Advocacy & Safety - Complete Streets

What do you think about this? http://www.completestreets.org/


The streets of our cities and towns ought to be for everyone, whether young or old, motorist or bicyclist, walker or wheelchair user, bus rider or shopkeeper. But too many of our streets are designed only for speeding cars, or worse, creeping traffic jams. They’re unsafe for people on foot or bike — and unpleasant for everybody.
Take a look at their before and after picture on the Early Success Stories page.

And from their FAQ:

Why do we need complete streets policies?

Americans want to walk and bicycle more. Recent opinion polls found that 52 percent of Americans want to bicycle more, and 55% would prefer to drive less and walk more.

Many streets where people bicycle or walk are incomplete. Our states, cities, counties and towns have built many miles of streets and roads that are safe and comfortable only for travel by motor vehicle. These roadways often lack sidewalks or crosswalks, have lanes too narrow to share with bicyclists, and make no room for transit riders and no accommodation for people with disabilities. A recent federal survey found that about one-quarter of walking trips take place on roads without sidewalks or shoulders, and bike lanes are available for only about 5 percent of bicycle trips . Another national survey of pedestrians and bicyclists found that the top complaints were the lack of sidewalks and bikeways – essentially, incomplete streets.

Few laws require states to build roads as complete transportation corridors. In 2000, the US Department of Transportation advised states receiving federal funds that “bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist.” But by their own admission, fewer than half the states follow this federal guidance. Many highway improvements add automobile capacity and increase vehicle speeds, but do nothing to mitigate the negative impact this usually has on bicycling and walking.

Streets without safe places to walk and bicycle put people at risk. While nine percent of all trips are made by foot or bicycle, more than 13 percent of all traffic fatalities are bicyclists or pedestrians . More than 5,000 pedestrians and bicyclists die each year on U.S. roads. The most dangerous places to walk and bicycle are sprawling communities with streets built for driving only.

Roads without safe access for non-drivers become barriers. About one-third of Americans do not drive , so complete streets are essential for children and older Americans, as well as people who use wheelchairs, have vision impairments, or simply cannot afford a car.



I think it's great. Our local bicycle coalition is advocating that our transporation tax should benefit all users, not just one group.

I do rather object to their image of a "complete street" having BL next to parked cars... a more "complete street" would have buffers between all traffic and parked cars.

But beyond that, this is a start and a focus on a problem.

It can’t be a good indication that they choose – as the example showcased on the homepage – a bike lane in the door zone. Isn’t that the cardinal sin of Bikelane 101?

A better solution would be to eliminate the on-street parking.

It is a more attractive street – aesthetically -- in the “after” illustration.

I think its a great idea. Accomodations for mobility assisted devices, pedestrians, bicyclists and other human powered devices needs to be increased in every community in America.

I've read of accounts of towns where people in electric mobility devices and the like need to get to the Walmart, but there's no sidewalks or paths to access the superstores except by 'driving' right down the traffic lanes of high speed arterials! (what, do they think they're bicycles? :) )

Complete Streets looks like an imperfect, adaptable, positive campaign that encourages municipalities to approach roadway design to enable all possible users.

Realistically, if a neighborhood is so run down that they don't even have sidewalks, where's the funding going to come from to put in greenery, center dividers, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. ?

I wish they had listed the locales for the stars on their map. There's a star that could be indicating a neighborhood I accidentally visited yesterday. In this upscale neighborhood, they had effaced all the bike lanes and put in a combo sidewalk/bike-lane. Bike lanes going both directions right next to sidewalk. I'm sure it looked beautiful on paper.

The problems were that (1) you were right next to pedestrians walking their dogs, and some pedestrians didn't differentiate between the slow and fast portions; (2) there was no obvious way to navigate down to the 'real' roads that you needed to get somewhere useful; (3) and the bike lane was scored like a sidewalk, making my al framed bike do a jarring "thump, thump, thump, ...." all along the way -- like being on a very run down road, only worse since there was no escape. I was casting covetous looks over at the smooth asphalt of the nearby road bed.

