Will Chapel Hill/Carrboro Ever Be Bike-Friendly?

On some roads, such as interstates, bicycles are prohibited. On others, bicycles are vehicles like any other, and are accorded the same rights. Car drivers violating traffic laws can and should be held responsible, as should bicycle riders who do not obey traffic laws.

Feel free to get the laws changed. But until they are changed, do not cause chaos and death by ignoring them.

The laws are already ignored whereas if they were strictly followed there'd be chaos and death. That's why the laws are ridiculous.

So I was coming back from Harris Teeter tonight, going up South Columbia St, a bit past Merritt's Store and lo and behold I see not one, but two bicycles coming the other way. At 10:00 at night. A car was following them closely and going slow by necessity because the car didn't have anywhere else to go. The road is narrow and in some parts there is no shoulder at all. The bikers can't go right. The car can't go left because there are cars coming from the other direction (who themselves have no room to go right if the cars coming towards them come into their lane). And there is very little streetlight in the stretch where I saw them.

What if another car was coming from behind? There are a lot of twists in the road. A car coming from behind wouldn't have much notice before seeing a car in front of it that is going much slower. If you're driving the car right behind the bikers and you see headlights coming from behind you, what do you do? Keep going slow and let the car coming from behind hit you? Speed up and risk hitting the bikers or running them off the road? Swerve to the left and hope the cars coming from the other direction can swerve far enough away from you to avoid hitting you while not running off the road themselves?

And where were the bikers going after they got to the overpass? Were they going to get onto the four lane road or instead go over it? Neither is safe even in the daytime, much less 10:00 at night.

I live in that area and that is why I seem to see things there so often. This weekend I was about to turn right onto South Columbia St from Old Pittsboro Rd. (If you're coming down South Columbia St and go through the intersection with Mason Farm Rd. and go about a tenth of a mile, South Columbia St turns left while a side street bears off to the right, and that side street is Old Pittsboro Rd).

So anyway, I'm sitting there waiting to turn right and a bicyclist goes past. I then turned right onto South Columbia St too and so I could see the biker for awhile. So we get to the overpass and I see that he's actually going to go over the overpass on a bicycle (which, while crazy, is less crazy I suppose than the alternative of getting off of the overpass and onto the high speed four lane road instead.)

So the biker goes over the overpass and turns left on to Mt. Carmel Church Rd., which is a narrow, bunpy two lane road with few shoulders and lots of side streets and driveways where traffic comes on and goes off and whose 45 mph speed limit would be too high to be safe even if there were no bikes on the road.

Oh, and another time this past weekend I saw someone jogging up South Columbia St, literally on the road, despite the fact that someone on foot can go all the way up that way without ever being on the road.

And believe it or not there were even other “events” I witnessed on that stretch this weekend too but I've gone on too long already. And of course, that's just one stretch of road that I happen to live near. There are other dangerous places in town too.

Someone's going to die or be injured. In fact, haven't 2-3 pedestrians/bikers been killed in the past year? And as time passes we're both encouraging more people to walk or bike while simultaneously forcing more people to drive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the consequences.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the overpass you mentioned has a bike lane on the right side, it's not so crazy riding in that, I used that bike lane to go home all the time when I lived south of town. I don't think it is so dangerous for cars to see other cars driving slowly up S. Columbia street. There is a stop light there at Mason Farm Rd. which has a long line of vehicles stopped at any time day or night that people don't seem to have trouble with. It is much easier and anticipated to see a car's tail-lights at night than it is to see a cyclist, I would say. Do I think it is dangerous to ride a bicycle on that stretch of S. Columbia at any time day or night? I sure do. I have only done that twice in my life and both times it was nerve wracking. That's why I take Purefoy/Mason Farm to get from point A to B. Although I have never taken my bike up Mt. Carmel Church road, I have driven it by car and I would also not want to ride my bike up that road.

If I had to choose two VITAL places to put in a sidewalk and/or bike lane, my top 2 priorities in this area would be that stretch of S. Columbia between the southern edge of campus (Health Affairs area) and the 54/15-501 intersection, and the other place would be Estes Drive Extension from N. Greensboro Street.

While I'm on the subject of traffic my other request would be that the traffic signal change when you hit the crosswalk buttons and not wait 2-5 minutes, especially during lunch hour. Bank Plaza -> Cosmic Cantina Crosswalk and Rosemary/Church specifically come to mind.

