Neighborhood Bikeways

[004n063]

Tuam between Main and Crawford (possibly to be extended to Hamilton?) has a combination of painted lanes and sharrows now, so I figured a topic for discussing neighborhood bikeways was appropriate.

Edited October 5 by 004n063

[004n063]

Woodhead St. Bikeway

I've discussed it before, but with the Alabama intersection completed, I thought I'd give a full review.

First, two important questions: 

1) What is a neighborhood bikeway?

As far as I know, there's no office to designate here an official definition, so mine will have to suffice: a neighborhood bikeway is a route that is useful, safe, and easy to follow, without relying on purpose-built bicycle paths or lanes. They are comprised primarily or entirely of mixed-use streets.

2) What makes for a good neighborhood bikeway?

There are several factors, but the most important, as with anything bike-related, is safety. Since these routes are mainly mixed traffic, this safety is 90% based on ensuring that car volumes and speeds are low. There are a lot of ways to achieve that: textured pavers, lane narrowing with paint, street narrowing with curbs, chicanes, mini roundabouts, intersection bulbouts, and speed bumps. Of all of these, speed bumps are generally the least effective, since they pretty much always just mean speeding up in between bumps. But they're also among the cheapest to install, so...

The other major factor is utility. A good neighborhood bikeway gives you access to destinations, which usually means crossing major streets (/stroads). 

These two elements come together in a final necessary element: signalization. Safe neighborhood streets that don't allow you to safely cross the dangerous stroads don't quite meet the criteria.

 

So, how's Woodway?

The Good: Visibility & Consistency

From 59 to W. Clay, it's very clear and obvious to anybody paying attention that this is a dedicated bike route. There are signs everywhere, including "Houston Bikeways" signs, "Speed Humps 20MPH" signs, and "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" signs. There are also clearly marked bicycle lanes at signalized intersections, and bicycle signals to boot. Between Westheimer and W. Gray, there are curbed daylighting features at all stop sign intersections, and all of the stop signs are one-way.

 

The Okay:

The traffic calming is not bad. Speed bumps aren't ideal, but these are consistent, and between them and the consistent visibility, cars don't go very fast. The car volumes around rush hour are tough, but you'd need to get prett Dutch to fix that. (It is a straight cut-through with signals, so it's understandable why cars would use it, even if they generally have to go pretty slow on it.) 

 

The Bad:

The "protected lanes" at intersections. They're well-intended, but they don't appear to have been designed by anybody who has ever ridden a bicycle in a city. The thing is, a lot of the issues could be fixed by just separating the bike signal timing from the regular cycle. But even that wouldn't solve everything, as I learned today, when this guy -

-hit me while making an illegal right on red. I was standing (!!) exactly where all of the markings indicated I was supposed to be standing (literally right next to the passenger, whose window was open, smh). But bad habits die hard, and even if you banned right-on-red in all cases (as I think it's long past time we do), it'll be a long time before you get people to stop doing it.

(I'm not mad, though. I literally went out to take pictures to try to explain why I thought that these were not smart designs. Can't really complain about getting a little more evidence than I'd bargained for.)

That said, the problem I was hoping to illustrate was a different one, which I managed to navigate but not document later on when crossing Montrose on Hawthorne.

The main issue here is that the lane will put you at the front of any line of cars that forms. But the drivers of those cars are not acculterated to accept the condition of being passed by a bicyclist, only to have him sit in front of you, in the middle of the lane, going 10-15mph. So stepping into the middle of the bike box is a big risk. (Especially with a Starbucks right there - angry drivers love to waste their coffee by throwing it at bicyclists, for whatever reason.)

But the other option is to stay to the right through the intersection, which typically means one normal car and potentially one really aggressive car can pass you before you merge back to the center of the lane. This is never a comfortable merge, especially when it means you're putting yourself in front of cars #3-7, whom you casually rolled past to to the front of the line when the light was red.

The whole thing invites conflict and hostility to an even higher degree than an untreated one-lane intersection would.

But it's fixable. I'd start with separating the signal cycles like I said before. If that turns out to be insufficient, then build a continuation of the lane on the other side, with an angled merge after 50-75 feet. 

 

The Quite Lovely, Actually:

The sidewalks. Woodhead and Hawthorne both. Great job. Feels like Chicago. 

