Making Bike Lanes Visible & Useful
When visiting Portland, OR you notice a lot of bicyclists. Then you notice why.
The city of Portland has bike parking everywhere and many connecting bike lanes to help the cyclist navigate through the city. Above, the green on the pavement is to mark the spot where motorists can get over for a right turn. It alerts the motorist they are crossing a bike lane. The cyclist is alerted to be on the lookout for right turning cars.
Look further into the picture, the bike lane continues on the other side of the intersection. Yesterday I was driving home across the new Jefferson Ave viaduct. On the South end was a sign indicating the start of a bike lane. Sure enough, at the end of the bridge a sign indicated the end of the bike lane. So cyclists are on their own to get to the bridge and to keep going after they cross. Brilliant.
Portland has cyclists not due to great weather but due to great thought into bicycling as transportation. In St. Louis bike lanes are simply a way to rope off exceess pavement.
Until bike lanes are separated by curbs from the regular lanes of traffic as they are in Europe, I don’t think we’ll see people using them in greater numbers. It’s just too dangerous. More bicyclists have to obey the laws of the road as well; I work in Forest Park and every single biker I see ignores stop signs and pretty much every other law as well. Bicyclists share the road, they do not come before cars.
And Charlotte has excellent weather and a rapidly increasing number of facilities (bike lanes required on all thoroughfares), but its built environment, outside a very small urban core and newer development, is largely sprawls-ville.
For Portland, like Europe, don’t ignore the importance of the built environment. Small blocks, active street walls, and density of activities all add up to strong demand for cycling.
Additionally, frequent intersections, narrower lanes, fewer lanes, on-street parking, small building setbacks, and active ground-floor uses all add friction to a street, providing visual cues for the motorists that they are traversing a unique place, through which they shouldn’t speed or ignore their surroundings.
Steve,
Jefferson Avenue immediately south of Chouteau Avenue is 65 feet wide. This provides for five 13 foot wide lanes–four through lanes and one left turn lane. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A BICYCLE LANE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF CHOUTEAU.
.
North of Scott Avenue, Jefferson Avenue encounters an overpass over Interstate 64. The overpass is controlled by MODOT, not the City. Throw in truck traffic from UPS, Sigma Aldrich, and trucks traveling to the BNSF container yard off of Ewing not to mention the traffic entering SB Jefferson from EB I-64 and providing for SAFE bicycle lanes becomes a logistical nightmare.
.
Horner and Shifrin designed both the Jefferson Avenue Viaduct, Phase II as well as the Reconstruction of Jefferson between Lafayette and Dr. MLK. Why don’t you contact them if you’re so concerned about it?
.
Why are all of you “bicycle people” so concerned with Jefferson? Compton is MUCH safer and it travels further south as well. People drive too crazily on Jefferson for me to even consider it as a “bicycle route.”
.
Besides, bicyclists have it great: no mandatory insurance, no licensing for them or their bicycles, no bi-yearly inspections, and they don’t have to pay yearly property taxes on their bicycles. Make them pay up (in time and money) and then I’d be more receptive of this “share the road” nonsense. Notice that, besides for right now, I haven’t touched the fact that the majority of bicyclists don’t understand traffic signals or “STOP” signs; what about impeding traffic?
I am tired of this no paragraph crap on this site as well. FIX IT!
Have to disagree – the weather in Portland is perfect for biking. I know, I lived there & bike commuted for three years. Yes, it rains a lot but it’s not the kind of rain we get here – it’s usually light misty rain or rain in spurts that doesn’t last all day. The weather is generally mild all year round. (Other than December and January.) Cyclists just prepare for the weather by having waterproof panniers and clothing, and dressing in layers.
People who say it’s too dangerous to bike on the streets without curb-separated bike lanes have never been in a city like Portland, obviously, where the bikers are right on the road. The difference between here and there is that in Portland, drivers expect bikers and respect their right to the road. Why would we tax and pass all kinds of licensing fees on bikers when they are solving a problem for us by taking cars off the road? That kind of mentality is what holds St. Louis back. You want to incentivize things like transit and biking. Cars – being huge & heavy – are 100 times more costly to build infrastructure for than bikes. And my taxes pay for roads, too – roads are heavily subsidized in addition to the gas tax money they get. Just look at St. Louis County – there’s a half-cent sales tax where half goes to Metro and half goes to the county road projects. My purchases in the county are subsidizing the roads, so why not accommodate my bike?