I'm with Jeremy on the sidewalk priorities. A quick look at the CH Bike&Ped Action Plan shows their priority in that area as Estes Ext from MLK to Seawell School Rd. Nothing in the S Columbia area.

Can we get together to work with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board to speed things up in these areas?

CH priorities at http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/index.asp?NID=141

Can't find Carrboro's priorities. Anyone see them?

David Z,

I suspect that there is nothing in the Bike & Ped Action Plan for S. Columbia St. because those improvements have already been approved and are only awaiting the state to begin them. My recollection is that they were supposed to begin in the next several years, if not sooner. And my recollection also is that there are supposed to be three vehicular lanes (center turn lane), sidewalks and bike lanes.

Someone with a better memory may be able to clarify this further.

David Z,

The improvements to S. Columbia have been delayed by NCDOT until at least 2010.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/545041.html

2010?

Why the wait?

Jeremy,

Taken from the above link. You decide what sounds most reasonable.

""It was one of many projects across this area that was delayed," said Mike Cowan, deputy engineer for DOT Highway Division 7. Lack of funding pushed the $2 million project back, Cowan said.

But David Bonk, the town's long-range planner, expressed concern the delay was a "retrenchment" in favor of wider roads and against alternative modes of transportation such as biking and walking. "That's not exactly the Chapel Hill point of view," Bonk told members of the Chapel Hill delegation to the General Assembly at a legislative breakfast Monday.

Contacted later, Cowan said DOT designed the Columbia Street project as Chapel Hill town leaders requested, even though the department would prefer a five-lane road to handle future traffic. "There's a divergence of opinion over what will be the long-term outcome of the decisions made today," said Cowan."

So how can we tie Carolina North's transportation plan to projects like S. Columbia and Estes Ext at N Greensboro?

"So how can we tie Carolina North's transportation plan to projects like S. Columbia and Estes Ext at N Greensboro?"

David Z,

The short answer is, I believe, we can't. Approximately 85 percent of the main roads in Chapel Hill are NC-DOT maintained and controlled. Thus improvements to those roads go through a NC-DOT recommendation and approval and funding process that would make the waiting list for getting front row season tickets to UNC men's basketball games look short.

Just in case you don't know the history of the S. Columbia St. improvements: this project was scheduled to start several years ago. After much discussion (vigorous) the University and the Town agreed to the type of improvements to be made (as described above). However, the University has always favored having 5 traffic lanes in order to more easily move vehicular traffic in and out of the medical center. Nevertheless, they agreed to the plan favored by the Town which was a condition (the two parties agreeing) that NC-DOT had insisted upon before putting this project onto their priority list. Then several years ago (I'm not sure of the timing but I would think maybe 4-6 years ago) the project was dropped from the NC-DOT priority list. When the Town inquired why, they were told it was because the University had requested that the plan be reconsidered. This was done with the Chancellor's consent but without the knowledge of Town officials. After some very public exchanges between University and Town officials the University agreed to support the original plan which they had previously given their public support to. However, by this time the project had "lost its place" in the priority list and thus we are now looking at 2010 (or later) for improvements that, in all likelihood, would have been completed by now. I apologize to any parties for any inaccuracies I might have provided herein and will be happy to stand corrected if that is the case.

I believe that some of the tensions in Town/gown relations (real or perceived) over the last 4-5 years were heightened by the unfortunate events described above.

So what is this blog for? Do we just vent to each other and move on to the next topic or is there some other point I'm missing? Is there any "we" here or not?

The Bike and Ped Advisory Board is meeting this Tuesday, Oct 23, at 7 in the Town hall 1st Floor conference room.

Let's at least find out where they are in their efforts and whether there's anything we can highlight at the regular Council mtg.

David Z,

You make it sound like everyone is standing around with their hands in their pockets doing nothing. The current Council has been extremely pro-pedestrian and pro-cyclist. They (and previous Councils) fought NC-DOT on the proposed improvements to Weaver Dairy Road to have 3 vehicular lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks on both sides. NC-DOT wanted 4 vehicular lanes, a full-length median, and turn lanes but no bike lanes. NC-DOT finally agreed to the Town's wishes but has never been happy about it and hasn't hesitated to make that fact known. Those improvements have been repeatedly delayed (I wonder why). Now the Town is in the unfortunate position of asking NC-DOT to move the Town's signal system improvements ahead of the Weaver Dairy Road improvements. The improvements to the Town-wide signal system will benefit a greater number of people and will provide improvement to our air quality and overall mobility and are drastically needed because of the antiquated equipment now in place.

