_People_ are friendly almost no matter where you go, because you meet them in person. _Motorists_ are never friendly because they've got two-to-three thousand kilograms of material surrounding them and it both isolates them from the world _and_ also gives them a false sense of security (and entitlement).
Yeah it's normal :) talk to strangers in San Francisco and you'll have some of the most memorable conversations. I've also solicited much-appreciated life advice from older strangers and provided some of my own to younger strangers ♥️ heartful people live here!
@@DeathInTheSnow or maybe just driving in a car makes them in a hurry I’m for bicycle lanes I’m just guessing what makes car drivers sometimes not so friendly.
Great report well made for such a difficult project they even considert and put tought into start and endpoint. Still you do have to cross traffic if you want to leave it.
Dutch person weighing in here. I'm not going to knock it as it is obviously an immense improvement. That said, I feel like it is a typical American solution: move the bikes out of the way of cars... by putting them in the most vulnerable spot on the road, which is smackdab between two lanes of cars that, as shown by this footage, already have a habit of just popping in and using it as their personal fast lane. Bikes have even less opportunity to get out of the way of unexpected car madness here than they do on lanes by the side. The proper way to handle deliveries, even in far smaller streets than this one, is to mark particular times as being valid for deliveries. Move the problem of the traffic congestion being an issue to the distributors, who can easily include desired delivery times into their planning schedules already. What a road like this needs is a stopping/parking prohibition except for deliveries at scheduled times, and a small bay for every block (probably located in front of one business without outside-dining desires) that is the only place where taxis/ubers/etc are allowed to pick up and drop off. That way, the entire drivers-hating-cyclists-with-unexpected-open-doors thing (which should probably get IMMENSE fines associated with it if it hasn't already!) will stop to be a problem because they simply aren't allowed to stop there and get out to begin with. Finally, on the topic of traffic lights... the USA has one very nasty and unsafe practice, which is to put the traffic lights on the opposite end of the road for convenience. Woe to the person who makes a driver cease their slouching. You'll rarely see this in Europe because forcing a driver to lean forward to see the light engages them more actively into the task of crossing and opens up their peripheral vision to get a better view of traffic heading their way. For bikes, this is perhaps the exact opposite way. They get smaller signals to begin with, causing them to easily be lost inside the messy sign-infested surroundings, which is not really ideal when it comes to crossing. They will already be actively involved in the traffic situation, so the traffic lights relevance literally ends the moment they enter the intersection itself, so making sure it is at the point where they enter it makes sure that every cyclist knows where to look. As for the practice of putting a 'Bike Use Signal' (1:33) for a traffic light for cyclists... yeah, that just adds to the mess. Fine, the really, real final point... sign-madness. I froze the screen at 1:17 because I was trying to quickly check what that one sign said, and look at all the shouty signs. Do you expect all road participants to read them and immediately know which apply to who? Let's see: "Don't go right, except bike." is right next to a traffic light meant for cars. "Major cycling directions" overhead on the same green as car directions would be at. Tiny little green cycling directions that are too blurry for me to read on a lower position still. "Stop here on red." "Don't stop here at any time or you'll be towed." Thankfully the shop doesn't have any signs out, or it might be even more confusing! Your road situations need immense simplification. While I'll admit that Americans will be more used to the colors of the signs as they are no doubt standardized, it is still too much. The sign regarding stopping and towing? Move it back a few hundred meters, it isn't relevant at an intersection. Signs meant for cyclists? Keep them roughtly at eye level: they don't need to be overhead where one would expect car lane instructions to be, and leave the directions for a single centralized cluster. Stop here on red? Isn't the fat white line on the pavement already telling people this? Get rid of it. Most situations (such as 1:33) are similarly overwhelming and chaotic. Every moment spent deciphering the meaning of a sign will either distract from the actual road situation, or cause the signs to be (subconsciously) ignored because nobody has time for it and most signs aren't relevant anyway.
Thank you. People either aren’t aware that the Dutch have already figured this shit out, or they are aware, but make excuses like “they’re a completely different culture” as if you’re some kind of alien. I wish the US would just adopt the CROW manual and implement it everywhere relying about 10% on public input. The public are not traffic engineers, and they are not urbanist nerds like me, but we make almost 100% of our decisions based on public input.
@@DiegoMartinez-ti1vd Municipalities and traffic designers should educate the people on why they want a certain plan. In the Netherlands there's also public imput so everyone's voice is being heard. I agree that the public should not have the power to determine any decisions, but if people are being heard it helps a lot to create good will.
@@MonsieurRaki yeah I guess it just comes down to the fact that our traffic engineers are mostly horribly educated. They don’t know the concept of induced demand and think about traffic flow as if it was water running through a pipe. I watched a video recently about the difference between traffic engineers and transportation engineers in the Netherlands and how the US has no transportation engineers to think about mobility solutions other than cars. Really interesting I’ll post it here if I find it. Then there’s the fact that all of our politicians are corrupt capitalists where their only incentive for anything in this country is immediate profit and donations from corporations, putting the common good on the back burner and this bike lane is just a microcosm of that.
Couldn't agree more @Aviertje! Been there, seen it, horrible! At first you try to read them all because it can be important. But you cant... it is too, too much information, where 99% doesn't apply to you. That's when you start to ignore them and follow your intuition, like all Americans do, with all consequences related. (More than ten times more traffic deaths)
@@DiegoMartinez-ti1vd If politicians are all about profit and good PR, then people can use that to their advantage. Get all kinds of groups involved, from advocacy groups for the elderly, disabled people, organisations that are concerned with safety on roads (the protests in the Netherlands to stop children getting killed on roads really worked well), health organisations that want people to be more active, finance people that can calculate how much cheaper it would be if more people would walk and cycle, architects who can make nice visuals of how a street could look like when it's more people friendly, environmental organisations that want to reduce air pollution in cities, educators that want safety for their students, volunteers that talk to residents about the walkable city, etc... The more organisations and people get involved, the more pressure they can apply to make road safety and inclusion a priority. For some cities it will take decades unfortunately. We have rightwing cities that are more car traffic too, but even they are starting to change to achieve climate goals our federal government has set.
One thing I do like about the central lane is the markings for Fire Lane. Allowing emergency vehicles to bypass drivers, as cycles can generally make room easily.
Great video! As an SF resident and user of the Valencia bikeway, i have mixed feelings. I agree, perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This is a considerable improvement over the previous state of things. I used to do DoorDash and Valencia was a nightmare for me, constantly dodging double parked cars and trying to keep up with the car traffic. The bikeway is way better as a through way, making my old commute from the north end of the city to the south a lot more reasonable. The bike priority signals are the make or break here, before they were activated it was a dangerous free for all every green light. Unfortunately the protection does really fall short. I've had drivers cut across the lane or cut in front of me to use the bike lane as a left turn lane. Motorcycles and scooters regularly use it as a passing lane or express lane which isn't as scary when it happens but definitely carries a high risk. I think the ultimate solution for Valencia is to have it pedestrianized from about 16th-24th street. Road access should be limited to only deliveries, emergency vehicles, and some accessible street parking. The Sunday streets program, where that stretch of Valencia is closed to car traffic, is a huge success and brings so many people out. The street really feels the most alive. Drivers shouldnt worry about losing the north/south connection, parallel and one block west is Guerrero street, a 4 lane road with a median and limited crossings, with more direct access between market street and the freeway. The mission lacks a lot of good community gathering spaces and i think a Valencia promenade could bring one in. Involving the community in decision making is very important, a lot of gentrification in the mission is centered around Valencia and its nightlife, so it's important to serve the whole of the community with gathering spaces for kids and families, not just some place for college kids and tech bros to throw a rager. TLDR: Valencia good, Valencia bikeway better, Valencia promenade best Thanks for talking about our funky strip of paint
I agree. It's important to include members of a community in any decision process. I remember when none of the streets in SF had bike lanes. For a cyclist, it was like the wild wild west. You just had to stake your place on the road, ride fast like you stole it and hope that cars wouldn't run you down or pedestrians wouldn't run out in the middle of the street not looking out for a cyclist. As a SF bike messenger (SFBMA) for nearly a decade in the early naughts, I did see some improvements thanks to a push for better bicycle infrastructure. We should all thank old school bike messengers for that as well as the SF Bike Coalition. Both advocated for better bicycle infrastructure be it in City Hall (yes, bike messengers are no dummies when it comes to the ins and outs of city government), by their presence riding on the streets, or sadly from lives lost on the road (job) because of car centric urban design. Rubber side down! Safety first! 2 dollars!!
The data about this causing cars to go slower is interesting. I'd like to know if their travel time was significantly impacted, or if this just reduces the staggered pattern of fast driving until a stop light followed by long waiting. Regardless, on streets with several businesses and people I'm always happy to see cars slow the hell down. Also somebody please tell the poor soul at 4:55 to switch to a higher gear.
theres a corner on 23rd and valencia. only 4 cars can go across on a green light. cars back up for several blocks at that intersection. it does add time to the commute.
@@Caegofy it is commercial. in sf they like to keep commuting on commercial streets to cut traffic down on residential blocks. they have cut car traffic on the wealthy streets and called them slow streets, people can walk in the middle. those are the streets that should be the bike lanes.
@@episdosas9949 Why anyone really wants to drive in SF unless it's for a work purpose (delivery, emergency vehicle, taxi, etc) is beyond me. Muni & BART will get you anywhere in that city. It's also very walkable, and if you know how to avoid most of the hills, it's fun to ride a bike there. Although, it's even more fun if you power up the hills and cruise downhill, let that cool air slap your face while you pass up all the sad lot motorists stuck in traffic. It's a pain moving your car to a new parking place every couple of days to avoid street sweeping. I had a car there for a minute when I lived there (12 years). I think I drove it mostly to move it to a new parking spot. Too many parking tickets and tow yard fees, I got rid of it real quick.
While I kind of get the idea, I’m not sure this is a good solution. Because while all the advantages of things not blocking the path are correct and are probably quite good for through traffic, it’s incredibly impractical for local traffic. You can’t really stop or start your journey anywhere except the intersections, which removes one of the biggest advantages of biking, easily stopping and parking. The side bike lanes shown on the same street looked a lot more useful.
Blocks in SF are short and walkable. I'd rather arrive at my destination alive and push my bike for 30 seconds on the sidewalk from the nearest intersection... and popping out of the bike lane and crossing the car lane is easy enough except in heavy traffic.
@@bloopasonicIn heavy traffic there's gonna be stopped cars halfway up the block (so like, 4 lmao) it's medium traffic that you gotta worry about, where they're still moving 15-25mph in a line and you can't just pull out and brake in front of one.
Hey, that's my hood! One of the positive aspects of the new design is that it increases the visibility of cyclists! It literally puts them front and center, and makes it clear they have a right to exist and use the road - something, sadly, that some motorists still aren't willing to accept. With the old setup, and cyclists squeezed into the margins, it's much easier to ignore them and treat the bike lane as a convenient space to double park or dump trash. Of course the best solution is to ban cars entirely from Valencia. Everything is within a short walk from a Bart station. Until then, actually enforcing traffic laws against car drivers would be a good step forward... The SFPD happily harasses cyclists every chance they get, but can't be bothered to make car drivers follow the rules.
Ideally, this road would be converted to a pedestrian/cyclist only road, but I'd have to take a look at the surrounding area to figure out if that's actually viable considering the surrounding infrastructure as the street seems to be pretty high-traffic for a 2-lane which suggests that traffic wants to take that road rather than surrounding roads. So I'm going to say that the best reasonable solution would have been to do something similar to Orlando's urban trail extension. Remove streetside parking on one side, and create a second "sidewalk" bike path running parallel to the road itself.
The neighborhood is a mess of permanently parked cars. It would need some more local garages and there are arguments about businesses needing deliveries on the street. It all could be worked out. It would be awesome.
@@jeremysteinmeier1701 Honestly, the delivery requirements are why it would probably be best to at least have a sort of local-traffic-only "hybrid" system. Maybe one one-way lane of road traffic with pull-off points, a very low speed limit and forced right turn at the "downstream" end, then have the rest be pedestrian/cyclist only.
The Area is a grid, with Guerrero and Dolores to the west, both 4 car lane streets. Mission is to the right, probably the best transit corridor in SF with
I like how fast it is, I feel like you hit the series of green lights way better but it’s definitely more dangerous. Getting into the center running lanes is a little sketchy and I’ve seen people make U-Turns through it. Of course the real solution is to chut down Valencia to cars completely. Fixes all the problems and the bike lanes would work great.
I'm obviously for the project (over nothing), but I don't like the idea of being sandwiched between two busy car lanes. Maybe my mind would be changed if I road it though.
I don't live there but I feel like if the bollards were more frequent and also solid it would help a lot. As is it doesn't look like there's really much stopping a driver from plowing right through into the bike lane. A solid concrete block would help. I bet the bollard spacing is more to allow emergency vehicle to enter/exit the lane as needed though. All around an imperfect solution but interesting. I do agree about not wanting to be sandwiched between cars though. Ideally all cars and bikes would be completely separated. Being next to cars is so LOUD.
A lot of people would not feel comfortable. To get more people on a bicycle the infrastructure has to be safe and comfortable. On this road only the very abled and brave would ride this.
@@scopie49 as a norcal native, they usally do end up putting a curb in these places. at first they use whats called soft solutions (either paint or plastic bollards) and then if theres no issues with the configurations they put in the curbs and solid bollards. although im not sure if thats the case here, in my town theyve left the bollards up for a long time before finally putting in more permanent infrastructure.
Why not move a 2 way cycle lane to one side of the street, elevate it entirely or at least intersections Then you put some trees and a line of grass along the roadside of the bike lane, then a parking strip and then a 2 way car lane and another parking strip.
I was thinking about that too. The only issue is that we’re in the same place again as far as getting to the other side of the road. We should just convert the whole road to a bike road!
Just eliminate on street parking. Cars should park in lots and garages. Drivers can never find a space anyway. Take away the on street parking and things become very simple.
You're the first bicyclist that agrees with business owners (4:34) that placing a bike line along the street curb "might" hurt their business in some way. That's a curious admission. I think the true solution for Valencia street is to turn it into a pedestrian and bicycle corridor only. Get rid of cars. This is VERY unlikely to ever happen but I would love to be proven wrong........one day.