....and finally,

The Absurd:

I would love to know in whose John Forester-addled mind Montrose Boulevard is, as currently designed, an adequate route. I ain't saying that we shouldn't let the crazies ride on it, but to put on a sign seems downright negligent.

Anyways, a lovely little ride, for the most part. Love this time of year here, and despite the mayor's best efforts, I don't think I've ever seen as many people casually riding bikes in Houston as I did this week. Huzzah.

[hbg.50]

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

Woodhead St. Bikeway

I've discussed it before, but with the Alabama intersection completed, I thought I'd give a full review.

First, two important questions: 

1) What is a neighborhood bikeway?

As far as I know, there's no office to designate here an official definition, so mine will have to suffice: a neighborhood bikeway is a route that is useful, safe, and easy to follow, without relying on purpose-built bicycle paths or lanes. They are comprised primarily or entirely of mixed-use streets.

2) What makes for a good neighborhood bikeway?

There are several factors, but the most important, as with anything bike-related, is safety. Since these routes are mainly mixed traffic, this safety is 90% based on ensuring that car volumes and speeds are low. There are a lot of ways to achieve that: textured pavers, lane narrowing with paint, street narrowing with curbs, chicanes, mini roundabouts, intersection bulbouts, and speed bumps. Of all of these, speed bumps are generally the least effective, since they pretty much always just mean speeding up in between bumps. But they're also among the cheapest to install, so...

The other major factor is utility. A good neighborhood bikeway gives you access to destinations, which usually means crossing major streets (/stroads). 

These two elements come together in a final necessary element: signalization. Safe neighborhood streets that don't allow you to safely cross the dangerous stroads don't quite meet the criteria.

 

So, how's Woodway?

The Good: Visibility & Consistency

From 59 to W. Clay, it's very clear and obvious to anybody paying attention that this is a dedicated bike route. There are signs everywhere, including "Houston Bikeways" signs, "Speed Humps 20MPH" signs, and "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" signs. There are also clearly marked bicycle lanes at signalized intersections, and bicycle signals to boot. Between Westheimer and W. Gray, there are curbed daylighting features at all stop sign intersections, and all of the stop signs are one-way.

 

The Okay:

The traffic calming is not bad. Speed bumps aren't ideal, but these are consistent, and between them and the consistent visibility, cars don't go very fast. The car volumes around rush hour are tough, but you'd need to get prett Dutch to fix that. (It is a straight cut-through with signals, so it's understandable why cars would use it, even if they generally have to go pretty slow on it.) 

 

The Bad:

The "protected lanes" at intersections. They're well-intended, but they don't appear to have been designed by anybody who has ever ridden a bicycle in a city. The thing is, a lot of the issues could be fixed by just separating the bike signal timing from the regular cycle. But even that wouldn't solve everything, as I learned today, when this guy -

-hit me while making an illegal right on red. I was standing (!!) exactly where all of the markings indicated I was supposed to be standing (literally right next to the passenger, whose window was open, smh). But bad habits die hard, and even if you banned right-on-red in all cases (as I think it's long past time we do), it'll be a long time before you get people to stop doing it.

(I'm not mad, though. I literally went out to take pictures to try to explain why I thought that these were not smart designs. Can't really complain about getting a little more evidence than I'd bargained for.)

That said, the problem I was hoping to illustrate was a different one, which I managed to navigate but not document later on when crossing Montrose on Hawthorne.

The main issue here is that the lane will put you at the front of any line of cars that forms. But the drivers of those cars are not acculterated to accept the condition of being passed by a bicyclist, only to have him sit in front of you, in the middle of the lane, going 10-15mph. So stepping into the middle of the bike box is a big risk. (Especially with a Starbucks right there - angry drivers love to waste their coffee by throwing it at bicyclists, for whatever reason.)

But the other option is to stay to the right through the intersection, which typically means one normal car and potentially one really aggressive car can pass you before you merge back to the center of the lane. This is never a comfortable merge, especially when it means you're putting yourself in front of cars #3-7, whom you casually rolled past to to the front of the line when the light was red.

The whole thing invites conflict and hostility to an even higher degree than an untreated one-lane intersection would.

But it's fixable. I'd start with separating the signal cycles like I said before. If that turns out to be insufficient, then build a continuation of the lane on the other side, with an angled merge after 50-75 feet. 

 

The Quite Lovely, Actually:

The sidewalks. Woodhead and Hawthorne both. Great job. Feels like Chicago. 

