Content deleted Content added
m →Signalised junctions: ce |
m fixed dashes using a script; fixed invalid ref position using ARA |
||
Line 16:
With the popularity of the bicycle, the Dutch began constructing separated cycle tracks as early as the late 1800s.<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=The Spectator|publisher=F.C. Westley|year=1898|isbn=|volume=18|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=23A_AQAAIAAJ&dq=The+Dutch+are+the+representatives+of+the+beavers+among+men.+On+the+route+from+the+Hague+to+Scheveningen,+for+instance,+there+lie+parallel+to+each+other+a+carriage+road,+a+canal,+a+bicycle+track,+a+light+railway,+side-paths+regularly+constructed&pg=RA1-PA980|pages=980}}</ref> The country's infrastructure was left in ruins by [[World War II]], and some cities like Rotterdam had to be completely rebuilt.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Post-War Reconstruction|url=https://wederopbouwrotterdam.nl/en/articles/post-war-reconstruction|access-date=2021-02-14|website=wederopbouwrotterdam.nl|language=en}}</ref> This presented the opportunity to create infrastructure more in line with the "modern" way. From the 1940s to the 70s, streets were built following a new design philosophy that attempted to integrate cyclists with vehicle traffic.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Peters|first=Adele|date=2015-11-03|title=These Historical Photos Show How Amsterdam Turned Itself Into A Bike Rider's Paradise|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-show-how-amsterdam-turned-itself-into-a-bike-riders-paradise|access-date=2021-02-14|website=Fast Company|language=en-US}}</ref> After three decades, these designs proved to be largely a failure, with the number of kilometers cycled falling by 65% and the per-km rate of cyclists being killed increasing 174%.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Pucher & Buehler|date=October 2007|title=Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany|url=https://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/bike/docs/PUCHERMakingCyclingIrresistibleJune2008.pdf|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=|publisher=Transport Reviews|volume=28 No. 4, 495–528}}</ref>
In the 1970s, road traffic and urban quality of life began to be seen as a significant issue in Dutch city politics. This, combined with other political headwinds related to party reorganisation, the decline of national religious [[Pillarisation|pillars]], and opposition to the [[Vietnam War]] propelled left wing political parties to office in many city governments.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Shinji|first=Tsubohara|date=2007|title=The effect and modification of the Traffic Circulation Plan (VCP)
The protected intersection is only one of several treatments for addressing motorist-cyclist conflicts. While used in much of the Netherlands, including Amsterdam, local road authorities in other parts of the country do not use the classic protected intersection with middle islands, preferring to have cyclists move during a completely separated all directions green phase.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Dutch|first=Bicycle|date=2016-06-20|title=Traffic lights in 's-Hertogenbosch; an interview|url=https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/traffic-lights-in-s-hertogenbosch-an-interview/|access-date=2021-02-14|website=BICYCLE DUTCH|language=en}}</ref> Other options for reducing bicycle accidents at intersections, depending on context, include the use of bridges and tunnels, and planning or reconfiguring the neighborhood street/path system so that major amenities and schools can be reached without needing to travel along busy roads.
Line 33:
[[File:13-06-27-rotterdam-by-RalfR-27.jpg|thumb|The protection of the vulnerable cyclists with a protected junction with bicycle traffic lights.]]
In terms of optimal spacing between the path and motorist lanes, it is generally practice to use 2–5 meters at signalised crossings and one car length >5 m at unsignalised intersections. Providing more buffer space allows vehicles, particularly those turning out of smaller roads, to queue in the waiting area. On the other hand, larger buffers could place the cyclist at a less optimal viewing point from the mainline, and delay the signal operation due to longer distances necessitating slightly longer bicycle signal yellow and all red clearance intervals. The exact optimal distance has been the subject of several studies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schepers|first=Paul|date=2011|title=Road factors and bicycle–motor vehicle crashes at unsignalised priority intersections|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005|journal=Accident Analysis and Prevention|volume=43|issue=3|pages=853–861|doi=10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005|pmid=21376876|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Richter|first1=Thomas|last2=Sachs|first2=Janina|date=2017-01-01|title=Turning accidents between cars and trucks and cyclists driving straight ahead|journal=Transportation Research Procedia|series=World Conference on Transport Research
===Signalised junctions===
Line 86:
== Design and publications ==
The Dutch not-for-profit organisation CROW publishes design manuals summarizing best standards for bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands, where biking is a much more dominant mode of transportation than in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.crow.nl/english-summary|title=About CROW
=== US Design Guide Controversy ===
Line 92:
In 2011, the primary North American planning organisation NACTO released new design guidelines which claimed to use international best practices while omitting Dutch best practices. This sparked controversy, especially after ambassador of Dutch bicycle infrastructure Mark Wagenbuur criticised NACTO for doing so in a prominent trade blog.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/04/state-of-art-bikeway-design-or-is-it.html |title= blog post: State of art bikeway design, or is it? |publisher=A view from the cycle path| date = 7 April 2011}}</ref> Three years after the furor, Nick Falbo, then part of Alta Planning + Design, a firm behind the NACTO designs, published ‘protectedintersection.com’, which integrated more European design concepts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.protectedintersection.com|title=Protected Intersection|publisher=Nick Falbo| date = February 2014 |access-date=8 January 2015}}</ref>
In 2015, Alta Planning + Design published schematics and some realisations of "protected intersections" in the US and Canada closer to Dutch practice.<ref name="PI evolution">{{cite web|url=https://altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-the-Protected-Intersection_ALTA-2015.pdf | title= Evolution of the Protected Intersection |publisher= Alta planning+design| date = December 2015}}</ref> Later in the year, the [[Massachusetts Department of Transportation]] released their Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, which includes extensive discussion of protected intersections, and was used as a pilot for the upcoming [[American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials|AASHTO]] Bike Guide.<ref>{{Cite web|title=AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2020|url=https://tooledesign.com/project/update-to-the-aashto-guide-for-the-design-of-bicycle-facilities-2019/|access-date=2021-02-13|website=Toole Design|language=en-US}}</ref> In 2019, NACTO, whose original Urban Bikeways Design guide generated the controversy, released "Don't Give Up at the Intersection", which encourages protected intersections as an alternative to bicycle lane drops. In 2021, the [[Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act|Invest in America Act]] became law, which amended the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program to recognize "protected intersection features" along with other separated bikeway treatments.
==See also==
| |||