It hurts their business even more when cyclists can't reach those stores easily. And with some parking space people can still access the shops by cars.
@@MonsieurRaki I personally have never accepted the "a bike lane will kill my business" argument. I've seen plenty of studies that show a bike lane either has zero effect or the businesses along the lane see an increase in foot traffic. Sometimes it's because a slower bicyclist has time to see something interesting to stop at and can do so easily. Other times it's because the bike lane helps to create a calmed and quieter street. That in turn results in more pedestrians wanting to stroll along that street which in turn results in more "walk-in" pedestrian traffic for said businesses. As for car driving, I've never said, "I'm not going to my favorite business unless I can park directly in front of it." I assume I'll have to park around the corner and walk one minute and thirty seconds to arrive at my destination.
@@Urbanhandyman Absolutely agree.. Slowing the cars downs means more business. Fast cars just drive through the streets, they hardly stop to go to the stores. Any street with a lot of shops should be pedestrian prioritized. It seems in a lot of cities the downtown area is completely dead just because fast cars have access to those area's, leaving it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists to enjoy the shops and restaurants.
@@MonsieurRaki Most downtown U.S. cities have traffic patterns designed from the 1950s through the 1990s. Meaning that they emphasize car volume over everything else. That's why you'll see plenty of one-way three-lane wide streets in San Francisco with high speed traffic jetting past historic Victorian housing and apartments. It's still all about getting cars where they need to go as quickly as possible. The average traffic engineer to this day is taught that this is the number one priority when looking at designing new streets and maintaining old ones. I'm somewhat hopeful that this is finally beginning to change.
I actually disagree, curbside means you are constantly interacting with pedestrians, and in the case of North America, turning cars, side streets, and parked cars. This means you can cruise virtually worry-free (if it were protected)
@@pex3 That's why cyclists should get priority over pedestrians, so they don't get stopped all the time. And cars should yield to ongoing cyclists when they want to make a turn. Curbside bike lanes are much safer for cyclists if the street is designed for safety. If there's still car-centric thinking, then the road becomes unsafe for everyone. In the Netherlands car drivers know very well to look out for cyclists before opening their doors when they are parked somewhere. American drivers should also learn this to prevent accidents.
A street near me added bicycle lanes on both side of the road where used to be parking spots for residents. also added trees/flower beds on both sides to separate the car lanes which narrow the lane width and deny car turn into both sides without entering the bicycle lane first through a few opening. Inconvenient, yes, but fine to be a bicycle friendly and the tree/flower beds look nice. The real issues are, it only lasts a few blocks within this city, there is no bicycle lane before and after, so how the riders enter and exit is not clear and nobody rides bicycle on that road. Another street next to my house (different city) has painted bicycle lane on each side that car can turn into anywhere and enough room to park. Not too many bicycles during weekday but some riders in group on weekend. Nothing against bicycle lane but there is way to balance between all drivers’ safety and convenience. This is LA, the distance and roads are not easy for most to use bicycle as the primary transportation tool, recreation is common. SF is different, I can walk to designation in the metropolitan area and driving/parking is a pain.
In Barcelona there are several streets (e.g.: Avenida Parallel, Passeig de St. Joan) with central bike paths, they are fine as long as they are decently protected.
São Paulo also has several central bike paths. Avenida Paulista and Avenida Faria Lima are the most famous ones, and are protected. However there are some central bike paths unprotected, as on Avenida da Liberdade and Rua Sena Madureira.
There's another center bike lane in Washington DC on Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the US Capitol Building. After watching your video, I started to question would my example be applicable to the one on Valencia Ave?
I didn't include it or other European examples. I should have in retrospect. The big difference is that those bike lanes are not in a busy business corridor.
Living in Chicago and using my bike to get around, I can tell you the curbside bike lanes are a disaster. In the Loop in particular, drivers and pedestrians act like the lanes do not exist. People will mill around in the bike lanes, leave garbage cans, packages, and park their cars in the bike lane. Cabs jut in to pickup and drop off passengers without looking, people enter the lane to cross the street constantly. Getting doored in a Chicago bike lane is a certainty, it's just a question of when. There is no enforcement whatsoever. These lanes were likely copied from Spain. In Spain there are pedestrian and bike lanes in the center of even major thoroughfares. Getting around was amazingly easy. However, these lanes were designed and installed at the time the surface streets were installed, so there is a very large buffer between the cars and bike and pedestrians. You need to see it to appreciate it.
What about moving the bike lane to the outside of car parking next to sidewalk with foot tall barrier preventing cars from encroaching? Still have to watch out for car doors (but less often) and the other problems go away
Haven't ridden this street myself yet. I will say I hate bike lanes between road side car parking and auto lanes. The opening doors, the ' don't mind me parking in the bike lane, and the make a right turn without signaling right in front of me... I think side lanes are a possible solution if the cars can't physically get in the bike lanes. We still have a long way to go.
The fact it switches partway through and _still_ isn't properly protected. 🤢 This reminds me of Mollison Avenue in Enfield, North London. They alternate between two-way and one-way cycling along it's length, but at times it swerves you _into oncoming traffic_ if you follow the signs. I'd rip it out, get rid of the street parking, put a _TRAM_ down the middle and put two-way pavement-level bike lanes on either side of the road with a single lane for cars in-between, if there's space.
This is the kind of street that may feel fine for one ride, but it's so full of awkward interactions and opportunities for dangerous conflicts that it would be a nightmare for daily usage. Also the rollout was a train wreck with very little consideration for bicycle riders - there were essentially months where the lane was half-finished and not "officially open" but the city provided no other detour or route for bike riders. On the busiest bike corridor in the whole city. It's this kind of project that makes me glad I left the US. I think the Streetsblog coverage also deserves a mention here.
Why they can just arrange it like that, let me show it as a cross section of a street: Sidewalk | Bidirectional separated bikeway | Trees/parking spaces | Car lane ⬇ | Car lane ⬆ | Trees/parking spaces | Bidirectional separated bikeway | Sidewalk It has many benefits eg.: - Cyclist and pedestrians are covered in shade by trees - Motorist and deliveries can easily access buildings - No risk of being hit by an open door (if given enough clerance) This solution is quite common here where I live, in Warsaw, Poland
Valencia is a street that parallels Mission, and it is one of the flattest long stretches of road in San Francisco where hills determine bike routes. That's why it's so busy with bike traffic. I used to ride the length of it multiple times daily.
I generally don't like bike lanes on streets with a lot of through traffic like here. In my city, bike lanes like this are on the shoulder right next to the sidewalk and at the same height level as the sidewalk. This solution seems better to me, although one has to go slower if there are more pedestrians, who often walk in the bike section as well. And the few vans that block the bike path when unloading goods I don't worry about, I go around them on the pedestrian part.
I absolutely agree. In the ideal situation there would be seperate traffic plans for bicycles and cars. Cars can get re-directed so they have roads that accomodate them for more efficient through traffic. In spaces with a lot of pedestrians and cyclists the cars should not be prioritized.
One thing they could pilot here: Automated enforcement. Radar cross-section on the bike lane beyond a certain threshold - boom, ticket. Camera on crossing detects car in middle section while through-traffic has green - boom, ticket. Btw, that should be feasible on curb-side bike tracks, too. This is imho the missing component: safer streets need a more rigorous enforcement against motorists. They drive the dangerous boxes and endanger others.
The center bike lane seems like a perfect first step to a pedestrianized street. Bike highway in the middle and easy to get off mid-block since you're just joining other pedestrians.
in my city of gothenburg, sweden, we have several lovely middle-of-the-road bike lanes. *however*, they are _very_ separated from the car lanes and have a whole line of trees in between the bike lane and the car lanes instead of just a few flimsy flexposts. when cars would cross it, they would either have to go up on a raised area, making it very clear that they are guests there and should leave precedence to bikes or there would be a traffic light
This video prompted me to consider how a center bike lane might be applicable in other situations. I'm in a suburban area where there is lots of snow. A center bike lane would be easier to keep clear of snow and in a suburban setting, there are not as many mid-block destinations as on Valencia street in SF.
@@danielrose1392 Good point. I wonder what other areas with lots of snow do? I've done some internet searching but most everything about bikeways seems to be filmed in the summer.
From what I remember the finns often put bikelanes and sidewalks next to each other separated by a somewhat low curb. Enough for pedestrians to notice that they step on a bike lane, but nothing that really hiders snow clearing.
I live in the suburbs and one major road near me could use a center bike lane (well multi-use ped and cycle path). It would take away a vehicular lane but just an underutilized turn lane (one of two). The reason it'd work is that this junction has off ramps coming onto the road from a highway on both sides. Instead of putting a sidewalk to one side and risking someone getting hit by a car merging off the highway, I think a barricaded centered path would be good until you transfer out of the highway junction and get to a regular stop light a block or so away. That stoplight would have crossings to get to either side of the road from the center.
@6:50-7:04 I personally like "bike highways" since when I'm cycling I don't want to see all the people (unaware pedestrians or crowds are usually a bigger issue than cars when I ride, in DC) and I already know the businesses in the area. Attitudes like this seem to be rooted in forgetting that cycling isn't just something I do for pleasure. I'm looking to get someplace fast, faster than driving or public transit. If you want to amble, you can hop off and walk along the sidewalk or even cut across mid-block to your destination. Having safe (separated) lanes is good. This lane also makes you more visible to cars than if you were in a 2-way lane on one side of the street, and less likely to have a pedestrian wander into the lane thinking it's a sidewalk. The one downside I see is that you don't get any shade in the road's center, compared to if you were near a sidewalk.
I concur. There should be bike highways and more recreational routes. Both are important. A great example in SF is the Panhandle park, there's a curvy path through the park that is nice, but yes you need to respect pedestrians and park users. Theres also a straight parking-protected bike lane on Fell that you can use to ride fast to Golden Gate Park. Its great to have both options!
At the end of the day this is a step in the right direction but the curb protected cycle track with Dutch style protected intersections will always reign supreme
It reminds me of the pedestrian strip in the center of the big avenues in Barcelona. I didn't like to walk there unless I just wanted to go somewhere. It felt disconnected. Although, much better view on the architecture lining the avenues.
It's not a great design, but it's what SF MTA is prepared to allow, which is as much as we can get right now; bicycle usage passed a critical threshold after 2020 in tandem with a bunch of MTA quick-build experiments, and action on infrastructure has also been spurred on from the Baywheels share network, which announced yesterday 2 million rides YTD, further expansions and a membership price reduction. A new era started this decade, and it's gotten a different kind of rider from the old Critical Mass guys, with lots more parents running cargo bikes and ferrying around their kids. But as it is, I take the sidewalk in so, so many parts of the city and just let the bike tick along in low gear because the street isn't any good at preventing conflicts. It's not specific to the motorists, it's also a bike and pedestrian traffic thing - nobody wants to come to a complete stop, nobody wants to slow down for a turn or take a slower route. The end of the month or major holidays come around and everyone starts rushing around in a panic because of money or personal stress. The street is rational and the people are not. One of SF's most successful bicycle streets since the pandemic is Page, and they ultimately got there by adding the thing that the SF street grid needs most - modal filters at both ends so that aggressive thru traffic doesn't try to cut in and blast by the local traffic to save themselves 30 seconds of driving to the arterial. At SF's density, you really need entire side streets that filter out the aggressive traffic, because otherwise it just becomes a random event that occurs on any block at any time. Some of those "Slow Street" designs implemented in 2020 failed because the filter was incomplete and motorists casually broke the law to slalom around or plow through any signage. But if you did it properly and allocated them all throughout the city to create car cul-de-sacs that are ped/bike friendly, it'd be very easy to get around. Full pedestrianization and lane treatments are worthy prizes, but also much harder to get consent on from the local residents, business owners and emergency services, who all want doorstep access everywhere.
It's a much safer plan, to now allow through traffic on every street. Re-direct the cars to the appropriate roads, so there can be low-car or no-car streets for cyclists and pedestrians, maybe with a buslane so they don't get stuck in traffic. I don't get how plans "fail" because car drivers ignore the rules.. They should be heavily fined, so they learn quickly.
Clearly you forgot about Pennsylvania Avenue in DC. I’m still not a big fan of that lane, as PA Ave is just so wide that the center-running bike lane isn’t immediately apparent in the middle of the road. Also, all those left hook issues you so rightly point out are just the inverse of the same problem of right hooks common with right side, parking protected bike lanes. I was nearly hooked twice in Sacramento last night on our city’s parking protected bike lanes. The only thing that saved me was my vehicular cycling training that taught me of the inherent dangers of such facilities.
Yeah, I just don't like videos to drag on. I left out some European examples too. They pose many of the same issues however this lane is somewhat unique in that it's along a pretty busy cultural corridor. From what I understand many others are along 'roads'
Left hand hood are presumable less common since drivers are on the left in the US. They can still happen obviously but at least the blindspot is smaller.
@@emma70707 Two things wrong with that. Those Continental European countries have the same Rule of the Road as the US and most of the rest of the world (Thank Napoleon for that). In the countries that don't (Like the UK), everything else would also be flipped so the geometry of a cross traffic turn would be exactly the same apart from being mirrored. The blind spots a left hand drive car driving on the right of a centre bike lane would have turning left across traffic are exactly the same as those a right hand drive car on the left of a centre bike lane would have turning right across traffic.
@@KevinSmithGeo , point taken about Europe driving on the right, but I fail to see what was wrong about left hand hooks being presumably less common than right hand hooks. You didn't offer any refutation about that. Whether it's mirrored is irrelevant since I was only specifying US to indicate left hand hooks relative to the position of the driver. If you wanted to look at the ratio of right hand hooks with left hand drivers and include that in the statistics, be my guest. Now, if you have any comments on the relevant points, I'd love to hear it. :)
@@emma70707 Did you mean that turning toward the driver side on streets that have a centre bike lane would be more or less dangerous depending on which rule of the road applies? That's what I was disagreeing with, but if you were saying that turns to the driver side (Left in most of the world including the US) on a centre bike lane seem safer than passenger side turns (Right in most of the world) across curbside bike lanes, that's a reasonable hypothesis.
