Thanks for this website/blog. Are these physically separated bikeways (proposed or existing) multi-use (pedestrians, etc) or are they cycles-only?

Pb - We would be looking at bicycle-only separated style lanes. Except for a very few physically separated lanes (there's also one in northern Manhattan) there are none planned for NYC that I know of.

Bicycle Maven - thanks. There is a Livable Streets movement in Boston, check it out: http://www.livablestreets.info

Hi all!

G'night Mr. Penalosa...

I believe that physically separate bike lanes do not work in high pedestrians areas such as midtown Manhattan. Pedestrians treat the bike lane as an extension of the sidewalk and step into them without looking. New York City experimentally built a physically separate bike lane on 6th Avenue about twenty years ago. Initially I was delighted to have a separate bike lane. However, I found it actually seemed more dangerous than riding with traffic. I witnessed many accidents when pedestrians stepped in front of bikers. Bikers were trapped in a narrow lane with low curbs on each side. They could not avoid the collisions. I believe painted bike lanes are much better as you have room to swerve around unexpected obstacles.

(disclaimer: this comes from a Boston perspective, where traffic generally is 2 lanes, 10mph slower than NYC, and stops a lot more (non-timed lights))

I've always thought bike lanes to be somewhat of a wash. They're nice in that they widen the road (and call attention to bikes), but I also feel they kind of marginalize bikers with regards to intersections. Drivers also don't seem to like it when you're out of the lane.

When I drive, I do double park (even in bike lanes). I expect that bikers will go around me to the left, as they should. I believe it's a matter of education so that bikers are more assertive. If you see a car double parked ahead, gradually shift leftwards out into the lane, just like you have a right to (this is the same thing cars generally do in Boston as well.)

Mass state law specifies that traffic must be as far to the right as is safe. I generally ride our far enough that a door wouldn't hit me (or at least I'd be able to make a casual avoidance) . If there's sand or scrappy roads, I have no problem taking a whole lane.

I think that separating off the lanes will only cause the same kind of problems you see with bikers riding on the sidewalk - they get into a lot more accidents at intersections because cars simply aren't looking for them (how about for driveways that have to cross the bike lane). The "solution" to this is going to be adding more lights, which is going to mess things up for everybody. Furthermore, think about a biker running a light because 'nobody is coming', while a driver takes a right and red and doesn't look. If I'm riding in the road, and somebody in front of me has their right blinker on, I get ready to go around to the left of them.

For the hardcore rider, integration and negotiation with cars is much better. However I will say that adding bike paths increases the amount of casual riders who are going to go relatively slow and probably wouldn't want to deal with traffic otherwise, which is also a good result.

NOT a good idea. Here's a deconstruction of the video explaining why: http://sheldonbrown.com/physically-separated-bike-lanes.html

It's a bit too sarcastic, in my opinion, but the salient points:

1. The primary danger for cyclists in bike lanes is NOT parallel traffic, it is intersection traffic. There simply is no satisfactory way that has been found (or will be found) to clearly and safely manage intersections with bike lanes. If motorists parking in bike lanes is seen to be a significant danger, we might look to the root of the problem, i.e. the bike lanes themselves.

2. Infrastructure and economics make this proposal impossible to accomplish on any kind of effective scale.

3. Bike lanes in general (and physically separated lanes in particular) do absolutely nothing to change the root problem: bicycles are not seen as having equal rights to our roadways, cyclists are not held in the eyes of motorists or the municipality to have any right to fair treatment and use of public roads, there is no way imagined in which bicycles can be operated safely as part of traffic (when in fact, the only way to keep bicycle travel efficient and effective enough is to integrate it, not separate it).

4. Children as the model user. This is pure foolishness. Adults commute and make use of traffic structures. Adults can be readily educated on safe conduct. Children do not, and are not so easily educated.

What we need is engineering (build roads to the safest standards we know), education (teach proper operation and awareness of motor vehicles and bicycles in traffic) and enforcement (when the rules, which have been taught to everyone on the road, are broken, DO something about it - this is very important to keeping traffic safe).

Physically separated bike lanes are a terrible idea that would ultimately harm cycling as an effective transportation mode.

In response to post #25:

1. Physically separated bike lanes do not necessarily increase danger at intersections. Rather, they offer an opportunity to redesign intersections with bike lanes specifically in mind. Copenhagen has done this with signals, lighting & other infrastructure directed specifically at bike lanes, with the result that auto & bike traffic can be managed and cadenced in a safe way.

2. On the contrary, swapping the parking and bike lanes is a relatively simple alteration that can be easily done during major street repaving. Curb reconstruction would be the greatest expense.

3. "Integration" of bike and auto traffic on the major high-speed avenues of Manhattan is the status quo and simply doesn't work. Physically separating bicycles does not signal demotion in status; rather, it elevates the bicycle by clearly designating street infrastructure solely for its use.

4. Children as the model user: you've missed the point. This notion is intended to underscore the heightened safety standards that cyclists -- who after all are far more vulnerable than drivers -- are entitled to expect of their bike lanes. A truly great bike lane should be so safe that even a child could use it without the risk of being flattened by a passing truck.

