“Bikeable Cities” and Bike Lanes

19 May

Seattle was recently ranked #7 in the nation for “bikeability.”  While we can all collectively pat ourselves on the back or bemoan the fact that we finished behind DC and Minneapolis, I was interested in the methodology used.  According to the Walkscore folks who put it together, the “bikeability” rating of a community is based on four equally-weighted factors: Hilliness, bike lanes, road connective and bike commuting mode share.

I guess Seattle’s always going to be in a hole compared to DC & Minneapolis when it comes to hilliness.

Having a fair bit of familiarity myself with the ins-and-outs of rating the intangible, I’m impressed with the thought that went into the Bike Score rating methodology.  For instance, check out how bike lanes are dealt with:

Bike lanes are divided into four categories: on-street bike lanes, off-street trails, cycletracks (separated bike lanes), and residential bikeways (a.k.a. bike friendly streets or greenways).

While examining the data, there were variations in how cities reported their infrastructure, especially with regard to residential bikeways. In cities like Vancouver, residential bikeways are bike priority streets with traffic calming, signage, and on-street markings. In some US cities, a residential bikeway might have very little infrastructure. Because of these, we collapsed the four bike path categories into two categories, on-street and off-street.

For a given location, we sum up the length of all nearby bike lanes. We apply a distance decay function to each segment, where no value is given to segments further than 1,000 meters from the origin. We weight off-street lanes 2X as valuable as on-street lanes. This creates a raw value that we normalize to a score between 0 – 100 based on an average of the highest Bike Lane Scores that we sampled.

Obviously there is a wide variation in the quality of bike lanes, and it’s great to see that the Walkscore guys are accounting for the differential between on- and off-street lanes.  However, seeing this recent tragic news out of Portland about a cyclist dying in a right-hook collision while riding in a bike lane, I have to wonder if on-street lanes should count at all – or if they should carry a negative weight.

The problem is that many urban on-street lanes are poorly-designed.  They put riders in the door zone, require swerving around double-parked trucks, dealing with buses crossing the lane mid-block to meet stops, and offer no bail-out options if a clueless pedestrian steps off the curb.  They also reduce visibility while simultaneously raising cyclist complacency that they are safe in “their” lane.

This is why I often don’t ride in bike lanes, preferring to take the whole lane for safety’s sake – and why I find that some of the lanes (like Pine Street downhill – photo above) don’t contribute at all to the “bikeability” of my city.

Scenes from my Commute

11 May

As an answer to my pal Chris Harvey – who is always posting photos from his Rockie Mountain trail runs – I took a few photos on the ride home last night and coming in this morning.


(ok, I took this one after getting to work – but how many cloudless May mornings do we get in Seattle?)

Taking the (Residential) Lane

10 May

The last mile or so of my commute home is through the residential portion of Seattle’s Capitol Hill. Like many residential neighborhoods in Seattle, the streets on Capitol Hill are remarkably narrow. How narrow? On many, the fact that parking is permitted on both sides means there is only one lane. If two cars are headed in opposite directions, one must dive into an open parking place or driveway to let the other pass. That narrow.

These streets are also notable for having uncontrolled intersections, many of which have “traffic calming circles” in the center.


(feel the calm?)

So, of course, I almost always take the lane when riding through my neighborhood. In fact, on many streets there’s really no other option unless you like being passed very closely while riding right in the door zone. Which I don’t.

While this doesn’t usually cause much consternation with drivers, I’ve had three occasions this week where I’ve been passed by drivers DESPITE my trying to take the lane (these were on some of the wider streets where two cars can pass abreast). In two of these cases, they passed in the half-block before getting to a “traffic calming” circle, forcing me to practically climb up their asses as they had to slow down to navigate around the circle.

While I still think taking the lane is the safest thing to do in most cases, it sucks when drivers won’t respect it – particularly when they pull off dangerous moves to get around.

Quantifying the “Net Social Benefit” of Cycling

28 Mar

The League of American Bicyclists points to the “Bike Account” published biannually by the cycling paradise that is Copenhagen. One fascinating statistic that jumps out is the conclusion of the Bike Account study that every kilometer of cycling creates a “net social benefit” (as compared to driving, which creates a net social loss). Converting from kilometers to miles, and Danish Kroner to dollars, these numbers come out to $.41 “net social benefit” per mile traveled by bicycle.


(photo by Lucia Coma)

That’s a pretty awesome little statistic. However, as Samuel Clemens famously said, there are three kinds of lies – lies, damn lies, and statistics. And while cycling “feels” like it should be beneficial to society on balance, I wouldn’t be surprised – at all – if there’s a fair bit of goal-seeking behind these numbers. The Bike Account is prepared by the City of Copenhagen, which has a stated goal that 50% of its residents bike to work or school by 2015. Plus, there’s the inherent problem of trying to model complex systems. Whether you’re valuing a fast-growing business, predicting climate change or trying to quantify the benefit of a societal activity, the more dynamic the variables the greater the risk of your output being unreliable. Garbage in, garbage out.

While the Bike Account doesn’t provide a lot of detail behind the benefit model, it does indicate that it is based on a combination of factors including health, transport costs, security, comfort, branding/tourism and transport times. Those are all great things to include. They also include some fairly “soft” factors and elements that could be shaded significantly to obtain the desired outcome. I’d love to be able to dig into the model itself.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big believer that cycling is beneficial to society, and absolutely beneficial to those who ride regularly. But color me skeptical when it comes down to turning that belief into cold, hard numbers.

Still Cold

19 Mar

I was commiserating with a bike commuting friend yesterday about the sorry state of Seattle’s roads in the winter – between the potholes and road grit, it’s a dirty, bumpy ride.

And it’s also been a COLD one. 28 degrees this morning, and we had snow over the weekend. In what’s getting into late March. Sheesh.

Still, beats driving any day of the week.

Marc Randazza on Rush Limbaugh

15 Mar

OK, this has nothing to do with cycling, single speed or otherwise.  But you’ll have to indulge me for a digression into something that covers two of my other favorite topics: politics and free speech.

As anyone who follows politics knows, pompous gasbag Rich Limbaugh made some disgusting comments last week.  Advertisers have flown, and he’s been justifiably called out for the things he said.  But . . . many I know have called for more, whether in the form of a defamation lawsuit or the FCC pulling the licenses of the stations that carry him.  

My friend and noted first amendment attorney Marc Randazza has a great piece in CNN this week on why this kind of thinking is censorious and wrong.  As Marc points out, the answer to speech you don’t like isn’t censorship – it’s more speech.  

Read the whole thing – it’s that good.  ”It’s Un-American to Silence Limbaugh“, by Marc Randazza. 

I Love Riding in the Rain

15 Mar

It’s a myth that it rains that much in Seattle.  Most cities in the NE (including New York, Philly and Boston) get more annual rainfall than Seattle.  So do most cities in the SE, including Memphis, Orlando and Miami.  Hell, even Houston gets more rain than Seattle.  (source)

The issue here is that it rarely rains very hard.  Instead of the torrents that fall nearly every evening in Miami, our rain is more of a persistent mist, spread out over 9 or 10 months of the year.   This means rainy weather commuting isn’t the obstacle some would think of when they think of Seattle – particularly if, like me, your commute is short.

But sometimes we get days like today, when it buckets rain during commute time.  Maybe it’s bringing out the child in me, but there’s no small delight in riding in heavy rain.  The drops streaming down my face, stinging as I race downhill, mud and street grit flying up everywhere . . . it almost makes the sweatsock-gray winters around here bearable.

(sweet Seattle tan, huh?)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.