------------------------------
We shall see if anything comes of it - or of the plan itself. Perhaps Fort Worth is gently encouraging me to move on to my intended future career as a weekday ski patroller.

UPDATE ON WEDNESDAY
Yes I got a response, of the usual "we appreciate your comments and ...." nature.

Bobby Waits for the Yeti Now

Statue of Grefriars Bobby, Facing
George IV Bridge, Edinburgh, Scotland
Praktica Film Camera, May 1986

Once, in Edinburgh, Scotland, there was a little Skye Terrier that went by the name of "Bobby." For the TRUE story of Bobby, click here, here, and many other places, including at least two movies. This is the story of Bobby's statue after it was erected.

You see, Bobby, to all appearances a statue, was fond of watching Yeti (cyclaris vehicularis) cyclists ride by. He longed to be alive again and run after them, nipping at their heels and trying not to get caught in their spokes.

Over the years, he became devoted to the Yeti that passed by, guarding them against harm. It seemed much more sensible to watch over them, than to face towards Greyfriars Kirk, where the master of his true life predecessor was buried.

Alas, in his new role, the people of the city did not fully respect him. They turned off his fountain in 1957, and threw empty beer cans at him as may be seen in the photo. Still, he kept at it, protecting a passing Yeti seen in the photo (remember, traffic in Scotland drives on the wrong side of the road, perhaps explaining why Scottish Salmon are famous around the world, but that would be another story)

As the years passed, the city grew more respectful towards the Bobby statue, naming pubs after him and cleaning him up. They added plaques and the usual historical stuff. They also decided to make Edinburgh "Bicycle Friendly" by adding infrastructure such as bike lanes. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens, the infrastructure was decided on by people that didn't ride bikes, and that didn't know about the Warrington Cycle Campaign. In Britain, as in the US, the city fathers tried to keep cars from crashing into each other, which made things even worse for all but the motorists, and even made them more irritable. Nowadays, Bobby's road looks like the photo below. The Yeti have all left, but Bobby still loyally waits, hoping they'll return some day. Some say that when the Yeti return, Bobby will come to life. But of course that'd be bad for tourism, though it might make for a good reality show...

Click on picture for larger version from Google Street

PS: Yes, I THOUGHT of calling this post "Return of the Yeti." That title, however, seemed a little too much for even such as Rantwick, eh?

Bedford Bike Lanes

Updated Sunday with NEW photos!

Seeing the post about upcoming bike lanes in Irving over at Cycle*Dallas (I'm STILL not sure he's being serious over there), bike lanes in NYC on CommuteOrlando , and even Rantwick with a SMOOTH bike lane,  I thought I'd show a shot of our bike lanes in Bedford; one of the "Mid Cities" near where I live. The dashed line designates the left boundary of the bike lane. It's dashed because automobiles are allowed to use the bike lane when no cyclists are present. You'll note that we're thrifty in Texas. No unnecessary signs or paint are wasted. Instead, the money was spent making the bike lanes TEXAS sized!

I think it's a superior arrangement all round. The motorists keep the bike lane swept completely free of debris. I've never seen heavy traffic on this particular road. I'm not sure parking on it is illegal, but I've never seen anybody try it. It's a favorite of mine for north-south travel. It also has nice, smooth pavement.
When my mom was visiting, I took her down this road. She was pretty skeptical about the bike lane arrangement, but admitted it worked pretty much the way I said. I kept seeing her sneak over towards the curb whenever she thought I wasn't looking, so I'm not sure she really bought into it. I think it's all that time in Seattle with their sharrows stuck over where the cars park.

John Forester Talks Bike Infrastructure

Among other topics, he goes into the background of bike lanes, why Amsterdam and similar cities work for bikes, cycling on Seattle's Burke Gilman Trail, and other topics in a one hour talk at Google, with lots of Q&A. He's easier to listen to (talking mostly to an audience not previously exposed to vehicular cycling) than to read.

PS: Internet seems to be coming back - sorta anyway...

Practice for the Bike Lanes to Come

Mannytmoto of BFOC posed a thought via email that I've been considering - how to deal with bike lanes at intersections, as well as other places crossing traffic occurs. I have found the advice to "ride as if the lines are not there" to be less than useful, because those lines influence motorist travel patterns - and also police behavior. While I don't accept PM Summer's interpretation of Texas Sec. 551.103* as making use of bike lanes mandatory (shown here) in Texas, I also wouldn't have thought it was perfectly OK to totally ban bikes from streets the way that Hunter's Creek Village did. I'm just a guy that rides from where I'm coming from to where I'm going to. Bike lanes are just another characteristic of the route.

