On Friday, I attended a standing room only City Forum Panel on Bicycle Research sponsored by the Community and Regional Planning Student Organization at the Texas Union on the UT campus. The forum included an interesting report from the Center for Transportation Research as well as an update on the progress toward adopting a new City of Austin Bicycle plan and a presentation on the past and future of the League of Bicycle Voters. The latest word on the Bicycle Plan is promising, but first let me give you the somewhat obvious results of the Center for Transportation Research report.
Want safer roads? Build bike lanes
The forum began with a presentation from Dr. Randy Machemehl on a report he produced for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) called “Operational and Safety Impacts for Bicyclists Using Roadways with On-Street Parking.“ A followup to an earlier study on bike lanes on streets without on-street parking, this study focused on the interaction of bikes with cars on streets where parking is allowed. The finds of this report is good news for all of us pushing for getting parking away from bike lanes.
Roads without bike lanes, even wide ones yield dangerous results
Dr. Machemehl’s team video taped 39 paid cyclists in over 8000 instances on roads with and without bike lanes where parking was allowed. (Unfortunately, it did not appear they recorded instances of cars parking in the bike lane.) The focus was the cyclists position and that of automobiles trying to overtake the cyclists. The study was trying to see what setup yielded the least amount of cyclists riding in the “door zone” and cars driving into the oncoming lane. The “door zone” is the area where a suddenly opened door on a parked car could cause the cyclist to crash, often with severe injury or death.
Bike lanes, especially with a buffer for the door zone, yields safer results
The results were interesting and reassuring. First, the ideal setup is a bike lane with an additional buffer for the door zone. This was the least likely setup to produce riding and driving in dangerous positions. Without the buffer, cyclists tended to ride in the outer edge of the “door zone”, but cars still maintained their position to the right of the double yellow line. The most interesting result was that even the widest streets without bike lanes were more dangerous than much narrower streets with lanes. It appears this visual cue has a real effect on encouraging both cyclists and drivers to maintain a safe position.
The good news is that the results have been incorporated into a revised edition of the Texas Guide for Planned and Retrofit Bike Facilities that TxDOT and local engineers will use when building new facilities.
Effects of the Austin Bike Plan Petition beginning to be seen
The second presentation was from Annick Beaudet, the Project Manager at City of Austin Bicycle and Pedestrian Program with an update on bicycle facilities improvements as well as progress on the redrafting of the Austin Bicycle Plan.
The most recent new bike facility improvement comes on Exposition Lane (Route 25) where the bike lanes will be repainted on one side of the road in the coming weeks outside of the car parking zone. No more cars in bike lanes in at least one direction. Yeah, now let’s get both sides of the road! The Bicycle and Pedestrian Program will also be doing pilot projects in the next year including the testing of painted bike lanes (as in Portland), requiring bicycle education in City of Austin defensive driving classes, free bicycle education classes for City of Austin employees, and a bike share program for city employees.
On the bicycle plan front, it appears the Austin Bike Plan Petition is already helping to improve the draft updates. There is move to streamline the plan and add an actual time line for review of the plan in the future so we don’t have to wait 12 years for an update. Many of the recommendations of the Street Smarts Task Force are also working their way into the plan.
Let’s keep the improvements going. Sign the Austin Bike Plan Petition if you have not yet done so or tell a friend.
Cycling community continuing to organize
The final presentation was from Rob D’Amico, President of the League of Bicycling Voters, an Austin cycling advocacy group. Rob talked about how the fight to repeal the bicycle helmet law as well as the push to reinstitute it helped activate cycling community to organize as a group under the LOBV. After helping to educate city council candidates with their questionnaire last year, the LOBV plans to be more involved with cycling issues this year whether it be the Austin Bicycle Plan, the mayor’s race, or generally representing transportation cyclists in a positive way in the media.
Final Thoughts
It is encouraging to see progress being made on the research, policy, and political front for the cycling community. The turnout for this event mid-day on a work day was impressive and well as the general energy I’m seeing out there for positive change. If this forum was a dipstick for the state of the bike culture in Austin, I’d say the future is bright. Now let’s get there.
on Nov 17th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
You referred to an earlier study performed by the Center for Transportation Research which was overseen by Dr. Machemehl. For my extensive critique of this effort, please see:
http://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/critiques/bicycle-facilities-added/
It’s worse than junk science and does not bode well for this new report.
Wayne
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Years ago, I made the case based on anectdotal data that bike lanes could be superior to wide curb lanes even if the average passing distance was less:
http://www.dahmus.org/iofiles/trans/bl-wcl-pd.html
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Damn, I’m so bummed I missed this! I should have just called in to work the day after the full moon cruise, then I could have taken it easy AND attended this panel. So many events, so few sick days…
Thanks for covering this! Glad to hear it went well, and that the petition is starting to have an affect.
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 11:13 am
No more cars in bike lanes (on Exposition) ?
As I understand it, the most recent proposal from the city is to only make one side no parking. It’s hard to keep track of what the current plan is — http://www.lobv.org/ has what I know of to be the latest news.
Still, parking on one side is better than parking on both sides, but it doesn’t qualify as `no parking in bike lanes’.
