Thoughts on where we’ve been and where we are going ahead of tonight’s Bike Boulevard Open House
Image courtesy of LivableStreets
Vehicular cycling versus bike lanes
The Dallas Observer recently did a story about the battles of the Dallas cycling community with the former City of Dallas Bicycle Coordinator, PM Summer. Summer was a vehicular cyclist, a philosophy that holds that a bicycle is just another vehicle on the road and riders should behave that way. On these lines, any infrastructure built specifically for bicycles is wrong because it makes bikes a different class of vehicles. This philosophy was popular in late 20th century planning and Summers was quoted saying “As long as I’m the bike coordinator for the city, Dallas will never have on-street bike lanes.” Interestingly, the proponents of vehicular cyclists have inevitably been middle aged men not especially in tune to what women want in transportation cycling. The attitude has been cyclist need to be trained before they can ride. While it may feel good to talk about education, this essentially creates a barrier to entry making cycling the purview of those with the time and commitment to take classes or those daring enough to brave automobile dominant streets. The VC track record is bleak where implemented with a flat less than 1% of the population cycling for transportation.
Vehicular cyclists have fallen out of favor in the last decade. In fact, Summer, as the coordinator of the 9th largest US city, was probably the highest profile VCer left, and he was removed from his position last fall. In their place are bicycle programs that emphasis bike lanes and paths where ever possible. This is seen as progress in much of the cycling community creating safer routes and making transportation cycling more accessible to more of the general community. While this infrastructure has been appreciated by established cyclists, it has not created the real large scale increases in bicycle usage promised. Why?
While the VC philosophy puts no infrastructure on the road, most bike lanes are retro fitted to existing roads putting cyclist on the edge of the street where they are least visible and road debris accumulates. The lanes create space for cyclists but little is done to change the dynamic of the street. Cars are still the dominant traffic taking up the majority of the road, remaining a relatively high speed vehicle, and often parking in the bike lane forcing cyclists out in the road. Bike paths are often worse being glorified sidewalks where cars again have dominance where the path intersects the path. While this gives the rider a feeling of security, it is in fact one of the most dangerous routes for cyclists to use. Add to this the fact that most paths are recreational in focus being built in parks away from the routes of everyday life.
Solutions for wide spread cycling use
So here is where the VCers are right. If we want a sizable portion of the population to bike, they need to be able to use existing roads so they can use a bike for errands and commuting with the minimum amount of inconvenience. And here is where the traditional bike lanes are right. If we want a sizable portion of the population to bike, they need to feel safe from being run over by cars.
I would argue both theories are incomplete and remain focused on a small dedicated group of cyclists. VC appeals to the hardest of hard core cyclist while conventional bike lanes appeal to those cyclists who might already ride recreationally but need more physical support to feel comfortable riding in the city. Both are destine to flat or slow growth because they focus on the needs of a narrow niche: established cyclists instead of people who happen to ride bikes.
Enter a solution: bicycle boulevards. Bike boulevards re-balance the streetscape by pulling the automobile back from its conventional roll of dominate transport. Bicycles are part of traffic, VCers, but infrastructure like bollards, raised medians, forced turns, and roundabouts slow the traffic and raise cyclists and pedestrians as equals on the street. A sense of safety in design and safety in numbers make the boulevards extremely accessible to all users. They also use existing roads in the midst of established neighborhoods making them sensible routes for those wanting to live all aspects of their lives on two wheels.
Tonight’s open house for our first bike boulevard is exciting and important to the future of Austin cycling and retaking our streets for people instead of cars. I hope you will make it tonight or let the Austin City Council know how critical this is to improving the quality of life and sustainability of our community.
