The result of the study can be seen all over Copenhagen. We’ve pulled the stop line for cars back 5 metres at over 120 intersections. We’re implementing bike boxes. We are increasing the ‘pre-green’ for bike traffic lights – meaning that the bike traffic lights turn green between 2 and 10 seconds before the lights turn green for cars.

At busy intersections the bike lanes often sweep to the right, completely separated from the traffic flow.

All of these initiatives have already proven to be successful in making the safe, separated infrastructure even safer. At Denmark’s previously most dangerous intersection, with 15 serious injuries at year (worth noting that there are over 60,000 cyclists a day crossing this intersection alone), the number of serious accidents has been reduced to one (1).

They are not inherently problematic. I’m currently living in Denmark (that’s why I chose that place to link) and most streets in the cities have cycle tracks. If Copenhagen isn’t proof of their success, then I don’t know what is.

I don’t see the bigger signals on the 2-lane streets that people are claiming to see around the City. If so, it’s very rare. I don’t believe the arguments here that they distract the driver from watching for pedestrians. Why should they be looking for pedestrians crossing in front of them if drivers are going straight on a green light? Preventing red light running is much more important.

@Aaron-the link you have shows exactly what signal configuration we have here in the City. The streetview picture shows an overhead signal with signals on the side, so we are already like many European cities in regards to signals!

Mainly, I would like to clarify that the drawing was never meant to illustrate an ideal street, and is not meant to function as a “template,” as suggested by the Streetsblog caption. Rather, the purpose of the drawing was to illustrate how a street differs from other thoroughfare types, such as an avenue or boulevard. (A discussion of the different types of thoroughfares and their functions within the transportation network can be found on pages 48-53 of the report; a free PDF can be downloaded at http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/Orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=RP-036A-E .)

For an example of how street design is affected by different levels of government, see the draft “Multi-modal Access Strategy & Context-Sensitive Design Guidelines” for El Camino Real on the San Francisco Peninsula (A link to the PDF is available at http://www.grandboulevard.net/ ). These recommendations for multi-modal improvements to an urban state highway are intended to help local communities make street design improvements, while staying within the current Caltrans state standards.

Finally, to address a few specific points:

@ icarus12: I think that the discussion of the different types of thoroughfares I mentioned above addresses your point about different routes accommodating different primary modes of travel.

@ Mtothel: See page 154 of the report for an example of a raised crosswalk as recommended at a mid-block crossing.

@ Aaron Bialick: Regarding the traffic signals… yes, they are very high and large. Ideally, they would be smaller and nicer. However, since the drawing was aiming for typical rather than ideal, I let them be. Additionally, it can easily cost upwards of $100,000 to replace a traffic light, and you can make a lot of potentially more significant improvements for $100,000.

When I was in engineering school my professor challenged us to find “MUTCD violations” in the Boston area (which is pretty trivial) and I think that exemplifies the mindset. “This is the handbook; we should build to handbook.” Absolutely NO critical thought as to whether the handbook makes a lick of sense in context.

I completely agree that the high and away signals are inappopriate and dangerous in the close-in urban context. I would much prefer a small, lower to ground signal that I could actually freaking see. Honestly, I when I was an urban bus driver I stopped looking at traffic signals at intersection and only looked at the traffic (&peds, etc). This got me in trouble once or twice for proceeding at red when the intersection was clear!

Also, I think you guys rode very timidly — once people get used to the lane and get used to where obstacles and hazards can come from, they can safely ride a bit faster.

My last point: don’t underestimate the value of a relatively safe way to get crosstown at 6mph. 6mph is actually a pretty great all-in speed for a crosstown ride in Manhattan. Because of signal timing and weaving around double-parked cars, most other routes are as slow or slower, as well as more dangerous.

“But the best answer isn’t to accept the aggressiveness and hide from it on a problematic cycle track. The best answer is to make the aggressiveness socially unacceptable, so the streets aren’t intimidating.”

And I want a puppy that wears a unicorn hat. Good luck.

Great Interview and very informative! This is definitely one of the best stories in Streetsblog in some time!

I regularly rode on a bike lane like this for a year in Spain and it seemed ideal. Low cost–just restriping. I’ve seen this is several different countries but sadly never in the US. And not in the Bay Area or Portland in any serious way, two of the supposedly most bike friendly places here.

Pretty sad.

I am hoping that as we do go about redesigning streets, we don’t adopt a one-size fits all approach to every street within a single city like San Francisco. I think there should be several arterial streets running North-South and several more running East-West such that a car driver can travel through the city at 30 mph on timed lights without doing crazy things like speeding beyond that or honking our damn horns or jamming through on amber lights. As a mostly biker and pedestrian, I am fine with that as long as I get lots of pleasant options. Options like lots and lots of parallel routes exist that arend relatively flat and scenic. For example, I love taking Valencia on my bike and Guerrero when traveling by car, but I hate getting stuck on Folsom in the Mission. Folsom serves nobody properly — it’s dangerous to bike there and it’s a frustrating stop&go drive. Everybody just ends up frustrated no matter what their mode of transportation.

It just doesn’t make sense to define the new urbanism movement as hostile to cars. Better to make it a movement grounded in the reality that the same urban resident likes to move around at different speeds in different places for different purposes using different modes of transportation. Make mobility something for all and give us the variety options we gravitate toward anyway.

Maybe this is what wonky New Urbanist engineers and designers are doing already, and I just have the wrong impression based on what I hear from community groups that want the traffic in their own neighborhoods to magically slow down or go away. Thoughts, readers?