The Chainlink

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: 2073

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by prof.gfr on January 5, 2013 at 4:47pm

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 January 5, 2013 at 11:09pm
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.
Permalink Reply by Caitlin Drake McKay on January 12, 2014 at 2:55pm

Buffered vote. 

This winter has been a strong indication of the maintenance of protected lanes - terrible!  They're filled with debris!  I've seen some of the white barriers broken off lately.  How much does that cost to repair?

If you're not comfortable biking a buffered lane like the one pictured then you probably shouldn't be on the road! How about educating those part-time weekend warriors about biking defensively?

Permalink Reply by BootsyC on January 14, 2014 at 4:31pm

Plows have clipped off quite a few of the pylons on my commute (Elston>Milw>Kinzie), and many more have been crushed by Semi-Trucks (Division/Elston). 

Throw in the winter weather with snow and the buffered lanes disappear as cars clamor for every available inch of the road.  Ideally, I'd love to see permanent barriers built but we all know that's not going to happen.

Caitlin Drake McKay said:

Buffered vote. 

This winter has been a strong indication of the maintenance of protected lanes - terrible!  They're filled with debris!  I've seen some of the white barriers broken off lately.  How much does that cost to repair?

If you're not comfortable biking a buffered lane like the one pictured then you probably shouldn't be on the road! How about educating those part-time weekend warriors about biking defensively?

Permalink Reply by Matheis on January 15, 2014 at 10:46am

Permalink Reply by J.P. on January 15, 2014 at 11:22am

I love the protected lanes they installed in some spots. Agreed that you have to be a little more careful at intersections, but this hasn't been a problem for me. Buffered lanes are very nice, also. But they don't afford the same sense of safety. Protected lanes give you the sense that you won't get into a fatal accident: hit by car or thrown out onto the street when doored. With that it addresses fears of getting into one of those accidents that so prominently and tragically made headlines recently: Neill Townsend and Bobby Cann.

Permalink Reply by Eli on January 15, 2014 at 12:10pm

The protected lanes where parked cars prevent you from exiting the lane are too dangerous. There is nowhere to go if you are doored, nowhere to go if there is ice or snow, nowhere to go if a pedestrian steps out.

 

The bidirectional separated lanes are too dangerous also. There is nowhere to go when you come upon oncoming cyclists who are riding two abreast, or (as happened to me) some jackass in a pedicab has decided to take up much of both lanes and is approaching you head-on at speed. It's also dangerous to make a turn across traffic from one of these lanes when you're on the wrong side of the street.

Permalink Reply by Rich S on January 15, 2014 at 12:26pm

I stopped taking Des Plaines south from Kinzie ever since they installed the protected bike lane there. That lane's design is really dangerous. There is a huge risk of getting right hooked at multiple intersections especially with the highway entrances just to the west of Des Plaines. Drivers can't see you through the parked cars and they don't check their side view mirrors before moving into the right turn lane. 

I just find it sad that something that was supposed to make biking safer actually made it more dangerous; at least on that particular street. Out of all the heavily buffered (they're not protected) bike lanes that I've ridden in Chicago, the one on 18th is the only one that actually made me think this is better now than it was before. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on January 15, 2014 at 12:34pm

I have thought the same thing. The "strong and fearless" moniker marginalizes the opinion(s) of riders who through innate or acquired skill and experience may have something of value to contribute to the bicycle infrastructure "discussion."

Davis Moore said:

I continue to rankle at "strong and fearless" moniker.

I'm not fearless. Someone who has no fear is mentally ill and a danger to themselves and others. Nor am I particularly strong. One doesn't need to be "strong" to take a lane or use the left turn lane etc.

I'm educated and that education translates into skill and confidence. So "educated and skilled" would be better I think.

But then again I think the "strong and fearless" moniker was intentionally designed to cast that segment of the cycling public as "the crazies", some group you have to be all intense to join, the type of adrenaline junkies who jump off mountains and such. Which is total garbage of course.

I get it, but still, I've always thought it was kind of an underhanded and backstabbing PR move on the part of the bully pulpit in bike advocacy. To cast the people who've been carrying the torch for so long to get us here today as "wing nuts".

John Greenfield said:

It does seem like many "strong and fearless" cyclists prefer buffered lanes to protected ones. The goal of protected lanes is to attract the "interested but concerned" contingent.

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on January 15, 2014 at 12:35pm



Rich S said:

I stopped taking Des Plaines south from Kinzie ever since they installed the protected bike lane there. That lane's design is really dangerous. There is a huge risk of getting right hooked at multiple intersections especially with the highway entrances just to the west of Des Plaines. Drivers can't see you through the parked cars and they don't check their side view mirrors before moving into the right turn lane. 

I just find it sad that something that was supposed to make biking safer actually made it more dangerous; at least on that particular street. Out of all the heavily buffered (they're not protected) bike lanes that I've ridden in Chicago, the one on 18th is the only one that actually made me think this is better now than it was before. 

Permalink Reply by Charlie Short 2.9 on January 15, 2014 at 12:38pm

Since these designations were set up to help people that don't ride, I think "strong and fearless" covers the most dedicated riders without calling us "crazy." If I'm talking to someone that doesn't ride, and they think it's frightening or stupid or (my favorite) "scary for the driver" (oh really, you're driving and you're scared of a bike? give me a break) calling myself "strong and fearless" plays into their concerns and fears without 1. me having to insult myself and 2. dismissing other ways to ride. If I called myself "skilled and educated" (which is awesome btw, and what I'll use when I'm on with John Kass again) people would still ask me about the other "crazies," "lawbreakers," etc. If I call all experienced riders "strong and fearless," most people agree with me and then we can talk about what kind of riding they want to do, as opposed to what they don't like.

Davis Moore said:

I continue to rankle at "strong and fearless" moniker.

I'm not fearless. Someone who has no fear is mentally ill and a danger to themselves and others. Nor am I particularly strong. One doesn't need to be "strong" to take a lane or use the left turn lane etc.

I'm educated and that education translates into skill and confidence. So "educated and skilled" would be better I think.

But then again I think the "strong and fearless" moniker was intentionally designed to cast that segment of the cycling public as "the crazies", some group you have to be all intense to join, the type of adrenaline junkies who jump off mountains and such. Which is total garbage of course.

I get it, but still, I've always thought it was kind of an underhanded and backstabbing PR move on the part of the bully pulpit in bike advocacy. To cast the people who've been carrying the torch for so long to get us here today as "wing nuts" to be thrown under the bus.

John Greenfield said:

It does seem like many "strong and fearless" cyclists prefer buffered lanes to protected ones. The goal of protected lanes is to attract the "interested but concerned" contingent.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on January 15, 2014 at 1:49pm

Yeah, I think "strong and fearless" was intended as a compliment, not an insult.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service