I think its a great idea. Accomodations for mobility assisted devices, pedestrians, bicyclists and other human powered devices needs to be increased in every community in America.

I've read of accounts of towns where people in electric mobility devices and the like need to get to the Walmart, but there's no sidewalks or paths to access the superstores except by 'driving' right down the traffic lanes of high speed arterials! (what, do they think they're bicycles? :) )

Complete Streets looks like an imperfect, adaptable, positive campaign that encourages municipalities to approach roadway design to enable all possible users.
I've read about high schools built the same as Wal-Mart with no way for kids to ride to school, and even school policies against it. To me, it's insanity to accomodate only a single form of mobility.

I truly believe it's not forward-thinking at all to spend all tax money to support only a sub-section of the community. It basically amounts to a subsidy for certain industries over the common good--public streets and freedom of movement.

And by the way, being "run down" is not a prerequisite to having no sidewalks. Nor is ignoring the needs of non-driving people a requirement for good fiscal policy.

Complete streets would be great but they forgot one thing. It's best to include the people you're designing for in the design process. For example, any cyclist could have told them that the bike lane is dangerous because it's in the door zone. But apparently, they didn't ask any cyclist! Too bad. These design flaws can be costly to fix if they aren't caught until after the thing is already built.

It wouldn't surprise me if other user groups--pedestrians, w/c users, even motorists--found design flaws that would affect them too.

Obviously I agree that such design is "forward-thinking" since it at least tries to include features for alternative transportation.

Interesting site. I hadn't seen that one before.

I don't like the Complete Street model for road design. It is trying to be everything to everybody and is destined to fail some users, probably the bicyclists or peds. I prefer separate streets, each optimized for a particular type of traffic. Most cities already have parallel roads, we should make one bike friendly, one ped friendly, and leave the widest route for cars. Strip mall stores could still have the garish signs huge parking lots in front but have back entrances built on a human scale.

In my neighborhood I've got two parallel streets 34th and 35th. 35th is the main car route and it is an unpleasant place to walk or bike. 34th has "unimproved" sections that are still just gravel so cars avoid it. I can walk in the middle of this street without worrying about traffic. I have yet to find my perfect bike route in that direction but it won't be either my driving or walking street.

I do rather object to their image of a "complete street" having BL next to parked cars... a more "complete street" would have buffers between all traffic and parked cars.

But beyond that, this is a start and a focus on a problem.

This is where we "seasoned cyclists" come in. They have the right concept and the right goal. Implimentation is a different matter and needs to be informed by the very people who frequent these forums.

I don't like the Complete Street model for road design. It is trying to be everything to everybody and is destined to fail some users, probably the bicyclists or peds. I prefer separate streets, each optimized for a particular type of traffic. Most cities already have parallel roads, we should make one bike friendly, one ped friendly, and leave the widest route for cars. Strip mall stores could still have the garish signs huge parking lots in front but have back entrances built on a human scale.

In my neighborhood I've got two parallel streets 34th and 35th. 35th is the main car route and it is an unpleasant place to walk or bike. 34th has "unimproved" sections that are still just gravel so cars avoid it. I can walk in the middle of this street without worrying about traffic. I have yet to find my perfect bike route in that direction but it won't be either my driving or walking street.

What do you do when you are on your feet or on your bike and you need to get somewhere located on the "car" street? I believe that all streets need to be legally and practically accessible by all forms of transportation.

What's wrong with the "Before" (http://www.completestreets.org/early.html) street? A sidewalk is not part of the street so that part is irrelevant. Notice how they removed the phone phones and added greenery to the photo make it look nice. And that ha nothing to do with the streets.

For me, "Complete the Streets" means to repave the street to fix all of the potholes and cracks. That's the best way to spend money to keep cyclists safe - provide a smooth surface to ride on.

It isn't perfect. Therefore, to some, it's no good at all.