I applaud your interest and your concern. But given that the Weaver Dairy Road improvements probably won't occur until 2011-2013, and given that NC-DOT is running out of money (the money raised from gas taxes decreases as cars get more fuel efficient), and given that the Town probably doesn't have the money to make necessary improvements on its own (even if NC-DOT were to allow it), I think it is going to take a tremendous amount of creativity to figure out how to make a serious dent in the dearth of adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in our area. But trying is certainly better than not trying, so go for it.

David, I could go on and on about South Columbia -- in part
it is what got me to run for town council. I'll add one
quick story to George's comments and then address your
question. In 1990, the DOT proposed a $4 million, 5-lane widening of S. Columbia, to give it the same cross-section
as then Airport Rd. at town hall -- and the DOT had the
money read-to-spend then. The town council voted 6-3
(yes it was close) to walk away from the money because
this was not the type of road we wanted or needed here.
I believe they made the correct decision then -- the negotiations
continued and finally the town will get a minimal-widening
project with bus, bike and ped provisions, though likely the UNC administration and certainly the hospitals administration
are unhappy with this result. The hospitals administrations,
previous and current, clearly want 12 lanes to the bypass.

You asked "So how can we tie Carolina North's transportation plan to projects like S. Columbia and Estes Ext at N Greensboro?"
As I see it, there are two answers to this question. The first
is that there will be a new zoning for CN, and that process
will spawn a negotiation between UNC and the town. During
that negotiation, it will be determined how to mitigate the
impact of CN on northern CH and the rest of the town.
The second answer is parking. After you look at about
a hundred development projects, you realize that
the secret to a minimal-impact development is the
limitation of car parking. If the town grants CN one parking
space per employee (as UNC proposes now for the CN
innovation center), mass transit will fail and the negative impact of CN will be exacerbated. We know, using the
RTP as a showcase, that commuters will tolerate a huge
hassle to drive to work, one person per car,
if a parking space awaits them.
We will depend upon our council to not allow UNC a
blank parking check. I'm confident that the current council,
which is is more transit-oriented than the 1990 council was,
will help us citizens.

George and Joe- Thanks for your time on laying out the history of the S Columbia area. I appreciate your efforts there. I'm assuming, George, that you are Mr. Cianolo on the Planning Board.

I guess what I had in mind was something like what Joe laid out - making progress on these corridors (Estes Ext and S Columbia) part of the town's negotiations on CN. Certainly the parking restrictions seem crucial to making transit more viable.

So I'm hoping that this blog, in gathering more commentators, can channel this energy into the various boards, commissions and to the Council itself - to allow more of us to speak with a clearer, focused voice during such far-reaching negotiations.

All these discussions involving how hard it is to get through to the DOT are disheartening. It's obvious that these streets need to be wider and include bike lanes for our safety.

On the other hand, this does point out what we should be doing with our limited local money and local influence. Connecting bike and walking paths through neighborhoods. There are plenty already, but there are lots of connections that haven't been made. Every new link can help connect longer paths to make cycling and walking safer and easier.

Linda, one Carolina North issue I've been pursuing is greenway/neighborhood trail connectivity from the new campus. I've been asking UNC to consider working with the Town to formalize corridors through the Elkins Hill neighborhood (I used to walk from Barclay to Downtown several ways - all of which are in pretty bad condition).

Beyond the formalizing the flow South into those neighborhoods, I'd love to see a greenways connector running roughly from the end of Airport Rd. into the woods 1/2 between the Birthing Center and the YMCA. A short walk through those woods brings you to existing OWASA easements leading down to Bolin Creek. My family walks those trails and they're quite beautiful.

If we were to get really creative and use CN as a driver for our ped/bike efforts, we'd end up with a web of access points pulling folks from north of CN into Downtown and main campus.

I haven't directly participated in the ped/bike advisory process so I'm not quite sure what their driving philosophy is in selecting corridors (I know access is a major requirement) but using this model might spur some new thinking.

The overpass on South Columbia St that goes over 54/15-501 has a bit of space to the right of the rightmost car lane but I don't know if it's technichally a bike lane.

To the right of the bit of empty space that is to the right of the rightmost car lane is a sidewalk (raised a bit from the rest of the road). I walked across that once (on a "what would it be like to walk to or from Southern Village to South Columbia St" expedition) and even though I was farther from traffic than the bike lane (if it is a bike lane) it was scary. I wouldn't want to be there on a bike and it'd make me nervous if I was driving and saw someone there on a bike.

