A trend I’m seeing more often is agencies whose high-speed arterial roadway design standard calls for the construction of a sidewalk on one side of the road and a path on the other side. The photo below is one such roadway, with a concrete sidewalk on the west side of the road (probably 5′-6′ wide) and an asphalt path on the east side of the road (probably 8′ wide). For the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that the only difference between sidewalks and paths is the width (6′ vs. 8′), and the materials they’re made out of (concrete vs. asphalt). The path is intended primarily for bikes (although it’s a shared-use path), and the sidewalk is intended primarily for pedestrians.
6' Concrete Sidewalk on left, 8' Asphalt Path on right
In most situations, this situation is not optimal because it requires cyclists and pedestrians to sort themselves onto opposite sides of the roadway. In practice, this doesn’t really happen. Cyclists and pedestrians tend to just use whichever facility happens to be more convenient. For example, in the photo above, if your trip origin and destination are both on the west side of the corridor, you’d have to cross the busy roadway twice to bike on the path rather than the sidewalk. Most people would just bike on the sidewalk, especially in cases where they are unlikely to encounter a pedestrian.
Paths work just as well as sidewalks for pedestrians in this context, but sidewalks don’t always do a great job for bikes. The extra 2′ of width and smoother ride of asphalt goes a long way to making cyclists feel more comfortable. The biggest benefit of an 8′ path over a 6′ sidewalk is that it allows users (bikes or peds) going in opposite directions to safely pass each other.
In these situations, I usually recommend that the client construct shared-use paths on both sides of the roadway. From a cost standpoint, it’s usually about a wash (if anything, the path tends to be a bit cheaper than the sidewalk). The path requires 2′ of additional width than the sidewalk, but (as in the photo shown above) space is often not a large constraint.
I came across a couple examples of unusual bike racks. The first (via Ed) is just a couple of pallets:
No-Cook Pallet Bike Rack, by lowtechatmo on Flickr
From the photographer:
Instant bike rack made from two pallets — no assembly needed. The pallets are not modified or secured, just leaned together. Seems stable enough. It’s a little crowded for four bikes, but not unworkable.
This is clearly not suitable for a public right-of-way, but it could work in a backyard where security was not a concern. The biggest benefit, of course, is that a person can usually scrounge up a few pallets for free without too much effort.
Cyclelicious brought my attention to the following photograph:
I agree. I can appreciate the low profile design that allows them to nearly disappear when there are no bikes present, but these racks are virtually unusable.
Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns (and one of my fellow bloggers at Streets.mn) reports on his recent trip to Memphis. He blogged about finding some DIY “Guerella Painting”.
Here’s a photo of a run down, overlooked, disconnected block here in Memphis. By the reports I received, a few years ago this place was totally dead. Today you have local entrepreneurs, artists and retailers opening up shop and looking to grow. So what turned this dead block around? Was it huge business subsidies? Was it a large investment by the city? Was it some type of tax breaks?
Nope. As far as I can tell it was a local vision (partially facilitated by the city), some paint and some people that wanted to make things better. You’ll notice in the photos here that the striping is not exactly high quality. This isn’t a Memphis variant on rigid engineering standards. It is Guerrilla Painting, a Tactical Urbanism [link redacted] approach to incremental change.
The people of this neighborhood went out with buckets of paint that they picked up at the local hardware store and painted these crosswalks, bike lanes and parking lanes. In the process they turned this desolate street into a place that has an emerging character. Is it the end-all-be-all. No, of course not. Has it made a difference? Absolutely.
Photo via StrongTowns.org
Photo via StrongTowns.org
I don’t condone this type of “guerilla painting” (it’s not clear from Chuck’s report to what extent the neighborhood was acting with the City’s blessing..), but I agree with his observation. A little bit of low-cost paint can really go a long way.
Public works departments tend to be minimalists when it comes to paint. Cities don’t want to paint anything unless they can commit to maintaining it for the foreseeable future, which usually means re-painting annually, or at least every few years. So if some striping is perceived as optional, it’s hard for cash-strapped cities to justify the expense. Still, paint is still relatively affordable (compared to other things public works departments do).
Reminds me of my favorite bike comic strip, Yehuda Moon:
The question of revenue hangs over any bike sharing program. “I’m not aware of a bike sharing system that covers all of its costs simply from user membership dues and whatever fees you pay for a trip,” says John Pucher, professor at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University.