Nueces Street Bicycle Boulevard Open House: Project Discussion and Public Design Exercise
Wednesday, December 9
6- 8 PM
Pease Elementary School, 1106 Rio Grande St
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Good start, but it’s also important to emphasis that there’s plenty of experienced cyclists who still support bike lanes (and use them themselves) – in the old days on the austin-bikes list this would have included myself, Patrick Goetz, Lane Wimberley, and others. In other words, even when you know what you’re doing, there are advantages to bike lanes (predictability of car passes, for one).
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Oh yeah, don’t forget Tommy Eden. Hard to imagine anybody around here with more experience riding the road, and yet he also was a strong proponent of bike lanes.
The dichotomy pushed by the Foresterites is usually that the people pushing for bike lanes are drivers who just want bikes out of the way. In reality, the drivers (in Austin at least) had no real impact on the discussion.
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 11:50 am
M1EK,
I agree. Bike lanes are enjoyed by most experienced cyclists (myself included.) I’m just saying putting a bike lane on an otherwise conventional car focused road may be of appeal to the established cyclists but will be of limited appeal to the person just getting starting or looking at the bike as one of many transportation options.
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Yes, bike lanes are just one part – maybe not even the best part in urban areas – but in suburban areas they’re the only real option. There aren’t any low-volume alternatives to Jollyville, for instance, that could be turned into bike boulevards.
Lest anybody think otherwise, I have even voted against bike lanes in the past (on Guadalupe/Lavaca downtown). But in suburban areas they’re just about the only tool in the toolbox.
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
You’d pretty much never catch me riding in a bike lane. Perhaps things vary among states, but I am absolutely convinced it is far less safe to ride to the edge of the road where I become nothing but white noise to drivers. When I’m driving a car, the number one issue I face on a regular basis is someone swerving into my lane because they are too busy texting or talking on their phone. This reinforces my belief that it’s safer to ride in the lane.
I am a big proponent of bike paths, but it’s not a practical solution for anyone actually trying to live car-free or car-light (unless your area already has that infrastructure). I’d love nothing more than to see a thorough network of connecting paths that feed into quieter streets. For now, I take the path when possible and then I absolutely take the lane when on the roads. I bike with my kids and I am not taking the chance that I’m not visible to a driver. Our bike lanes are downright pathetic and usually aren’t even wide enough to ride in safely. I’d love to see funding split between educating both drivers and cyclists and building more bike paths. The bike lanes I generally see are useless.
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Angie, that seems unsupportable to me. You ride in the lane on Loop 360? On Jollyville?
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
No, I’m in Florida. Like I said, things may vary by state – but the bike lanes here are a joke. They are usually too thin and/or filled with debris.
I’m not familiar with the roads you mentioned, but my guess is that they are high speed? So to answer: generally speaking, I try to avoid high speed roads. But I wouldn’t ride in a traditional bike lane on a road like that either. As I mentioned, I try to combine the bike trail with quieter roads. When I ride on the roads, yes – I take the lane. I do take the lane on one relatively high speed road every morning. It seats one of the largest universities in the country (meaning lots of young drivers). I tried to ride in the bike lane on that road and it was absolutely terrifying to have cars whip past me only a few inches away. Now I take the lane and I’ve yet to have a problem. It’s a six-lane road, so people simply pass me and use one of the other two empty lanes.
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I’d just like to clarify what I mean about education. 99% of the harassment I get is on quiet roads. Obviously, to save money, you’ll probably never see a bike path or boulevard running along a quiet road (nor should you). So to me, even if we get all the paths we could ever dream of, we still need to focus on educating people. These are the kinds of roads you are supposed to teach your children to ride on, so there is a huge problem when a motorist is trying to intimidate me or tells me to “get out of the road” in this kind of setting.
I definitely advocate bike paths and such so that cyclists have better options. I certainly don’t ride that high speed road by choice! That said, when the road is the only choice, I believe taking the lane is the safest bet.
