Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

What do traffic engineers make of the plan presented here?

Cycle Super-Highway

It's specific to one city, but some of the principles might be relevant elsewhere too.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2024 07:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:27

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Carbon dioxide posted:

It is great. They have clearly done their research.

You can invest as much as you want in one single bicycle track that dumps you into car roads at both ends... and then find out nobody is using it except lycra-clad racers. Like many places in America and elsewhere have done.
Or you can invest to have a fully connected city-spanning network of safe bicycle paths that gets you from any location to any other location, and suddenly you'll see everyone cycling there. Parents with their children. Business people in suits. People going grocery shopping. Because if you build it (and it's useful), people will come. Especially because within cities, these routes tend to be faster than rush hour traffic jams.
A new balance will naturally be found, where the rush hour traffic jams actually significantly decrease because so many people will choose to take the bike instead. Until both are about equally fast. Cars might stay a little bit slower because of course heavy trucks will never be replaced by bicycles.

I also really like how the author proposes to do this with minimal investments. This is true in general: bicycle infrastructure only costs a tiny fraction of car infrastructure. Without heavy vehicles damaging the surface all the time, it requires less maintenance too.

I believe that if this plan were to happen, Sydney would suddenly be boosted from mediocre to a worldwide top-tier bicycle city, and it would legit be able to compete with the famous bicycle friendly places in the world such as the cities of the Netherlands.

Great to hear, thanks heaps. Yep you pretty much perfectly summed up the philosophy.

Javid posted:

Oh wow you're describing exactly the worthless bike infra near me.

Ah man do I share your pain. That's pretty much where this whole thing came from.

mobby_6kl posted:

The Cycle Super-Highway seems nice but looking at the map (as I'm not familiar with Sydney) I'm wondering if it's really going to move the needle. Yes, cycle paths that lead to nowhere are a problem, but if you build one along a highway, are people suddenly going to ride an hour into the city? Like walking, it'd need a certain level of density to be feasible.

I think an hour would be the upper limit of most trips, but some people would be willing to do more, sure. They have longer commutes already, and some of these routes are gorgeous. But yeah most trips are well under an hour, especially once we take the stops and starts out. I think it really would move the needle.

SlothfulCobra posted:

I don't like the term "Cycle Super Highway" since

it's mostly not elevated

it's intended to have a fairly different use case than most highways

they're proposing constructing multiple pathways at the same time to create a broader network (as they should) instead of one at a time

the word super is just kinda floating out there as an extraneous extra superlative
But nice plan if Sydney can actually build it. It's also probably got good weather for people being outdoors year round as well.

Interesting, thanks. I wonder if there's a language/cultural difference at play at all. It doesn't really carry "elevated" connotations over here. I made it up pretty early on and it's been a bit of a driving feature of the whole idea. I've kept an open mind looking for alternatives but it's pretty hard to beat. Like it says, the main thing is being uninterrupted by intersections. That's what a highway is to me. A "super" highway is like a bigger version of that, a series of lots of highways. And the broader network is in fact all one network, that's kind of the point. It all links up, there are very few dead-ends, if any (depending on how we go at the top of some creeks)

It's sort of about catapulting the perception of cycling - leapfrogging over "alright", and going straight from from a poo poo-fight to a bonafide luxury. Something people remember, get excited about, and have confidence in. A conversation piece. Have you heard about the Superhighway?

And yeah the weather is favourable, although when it rains it can rain pretty hard and fast and long, just like she said. I doubt that's unique though.

Entropist posted:

It also makes people think you are supposed to bike fast there, which should not be the case.

There should be room to ride as fast as you like (on an acoustic bike at least). At least 2 big lanes, hopefully even 4 if there's room on some busier routes.

It's pretty much based on this cycleway we have that follows the M7 motorway. What it lacks in scenery it makes up for in sheer serviceability - 41 uninterrupted kilometers, where you can put your head down and just belt it. And people do, and it's fine. But that might be because it's not that busy. Because as good and long as it is, it's not part of a contiguous network. So it's pretty much only for fitness really. So if we build it and people come and numbers rise then yeah, we might have to re think it. There's a bit of duplication along some routes, so maybe we can separate some of the traffic out.

E-Bike speed limits are a good question though. Currently the assistance cuts out at 25 km/hr here, but I think it should be raised to at least 30 km/h, and ideally 35 km/h. (15, 19, and 22 mph for the imperialists).

# ¿ Mar 19, 2024 03:06

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Lobsterpillar posted:

Yeah, I also don't like the term super highway.

Its a well connected cycle network, not a highway (also v likely way cheaper than a highway)

Ah, so it's still giving you "Road / Car" vibes? The "Cycle" prefix doesn't affect that? To me, (a non-traffic engineer!), a "bike-path / cycle-way" is a route that's protected, but it still has to stop for intersections. Like a Street. A "Highway" is something that "connects far away places, without interruptions". We don't say "Car Highway", cos that's obviously the default, but a "Cycle Highway" seems to communicate what I'm trying to convey here for the individual segments.

And a Super-Highway is a bunch of them together, like a super-organism - it is one big network, of Highway quality, all the way around. Surely that deserves the term "Super".

Anyway if the main thing we're talking about is the name then I guess that's a good sign, cheers.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2024 05:06

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Vavrek posted:

As someone who isn't a traffic engineer at all, but who likes words and etymology:

That's good to know, thanks heaps. Haven't really encountered this before so hopefully it's more of an American thing, cos I do still like it.

