A New Two-Wheeled Course?

Neal Peirce's most recent column discusses the research by University of Michigan PhD Anne Lusk, who argues for separated bike lanes. From the article:

Anne Lusk of Harvard's School of Public Health has a startling -- many would say quixotic -- ambition for America's cities. She'd like to equip them all with cycle tracks.

Cycle tracks? Does she mean the painted buffer lane for bikes you see on some streets? No! Those lanes are easily blocked by vehicles attempting to park. And they leave cyclists within inches of fast cars and monster trucks; if there's any error, you know who get hurts, often badly.

Cycle tracks, notes Lusk, are actually a separated part of the roadway yet distinct from the roadway, distinct from the sidewalk. In their purest form -- Odense, Denmark, where 50 percent of all city journeys are by bicycle -- the paths even have their own traffic signals.

What actually separates the cycle track? It can be a long, narrow curb. Or a line of cones or concrete barriers. Or metal stanchions. Or a line of trees and other vegetation (an on-street greenway).

Another solution, tried on relatively wide streets in Bogota, Paris, London and elsewhere, is to move the parking lane several feet from the sidewalk, creating a new lane for cyclists between the sidewalk and parked cars. Brooklyn-based bicycle advocate/blogger Aaron Naparstek has an excellent online video celebrating that solution.
--------
It happens that I have read part of her dissertation, which is available online at the Library of Congress. Although at over 500 pages, I never tried to print it out.

And her work challenges previous research that says that separated bike lanes aren't needed.

And speaking of multimodal transportation planning, the Post has a little short on the federal page about Rep. Jim Oberstar, unbeknownst to me an avid bicyclist, adding a clause to an airport funding bill authorization the expenditure of federal airport tax monies on accommodations for bicycles. See "A Representative for the Riders."

The only thing that bothers me about this, just like I am a bit bothered by the need for DC Councilmember Tommy Wells to have to enter a bill to provide for bicycle facilities at DC government owned properties, is that what should be required is that all major transportation modes be considered always in planning transportation facilities. Bicycling shouldn't need special laws to be accommodated. Instead, transportation planning should be required to include planning for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit from the outset, in addition to the major project of building roads or airports. (Although cars shouldn't necessarily be accommodated at public transit facilities since it works to reduce use and puts large costs on transit systems that aren't fully recoverable.)

For CM Wells' legislation, see "Wells’ Proposal to Expand Bicycle Parking for DC Residents and Commuters Passes Committee Vote."

Good thing we have representatives like Tommy Wells, Jim Oberstar, and Earl Blumenauer.