BTW, completely avoiding bike lanes is usually a practical option for a commuter who knows the local roads, and even in Seattle, I was able to avoid the really dopey bike lanes with little difficulty. The approach I'm about to describe mainly applies in those cases where there's a bike lane at a traffic choke point.

Rather than ignoring bike lane paint, it seems more realistic to treat a bike lane as another, narrow traffic lane, albeit one that is at risk to crossing movements, such as here .

Anyway, here's how I'd treat an intersection where I was NOT planning to turn right. At point A, seeing that traffic in the main traffic lane was clear after a quick head check, I'd signal a left turn, preparing to move left out of the bike lane into the "through" lane. I have done this on the bike lane on North Tarrant Parkway. Despite motorized traffic traveling at around 45mph, motorists have proven uniformly decent about letting me move left into the traffic lane from the bike lane. This was somewhat of a surprise to me at first, since there's a cyclist clearly getting out of "his" space and into "theirs." I think you'd see similar behavior after a point A signal. My only explanation is they're perplexed by a cyclist signaling a left (lane change) from that bike lane and they do the safe thing and hang back. For all they know, I'm about to make a full left turn from the RH bike lane. In effect, I take advantage of their fears of silly cyclist behavior to facilitate a safe and low stress lane change. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MOTORIST BEHAVIOR TO UNDERSTAND.

At point B, I execute the lane change, giving a nice "thanks" wave to the motorists that let me in. Then I move left through point C, to the center of the lane at point D prior to the start of the intersection. Point D just happens to be at the spot where the induction sensor or traffic camera will be triggered by me if it isn't triggered by the following cars.

After clearing the intersection, I'd signal a right turn prior to moving back into the bike lane. If I'm lucky, I stopped behind a car or two at the intersection - I've got no trouble keeping up with them until we're clear of the intersection and those behind me don't get too anxious until open space develops in front of me.

A similar sequence would cover bike lanes that end, or bike lane debris, or door zone bike lanes. Clearly, in the really BAD bike lanes, I might wind up riding in the main traffic lane the whole way. I might feel a little guilty and get honked at but, to update the nursery rhyme "18 wheelers can break my bones but honks will never hurt me."

The only real down side to this over current riding is that extra lane changes are needed. Every lane change is a chance for a mistake, just as when driving a car, but that risk seems far preferable to getting dragged under the rear wheels of a bus or truck that made a right turn across the bike lane. Often as not, motorists treat the bike lane as "inviolable" right up to when they turn. This seems to be the case even when the bike lane is dashed near the intersection rather than striped clear up to it as is often the case.

*551.103 Operation on Roadway.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
...
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

PS: One reference I found very interesting, was CommuteOrlando's comparison of a busy street before and after a bike lane was put in. That post is here. Keri Caffrey didn't move out of the lane at intersections as I'm suggesting, but there were only minor intersections in the video. Still, she'd have been at risk had one of those passing vehicles decided to make a right. As I recall, the right to use the main traffic lane when it's the safe place to ride is more clear cut in Florida than in Texas. Lucky for me, we tend to have less little cross streets than Orlando has.

Vehicular Cycling isn't Advocacy

Sometimes you find stuff that makes you reconsider. In this case; "Bike Friendly Oak Cliff." I visit BFOC on occasion. I find that I cheer for some of their posts, such as when they drag bike racks away from the scrap yard to help populate Oak Cliff, shown here, while others make me think, "what a load of ___." I take a skeptical view of what I consider an unwarranted faith in bike lanes, and in politicians wanting to experiment on cyclists to burnish their "green" image.

Recently, BFOC did a post, shown here, on new Portland Cycle tracks. Contrast it with the post on the same subject from CommuteOrlando, shown here. I commented at BFOC, suggesting that such things would be better kept away from my neighborhood. Then came a thought provoker, in a counter comment, from BFOC kahuna mannytmoto:

mannytmoto
September 1, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I can cite hundreds of bad examples of poor car lanes as well, and only yards outside my door. Same for sidewalks, many of which bring very few pedestrians, does that constitute a failed system on the whole? Specifically, the merging of Davis and Fort Worth Avenue is “a bad joke”. As far as your neighborhood, I would direct you to Fort Worth’s recent 2015 plan which announces 470+ miles of bicycle infrastructure, and is far closer to you than Oak Cliff.
I understand exactly where you’re coming from as a Vehicular Cyclist, but the reality is, it simply doesn’t bring anyone out on bicycles. I like to note League Instructor, Paul Dorn, who has not only read and trained under Forester’s Effective Cycling, but is qualified to teach the class:
“I’ve written in the past about the welcome demise of vehicular cycling (VC) among bicycle advocates. As a practical approach to individual cycling, VC makes great sense: “drive” your bicycle as if it were a vehicle, claim your space, signal your turns, ride with traffic.
However, as a basis for bicycling advocacy, VC is negative, pessimistic, and counter-productive. Essentially, VC proponents conceded bicycling’s marginality and didn’t believe the roads could be changed to better accommodate cyclists. Instead they encouraged bicyclists to accept their minority status and adapt to roads designed for high speed vehicle traffic.”