The problem with biking in that general area is as you get to about where Merritt's Store is, the road widens, not only because the bridge is two lanes each way instead of one but also because a 3rd lane goes off to the right where for drivers to get onto 54 westward. As the road widens the cars fan out and of course they're moving a lot faster than the bikes.

If you're on a bike then you're on the far right. As the road widens. There are three ways you can go.

1. If you want to go on 54 westward then that has the least immediate danger since you can just go way to the right as soon as you can and the only place where you're likely to get run over is when you actually make the 90 degree turn to get onto the 54 on-ramp. The problem with that though is that even if you navigate that successfully you end up on 54 on a bicycle, which itself is dangerous.

The second way of coming down South Columbia St is to go straight through all the way. One problem is that as the road widens at Merritt's Store, you want to go straight on your bike but some cars that are coming behind you and going a lot faster want to get to the right so they can get onto 54 westward. And if you navigate that then you have to go over the bridge itself. And then after that you have to do something else that probably involves being on a road with a lot of fast moving cars since that's what all the roads down that way are like.

The third way of coming down South Columbia St is to go straight through and try to end up in the left turning lane to turn left onto Mt Carmel Church Rd, which means completely interweaving through all the traffic and is very dangerous, not only to get onto Mt Carmel Church Rd but also after you're on Mt Carmel Church Rd (which inexplicably has a Share The Road sign, at least on the part of the road going towards South Columbia St / 15-501, which doesn't make sense since it's not a safe road to bike on).

On top of all this the amount of traffic in that area is going to increase a lot in upcoming years because northern Chatham, which is essentially a suburb of Chapel Hill, is growing quickly.

It occurs to me that a general problem is that political entities have boundries within which people have say and outside of which they have no say. So there is Chapel Hill and you're either in it or out of it. And then there is Carrboro and you're either in it or out of it. And then there is Chatham County and you're in it or out of it. But those are arbitrary political boundaries whereas in reality all those areas are related. The same goes with any set of political boundaries.

David Z,

Yes, I am the George C on the CH Planning Board. Regarding a success in ongoing efforts, there is one in particular which has been a long process that has been championed greatly by CH Councilman Harrison, an everyday cyclist, and which also spans jurisdictional municipal lines (as discussed by jose). This effort is an item on tonight's CH Council agenda: "Execution of a Municipal Agreement for Bike Lanes and Sidewalks along Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road "

http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2007/10/22/9/

It isn't impossible to improve our bike and ped facilities in CH, Carrboro and adjoining municipalities. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of effort by both concerned citizens and local and state officials, both elected and appointed.

Again, the Bike and Ped Advisory Board is meeting this Tuesday, Oct 23, at 7 in the Town hall 1st Floor conference room.

Forgive my harping but I hope folks like Eric (who started this off), Michael C from CA, Jeremy, Adrian, Pat, Linda, Jose, Jim, Terri and any others (like me) who aren't yet plugged into gov't on this can show up and put their heads together with the Board to work on this.

Somehow we've got to find that next step beyond this blog.

Two terrific YouTube videos showing some bicycle-friendly projects. As usual, the Scandinavians are way ahead of us on this stuff. I'll try one per post.

The "Green Wave" for cyclists in Odense, Denmark.
courtesy of the terrific Streetsblog:

Okay, no embedding YouTube videos, apparently. No problem.

Try this link to see the Green Wave in Odense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEOakvjuIEs

Keep your eyes on the little lights sticking up out of the ground along the edge of the road to the right of the bike lane.

The second video is via CoolTown Studios and is the first ever on-street "bike elevator" in the world, in Trondheim, Norway. Imagine you this might make biking easier for younger and older riders on a steep hill such as MLK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j1PgmMbug8

Love the green lights in Denmark. Is that some kind of rollerblade helping the cyclist up the Trondheim lift?

Catherine, I'm not sure, but I think it's some type of solid steel footplate. By standing with most of your weight on the footplate, and using your bike for balance and counterweight, the lifting moves against your right foot while the bike wheels roll on the left.

Then again, I may be viewing the system incorrectly. Most interesting to me was whether or not it costs anything for a lift. I thought I saw a coin slot.

http://www.trondheim.com/content.ap?thisId=1117614134 :

You can get a key card to operate the lift from Sykkelbua, the bicycle repair shop up the street (address: Øvre Bakklandet 35).

