Redistribution of The Carriageway
One method for reducing potential friction between cyclists and motorized vehicles is to provide "wide kerb", or "nearside", lanes (UK terminology) or "wide outside through lane", (U.S. terminology). These extra wide lanes increase the probability that motorists pass cyclists at a safe distance without having to change lanes. This is held to be particularly important on routes with a high proportion of wide vehicles such as buses or heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). They also provide more room for cyclists to filter past queues of cars in congested conditions.
Shared space schemes extend this principle further by removing the reliance on lane markings altogether, and also removing road signs and signals, allowing all road users to use any part of the road, and giving all road users equal priority and equal responsibility for each other's safety. Experiences where these schemes are in use show that road users, particularly motorists, undirected by signs, kerbs, or road markings, reduce their speed and establish eye contact with other users. Results from the thousands of such implementations worldwide all show casualty reductions and most also show reduced journey times. The partial conversion of London's Kensington High Street to shared space, accidents decreased by 44% (the London average was 17%).
CFI argues for a marked lane width of 4.25 metres (13.9 ft). On undivided roads, width provides cyclists with adequate clearance from passing HGVs while being narrow enough to deter drivers from "doubling up" to form two lanes. This "doubling up" effect may be related to junctions. At non-junction locations, greater width might be preferable if this effect can be avoided. The European Commission specifically endorses wide lanes in its policy document on cycling promotion, Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities.
Shared bus and cycle lanes are also a widely endorsed method for providing for cyclists. Research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) describes shared bus cycle lanes as "generally very popular" with cyclists. Guidance produced for Cycling England endorses bus lanes because they provide cyclists with a "direct and barrier-free route into town centres" while avoiding complications related to shared-use footways. A French survey found that 42% of cyclists were "enthusiasts" for shared bus-bike lanes, versus 33% who had mixed opinions, and 27% who opposed them. Many cycling activists view these as being more attractive than cycle paths, while others object to being in close proximity to bus exhausts.
As of 2003, mixed bus/cycle lanes accounted for 118 kilometres (73 mi) of the 260 kilometres (160 mi) of cycling facilities in Paris. The city of Bordeaux, France has 40 kilometres (25 mi) of shared bus-bike lanes. The UK city of Bristol, a showcase bus priority corridor, re-allocated 14 kilometres (8.7 mi) of road space, which resulted in more space for cyclists and increased cycling. The opposite happened in London following the removal of a bus lane on the Kew Bridge, despite an overall increase in cycling throughout the city.
In addition, it is arguably easier, politically speaking, to argue for funding of joint facilities rather than separately asking for cycling facilities and bus-only lanes. Bus-lane proposals often run into opposition from cyclists because creating space for bus lanes generally results in narrowing the other lanes shared by cars and cyclists. Incidentally, the TRL reports that cyclists and bus drivers tend to have low opinions of one other. In some cities, arrangements work successfully with bus companies and cyclists' groups ensure communication and understanding between the two groups of road users.
Read more about this topic: Cycleways