Kinzie Street: The First of Many Protected Bike Lanes for Chicago

"with no comment on what happened behind the scenes"
That still happens in Chicago, often. 

This looks fantastic!  I'm very glad to see segregated lanes gradually implemented into certain stretches of streets in some of our major cities in the US.  A lot of people are probably thinking that so far they haven't been the most aesthetically pleasing, but they serve the purpose which is the most important accomplishment for now.  When cycling modal shares increases enough, then perhaps they can be made more permanent like many of the segregated cycle tracks in northern Europe.  

The only concern I would have is that at some of the intersections, the parked cars come quite close, like they're trying to squeeze in as much parking space as physically possible.  It's hard to get a sense of how pleasant these junctions are just from watching the video, but maybe it's not so bad.  I see it all the time in cities where they push parking all the way up to the edge, blocking visibility for everyone.  

Due to the incline this will likely result in more cyclists being seriously injured as automobiles and heavy trucks make right turns and can't easily see the cyclists who will be moving at a higher speed than anticipated.  
Good road design makes safety easy and the default, this makes it difficult.

Since I don't live in Chicago, I can't try out this bike lane myself to see if it is a dangerous design.  So I tried look up any data supporting the premise that this protected bicycle lane increases accidents for bicyclists.

What I found (some of this is mentioned in the video):
From survey Chicago DOT did three months after the bike lane was installed:
--Of surveyed bikers, nearly 90 percent of them state that they feel safe or very safe on the bike lane.
-Nearly 50 percent of those who were surveyed reported that they feel
that motorist's behavior has improved since the installation of the
Kinzie bike lane.
-Bicycling traffic during rush hour is up nearly 60 percent since completion.
-A study from the CDOT reported that more than 40 percent of surveyed
individuals admitted to changing their routes in the city to now take
the new bike lane.
-CDOT reported that currently bicyclists account for approximately 55
percent of eastbound traffic and more than 30 percent of all traffic.

Let's see, people feel safer.  Motorist behavior has improved. Bicyclist are going out of their way to take the new bike lane.

I couldn't find any data or article about an accident on Kinzie Street, although it is apparent that some bikers are annoyed that Postal Trucks are parking in the bike lane.  (How are they doing that if it's protected by parked cars?) I did find some gruesome accounts of bicyclist deaths in other parts of Chicago, however. One would expect after three months that if Kinzie Street were a dangerous design people would be experiencing enough near misses that they would be much more negative about the street or even avoid it altogether. 

It seems to me congratulations are in order.  Good job, Chicago!

@facebook-100001895311343:disqus If you daylight the intersection (removing the last 3-4 street parking spots), drivers should be able to very clearly see the bicyclists. Not sure if this is being done on this particular street.

But regardless, as @TAPman:disqus said, even without daylighting, it's not worse than it is with a traditional bike lane with regards to this issue. And in all other respects, it's much better than the traditional bike lane. So it's a huge improvement.

Karen,

I totally support the construction of cycletracks!!! 

HOWEVER, "feeling safe" and "being safe" are two different things entirely and I'm very disappointed to see my fellow professionals trotting out this bogus statistic every time they want to "prove" the safety of a cycletrack.  Many cyclists also feel "safer' riding on sidewalks but if one looks at crash statistics in most any town, most bicycle crashes happen when a cyclist, riding on the sidewalk tries to cross a street at an intersection.  I'm not saying that this or other cycletracks are as dangerous as riding on a sidewalk but you need a MUCH better metric to truly prove the safety of any bicycle facility.

The only statistic that seems to have any merit is the one that states that cyclist feel that driver behavior has improved with the construction of the facility.  All the other stats are just a different way of saying that cyclists "feel" safer and not much more.

HI Andy,

Sometimes I think "feeling safer" is also a way to say "this feels much less stressful and makes me like bicycling more" which is not the same thing, but it is a good thing. But I do think if people are choosing this lane over other routes, it must mean they are not having near misses. Any intersection or road that has a high accident rate also has near misses where an accident almost occurs but is avoided just in time, often due to driver or biker quick reflexes. Now everyone's tolerance for risk and danger is different, but if I have near misses on a road with cars almost hitting me (brakes screeching, me having to swerve violently) or I hear accidents have happened there, the next time I choose a different route if I possibly can. As to riding on sidewalks, because of obstacles and the fact that, indeed, at intersections drivers aren't looking for you, I don't consider sidewalks "safe" at all, though if I had small children on their own bikes and no cycle track, I would use them and be very, very careful as we crossed each intersection.

