Surprising Result of NYC Bike Lanes: Faster Traffic for Cars

A report at vox.com says that the implementation of bike lanes in traffic-heavy New York City has one possibly non-intuitive result: car traffic was sped up as a result. The bike lanes have caused the lanes for cars to be narrowed, but as a result of the street redesign to accomodate bikes, one big change has especially helped to keep cars moving forward more steadily: Although narrower streets can slow traffic, that doesn't seem to have happened here — perhaps because traffic in this area was crawling at around 11 miles per hour to begin with. Instead, the narrower lanes were capable of handling just as much traffic, and one major improvement to intersection design helped them handle more, while also letting bikes travel more safely. This improvement was something called a pocket lane for left-hand turns: a devoted turning lane at most intersections that takes the place of the parking lane, which gets cars out of the way of moving traffic when they're making a left.

Comments

Bikes lanes are nice

[PhrostyMcByte]

But it sounds like optimizing left turns is what actually improved traffic.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[aardvarkjoe]

Exactly. It looks like the change that actually helped was that, near to intersections, they replaced a lane used for parking with a left turn lane. I don't know why anyone would be surprised that adding a traffic lane would help improve traffic flow.

The only thing that the bike lanes apparently have to do with it is that adding bike lanes was the reason why they decided to change the lane layout.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Anonymous Coward]

The addition of the left turn lane was possible only because the lane width had been reduced due to the bike lane. The thing to take home from this is that current road layouts are not optimal, and rethinking them offers improvement opportunities. That the improvements can be counter-intuitive should encourage more research into alternative layouts: If you reject change too easily, you won't find a great solution. Who would have agreed to narrower lanes if it had not been necessary in order to have a bike lane?

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Average speed was 11mph to begin with. The bikes, able to weave between traffic at 30mph for a biker in shape, were not the limiting factor.

I thought it was going to be more like what other cities that have implemented bike lanes and routes have seen- fewer people in cars on the road.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds? Nobody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything. That would be suicidal and require fantastically exceptional fitness, not just "being in shape". Most people never do more than 25mph, don't do more than 20mph on a regular basis and do less than 15mph on average - and they're still faster than a car in a crowded city.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[jratcliffe]

No, they didn't. The total number of lanes declined. In essence, they went from having four lanes, with no dedicated turn lane, to three lanes for most of the street, expanding to four (with one being a dedicated turn lane) at every other intersection. So, for the bulk of the street, the number of lanes declined.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[fustakrakich]

Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds?

He's going downhill, both ways

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Bicycles honestly do belong on the road. Where else are you going to put them, on the sidewalk? There are pedestrians up there.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[hawguy]

But getting rid of those bikers, which honestly do not belong on the road, could only of helped.

They didn't get the cyclists off the roads (what do you think they did? Build elevated cycling pathways above the road?), they accommodated cyclists on the shared streets.

The cyclists are still there, the cars are still there, but everyone has a little more room, is safer, and traffic moves more smoothly, sounds like a win all around.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[HornWumpus]

The removed a parking lane and added a bike lane and a turn lane.

The losers are locals with cars and no place to park them. But only idiots live in Manhattan and own a car.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[lgw]

Bicycles honestly do belong on the road. Where else are you going to put them, on the sidewalk?

They belong under my wheels. Keep your toys off my infrastructure. You will join the other pit slaves on Paving Day, doomed to a life of cleaning public toilets while I cruise the paved world in my hypersonic atomic car, under the light of the chromed moon.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Will.Woodhull]

But getting rid of those bikers, which honestly do not belong on the road, could only of helped.

That's just really bad logic.

A bicycle doesn't take up anywhere near as much road space as a car. On crowded downtown streets, where cars cannot travel faster than bikes, every person on a bike is one less vehicle in your gridlock. And one less competitor for that parking space you are looking for. Bikes make a helluvalot of sense in highly trafficked areas, and bike lanes which encourage more people to use bicycles is one of the best things that can be done to improve the commutes of automobile drivers.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[HeckRuler]

And then, children, they say he dipped so far into trolldom that he emerged through the other side, enlightenment radiating off of his shiny bumper.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[wisnoskij]

I am a bicyclist. I do not even have a drivers licence. Bicycles belong on the side walk, with the other slow fragile creatures that need to be kept away from cars.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[cusco]

In 1980 the two southbound lanes of the Sunshine Skyway were knocked into Tampa Bay by a freighter. Until the new bridge was constructed the two lanes of the remaining half of the bridge every year carried more vehicles in less average time and with fewer accidents than when it was four lanes.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Waffle Iron]

You are not kept away from cars on a sidewalk.

Since drivers rarely look for traffic on sidewalks as they go in and out of driveways and side streets, you run a high risk of getting run over at every curb cut. At least when you're on the road, drivers usually see you when they bother to glance up from their cellphones.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Solandri]

Dedicated left turn lanes are incredibly important to traffic flow. The lack of left turn lanes was the most frustrating thing as a driver when I moved to Vancouver for a job. Most of the larger roads there were only two lanes wide and very few intersections had left turn lanes. So the road basically lost half its capacity any time someone had to make a left turn. I swear Vancouver's rush hour traffic would improve if they followed UPS and prohibited left turns, forcing drivers to instead make three right turns. (Traffic circles would work too, but tend to slow down long straightaways.)