Nobody is saying that ALL bike lanes should be physically separated. As Clarence said so well, such lanes should be considered only in CERTAIN high priority areas. I would propose them on a limited number of important routes: major cross-town streets (14th St, 34th St) for example, or portions of certain avenues (3rd Ave, 6th Ave, 8th Ave).

A side note: physically separated bike lanes also offer new opportunities for street greening. The same narrow curb that separates the parked cars from the bike lane could accommodate tall and narrow trees that could offer shade and cleaner air right in the heart of Manhattan's busiest streets.

Of course we need education, enforcement and engineering. Of the three, engineering offers the greatest return in Manhattan. This is precisely the category physically separated bike lanes fall into.

I'd like to hear some ideas on integrating separated bikeways with rural roads, in particular, throughout the Hawaiian island of Kauai where I live. There is such a need for safe, alternative transportation there, but getting people interested and willing to take action is difficult.
P.S. Any word on what is happening with the exciting concept of the Poipu Promenade?

I just watched this video again -- very well done. I totally agree that this is one of many ways to address bikes -- the video specifically mentions London work to do just that.

I think these types of bike lanes could be used in several places in Nwe York, a lot of areas in and around downtown D.C., the Loop in Chicago, and even in places like Minneapolis, where the city is developoing a great bike network but there still are the same types of issues discussed in the video in and around the downtown area.

I don't understand the criticism. Some folks think bike boulevards are the way to go, others want striped lanes, others want greenways, others want ride with traffic. We build all sorts of types of roads for cars -- we need to do the same for bikes.

I'm confused. I thought the justification for bike lanes was supposed to be to make cycling safer by providing more room for faster motorists to overtake slower cyclists. The complaint in NYC, however, seems to be that double parked cars, turning cars, and cars in traffic jams are blocking bike lanes. It's as though the bike lanes are supposed to be exclusive lanes to allow the faster cyclists to pass the slower motorists who are stuck in traffic jams.

The only cyclists on NYC painted bike lanes that appear to be in danger in the video are the ones who are passing turning cars on the wrong side (i.e., I was taught years ago never to pass a right turning car on the right). Passing a right turning car on the right side invites a "right hook," one of the main causes of bicycle/motor vehicle accidents (same for passing left turning cars on the left on one way streets). There are several examples in the video of cyclists who are delayed by stopped traffic or by double parked cars or trucks, but those cyclists are not in any particular danger.

Also, the video says that turning cars are not supposed to merge into the bike lane before turning. But they are, aren't they, in order to avoid hooking through cyclists? That's what the law says in every state of which I am aware. What does NY law say?

So, which is it in NYC? Are bike lanes supposed to make cycling faster by providing an exclusive lane for cyclists or are they supposed to make it safer by providing space for motorists to overtake cyclists?

Separated bike lanes in NYC were tried on the major avenues in the 1980s - I remember since I rode them. The problem was that they were used by pedestrians, hot dog carts and all manner of other moving obstacles. Also, the curbs became treacherous with passing cyclists, opposing traffic, cross traffic with J walkers, etc. These impediments forced most bicyclists back onto the avenues and the lanes were dismantled.

Ultimately it comes down to culture. Until the default is not the automobile but the bicycle, we will continue to have antagonism. I fully support them on significant arterials, but in the end they are a compromise. We have major behavioral aberrations in this city. I visited Minneapolis recently and the respect shown by motorists towards pedestrians and cyclists was nothing short of amazing. The city could use a media bombardment like the anti-smoking ads on tv. Congestion pricing for auto access, prohibitive fees on city vehicular ownership, and other more draconian measures for getting people out of their cars also need to be applied.

thank you Streetfilms for these wonderful films and the publicity they generate. for what it's worth, Berlin (Germany), a city of 3.5 million that takes its cycling and cyclists seriously, has slowly started to phase out separate bike lanes for some of the reasons stated above (danger at intersections primarily: if you don't drive by the cyclist on the road, you may miss him at the intersection). new lanes are now on the road, with a large white marking making it clear to drivers. i've lived here 17 years, & prefer riding with the cars, not separated. one needs to educate drivers as well as cyclists of course (even though they are often the same people): getting a german drivers license is a daunting task taking months, in contrast, my florida drivers license was 'earned' in a few minutes by driving around a parking lot done up like a LEGO street scene. making such radical changes in large cities in the US will obviously take time. NYC is not a small city, not even Berlin comes close to the traffic levels of NYC. any bikes lanes, in the end, are better than none, and all have strengths and weaknesses.

Brilliant ! Looking at all the differing videos restores hope when cars have given one a really bad day !

Love it, we must, as riders put more effort into promoting these types of ideas.

I find this film funny. I drove an 18 Wheeler thrugh Brooklyn. It seems even in this big City, where my family from New jersey won't even drive to NYC, they'll Take New Jersey Transit. I drove a 10 speed with a 53 ft trailer. Well it was fun to tell people, to get out of my way. I remember this Delivery Truck that was double park. Well I couldn't go around him Unless the cars going the other direction stoped. It was fun to see my trainer, to tell me go, go, around him. I also have to make these wide turns and all I did was simply blocked traffic. I knew If I got a ticket, oh well, but fuck the fact that I was going to let those 4 wheelers get in my way. lol
As a cyclist too, i understand this all to well in San Antonio and other Cities I Rode in.