What's wrong with the "Before" (http://www.completestreets.org/early.html) street? A sidewalk is not part of the street so that part is irrelevant. Notice how they removed the phone phones and added greenery to the photo make it look nice. And that ha nothing to do with the streets.

For me, "Complete the Streets" means to repave the street to fix all of the potholes and cracks. That's the best way to spend money to keep cyclists safe - provide a smooth surface to ride on.

Since when are sidewalks not part of the road? Where else do you walk? Oh, and a bike lane too :eek:.

I get the impression that this "Complete Streets" deal is not all about cyclists. It is about making roads universally acceptable and accessable for all types of travelers, from the kid in a wheelchair, to the lycra'ed up roadie, to the soccer mom in the SUV. The way I see it is we can either get on board or we can continue to snipe from the peanut gallary. At least when we are on board, we can influence what they do for cyclists.

No wonder cycling advocacy is so fractured. We keep trying to sabotage work done by honest people who want to help instead of working with them and using our deep but narrow experience as cyclists to guide their efforts.

Since when are sidewalks not part of the road? Where else do you walk? Oh, and a bike lane too :eek:
I don't know about you, but a sidewalk is not part of the road. That would mean that as soon as you step out of a building onto the concrete, you are in the "street." My house has front yard, then a sidewalk, then another 5' of lawn, all elevated above street level, then the street.

I think the reason for fractured advocacy from cyclists is that a lot of cyclists don't consider themselves as vehicles on the road, don't truly believe they belong on the road, and ride that way.

I don't know about you, but a sidewalk is not part of the road. That would mean that as soon as you step out of a building onto the concrete, you are in the "street." My house has front yard, then a sidewalk, then another 5' of lawn, all elevated above street level, then the street.

Its all in the definitions of what these words mean to different people, including users and planners. Planners tend to think of the street as the whole , for example:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/page_51.jpg
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/page_52.jpg
Al

Its all in the definitions of what these words mean to different people, including users and planners. Planners tend to think of the street as the whole , for example
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/page_52.jpg


Actually, planners look at the entire "Right of Way" which often includes part of one's yard and/or business frontage.

I don't know about you, but a sidewalk is not part of the road. That would mean that as soon as you step out of a building onto the concrete, you are in the "street." My house has front yard, then a sidewalk, then another 5' of lawn, all elevated above street level, then the street.

I think the reason for fractured advocacy from cyclists is that a lot of cyclists don't consider themselves as vehicles on the road, don't truly believe they belong on the road, and ride that way.

Sigh... we've been through this. HH beat you to this particular line of argument.

You are missing the point of the Complete Streets project. They want a street that has a place for everyone. Peds included. In fact, this project is probably more of a pedestrian oriented thing than something for cyclists.

My local "bike advocacy group" is using Complete Streets to lobby for bike lanes on 25 mph roads and in door zones on other roads. They don't seem to care about safe design as long as there is a stripe.

My local "bike advocacy group" is using Complete Streets to lobby for bike lanes on 25 mph roads and in door zones on other roads. They don't seem to care about safe design as long as there is a stripe.
After thinking about this whole bike lane in general, I think there is a lot of fear in people. Just look at the nonsense when you go to the airport. We aren't any safer. It's just politicians' way of pandering to the people saying we are safer. The same fear applies to bike lanes, sharrows, complete streets, etc. People think there is some magical force field where the paint is laid down where no motor vehicles will enter and bicycle traffic can move quickly and smoothly. What actually happens is the exact opposite. Both bicyclists and motorists become less vigilant because each is in their own "lane" separated by "The Force" (painted stripe). Motorists in wider vehicles (4x4's, utility trucks, garbage trucks, etc.) don't even attempt to give you more room since you are in your own "lane." Bicyclists are unaware of the door zone, unaware of motor vehicles pulling out of driveways & parking lots into the street to look at cross traffic, and have to deal with debris, asphalt-concrete crevices, cracked streets, potholes, etc.

