How about waiting until the weather is beyond snow

Thank you for reporting this issue. The Department of Public Works will now begin its investigation into the matter.

Thanks everyone for commenting

I'm sure the planning process included a certain amount of replacement of the upright stands.

Once the snow is over in the next few weeks lets stay the course and do the replacements and repairs

Overall I remain pleased with this process and proud of the DPW team

Change is not always easy...the benefits still outweigh the downsides

Yes DPW states that they have all the replacement parts and the whole thing cost $29,000. The problem is the road isn't wide enough. I watched a large delivery truck hit every single pole and run over all bollards the other day.

This will need to be repaired indefinitely.

the city is centuries old and designed for needs at the time. Not every road can sustain a bike lane. North union being a one-way street was a good idea, but it is quite narrow. Does the bike lane really need to be 4ft wide?..maybe install the bollards 3 feet from the curb?

Aren't you supposed to give cyclists 3 ft of room when passing?

I agree. Why does the protected bike lane need to be 4 ft on a narrow road?

"Aren't you supposed to give cyclists 3 ft of room when passing?"

Yeah, but did the plow driver give me 3 feet this morning? No. In fact, he tried to squeeze me off the road until I started hitting his door. Then he threatened to sick his dog on me.

So yeah, bike lanes are important, at least until we get the people off of the road who shouldn't be driving.

"Not every road can sustain a bike lane."

Judging by the potholes throughout the city, the roads can't handle freeze/thaw and the weight of automobiles.

The city's roads were built for slower moving traffic. When automobiles first hit the streets, the speed limit was 15 mph. Cars weighed half as much as they do now.

"Why does the protected bike lane need to be 4 ft on a narrow road?"

Because you just said a delivery driver crowded the bike lane and damaged the infrastructure. Why would you want to shrink a protected bike lane when you provide evidence that there are dangerous drivers on this road?

Is Union really that narrow? A streetcar used to run down this street.

"Judging by the potholes throughout the city, the roads can't handle freeze/thaw and the weight of automobiles."
- If the roads were built properly, not asphalt directly on top of dirt they'd last longer. But an irrelevant comment.

"Because you just said a delivery driver crowded the bike lane and damaged the infrastructure. Why would you want to shrink a protected bike lane when you provide evidence that there are dangerous drivers on this road?:"

Well John, one would think that if you narrow the bike lane from 4 ft to 3 ft then larger vehicles, like delivery trucks, Firetrucks, and Ambulances (vehicles you hate) could then drive down the road and not damage the barriers.

The barriers would then last longer, not look terrible, and be a better reason to keep the protected bike lane as operational costs would be decreased. But you have once again shown no desire to compromise.

"like delivery trucks, Firetrucks, and Ambulances (vehicles you hate) could then drive down the road and not damage the barriers."

Once again, I don't hate these vehicles. I hate the entitlement that enables drivers to drive over whatever infrastructure they want without repercussions or accountability.

These vehicles, while larger, can fit down Union Street. I used to make deliveries in a box truck at my old job.

A full one-third of Union is devoted to tax subsidized free parking. In spite of this, I still occasionally find an entitled driver parked in the bike lane.

"The barriers would then last longer, not look terrible, and be a better reason to keep the protected bike lane as operational costs would be decreased. But you have once again shown no desire to compromise."

Compromise? Why should I compromise safety for someone's privilege? In any case, I'm sure you would agree that enforcing the traffic laws on these scofflaw drivers damaging city property would lessen the damage long-term.

I dont like entitled cyclists. Burlington doesnt have the resources to enforce traffic laws on either vehicles or cyclists.

How is reducing the bike lane from 4 ft to 3 ft a safety compromise? How wide is your bike?

"I dont like entitled cyclists. Burlington doesnt have the resources to enforce traffic laws on either vehicles or cyclists."

I'm not going to try to change your mind about this, mainly because it doesn't matter. But obviously a scofflaw bicyclist isn't the same potential risk to damage and bodily harm as a scofflaw driver.

And you're right; there doesn't appear to be enough resources to enforce traffic laws, and that's extremely irresponsible.

"How is reducing the bike lane from 4 ft to 3 ft a safety compromise? How wide is your bike?"