I read it, and then I read it again. I couldn't really find anything I actually disagreed with more than just quibbling. Remember, I did "Yeti" recently. VC is not a basis for bicycle advocacy any more than vehicular motor vehicle operation would be as a basis for wanting freeways. VC is merely the sound practice when operating on roads under law, and it happens to be pretty durn safe even though it contradicts what most people believe about bikes & cars. But advocacy? Probably it is worse than ineffective in a fearful society. On the other hand, I DO feel that freeways should be built consistently with vehicular operation principles, and pedestrian and bike facilities should also be built in accord with proven traffic principles (it would be a stretch to use the term "vehicular" in connection with pedestrians, but they ARE traffic nonetheless). Let the Europeans be the ones to experiment on unsuspecting cyclists.

I think, and I suspect mannytmoto agrees, there's room for all when it comes to facilities (my personal favorites are bike racks and smooth pavement). Personally, I can think of MORE low cost facilities that make things better for bikes, for other road users, and for pedestrians than anybody can afford.

For example, consider the photo at top, shot yesterday afternoon in North Fort Worth. Yes, that's a fence between that cul de sac and the collector street & sidewalk (Coffeetree Drive). No, there's no passage at all through that fence. You can't see it in the photo, but there's an elementary school a tenth of a mile ahead on the left. It cries out for a path. The school has a fence all around it too, but somebody has cut a couple of the bars so kids can squeeze through. If I lived in that cul de sac, I'd use a little path like that. If I was biking locally, I'd bike more often (well, maybe in my case, I'd bike with exactly the same frequency). If I were a kid, maybe my parents might not feel they had to drive me to school - I could WALK. It's SO SIMPLE. Doohickie ID'd a similar situation here. Just make something like the photo at bottom; taken in a Keller subdivision three miles away. John Allen talks about making community connections for pedestrians and cyclists here. Keri Caffrey talks about it here (there were at least four other good ones so go search the blog). Such facilities DO attract people to biking. Also, and importantly, they don't make things difficult for people (motorized and non-motorized) operating under vehicular rules. Giving without taking away avoids backlash.

As a second example, consider that advisory signs telling two wheeled vehicles how to trigger traffic signals (bicycles and motorcycles) are rare as hens' teeth. Putting up such signs (and painting "sweet spots") sends a reassuring message to cyclists, as well as a "bikes belong" message to motorists in addition to their proper advisory function. They might also reduce red light running. Along my commute route, I KNOW how to trigger the lights and, when they can't be triggered, I have alternate routes. How many people out to ride for the day for the first time in 20 years are going to know? They should succeed, not get frustrated waiting for a light that will never change. Nobody should have to read this blog to learn secrets of triggering traffic lights.

Such things are simple, cheap, and are rarely seen, in Dallas or elsewhere (sorry mannytmoto, not even in Portland). Such things WOULD encourage people to come out on bikes. Unlike some proposals, they don't take from one class of road user to give to another, nor do they invite motorist backlash against safe and legal bicycle operation on the roads due to a mistaken impression that bike lane lines are there to keep bikes "over there." On the contrary, they support the notion that bikes ought to be EVERYWHERE. Oak Cliff could certainly use improved ways for cyclists and pedestrians to get across the freeways, railroad tracks, and the river. Let's get some of the stuff ALL cyclists can agree on done. As ChipSeal has noted, perhaps what we need are better advocates, or at least ones that get the meat & potato work done instead of the fluff. Money's short enough that we can't fund all the simple little projects that EVERYONE interested in bikes can support - we can always tackle the expensive, glamorous ones after we sort out how to get our money's worth from them...

Alliance Gateway Bicycle Traffic

In a previous post, seen here, I related about a guy on a bicycle, cycling east of Old Denton Highway, on Hwy 170, the Alliance Gateway Freeway. I can now confirm it first-hand, and I even got a picture this morning. Sadly, some of the information I previously gave out was incorrect. On the other hand, note how visible that "high vis" vest he's wearing is. I may have to stop pooh-pooing those things when I hear y'all swear by them. Can you stuff those vests into a pocket for the trip home? I get hot enough this time of year without extra stuff keeping heat in.