As I said before, the best way to spend my taxpayer money is to repave the steets to provide a smooth surface for all traffic.

Read up on UK Homezones.

Have given a couple of references on "concrete blocks" thread on A & S. Plenty of sites via google

And back to our regularly scheduled bike lane debate. Nothing new here.

My local "bike advocacy group" is using Complete Streets to lobby for bike lanes on 25 mph roads and in door zones on other roads. They don't seem to care about safe design as long as there is a stripe.

Are you part of this "bike advocacy group," or are you simply on the outside looking in? From your venting, I assume that whatever this "bike advocacy group" is, it has more political power than whatever you are a part of. If so, I suggest joining and influencing their agenda; of course, that would mean educating people and compromising, something the VC crowd is not great at.

And back to our regularly scheduled bike lane debate. Nothing new here.
That's what "Complete Streets" is all about. It's just an argument from the cyclist-as-pedestrian crowd that no street is safe unless a lane is striped on it.

That's what "Complete Streets" is all about. It's just an argument from the cyclist-as-pedestrian crowd that no street is safe unless a lane is striped on it.

That's not what I got from the literature. It is obvious that these people are more concerned with the casual walkers and cyclists than they are with the "seasoned cyclists" that we have here. Sometimes perception really is truth, and perceptions need to be taken into account. Simply entering into a room full of pedestrian advocates waving the "bike lanes are bad for bikes" flag and not appreciating their contrary point of view and their contrary experience is not going to get you anywhere. Nobody believes the person who says that they have the absolute truth and everyone else is wrong. One time a guy even got nailed to a cross for saying that.

What are you going to tell the mother of the kid who wants to get from his house to the corner store without dealing with cars? You are against bike lanes. You are against multi use paths. You are against sidewalk riding. What solution do you have? You cannot just tell a mother: tough, the only option for her kid to get to that store is to mix with traffic. Doesn't work.

You are against a lot of things, but offer no solutions. Nobody likes someone like that. They feel deep down that the status quo is woefully inadequate. Now you come along and say that what they feel is fundamentally wrong and the status quo is perfectly fine. And it doesn't fly. Maybe this is why you are frustrated at being pushed off to the side.

This is where we "seasoned cyclists" come in. They have the right concept and the right goal. Implimentation is a different matter and needs to be informed by the very people who frequent these forums.

Agreed.

. . .
What are you going to tell the mother of the kid who wants to get from his house to the corner store without dealing with cars? You are against bike lanes. You are against multi use paths. You are against sidewalk riding. What solution do you have? You cannot just tell a mother: tough, the only option for her kid to get to that store is to mix with traffic. Doesn't work. . . .
Hmm, telling a kid to mix with traffic on roads he could handle was good enough for my mom. I'd tell the mother that if her kid wasn't a safe enough rider to be on a road without a stripe, he's no more safer with a stripe. Even with a bike lane stripe, the kid still has to "deal with cars."

I'd also tell her to teach her kid the same way I learned. You start on a paved lot with no cars, work your way to quiet residential streets, then to less quiet streets, and then, eventually, to arterials. On some arterials, bike lanes can be useful, but not nearly as often as some think.

Sometimes the answer is "tough." A six-year-old shouldn't be on a 35 mph road with or without a bike lane. Sometimes the kid will have to walk or get a ride. That's part of being a kid.

And I am NOT against MUP's.

What do you do when you are on your feet or on your bike and you need to get somewhere located on the "car" street? I believe that all streets need to be legally and practically accessible by all forms of transportation.

Actually what is being suggested is not that bad of an idea... having some streets as car street and some as a non-car street.

The question you pose can work the other way too... what if you need to gain access to the business on the non-car street (or pedestrian mall... if you will).

You simply have to park in a "car" place and walk to the ped area store, or in the case of accessing a "car" side store, you enter from the other side... as suggested.