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Angie,
I think the key here is changing the dynamics of the road. Current road standards have essentially one purpose: moving cars as quickly as possible. Little consideration is made of other road users or how these designs effect the environment they create. We need to realize fully developed streets that take into consideration all uses not only makes for better quality of life and safety but positive economic impact. If the goal is getting more people out of their cars, simply telling people to ride as a vehicle or slapping bike lanes on the current road designs will have limited impact. We have to make walk, cycling, and transit a compelling option while making the automobile less compelling by applying true cost to the user and accommodating other users. If we don’t do that, the vast majority will continue to drive for essentially all their transportation until rising fuel costs put a rude end to the American dream.
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Couldn’t agree more! This is exactly why the bad attitude spills over onto neighborhood streets – drivers are used to having their “get there fastest” attitude reinforced every day. Residential streets are no longer seen as neighborhoods, but as just another road along their commute. And instead of making real strides to change the culture, we throw in speedbumps (that people promptly speed right over).
I can’t wait for the day that we have a more practical bike infrastructure down here. I just hate the idea of planners, as you said, “slapping a bike lane” on the roads and thinking that makes it safe. The bike lanes here don’t make the road one bit more rideable. In fact, it’s almost worse because then drivers expect you to get in the bike lane even if it is filled with debris or runs directly along the doorzone. I imagine there must be good models for bike lanes, but I sure haven’t seen them here.
on Dec 9th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I am agnostic on bike lanes — if the curb lane of a street is sufficiently wide, a bike lane isn’t really needed, but I don’t feel that bike lanes — excepting the most poorly designed ones — interfere with my riding. Holding up traffic behind me on a high-speed road and being overtaken at high speeds stresses me out, and I don’t feel that I’m alone in holding that sentiment. I generally try to restrict myself to low to moderate traffic streets, but I can appreciate a wide outside lane at the very least on busy streets that I have no choice but to ride on. Still, I don’t think that a shoulder, a bike lane stripe or a wide curb lane on a six lane expressway is going to encourage any *new* cyclists.
As for bike boulevards, they work quite well in Portland, where I live. On the better designed bike boulevards, you can ride 8-9 blocks without hitting a stop sign, and the traffic calming measures prevent the streets from filling up with cars. I find that most riders (and female riders specifically) prefer to use bike boulevards and side streets whenever possible.
However, this becomes a problem in many newer post-WWII suburbs. Portland and Austin proper were built prior to WWII, and are thus laid out on a grid. For every busy thoroughfare, there is a parallel side street that can be used as a bike route. In many of the newer suburbs, the various subdivisions often lack quiet routes that connect to each other, and freeways are often impermeable barriers between neighborhoods. The bike boulevard solution would be a lot more difficult to implement in such areas. I have noticed that the Silicon Valley area in California has built a lot of bike/ped bridges over the various freeways, and I think that can do a lot to help. Paths that run parallel to waterways, freeways, railways, and powerlines would be beneficial as well.
However, in areas where disconnected subdivisions have already been built up, the city would have to buy out chunks of people’s yards to put bike path connections, and I can see that being fiercely opposed by the HOAs and NIMBYs of the area. For many suburbanites, the disconnected nature of their subdivisions is a feature, not a bug.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Having ridden on Vancouver’s system of bike boulevards, I think they are greatly superior to either bike lanes or bike paths. Bicycling is quite practical there, and you can see that reflected in the large numbers of bicyclists. Every bridge that I saw had provisions for bicycle use. They had really focused on making it possible to do everyday travel by bicycle.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Like so many things, it’s all in the design and the knowledge of how to even use the design. The bike lanes have to be wide enough to ride comfortable and–if you’re smart–out of door zones and debris. And hopefully, they don’t dump you into a dangerous situation, which is the case for many here in Austin.
By the way. What do the Viet Cong have to do with bike facilities?
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I’m pretty much in favor of all facilities that get more bicyclists riding. I enjoy all the bike lanes in town and ride in the lane when I need to as well. I find it funny how I notice any new bike lane added and I judge it on how safe it looks compared to others.