Anyway, going back to the subject at hand, one error in my previous post is that the bicycle guy did NOT ride "near the edge of the right lane." In fact, he rode in the 12 inches between the fog line and the curb. In effect, using it as a one-foot bike lane. Orlando ain't got nuttin on us! There's a fair amount of debris in that location, but he's got big tires and seemed to be doing OK. At least there isn't crossing traffic on that route other than a very few roads. A second error was my statement that cars moved over a long way back. Well, most of the time they did. Sometimes they didn't change course at all. I would not be comfortable with a car, 50mph faster than me, whizzing by my left elbow. I can't say it fills me with joy even when they're a full lane over. The guy has nerves of steel, I'll say that for him.

One other observation: You'll note that there does not appear to be any lighting equipment on the bike in the photo. That may not be significant, since it was about 7:20AM when the photo was taken. I wasn't about to cross back over 170 and attempt an overtake just to get a closer look.

Who is This Supposed to Help Again?

I needed to do some recreational miles, and I needed to do them TODAY. Call it an equipment, consumables, TSD, and motor check. I rode in to Fort Worth for a little coffee over at the TCU Starbucks. I discovered that my inbound route of choice was actually a designated Fort Worth bike route, well marked with signs and with occasional sharrows painted on the road to encourage me (or something). It was very pleasant, though I was a little amused when it abruptly "ended" right as I reached downtown. I even did some Trinity Trails riding. Those are very pleasant, especially if you're doing low-speed cruising. If you're trying to make time, stick to the streets.

Anyway, after I had the coffee, I had the bright idea of surveying the new Magnolia Avenue bike lanes (see more about their installation here). They run past Panther City Cycles, who were advocates of putting them in. Almost in front of PCC, I took the shot shown below. Yes, that's the bike lane boundary running right through the middle of the old sharrow marking. I didn't see any bike route signs (Fort Worth maps still show it as "Route 312"). I guess we'd have to say "Route 312, RIP."

Magnolia USED to be a four-lane road with the outside lane marked with sharrows. NOW it's a three-lane road with bike lanes. I didn't ride IN the bike lanes, mostly on general principles; since I wasn't trying to go anywhere in particular the lanes didn't really present any serious danger to me. The sharrows, as you can see, are still there (though with gray paint making them less visible), bisected by the bike lane stripe. Now, cyclists are scooted to the side, or made to feel uncomfortable, and motor traffic has lost a lane in each direction. Explain to me again why I'm supposed to jump up and down with enthusiasm for this? Is this supposed to encourage motorists to peacefully sing Kumbaya whenever they see a person on a bike? What makes it much WORSE is that there's an alley a half block to the north that has been converted to shared MUP/Motor vehicle traffic. A little care, and any cyclist that is skittish about riding with his/her motorized friends has a much nicer alternative to the bike lanes. I think these are "political" bike lanes pure and simple.

Anyway, after several blocks, I concluded there's not much reason to ride down Magnolia any more. Rosedale is quicker anyway. I suspect a lot of motorists have concluded the same thing.

I sure hope this isn't typical of what Fort Worth is planning for us, or I'll shut up about their lack of anything resembling planning for anything bicycle-related out by Alliance Airport. Magnolia sure doesn't look like any of those "urban planning complete streets" fantasy pictures. This is worse than benign neglect. And no, I didn't see any cyclists at all using those bike lanes...

Frankenbike Tours Lubbock

Worse than bricks are bricks in traffic. But what would Lubbock be without a visit to see Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs in "Prairie Dog Town?" So I went. Really, bricks are better than Westport. I actually got a photo of one of the little guys. They look like squirrels without the bushy tails. Another item off the bucket list.

Coming back, I found a brick-free route and even saw some "Bike Route" signs. After I got back, I found a route map on the Lubbock City site. The one I rode on seemed pretty nice. Then we visited the Buddy Holly statue. Is Frankenbike ready for its closeup?

One nice thing about riding around is just trying different routes. Bricks are just one of the features. At least it appears Lubbock has no cobblestones. It also appears that the TTU bike lane craze has not infected the rest of the city. I can't say if the drivers are any nicer than our Tarrant County bunch, but they were polite and there were less of them. And Lubbock isn't as flat as you think.

According to our parent briefing today, I'm supposed to relax tomorrow while my daughter frantically struggles with registration. Sounds like a plan. Is there anything else to see around Lubbock? What time does the windmill center open up?