Meanwhile, some places--like Doha Qatar--go a lot of troubleto make their environment conducive to cycling:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3326850694033482725

Thankfully, we're blessed with an environment naturally suited to cycling and do not need to go to this trouble.

Speaking of bike friendly, Matt said at the first forum we did with the Sierra Club, that if he wins the election, he will ride his bike to all the Town Council meetings.

Just saw a bicyclist in the weeds on Estes at the corner of Seawell; he'd just been knocked down by a car turning right off Estes onto Seawell. Bright neon yellow wind shirt/jacket, reflective stuff on his helmet, and a bright red flashing light on the back of his bike.

Sad, and scary.

A bright neon yellow wind shirt/jacket, reflective stuff on his helmet, and a bright red flashing light on the back of his bike and he still got knocked down? I know what everyone here thinks first when they read that. They think "bad driver." But while that may be true in this case I'd like to suggest another possible alternative, which is "inherently dangerous situation." Maybe the driver was being attentive and careful and s/he still almost killed the biker. What then?

Forget bikers for a second. Go back to when there were just cars and walkers. When roads were being set up for that situation they built roads and at the edge of the road they put a curb and then up on the curb they put a sidewalk for walkers to walk on. Why did they bother with a curb instead of just having flat asphalt and a painted line near the right edge denoting where walkers should walk, which is what they do for bikers today? I'm no road-building historian but simple logic suggests to me that they did that because it was dangerous to have people walking on the same piece of asphalt that cars drive on. When you add a curb then you're adding a giant safety factor. Even if something goes wrong there is a protective curb between a fast-traveling, very heavy car and a slow-traveling, very light walker.

The reasoning for walkers should go for bikers too. Having cars weighing thousands of pounds and going fast on the same piece of asphalt as walkers or bikers is inherently dangerous even if everyone is careful. And of course, everyone isn't always careful anyway.

Instead, how about bike lanes that aren't on the same flat asphalt that the cars drive on but instead separated by some kind of divider or curb or something? I know that at first glance that sounds like it'd take up a lot of space. There'd be a roadway, and then a separate bikeway and then perhaps a separate sidewalk since having bikers and walkers on the same asphalt would be hectic. But upon close inspection I think it'd more feasible than folks think. I can't go into details now since I'm already going too long.

It would take up some space to have bikes travel on separate asphalt from cars but keep in mind that some space is already taken up by bike lanes on roads that aren't used as much as they could be because it's so dangerous to bike. If you got rid of the on-road bike lanes and replace them with some off-road bike lanes (that were parallel to the road) then everyone that biked would be much safer and as a consequence more people would bike.

And while we're at it how about two-way bike lanes? I mean, as I understand it now, bike lanes are on the right edge of car lanes, so if you want to go up and down a particular road you have to cross it twice to return to your starting point. But if instead of that you had a single two-way bike lane off to one side or the other of the roadway then in addition to not having to worry about cars hitting you, you'd also have to cross the road less, which increases safety and reduces hassle. (It would take too many words to explain why that is true but just think about it and you'll see what I mean).

A downside of these two-way bike lanes that were not a part of the regular roadway would be that bikers would have to stop more often when they came to a side street that connects to the main road, just as walkers do. But that could be lessened somewhat by the timing of the stoplights. If you have more bikers crossing then you have more justification to have longer stoplights to make the cars wait. But if instead bikes are treated just like cars, as they are now, then the stoplights are as they are now and any time a biker wants to go straight through at a crossing s/he has to worry that a car coming up from behind may be turning right and is about to crush him/her.

Imagine being able to ride a bike around town without having to worry that a mildly inattentive driver will kill you. Walkers can do that currently but bikers can't. That means we should make the biking atmosphere more similar to the walking atmosphere.

The impetus for change comes from innovators but actual change occurs when the changes are made palatable to the masses. Right now most of the bikers in this town are expert bikers or crazy or 20 years old and they think they are indestructible and so they have no fear. But big change will come only when the average…I said average…45 year old believes s/he can travel around town on a bike without risking life and limb. And that's never going to happen as long as in order to get somewhere on a bike you have to have cars whizzing past three feet away from you with no curb or protection or anything between you and them.

Jose,

Those are very interesting suggestions and indeed I could see how, if implemented, they could improve bicycle safety dramatically. But biking, like transit, is something done by a relatively small percentage of the population (at least in this area). And, like transit, to get the funding necessary for such services you have to convince the 80-90% of the people who will never use them why it is to their advantage to fund them.