This can work, but it would require changes in how businesses "advertise," how they present themselves to their customers. How the storefronts look.

There really is not much of a challange here about the actual mechanics... as often people park some distance away and have to walk a block to get to a store or restaurant. A business that anticipates "loading" issues might want to ensure they have "car" direct access.

This kind of planning can make for a more friendly community as people are having to walk a bit and get more face to face time.

But of course the down side is that this concept is not likely to fly in places like Boston which have been very long established.

Interesting idea, but it might be hard to implement in some places. I found several streets in Paris (older than Boston) where this concept had been done.

As an aside, I just read where a street in NYC (Thorn street??) was being considered to be changed back to a "car" street, and the locals are up in arms as the pedestrian change has turnout to be very nice.

Since when are sidewalks not part of the road? Where else do you walk? Oh, and a bike lane too :eek:.

I get the impression that this "Complete Streets" deal is not all about cyclists. It is about making roads universally acceptable and accessable for all types of travelers, from the kid in a wheelchair, to the lycra'ed up roadie, to the soccer mom in the SUV. The way I see it is we can either get on board or we can continue to snipe from the peanut gallary. At least when we are on board, we can influence what they do for cyclists.

No wonder cycling advocacy is so fractured. We keep trying to sabotage work done by honest people who want to help instead of working with them and using our deep but narrow experience as cyclists to guide their efforts.


+10.

Yup... seems like that mixed message has gotten us nothing but mixed minds.

As I pointed out some long thread ago, amazing what the ADA got together simply by having and pushing for a single concept.

Hmm, telling a kid to mix with traffic on roads he could handle was good enough for my mom. I'd tell the mother that if her kid wasn't a safe enough rider to be on a road without a stripe, he's no more safer with a stripe. Even with a bike lane stripe, the kid still has to "deal with cars."

There are differences that you do not respect. First, what worked in your environment, might not work for all. The advice your mom gave you and the teaching she gave may not be applicable.

Second, there is no problem with a bike on a 35 mph road, provided that they know where to ride. Pointing at a bike lane and telling the kid not to stray outside is something the kid will understand.


I'd also tell her to teach her kid the same way I learned. You start on a paved lot with no cars, work your way to quiet residential streets, then to less quiet streets, and then, eventually, to arterials. On some arterials, bike lanes can be useful, but not nearly as often as some think.

The mom has already taught her kid how to ride and control their bike. I think you are idealizing your childhood and you still haven't solved her problem. You have said that her solution is not good, but you have left it at that. Her kid still wants to ride to the corner store.


Sometimes the answer is "tough." A six-year-old shouldn't be on a 35 mph road with or without a bike lane. Sometimes the kid will have to walk or get a ride. That's part of being a kid.

And I am NOT against MUP's.

Still no answer. I am in the habit of solving problems. You are in the habit of telling others what can and cannot be done. It's a different outlook on life. Bike lanes solve the problem of where to ride a bike. I can point to the line on the street and tell my kid that if he crosses that line, his life is in danger. This is a direct instruction and is easily understood by the kid; like "look both ways before crossing" and "stay out of the way of cars." Kids don't understand traffic patterns. Kids don't know how to pull off a vehicular left turn. Kids don't know when to signal and when to negotiate with a car. These are advanced skills. Are you really advocating keeping every kid under the age of 15 off of all roads 35mph and over? Really, it is not until they are driving when they get their first instruction on traffic.

Since you are not against MUP's, do you advocate the building of these in place of the proposed bike lanes you rail on about so much? Or do you limit yourself to merely providing resistance to the bike lane building powers that be.

Bike lanes solve the problem of where to ride a bike. I can point to the line on the street and tell my kid that if he crosses that line, his life is in danger.
Now that's a load of crap. :mad: Great job endangering children who don't know any better. So if they stay on this side of the magic white line, an invisible force field will keep cars from hitting them, but if they cross over, they will die? :rolleyes: That gives the kids a false sense of security that is not there. Nevermind the doorzone, cars pulling out of driveways & parking lots, debris, etc. You teach kids the right way to right their bicycle in the street, not scaring them to keep them to the right of the white line. They will never learn the skills needed to survive on streets. Those same kids, if they don't give up bicycling, grow up to be the scared adults you see here on BF.