Bike paths between traffic and parked cars are bad enough to begin with, but the footage of cars double-row parking onto them is maddening. Law proposal: Free smashing time on double-parked cars.
Great vid!! Long time cyclist long time driver as well... And long time SF resident! I avoid this part of Valencia when I"m driving because of left/u turn no no's!! But feel 100% safe when biking through this area!! Well done SF bike lane installers!! Was a SF bike messenger from '97-'04 & got doored once. I was doored my first week! And I thought it was my fault. Turns out its learning this later on that if you get doored, its the fault of the idiot opening their door before looking out for oncoming traffic. A lot has changed but a lot of things stay the same! Stay safe out there!
I liked that you covered both pros and cons of the bike lane while also offering reasonable improvements. A quick-build such as this leaves room for adjustments, improvements, or reconfiguration if needed. I've never used the bike lanes but walked the area during a past visit and sat in one of the parklets outside of a restaurant. While still busy, the street felt quieter and more pleasant than before. And as a pedestrian, it felt nice not to worry about getting in the way of someone on a bike. I look forward to seeing how this configuration evolves and influences projects in other parts of the city.
"We're all fighting for the same thing: safer streets, for everyone" Reminds me of the "Stop de Kindermoord" protests we had in The Netherlands in the 1970s. Best of luck trying to have a similar impact.
I feel like this layout is very eh. In Montreal, a similar street with businesses along it was redesigned, Saint-Denis, with unidirectional bike lanes on each side. There’s signal priority at traffic lights so cars don’t turn into the lane, and when there are restaurant areas outside, they remove the parking to allow the bike lane to go around the booths. There are also crosswalks where drivers yield in the middle of the block to slow cars down, with trees in the middle of the street that they have to go around
I like it. looks like it has some ironing out to do. Transitions between various systems are often hard. and I am curious what centerlane bike route intersections would look like.
To me it looks like a "lazy solution". You have plenty of space to have protected bike lanes on either sides, and not on the Driver side of the parking but on the Passenger side. That is, it should go: Sidewalk - Bike Lane - Parking - 2 Lane Street - Parking - Bike Lane - Sidewalk But that would possibly require some extra thought and investments in the intersection treatment and some reduction of parking spaces (snif snif). Hence the lazy solution, just smack the bike lane in the middle with some cones and paint and give yourselve a pat on the back
I am Dutch. The Netherlands has written THE BOOK on cycling infrastructure. No , really, literally. Just Google Crow manual on bicycle infrastructure, an d you'll find a book containing the culminating of decades of experience, knowledge and best practices on bicycle safety. Your town can buy this book, there is a version in English. Nowhere in that book is any mention of a bicycle lane in the middle of the road. I suspect there are good reasons for that. American cities, please stop wasting a fortune by inventing the wheel over and over again. Just buy the Crow manual and start implementing what works.
yeah those center bike lanes are really not good for cyclists. a (bidirectional) bike lane between the curb and parking (preferably with a little bit of grass/trees between the parking and the bike lane) is the best option. it keeps all road users separated from each other, makes the cyclist feel like part of the world (instead of dumping them between two rows of metal boxes, that might kill them) and maybe most important, it works like all other types of traffic lanes so people don't have to figure out a new situation. and for the people that say it might impact the businesses. decades of experience (in The Netherlands) have showed that when a cycle lane is added (or even replaces the parking lane) businesses end up with more customers in their stores.
I'm in full agreement: building safe bike infrastructure is largely a solved problem and we should essentially copy the lessons that the Dutch have learned over the decades. These rules are written in blood, after all.
I disagree. I think this is a great solution for cyclists who want to use the street as a highway, travelling as quickly as possible from one end to the other without EVER interacting with motor vehicles except for at signalled intersections.
@@pex3 yes but this cycle lane is for all cyclist. and for all cyclists an curbside cycle lane would be better. because people that have something along the street as a destination can get there. and people using it as a highway can still cycle along the whole street. now only the "highway cyclists" have a decent route, and "local cyclists" just have to make do with that.
As an ebike rider this is a god send. Passing slower riders is a really big challenge especially in a busy city like Toronto. This makes it so it’s the same concept as passing a car instead of having to cut into vehicle traffic over the median to pass on traditional bike lane infrastructure.
Well, since you asked: I live two blocks from Valencia and at age 83 have better sense than to ride a bicycle anywhere, especially on the streets of San Francisco. SFPD currently makes about 10 traffic stops per day city-wide, so no street is actually safe. So I can't help but think that a better solution for the three or four busiest blocks of Valencia would be to ban all parking, remove all painted lines, and turn the street into a pedestrianized free-for-all with a speed limit of THREE MPH for everyone. Lots of clear markings and bollards would be needed at each cross street to made it clear that anyone entering would be required to move at the same speed as a pedestrian. Drivers would avoid it, deliveries would be easier, bicyclists could ride wherever as they wanted, and PEOPLE, not things on wheels would have priority. If you think this idea is absurd, visit almost any city Germany and see it for yourself. By the way, sidewalks on Valencia that had been narrowed in the 1950s were recently widened. They still aren't wide enough.
I can see the main reason this style was chosen... to preserve on street parking and loading areas. Was this a trial layout though, with the none solid barriers, that would be the first thing I would change. Definitely great if going through, but visiting a shop is like the disadvantage of a two-way cycleway on the other side.
you've forgotten an important point, the rescue! Rescue services can use this track to go faster! I'm not a fan of these routes, but it's one of their advantages. the ideal is to have two lanes on the sides, wide enough to let the emergency services through, so that there's plenty of room. otherwise it's always complicated to leave and get back to the runway.
I feel like one benefit of complete streets is the widening of storefront space. As in, stores gain more sidewalk, bike lane, and parking, all of which relegate the cars to the middle where shopping, leisure, exercise, and play don’t happen. I’d rather see sidewalks extended with protected lanes bc it improves real estate value and foot traffic on the street level, as opposed to pushing much of the street level traffic (bikes) away from the buildings.
it would be best pedestrionized, but if that is not possible, i think that the bike lane in the centre and puting up a solid brick curb (it would need to have spaces for crossing of course), iron bollards, brick surface on the car road and cameras that can read licesnse plates in the intersection is the best solution. Also yeah the turnboxes are awful
Cross town bike highway effect, unimpeded by parked cars or motorists walking across the bike lane to get to their parked cars, is the greatest advantage.
I live on this and bike it 5-10x per week. I think it is, like always, a performative half measure. Cars are allowed on 99.9% of roads. We should fully pedestrianize at least 20% of roads and Valencia is obviously a great first case . And of course build more dense transit oriented multi use housing.
when I cycled in Paris in 2021 they also had middle cycling lanes, and they're horrendous. I was in the middle of the road unable to quickly stop and look around to see where the heck I was, unable to simply take a turn, unable to see where the road takes me next as you never knew what lies beyond the crossing, should I be on the right of the road, on the left, in the middle? nothing was clear, and you're stuck in the stressful environment of cars all around you.
I walk and bike Valencia frequently. You missed a great deal of the negatives. Vehicles frequently park in the new center bike lane. The dark "barriers" restrict no vehicle from entry into the bike lanes. I have seen several U-turns mid-block by vehicles, meaning vehicles cross the barriers on both sides of the center bike lane to turn around. Also (and this is a biggie) the center bike lane is also a fire lane (notice the "FIRE LANE" painted in huge letters numerous times all along the center "bike lane"?). When there is an emergency, bicycles (not vehicles) will need to exit the center bike lane quickly to avoid fast-moving emergency vehicles. This may be a recipe for disaster. The protected bike lanes on Valencia between Market and 15th not only feel much safer, they ARE much safer. We shall see what the data tells us in 9 months or so, but I strongly suspect this current center bike lane is far from ideal.
Great video! Thanks for a balanced look at the controversy. As you surmise, it's not "great" but it's a huge improvement over the prior configuration. A few remarks from this local: - For all you "do what the Dutch do" posters: the best practice of putting the bike lane between the parking and the sidewalk is not feasible here. There are many restaurants all along the street. During the pandemic, the City allowed for "parklets" - parking spaces converted into sidewalk extensions for additional outdoor dining. Each block has many parklets and it's impractical to put the bike traffic between them and the sidewalk. The parklets are popular and there isn't a push to remove them. - One benefit for me personally is that i like seeing cyclists coming the other way. You can see faces, smile and slap hands with your friends. - The single soft hit post at the entrance of the bike lane (one is shown knocked over) can't be made more solid as the bike lane also doubles as an emergency lane for fire trucks, ambulances, etc. - There's a recent uptick of businesses being vocally against the bike lanes. I think this is happening because: -- This new configuration caused many parking spots to be removed. -- The center lane used to be for turning and was a defacto parking lane. So in a sense even more parking was removed since this is no longer allowed. -- Traffic is worse. Backups happen when cars are trying to parallel park and cars can't go around like they used to be able to. Left turns off the street are no longer allowed. Of course the better solution will be to pedestrianize the street but there's not the political will yet to make that happen.
As someone that lived on Valencia for several years and now live in the Netherlands, there are a multitude of Dutch street designs that would work better. Why Valencia even needs passenger car traffic is a mystery. Mission is a BRT and Bart corridor and Guerrero, Dolores, and Van Ness are auto routes. People can walk a block or two to a mostly pedestrianised street and it’ll be much more pleasant. This bike lane design is quite poor for handicap users on mobility scooters to access the bike lane and then exit when needed, alongside the stated issues for cyclists that want to access shops. It preserves almost all the on street passenger parking while causing deliveries and taxis to block the road, which also exacerbates emergency vehicle access. A Dutch approach would remove the majority of auto through traffic to the auto priority routes flanking Valencia, then only disabled, emergency, and commercial vehicles would be granted free access. Cross streets would have continuous sidewalks and raised intersections to slow vehicles crossing Valencia and give pedestrians and cyclists priority. The bike lanes would be raised and on the inside of the parking reducing chances of dooring.
This was done first on a road in Toronto about 15 years ago, the motorists freaked out and the brand new centre bike lanes were removed when a new mayor was elected.
From a Dutch perspective, this solution seems just a little improvement at it's best, but most of all a waste of money. Maybe it is better then it was before, but then it probably was a total nightmare before. Why can't they take some experience of Dutch engineers to come up with a good design. The experience of decades of trial and error had lead to really good road design and safety for all participants, safe parking and delivery bays for the shops included. This is money thrown away and it will only help the anti bicycle advocates to make their case. Cars parked along the pavement and then the bicycles have to ride in the middle of the road between the driving cars? Shops have to be delivered trough the front door but they can't walk 3 meters more over a cycle lane? And then the most frightening: these intersections where you have to cross the car lanes, even when going strait. And when you want to visit a shop between two intersections, how do you reach their front door? Going trough the traffic? I can't believe some traffic engineer came up with this solution. Didn't he ever opened a book about this subject with some Dutch solutions? It seems insane to me.
I know at 7:36 you mentioned that they need solid barriers with the example being the flattened yellow flexpole in the middle of the lane. I don't think that one specifically could ever be anything more than a flexpole since the bike lane is also a fire lane
This is definitely a cool concept, but I don't think it solves anything that couldn't have been solved by forcibly getting cars out of the existing bike lanes by putting up bollards on the car side of them. Extra drawbacks I at least imagine (would be interesting to see if the actual users share this sentiment): - Air pollution: When cars are only on one side, vs. cars on both sides, I'd imagine there being more undesirable fumes, more often. - Heat: On the side of the road, you are sometimes in the shade of roadside trees or buildings themselves. It looks like the center lane is in the sun 100% of the time. PS on fumes from cars: Some cars but especially a lot of pickup trucks point their exhausts specifically to the right (not even just backward on the right side), so in most cases this just helps degrade the cycling or walking experience alongside a road but I wonder if in this case it actually is a slight positive spin on the center lanes since you're on the left of each direction of traffic. A solution I would genuinely employ is just turning the whole street into a pedestrian-only area with a cycling thoroughfare designed thru it, and let the cars drive and park on intersecting streets where they wouldn't be interfering.
The only problem with that is if you want to turn off the street to go to one of the restaurants or shops mid block. The trees will cut down visibility making it really hard for drivers who are already distracted driving in a city like SF to see the cyclist who may want to swiftyl turn into the lane to stop at a shop midblock. You have to keep in mind that a significant percent of drivers in SF are from the 'burbs (bridge & tunnel). Many of them don't know where they're going.
The best order is: Shop, Sidewalk, Bike Lane, Physical Barrier, Parking, Car Lane, Car Lane, Parking, Physical Barrier, Bike Lane, Sidewalk, Shop Or just no car traffic at all lol
it seems like if nothing else, it was a noble/worthwhile experiment that as a result of compromising between different interests, ending up being a mixed bag. I dont think there is anything wrong with experimenting with things like this. Perhaps another compromise would be to pedestrianize one side/direction of cars and so you have a one-way road on only a third of the total street area, and the bike lane buffering between pedestrians and cars. this could also allow room for a more solid barrier between the car lane and bikes
It's way better than before and I haven't had issues dismounting mid-block to visit merchants. This might not work if (when?) we have Dutch-level bike traffic in the lane. Car traffic is lighter and slower, which makes it an overall safer experience. Still gotta watch out for the occasional crazy driver running red lights etc usually late at night/early morning.
I’ve had this same idea for roads with wide medians but I think this bike path would be safer if it was raised and separated by a curb on both sides and not just some flimsy dividers; that way, motorists would be less likely to drift into the bike path or illegally use it as an express lane. To make it safer for bicyclists to get across the street, I think a mid-block crosswalk with signals could work (plus it would help pedestrians). As for motorists disregarding the signs forbidding left turns and U-turns, I don’t have a solution for that but I’m sure a civil engineer reading this would
The flimsy barriers on Valencia are likely temporary while data is being gathered. On the other side of the bay in Oakland on Telegraph they are putting in permanent cement barriers for the (gutter) bike lanes. Problem is, they made the bike lanes too narrow (!) making it difficult if not impossible to pass slow cyclists, especially those with wide handle bars. Also, you can't ride abreast with another cyclist. Argh!! What they should have done is narrow the car lanes which would slow motor traffic (necessary with all the pedestrian traffic) and widen the bike lanes. IMO, there is no reason for any motorized vehicle to drive over 30 mph on any city street, especially ones with a lot of foot traffic.