Remember how you correctly called out earlier that passing with 3 feet is safer? State law actually suggests 4 feet. My bike and my body is roughly two feet wide. If I'm riding in this lane a foot from the curb, that puts 3 feet right at the bollards (I'm guessing that this lane is actually six feet from curb to bollard).

Just for reference, see the photo in this link:
http://cdi.uvm.edu/image/uvmcdi-3838

Union street is actually pretty wide; about the same as North Street.

States I've lived in have had a 3 ft rule. Is the 4 ft rule here for cyclists to ride side by side?

4 feet is the new standard safe distance. The law in Vermont reads "The operator of a motor vehicle approaching or passing a vulnerable user as defined in subdivision 4(81) of this title shall exercise due care, which includes increasing clearance to a recommended distance of at least four feet..."

So 4 feet is recommended to be safer, but you don't have to be.

Cyclists riding two abreast is legal in the state but not in Burlington. There are a few scenarios where side by side riding like this is a good idea for visibility (for example, being farther out in a curve makes you more likely to be seen by drivers).

I think it may make sense to look at the narrow section from Pearl to North Winooski for a possible shift over a foot as mid course correction...I'd be interested to hear what Chapin and team thing as I'm sure they have don't a ton of legwork on this issue prior to the install

Thank you for reporting this issue. Due to the nature of this request, the weather and available resources, this project is on our Spring work list. We expect to complete this project in Spring and will update you when it's been completed.

So it's recommended that you give 4 ft, you are not required. What if you cant?

It is recommended that you give a vulnerable user 4 ft. If the cyclist is not vulnerable is there a required distance?
I always saw the 3 ft rule as a requirement, not a recommendation. Is the user still vulnerable when in a protected bike lane? They are protected, so can one then default back to 3 ft?

So can the bike lane be reduced to 3 ft accommodating all road users? Accommodate 1 user while not negatively affecting others? And help maintain the barriers?

"So it's recommended that you give 4 ft, you are not required. What if you cant?"

You shouldn't pass.

"I always saw the 3 ft rule as a requirement, not a recommendation. Is the user still vulnerable when in a protected bike lane? They are protected, so can one then default back to 3 ft?"

Three feet has never been a requirement in Vermont, although it is in other states and in Burlington. Check my math again; if the lane is 6 feet, a cyclist is 2 feet, and they aren't riding in the gutter (1 foot), you got 3 feet.

4 ft is a recommendation, not a requirement.

Based on your quotation 4 ft is not a requirement. Verbiage matters.

Rider is not vulnerable as they are protected. The recommendation does not apply.

5 ft lane - 2 ft for rider = 3 ft. Something that can work for everyone. Make Burlington work for EVERYONE.

"4 ft is a recommendation, not a requirement."

Passing another vehicle or vulnerable user is an optional maneuver. If it cannot be done safely, then it shouldn't be done.

"5 ft lane - 2 ft for rider = 3 ft. Something that can work for everyone. Make Burlington work for EVERYONE."

Union Street is working for everyone. There is parking and two travel lanes. The road width is fine. Remove the scofflaws from the road and we will all have a better experience.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Can't help but notice the comments that are " blocked by rejections " I know some of these persons making the comments and do not believe that they would put in anything that that was improper > I once had a comment that was " blocked " because someone did not agree with my statement Not sure how a comment gets " blocked " any thoughts or answers ????

It's cause I said the barriers were beat to shi+

Should be easy to pass a cyclist in a 5 ft protected bike lane without issue.

The barriers are not working for everyone. If it was working why would the barriers be beat to shi+

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Any updates on this? Spring sweeping is done... May is prime bike commute weather, still no repairs or replacement of damaged infrastructure.

Thanks for your interest. Spring sweeping is actually still in the works for this bike lane and we are coordinating line striping with our contractors. Repairs and replacement will follow right behind that work.

Thanks for the update!

"Repairs and replacement will follow right behind that work."

Restriping was done ages ago... there are still long segments of the protected bike lane with no flex posts, and missing tuff curbs. Will there be any repairs & replacements done this year before it snows again? Without flex posts, the low curbs are almost impossible to see in the snow.

yes, when can we expect this to finally be done?

This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 10646136.

If you are already receiving notifications regarding this issue,
you will now receive updates regarding issue 10646136.