But, to be honest, I never really noticed bike lanes before I started thinking about commuting on my bike. If most people are like me, I don’t think adding more bike lanes will make them want to ride, because they probably won’t notice them either.
Strangely, the thing that got me most excited about city riding, commuting & utility cycling was the City of Austin bike map. That really opened my eyes and showed me it was possible to get anywhere in the city on my bike. It was really enabling. It was all downhill from there. Unfortunately, living almost in Round Rock, it’s all uphill on the way back
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
One thing about bike lanes, or riding on the shoulder, is that it is essentially another lane of traffic, and motor vehicles generally don’t think of them as another lane of traffic. Thus, a lot of right turn, and even left turn issues can arise, not to mention that a bicycle could be passing them on the right.
I came upon an accident once where a car had turned right as a bicyclist was passing them on the right. The officer was angry, “they shouldn’t be passing on the right”. (Hwy 620 near lakeway)
Another positive aspect of the boulevards, is that they are roads devoted to bicycles, firstly, and cars 2nd. This is a very nice feeling.
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I’m def pro bike blvds. And a fan of abbr’s. I was just putting out my love of the bike map. Once I saw that, I could visualize how to get anywhere in town relatively safely. Before I saw the map, I had no idea which streets were safer than the others. Except in obvious cases, of course.
on Dec 20th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Ambivalent on bike lanes. In NY so far the pedestrian/abberant overlap is great enough to create problems in commutecycling. Intersections are more dangerous, not less, in many places. Yet the existence of the lanes will promote more bike commuting.
on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
“The VC track record is bleak where implemented with a flat less than 1% of the population cycling for transportation.”
There is so much wrong with this statement I’m not sure where to begin, but I suppose 1937 Copenhagen is as good as any: http://tinyurl.com/ygnrs23
That video depicts a city bustling with vehicular cyclists mixing it up with motorists, and no cyclist-specific infrastructure in sight.
The idea behind the statement appears to be this… let’s take a city with a low cyclist modal share and compare what “implementing VC” does to modal share compared to “implementing bike infrastructure”. This begs the question… what does “implementing VC” even mean? After all, unless bicyclists are banned from the streets and roads, VC is already implemented, in a sense. Or is it? It depends on what one means by “implementing VC”. Just because VC is allowed, if few if any cyclists know how to do it, much less engage in it, is that really a VC implementation?
A true experiment in VC implementation is one in which not only the cyclists, but all potential cyclists and non-cyclists learn and understand vehicular cycling. Only then can we say the results are bleak if modal share does not increase. But I think 1937 Copenhagen shows very clearly what can happen when the VC mindset becomes more widespread.
on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The comments to this blog give me hope.
Angie astutely notes, “You’d pretty much never catch me riding in a bike lane. Perhaps things vary among states, but I am absolutely convinced it is far less safe to ride to the edge of the road where I become nothing but white noise to drivers. When I’m driving a car, the number one issue I face on a regular basis is someone swerving into my lane because they are too busy texting or talking on their phone. This reinforces my belief that it’s safer to ride in the lane.”
Ben: “But, to be honest, I never really noticed bike lanes before I started thinking about commuting on my bike. If most people are like me, I don’t think adding more bike lanes will make them want to ride, because they probably won’t notice them either.”
Dave: “One thing about bike lanes, or riding on the shoulder, is that it is essentially another lane of traffic, and motor vehicles generally don’t think of them as another lane of traffic. Thus, a lot of right turn, and even left turn issues can arise, not to mention that a bicycle could be passing them on the right.”
Bike boulevards, separated bike paths (not cycletracks!) are fine, but the real answer, since riding in traffic is inevitable for most trips, is for cyclists to learn how to be safe and comfortable in all kinds of traffic on all kinds of roads. But bike lanes are not the answer.