The biggest indicator of safety is that accidents on this bike lane apparently haven't happened. But perhaps they have and there is data to support that the lane is more dangerous? Especially since so many more people are using this street now, if it were more dangerous, wouldn't a whole bevy of accidents have happened by now?

(Actually, there is a great deal of evidence that shows that just increasing the sheer number of bicyclists on a given road increases bicyclist safety.  So a lane that appeals to bicyclists and increases the number of people bicycling tends to create safety just by its existence.)

Andy, the biggest reason why people don't cycle is because they don't FEEL safe. You can tell them "statistically speaking pretending you are a car while riding your bike is the safest option". People won't buy it, they will stick to the sidewalk because it feels safe. Subjective safety should be a high priority and that's what cycle tracks provide– subjective and when designed well, physical safety. Also, as more people FEEL safe they will cycle more, and more people who were previously scared will come out and start cycling and there is an undeniable safety in numbers and so, cycle tracks DO making cycling safer than some bogus door-zone bike lane or sharrows 

I like people from Chicago.
This infra. gets a B-. Why does it not get an A+? First of all because it is still really short. Second, the intersection treatments as others have mentioned. The painting and heavy dots are good, and everyone is right about extending the no parking zone depending on grade, but also - as one can see at about :20 - the path becomes a lane and bikes going straight have a potential conflict with motor vehicles turning right. And how is it at the signalled intersections? Signs are bad crutches for bad design... and those signs are small. How fast is this street, by the way? Are children riding on it unaccompanied?
Formally this repeats the classic Streetfilms cheerleading style, where the only criticism comes in the comments. This marginalizes critical views. I realize that getting a more comprehensive picture would be more difficult to do. 

Duder,

We love this lane here. I give this comment a B- and that is being generous.

It's really about design at the intersection if what you want to achieve is absolute safety, as most collisions do happen there.  Yes, drivers in Denmark and Holland are way more careful about watching for cyclist.  But why is that?  Because of integrated infrastructural design and decades of planning which have led to a culture where driving and cycling are more of less equal in the transportation equation.  

Whether or not the intersections are statistically safer with/without separated infrastructural doesn't matter much to the 95% of the commuting population who are not bike enthusiasts.  If they don't feel safe riding a bike along roads, most won't do it, or will quite within the first few attempts.  Some of our US cities have only started to put in bike lanes, separated lanes and other amenities in the last decade or so.  Our cycling rates remain around 1% in 2011.  So even if 'vehicular cycling' is statistically safer, it has failed to increase modal share significantly in any way in this country. Most people don't want to 'take the lane' or 'share the road' with 5000 lb vehicles in a culture where many drivers see them as an annoyance.  Those of us who do this also don't necessarily enjoy it.  

The study you mentioned about Copenhagen has been open to much criticism because it has some loose ends in the methodology.  Furthermore, it states that whenever separated infrastructure is put in, the number of cyclists increases.  Until more people cycle, how are we ever going to develop a culture where cycling is viewed as mainstream for transportation?  

In my previous post I mentioned my concern about the parked cars being too close to the intersection in this video.  Daylighting would help alleviate this situation, as others have already suggested.  It's going to take time to develop a real bike-commuting culture in this country.  Even if we transform our cities to be like Amsterdam, Utrecht, Groningen or Copenhagen overnight, we aren't going to achieve the same cycling rates or safety stats. as Holland or Denmark immediately.  It took time for them and they already have 40 years head start.  But if we keep maintaining status quo, it's pretty obvious that in 50 years, at best things will still be same old same old in the US.  

"But I do think if people are choosing this lane over other routes, it must mean they are not having near misses."

They won't, until they do. And they will, at least twice as often as they would if they avoided the bike path and cycled on the road.

The problem is, people don't tend to assess safety using logic. They use anecdotal evidence instead. they say "Well, no one has died on this bike path yet, so it must be safe". But cycling is a very safe activity. You're not going to see deaths every month even on a very dangerous road or path. But when you double the danger, the danger is doubled, even if you don't recognize it - even if it looks safe and makes you feel safe. Contrary to popular opinion, statistics are far more reliable than gut feeling.

Peteathome wrote: "Tallycyclist - do you mean it is OK to knowingly create facilities that are more dangerous than an untreated street but that naive bicyclists THINK are safer,  and actually advertise them as an improvement, just to attract more bicyclists?"

Pete, I've talked with DOT officials here in Maryland who admit that outright. DOT's mandate seems to be to get as many people as possible onto bikes, no matter what the cost. The ones I've communicated with openly admit that their function is to cater to cyclists' fears and desires, and that safety is secondary.