Because of the hills in our area (and the heat & humidity) I don't see a large proportion of our residents using bikes at any one time. So how would you convince them to pay for what would undoubtedly be expensive service upgrades for something that they aren't going to use?

I hope the person who was hit yesterday is OK and that the driver who hit him/her is not too traumatized either. As someone who drives Estes twice a day, I would like to point out that many bicyclists on that road don't understand that they are vehicles. They run lights and pull up beside the drive lane where they are in blind spots for drivers, especially someone who is turning right.

The other day I saw someone, sans helmet, weaving in and out of traffic as if the cars weren't there and then she ran the red light at N. Greensboro--again nearly causing an accident with oncoming vehicles. There are also bicyclists who do obey the laws and who understand that "sharing the road" is a two-way proposition.

Instead, how about bike lanes that aren't on the same flat asphalt that the cars drive on but instead separated by some kind of divider or curb or something?

This is something that I have always thought made sense from a physics point of view. I have always wondered from a planning point of view what it would take to have transit-oriented (as opposed to recreation-oriented) bike "roads" that occupy their own rights of way than motor vehicle oriented roads.

MLK has a decent setup for bikes, but when drivers are whizzing by at 55+ in a 35, it can be quite unnerving.

70F degrees at midnight in November--could there be a better place to be a cyclist?

Just saw a bicyclist in the weeds on Estes at the corner of Seawell; he'd just been knocked down by a car turning right off Estes onto Seawell. Bright neon yellow wind shirt/jacket, reflective stuff on his helmet, and a bright red flashing light on the back of his bike.

Sad, but more sadly--not the least bit surprising.

That unfortunate cyclist would've been coming down a descent and encountering a right-turn-only lane. Drivers in a right-turn-only lane do not expect through traffic on their right, nor should they. But improperly designed bike lanes sometimes place cyclists to the right of right turning motor vehicles. Estes Ext is designed worse--the intention is that cyclists ride on a paved shoulder. This is not just an accident waiting to happen--this is an accident DESIGNED to happen.

Heading east from Greensboro Rd, Estes begins as a narrow 10' wide and shoulderless road in Carrboro. In a lane less than 12' wide, the only reasonable thing for a cyclist to do is to occupy the lane and expect motorists to pass in the other lane. Close to the Chapel Hill border, four-foot paved shoulders are being added. The right turn onto Umstead could be a problem for through cyclists, but at least it's uphill. During fair weather Estes Rd cyclists can expect to encounter joggers on the paved shoulders. At Utility (?) Drive, just AFTER the hill crest, the paved shoulder is suddenly entirely obstructed by a raised curb, on a descent! That's a good point for a shoulder cyclist to get back into the true travel lane anyway as the road suddenly splits into through and right-turning traffic, but there is no prior indication--no "paved shoulder ends in 100 ft" signage--no way for a cyclist to anticipate this, and motorists likewise will not expect shoulder cyclists to suddenly merge into the lane (except by experience).

Across MLK, Estes widens from ten to eleven feet--better, but still critically short of the twelve to fourteen called for in a shared lane. Finally, past the schools, down near the east end of Estes the road finally widens to nice fourteen foot wide lanes. These wide lanes are not always appreciated by novice cyclists, but are actually the most "bicycle friendly" facility anywhere. Cars easily overtake bikes with no conflicts. Bikes are clearly within the field of view and region of interest of motorists. "Right hook" collisions are avoided by not placing vehicles in unexpected locations.

Steps for Carrboro and Chapel Hill to take to truly provide a safe environment for cyclists and motorists include:
- Widen Estes, Estes Ext, Smith Level and Eubanks to 14' throughout, placing the edge-line stripe at 14' and encouraging cycling *within* the correct lane for intended destination.
- Paint sharrows, or other pavement markings to clearly indicate to cyclists, and motorists, that through bicycle traffic should use the trough lane at intersections (such as Estes at Seawall)
- Follow NC-DOT guidelines by NOT striping bicycle lanes on steep hills--e.g. the section of Smith Level Rd currently being re-engineered. The relatively flat section of SLR between Rock Haven and Damascus Church (south of the curent project) would be a MUCH better candidate for bike lanes than the 54-bypass to Rock Haven section which would best be setup as 14' wide lanes, or 12' wide lanes with center turn lanes. Not striping bike lanes will make the road safer, yet less inviting to novice cyclists--add sharrows and/or StR signage to compensate.
- Plan and Provide access to and from Morgan Creek Greenway on BOTH sides of Smith Level/Greensboro Rd. We should expect high volumes of bike/ped traffic from the westbound greenway to northbound Greensboro--heading toward downtown Carrboro and WSM. It is irresponsible to assume they will be content to emerge on the west side of Greensboro and immediately turn 180 degrees, then turn left across five lanes to go up Greensboro, the Roberson greenway or old Pittsboro. Pedestrians in particular will exit on the near-side of the road, whether provided for or not. Novice cyclists emerging on the west side of Greensboro will be tempted to ride against traffic on the wrong side of the road--a bad situation for all.

