In Dover NH, we've had some success focusing on the annual roadway repaving project. Repaving a street demands repainting it as well. So advocating for new designs at that stage sidesteps a lot of the capital cost arguments (such as they are, given we're only talking about paint). Most of the pushback has been on the cost of the *design* and study processes. And unfortunately, the strategy is driven by the condition of the asphalt, not the condition of the network. But it's low cost compared to targeting specific streets that may not be in need of repaving. US-DOT has a nice 2016 publication on leveraging resurfacing: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/
Is there a risk with accepting 'good enough' designs, that we never get the premium stuff, too? If it's "fine" for us to do the paint and flex posts as cycling infrastructure, how do we ever get some of the premium cycling infrastructure as well?
If the worst thing that happens is a network is "good enough," I'd call that a win. Two things happen simultaneously: install quick-build and pursue funding for permanent.
In Richmond, VA, we're going to be implementing $1.2 BILLION in transportation safety projects over the next 5 years, and 90-95% of that funding comes from federal, state, and regional grants. It takes a long time, though. From idea to construction can be 8-10 years. A road diet w/ paint & posts can calm traffic and save lives in the period that you're pursuing grant funding. And worst case, it stays "good enough" for a while.
Love the one room in a house analogy. Great work, Andy. My issue is multi-use paths in brand new communities becoming the go-to design. Somebody made up their mind there isn’t enough demand in those places for both dedicated bike lanes and sidewalks, when induced-demand applies to bikes just as it does to cars. Build it and it’ll get used.
Frankly, the examples shown here as the "low-end, quick build" options are so far above and beyond what most communities are able to get that it undermines the entire argument here.
"Don't demand gold when you can have silver" while most people are working with dirt and wood.
Paint and flex posts can offer protection if the bike lane is separated from traffic by parked cars, but most of the paint and flex posts I see are on the wrong side of the parked cars.
Your pictures and example of a protected lane using paint and sticks and parking is very good. The problem we face is when they skip the sticks and parked cars and extra space and just paint a so called “bike lane” on roads, next to 45 mph travel lanes (FDOT famous for this) or on the driver side of parked cars. The key is actual protection, which is when people will feel, and be, more safe.
One of the primary problems of suburban design patterns is a street hierarchy that puts everyone on the big 45mph roads for every trip. Going back to slap on a bike lane isn't fixing the underlying problem. That said, when 4-lane streets are rearranged to 2-lanes plus bike lanes, it makes a big improvement -- even without concrete protection. It's not the best, but it helps expand the network.
In Dover NH, we've had some success focusing on the annual roadway repaving project. Repaving a street demands repainting it as well. So advocating for new designs at that stage sidesteps a lot of the capital cost arguments (such as they are, given we're only talking about paint). Most of the pushback has been on the cost of the *design* and study processes. And unfortunately, the strategy is driven by the condition of the asphalt, not the condition of the network. But it's low cost compared to targeting specific streets that may not be in need of repaving. US-DOT has a nice 2016 publication on leveraging resurfacing: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/
Is there a risk with accepting 'good enough' designs, that we never get the premium stuff, too? If it's "fine" for us to do the paint and flex posts as cycling infrastructure, how do we ever get some of the premium cycling infrastructure as well?
If the worst thing that happens is a network is "good enough," I'd call that a win. Two things happen simultaneously: install quick-build and pursue funding for permanent.
In Richmond, VA, we're going to be implementing $1.2 BILLION in transportation safety projects over the next 5 years, and 90-95% of that funding comes from federal, state, and regional grants. It takes a long time, though. From idea to construction can be 8-10 years. A road diet w/ paint & posts can calm traffic and save lives in the period that you're pursuing grant funding. And worst case, it stays "good enough" for a while.
Love the one room in a house analogy. Great work, Andy. My issue is multi-use paths in brand new communities becoming the go-to design. Somebody made up their mind there isn’t enough demand in those places for both dedicated bike lanes and sidewalks, when induced-demand applies to bikes just as it does to cars. Build it and it’ll get used.
Funny about the paths, because whenever they're built *with* the neighborhood, they're an instant asset.
Frankly, the examples shown here as the "low-end, quick build" options are so far above and beyond what most communities are able to get that it undermines the entire argument here.
"Don't demand gold when you can have silver" while most people are working with dirt and wood.
The parked cars in the photos were not purchased by the city, which keeps these projects very affordable.
Paint and flex posts can offer protection if the bike lane is separated from traffic by parked cars, but most of the paint and flex posts I see are on the wrong side of the parked cars.
Your pictures and example of a protected lane using paint and sticks and parking is very good. The problem we face is when they skip the sticks and parked cars and extra space and just paint a so called “bike lane” on roads, next to 45 mph travel lanes (FDOT famous for this) or on the driver side of parked cars. The key is actual protection, which is when people will feel, and be, more safe.
One of the primary problems of suburban design patterns is a street hierarchy that puts everyone on the big 45mph roads for every trip. Going back to slap on a bike lane isn't fixing the underlying problem. That said, when 4-lane streets are rearranged to 2-lanes plus bike lanes, it makes a big improvement -- even without concrete protection. It's not the best, but it helps expand the network.