The other thing I would add is that there’s almost zero enforcement of cycling infrastructure laws in DC until AFTER something bad happens. Even here where there’s a lot of lip service to “Vision Zero” coming out of the mayor’s office, it feels like most of law enforcement are either ignoring vehicles parked in bike lanes or parking there themselves. What’s that about? Even if we went with “defunding” and used parking ticket people so the police can do “real detective work” and pursue “real crime” it would be so much better than the administration pretending they care.
Thanks for making the video. Certainly pros and cons! I like the “equal compromise”… of left+right bike lanes together on one side… and left+right car lanes on the other side :)
As a daily cyclist in the Bar Area, I generally hate this. One of the benefits claimed for this is that currently cars occupy the bike lane forcing cyclists out into the street. But a fully protected bile lane achieves this benefit just as well. Those would also have the benefit of having double parked cars impact other cars and not cyclists. With a buffer you also prevent the danger from being doored AND it narrows the driving lane such that traffic speeds slow down. I don't buy that deliveries are a reason for the center lane either. As the center lane is now, you still cannot do deliveries because those vehicles will block the entire street and can not stay still for more than a few moments. The only difference with a "conventional" protected lane is that these deliveries would not have to cross the bike lane as well as the traffic lanes. But the immense benefit of bikes is that they are very flexible, and momentarily crossing these lanes to do a delivery does not disrupt the flow of cycle traffic in any meaningful way. On top of that, we need to start advocating for bike delivery anyway. The oversized trucks that are used to deliver tiny packages are not sustainable in an urban enviornment. Finally, the benefit of having cyclists against the sidewalk is that stores get more "foot" traffic. It is easy for a cyclist to see a store display, stop directly in front of the store, and then go in. Compared to a car that may not see the display, and even if they do, they then need to circle to look for parking. Businesses will flourish with a vibrant cycle lane against the sidewalk. The downsides to the center lane are not insignificant. Compared to a painted bike gutter, they are much much better. But they are still dangerous as they have cyclists crossing against the flow of traffic on multiple different occasions. Not allowing left turns is a start, but it is never enforced (and hard to enforce). And getting into and out of these lanes is confusing and tricky. I applaud the city for trying out new ideas. This kind of experimentation is the correct approach. But this particular experiment seems like it was a failure. That happens. But I hope they take the issues to heart and convert these to fully protected and buffered lanes on either side of the street.
From an Australian's input a hook turn for cars could be an option. Melbourne uses hook turns alongside tram tracks, although I don't know how well hook turns would be implemented as I don't really know the width of Valencia St and road user's attitude towards bikers would be different to trams.
I'm involved with biking infrastructure in Germany and encountered a center bike lane last year right in front if my Airbnb in Bogotá. It's an idea that never would have occurred to me, and I dint think I'll implement it where I live, but for the situation in bogota it was a brilliant soloution. In Bogotá leftvturns where limited as well.
You don't need to travel that far to see these, there have been popping up a few in Paris too. For example Rue de Temple close to Place de la Republique and over the Pont au Change (this one is not yet visible in Google Maps) or Boulevard du Montparnasse with combined bidirectional bus+cycle lane in the middle of the street. More common are the bidirectional cycle lanes on one side of the street and I like these somewhat better.
@@careneh33 in the 90ies they found out that cyclist using a bike lane in the left side if the road had 12 times the risk of getting into an accident at intersections compared to cyclist driving in the right side of the road. This was found in multiple studies in Europe. I know they have these bidirectional bike paths in the Netherlands. They may work there because of a different traffic culture. The abundance of protected intersections in the Netherlands may come into play as well. (Protected intersections where deemed unsafe in Germany as well but we did them wrong). On the other hand: even adjusted for the fact that people from the Netherlands cycle more, they have a to high number of cyclist fatalities. This may be the fault of them almost never wearing helmets but I don't think it's wise to blindly copy their cycling infrastructure.
@@JustBen81 I assume the studies you are talking about were not investigating cycling on a separated bidirectional cycle lane, right? To all I know, The Netherlands has the lowest cycling fatality rate in the world (that's how we know that helmets don't really matter much), so what do you mean by "too high"?
@@monowheeling The studies where investigating bidirectional cycling paths seperated from the street - but the paths at that time didn't have a Netherlands style separation. I admit the paths may or may not be a safe soloution, but when trying such paths you better build them with to the Netherlands standards and don't just blindly build a two way bike path with an insufficiant separation and many crossings for cars. Bi-directional paths are all but banned in germany incide populated areas - but with better protection this may be revisited. I found a study that compared bicicle deaths per 1 million km. In the years from 2011 to 2015 the Netherlands where safer than Germany but by no means the safest country. But even discounting 2023 (where the Netherlands had a large spike in fatalities) - if you'd just compare the years 2017-2022 germany would be safer. I don't think these numbers can prove or disprove that the lack of helmets or the biking infrastructure in the Netherlands are safe or unsafe, but with the amount of good infrastructure I encountered in the Netherlands i didn't expect many other countries to be in the running when it comes to cycling infrastructure - but they still are.
There is a similar comment below but just want to repeat that road infrastructure needs to be simplified - not made more complicated for it to be safer for bicycles. The experiment is a cool idea, but I feel there are already plenty of places where such questions have been figured out and center bike highway is NOT the safest nor most practical infrastructure. I'd highlight the comment from @Aviertje for a great breakdown into why
I mean, it is possible to place bike lanes at the sides of the road while keeping parking and leaving enough space for delivery vehicles, but a bike lane in the middle has arguably many benefits. It will have far fewer parked cars, no risk of dooring, far fewer pedestrians cluelessly stepping on the bike lane, and people won't ride in the wrong direction. It also doubles as a fire lane, which is a good thing considering how incapable your average driver is to notice and give way to an approaching emergency vehicle. You don't get to see the businesses, and it's more difficult to access them, but if you make crossing the car lanes around bike racks easy you've partially solved the problem. More protection is definetly needed, and changing those plastic bollards to steel posts would go a long way. Ideally you'd have sharp curbs between bikes and cars. To me, it seems like there is enough space for a bit of grass and a line of trees between the car and bike lanes. That would make this place so much more pleasent and it would probably slow down drivers a bit too. Turn boxes seem to be not thought out at all. They probably need more space and they definetly need more protection. Adding curbs and steel posts would probably be a good start.
Pennsylvania Avenue in DC has this too, but it’s a much larger road with higher traffic volumes. I have friends who hate it, but I definitely appreciate not having to worry about right hooks
Cleveland has been working on a similar project called the Superior midway. It's been in the works for so long that many are skeptical it'll actually happen.
Curb-side bike lanes with parking as a protector is much safer (no u-turn/left turn issues, no confusion at the lights, etc). As for the businesses taking deliveries from the front: put 10-20 minute limit spots out front at each corner. Win-Win
Your videos are freaking fantastic. I can't wait to watch this channel grow. Also, I can't decide how I feel about the bike lanes...I think I'll leave it to someone smarter than me, but I'd certainly not avoid that kind of set-up while on bike if Seattle installed this somewhere.
I use it for commuting to work three times a week and it’s not bad to ride through as long as you get used to how to navigate it since the lights are timed for 14mph. I still have a difficult time figuring out how to turn out of it in the middle of the 8 blocks or feeling comfortable trying to stop along the way at a shop but it makes for a quick commute. I was doored on Valencia last year so agree it’s nice not to have to worry about that but will have to keep in mind I’m supposed to follow the light signals for cars and not the pedestrian ones. I would say this might need to be something that should be advertised more but we already have too many signs to try to read.
It reminds me of bike lanes in the Iberian peninsula, for example Passeig de St Joan in Barcelona. Being separated from the shops doesn't seem like such a big deal if the bike racks are put at intersections; then there would be no reason to get out of the lane mid-block bc you would need to go to an intersection to park anyway.
In DC, Pennsylvania Ave is like this but much bigger, it's a 6 lane road with one of those going right down the middle. it makes sense to have there since the road is super wide but here since it's just a 2 lane road it seems unnecessary, but cool looking and you don't have to worry about people walking out into the bike lane randomly or doors
I regularly ride this, and it was definitely confusing the first few times I used it. In particular, it was dark the first time I encountered it, and I thought the bike lane had just gone away. At the very least, it is nice not dealing with double parked cars, or worrying about running into folks walking from their car to the sidewalk like the section of the street where the bike lane is between the sidewalk and parking
It's lovely for those who are cycling for recreation and could walk their bike at crossroad that might not be too close to their destination. For frequent commuters and errand-runners, this is obnoxious planning. I personally won't have problem with this but I definitely see some issues.
Not mentioned in the video is that the center bike lane configuration allows room for one bike to overtake another. The curbside bike lanes shown in the video are too narrow to allow for safe passing.
In Lima (Perú), where I am from, the usual is to have the bikeway between the road and the parking lot, also in the center of the avenue, being next to the central berm garden or over the central garden... the right way should be to the side, between the pedestrian path and the parking lot, protected and accesible
I biked on it recently and encountered 3 cop cars who were using the lane to get around car traffic. I was almost hit by one as it was jumping the barrier to get into it. It's a design that does not actually work for the space and feels like it was pushed through in spite of all of the warnings. This design is compromised and deeply flawed and need to switched to a more cyclist friendly design. I definitely don't want to see this design pop up anywhere else in the city.
There needs to be curbside bike lanes on both sides of the street with a physical barrier preventing cars from encroaching/parking in it. They have the space for it.
It's the typical US mindset: cars first, everything else comes second or third. SF struggles to let bikes coexist with cars - admittedly a huge step forward already - but there's no actual effort to do what's the _essence_ of successful bike infrastructure projects: discourage car usage. That's where it t all starts, with less cars. Once people are desperate for alternatives, experimenting with new infrastructure ideas - however weird they might be - is widely accepted. In this case the first question is clearly: why on earth is road side parking allowed? Bus stops, pedestrian paths, only delivery allowed to stop and only during the early hours. Heavy monitoring, expensive parking tickets, parking for residents only, it's all car discouragement 1x1 for most european cities. With less cars comes less danger and less complications. The simple bike lane on the right side can again be a valid solution. Less cars, at all costs...
Personally I am not a fan of cycle lanes - they are often too narrow, difficult to stop in due to the flow of cyclists, and often follow unintuitive routes. That said, in this case, were they to have had two auto lanes down the centre, and have a solid wall along either side, they could eliminate people stoping their cars wherever they please. As for deliveries and disabled car users - in many cities in the UK it seems possible, although not perfect, to have spaces that are shared by cyclists, pedestrians, and the occasional other vehicle that has a good reason to be there. Maybe having wide enough bike lanes that can accomodate a few cars, and a fully segregated auto throughfare would strike an acceptable balance?
Thank you for providing a balanced, objective review of this bikeway. There have been far too many shrill rants dominating - and distorting - an important conversation here. Some additional information - SF is compelled to design for emergency vehicle access and provide enough space for fire vehicles to stage in case there is a fire. What many don't realize is that whatever design is provided on Valencia, it needs to provide 26' clear for fire vehicles. This affects where we can put parking and what materials can be used to protect the bikeway. Just last month there was a large fire on the street, not uncommon with tightly spaced multi-story wood framed buildings often built in the early 1900s. Many also promote a one-vehicle lane design for one way traffic, but we still need 26' clear, which is wide enough for two lanes. The sidewalks in the middle of Valencia are also wider meaning there is less roadway space for all the needs of the street. In short, these and many other issues - along with a desire to improve the situation sooner than later - are what led to this design and a pilot. It was certainly not done as part of some academic exercise, which should be clear as the rest of the protected bikeways throughout SF are curbside. What helps is that the city timed the traffic signals for 13mph (21kph) traffic flow in each direction to match most bicyclsts' speeds and to promote slower safer driving. This reduces discomfort for cyclists in the middle lane.
It’s not terrible but in my opinion the gold standard is having the bike lane directly next to the sidewalk. Preferably on both sides, but a 2 way bike lane next to one sidewalk is fine in circumstances where both sides is not an option. Both this center lane, and placing bike lanes between parked cars and traffic, are suboptimal options.
I dont know if it's normal, but i ran into soo many friendly strangers in SF.
_People_ are friendly almost no matter where you go, because you meet them in person.
_Motorists_ are never friendly because they've got two-to-three thousand kilograms of material surrounding them and it both isolates them from the world _and_ also gives them a false sense of security (and entitlement).
Yep! Very nice people there, had pleasant chats with many locals, even the homeless are extremely friendly.
Yeah it's normal :) talk to strangers in San Francisco and you'll have some of the most memorable conversations. I've also solicited much-appreciated life advice from older strangers and provided some of my own to younger strangers ♥️ heartful people live here!
@@DeathInTheSnow or maybe just driving in a car makes them in a hurry
I’m for bicycle lanes I’m just guessing what makes car drivers sometimes not so friendly.
Great report well made for such a difficult project they even considert and put tought into start and endpoint.
Still you do have to cross traffic if you want to leave it.
Dutch person weighing in here. I'm not going to knock it as it is obviously an immense improvement. That said, I feel like it is a typical American solution: move the bikes out of the way of cars... by putting them in the most vulnerable spot on the road, which is smackdab between two lanes of cars that, as shown by this footage, already have a habit of just popping in and using it as their personal fast lane. Bikes have even less opportunity to get out of the way of unexpected car madness here than they do on lanes by the side.
The proper way to handle deliveries, even in far smaller streets than this one, is to mark particular times as being valid for deliveries. Move the problem of the traffic congestion being an issue to the distributors, who can easily include desired delivery times into their planning schedules already.
What a road like this needs is a stopping/parking prohibition except for deliveries at scheduled times, and a small bay for every block (probably located in front of one business without outside-dining desires) that is the only place where taxis/ubers/etc are allowed to pick up and drop off. That way, the entire drivers-hating-cyclists-with-unexpected-open-doors thing (which should probably get IMMENSE fines associated with it if it hasn't already!) will stop to be a problem because they simply aren't allowed to stop there and get out to begin with.