Bike lanes are like training wheels – they are more a debilitating hindrance than a help in the learning process.
on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Ninety5rpm,
I’m glad you brought up Copenhagen because it is a lesson in what to do right and why VCers are wrong. In the 1930s, most people couldn’t afford cars and the vast majority of traffic was bicycles. What happened between the video you linked to and the 1970s is that no infrastructure was built and cars took over the streets while cycling declined. In the early 1970s, Copenhagen made a concerted effort to change the city to promote cycling. Today, you have nearly 40% of residents using a bike for commuting and over 50% using bikes for every day errands. Under VC theory, to get everyone biking, you do nothing to change the roads and educate everyone. Yet in Copenhagen, no one takes vehicular cycling classes and the cycling infrastructure is 1st class, bar none. VC theory dominated bike planning in this country for 20 years, and we saw bike commuting rates languish around 1%. I’d say the proof is in the pudding.
Bike lanes and other infrastructure are the answer but only if creating a truly equalizing safe environment like you see in Copenhagen today. My issue with bike lanes are that most of the time they are slapped on the side of the road with nothing done to reduce auto traffic volume or speed.
You also creatively selected your quotes from Angie who later agrees with me that the problem is not bike lanes in of themselves but their implementation.
on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
95rpm, as Elliott noted, but I’ll expand on, you make a critical mistake often made by proponents of bus transit as well. VC exists in some other cities and countries not because it can actually get people to START cycling, but because in those places, people have no other choice but to ride – and no infrastructure exists for cyclists. As soon as people have enough money to drive, cycling in those regions drops.
Or, to put it another way, that idiot bike coordinator up in Dallas did precisely nothing to get one single additional person to ride their bike for years and years and years by pushing strict VC over an approach including infrastructure – because there really aren’t a lot of people in Dallas who can’t afford to drive.
on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Neither VC nor infrastructure gets people (not including the 1% of us who bike for the love of biking) out of their cars and onto bikes. What makes them leave the car keys at home is making cycling more convenient than motoring. It’s not the Copenhagen first class infrastructure that got them out of their cars – it’s the high price of owning, driving and parking a car (if you can even find a place to park).
Raise gas taxes, limit parking and stop building roads on top of roads, and you’ll see more people taking on biking everywhere (and using public transportation and motor scooters – popularity in alternative modes tends go together). And then they’ll demand the “1st class infrastructure”.
The idea that “well designed” bike lanes will get more people on bikes is preposterous, and has no basis in fact.
on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“VC theory dominated bike planning in this country for 20 years”.
Huh? VC theory has been virtually unknown until the last few years. PM Summer in Dallas is an anomaly, not an epitome. The prevalent theory in bike planning in the US for the last 20 years has been “keep bikes out of the way of cars” (preferably with bike lanes). That’s not VC.
on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Ninety5rpm,
First, I agree that making automobile use more difficult and expensive is part of the equation. I’m in complete agreement on that, and it was certainly something they did in Copenhagen. But we must also create the infrastructure to support moving all those people to cycling. If you don’t, you just get an angry public who are upset you made car use more difficult without providing a legitimate alternative. VC theory tells everyone they have to become experts and ignores the safety concerns of novice rider.
As for the history of vehicular cycling, you are right is hasn’t been 20 years, its been more like 35. John Forester coined the phrase in the 70s and influenced much of LAB’s outlook on bike infrastructure in the 70s and 80s. His book Effective Cycling was first published in 1984. If building bike lanes was so prevalent, why are they only showing up in most cities in the last 5-10 years? Frankly, until recently most road engineers probably barely thought of bicycles in design but when they did, bike lanes generally were not built.
on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Ninety5rpm,
One other thing about whether bike lanes increase bike usage. During the period that Austin has built bicycle infrastructure, we have seen an increase in bike usage, especially in the urban core that correlates with this infrastructure. In Portland, the same correlation of infrastructure and bike use occurred. This is at the same time bike usage in cities like Dallas without infrastructure remained flat.