Nameless,
.
i’ll agree that more cyclists need to pay attention to traffic signals, but that doesn’t negate the rights of those who do, and they have every right to share a road that their tax-dollars help to pay for. also, your comarison of bikes to cars is a little ridiculous. insurance? inspections? when was the last time you heard about a cyclist hitting and killing a pedestrian? personal property tax on a bike would be about $5 per year – i guess we’d better start paying taxes for owning televisions and skateboards and lawnmowers and ___________.
The point nameless was making was that there should be a use tax on bicycles as well as heavy vehicles because of the need to provide navigable, safe, and traffic governed roadways, and not a weight comparison or to other moderately expensive durable goods owned and enjoyed mostly by individuals in their private domains. While the point is certainly considerable, and would then provide some argumentative heft to the ‘share the road’ arguments from cyclists (if not provide a large enough revenue source for such infrastructural improvements as likely desired), I have to agree that the attitude that dismisses road safety for cyclists perpetuates the autocentrism that, in turn, perpetuates decrepit and unsustainable land development practices. The dismissive attitude is very indicative of the overall ignorance symptom of the larger sprawl form land development disease.
Chris, bicycling is not a dangerous activity. Injury rates, normalized for time spent or distance traveled, are similar to walking. http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
Nameless, what would you consider appropriate fees? Bicycles cause less wear and tear on the roads. They are less dangerous. They cause fewer accidents. The accidents are less expensive. As for the notion of impeding traffic, bicycles are traffic. Only major roadways have minimum speed limits.
Are special lanes that much safer than having all vehicles use the road? http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/bikelanes.html
BORING, I look forward to reading about STL – especially since the website is urbanreviewSTL.com
Nameless,
I have to STRONGLY disagree with your assessment that Compton is a safer route than Jefferson. You obviously have never biked across the Compton Ave. bridge that crosses the railroad tracks? Not only is there no shoulder, but the bridge itself is in horrible condition and requires anyone biking to use up an entire lane of traffic.
While I’m dissapointed they have not striped bike lanes in north and south of the Jefferson Ave. bridge, let’s just be happy that the bridge itself has bike lanes that will allow for future expansion of those lanes north and south of the bridge. I for one will use the Jefferson Ave. bridge to cross over the railroads simply b/c the alternatives are very dangerous.
Adam,
–
And what about MY tax dollars? John W. took care of your concerns for me. I’m more concerned with a bicyclist running a stop sign, slamming into the side of my car, and not paying for the damages because they’re uninsured. Proportionally speaking, the playing field must be level in order for bicyclists to gain any respect from me.
—
Michael M.,
–
Fees wouldn’t be much, obviously. The idea is that bicyclists need more requirements so that they would *hopefully* take cycling more seriously. As I hinted, motorists pay a lot for the privilege of driving and it is an injustice to get stuck behind some bicycle rider who can’t go any faster than 5 mph up a hill.
—
Dave,
–
I don’t bike in the City of St. Louis. It’s way too risky with all of the inattentive and just plain ignorant drivers. Not to mention all of the criminals that might like to take my bike away from me. The great thing about the Compton Avenue Viaduct is that, after the Jefferson Avenue Viaduct was opened, traffic volume on Compton dropped considerably. As a side note, and I hope I don’t sound hypocritical, PLEASE use Jefferson as a means to cross Mill Creek Valley–you would not believe how much money those two six-foot wide bicycle lanes cost–the extra piling, the extra substructure concrete and reinforcing steel, the additional width in the MSE walls, the additional concrete bridge girders, the extra concrete bridge deck, the additional concrete pavement, the striping, the additional LABOR to install it all, and the costs to the railroads and METRO add up pretty darn quickly. Yes, I know that there is that goofy 19 foot wide landscaped median, but that’s a story for another day.
Paint + Rain = Slick! Any comments about that from your Portland contacts? If it were me, I’d be avoiding the green paint in the rain.
.
As for striped lanes – I much prefer designated (signed, but not striped) routes on lesser-travelled, parallel streets. Striped lanes create a false sense of safety for cyclists, increase conflicts with motorists, and generally create more problems than they solve (another Denver example – striped bike lanes on 14th and 16th Avenues east of downtown, running out to York St., were removed for exactly these reasons).