This is a direct instruction and is easily understood by the kid; like "look both ways before crossing" and "stay out of the way of cars." Kids don't understand traffic patterns. Kids don't know how to pull off a vehicular left turn. Kids don't know when to signal and when to negotiate with a car. These are advanced skills. Are you really advocating keeping every kid under the age of 15 off of all roads 35mph and over? Really, it is not until they are driving when they get their first instruction on traffic.
Here's my opinion: children up to junior high school age should be able to ride on the sidewalk. I don't think their brains are developed enough to understand and handle traffic. The main thing they should be aware of on sidewalks are alleys and blind spots. I, however, rode in the street when I was in gradeschool on my BMX bike. Once you hit junior high, you had better learn how to ride in the street or don't ride at all.

You guys certainly fear bike lanes to a pathological and irrational degree. Where the bike lanes are is where you'd probably ride anyway. It's certainly where a kid would ride anyway. You all ascribe so much more power to the white line than I do, bike lane user that I am.

You need to get out more. Your anti-bike lane points of view reflect a woefully inadequate experience in the real world.

That before and after is horrible. All the after photo has done is made it harder for motorists to get where they are going with the tree strip in the middle of the road. Sidewalks are plainly visible in the before photo, regardless of what the caption says. Although I agree that the power lines need to be buried, the after of that situation is nothing but a waste of a lot of money.

Second, there is no problem with a bike on a 35 mph road, provided that they know where to ride. Pointing at a bike lane and telling the kid not to stray outside is something the kid will understand.

Bike lanes solve the problem of where to ride a bike. I can point to the line on the street and tell my kid that if he crosses that line, his life is in danger. This is a direct instruction and is easily understood by the kid; like "look both ways before crossing" and "stay out of the way of cars." Kids don't understand traffic patterns. Kids don't know how to pull off a vehicular left turn. Kids don't know when to signal and when to negotiate with a car. These are advanced skills. ... it is not until they are driving when they get their first instruction on traffic.
Another thing I want to add to your crazy logic about bike lanes being safe for children who do not understand traffic: when you are on the street in a vehicle, motorized or not, you are traffic. Based on your logic, the kids are going to be screwed once they approach an intersection since all bike lanes require the cyclist to negotiate traffic where cars must merge to make a right turn, or completely cross over the bike lane to get to the special right-turn lane. The lane either goes from a solid stripe to dashed, or goes away completely to make room for a right-turn lane. (i.e. the street was never designed for bike lanes in the first place). Now what does the kid who is supposed to stay in the bike lane that doesn't exist any more do? Get off his bike and walk it on the sidewalk?

One can educate their kids when they are driving. Explain the traffic rules, have them observe other traffic, how you merge, etc. There's nothing magical about turning 15 1/2 and getting your learner's permit so you can study "advanced traffic skills."

So mac. Tell me then. What's your solution? You've made it plenty clear that you don't like bike lanes. What do you have instead? Are you one of those who will just tell the parent "tough, you've got to drive your kid everywhere"? Or are you one of those who looks for solutions.

Part of the problem is that shopping and housing are separated by distances that make driving more convenient than walking. The nearest grocery stores to my home would take me 30 minutes to walk to, or an hour round-trip. By car, it's a five-minute hop. Downtown in the older neighborhoods, there are more shops peppered throughout the homes so people can walk to them if they want.

In a suburban sprawl-type community model (you know, like from General Motors' Futurama exhibit in the 1939 World's Fair--seems to me we need to update from the visions of 1939,) bicycling is about the only practical option besides driving. That 30 minute walking trip to the grocery store would take less than 10 minutes by bike.

