CDOT is now defining buffered bike lanes as "protected" and counting them towards its 100-miles goal
In his Chicago 2011 Transition Plan, Rahm Emanuel set the extremely ambitious goal of installing hundred miles of protected bike lanes, defined in the document as “separated from traveling cars and sit[ting] between the sidewalk and a row of parked cars that shield cyclists from street traffic,” within his first term. Since then the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) has been doing yeoman's work installing protected and buffered lanes, completing or starting construction on a total of 12.5 miles of protected and 14.5 miles of buffered lanes by the end of 2012.
Recently CDOT began referring to protected lanes as "barrier-protected" and buffered lanes as "buffer-protected," and counting buffered lanes towards the 100-mile goal, changing its definition of what a protected bike lane is. I think it would be terrific if the city installs, say, 65 miles of protected and 35 miles of buffered lanes by 2015. The question is, would it make more sense for CDOT to acknowledge the shift to a more realistic goal, rather than changing the definition of "protected"? CDOT deputy commissioner Scott Kubly gave me the department's perspective on the issue:
http://gridchicago.com/2013/redefining-protected-a-look-at-cdots-ne...
Keep moving forward,
John Greenfield
Views: 737
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Manny FU...Really!? on -
Nancy,
I am sorry for your experience with an idiot and impatient driver.
Back in my younger days, if a driver was being impatient (honking their horn while I was crossing with a green and "walk" signal) I would slow down a bit more. Or if they were really rude, I would stop completely and fake that I was getting sick right in front of their vehicle - to include inducing vomiting (directed right onto their hood, of course).
(Manny in day-dreaming mode): Man. Those were the days.
(....and...now....I'm back) Probably not a good idea nowadays. LOL ! But I am a lot older now, and a bit "bigger". Body language and verbal de-escalation are great techniques to use. Calm discussion now works for me. (yeah, right. Not always.)
Good luck, Ma'am.
Respectfully,
Manny
Nancy L. Fagin said:Today, while walking across Ashland at Milwaukee (with the walk sign), a woman SUV driver actually stuck her tongue at me because I wasn't moving fast enough or giving her the right of way. That was a new one for me.
-
Permalink Reply by Manny FU...Really!? on
-
I like the "buffered" lanes (like in the picture) better.
More area/space to react to various incidents, than in the Dearborn lanes. Especially with people trying to cross streets from in between vehicles (or ignorant bicyclists that blow through red lights at intersections).
Has anyone been on the Dearborn bike lanes when they are busy? How much traffic is on them at that time? Seemed like it would be tight for bicyclists to ride on them while busy. Will you be set in the speed of the person at the front of the lane, like on the expressways during rush hours, until you can find an "off-ramp"/cross street?
I rode it for the first time during December's Critical Mass. It seemed very narrow. And when we were riding back (at the end of CCM) you can't really ride side-by-side to have a conversation, because we had a few of those "bike ninjas" come speeding down the oncoming lane with no lights/helmets wearing dark clothing, yelling at us to get out of their way. Just wondering what the benefit of such narrow lanes is ? I would feel safer with the "buffered lane" (in pic) on both sides of the street (following the "rules of the road" by riding on the right side of the road).
(also, it would allow me to pass "slow-pokes" like the dude with the training wheels in the pic...LOL ! Just kidding ! I would protect him from traffic.)
As far as the city (CDOT) renaming "buffered" as "protected" lanes (or vice versa), it seems like they (just like society in general) is trying to NOT have to do the necessary work ! If they add all the "buffered"/"protected"/other bike lanes, they will achieve their goal of "X" amount of miles of biking infrastructure sooner (making them look good in the "public's eye" for finishing a project under budget-attempt to save money that they really aren't, and finishing a project earlier than expected. Both of these sound good in a news blurb, yet no one will ask where the savings went ! We will still be short of our amount of "protected" or "buffered" lanes, and someone within the city will pocket the money.)
Someone is trying to do a magic trick. "Look ! We got you all 100 miles of "protected"/"buffered"/other bike lanes done before the 10 yrs is up !"
And in reality, they will have only done 10 new miles, and just repainted the old lanes (which, obviously, do NOT add up to 100 miles, or they would never have had to make the Dearborn lanes !)
Just my opinion.
Respectfully,
Manny
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer on the lake on -
If fiddling with the nomenclature is what it takes to get all the major bike routes restriped finally, I'm all for it.
-
Permalink Reply by Nancy L. Fagin on -
Many thanks - I think there should be zones - denser populated areas need protected lanes (downtown), then phasing into buffered (with good coats of paint) in out lying areas. Gradually, those buffered zones could be reconfigured into protected lanes (curbside or not).
