Just found this encapsulated in one of Michael Bluejay’s constellation of web pages and thought I should copy it back here since I wrote it… and it holds true today just as much as in the early aughts. I sure did like numbered lists back then, huh?
PROS AND CONS OF BIKE LANES
There are no good studies proving that bike lanes or wide curb lanes are better than the other. ALL theories you hear on which one is better are resting on somebodyâ€™s opinion. [Updated, Feb. 2007: A few months ago, a study did come out which claimed to show a non-trivial safety enhancement for marked bike lanes vs. wide curb lanes.]
then some more text by me:
Iâ€™m one of the people who thinks we overprescribe bike lanes, but it bugs me that so many Forsterites are so hostile to them in general. Both bike lanes and wide curb lanes have their place.
Iâ€™m operating under the assumption that weâ€™re comparing bike lanes to wide curb lanes; not narrow curb lanes. The theory that we can reengineer the 98% of Austin that needs it to a grid pattern like Hyde Park where we donâ€™t need EITHER facility is just ludicrous.
My general feeling on when bike lanes are appropriate:
- Where there are lots of inexperienced bicyclists
- Where speed differential is fairly high
- Where volume of bicyclists is very high
My general feeling on when wide curb lanes are appropriate:
- Where speed differential is lower
- Where bicycle volume (all types) is moderate to low
Where not to put bike lanes:
- Low-speed or congested roadways where turning volume is very high
- Residential streets (NOTE: DESPITE NEIGHBORHOOD MISREPRESENTATIONS, â€œRESIDENTIAL STREETâ€ IS A CATEGORY OF ROADWAY SEVERAL LEVELS BELOW SHOAL CREEK BOULEVARD).
- Where they canâ€™t be swept or otherwise maintained
- Where you canâ€™t commit to â€œno parkingâ€.
Things I believe that are PROs for bike lanes:
- Bike lanes attract new cyclists; wide curb lanes do not. I think this is self-evident. Patrick agreed, and so do most people who actually work in the field (not the people who commute and criticize; but the people who are paid to try to increase cycling in their particular city).
- No amount of education so far has been able to match up against the bike lane stripe as a way to get people out on their bikes. Of course, this may be a good thing if you think we donâ€™t need more uneducated cyclists out there.
- You canâ€™t attract new cyclists to a road like Jollyville without a bike lane stripe. Period. The automobile traffic moves too fast. A wide curb lane simply doesnâ€™t provide the space that new cyclists think they need in a way which makes sense to them, coming from the world of the automobile. (We donâ€™t make the right-hand lane up a hill twice as wide so trucks can pull to the side; we stripe another lane).
- If you accept riding on shoulders on 360, you should accept riding in bike lanes on Jollyville. The argumentative convulsions some Forsterites go through to defend shoulders from the same logic they use against bike lanes are breathtaking. (They do this, I think, because they know that even most Forsterites donâ€™t want to share a lane at 65; the same anti-bike-lane reasoning with a few exceptions would logically apply to shoulder-riding).
- Most cyclists for whom bike facilities are built are not the expert cyclists that you and I might be. They are instead the novice cyclist that I used to be (and presumably you used to be).
- Even on low-speed roadways, utility for the population AS A WHOLE sometimes demands the channelization of low-speed traffic. For instance, Speedway and Duval north of UT â€“ car speeds are 25-30; bike speeds are 10; this isnâ€™t normally enough speed differential to justify separation, but the volumes of cars and bikes are both high, and the corridorâ€™s thoroughput for both cars AND bikes is thus improved by partial separation of the modes.
- (this is from the link I gave a few days ago) â€“ it is possible to have a better average passing distance on a roadway with a wide curb lane, but still have a better overall level of safety in passing distance with a bike lane. Whether this happens in practice is debatable â€“ but it is a fact that you shouldnâ€™t use â€œaverage passing distanceâ€ to compare the facilities.
- The idea (stolen from a semi-Forsterite) that we can easily get roads restriped with wide curb lanes is in reality not true. If you want space for bikes to be taken from car lanes, it generally has to be a bike lane. (I donâ€™t know why this is, but it seems to be true, although Austin has an exception or two here).
CONS for bike lanes
- Car drivers do tend to think you need to stay in the bike lane (even when obstructed, unsafe, whatever â€“ they usually canâ€™t see the obstruction). Also, car drivers often think you should only ride on roads that have bike lanes. This problem exists with wide curb lanes too, by the way.
- Bike lanes are theoretically more obstructed than wide curb lanes. I donâ€™t believe this to be true, but most people do, so Iâ€™m listing it here. For instance, Bull Creek doesnâ€™t seem any less obstructed north of 45th where there are wide curb lanes. In Austin, at least, BOTH facilities need vast amounts of sweeping which theyâ€™re just not getting.
- Sometimes cyclists will stay in a bike lane when they need to leave it due to an obstruction or intersection approach. This is a sign of bad bike lane design in most cases and can be overcome, but is hard to get right, judging from how often itâ€™s done wrong.
- Sometimes cyclists will stay in a bike lane when they should be leaving it to turn (the â€œturn left out of the far right laneâ€ phenomenon). The problem here is that I see this happen on wide curb lanes fairly often as well. The only solution here is heavy enforcement.
- Bike lanes supposedly encourage wrong-way cycling. (Whatever happened to painting arrows, by the way? Jollyville didnâ€™t get themâ€¦) â€“ again, I see this often with wide curb lanes too. Heavy enforcement and more arrows.