There is some evidence recently from Portland that there are limitations to this relationships between infrastructure and bike use. Bike infrastructure is certainly not the only issue that gets people using bikes for transportation, but its contribution can not be ignored.
on Jan 12th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
elliott and Ninety5rpm–I too find citing Copenhagen instructive here: ‘The city of Copenhagen, published the study Road safety and the perceived risk of bicycle facilities in Copenhagen. The study found that “cycle tracks” (sidepaths) led to “an increase of 9-10% in accidents and injuries has taken place.” The largest accident increase occurred to women. Cycle lanes (bike lanes) “has resulted in an increase in accidents of 5% and 15% more injuries.” Ironicly, a survey of Copenhagen cyclists found that they perceived greater safety on the segregated facilities even though these facilities are actually less safe. http://www.labreform.org/blunders/b5.html and http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf
This was the best possible kind of study–comparing the same roadways before and after bicycle infrastructure was installed.
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
@T_Starry VCinfo: http://bit.ly/6oWxLU This guy is basically on a road w/ shoulder like 360 or Parmer but riding in the traffic lane.
on Sep 7th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
elliott: In #20 you say “” Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, good cycling infrastructure follows high cycling rates; it does not cause it.
Second, in Copenhagen, the rest of Denmark, and in many other places in Europe, vehicular cycling education is extensive and mandatory. See http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/images/uploads/MakingCyclingIrresistible.pdf
<>
on Sep 7th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Following from #28: http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/images/uploads/MakingCyclingIrresistible.pdf
Training and Education. Dutch, Danish, and German children receive extensive
training in safe and effective cycling techniques as part of their regular school
curriculum. Most children complete such a course by the fourth grade. It includes both
classroom instruction and “on the road” lessons, first on a cycling training track just for
children, and then on regular cycling facilities throughout the city. Real police officers
test the children, who receive official certificates, pennants, and stickers for their bikes if
they pass the test. Since many children get to school by bike, training in safe cycling is
considered essential to ensure their safety (German Federal Ministry of Transport, 2002).
But it also gets kids off to a lifetime of safe cycling skills. And since all schoolchildren
are included, it means that girls as well as boys start cycling at an early age.
Another crucial element in cyclist safety is training motorists to be aware of
cyclists on the roadway and to avoid endangering them. In general, motorist training in
the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany is far more extensive, more thorough, and more
expensive than in the USA. Motorists are legally responsible for collisions with children
and elderly cyclists (German Federal Ministry of Transport, 2002; Netherlands Ministry
of Transport, 2006), even if they are jaywalking, cycling in the wrong direction, ignoring
traffic signals, or otherwise behaving contrary to traffic regulations. The priority legal
status of non-motorists puts motorists on the defensive and forces them to drive with
special attention to avoiding endangering cyclists and pedestrians.
on Sep 8th, 2010 at 9:38 am
correcting #28–elliott: In #20 you say “Under VC theory, to get everyone biking, you do nothing to change the roads and educate everyone. Yet in Copenhagen, no one takes vehicular cycling classes and the cycling infrastructure is 1st class, bar none.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, good cycling infrastructure follows high cycling rates; it does not cause it.
Second, in Copenhagen, the rest of Denmark, and in many other places in Europe, vehicular cycling education is extensive and mandatory.
on Mar 8th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
@jamesdosborne @theurbancountry I too wrote about this. VC is legit only in response to bad bike infrastructure http://bit.ly/6oWxLU
on Mar 8th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
RT @austinon2wheels: @jamesdosborne @theurbancountry I too wrote about this. VC is legit only in response to bad bike infrastructure http://bit.ly/6oWxLU
on Mar 11th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Honestly, using any of these European cities to defend VC’s ideological position is just stupid – because these cities have effectively turned all their normal streets into bike boulevards already (i.e. you don’t have suburban arterial roadways with 6 lanes and 45 mph speed limits and 60 mph design speeds to work with/around).