Carbon dioxide posted:

There's a big discussion here in the Netherlands about bicycles with electric assistance as well as e-bikes that can go even faster and can go without pedalling.
- Should they be required to wear helmets or not?
- If they go very fast, they cause dangerous situations on bicycle paths. Does that mean that instead we should push them into car traffic? Make a whole separate network for them?
It's somewhat of an unsolved question, but the general rule is if they go up to 25 km/h, they count as a bicycle and get to use bicycle lanes. If they go faster, they're in the category of moped-likes, meaning they need insurance, the driver needs a moped driver's license and a helmet. Inside town limits, when a bicycle path is next to a road, the moped-likes have to use the car road. On 80 km/h roads outside of town limits they get to use the bicycle paths.

Love diving into some unsolved questions.

I think if bikes can do it, then e-bikes should be able to do it. A cruising speed of 30 km/h is largely achievable, and some people can get up to 35 km/h. So that's what people on these paths already know what to expect, and that's what we have to build them for. And if that's what we have to build our paths for, and that's what people already expect, then that's what we should allow there. Assistance up to 35 km/hr. Now pretty much everyone can go some pretty significant distances in some pretty good time.

If you want a bike that goes faster than that, the roads are still there and you're still free to use them, and hopefully they'll be a lot emptier for you anyway. And the proposed network does have some duplication along some routes, and room for more if we want, so there is the option to separate commercial cargo delivery bikes from the pleasure riders.

Here in New Holland helmets are legally required regardless, so hopefully we get to have that debate at some point too.

quote:

In the Netherlands we do have the term "cycle highway" but we use it for an uninterrupted cycle route BETWEEN two major cities (often connecting commuter towns along the way). It is not used for routes within cities.

Cycle Routes BETWEEN major cities? Yeah, right. Hah, seriously that's wonderful for you guys, but yeah I think the Dutch situation is so different that the nomenclature doesn't seem applicable. Unless we think of Sydney as being a series of smaller cities, which in many ways it kind of is.

Entropist posted:

The point is that any implication of a norm of cycling fast will scare away casual cyclists, which should be the main target audience as that's most people.

Ah ok, that makes sense.

Lobsterpillar posted:

Excellent when you can get it, but retrofitting in underpasses and overpasses is expensive.

This is probably a good place to get some data on this if anyone has it. I made some estimates in the proposal but would be interested to know how close they are. How much do short tunnels and lightweight overpasses typically cost?

e - the estimates:

Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Mar 20, 2024

# ¿ Mar 20, 2024 06:15

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Ok so just to note there are technically a few different topics here. Mainly,

What speed should the assistance cut-out on pedal-assist e-bikes
And what should the thinking around speed be on a potential cycle superhighway

(Also, what speed should throttle-bikes be allowed to go up to, What should the rules around speed be on normal bike paths,
to what extent can we separate all the above components, to what extent should we separate all the above components, etc)

And I suspect different cities are going to have different answer to most of those questions too.

vanity slug posted:

Most people in the Netherlands cycle around 15 km/h.

Well actually yeah, I think maybe the "superhighway" name is supposed to have connotations of "speed" then. 15 km/h would probably be the average speed in most places, especially if it's dealing with intersections and passing in front of shops and what not. A superhighway is somewhere you can get a good pace going, if you've got to get from one part of the city to another in a reasonable time. This is what we need to make that happen.

Important to note, the superhighway is still only a fraction of the cycle network. Plenty of other routes for people who wanna be chill. But truthfully, I think the people who do wanna be chill will still be fine on here.

Carbon dioxide posted:

Yes, this is important. That means allowing 35 km/h on bicycle paths means you're allowing a 20 km/h speed difference, maybe more in some cases. Which is quite dangerous, and would scare away casual cyclists, kids going to school, people going about their business, in favour of race cyclists.

The challenge for me here is comparing what the M7 cycleway traffic is like now, with what it would be once the superhighway is established. Cos there's no problem at all with the speed difference at at the moment. I get up to 50 km/h on a downhill and pass pedestrians with no problem. But yeah once it gets busier we'd expect it to be a different story. As other posters have said though, once that happens, people just adjust their speed accordingly.

Here's the route in all its glory for reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrCsKf1k9T4

Mopeds are unthinkable. Active Transport only. Although there are some cheeky teenagers on dirt-bikes from time to time. And cops with their goddamn making GBS threads horses

# ¿ Mar 21, 2024 14:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:27

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

I didn't mean to sound rude to the horses sorry. They count as active transport and are welcome on the path. It's more just funny that we haven't figured out a way to solve the problem of just dropping their poo poo in the middle of the road, but I guess maybe cos they're herbivores it's not actually too obnoxious so we tolerate it?

VictualSquid posted:

the other problem is the growing choices intermediate vehicles, that are too fast or large to comfortably ride on a bike path and are too slow and fragile to comfortably drive on a street.

Now, technically enforcing safety regulations to such an extend that a race biker or delivery trike can ride 45km/h on the street without fearing for their lives would solve that.
But building some "high speed" bike path "highways" feels much more realistic.

And building the high-speed bike-path highways helps make the streets safer (by moving a non-trival number of trips from 4 wheels to 2), to such an extent that a race biker or delivery trike can ride 45km/h on the street without fearing for their lives.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2024 17:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!