For example, if Elston was completely protected, I'm sure more people would commute on it and even move closer to it...but economics and financing may not be with us for now. Street usage can change overnight - I remember when parts of North and Division Avenue were basically industrial (Old Chicago Brewing?), the streets were bare. Not today. Build a shopping mall and forget about pedestrians and bikers - build suburbia in the "inner city".
Also education must be part of the plan.
Yes, I've thought of using Theater/Drama class 101 - grabbing my chest, dragging my damaged leg, swinging a twisted hip. Sometimes just making a good note of their license plate works
Nancy.
Manny Fuentes, 9.2 mi. said:I like the "buffered" lanes (like in the picture) better.
More area/space to react to various incidents, than in the Dearborn lanes. Especially with people trying to cross streets from in between vehicles (or ignorant bicyclists that blow through red lights at intersections).
Has anyone been on the Dearborn bike lanes when they are busy? How much traffic is on them at that time? Seemed like it would be tight for bicyclists to ride on them while busy. Will you be set in the speed of the person at the front of the lane, like on the expressways during rush hours, until you can find an "off-ramp"/cross street?
I rode it for the first time during December's Critical Mass. It seemed very narrow. And when we were riding back (at the end of CCM) you can't really ride side-by-side to have a conversation, because we had a few of those "bike ninjas" come speeding down the oncoming lane with no lights/helmets wearing dark clothing, yelling at us to get out of their way. Just wondering what the benefit of such narrow lanes is ? I would feel safer with the "buffered lane" (in pic) on both sides of the street (following the "rules of the road" by riding on the right side of the road).
(also, it would allow me to pass "slow-pokes" like the dude with the training wheels in the pic...LOL ! Just kidding ! I would protect him from traffic.)
As far as the city (CDOT) renaming "buffered" as "protected" lanes (or vice versa), it seems like they (just like society in general) is trying to NOT have to do the necessary work ! If they add all the "buffered"/"protected"/other bike lanes, they will achieve their goal of "X" amount of miles of biking infrastructure sooner (making them look good in the "public's eye" for finishing a project under budget-attempt to save money that they really aren't, and finishing a project earlier than expected. Both of these sound good in a news blurb, yet no one will ask where the savings went ! We will still be short of our amount of "protected" or "buffered" lanes, and someone within the city will pocket the money.)
Someone is trying to do a magic trick. "Look ! We got you all 100 miles of "protected"/"buffered"/other bike lanes done before the 10 yrs is up !"
And in reality, they will have only done 10 new miles, and just repainted the old lanes (which, obviously, do NOT add up to 100 miles, or they would never have had to make the Dearborn lanes !)
Just my opinion.
Respectfully,
Manny
-
Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on -
The photo in the the original post is what the city of Chicago is now calling a "buffer-protected" lane, known elsewhere as a buffered lane. The photo below is a "barrier-protected" lane, known elsewhere a a protected lane.
Nancy L. Fagin said:Would you please show a picture of what is being defined as a buffered zone vs the barrier protected zones?
-
Permalink Reply by Marcus on -
Sorry to get off of the main topic, but how do you take a left turn out of the protected lanes? I figure that you would merge with traffic as usual, but is it any more awkward because of the barrier?
-
Permalink Reply by prof.gfr on -
I'm fine with either, but I think I actually prefer buffer-protected rather than barrier-protected. I feel as if cars are MORE aware of me in a buffer-protected lane than if I'm segregated off to a side-channel, and I think increasing car-awareness of sharing the road with other vehicles (be it buses, bikes or vespas) is important. That said, I don't know if there is a one-size fits all solution to a city with as many differently-sized roadways as Chicago. So I'm accepting of the existence of a variety of approaches. Then the bigger question becomes driver and cyclist education on how to react to these different approaches. I think the most important element in Chicago's bike infrastructure will be integrating a LOT MORE bike safety components to basic driver's ed and driver's exams.
-
Permalink Reply by Anika on
-
Right now the type of bike lane makes little difference to me. What does matter is education - both for cyclists and cars on all aspects of the roads. With the various different types of lanes going in, drivers (and even cyclists) don't know how to properly/effectively use them. And that's aside from general "share the road" etiquette.
My 6 year old rides the side boulevards regularly in Logan Square with me. Sidewalk riding for her is just too dangerous at the alleys with me and her sibling on the street. But drivers are so anxious coming down those streets trying to beat out the actual traffic on the main thoroughfare that we have yet to take a ride in the last 2 months without a driver laying on the horn at her. It's sad. When people are educated enough to know it is not ok to honk or intimidate a child and to give them the space they deserve as a cyclist, then types of bike lanes might start to matter more.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2008-2013 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director
Powered by
