| Re: bike lanes, San Francisco is an illustrative example of how they are done right, and done wrong. TL;DR: physically protected lanes are the viable solution and the one with the least unhappiness. Almost all the unhappiness I have experienced in the city as pedestrian, driver, and biker of 20+ years, is the result of improper (frankly half-assed) bike-lane retrofitting by painting some lines on long-established car corridors. The inevitable and predictable result is they become a convenient parking lane. The advent and popularity of meal-delivery services and ride-share amplified this problem 100-fold. Valencia Street is a laboratory example of this. The few blocks south of market with mostly-protected lanes are 1000x better for everyone than the nightmare blocks further south. On a typical commute down that street I have had to go into traffic at least a half dozen times to get around people parking. As ride-share traffic returns the corresponding risk of oblivious passengers throwing open doors is returning as is the perpetual stopping "right in front" of the destination regardless of open spaces 10' away. Even Valencia's protected lanes are poor by the standards of any properly engineered white-page design; the constant interruption by "shared" turn lanes and the need to jog around them, of drive ways, of pedestrian cut throughs, is all just accumulated urban planning cruft there is no will to wipe away. Me, I'd like Valencia to become a permanent pedestrian/bikeway, with no cars but emergency vehicles. full stop... |
Has any city ever actually tried ticketing people who block lanes? In Chicago there's no enforcement at all, and I have to think that even a little enforcement would send a clear message. I don't mean to argue against protected bike lanes (although I've heard people say they accumulate trash and street cleaners can't access them, but I don't have strong feelings), but I don't understand why we talk about this as an inevitable problem.