Finally, on the topic of traffic lights... the USA has one very nasty and unsafe practice, which is to put the traffic lights on the opposite end of the road for convenience. Woe to the person who makes a driver cease their slouching. You'll rarely see this in Europe because forcing a driver to lean forward to see the light engages them more actively into the task of crossing and opens up their peripheral vision to get a better view of traffic heading their way. For bikes, this is perhaps the exact opposite way. They get smaller signals to begin with, causing them to easily be lost inside the messy sign-infested surroundings, which is not really ideal when it comes to crossing. They will already be actively involved in the traffic situation, so the traffic lights relevance literally ends the moment they enter the intersection itself, so making sure it is at the point where they enter it makes sure that every cyclist knows where to look. As for the practice of putting a 'Bike Use Signal' (1:33) for a traffic light for cyclists... yeah, that just adds to the mess.
Fine, the really, real final point... sign-madness. I froze the screen at 1:17 because I was trying to quickly check what that one sign said, and look at all the shouty signs. Do you expect all road participants to read them and immediately know which apply to who? Let's see: "Don't go right, except bike." is right next to a traffic light meant for cars. "Major cycling directions" overhead on the same green as car directions would be at. Tiny little green cycling directions that are too blurry for me to read on a lower position still. "Stop here on red." "Don't stop here at any time or you'll be towed." Thankfully the shop doesn't have any signs out, or it might be even more confusing! Your road situations need immense simplification. While I'll admit that Americans will be more used to the colors of the signs as they are no doubt standardized, it is still too much. The sign regarding stopping and towing? Move it back a few hundred meters, it isn't relevant at an intersection. Signs meant for cyclists? Keep them roughtly at eye level: they don't need to be overhead where one would expect car lane instructions to be, and leave the directions for a single centralized cluster. Stop here on red? Isn't the fat white line on the pavement already telling people this? Get rid of it. Most situations (such as 1:33) are similarly overwhelming and chaotic. Every moment spent deciphering the meaning of a sign will either distract from the actual road situation, or cause the signs to be (subconsciously) ignored because nobody has time for it and most signs aren't relevant anyway.
Thank you. People either aren’t aware that the Dutch have already figured this shit out, or they are aware, but make excuses like “they’re a completely different culture” as if you’re some kind of alien. I wish the US would just adopt the CROW manual and implement it everywhere relying about 10% on public input. The public are not traffic engineers, and they are not urbanist nerds like me, but we make almost 100% of our decisions based on public input.
@@DiegoMartinez-ti1vd Municipalities and traffic designers should educate the people on why they want a certain plan. In the Netherlands there's also public imput so everyone's voice is being heard. I agree that the public should not have the power to determine any decisions, but if people are being heard it helps a lot to create good will.
@@MonsieurRaki yeah I guess it just comes down to the fact that our traffic engineers are mostly horribly educated. They don’t know the concept of induced demand and think about traffic flow as if it was water running through a pipe. I watched a video recently about the difference between traffic engineers and transportation engineers in the Netherlands and how the US has no transportation engineers to think about mobility solutions other than cars. Really interesting I’ll post it here if I find it.
Then there’s the fact that all of our politicians are corrupt capitalists where their only incentive for anything in this country is immediate profit and donations from corporations, putting the common good on the back burner and this bike lane is just a microcosm of that.
Couldn't agree more @Aviertje!
Been there, seen it, horrible! At first you try to read them all because it can be important. But you cant... it is too, too much information, where 99% doesn't apply to you. That's when you start to ignore them and follow your intuition, like all Americans do, with all consequences related. (More than ten times more traffic deaths)
@@DiegoMartinez-ti1vd If politicians are all about profit and good PR, then people can use that to their advantage. Get all kinds of groups involved, from advocacy groups for the elderly, disabled people, organisations that are concerned with safety on roads (the protests in the Netherlands to stop children getting killed on roads really worked well), health organisations that want people to be more active, finance people that can calculate how much cheaper it would be if more people would walk and cycle, architects who can make nice visuals of how a street could look like when it's more people friendly, environmental organisations that want to reduce air pollution in cities, educators that want safety for their students, volunteers that talk to residents about the walkable city, etc... The more organisations and people get involved, the more pressure they can apply to make road safety and inclusion a priority. For some cities it will take decades unfortunately. We have rightwing cities that are more car traffic too, but even they are starting to change to achieve climate goals our federal government has set.
One thing I do like about the central lane is the markings for Fire Lane. Allowing emergency vehicles to bypass drivers, as cycles can generally make room easily.
You mean flee for their lives?
@@dutchman7623I have gave way to an ambulance while cycling on a road.
@@amadeosendiulo2137half of the center lane goes into the oncoming ambulance/police
@@dutchman7623 or pull over to allow an emergency vehicle to pass as is expected of all road users. More like that tbh.
If someone was biking there in the center lane and an emergency vehicle went by, wouldn't they get a little scared since they are going so fast?
Great video! As an SF resident and user of the Valencia bikeway, i have mixed feelings. I agree, perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This is a considerable improvement over the previous state of things. I used to do DoorDash and Valencia was a nightmare for me, constantly dodging double parked cars and trying to keep up with the car traffic. The bikeway is way better as a through way, making my old commute from the north end of the city to the south a lot more reasonable. The bike priority signals are the make or break here, before they were activated it was a dangerous free for all every green light. Unfortunately the protection does really fall short. I've had drivers cut across the lane or cut in front of me to use the bike lane as a left turn lane. Motorcycles and scooters regularly use it as a passing lane or express lane which isn't as scary when it happens but definitely carries a high risk. I think the ultimate solution for Valencia is to have it pedestrianized from about 16th-24th street. Road access should be limited to only deliveries, emergency vehicles, and some accessible street parking. The Sunday streets program, where that stretch of Valencia is closed to car traffic, is a huge success and brings so many people out. The street really feels the most alive. Drivers shouldnt worry about losing the north/south connection, parallel and one block west is Guerrero street, a 4 lane road with a median and limited crossings, with more direct access between market street and the freeway. The mission lacks a lot of good community gathering spaces and i think a Valencia promenade could bring one in. Involving the community in decision making is very important, a lot of gentrification in the mission is centered around Valencia and its nightlife, so it's important to serve the whole of the community with gathering spaces for kids and families, not just some place for college kids and tech bros to throw a rager.
TLDR: Valencia good, Valencia bikeway better, Valencia promenade best
Thanks for talking about our funky strip of paint
I agree. It's important to include members of a community in any decision process. I remember when none of the streets in SF had bike lanes. For a cyclist, it was like the wild wild west. You just had to stake your place on the road, ride fast like you stole it and hope that cars wouldn't run you down or pedestrians wouldn't run out in the middle of the street not looking out for a cyclist. As a SF bike messenger (SFBMA) for nearly a decade in the early naughts, I did see some improvements thanks to a push for better bicycle infrastructure. We should all thank old school bike messengers for that as well as the SF Bike Coalition. Both advocated for better bicycle infrastructure be it in City Hall (yes, bike messengers are no dummies when it comes to the ins and outs of city government), by their presence riding on the streets, or sadly from lives lost on the road (job) because of car centric urban design. Rubber side down! Safety first! 2 dollars!!
The data about this causing cars to go slower is interesting. I'd like to know if their travel time was significantly impacted, or if this just reduces the staggered pattern of fast driving until a stop light followed by long waiting. Regardless, on streets with several businesses and people I'm always happy to see cars slow the hell down.
Also somebody please tell the poor soul at 4:55 to switch to a higher gear.
theres a corner on 23rd and valencia. only 4 cars can go across on a green light. cars back up for several blocks at that intersection. it does add time to the commute.
@@episdosas9949 But is valencia a commute road? it seemed more like a business road?
@@Caegofy it is commercial. in sf they like to keep commuting on commercial streets to cut traffic down on residential blocks. they have cut car traffic on the wealthy streets and called them slow streets, people can walk in the middle. those are the streets that should be the bike lanes.
@@episdosas9949 Why anyone really wants to drive in SF unless it's for a work purpose (delivery, emergency vehicle, taxi, etc) is beyond me. Muni & BART will get you anywhere in that city. It's also very walkable, and if you know how to avoid most of the hills, it's fun to ride a bike there. Although, it's even more fun if you power up the hills and cruise downhill, let that cool air slap your face while you pass up all the sad lot motorists stuck in traffic. It's a pain moving your car to a new parking place every couple of days to avoid street sweeping. I had a car there for a minute when I lived there (12 years). I think I drove it mostly to move it to a new parking spot. Too many parking tickets and tow yard fees, I got rid of it real quick.
While I kind of get the idea, I’m not sure this is a good solution. Because while all the advantages of things not blocking the path are correct and are probably quite good for through traffic, it’s incredibly impractical for local traffic. You can’t really stop or start your journey anywhere except the intersections, which removes one of the biggest advantages of biking, easily stopping and parking. The side bike lanes shown on the same street looked a lot more useful.
Blocks in SF are short and walkable. I'd rather arrive at my destination alive and push my bike for 30 seconds on the sidewalk from the nearest intersection... and popping out of the bike lane and crossing the car lane is easy enough except in heavy traffic.
Just put the bike lane between the parking spots and the sidewalk. All of the advantages of this solution without any of the disadvantages.
@@bloopasonicIn heavy traffic there's gonna be stopped cars halfway up the block (so like, 4 lmao) it's medium traffic that you gotta worry about, where they're still moving 15-25mph in a line and you can't just pull out and brake in front of one.
@@lb2791
Except when a passenger side door opens and you run into it
@@xant8344 average car has 1.2 occupants, so this happens much less than on the other side.
Hey, that's my hood! One of the positive aspects of the new design is that it increases the visibility of cyclists! It literally puts them front and center, and makes it clear they have a right to exist and use the road - something, sadly, that some motorists still aren't willing to accept. With the old setup, and cyclists squeezed into the margins, it's much easier to ignore them and treat the bike lane as a convenient space to double park or dump trash.
Of course the best solution is to ban cars entirely from Valencia. Everything is within a short walk from a Bart station.
Until then, actually enforcing traffic laws against car drivers would be a good step forward... The SFPD happily harasses cyclists every chance they get, but can't be bothered to make car drivers follow the rules.
Ideally, this road would be converted to a pedestrian/cyclist only road, but I'd have to take a look at the surrounding area to figure out if that's actually viable considering the surrounding infrastructure as the street seems to be pretty high-traffic for a 2-lane which suggests that traffic wants to take that road rather than surrounding roads. So I'm going to say that the best reasonable solution would have been to do something similar to Orlando's urban trail extension. Remove streetside parking on one side, and create a second "sidewalk" bike path running parallel to the road itself.
The neighborhood is a mess of permanently parked cars. It would need some more local garages and there are arguments about businesses needing deliveries on the street. It all could be worked out. It would be awesome.
@@jeremysteinmeier1701
Honestly, the delivery requirements are why it would probably be best to at least have a sort of local-traffic-only "hybrid" system. Maybe one one-way lane of road traffic with pull-off points, a very low speed limit and forced right turn at the "downstream" end, then have the rest be pedestrian/cyclist only.
The Area is a grid, with Guerrero and Dolores to the west, both 4 car lane streets. Mission is to the right, probably the best transit corridor in SF with
@@thundergun20
In that case, it's definitely a viable candidate for pedestrianizing.
@@thundergun20yeah these are all good points. Valencia wasn’t friendly for traffic to begin with.
I like how fast it is, I feel like you hit the series of green lights way better but it’s definitely more dangerous. Getting into the center running lanes is a little sketchy and I’ve seen people make U-Turns through it. Of course the real solution is to chut down Valencia to cars completely. Fixes all the problems and the bike lanes would work great.
snap and amen.
what about a 1 lane 1 way for cars, freeing up the middle AND the side of the road for cars, but still allowing freight deliveries/ through traffic
@@tjs200 not a bad idea at all
One lane for cars one direction and the other half of the road for cyclists.
@@jodi183 agreed also a little extra space for pedestrians
I'm obviously for the project (over nothing), but I don't like the idea of being sandwiched between two busy car lanes. Maybe my mind would be changed if I road it though.
I don't live there but I feel like if the bollards were more frequent and also solid it would help a lot. As is it doesn't look like there's really much stopping a driver from plowing right through into the bike lane. A solid concrete block would help. I bet the bollard spacing is more to allow emergency vehicle to enter/exit the lane as needed though. All around an imperfect solution but interesting. I do agree about not wanting to be sandwiched between cars though. Ideally all cars and bikes would be completely separated. Being next to cars is so LOUD.
A lot of people would not feel comfortable. To get more people on a bicycle the infrastructure has to be safe and comfortable. On this road only the very abled and brave would ride this.
@@scopie49 as a norcal native, they usally do end up putting a curb in these places. at first they use whats called soft solutions (either paint or plastic bollards) and then if theres no issues with the configurations they put in the curbs and solid bollards. although im not sure if thats the case here, in my town theyve left the bollards up for a long time before finally putting in more permanent infrastructure.
Why not move a 2 way cycle lane to one side of the street, elevate it entirely or at least intersections Then you put some trees and a line of grass along the roadside of the bike lane, then a parking strip and then a 2 way car lane and another parking strip.
I was thinking about that too. The only issue is that we’re in the same place again as far as getting to the other side of the road. We should just convert the whole road to a bike road!
Just eliminate on street parking. Cars should park in lots and garages. Drivers can never find a space anyway. Take away the on street parking and things become very simple.
Yeah, this is common in Sydney. See Bourke St Surry Hills or Wilson St Darlington as examples.
I live there. This won’t work bc of the street dining
Street dining and delivery access for restaurants and shops that have no alley for back access. Literally mentioned if you watched the video.
You're the first bicyclist that agrees with business owners (4:34) that placing a bike line along the street curb "might" hurt their business in some way. That's a curious admission. I think the true solution for Valencia street is to turn it into a pedestrian and bicycle corridor only. Get rid of cars. This is VERY unlikely to ever happen but I would love to be proven wrong........one day.
It hurts their business even more when cyclists can't reach those stores easily. And with some parking space people can still access the shops by cars.