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Indeed, only one side of Exposition is without parking. I found the bike lane presentation very interesting, and the graphical representation of door zone problems was easy to follow….but ufortunately, for me, it just hightlights the problems with bike lanes as much as it does noting their benefit and superiority–even if minimal–over wide shoulders.
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Rob. I’ve made the correction to the story.
on Nov 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am
elliot, nice job at summarizing the event!
d’amico… how does the graphical representation, which i too found easy to follow – even ingenious – highlight the problems with bike lanes?
on Nov 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I’ve written a short (relatively) critique of this slide show.
Critique of Slides:
Slides 11 and 12 seem to be purposefully inflammatory and divisive through the use of the word “confrontation” to describe what should accurately be called an “interaction,” establishing a pattern. In their previous study, “Evaluation of On-Street Bicycle Facilities Added to Existing Roadways,” the CTR repeatedly mis-used the word “swerve” to describe motorists simply moving left to pass a bicyclist. The message of these mis-characterizations appears to be that bicycling and motoring are inherently incompatible, and bicycling is disruptive to motoring, which supports the segregationist approach of bike lanes the CTR espouses.
Slide 15 shows nearly identical behaviors in a bike lane on Georgian and in an outside lane with parking on Alamo, demonstrating that such space need not be designated as a discriminatory bike lane. To improve poor bicyclist behavior, Parking Crosses with long extensions can be placed to warn of the door zone, similar to those shown in Slides 6-8.
Slide 16 and 19 are in error. The Wide Outside Lane on Guadalupe is not really wide because the door zone should not be considered part of lane width. This is analogous to a lane being narrowed with construction barrels. The CTR investigators recognize that operating in the door zone is contraindicated, so should be able to rationalize that the door zone is not to be considered part of usable lane width. Slide 19 shows Meadow Glen as 13.5 feet, which is narrower than AASHTO’s (and TXDOT’s) 14 foot minimum, which itself is demonstrably too narrow even on a road without parking. In their previous research, the CTR similarly examined “wide” lanes that were substandard width. In this study, only Cincinnati is a true Wide Outside Lane.
Slide 17 is in error because it says “Same Total Width” when this is obviously not true: Parkfield North is 17.5 feet while San Jacinto is 20.5 feet.
Critique of Study Conclusions:
“2) Operationally, marked bicycle lanes are superior to wide outside lanes (without marking).”
Comments: Slide 14 shows that on Parkfield North with a bike lane motorists’ ENC was 41%, whereas on Cincinnati (just 1 foot wider) motorist ENC was 0%. By the investigators’ definition, Cincinnati with a wide outside lane was operationally superior for motorists. And while bicyclists operated slightly further left on the Parkfield North bike lane, there is no reason all bicyclists on both roads could have ridden outside the door zone while motorists easily passed in the remainder of the lane. Competent bicyclists always avoid the door zone. Parking crosses with long extensions on Cincinnati would deter unknowledgeable bicyclists from operating in the door zone.
Again, there is only 1 true wide outside lane used in this study: Cincinnati (Slide 14). The other alleged wide lanes are technically narrow lanes because the door zone narrowed them.
“3) Total roadway width is critical to safety and operations for both cyclists and motorists.”
Comments: There is no evidence that actual safety is a function of roadway width. That bicyclists may ride in the door zone is a function of bicyclist competence; competent bicyclists avoid the door zone no matter road width. A motorist straddle passing of his own volition due to the presence of a bicycle driver is not a safety violation unless it has been demonstrated as a contributor to collisions. (Encroachment is misused by the investigators. It’s correct use occurs in situations when a motorist crosses a line due to a mistake.)
“4) Where parking is allowed, a bicycle lane with a buffer space is the only way to ensure that cyclists are removed from the door zone of parked vehicles.”
Comments: The “only way?” This is demonstrably untrue. The research found that some bicyclists avoided the door zone no matter the road layout. Parking Crosses (shown in slides 6-8) without a left bike lane stripe can ensure that, as can competent bicyclists who are knowledgeable of the dangers of door zones.
Critique Conclusions:
This research demonstrated that the paid population of mostly unknowledgeable bicyclists ofttimes operated in the door zone. This occurred on both government placed bike lanes that invite and mandate this poor behavior, as well as on normal roads on which the bicyclist ought to be competent enough to avoid the door zone. The research findings would have been quite different had the CTR paid only knowledgeable bicyclists rather than modeling the behavior of those who are ignorant of a significant hazard.
The investigators wrongly concluded that a bike lane with buffer is the “only way” for bicycle drivers to avoid the door zone. Clearly, some bicyclists in their study avoided the door zone on all the different roadway configurations.
The authors should have concluded that competent bicyclists avoid the door zone. The data on the Cincinnati Wide Outside Lane are illustrative: there is a large spike of incompetent bicyclists operating in the door zone and a smaller spike of apparently competent bicyclists outside the door zone at 5 feet. Even on roads where the government-placed bike lanes compelled bicyclists to the hazardous door zone, some bicyclists had the knowledge and fortitude (motorist harassment for bicycling outside a bike lane in the then created “motor vehicle lane” can be substantial) to disobey the bike lane stripe and operate outside the door zone.
on Dec 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Hi Folks,
I had a few more insights and expanded my critique of this research. I posted the paper on my website at:
http://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/critiques/parking-and-bicyclists/
Regards,
Wayne
on Dec 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Thanks much, Wayne!