I believe that those driving cars should be begin to pay for the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure that allows them to do so.
we don’t need bike lanes with curbs – just bike lanes. Portland is actaully less dense than stl – but has way more cyclists because they have bike lanes everywhere. bike lanes are super cheap. its just paint in most places – basically every road in pdx that even marginally can has a bike lane. also – pdx has some of the shortest commutes in the nation as a result
.
this may be hard to imagine – but most cyclists do own cars, and are therefore already paying taxes to build roads. not to mention all the other taxes that build roads, like the federal income tax. bikes account for about 1 billionth of wear and tear on our nations roads. the license fee for a bike or tax on a bike would cost less than the license itself.
.
biking in st. louis is safe. I do it all the time, every day. no problems.
Nameless,
.
what about your tax dollars? i don’t understand the question. your tax dollars go to maintaining the roads on which you drive. cyclists tax dollars go to maintaining the roads on which they ride. is all road maintenance covered by taxes on automobiles? i don’t think so, but somebody please correct me if i’m wrong. in that respect the field IS level.
.
i do agree with your concern about reckless cyclists causing damage, however there are plenty of uninsured reckless drivers out there as well. those of us who DO obey traffic laws deserve your respect. i’m not sure how you would implement bicycle insurance without defeating the universality of cycling as a mode of transportation – even people who can’t afford a car can get a used bike. perhaps the police need to crack down on cyclists disobeying traffic laws?
There are benefits(monetary, health and environmental) to having a city with a higher cyclist population.
I’m having a hard time understanding some threads here. Tax bikes? Bike insurance? Will the tax be used for extra cops to pull over cyclists to check tags and insurance? Fees = cyclists take cycling more seriously? Really?
They see me rollin
They hatin
Patrolling they tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
My music so loud
I’m swangin
They hopin that they gon catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Tryin to catch me ridin dirty
Nameless, you crazy doo!
isn’t “my music so loud” = “ridin dirty”. there are noise ordinances. if your music is so loud that i can FEEL it in my house, that’s bullsh*t and you SHOULD be ticketed. IMHO.
Crank it up.
^ consideration 101.
Yea, every time a bike is mentioned in public discourse, some moron in an pickup truck has to bring up the same old tired anti-biker arguments again.
Bikers don't need licensing and insurance because bikes simply are not a significant cause of damage to others' lives or property. When was the last time a bike dented YOUR car — or the car of ANYONE you know? And if that does happen by some miracle, you can always sue the dent-causing biker for $900 in small claims court if you really like.
Biking takes a LOT more skill than driving, and getting good training is essential. We definitely need bikers ed. But since poorly trained bikers are unlikely to hurt anyone other than themselves, there's not much point in requiring licensing — unless you like big government for its own sake.
Anyone who thinks their auto registration fees and property tax — or even gas taxes — actually pays for the roads is smoking too much weed. The roads are paid for through all our taxes — including sales tax, state and federal income tax. I pay more taxes than just about anyone, so don't give me that crap that I don't pay enough taxes to “deserve” to use the road with by bike. The same stupid argument could be used against people who choose to drive fuel-efficient cars, since they pay less in gas tax and property tax than SUV drivers as well. But hey, if my city wishes to asses me on my $1,000 bike, I wouldn't mind paying it.
My only concern with this article is that so many urban planners, while well-intentioned, do not seem to really understand biking. For example, blog posts above think bikes are a good idea in a pedestrian environment. Bikes are vehicles, not pedestrians on wheels. Lack of understanding of that fact by pedestrians is one of the major dangers of urban biking. Shared use pedestrian/bike paths in crowded areas are rarely a good idea. Things need to be designed to keep pedestrians out of the way of wheeled vehicles.
And there are so many other problems from the urban planners. I've seen too many bike lanes in my “bike-friendly” city that are actually counter-productive — unsafe, and simply another excuse that (some) other drivers use to tell me I'm not allowed to use the road with my chosen vehicle. The most common problem is bike lanes within 3 feet of a parked car. Painted bike lanes are another problem.
But it doesn't matter in the end; I will ride my bike in a safe manner, no matter how the road is painted.