@@MonsieurRaki I personally have never accepted the "a bike lane will kill my business" argument. I've seen plenty of studies that show a bike lane either has zero effect or the businesses along the lane see an increase in foot traffic. Sometimes it's because a slower bicyclist has time to see something interesting to stop at and can do so easily. Other times it's because the bike lane helps to create a calmed and quieter street. That in turn results in more pedestrians wanting to stroll along that street which in turn results in more "walk-in" pedestrian traffic for said businesses. As for car driving, I've never said, "I'm not going to my favorite business unless I can park directly in front of it." I assume I'll have to park around the corner and walk one minute and thirty seconds to arrive at my destination.
@@Urbanhandyman Absolutely agree.. Slowing the cars downs means more business. Fast cars just drive through the streets, they hardly stop to go to the stores. Any street with a lot of shops should be pedestrian prioritized. It seems in a lot of cities the downtown area is completely dead just because fast cars have access to those area's, leaving it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists to enjoy the shops and restaurants.
The answer.
@@MonsieurRaki Most downtown U.S. cities have traffic patterns designed from the 1950s through the 1990s. Meaning that they emphasize car volume over everything else. That's why you'll see plenty of one-way three-lane wide streets in San Francisco with high speed traffic jetting past historic Victorian housing and apartments. It's still all about getting cars where they need to go as quickly as possible. The average traffic engineer to this day is taught that this is the number one priority when looking at designing new streets and maintaining old ones. I'm somewhat hopeful that this is finally beginning to change.
Better than nothing, but not ideal. Curbside protected bike lane will still be king compared to bike expressway like this
I actually disagree, curbside means you are constantly interacting with pedestrians, and in the case of North America, turning cars, side streets, and parked cars. This means you can cruise virtually worry-free (if it were protected)
@@pex3 That's why cyclists should get priority over pedestrians, so they don't get stopped all the time. And cars should yield to ongoing cyclists when they want to make a turn. Curbside bike lanes are much safer for cyclists if the street is designed for safety. If there's still car-centric thinking, then the road becomes unsafe for everyone. In the Netherlands car drivers know very well to look out for cyclists before opening their doors when they are parked somewhere. American drivers should also learn this to prevent accidents.
@@MonsieurRakiI think their goal is to treat everyone equally so everyone gets equal priority.
A street near me added bicycle lanes on both side of the road where used to be parking spots for residents. also added trees/flower beds on both sides to separate the car lanes which narrow the lane width and deny car turn into both sides without entering the bicycle lane first through a few opening. Inconvenient, yes, but fine to be a bicycle friendly and the tree/flower beds look nice. The real issues are, it only lasts a few blocks within this city, there is no bicycle lane before and after, so how the riders enter and exit is not clear and nobody rides bicycle on that road. Another street next to my house (different city) has painted bicycle lane on each side that car can turn into anywhere and enough room to park. Not too many bicycles during weekday but some riders in group on weekend. Nothing against bicycle lane but there is way to balance between all drivers’ safety and convenience. This is LA, the distance and roads are not easy for most to use bicycle as the primary transportation tool, recreation is common. SF is different, I can walk to designation in the metropolitan area and driving/parking is a pain.
In Barcelona there are several streets (e.g.: Avenida Parallel, Passeig de St. Joan) with central bike paths, they are fine as long as they are decently protected.
São Paulo also has several central bike paths. Avenida Paulista and Avenida Faria Lima are the most famous ones, and are protected. However there are some central bike paths unprotected, as on Avenida da Liberdade and Rua Sena Madureira.
There's another center bike lane in Washington DC on Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the US Capitol Building. After watching your video, I started to question would my example be applicable to the one on Valencia Ave?
I didn't include it or other European examples. I should have in retrospect. The big difference is that those bike lanes are not in a busy business corridor.
Living in Chicago and using my bike to get around, I can tell you the curbside bike lanes are a disaster. In the Loop in particular, drivers and pedestrians act like the lanes do not exist. People will mill around in the bike lanes, leave garbage cans, packages, and park their cars in the bike lane. Cabs jut in to pickup and drop off passengers without looking, people enter the lane to cross the street constantly. Getting doored in a Chicago bike lane is a certainty, it's just a question of when. There is no enforcement whatsoever.
These lanes were likely copied from Spain. In Spain there are pedestrian and bike lanes in the center of even major thoroughfares. Getting around was amazingly easy. However, these lanes were designed and installed at the time the surface streets were installed, so there is a very large buffer between the cars and bike and pedestrians. You need to see it to appreciate it.
What about moving the bike lane to the outside of car parking next to sidewalk with foot tall barrier preventing cars from encroaching? Still have to watch out for car doors (but less often) and the other problems go away
Haven't ridden this street myself yet. I will say I hate bike lanes between road side car parking and auto lanes. The opening doors, the ' don't mind me parking in the bike lane, and the make a right turn without signaling right in front of me... I think side lanes are a possible solution if the cars can't physically get in the bike lanes. We still have a long way to go.
The fact it switches partway through and _still_ isn't properly protected. 🤢
This reminds me of Mollison Avenue in Enfield, North London. They alternate between two-way and one-way cycling along it's length, but at times it swerves you _into oncoming traffic_ if you follow the signs.
I'd rip it out, get rid of the street parking, put a _TRAM_ down the middle and put two-way pavement-level bike lanes on either side of the road with a single lane for cars in-between, if there's space.
This is the kind of street that may feel fine for one ride, but it's so full of awkward interactions and opportunities for dangerous conflicts that it would be a nightmare for daily usage. Also the rollout was a train wreck with very little consideration for bicycle riders - there were essentially months where the lane was half-finished and not "officially open" but the city provided no other detour or route for bike riders. On the busiest bike corridor in the whole city. It's this kind of project that makes me glad I left the US.
I think the Streetsblog coverage also deserves a mention here.
Why they can just arrange it like that, let me show it as a cross section of a street:
Sidewalk | Bidirectional separated bikeway | Trees/parking spaces | Car lane ⬇ | Car lane ⬆ | Trees/parking spaces | Bidirectional separated bikeway | Sidewalk
It has many benefits eg.:
- Cyclist and pedestrians are covered in shade by trees
- Motorist and deliveries can easily access buildings
- No risk of being hit by an open door (if given enough clerance)
This solution is quite common here where I live, in Warsaw, Poland
Valencia is a street that parallels Mission, and it is one of the flattest long stretches of road in San Francisco where hills determine bike routes. That's why it's so busy with bike traffic. I used to ride the length of it multiple times daily.
I generally don't like bike lanes on streets with a lot of through traffic like here.
In my city, bike lanes like this are on the shoulder right next to the sidewalk and at the same height level as the sidewalk. This solution seems better to me, although one has to go slower if there are more pedestrians, who often walk in the bike section as well. And the few vans that block the bike path when unloading goods I don't worry about, I go around them on the pedestrian part.
Exactly, this is much safer, which should be the top priority. But people are worried about congestion, deliveries, and “standards” more than safety.
I absolutely agree. In the ideal situation there would be seperate traffic plans for bicycles and cars. Cars can get re-directed so they have roads that accomodate them for more efficient through traffic. In spaces with a lot of pedestrians and cyclists the cars should not be prioritized.
One thing they could pilot here: Automated enforcement. Radar cross-section on the bike lane beyond a certain threshold - boom, ticket. Camera on crossing detects car in middle section while through-traffic has green - boom, ticket. Btw, that should be feasible on curb-side bike tracks, too. This is imho the missing component: safer streets need a more rigorous enforcement against motorists. They drive the dangerous boxes and endanger others.
The center bike lane seems like a perfect first step to a pedestrianized street. Bike highway in the middle and easy to get off mid-block since you're just joining other pedestrians.
in my city of gothenburg, sweden, we have several lovely middle-of-the-road bike lanes. *however*, they are _very_ separated from the car lanes and have a whole line of trees in between the bike lane and the car lanes instead of just a few flimsy flexposts. when cars would cross it, they would either have to go up on a raised area, making it very clear that they are guests there and should leave precedence to bikes or there would be a traffic light
This video prompted me to consider how a center bike lane might be applicable in other situations. I'm in a suburban area where there is lots of snow. A center bike lane would be easier to keep clear of snow and in a suburban setting, there are not as many mid-block destinations as on Valencia street in SF.
Such a road would be a pain to clear with all the bollards in the way.
@@danielrose1392 Good point. I wonder what other areas with lots of snow do? I've done some internet searching but most everything about bikeways seems to be filmed in the summer.
Both the Netherlands and snowy Finland have separated snow clearing vehicles for separated bike lanes, meaning tractors with snow clearing equipment.
From what I remember the finns often put bikelanes and sidewalks next to each other separated by a somewhat low curb. Enough for pedestrians to notice that they step on a bike lane, but nothing that really hiders snow clearing.
I live in the suburbs and one major road near me could use a center bike lane (well multi-use ped and cycle path). It would take away a vehicular lane but just an underutilized turn lane (one of two). The reason it'd work is that this junction has off ramps coming onto the road from a highway on both sides. Instead of putting a sidewalk to one side and risking someone getting hit by a car merging off the highway, I think a barricaded centered path would be good until you transfer out of the highway junction and get to a regular stop light a block or so away. That stoplight would have crossings to get to either side of the road from the center.
@6:50-7:04 I personally like "bike highways" since when I'm cycling I don't want to see all the people (unaware pedestrians or crowds are usually a bigger issue than cars when I ride, in DC) and I already know the businesses in the area. Attitudes like this seem to be rooted in forgetting that cycling isn't just something I do for pleasure. I'm looking to get someplace fast, faster than driving or public transit. If you want to amble, you can hop off and walk along the sidewalk or even cut across mid-block to your destination. Having safe (separated) lanes is good. This lane also makes you more visible to cars than if you were in a 2-way lane on one side of the street, and less likely to have a pedestrian wander into the lane thinking it's a sidewalk.
The one downside I see is that you don't get any shade in the road's center, compared to if you were near a sidewalk.
I concur. There should be bike highways and more recreational routes. Both are important. A great example in SF is the Panhandle park, there's a curvy path through the park that is nice, but yes you need to respect pedestrians and park users. Theres also a straight parking-protected bike lane on Fell that you can use to ride fast to Golden Gate Park. Its great to have both options!
At the end of the day this is a step in the right direction but the curb protected cycle track with Dutch style protected intersections will always reign supreme
It reminds me of the pedestrian strip in the center of the big avenues in Barcelona.
I didn't like to walk there unless I just wanted to go somewhere. It felt disconnected.
Although, much better view on the architecture lining the avenues.
It's not a great design, but it's what SF MTA is prepared to allow, which is as much as we can get right now; bicycle usage passed a critical threshold after 2020 in tandem with a bunch of MTA quick-build experiments, and action on infrastructure has also been spurred on from the Baywheels share network, which announced yesterday 2 million rides YTD, further expansions and a membership price reduction. A new era started this decade, and it's gotten a different kind of rider from the old Critical Mass guys, with lots more parents running cargo bikes and ferrying around their kids.
But as it is, I take the sidewalk in so, so many parts of the city and just let the bike tick along in low gear because the street isn't any good at preventing conflicts. It's not specific to the motorists, it's also a bike and pedestrian traffic thing - nobody wants to come to a complete stop, nobody wants to slow down for a turn or take a slower route. The end of the month or major holidays come around and everyone starts rushing around in a panic because of money or personal stress. The street is rational and the people are not.
One of SF's most successful bicycle streets since the pandemic is Page, and they ultimately got there by adding the thing that the SF street grid needs most - modal filters at both ends so that aggressive thru traffic doesn't try to cut in and blast by the local traffic to save themselves 30 seconds of driving to the arterial. At SF's density, you really need entire side streets that filter out the aggressive traffic, because otherwise it just becomes a random event that occurs on any block at any time. Some of those "Slow Street" designs implemented in 2020 failed because the filter was incomplete and motorists casually broke the law to slalom around or plow through any signage. But if you did it properly and allocated them all throughout the city to create car cul-de-sacs that are ped/bike friendly, it'd be very easy to get around. Full pedestrianization and lane treatments are worthy prizes, but also much harder to get consent on from the local residents, business owners and emergency services, who all want doorstep access everywhere.
It's a much safer plan, to now allow through traffic on every street. Re-direct the cars to the appropriate roads, so there can be low-car or no-car streets for cyclists and pedestrians, maybe with a buslane so they don't get stuck in traffic. I don't get how plans "fail" because car drivers ignore the rules.. They should be heavily fined, so they learn quickly.
Clearly you forgot about Pennsylvania Avenue in DC. I’m still not a big fan of that lane, as PA Ave is just so wide that the center-running bike lane isn’t immediately apparent in the middle of the road.
Also, all those left hook issues you so rightly point out are just the inverse of the same problem of right hooks common with right side, parking protected bike lanes. I was nearly hooked twice in Sacramento last night on our city’s parking protected bike lanes. The only thing that saved me was my vehicular cycling training that taught me of the inherent dangers of such facilities.
Yeah, I just don't like videos to drag on. I left out some European examples too. They pose many of the same issues however this lane is somewhat unique in that it's along a pretty busy cultural corridor. From what I understand many others are along 'roads'
Left hand hood are presumable less common since drivers are on the left in the US. They can still happen obviously but at least the blindspot is smaller.
@@emma70707 Two things wrong with that. Those Continental European countries have the same Rule of the Road as the US and most of the rest of the world (Thank Napoleon for that). In the countries that don't (Like the UK), everything else would also be flipped so the geometry of a cross traffic turn would be exactly the same apart from being mirrored. The blind spots a left hand drive car driving on the right of a centre bike lane would have turning left across traffic are exactly the same as those a right hand drive car on the left of a centre bike lane would have turning right across traffic.
@@KevinSmithGeo , point taken about Europe driving on the right, but I fail to see what was wrong about left hand hooks being presumably less common than right hand hooks. You didn't offer any refutation about that. Whether it's mirrored is irrelevant since I was only specifying US to indicate left hand hooks relative to the position of the driver. If you wanted to look at the ratio of right hand hooks with left hand drivers and include that in the statistics, be my guest.
Now, if you have any comments on the relevant points, I'd love to hear it. :)
@@emma70707 Did you mean that turning toward the driver side on streets that have a centre bike lane would be more or less dangerous depending on which rule of the road applies? That's what I was disagreeing with, but if you were saying that turns to the driver side (Left in most of the world including the US) on a centre bike lane seem safer than passenger side turns (Right in most of the world) across curbside bike lanes, that's a reasonable hypothesis.