Essentially, infrastructure like this is an open air, free range cyclist slaughterhouse.
What are you smoking Ian Brett Cooper?  We should stay away from that stuff 'cause it's causing come nasty hallucinations.

What are you talking about?  Do you own a bicycle?  Have you ridden these lanes?  Get a clue.

How do you know these roads are much safer? Have you compared injuries and deaths before and after? No fatality in three years is not proof that the road is safer. I mean, how often do you think roads like this have fatalities - it's not that often - nowhere near. Cycling is a very safe activity.

You don't know that they're safer, and the studies show that they are not. To simply assume and insist that they are safer when no study has been done to prove your point is to fall into the same uncritical thinking that supports these death traps. And to suggest that I'm not being truthful when the studies so clearly support my argument is disingenuous.

We need facts, not hope and blind acceptance of the most optimistic view. Hope and acceptance of bad design, in cases like these, kills. You can ignore the facts all you like, you can close your ears to the truth, but the studies do not lie. All your insistence that things are better only serves to injure and kill more cyclists.

Ian,

Just examine the facts on the NYC DOT on before and after stats on all of their projects. CASE CLOSED! reductions on all of these streets in deaths and injuries for bikes, peds, AND motorists and a safer cycling environment. Those are FACTS and these paths have increased cycling and people who want to. Really you need to do some research. I'm so happy the Vehicular Cycling crowd's narrow views on cycling no longer are the mainstream or we would still have only small handfuls of cyclists in cities

I have watched a lot of videos about cycling in traffic.  These include: cycling in bike lanes, on cycle tracks, as a "gutter bunny" (hugging the right curb), and as "Savvy Cyclist". Once you have seen these comparisons and actually tried the different ways of riding, it is very difficult to choose any of the  "cyclist inferiority" ways of riding.

like Ian, with many bikes owned and many miles of riding (although I own motor vehicles too and hold a commercial driver's license with endorsements), my only "close calls" on a bicycle were on cycle tracks or riding to the far right of the roadway.  The further to the left I ride, the fewer "close passes" vehicles make and the earlier motorists move over into another lane to pass me.  The more that I drive my bike like any other vehicle, the more civility I experience from other drivers.

It is correct that ignorant people choose cyclist inferiority methods of commuting by bike.  Although ignorance is a curable condition, instead it is the exalted status of victimhood (WATCH OUT FOR US!!!) that our bike lobby seeks on behalf of tomorrow's teeming masses of "miceaclists".  Our current national policy is to promote cyclist inferiority riding in keeping with the "leading brand" of "bike advocacy" - as opposed to the "better brand", which promotes cyclist equality and real safety over "feeling comfortable' and "butts on bikes" numbers.

The USA has much bigger distances, population, and cultural obstacles to conquer than Europe when it comes to transportation bicycling challenges. Playing "catch-up" with Europe (where bike facilities are already being out-grown!) is a terrible idea! We need new and better solutions that empower cyclists and make bicycle transportation highly efficient, safe, and practical. Here is a proposed road "treatment" - Treat the road like you have a right to use it, because YOU DO! 

OCCUPY THE LANE!  EDUCATE! 

I agree that there are tens of thousands of miles of roads that we cyclists who are not afraid of the road can use. I'm just trying to prevent other cyclists from being injured or killed on infrastructure that is incredibly dangerous. What are you doing? 'Cos to me, it seems like you're trying to get people killed. You have every right to ride on dangerous infrastructure if you want. But I think people who are unaware of the danger need to be warned.

It would be far better for everyone if bicycle advocates became CYCLIST advocates and looked out for the welfare of cyclists rather than the welfare of bicycle manufacturers. Bums on saddles sells bikes - it doesn't keep cyclists safe. Maybe if bike advocates spent their time educating people about the real dangers caused by traffic fear and about the real safety of cycling legally and confidently in the road, instead of lobbying to get ribbons of concrete poured alongside roads, streams and railways, fewer cyclists would get killed and injured

By the way, I'm 49. I don't become 50-something until next June. Yes, many cyclists who are unafraid of traffic are older, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. People my age and older grew up in an environment in which road cycling was encouraged by a government and a society which knew where the real risks were. That knowledge got lost somewhere along the way. Hopefully, we'll find it again. In the meantime, cyclists who shouldn't die will die. I don't like that and I won't be silent while it's happening.

Heck, I'm not even against bike infrastructure if it's done right. The problem is, it's never done right. Protected bike paths would be a great idea if they had underpasses at intersections which would prevent intersection conflicts (which are the cause of the vast majority of bicycle-car collisions). But they never do, because underpasses are expensive.

