youtube videos about bike lanes / bike boulevards

Not written by Colin, please note!

-----Original Message-----
From: lcc-issues@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lcc-issues@yahoogroups.com] Sent: 26 April 2007 11:03
To: lcc-issues@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lcc-issues]
Dear xxxxx
xxxxx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There currently are two interesting videos on youtube about
> bike lanes.
>
> One is about "bike boulevards" in Berkeley, CA:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8wkI7CwpU

> The other one is about folks demanding segregated cycle
> lanes in NYC:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS2ptAR4mo


These clips are an excellent find! The first seems to offer a real solution to the way in which the LCN+ can be delivered and indeed expanded as the programme comes to an end--to produce a dense network of core routes with the rest of the street network modified (more subtly)
to 'feed' it.

With Brent Cyclists' approval, I will be putting forward proposals based on the clip in this year's funding bid to TfL (now called the Local Implementation Plan Annual Progress Report--LIP APR).

By the look of what the clip shows, whole routes can be completed for a minimal budget and the key feature of them is motor traffic volume and speed reduction through the installation of mode and directional filters and carefully designed facilities where needed. And we should not simply assume that the network should be confined to quieter streets--main roads can equally be transformed into 'bicycling boulevards' too, albeit with a more rigorous approach to design and more investment.

As a transport planner, I have to justify bids that I make to Transport for London. The bids are based (unfortunately) on assuming that cyclists only ever use defined routes--the idea that a cyclist might diverge from the set route is, in some engineers' minds, rather alien. But since the
defined network exists, it does at least offer a key opportunity for improving their public realm (I've long thought of them as opportunities to create exemplary corridors for public realm enhancement).

However much can be done through permeability enhancements. Across Brent there are gated road closures that don't admit cycles (and where they once did, residents' complaints about motorcycles have resulted in further obstruction). We've undertaken a study of these road closures with a view to converting them to mode filters--in order to give cyclists and pedestrians together advantages over motor traffic. Each costs between £2k and £5k depending on the workload. We've also installed new mode filters: one experimental closure is very significant in traffic terms and will give a very substantial benefit to pedestrians and cyclists over motors.

> [the second clip is] awful. All the old nonsense about segregation. Practically no mention of any of the problems created by that "solution" (doors, peds, hard to pass other cyclists, and traffic turning at intersections). Note that when you watch the traffic shown, the two things creating conflict most frequently are parked cars and turning vehicles. Both are more of a problem with segregated cycle lanes than without. The turning traffic is potentially the most lethal, but doesn't get mentioned. <

Yes, but the case for segregation is compelling in too many minds. Many would view this clip and--even with your commentary--see all of the conflicts of the old system (brought about by a lack of enforcement) washed away by the gleaming new cycle tracks and see the result they
want to see, i.e. lots of happy cyclists.

I've recently visited Holland and toured Amsterdam, Utrecht and Delft. I have to admit that despite my views on segregation I actually rather enjoyed using the facilities provided--and I don't think that the system should be dismissed as a whole for ideological reasons. Looking at the system from the point of view of other tourists to the area I can actually understand why it is so superficially attractive. The simple fact is that (and you can argue the toss about an existing cycling culture) the careful design of facilities appears both popular and practical.

Notwithstanding, on my arrival back in the UK, my head filled with ideas about how we can transform our street network for cycling, I found myself suddenly really enjoying the freedom of sharing the streets again and only wanting minimal interventions in a few places.

One thing that struck me on my visit was just how much you have to concentrate when cycling in Holland. The facilities don't often make cycling a relaxing experience. Quite often they are confusing--to the extent that, thinking I had right of way across one street, I came closer to my end than I have ever come in London, and in another case I found myself accidentally riding the wrong way along a one way street with no space for me and the approaching juggernaut which emerged from under the railway bridge! Not only that, but to make a left turn at a signalised junction, you have to travel two sides of a triangle, the third side being the more logical progression we are used to in the UK--this actually undermines cyclist priority. Oh, and where you are expected to use the third side there's invariably a car stopped in the ASL--familiar?

I think that there are things we can learn in the UK from what happens in Holland and the US. The bicycle boulevard idea, for people like us who are not friends of segregation is attractive. A few carefully designed facilities would also be helpful if they mean increased permeability and real advantages over motor traffic--I can think of a few possibilities along the Marylebone / Euston Road. I think that we (and this includes me) need to open our minds a little to the
possibility that *some* facilities _are_ actually better than none at all, in addition to the idea that an improved public realm will do much on its own to encourage both walking and cycling.

And what of my favourite Dutch facility? Well, as you might imagine I saw plenty of provision of varying quality but impressive adherence to an obvious code. But the one that sticks in my mind most of all is the long 'B' style road between Utrecht and Amsterdam that has a wide kerb
'cycle lane' (actually never marked as a cycle lane; more of a hard shoulder) that forced drivers into the centre of the road to face each other head on. Should they wish to pass they have to move over to the right (the left in the UK), taking care not to wipe out any cyclists in the process. There are so many cyclists using this road that motorists would not be wise to drive without care and attention. And, importantly, there is no centre line.

Fundamentally though, in our campaigning we actually have to consider how we can best serve the needs of people with children, disabled cyclists and those who are quite simply frightened of the motor traffic. It's all very well for us experienced cyclists to specify 'share the
road' when we are confident doing so--but how do our ideas fit the needs
other people?