The article goes on to clarify that we’re not only talking about the large up-front start-up costs. Most bike-share systems don’t even expect to be able to cover ongoing operating costs. At least we’re up front about it…
Here’s the interesting part:
Bike sharing is costly because it requires more work than simply letting people ride and changing the occasional flat tire. One of the biggest operating costs involves trucking the bikes from full docking stations to empty ones. That’s why Pucher is skeptical of bike sharing’s ability to make money.
“There’s a significant problem with redistributing bikes, mainly in the peak direction at the peak hours, and outside of downtown in off-peak hours,” he says. He also points out that in hilly cities, there can be a glut of bikes in lower-lying areas but scarcity at the tops of hills, where people are less likely to ride. Optimizing this operations aspect may be key to improving profitability.
The solution to this problem, it seems, is not more efficient bike-sharing strategies, but more efficient urban planning that more effectively distributes daytime and nighttime destinations.
I wrote a post back in November of 2010 about the RiverLake Greenway, the Twin Cities’ first serious attempt at constructing a bicycle boulevard. I was mostly pretty pleased with the bikeway, other than the diverter constructed at 11th Avenue. At the time, I called it “the only clear ‘miss’ along the corridor”.
Original diverter design
My biggest criticism of the diverter was that I thought (and still do think) that it was entirely unnecessary to divert traffic since hardly anyone drives here anyway (which is why the route was selected to become a bicycle boulevard in the first place). I argued in favor of a neighborhood traffic circle instead. However, it was also clear that the gaps intended to allow cyclists to pass through were much too large. This is what it looked like as originally constructed in November 2010:
Original 9' bike gap design.
At the time, I heard some chatter from unofficial sources that the gaps were intentionally made this wide (9′, apparently) to allow snow plows and police cars to fit through. Someone in this google group discussion claims that they were supposed to be 7′, but were constructed at 9′ incorrectly. At any rate, it was clear from the start that these diverters weren’t actually going to be effective at diverting traffic, since motorists were just driving right through the bike gaps.
This was quickly apparent to Public Works as well, who had the contractor add a couple of bollards to the middle of the bike gaps to keep cars out. The following photo was taken in September 2011 (I’m not sure how long the bollards had been in place by this point):
Temporary bollard. Photo via Minneapolis 81.
These bollards were effective at keeping cars out, no doubt, but they proved to be a temporary solution. By November of 2011, the gaps were fully reconstructed to be only 5′ wide, with bollards on both sides to keep cars out:
New 5' diverter design.
I applaud Minneapolis Public Works for following up after initial construction was complete. It would have been easy for them to just leave the original design in place. They continued to monitor the effectiveness of the design after construction and made adjustments twice when they felt it would improve the situation.
What do you think, readers? Have you been through this intersection lately? Which of the three designs do you prefer?
Several months ago, I wrote a post about the Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan setting a vision for the creation of greenways. At that time, I quoted the following from page 184 of the plan:
Create a network of “greenways” or “green streets” where roadways are converted to bicycle and pedestrian only corridors. Milwaukee Avenue is a good example of this concept. “Greenway” corridors may be constructed in collaboration with stormwater management projects. Care must be taken to ensure that the street grid is not severely compromised. (ENG-19)
The City has now completed construction on the first of these greenways, known as the 37th Avenue Greenway. Click here to see a project layout. The project includes a total of 5 city blocks, 3 of which implement a greenway by removing the roadway entirely, 2 of which maintain motorized vehicle access on narrowed one-way streets.
I had an opportunity to snap some photos of the project this past weekend. Here are some photos along with some of my thoughts.
I think the project looks great overall. I liked it a lot more than I thought I was going to. The block between Knox and Logan is one-way eastbound, though the sign indicates that cyclists are allowed to go westbound. I was happy to see that the City was comfortable allowing cyclists to travel against motorized traffic without messing around with contra-flow bike lanes or anything formal. Actually, now that they’ve closed the rest of 37th Avenue and this block is only necessary for the people living in the three houses with driveways onto 37th, they could probably allow two-way traffic on this 14′ roadway without causing any problems.
@ Knox Avenue looking west
The rain gardens are very nicely done. This roadway space is probably much better used for stormwater detention than for moving traffic.
@ Logan Ave looking east
Three of the blocks (between Logan and Oliver) are closed completely to motorized traffic (although alley traffic is permitted to cross the greenway. These blocks don’t have traditional sidewalks, just an asphalt trail that meanders through the block.
@ Logan Ave looking west
@ Logan Avenue looking west
The only part of the project that wasn’t aesthetically pleasing were the temporary-looking fences around the rain gardens. I hope they’re temporary fences to keep people out until the vegetation mature or something. Otherwise, we should have invested in something a bit more attractive.