But the mix of shopping and residences in a neighborhood makes bicycling easier, too. This neighborhood model is being used by some new community developments intown that incorporate shopping and living space erected together. Perhaps we are moving forward?

Now that's a load of crap. :mad: Great job endangering children who don't know any better. So if they stay on this side of the magic white line, an invisible force field will keep cars from hitting them, but if they cross over, they will die? :rolleyes: That gives the kids a false sense of security that is not there. Nevermind the doorzone, cars pulling out of driveways & parking lots, debris, etc. You teach kids the right way to right their bicycle in the street, not scaring them to keep them to the right of the white line. They will never learn the skills needed to survive on streets. Those same kids, if they don't give up bicycling, grow up to be the scared adults you see here on BF.

Well, you've got the theatrics and the haughty attitude of the other VC'ists, but you're still late to the game. Let me run down the list.

1) cars do tend to keep to one side of the white line; hence your fabled "debris" problem. The problem is not with cars crossing the line, it is with the kid crossing the line. Kids swerve. They need to know not to swerve into the street.

2) a "complete street" probably shouldn't have on street parking. That eliminates much of the problem.

3) a "complete street" should not have hidden driveways that restrict sight lines.

4) kids will never learn to deal if they aren't even allowed on 35 mph streets.

Does that cover it? I strongly suggest that, since you are taking the exact same aim as HH has on these forums, that you go and read through the Bike Lane thread before you go repeating his arguments.


Here's my opinion: children up to junior high school age should be able to ride on the sidewalk. I don't think their brains are developed enough to understand and handle traffic. The main thing they should be aware of on sidewalks are alleys and blind spots. I, however, rode in the street when I was in gradeschool on my BMX bike. Once you hit junior high, you had better learn how to ride in the street or don't ride at all.

Sidewalks!!! Man, and you are worried about blind pullouts and door zones; then you go and recommend sidewalks!!! You're conflicted. Now you say that you learned in gradeschool to ride on the street, but you cannot recommend that now for current gradeschoolers?! How are kids going to learn to ride if they cannot even be on the street? I think your opinion and your retoric are in conflict.

Another thing I want to add to your crazy logic about bike lanes being safe for children who do not understand traffic: when you are on the street in a vehicle, motorized or not, you are traffic. Based on your logic, the kids are going to be screwed once they approach an intersection since all bike lanes require the cyclist to negotiate traffic where cars must merge to make a right turn, or completely cross over the bike lane to get to the special right-turn lane. The lane either goes from a solid stripe to dashed, or goes away completely to make room for a right-turn lane. (i.e. the street was never designed for bike lanes in the first place). Now what does the kid who is supposed to stay in the bike lane that doesn't exist any more do? Get off his bike and walk it on the sidewalk?

One can educate their kids when they are driving. Explain the traffic rules, have them observe other traffic, how you merge, etc. There's nothing magical about turning 15 1/2 and getting your learner's permit so you can study "advanced traffic skills."

That's what crosswalks are for. Tell the kid: go up to the button, press it and don't cross until the sign says it's okay. A complete street would provide a sidewalk cut to do so.

No wonder cycling advocacy is so fractured. We keep trying to sabotage work done by honest people who want to help instead of working with them and using our deep but narrow experience as cyclists to guide their efforts.
This is a goo point, but unfortunately it's often the case that cyclists are not invited to the planning sessions for Complete Streets and similar efforts. They plan for cylists instead of planning with cyclists, and they often got it wrong, from our view point.

Anybody have success in cracking into these planning sessions and presenting feasible options for cycling?

2) a "complete street" probably shouldn't have on street parking. That eliminates much of the problem.

3) a "complete street" should not have hidden driveways that restrict sight lines.
Sounds like a highway to me. No street parking, no driveways? That means much higher speeds for motorists, irregardless of the speed limit. The new McMansion housing complexes that are being built here in SoCal are like that. There is a 6-lane expressway, complete with island and concrete walls that separate each neighborhood. The speed limit is at least 45 - 50 and motorists drive much faster than that. Now, had there been street parking and driveways, parking lots, etc., the speed of traffic would not be that fast.