Bike paths between traffic and parked cars are bad enough to begin with, but the footage of cars double-row parking onto them is maddening.
Law proposal: Free smashing time on double-parked cars.
Great vid!! Long time cyclist long time driver as well... And long time SF resident! I avoid this part of Valencia when I"m driving because of left/u turn no no's!! But feel 100% safe when biking through this area!! Well done SF bike lane installers!!
Was a SF bike messenger from '97-'04 & got doored once. I was doored my first week! And I thought it was my fault. Turns out its learning this later on that if you get doored, its the fault of the idiot opening their door before looking out for oncoming traffic.
A lot has changed but a lot of things stay the same! Stay safe out there!
I liked that you covered both pros and cons of the bike lane while also offering reasonable improvements. A quick-build such as this leaves room for adjustments, improvements, or reconfiguration if needed. I've never used the bike lanes but walked the area during a past visit and sat in one of the parklets outside of a restaurant. While still busy, the street felt quieter and more pleasant than before. And as a pedestrian, it felt nice not to worry about getting in the way of someone on a bike. I look forward to seeing how this configuration evolves and influences projects in other parts of the city.
"We're all fighting for the same thing: safer streets, for everyone"
Reminds me of the "Stop de Kindermoord" protests we had in The Netherlands in the 1970s.
Best of luck trying to have a similar impact.
I feel like this layout is very eh. In Montreal, a similar street with businesses along it was redesigned, Saint-Denis, with unidirectional bike lanes on each side. There’s signal priority at traffic lights so cars don’t turn into the lane, and when there are restaurant areas outside, they remove the parking to allow the bike lane to go around the booths. There are also crosswalks where drivers yield in the middle of the block to slow cars down, with trees in the middle of the street that they have to go around
I like it. looks like it has some ironing out to do. Transitions between various systems are often hard.
and I am curious what centerlane bike route intersections would look like.
To me it looks like a "lazy solution". You have plenty of space to have protected bike lanes on either sides, and not on the Driver side of the parking but on the Passenger side.
That is, it should go: Sidewalk - Bike Lane - Parking - 2 Lane Street - Parking - Bike Lane - Sidewalk
But that would possibly require some extra thought and investments in the intersection treatment and some reduction of parking spaces (snif snif). Hence the lazy solution, just smack the bike lane in the middle with some cones and paint and give yourselve a pat on the back
I am Dutch. The Netherlands has written THE BOOK on cycling infrastructure. No , really, literally. Just Google Crow manual on bicycle infrastructure, an d you'll find a book containing the culminating of decades of experience, knowledge and best practices on bicycle safety. Your town can buy this book, there is a version in English.
Nowhere in that book is any mention of a bicycle lane in the middle of the road. I suspect there are good reasons for that. American cities, please stop wasting a fortune by inventing the wheel over and over again. Just buy the Crow manual and start implementing what works.
yeah those center bike lanes are really not good for cyclists.
a (bidirectional) bike lane between the curb and parking (preferably with a little bit of grass/trees between the parking and the bike lane) is the best option.
it keeps all road users separated from each other, makes the cyclist feel like part of the world (instead of dumping them between two rows of metal boxes, that might kill them) and maybe most important, it works like all other types of traffic lanes so people don't have to figure out a new situation.
and for the people that say it might impact the businesses.
decades of experience (in The Netherlands) have showed that when a cycle lane is added (or even replaces the parking lane) businesses end up with more customers in their stores.
I couldn't have said it better. Just copy paste the Dutch model. This current situation looks like a mess.
I'm in full agreement: building safe bike infrastructure is largely a solved problem and we should essentially copy the lessons that the Dutch have learned over the decades. These rules are written in blood, after all.
I disagree. I think this is a great solution for cyclists who want to use the street as a highway, travelling as quickly as possible from one end to the other without EVER interacting with motor vehicles except for at signalled intersections.
@@pex3 yes but this cycle lane is for all cyclist.
and for all cyclists an curbside cycle lane would be better.
because people that have something along the street as a destination can get there.
and people using it as a highway can still cycle along the whole street.
now only the "highway cyclists" have a decent route, and "local cyclists" just have to make do with that.
As an ebike rider this is a god send. Passing slower riders is a really big challenge especially in a busy city like Toronto. This makes it so it’s the same concept as passing a car instead of having to cut into vehicle traffic over the median to pass on traditional bike lane infrastructure.
The left and u-turns need to go away but how?
Hard high curbs of 10 inches?
Steel bollards ?
Hydraulic pointed bollards tipped with C4
Well, since you asked: I live two blocks from Valencia and at age 83 have better sense than to ride a bicycle anywhere, especially on the streets of San Francisco. SFPD currently makes about 10 traffic stops per day city-wide, so no street is actually safe. So I can't help but think that a better solution for the three or four busiest blocks of Valencia would be to ban all parking, remove all painted lines, and turn the street into a pedestrianized free-for-all with a speed limit of THREE MPH for everyone. Lots of clear markings and bollards would be needed at each cross street to made it clear that anyone entering would be required to move at the same speed as a pedestrian. Drivers would avoid it, deliveries would be easier, bicyclists could ride wherever as they wanted, and PEOPLE, not things on wheels would have priority. If you think this idea is absurd, visit almost any city Germany and see it for yourself. By the way, sidewalks on Valencia that had been narrowed in the 1950s were recently widened. They still aren't wide enough.
I can see the main reason this style was chosen... to preserve on street parking and loading areas. Was this a trial layout though, with the none solid barriers, that would be the first thing I would change. Definitely great if going through, but visiting a shop is like the disadvantage of a two-way cycleway on the other side.
I think those yellow soft hit posts at the ends of the blocks were installed by SafeStreetRebel and not the SFMTA
you've forgotten an important point, the rescue!
Rescue services can use this track to go faster!
I'm not a fan of these routes, but it's one of their advantages.
the ideal is to have two lanes on the sides, wide enough to let the emergency services through, so that there's plenty of room. otherwise it's always complicated to leave and get back to the runway.
I feel like one benefit of complete streets is the widening of storefront space. As in, stores gain more sidewalk, bike lane, and parking, all of which relegate the cars to the middle where shopping, leisure, exercise, and play don’t happen. I’d rather see sidewalks extended with protected lanes bc it improves real estate value and foot traffic on the street level, as opposed to pushing much of the street level traffic (bikes) away from the buildings.
it would be best pedestrionized, but if that is not possible, i think that the bike lane in the centre and puting up a solid brick curb (it would need to have spaces for crossing of course), iron bollards, brick surface on the car road and cameras that can read licesnse plates in the intersection is the best solution. Also yeah the turnboxes are awful
Cross town bike highway effect, unimpeded by parked cars or motorists walking across the bike lane to get to their parked cars, is the greatest advantage.
Hey great video, as a daily cyclist in SF its great to see attention brought to this community and other cycling communities around the globe
I live on this and bike it 5-10x per week. I think it is, like always, a performative half measure. Cars are allowed on 99.9% of roads. We should fully pedestrianize at least 20% of roads and Valencia is obviously a great first case . And of course build more dense transit oriented multi use housing.
when I cycled in Paris in 2021 they also had middle cycling lanes, and they're horrendous. I was in the middle of the road unable to quickly stop and look around to see where the heck I was, unable to simply take a turn, unable to see where the road takes me next as you never knew what lies beyond the crossing, should I be on the right of the road, on the left, in the middle? nothing was clear, and you're stuck in the stressful environment of cars all around you.
2:52 This right here is the best type of bike lane
I walk and bike Valencia frequently. You missed a great deal of the negatives. Vehicles frequently park in the new center bike lane. The dark "barriers" restrict no vehicle from entry into the bike lanes. I have seen several U-turns mid-block by vehicles, meaning vehicles cross the barriers on both sides of the center bike lane to turn around. Also (and this is a biggie) the center bike lane is also a fire lane (notice the "FIRE LANE" painted in huge letters numerous times all along the center "bike lane"?). When there is an emergency, bicycles (not vehicles) will need to exit the center bike lane quickly to avoid fast-moving emergency vehicles. This may be a recipe for disaster. The protected bike lanes on Valencia between Market and 15th not only feel much safer, they ARE much safer. We shall see what the data tells us in 9 months or so, but I strongly suspect this current center bike lane is far from ideal.
There’s a part of the Pinellas trail that’s like this though tarpon springs Florida
Great video! Thanks for a balanced look at the controversy. As you surmise, it's not "great" but it's a huge improvement over the prior configuration. A few remarks from this local:
- For all you "do what the Dutch do" posters: the best practice of putting the bike lane between the parking and the sidewalk is not feasible here. There are many restaurants all along the street. During the pandemic, the City allowed for "parklets" - parking spaces converted into sidewalk extensions for additional outdoor dining. Each block has many parklets and it's impractical to put the bike traffic between them and the sidewalk. The parklets are popular and there isn't a push to remove them.
- One benefit for me personally is that i like seeing cyclists coming the other way. You can see faces, smile and slap hands with your friends.
- The single soft hit post at the entrance of the bike lane (one is shown knocked over) can't be made more solid as the bike lane also doubles as an emergency lane for fire trucks, ambulances, etc.
- There's a recent uptick of businesses being vocally against the bike lanes. I think this is happening because:
-- This new configuration caused many parking spots to be removed.
-- The center lane used to be for turning and was a defacto parking lane. So in a sense even more parking was removed since this is no longer allowed.
-- Traffic is worse. Backups happen when cars are trying to parallel park and cars can't go around like they used to be able to. Left turns off the street are no longer allowed.
Of course the better solution will be to pedestrianize the street but there's not the political will yet to make that happen.
As someone that lived on Valencia for several years and now live in the Netherlands, there are a multitude of Dutch street designs that would work better. Why Valencia even needs passenger car traffic is a mystery. Mission is a BRT and Bart corridor and Guerrero, Dolores, and Van Ness are auto routes. People can walk a block or two to a mostly pedestrianised street and it’ll be much more pleasant. This bike lane design is quite poor for handicap users on mobility scooters to access the bike lane and then exit when needed, alongside the stated issues for cyclists that want to access shops. It preserves almost all the on street passenger parking while causing deliveries and taxis to block the road, which also exacerbates emergency vehicle access. A Dutch approach would remove the majority of auto through traffic to the auto priority routes flanking Valencia, then only disabled, emergency, and commercial vehicles would be granted free access. Cross streets would have continuous sidewalks and raised intersections to slow vehicles crossing Valencia and give pedestrians and cyclists priority. The bike lanes would be raised and on the inside of the parking reducing chances of dooring.
Saw the same construct on the Av. del Parallel in Barcelona. 3 car lanes left and right and 2 in the middle for bikes.
This was done first on a road in Toronto about 15 years ago, the motorists freaked out and the brand new centre bike lanes were removed when a new mayor was elected.
Torontonian here. We did!? Where was it?
From a Dutch perspective, this solution seems just a little improvement at it's best, but most of all a waste of money. Maybe it is better then it was before, but then it probably was a total nightmare before.
Why can't they take some experience of Dutch engineers to come up with a good design. The experience of decades of trial and error had lead to really good road design and safety for all participants, safe parking and delivery bays for the shops included. This is money thrown away and it will only help the anti bicycle advocates to make their case.
Cars parked along the pavement and then the bicycles have to ride in the middle of the road between the driving cars? Shops have to be delivered trough the front door but they can't walk 3 meters more over a cycle lane?
And then the most frightening: these intersections where you have to cross the car lanes, even when going strait. And when you want to visit a shop between two intersections, how do you reach their front door? Going trough the traffic?
I can't believe some traffic engineer came up with this solution. Didn't he ever opened a book about this subject with some Dutch solutions?
It seems insane to me.
Can you please post a link to the “Bike Talk” rant that you referred to?
How's your city pro doing man? Can we get a small updated review?
I know at 7:36 you mentioned that they need solid barriers with the example being the flattened yellow flexpole in the middle of the lane. I don't think that one specifically could ever be anything more than a flexpole since the bike lane is also a fire lane
This is definitely a cool concept, but I don't think it solves anything that couldn't have been solved by forcibly getting cars out of the existing bike lanes by putting up bollards on the car side of them. Extra drawbacks I at least imagine (would be interesting to see if the actual users share this sentiment):
- Air pollution: When cars are only on one side, vs. cars on both sides, I'd imagine there being more undesirable fumes, more often.
- Heat: On the side of the road, you are sometimes in the shade of roadside trees or buildings themselves. It looks like the center lane is in the sun 100% of the time.
PS on fumes from cars: Some cars but especially a lot of pickup trucks point their exhausts specifically to the right (not even just backward on the right side), so in most cases this just helps degrade the cycling or walking experience alongside a road but I wonder if in this case it actually is a slight positive spin on the center lanes since you're on the left of each direction of traffic.
A solution I would genuinely employ is just turning the whole street into a pedestrian-only area with a cycling thoroughfare designed thru it, and let the cars drive and park on intersecting streets where they wouldn't be interfering.
I feel like this is a great configuration if you replace the bollards with trees and grass. It would be like a little tree tunnel for bikes.
The only problem with that is if you want to turn off the street to go to one of the restaurants or shops mid block. The trees will cut down visibility making it really hard for drivers who are already distracted driving in a city like SF to see the cyclist who may want to swiftyl turn into the lane to stop at a shop midblock. You have to keep in mind that a significant percent of drivers in SF are from the 'burbs (bridge & tunnel). Many of them don't know where they're going.
The best order is: Shop, Sidewalk, Bike Lane, Physical Barrier, Parking, Car Lane, Car Lane, Parking, Physical Barrier, Bike Lane, Sidewalk, Shop
Or just no car traffic at all lol
If the width is there, I agree. If the row is narrow, remove car lanes, and the vehicles that use them.
it seems like if nothing else, it was a noble/worthwhile experiment that as a result of compromising between different interests, ending up being a mixed bag. I dont think there is anything wrong with experimenting with things like this. Perhaps another compromise would be to pedestrianize one side/direction of cars and so you have a one-way road on only a third of the total street area, and the bike lane buffering between pedestrians and cars. this could also allow room for a more solid barrier between the car lane and bikes
It's way better than before and I haven't had issues dismounting mid-block to visit merchants. This might not work if (when?) we have Dutch-level bike traffic in the lane. Car traffic is lighter and slower, which makes it an overall safer experience. Still gotta watch out for the occasional crazy driver running red lights etc usually late at night/early morning.