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Layzej]

This same designated left turn lane came with bike lanes in Toronto and had the same effect. Prior to the bike lanes there was no dedicated parking. People would just park in the right lane - so effectively you only had one lane for cars and no room for a left turn lane. The bike lanes necessitated the designated parking which allowed for the designated turn lane. Traffic crawled before the bike lanes were implemented. It still crawls, but it crawls really fast now.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[jratcliffe]

No, they didn't. The total number of lanes declined. In essence, they went from having four lanes, with no dedicated turn lane, to three lanes for most of the street, expanding to four (with one being a dedicated turn lane) at every other intersection. So, for the bulk of the street, the number of lanes declined.

Four lanes with no dedicated left turn lane turns into three lanes when someone wants to turn left.

And add to that the chaos of having to do lane changes because people get stuck behind left turners (and the corresponding people who want to turn left but were in the other lanes to avoid left turners in the previous intersection) means traffic just gets all jumbled up.

Put in some proper traffic lights to help clear left turn lanes so people don't jam it when it fills up and spills into a straight through lane...

Basically all that happened was in order to build a bike lane, they had to reconfigure a bunch of intersections and in so doing also happened to improve traffic flow.

On your traffic lights point, please do remember that these left turn lanes aren't like what you're used to, if you're not a New Yorker. These are left turn lanes coming off a one way street. In Manhattan (at least) most major arteries are one way. They're not there to facilitate turning left across oncoming traffic, but rather because turners often get held up by pedestrian traffic.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[Khyber]

Yea, never heard of a recumbent bicycle, have you? We've got them that allow people to easily and near-effortlessly do 50MPH+ on a flat road. Also, fixie bikes with huge front gears can go much faster than your typical 10-speed with a crank gear a third the size.

For instance, Jose Meiffret passed the 60MPH mark in 1962, paced by a car on Germany's Autobahn. And in 1995, Dutch cyclist Fred Rompelberg reached 167 mph while using a top-fuel dragster to pace him at Bonneville Salt Flats - which by the way is really, really REALLY flat.

ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN MPH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

I regularly keep pace with street traffic here in CA on my bike, and that's with a half-artificial leg.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[kekx]

I have to disagree vehemently. It vastly depends on the speed that you are traveling with on your bike. As soon as you aproach the upper 20s (km/h, European here) it is way too dangerous to be traveling on the side walk. Here in Germany we have dedicated bike lanes which unfortunately mostly run on the side walk, meaning that pedestrians often do not look up to check if a bike is coming. More dangerously though are the cars taking right turns, because even if they bother to look you will be right in their blind spot. Add to this cars coming out of driveways or sidestreets, only bothering to stop and look once they reach the actual street and you get quite a dangerous mix. Whenever it is allowed thus, I always ride on the street and counting the number of close calls or accidents I had it is a lot safer. Basically the only danger when riding on the street are butthurt drivers who make it a point to overtake you with a 10cm gap even if the opposite lane has no traffic, because you are supposedly occupying 'their' street.

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[mjwx]

Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds? Nobody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything.

30 MPH is near enough to 50 KPH (48.3 from memory). Cyclists never move this fast, not even down hill and especially in traffic. As verified by the GPS based speedometer on my dash cam, getting stuck behind a cyclist tends to peak at 20 KPH (less than 15 KPH). This is why traffic in my city moves faster in the Winter when more people are in cars instead of on their bike

If you're a cyclist who doesn't hold up traffic we'd love to hear from you, please send a letter to:

I'm a liar
Top Gear
BBC Television
117 Woods Lane, London
W12 7TS

Re:Bikes lanes are nice

[FreeRadicalX]

NYC cyclist here. The parking lane is still there. They just narrowed the motor lanes a few feet, swapped the bike lane to be on the sidewalk-side of the parking lane ("Parking protected"), and put a left turn pocket at left turn intersections (Every other intersection, since our streets are one-way). The turning pocket only takes up 3 to 4 car lengths, the rest of the parking is still there. There's also parking on the other side of the street.

So it's not the bike lanes.

[TechyImmigrant]

TFA implies is has nothing to do with bike lanes. The benefit comes from the improved intersection, which can happen with or without bike lanes.

Re:So it's not the bike lanes.

[0123456]

Except it could have been done for less than the cost of adding the bike lanes, if the city actually cared about traffic congestion.

Re:So it's not the bike lanes.

[i kan reed]

Oh boo hoo, the city, quite reasonably, combined two projects that work on roads into one process. What financial malfeasance.

Re:No Fucking Shit

[PRMan]

Welcome to 1950, NYC! You finally made it! (Not surprising since you were crawling along at 11 mph.)