Any idea of the snow removal plan for these? I know Chicago is good at snow removal on some of the paths. Special plow? Or do they take the poles down in winter?

We have a similar road treatment in my area and the plows just use the side lanes as places to put the snow in the winter. So it makes it worst for us as the lanes are unusable for bicycling when it snows and what's left of the road lane is too narrow to share. So in winter they make a road that would have been sharable unusable.

There is a big contradiction in your argument. You say that the fact that there have been zero fatalities on the protected bike lanes of NYC proves nothing because cycling is already very safe. You say that bike paths are twice as dangerous as riding on the road. And then you call bike paths "cyclist death traps". How can a risk of "very safe" multiplied by two suddenly become a "death trap" risk? At most, I'd call it "almost very safe".

I looked up the paper by Agerholm, and found that it does not support your "death trap" claim AT ALL.

First of all, they found a NON-statistically-significant increase of 14% in injuries (21% for cyclists). They didn't look at fatalities, (evidently because it would be hopeless to try to obtain statistically significant results from fatalities as the numbers are too small). 

Second, the Danish cycle paths have a different design and allow mopeds, which were the only type of road user that had a "nearly significant" increase in injuries (the conclusion, if you ask me, is that mopeds on bike paths are a bad idea). I'm not convinced that the results are applicable to the bike paths in NYC and Chicago.

Third, I find the way in which the authors estimate the "expected" number of accidents highly questionable. They compare with a "control road" that didn't have a bike path added, and assume that the road that got the bike path should change its accident rate to the same extent as the control road. That is, as if the introduction of the bike path had no influence in the number and kinds of road users. In fact, what was observed is that the number of accidents decreased slightly when the bike paths were introduced, but not as much as it decreased on the reference roads.

To give a concrete example, imagine that, in NYC, we put a bike path on 1st Ave but not on 3rd Ave, and we used the latter as our "control road". After a few years, we find that the number of bike accidents on 3rd Ave. decreased 30%, while on 1st Ave it decreased only 5%. The Danish authors would treat this as a "35% increase", obtained by dividing the new rate for 1st Ave by an "expected rate" that is 30% smaller than the rate before adding the bike path. But it could very well be that bike traffic on 3rd Ave decreased 30%, while on 1st Ave it increased 100%! (taking not only some 3rd Ave users who decided to make a detour to use the bike path, but also new users that decided to bike only because the bike path became available.) This would mean that the actual per-user rate stayed constant on 3rd Ave but decreased by more than 50% on 1st Ave.

I haven't looked at the other studies you cite, but given what I saw here I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't also misrepresenting their results, or their applicability to the situation in NYC or Chicago, or the studies themselves had questionable methodologies too.

Great news for such a large city and in the Midwest! Another step for cycling and better air quality.

great video, thanks! This gives me hope about the future of cycling everywhere in the US.

I was a "vehicular cyclist" living in Boston and commuting by bike for about 6 years, then I moved to NYC 6 years ago during this incredible bike and bike infrastructure boom. It took me a long time to appreciate bike lanes. Like many "vehicular cyclists" I thought bike lanes were death traps, convincing cyclists they were safe but setting them up for crashes. Many bike lanes were striped in the door zone. Any experienced cyclist can see that 'contra flow' bike paths contradict motorists expectations and present problems. Certainly the issue of the right hook is a problem in the 'parked car protected' bike lanes like Kinzie.

HOWEVER. After a number of years with these various NYC attempts at bike improvements, I think we are learning and making it better for cyclists.  There are problems, but the most incredible thing is that it seems every time we install a new piece of infrastructure, more people are inspired to cycle. And as we learn what cyclists need, these treatments are improving. I would recommend anyone check out Allen St in the Lower East Side of Manhattan for what might be the best cycling infrastructure on a roadway in the US.

My point is that some bike infrastructure may be hazardous to start, but the increase it brings in the number of cyclists improves everyone's safety, and the more cyclists we have the more and better infrastructure we get and this will eventually make cycling safe for everyone.

Copenhagen and Amsterdam are safer because cycling speeds are much lower. Yet cycling, even in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, is less safe than it could be, because cycle paths and lanes, by their very nature, increase turning conflicts and reduce overall safety.

In the US, we don't have a plan to reduce traffic speeds. So far from making things safer, our push to install bicycle infrastructure will result in more casualties.

Holland is 5 times safer, no helmets, not road side bike lanes, and you can ride on the sidewalks. Most of the the US studies are garbage.