That automotive crossing in frame center is seriously bad vibes. The car parking immediately adjacent to the driveway - A driveway that presumably leads to more car parking - Means zero bike visibility for drivers turning right off the street. That’s a near-guaranteed cyclist injury or death in the future, which becomes even more likely the smaller the cyclist is. None of the road signs seem to warn of the presence of the bike lane. And there’s another car crossing 20 feet after that! Aesthetically this lane looks pleasing to the North American eye but I expect it wouldn’t actually pass muster in a place like NL.
It’s certainly a move in the right direction but I’d stop short of calling it “good” when it’s not even safe.
No parking minimum requirements, most places in the US have minimum parking requirements for both residential and commercial construction which not only makes construction unnecessarily expensive but also ensures that the built outcome functionally serves cars more than people.
You can also simply cap the allowable number of driveways per distance on a street. New construction can either join with an existing driveway, put their driveway on another side of the block, or simply not have a driveway.
Municipalities can designate specific areas for parking: Commercial districts can ban on-street parking completely and have a low-cost municipal parking garage in a business district. You can also cap the number of parking lots per block and mandate that any commercial property on the block have access to that lot instead of having a constellation of business-exclusive lots.
As for the visibility complaint, standard guidance is to ensure that the car is completely perpendicular to the bike lane by the time it’s crossing, so that the driver can clearly see both left and right down the lane before they cross it. You do this by setting the driveway a car length off of the road, which can be achieved a bunch of different ways. The way it’s set up now, it’s like putting a right turn lane on the left side of a highway. And they’d also put signage at a crossing like this.
Ofc all the buildings pictured were built before that was the case and before there was a protected bike lane. What you mentioned is all good policy but mostly focused on building from scratch.
How would an existing streetscape be handled? Would existing driveways actually be seized by eminant domain?
That automotive crossing in frame center is seriously bad vibes. The car parking immediately adjacent to the driveway - A driveway that presumably leads to more car parking - Means zero bike visibility for drivers turning right off the street. That’s a near-guaranteed cyclist injury or death in the future, which becomes even more likely the smaller the cyclist is. None of the road signs seem to warn of the presence of the bike lane. And there’s another car crossing 20 feet after that! Aesthetically this lane looks pleasing to the North American eye but I expect it wouldn’t actually pass muster in a place like NL.
It’s certainly a move in the right direction but I’d stop short of calling it “good” when it’s not even safe.
Wow this is what I first noticed as well. But then I thought at least it’s better than what we have in my city, which is nothing.
I don’t understand the complaint about driveway frequency. How would the Netherlands handle that?
No parking minimum requirements, most places in the US have minimum parking requirements for both residential and commercial construction which not only makes construction unnecessarily expensive but also ensures that the built outcome functionally serves cars more than people.
You can also simply cap the allowable number of driveways per distance on a street. New construction can either join with an existing driveway, put their driveway on another side of the block, or simply not have a driveway.
Municipalities can designate specific areas for parking: Commercial districts can ban on-street parking completely and have a low-cost municipal parking garage in a business district. You can also cap the number of parking lots per block and mandate that any commercial property on the block have access to that lot instead of having a constellation of business-exclusive lots.
As for the visibility complaint, standard guidance is to ensure that the car is completely perpendicular to the bike lane by the time it’s crossing, so that the driver can clearly see both left and right down the lane before they cross it. You do this by setting the driveway a car length off of the road, which can be achieved a bunch of different ways. The way it’s set up now, it’s like putting a right turn lane on the left side of a highway. And they’d also put signage at a crossing like this.
Somerville does not have parking minimums.
Ofc all the buildings pictured were built before that was the case and before there was a protected bike lane. What you mentioned is all good policy but mostly focused on building from scratch.
How would an existing streetscape be handled? Would existing driveways actually be seized by eminant domain?
Establishing maximum parking spots per occupancy does seem like a good idea (say 1 car parking spot for every 4 people).
If the owner doesn’t block the parking spots (eg planting trees or building housing in their place), fining them would make sense.