Sidewalks!!! Man, and you are worried about blind pullouts and door zones; then you go and recommend sidewalks!!! You're conflicted. Now you say that you learned in gradeschool to ride on the street, but you cannot recommend that now for current gradeschoolers?! How are kids going to learn to ride if they cannot even be on the street? I think your opinion and your retoric are in conflict.
Yes, sidewalks. And, no, you said children are not capable enough to handle traffic. Therefore, it is my opinion if kids under junior high school age can't handle traffic, then they should stay on the sidewalk. I did qualify that they need to watch out for driveways, and suggested how they can learn about traffic from their parents.

I'm also assuming we are talking about kiddie bikes. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other on what type of bikes the kids are riding?



That's what crosswalks are for. Tell the kid: go up to the button, press it and don't cross until the sign says it's okay. A complete street would provide a sidewalk cut to do so.
So teach kids to confuse drivers? Only ride where there is a bike lane (which means after intersections and up to 1/8 mile before an intersection) and then quickly get off of the street, use a crosswalk, then walk back into the street to ride your bike until you repeat the procedure at the next block? Wow, that's fun! :rolleyes:

Brian,

MUP's are fine as far as they go, but they generally only work well where there are long stretches uninterrupted by roads. This usually means along rivers or RR right-of-ways.

I offered solutions, you rejected them. And telling a kid just to stay in a bike lane doesn't help him get through intersections, where he is most at risk. Your "solution" may make a mom feel better about her kid's safety, but it won't actually make her kid safer.

Sounds like a highway to me. No street parking, no driveways? That means much higher speeds for motorists, irregardless of the speed limit. The new McMansion housing complexes that are being built here in SoCal are like that. There is a 6-lane expressway, complete with island and concrete walls that separate each neighborhood. The speed limit is at least 45 - 50 and motorists drive much faster than that. Now, had there been street parking and driveways, parking lots, etc., the speed of traffic would not be that fast.



I hate those McMansion neighborhoods... I hate the wide fast boulevards and the brick/stone/stucco walls... those walls are going to be filled with graffiti as the neighborhood gets older. The only thing nice about those neighborhoods is when one lives inside... the neighborhood kids get to play in the street. Of course, there are few parks around, and those that do exist are outside of the "gated area," so kiddos have to be driven there...

The best thing planners could do for those neighborhoods is link them together with MUPs so folks can walk and cycle between the "gated areas" without having to put up with the 55MPH streets.

Yep, that McMansion neighborhood thing was what I saw in Atlanta. Your home would definitely be a refuge, but the rest of the world is hell.

Those kinds of roads Mac describes in McMansion land are begging for bicycle accomodations.

Yep, that McMansion neighborhood thing was what I saw in Atlanta. Your home would definitely be a refuge, but the rest of the world is hell.
Yes, they do exist here, just as they do in every city which is growing by leaps and bounds. It's not just Atlanta, it's everywhere.

But Atlanta has many, many beautiful old neighborhoods that have been preserved. Please quit harping on the narrow experiences you had on a weekend visit to one corner of this city. Sometimes your comments remind me of the blind person who had a hold of an elephant's tail and decided that elephants were similar to snakes.

In addition to the older neighborhoods (some dating back into the 19th century,) developers are giving many downtown areas an "extreme makeover," with intown condos complete with shopping on site.

As others have pointed out, the picture on the first page of the Complete Streets web site shows the flaw in their thinking. Although they give lip service to other bike facilities, the project is really about striping a line wherever they can squeeze one in.

The FHA site (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm#d4) that Complete Streets links to makes no mention of simple adaptations to make cycling safer, like making traffic sensors that can detect cyclists. It makes no mention that a cyclist can share most roads without special "facilities." It's only "solution" to bicycles in traffic is segregation.