I believe in Carrboro. I desperately want the Paris-of-the-Piedmont to shine as the bicyclist's utopia. That is why it is so important to me that our roadway engineering policy not be based on a "get them out of the way" mentality.

i am the cyclist hit at estes and sewell rd last night.....how did i get home? did a good samaritan help me home? last thing i recall is riding on estes...then was in my garage and my wife took me to hospital....concussion, fracture, abraison, etc.....typing with one hand here...i'm alive because of a helmet.....someone must have stopped because they turned my flashing red rear light off---the front light is missing....what kind of people hit and run? did somebody help me home? who do i live among?

Gary, I was biking home from Durham last night, but not on Estes. I'm really sorry to hear about your crash and would like to offer help if you need any.

Mark & others, thank you for quickly responding to the situation.

FYI, Here is the FHWA-MUTCD guidance on bicycle lane markings with right turn only lanes.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003/part9/part9c.htm#section9C04

A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane.

Support:

A bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the right of a right turn lane would be inconsistent with normal traffic behavior and would violate the expectations of right-turning motorists.

Guidance:

When the right through lane is dropped to become a right turn only lane, the bicycle lane markings should stop at least 100 feet before the beginning of the right turn lane. Through bicycle lane markings should resume to the left of the right turn only lane.

Mark, your response on this is really heartening, and much appreciated.

I agree with Ethan - don't want to put more obstacles on the roads. In addition to bike lanes on main arteries, another piece of the solution is to give bikers options to get off routes heavily used by cars.

We could encourage the Aldermen and Town Council to work with land owners to open up the many dead ends, utility easements and rail corridors around here to improve connections for bike/ped use between neighborhoods to minimize bike traffic on auto routes.

separated by some kind of divider or curb or something?

Such facilities are common in Denmark, where they are called "cycle tracks".
Copenhagen has recently completed a MASSIVE study of effects of cycle tracks:

http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf

The amount of data is enormous with more than 8,500 accidents, 1,500 traffic counts and 1,000 interviews investigated and many results are therefore statistically significant.

It seems that cycle tracks reduce somewhat the number of collisions on straight-ways. Great. But collisions on straight-ways are rare. Cycle tracks increase the number of collisions at intersections--so much so that the intersection collisions far outweigh the safety gains on straight-ways. The result--a net increase in collisions.

Wheeled vehicles have wonderful efficiency in forward motion. Pedestrians can stop or pivot on a dime and have far better stopping and turning capabilities than any wheeled vehicles. This why engineering that works well for pedestrians is ill suited for cyclists.

The conclusion of the Danish study:
segregated facilities resulted in:
- more bikes
- fewer car trips
- MORE wrecks!

http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf

Road safety of cycle tracks

The construction of cycle tracks has resulted in a slight drop in the total number of accidents and injuries on the road sections between junctions of 10% and 4% respectively. At junctions on the other hand, the number of accidents and injuries has risen significantly, by 18%. A decline in road safety at junctions has undoubtedly taken place after the construction of cycle tracks. If the figures for the road sections are combined with those for the junctions, an increase of 9-10% in accidents and injuries has taken place.

Cyclists are safest when they share a 14' lane with other wheeled traffic. Estes is being widened to 14', but the striping will segregate traffic into a 10' lane and a 4' lane--a situation that leads inexperienced cyclists to feel secure, but is more dangerous for all. Smith Level is being widened to 16' outside lanes to install bike lanes. A shared lane configuration would only need 14', saving two feet on each side from impervious surfacing, ROW acquisition, etc and reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians. Safer AND less expensive to construct and maintain.

open up the many dead ends, utility easements and rail corridors

Alternate routes are good, but where those dead end streets are narrow with on-street parking, you could be creating more problems. That's why it would be better to widen the lanes on Estes Ext all the way to Greensboro St, rather than have cyclists cut through the apartment parking lot.