....and finally,

The Absurd:

I would love to know in whose John Forester-addled mind Montrose Boulevard is, as currently designed, an adequate route. I ain't saying that we shouldn't let the crazies ride on it, but to put on a sign seems downright negligent.

Anyways, a lovely little ride, for the most part. Love this time of year here, and despite the mayor's best efforts, I don't think I've ever seen as many people casually riding bikes in Houston as I did this week. Huzzah.

You act as if the mayor is anti-bike which is absurd, but I realize people on social media need a bogeyman.  More importantly, did you send your observations to an authority that can actually act on your suggestions? 

[Some one]

1 hour ago, hbg.50 said:

You act as if the mayor is anti-bike which is absurd, but I realize people on social media need a bogeyman.  More importantly, did you send your observations to an authority that can actually act on your suggestions? 

He views biking as recreational, has halted or paused many bike lane (or bike-friendly) projects, such as Shepherd-Durham and Montrose, ordered a pause on any road projects that includes road diets or lane width reduction (including bike lane projects), likely ordered METRO to halt the BCycle program, and has referred to people concerned about the Houston Ave median removal as "anti-car activists." Even if he's not 100% anti-bike he sure ain't pro-bike.

Edited October 13 by Some one

[004n063]

8 hours ago, Some one said:

He views biking as recreational, has halted or paused many bike lane (or bike-friendly) projects, such as Shepherd-Durham and Montrose, ordered a pause on any road projects that includes road diets or lane width reduction (including bike lane projects), likely ordered METRO to halt the BCycle program, and has referred to people concerned about the Houston Ave median removal as "anti-car activists." Even if he's not 100% anti-bike he sure ain't pro-bike.

And all of this while virtually every other major city is adding 10-50 miles of protected bikeways a year. The rest of the country is trying to catch up with the rest of the developed world, and we pretty much just turned around.

[j.33]

On 10/12/2024 at 7:54 PM, 004n063 said:

1) What is a neighborhood bikeway?

As far as I know, there's no office to designate here an official definition, so mine will have to suffice: a neighborhood bikeway is a route that is useful, safe, and easy to follow, without relying on purpose-built bicycle paths or lanes. They are comprised primarily or entirely of mixed-use streets.

Woodhead and Hawthorne were part of the Walk + Bike Montrose TIRZ Mobility Plan in 2019ish. Above is a table defining neighborhood streets and the improvements that were recommended. 

City of Houston Bike Plan defines Neighborhood Bikeway as "Neighborhood bikeways combine three essential elements:

• Street design limits vehicle speeds and volumes to make riding in mixed traffic comfortable.
• Treatments to allow people biking to safely cross intersecting arterials
• Bicycle signage and wayfinding Allows people biking to mix safely with vehicle traffic.

Maintains a good level of comfort by minimizing traffic speeds and volumes. Creates through routes by setting up safe crossings of intersecting streets. Improves safety for people walking. Reduces impact of vehicle traffic on neighborhoods. APPLICATION Neighborhood bikeways are recommended for residential streets with ≤ 1,500 vehicle average daily traffic and where speeds are 30 mph or less. Thoroughfares are not suitable as neighborhood bikeways. Neighborhood Bikeways may be best implemented in conjunction with the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), which addresses traffic related problems in residential neighborhoods, including excessive vehicular speed and cut through traffic. The NTMP has developed a toolbox of “traffic calming” measures, including speed cushions, traffic circles, median islands, curb extensions, and diversion techniques, which may be used to reduce traffic speed and volumes" 

On 10/12/2024 at 7:54 PM, 004n063 said:

The Bad:

The "protected lanes" at intersections. They're well-intended, but they don't appear to have been designed by anybody who has ever ridden a bicycle in a city. The thing is, a lot of the issues could be fixed by just separating the bike signal timing from the regular cycle. But even that wouldn't solve everything, as I learned today, when this guy

The original plan was for the bike signals to be "bike leading" so the bike signal would display a green for roughly 5-7 seconds before thru traffic would get a green. The city ended up disagreeing with the contractor and made it all the same phase. I learned this through numerous 311 reports to get the city to make it bike lead interval with no luck. I suggest continuing to report to 311. 

I appreciate the time you took to give us a review of the bikeway. I love Woodhead and Hawthorne and hope to see more streets apply these improvements (after 2028 of course). I ride the corridors often and really enjoy them.