A common problem with bike lanes is having the lane within the arc of an opening car door. It's called "The Door Zone", and it's a new leading cause of cyclist injuries and fatalities. This is New York City's solution to the problem, as demonstrated on 9th Avenue. It certainly shows that NYC is willing to dedicate more money and right-of-way to solving this inherent bike lane problem than most cities encumbered with them are willing to do.
However, a serious new problem has been created in how pedestrians are treated. A shopper/customer of the small shops/businesses on this street, who parks in the parking lane, will walk directly from the sidewalk to their car, perhaps with both arms full of merchandise bags, or some other bulky item (drycleaning, perhaps). They may or may not see a cyclist coming down the sidepath bike lane. Collisions between pedestrians and cyclists are guaranteed by an application like this, and the collisions can be deadly for the pedestrian.
A general rule of thumb in facility design is "simpler is better". The more convoluted a design is, the more it tries extravagant measures to overcome initial design shortcomings, the more likely it is the design was a bad idea to begin with. This design is a poster child for "Occam's razor", which is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
This is a fairly heavily traveled street, although the traffic congestion you see is perhaps doubled by the removal of two lanes of available capacity (or perhaps it had originally been a two-way street. Due to the intervals of traffic signals, traffic flows at a relatively low speed. Previously, a cyclist could ride on either the left or the right side of the street (or across lanes as they position themselves to turn), depending upon their destination. Now, the cyclist can ONLY ride on the left side (NYC has a mandatory sidepath law... cyclists must stay in the bike lane). They can't turn right at an intersection. They can't access shops and businesses along the right side of the street. In order to do so, they must dismount and become pedestrians, or they must violate the law.
Which do you think they'll do?
5 comments:
Ah... the endless spiral of unintended consequences. Ultimately the street ends up working for no one - not the motorists, the cyclists or the pedestrians. Motorists are delayed, cyclists are restricted, pedestrians are at risk.
We're seeing this from Portland to New York. Cities trying to deal with the inherent flaws of segregation with solutions that only create more problems.
It's an endless money-pit which reinforces all that was wrong to begin with (inattentive motoring, motorist selfishness, danger mythology, incompetent cycling...)
Dallas is lucky to have you!
I'm waiting for the inevitable motorist backlash. It won't be pretty. Will it come in New York, Chicago, or Portland? I'm guessing Portland.
As for My Fair City being lucky for my presence, there is a growing mob of Lycra-clad villagers, with battery-powered torches and carbon-fiber pitchforks outside the walls, demanding I be thrown over the gates of the municipal-castle walls.
You know what Abe Lincoln said about tar and feathers, don't you? Lincoln told the story about a man who had been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. When observers asked the man what he thought of the experience, the man answered, “If it weren’t for the honor of the thing, I’d just as soon have walked.”
I have my money on Portland. The bike boxes, no-right-on-red, forcing the trucking industry to incur costs with extra mirrors and under-run guards (I have a post in my drafts folder on that).
Next come the cycle-tracks with reduction of travel lanes, added signal phases and more delays.
And cyclists who violate the rules and are clueless about proper cycling technique because they've been coddled for so long... growing into a powerful special interest group with its hand ever out for more.
...
I'd surely fall on my sword before allowing that to happen. Of course, I'm constitutionally incapable of employment, so that's easy for me to say ;-)
...
I love the Lincoln quote. Snipping that one for the files!
keri said... I love the Lincoln quote. Snipping that one for the files!
I have pride. I only steal from the best.
Looks like a design out of Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines, the first set of Dutch-style bikeway standards that were killed in the early 1970s (I recently obtained a copy, kind of interesting). Lot's of sidepaths and bollard-separated bike lanes, scary stuff. It's incredible the amount of ROW that ridiculous thing consumes, more than a whole traffic lane, plus delay and unnecessary traffic conflicts. I'm sure Transportation Alternatives loves it, whatever inflicts punishment and delays on those evil motorists! The hell with safety!
What's more interesting is apparently NYC tried similar designs in the early 1980s, I think separated by curbs instead of parked cars. There were several bike-ped collisions which killed 2 peds and a cyclist. Lots of peds probably thought it was an extension of the sidewalk. They'll probably have similar problems with peds crossing it from their parked cars on these ones. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, eh?
Post a Comment