@ Morgan Avenue looking east
@ Morgan Ave looking west
Since the 37th Avenue Greenway didn’t close any of the north/south roadways it crossed, there are several locations where the trail crossed roadways. I was a little disappointed that bumpouts weren’t included in these locations, but, these are hardly treacherous crossings anyway. I was a little thrown off that the crossings of Newton and Morgan Avenues are nearly identical, but have opposite traffic control devices. At Newton Avenue, stop signs are placed facing the trail (trail yields to roadway), but at Morgan Avenue, the stop signs face the roadway (roadway yields to trail). In particular, the stop signs at Morgan Avenue result in what feels like a mid-block stop sign. I suspect that compliance with these stop signs will be even lower than typical.
Mid-block stop sign along Morgan Ave.
The western-most block (between Penn and Oliver) is also a one-way roadway, but this time, there’s no exception for bikes. I’m not sure if that was an intentional omission or not. At any rate, I suspect bikes will continue to travel whichever direction they feel like with or without signs. Note the sidewalk along the left side of the photo has a metal railing to keep people from falling into the rain garden. I was actually surprised I didn’t see more railing like this along the corridor – it’s plain, but not unattractive.
@ Oliver Avenue looking west
In terms of providing real benefits for cyclists, I don’t think I’m being overly-critical if I say that this project doesn’t really accomplish that. But like I said, that was never a primary objective of this project in the first place. I think the greenway idea has much potential, but this project is too short to have much impact, and we’re going to need to consider closing the cross-streets if we really want to provide cyclists with real benefit.
Overall, I really like the project. As I’ve mentioned , it’s pretty clear that the primary objective of this project was to create rain gardens and address flooding issues in the area rather than to provide any real benefit to pedestrians or cyclists. The three blocks that were transformed from a roadway to a greenway are nice & I hope they are well received by the community. I don’t know what kind of vegetation is ultimately envisioned for the rain gardens, but it seems like an excellent opportunity to really make something beautiful. The bike/ped trails definitely look like a nice place for an evening stroll, and I bet kids will have tons of fun riding bikes and generally playing in this new park space. I love that kids on these new extra-long blocks will be able to reach these pocket-parks without crossing any streets.
Researchers in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering (CS&E) are continuing their work on a vision-based system for counting pedestrians and bicyclists. The system uses machine learning principles and complex algorithms to process video data and classify objects in the scene as either cyclists or pedestrians.
[...]
This vision-based system overcomes many of the shortcomings of existing detection and counting technologies—such as loop counters, buried pressure pads, and infrared counters—because it is capable of distinguishing between a cyclist and a pedestrian. This ability allows the system to obtain accurate traffic counts on bicycle trails, bridges, bicycle lanes, and other locations with heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
The system works by first filtering out the background of available video data. It then takes the remaining foreground objects, called blobs, and converts them into small image patches. These patches are compared to object dictionaries for people and bicycles that the system has previously “learned” in a training mode. It uses these dictionaries to determine the classification for each image patch, and then to make an overall classification of the entire blob as a bicyclist or pedestrian.
[...]
The research team tested the system by acquiring two hours of high-quality video data from three walkway sites at the University of Minnesota, as well as some high-velocity bicycle traffic data from the Gateway State Trail in Uptown Minneapolis. Results indicate that the system was able to correctly identify bicyclists 86 percent of the time and pedestrians 98 percent of the time. The overall accuracy of the system was 96 percent.
Other than the obvious blunder that the Gateway State Trail is not anywhere near Uptown (one would assume they mean the Midtown Greenway), it sounds like a cool project.
Hopefully this, or some other, method of counting can become reliable and cheap enough that we can begin collecting continuous data. We can already do this somewhat using loop detectors or infrared detectors. However, loop detectors don’t count pedestrians, and (if memory serves) infrared detectors don’t do well distinguishing between bikes & peds.
What other automated counting strategies are there?
There has been a lot of discussion locally here in Minneapolis about the proposed bikeway planned for Penn Avenue. According to info about the project on the Minneapolis Bicycle Coalition’s (MBC) blog (here and here), it looks like the most probable outcome for this corridor will be some sort of off-street facility, probably at the same elevation as the sidewalk (6″ above gutter pan elevation). Some folks aren’t on board with the idea of an off-street facility in this location, but this seems to be the only option the City has determined to be feasible.
Most Probable Outcome.