Care must also be taken where off-street facilities connect to real streets--e.g., when Morgan Creek greenway connects to Smith Level Rd. Motorists may not even realize that there is intersecting traffic there.

Ethan asked:

I've noticed a lot of people driving scooters in the bike lane on Main St. recently. Is this legal?

In Shanghai, the paths are called "two wheeler paths" and are shared between bicycles and scooters (all motorcycles are limited to 50cc over there).

Here, according to the "Chapel Hill Ordinances" on MuniCode.com:

http://library2.municode.com/mcc/DocView/19952/1/162/171#TOC.23

Sec. 21-62. Mopeds prohibited on sidewalks, bike paths, bike trails; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person to ride a moped (as defined in § 21-41(f)) on any sidewalk (as defined in section 21-20.1), or bike path or bike trail (as defined in section 21-41(d) and (e) respectively). A person found in violation of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed five dollars ($5.00).
(Ord. No. 86-11-10/O-2, § 1)

Interesting that 21-62 prohibits mopeds from "bike path"s (21-41(d)) and "bike trail"s (21-41(e)), but NOT from "bike lane"s (21-41(c)).
21-41(c) however defines bikes lanes as "...set aside for the use of bicycles..."

i ride my electric chair on bike lanes under 30 miles and thats not against the law

Starting today in Ontario there is no tax on bikes (under $1000) & bike accessories.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/bikes_in_ontari.php

So, I was walking home from work tonight (Mon Dec 10) at about 7:45 pm. I was walking on Mason Farm Road towards where it intersects with South Columbia St. The light at Mason Farm Rd to get onto South Columbia St was red and a couple cars were waiting at the light. A guy (I think it was a guy) was on a bicycle on Mason Farm Rd going towards South Columbia St and he simply passed the cars and went straight through the red light and turned left onto South Columbia St, naturally, since such behavior is the rule rather than the exception.

On this particular occassion there were sirens coming from the direction of south of town on South Columbia St, which of course meant someone was being brought to the hospital in an ambulance. The bicyclist didn't stop, probably partly because he simply didn't care, but also partly because sound of the siren indicated that whlle the ambulance was getting fairly close, it wasn't quite to the point where it would go through the Mason Farm Rd / South Columbia St intersection.

But not too long after the bike whent through the red light, a car came south on South Columbia St and since traffic on Mason Farm Rd had a red light that means traffic on South Columbia St had a green light. By then the ambulance sound was getting closer. From the angle I had I couldn't see exactly where the bicylclist was when the car went through the intersection on South Columbia St (because I wasn't close enough to the stoplight) but from the amount of time that had passed the bicyclist must have still been on South Columbia St, ie, even if he was going to turn onto one of the side streets he didn't have time to get there yet.

All I could see was the car braking pretty hard as it went through the intersection. So, you're driving down South Columbia St in the dark and you hear an ambulance and then you see some guy on a bike (with no flashing light). Definitely not a good time. I'm sure the first thing the driver did when s/he got home was change underwear.

Going down South Columbia St in the dark on a bicycle is very dangerous but is legal and implicitly encouraged around here. If you live in the Westwood neighborhood (on the right as you go down South Columbia St) then you could get to where you live almost as quickly by going through the light at Mason Farm Rd and going straight across South Columbia St, into a neighborhood where cars go slow because they have to. If you live somewhere else than the Westwood neighborhood (on the right as you go down South Columba St) then how exactly are you going to get to it from South Columbia St? Are you going to get onto 15-501? Are you going to go over the five lane road that passes overtop 15-501 and continue on to Southern Village or somewhere like that? There simply is no safe destination. And it's going to become even more unsafe when Briar Chapel is built and all those people that live there that in effect belong to Chapel Hill / Carrboro back are driving back and forth from northern Chatham County all the time.

Then again, by then South Columbia St will be expanded to include a bike lane and more people that live farther out will be encouraged to try to make a bike trip because the leg from the Mason Farm Rd / South Columbia St intersection down to Merritt's Store will be easier, even though the rest of the trip will be dangerous.

I hope, but doubt, that the person that ran the red light on Mason Farm Rd reads this site so that he knows that at least one person witnessed what a selfish, careless pig he was. And the people in the cars waiting at the red light on Mason Farm Rd saw it too, as I have seen it myself waiting in my car at a thousand different red lights over the years in this town. And although this offense was more egregious than what I usually witness, the magnitude of the difference isn't that great.