Re:No Fucking Shit

[jratcliffe]

The innovation here is left turn lanes on ONE WAY STREETS. Left turn lanes on two way streets have been around for a long time, but they are rarely used when the street you're turning off of is a one-way street (so you're not crossing oncoming traffic when making a left).

P.S.A. in you live in NYC

[Cardoor]

related to citibike but a bit off topic.. if a copy tries to give you a ticket for riding in a 'non-bike-line' in NYC (as happened to me), chances are they will give you a whole song and dance: "gee whiz buddy.. sorry to have to do this, but they're cracking down. here's a ticket for $140".

this is a police scam.

there is no law saying a bicyclist must ride in lane in NYC.. it's only recommended but up to rider's discretion.

I showed up to my hearing and the judge dismissed it without me saying a word (after the cop lied about how far he saw me riding of course).

they're of course hoping you don't know the law and don't (or can't) get off from work 6 months later (when you get a hearing date) to challenge it.i wonder how many millions theyve stolen from the public this way.

ok - that's all.

Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC

[jratcliffe]

"there is no law saying a bicyclist must ride in lane in NYC.. it's only recommended but up to rider's discretion."

This isn't actually true. See below. If there's a bike lane, you're required to use it, unless you're making a turn, or are reasonably trying to avoid conditions. Reasonably is the key word here. Reasonably means "what a typical person in that situation would do," the rider doesn't get to define reasonably based on his/her own standards. Clearly, if there's a car parked in the bike lane, it's reasonable to go around it. If you're still not in the bike lane two blocks later, that's going to be hard to claim.

(p) Bicycles. (1) Bicycle riders to use bicycle lanes. Whenever a usable path or lane for bicycles has been provided, bicycle riders shall use such path or lane only except under any of the following situations:
        (i) When preparing for a turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
        (ii) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, pushcarts, animals, surface hazards) that make it unsafe to continue within such bicycle path or lane.

http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/...

Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC

[Cardoor]

well, im sure glad i didn't bring you as my attorney to correct the judge when he ruled in my favor. point is, there IS ambiguity, and cops ARE using it as a means to generate extra revenue. Don't roll over and pay if you get ticketed and can afford to fight.

decent article on it: http://www.wnyc.org/story/2842...

Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC

[jratcliffe]

Hey, it's a defense, don't get me wrong, but your categorical statement that there isn't a law requiring you to ride in the bike line was just wrong, and bad advice for other riders. You can get ticketed for riding outside the bike line, and then it's incumbent on you to make the argument that you had reasonable grounds to be outside the lane. In your case, the judge was very friendly - not all are.

Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC

[Cardoor]

very fair - i stand corrected.

Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC

[AthanasiusKircher]

Reasonably is the key word here. Reasonably means "what a typical person in that situation would do,"

No, sorry, that's not what "reasonable" means as a legal term.

It's NOT what a "typical person" or an "average person" would do. As Wikipedia explains:

The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable. The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:

-- the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;
-- the extent of the risk so created;
-- the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
-- any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

All of those components aren't part of the strict definition, but the idea is that, legally, "reasonable" activities are those made using good judgment by a sort of "ideal" person. A "typical" or "average" person may be a jerk, for example, and act in selfish ways that could actually endanger others. (Observe traffic behavior in highly congested areas sometime, and you'll see that the "typical" person may not be "reasonable.") A "reasonable" person, according to the law, would act in a way that would promote good order.

Re:P.S.A. in you live in NYC

[Mr. Freeman]

Don't be surprised that the guy you replied to doesn't know this. He's a cyclist, so as far as he's concerned he *always* has the right of way even when the law explicitly says otherwise.

Simple physics

[Anonymous Coward]

If you decrease the cross-section area while maintaining volume flow, the velocity has to increase.

This has been another installment of Physics Applied Badly.

Re:Simple physics

[HornWumpus]

Not fluid flow. Semiconductors. Bikes are dopents. They leave openings in traffic behind them.

Simple change. What about round abouts

[Ravaldy]

Have roundabout been trialed in big cities? I know it doesn't apply to one way streets unless 2 of them meet.

The small town I grew up in doubled in size since I left and they replaced 2 major intersections with roundabouts. The congestion has been reduced significantly and the police posted numbers showing a 75% reduction in accidents at those intersections in the first 5 years of implementation.

Re:Simple change. What about round abouts

[Russ1642]

Roundabouts completely fail if there's lots of traffic. If one entrance has lots of traffic entering then it's likely that the entrance after it will be unable to flow into the circle at all. I've seen this in action, or should I say inaction.

Re:Simple change. What about round abouts

[neo-mkrey]

Roundabouts work. A recent Mythbusters proved it: http://www.wimp.com/testrounda...

Re:Simple change. What about round abouts

[wiredlogic]

Dupont Circle is a traffic circle which isn't quite the same as a roundabout. Roundabounts have different design specifications: smaller, not usually more than four connecting paths. This makes them easier to negotiate when placed in locations where volume isn't too high to lock out less trafficked lanes. In places where more roads need to meet you'll sometimes see double roundabouts to handle the connectivity while maintaining the advantage of better sight lines from the smaller radius.