I’ve had this same idea for roads with wide medians but I think this bike path would be safer if it was raised and separated by a curb on both sides and not just some flimsy dividers; that way, motorists would be less likely to drift into the bike path or illegally use it as an express lane. To make it safer for bicyclists to get across the street, I think a mid-block crosswalk with signals could work (plus it would help pedestrians). As for motorists disregarding the signs forbidding left turns and U-turns, I don’t have a solution for that but I’m sure a civil engineer reading this would
The flimsy barriers on Valencia are likely temporary while data is being gathered. On the other side of the bay in Oakland on Telegraph they are putting in permanent cement barriers for the (gutter) bike lanes. Problem is, they made the bike lanes too narrow (!) making it difficult if not impossible to pass slow cyclists, especially those with wide handle bars. Also, you can't ride abreast with another cyclist. Argh!! What they should have done is narrow the car lanes which would slow motor traffic (necessary with all the pedestrian traffic) and widen the bike lanes. IMO, there is no reason for any motorized vehicle to drive over 30 mph on any city street, especially ones with a lot of foot traffic.
The other thing I would add is that there’s almost zero enforcement of cycling infrastructure laws in DC until AFTER something bad happens. Even here where there’s a lot of lip service to “Vision Zero” coming out of the mayor’s office, it feels like most of law enforcement are either ignoring vehicles parked in bike lanes or parking there themselves. What’s that about? Even if we went with “defunding” and used parking ticket people so the police can do “real detective work” and pursue “real crime” it would be so much better than the administration pretending they care.
Thanks for making the video. Certainly pros and cons!
I like the “equal compromise”… of left+right bike lanes together on one side… and left+right car lanes on the other side :)
As a daily cyclist in the Bar Area, I generally hate this. One of the benefits claimed for this is that currently cars occupy the bike lane forcing cyclists out into the street. But a fully protected bile lane achieves this benefit just as well. Those would also have the benefit of having double parked cars impact other cars and not cyclists. With a buffer you also prevent the danger from being doored AND it narrows the driving lane such that traffic speeds slow down.
I don't buy that deliveries are a reason for the center lane either. As the center lane is now, you still cannot do deliveries because those vehicles will block the entire street and can not stay still for more than a few moments. The only difference with a "conventional" protected lane is that these deliveries would not have to cross the bike lane as well as the traffic lanes. But the immense benefit of bikes is that they are very flexible, and momentarily crossing these lanes to do a delivery does not disrupt the flow of cycle traffic in any meaningful way. On top of that, we need to start advocating for bike delivery anyway. The oversized trucks that are used to deliver tiny packages are not sustainable in an urban enviornment.
Finally, the benefit of having cyclists against the sidewalk is that stores get more "foot" traffic. It is easy for a cyclist to see a store display, stop directly in front of the store, and then go in. Compared to a car that may not see the display, and even if they do, they then need to circle to look for parking. Businesses will flourish with a vibrant cycle lane against the sidewalk.
The downsides to the center lane are not insignificant. Compared to a painted bike gutter, they are much much better. But they are still dangerous as they have cyclists crossing against the flow of traffic on multiple different occasions. Not allowing left turns is a start, but it is never enforced (and hard to enforce). And getting into and out of these lanes is confusing and tricky.
I applaud the city for trying out new ideas. This kind of experimentation is the correct approach. But this particular experiment seems like it was a failure. That happens. But I hope they take the issues to heart and convert these to fully protected and buffered lanes on either side of the street.
From an Australian's input a hook turn for cars could be an option. Melbourne uses hook turns alongside tram tracks, although I don't know how well hook turns would be implemented as I don't really know the width of Valencia St and road user's attitude towards bikers would be different to trams.
I'm involved with biking infrastructure in Germany and encountered a center bike lane last year right in front if my Airbnb in Bogotá. It's an idea that never would have occurred to me, and I dint think I'll implement it where I live, but for the situation in bogota it was a brilliant soloution. In Bogotá leftvturns where limited as well.
Ciclovia in Bogota is amazing!
You don't need to travel that far to see these, there have been popping up a few in Paris too. For example Rue de Temple close to Place de la Republique and over the Pont au Change (this one is not yet visible in Google Maps) or Boulevard du Montparnasse with combined bidirectional bus+cycle lane in the middle of the street. More common are the bidirectional cycle lanes on one side of the street and I like these somewhat better.
@@careneh33 in the 90ies they found out that cyclist using a bike lane in the left side if the road had 12 times the risk of getting into an accident at intersections compared to cyclist driving in the right side of the road. This was found in multiple studies in Europe.
I know they have these bidirectional bike paths in the Netherlands.
They may work there because of a different traffic culture. The abundance of protected intersections in the Netherlands may come into play as well. (Protected intersections where deemed unsafe in Germany as well but we did them wrong).
On the other hand: even adjusted for the fact that people from the Netherlands cycle more, they have a to high number of cyclist fatalities. This may be the fault of them almost never wearing helmets but I don't think it's wise to blindly copy their cycling infrastructure.
@@JustBen81 I assume the studies you are talking about were not investigating cycling on a separated bidirectional cycle lane, right?
To all I know, The Netherlands has the lowest cycling fatality rate in the world (that's how we know that helmets don't really matter much), so what do you mean by "too high"?
@@monowheeling The studies where investigating bidirectional cycling paths seperated from the street - but the paths at that time didn't have a Netherlands style separation.
I admit the paths may or may not be a safe soloution, but when trying such paths you better build them with to the Netherlands standards and don't just blindly build a two way bike path with an insufficiant separation and many crossings for cars.
Bi-directional paths are all but banned in germany incide populated areas - but with better protection this may be revisited.
I found a study that compared bicicle deaths per 1 million km. In the years from 2011 to 2015 the Netherlands where safer than Germany but by no means the safest country. But even discounting 2023 (where the Netherlands had a large spike in fatalities) - if you'd just compare the years 2017-2022 germany would be safer.
I don't think these numbers can prove or disprove that the lack of helmets or the biking infrastructure in the Netherlands are safe or unsafe, but with the amount of good infrastructure I encountered in the Netherlands i didn't expect many other countries to be in the running when it comes to cycling infrastructure - but they still are.
There is a similar comment below but just want to repeat that road infrastructure needs to be simplified - not made more complicated for it to be safer for bicycles. The experiment is a cool idea, but I feel there are already plenty of places where such questions have been figured out and center bike highway is NOT the safest nor most practical infrastructure. I'd highlight the comment from @Aviertje for a great breakdown into why
I mean, it is possible to place bike lanes at the sides of the road while keeping parking and leaving enough space for delivery vehicles, but a bike lane in the middle has arguably many benefits. It will have far fewer parked cars, no risk of dooring, far fewer pedestrians cluelessly stepping on the bike lane, and people won't ride in the wrong direction. It also doubles as a fire lane, which is a good thing considering how incapable your average driver is to notice and give way to an approaching emergency vehicle.
You don't get to see the businesses, and it's more difficult to access them, but if you make crossing the car lanes around bike racks easy you've partially solved the problem. More protection is definetly needed, and changing those plastic bollards to steel posts would go a long way. Ideally you'd have sharp curbs between bikes and cars. To me, it seems like there is enough space for a bit of grass and a line of trees between the car and bike lanes. That would make this place so much more pleasent and it would probably slow down drivers a bit too.
Turn boxes seem to be not thought out at all. They probably need more space and they definetly need more protection. Adding curbs and steel posts would probably be a good start.
Pennsylvania Avenue in DC has this too, but it’s a much larger road with higher traffic volumes. I have friends who hate it, but I definitely appreciate not having to worry about right hooks
Cleveland has been working on a similar project called the Superior midway. It's been in the works for so long that many are skeptical it'll actually happen.
Fingers crossed for 2025 🤞
Curb-side bike lanes with parking as a protector is much safer (no u-turn/left turn issues, no confusion at the lights, etc).
As for the businesses taking deliveries from the front: put 10-20 minute limit spots out front at each corner.
Win-Win
Your videos are freaking fantastic. I can't wait to watch this channel grow. Also, I can't decide how I feel about the bike lanes...I think I'll leave it to someone smarter than me, but I'd certainly not avoid that kind of set-up while on bike if Seattle installed this somewhere.
I use it for commuting to work three times a week and it’s not bad to ride through as long as you get used to how to navigate it since the lights are timed for 14mph. I still have a difficult time figuring out how to turn out of it in the middle of the 8 blocks or feeling comfortable trying to stop along the way at a shop but it makes for a quick commute. I was doored on Valencia last year so agree it’s nice not to have to worry about that but will have to keep in mind I’m supposed to follow the light signals for cars and not the pedestrian ones. I would say this might need to be something that should be advertised more but we already have too many signs to try to read.
It reminds me of bike lanes in the Iberian peninsula, for example Passeig de St Joan in Barcelona. Being separated from the shops doesn't seem like such a big deal if the bike racks are put at intersections; then there would be no reason to get out of the lane mid-block bc you would need to go to an intersection to park anyway.
Don’t they do the center lane in DC also?
In DC, Pennsylvania Ave is like this but much bigger, it's a 6 lane road with one of those going right down the middle. it makes sense to have there since the road is super wide but here since it's just a 2 lane road it seems unnecessary, but cool looking and you don't have to worry about people walking out into the bike lane randomly or doors
I regularly ride this, and it was definitely confusing the first few times I used it. In particular, it was dark the first time I encountered it, and I thought the bike lane had just gone away.
At the very least, it is nice not dealing with double parked cars, or worrying about running into folks walking from their car to the sidewalk like the section of the street where the bike lane is between the sidewalk and parking
It's lovely for those who are cycling for recreation and could walk their bike at crossroad that might not be too close to their destination. For frequent commuters and errand-runners, this is obnoxious planning. I personally won't have problem with this but I definitely see some issues.
Not mentioned in the video is that the center bike lane configuration allows room for one bike to overtake another. The curbside bike lanes shown in the video are too narrow to allow for safe passing.
That's why the curbside bike lanes should be wide enough and not some narrow painted gutter.
In Lima (Perú), where I am from, the usual is to have the bikeway between the road and the parking lot, also in the center of the avenue, being next to the central berm garden or over the central garden... the right way should be to the side, between the pedestrian path and the parking lot, protected and accesible
I biked on it recently and encountered 3 cop cars who were using the lane to get around car traffic. I was almost hit by one as it was jumping the barrier to get into it. It's a design that does not actually work for the space and feels like it was pushed through in spite of all of the warnings. This design is compromised and deeply flawed and need to switched to a more cyclist friendly design. I definitely don't want to see this design pop up anywhere else in the city.
There needs to be curbside bike lanes on both sides of the street with a physical barrier preventing cars from encroaching/parking in it. They have the space for it.
7:45 Space limitations? If this was a street in my country, it would be the widest street in all the land.
4:10 putting lanes between curbside and street parking is better than between street and street parking
It's the typical US mindset: cars first, everything else comes second or third. SF struggles to let bikes coexist with cars - admittedly a huge step forward already - but there's no actual effort to do what's the _essence_ of successful bike infrastructure projects: discourage car usage. That's where it t all starts, with less cars. Once people are desperate for alternatives, experimenting with new infrastructure ideas - however weird they might be - is widely accepted.
In this case the first question is clearly: why on earth is road side parking allowed? Bus stops, pedestrian paths, only delivery allowed to stop and only during the early hours. Heavy monitoring, expensive parking tickets, parking for residents only, it's all car discouragement 1x1 for most european cities. With less cars comes less danger and less complications. The simple bike lane on the right side can again be a valid solution. Less cars, at all costs...
I was just riding my bike recently and was wondering what a center bike lane would look like. This is interesting! Thanks for sharing!
Personally I am not a fan of cycle lanes - they are often too narrow, difficult to stop in due to the flow of cyclists, and often follow unintuitive routes. That said, in this case, were they to have had two auto lanes down the centre, and have a solid wall along either side, they could eliminate people stoping their cars wherever they please. As for deliveries and disabled car users - in many cities in the UK it seems possible, although not perfect, to have spaces that are shared by cyclists, pedestrians, and the occasional other vehicle that has a good reason to be there. Maybe having wide enough bike lanes that can accomodate a few cars, and a fully segregated auto throughfare would strike an acceptable balance?
In downtown NYC Allen street is somewhat similar to this especially between Houston and Delancey
Thank you for providing a balanced, objective review of this bikeway. There have been far too many shrill rants dominating - and distorting - an important conversation here. Some additional information - SF is compelled to design for emergency vehicle access and provide enough space for fire vehicles to stage in case there is a fire. What many don't realize is that whatever design is provided on Valencia, it needs to provide 26' clear for fire vehicles. This affects where we can put parking and what materials can be used to protect the bikeway. Just last month there was a large fire on the street, not uncommon with tightly spaced multi-story wood framed buildings often built in the early 1900s. Many also promote a one-vehicle lane design for one way traffic, but we still need 26' clear, which is wide enough for two lanes. The sidewalks in the middle of Valencia are also wider meaning there is less roadway space for all the needs of the street. In short, these and many other issues - along with a desire to improve the situation sooner than later - are what led to this design and a pilot. It was certainly not done as part of some academic exercise, which should be clear as the rest of the protected bikeways throughout SF are curbside. What helps is that the city timed the traffic signals for 13mph (21kph) traffic flow in each direction to match most bicyclsts' speeds and to promote slower safer driving. This reduces discomfort for cyclists in the middle lane.
Fun fact! Valencia is actually a city in Spain
I learned quite a bit about it when researching this street...and not on purpose lol
Congrats on the video! Very technical and well done!
It’s not terrible but in my opinion the gold standard is having the bike lane directly next to the sidewalk. Preferably on both sides, but a 2 way bike lane next to one sidewalk is fine in circumstances where both sides is not an option.
Both this center lane, and placing bike lanes between parked cars and traffic, are suboptimal options.