I wrote a post previously where I recommended combining the proposed 5′ sidewalk and 7′ bikeway into a single 12′ facility (although 10′ would be plenty wide if we chose to do that). I was proposing a fairly standard shared-use path. I made this recommendation based on an assumption of what the intersections would look like – primarily, I assumed that they would look like every other intersection in the city, including standard curb ramps, truncated domes, & crosswalks. I stand by this recommendation, so long as the assumption that the intersection designs are fairly typical.
However, the MBC has made it very clear that they are hoping for something a little bit different at the intersections than the standard designs. They wrote in a blog post:
In this option, the key would be designing intersections to a higher level of safety for bicyclists. Bicycling on the sidewalk is actually the most dangerous position for bicyclists, because drivers don’t expect to see cyclists at intersections. This stretch has some “super blocks” so there are fewer intersections to worry about.
There is really a lack of guidance from reliable sources about how to design a two-way cycletrack that isn’t just the typical sidepath we’re so familiar with. Any of the traditional design guides from agencies such as AASHTO or MnDOT don’t go anywhere near the subject. Even the most progressive of American design guides, NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide, is somewhat lacking on how to handle a two-way cycletrack at intersections (the section on intersections is primarily concerned with one-way cycletracks, the section on two-way cycletracks doesn’t focus on intersections). That being said, the UBDG certainly comes closer than any other guidance.
Here are some ideas that should be considered, if we want the Penn Avenue bikeway to offer some benefit above the standard sidepath:
1) Prioritized the bike & pedestrian space over minor side streets. Instead of interrupting the bike/ped paths to allow for minor intersections or driveways, carry the paths through using continuous pavement elements. Require motorists turning onto or off of the side streets to go up & over the bike/ped paths. This photo is a very typical design seen in Copenhagen where bike/ped paths along larger roadways cross minor intersecting roadways.
Typical Danish minor-street intersection.
This photo shows a similar treatment from Cambridge, MA, for a one-way cycletrack.
Image via NACTO.
Or, if it is determined that the cycle path must be lowered to street level,
2) Allow cyclists to drop to street level without crossing other pavement elements like curbs or gutters. This may seem like an inconsequential design detail, but I believe the psychological impact to cyclists is important – it lessens the implication that bikes aren’t supposed to be in the street.
Image via NACTO.
3) However, regardless of any other decisions made, the single most important recommendation I have is to make the intersecting roadways as narrow as possible using bumpouts. By narrowing the intersection conflict zone, motorists will have to drive more slowly.
The following couple of videos also have some good ideas. This video from Pedal Forward Consulting is a realistic suggestion of what this bikeway could look like:
There’s also a lot of great info in this video from Vancouver, although, they’re obviously discussing an on-street protected cycle track rather than a raised off-street cycle track.
What do you think? What intersection treatments would you most like to see included in the Penn Avenue bikeway (or for any two-way cycle track)?
Why Cyclists Are Breaking Up With Environmentalism
“In the 1970s, there were lots of people who biked for environmental reasons,” he said. “But that’s totally changed now.”
Now, he said, people bike because it’s practical, it’s cheaper than driving and taking public transportation, it’s a “stylish” way to get around, it keeps more money in the local economy, and it’s a source of exercise and enjoyment.
“People think the environment is such a big reason,” said Maus. “But the reality is much different. It’s a minor reason. [...]“
I write a lot of text in reports for various infrastructure or planning projects where I am asked to tout the benefits of cycling, including some discussion of why cyclists choose to ride. I never mention environmental benefits. I always cite health & exercise benefits, economic benefits, enjoyment & recreation, personal preference, & convenience, but never environmental benefits (unless a client specifically requests it).
Why? Because I think that promoting the environmental benefits of cycling, more often than not, will be perceived as being emotionally manipulative by people who choose not to bike. It promotes the stereotype that cyclists think they’re better than everyone else. I don’t want to try to guilt-trip anyone into cycling, and I don’t want people to think I’m establishing cycling as a moral benchmark. There’s nothing moral about riding a bike.
I think cycling can make a strong enough argument for itself without bringing the environment into it. Here’s the pitch: if a person switches some of their existing trips from an automobile to a bicycle, they will both save money and be healthier.* That’s it. And hey, if they have a good time while they’re at it, great.
*Sure, I know the equation gets more complicated than that (I can drive to destination A, but it’s too far to bike, so I bike to destination B instead, but B is more expensive than A and it took me longer, therefore it cost me more, and the food was greasier at destination B so I’m less healthy as well). But I still believe that this holds true for a majority of people.
Recent Comments