Advocacy & Safety - This is why communities need Complete Streets Policies.

HH, you asked what the problem is. Well here you go. While this did not happen in Sioux City, it very could & I had way to many close calls last year by distracted & inattentive motorists to even want to count.

Along with Complete Streets educating drivers is also important.

There were 5 cyclists killed in Iowa last year. 1 is 1 too many. At the Iowa Bicycle Summit it was stated we need to make 2007 the year where there are no deaths. Too bad it won't happen this year.

Here are the links:

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1988
http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1989
http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1991

For once NC I'm not going to pester you, I'm just going to ask a serious question.
I don't know what this "Complete Streets" thing is, but I'm assuming it has to do with motorist education or awareness of cyclists. Am I close?
Anyhow, assuming I am on the right track, my question is thus:
If this motorist was educated to be aware of cyclists, does that mean this incident (note that I refuse to call it an accident) would have been avoided? Considering she had no license, meaning that either she never had one to begin with, or had lost it due to some other bone headed thing she did. If she did lose it for some reason or another that would mean that she is otherwise incapable, by most standards, of holding the responsibility to operate a motor vehicle, so would any kind of training/awareness/etc had worked for her in the first place?

If I'm off track on the "complete streets" wahoo stuff then so be it, and I'll recant my question posed.

For once NC I'm not going to pester you, I'm just going to ask a serious question.
I don't know what this "Complete Streets" thing is, but I'm assuming it has to do with motorist education or awareness of cyclists. Am I close?.

For info on Complete Streets:
http://www.completestreets.org/
http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/completestreets.htm



Anyhow, assuming I am on the right track, my question is thus:
If this motorist was educated to be aware of cyclists, does that mean this incident (note that I refuse to call it an accident) would have been avoided? Considering she had no license, meaning that either she never had one to begin with, or had lost it due to some other bone headed thing she did. If she did lose it for some reason or another that would mean that she is otherwise incapable, by most standards, of holding the responsibility to operate a motor vehicle, so would any kind of training/awareness/etc had worked for her in the first place?

If I'm off track on the "complete streets" wahoo stuff then so be it, and I'll recant my question posed.

If she had a liscense to begin with but lost it & still continued to drive then I would to think, yes, had she been educated in how to behave when encountering a cyclist & that she should always pay attention to her driving. If never had one to begin with it is a tough call. I would like to think that being exposed to how other people drive safely would show her how to drive. Also she had to have learned how to drive at some point, it is not exactly a natural instinct we have. On the other hand maybe she wasn't exposed to how to drive safely or was taught the wrong way by the wrong person.

Fair enough, but what I was really getting at is...
If she wasn't responsible enough to lose her license (assuming she had one) then wouldn't it be possible that she would also be irresponsible enough to *forget* any cyclist awareness education she might have also received?
Fake Case In Point.
Let us say that she lost her operators permit via DUI, once could say that she chose to forget that one should not drive while drinking.
If that be the case then one could aslo say that she also forgot to look out for cyclists.
I'm using the word "forgot" here pretty loosely and sarcastically.

I'm all for education drivers more about cyclist awareness. In fact I think it should be taught in highschool drivers ed, before they even let the kids behind the wheel. But the fact is that many people tend to *forget* most rules of the road the moment they get their operator permits. At least in practice. In my area people have actually forgotten how to make a right turn! (you turn into the closest lane then procede to cross the other lanes safely when clear, signaling as you go). The is obvious when you see people turning from one artery to another in order to hit the Michigan U-Turn, they turn right, jetting across 5 lanes so that they can hit the turn around. And when they get there they *forget* that the U-Turn is a single lane, even though it is very very wide, and they line up in two rows. The police never enforce the rules by they are there... the rules that is.

Anyhow, enough rambling from me on this matter. I'd really like to see something though that stuck in drivers heads. Maybe this is a good idea... most likely it is. But only time can tell if it pans out in the long run.

wow, lots of typos up there
too bad I can't fix them, my browser doesn't support the forms well enough... oh well, grab the little orphan annie decoder ring and I'm sure you'll figure it out ;)

N_C's cite to the Thinderhead Alliance is interesting. According to the head of our local bike group (who is a supporter of Complete Streets and Thunderhead), Thunderhead teaches local bike groups to completely disenfranchise members. As a result of his consultations with Thunderhead, he reorganized the local bike group. Members have no voice in who sits on the Board, who heads the organization, or the organization's policies.

If Thunderhead is so confident that Complete Streets is good for cyclists, why does it want to insulate local cycling groups from the voices of cyclists?

There are some good ideas in Complete Streets, but its biggest problem is that it doesn't recognize that some streets are just fine for cyclists without special needs lanes. For instance, under Complete Streets, it's better to have a door-zone bike lane than no bike lane at all. Complete Streets uses Chicago as an example (http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/pdf/Chicago%20complete%20streets%20policy.pdf), but Chicago embraces the door-zone bike lane (http://www.chicagocarto.com/bikemap/doorzone.html). Yeah, that's good for cyclists.

N_C gave stories of three cyclist deaths to try to back up his claim. First, I assume this means N_C won't criticize HH when HH discusses what could have prevented a specific cyclist's death. Second, all three of the deaths were hit-and-run accidents with only limited facts about the accident. How could Complete Streets have prevented those deaths?

DC, I'm kinda wondering why you see the need to preemptively limit any criticism of any of HH's 'analysis' of these examples just because N_C cited them? I mean if you choose to accept HH as your lord and master who is beyond reproach that's fine, but trying to stop any debate before he even writes a word is silly and suspect.

N_C's cite to the Thinderhead Alliance is interesting. According to the head of our local bike group (who is a supporter of Complete Streets and Thunderhead), Thunderhead teaches local bike groups to completely disenfranchise members. As a result of his consultations with Thunderhead, he reorganized the local bike group. Members have no voice in who sits on the Board, who heads the organization, or the organization's policies.

If Thunderhead is so confident that Complete Streets is good for cyclists, why does it want to insulate local cycling groups from the voices of cyclists?

There are some good ideas in Complete Streets, but its biggest problem is that it doesn't recognize that some streets are just fine for cyclists without special needs lanes. For instance, under Complete Streets, it's better to have a door-zone bike lane than no bike lane at all. Complete Streets uses Chicago as an example (http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/pdf/Chicago%20complete%20streets%20policy.pdf), but Chicago embraces the door-zone bike lane (http://www.chicagocarto.com/bikemap/doorzone.html). Yeah, that's good for cyclists.

N_C gave stories of three cyclist deaths to try to back up his claim. First, I assume this means N_C won't criticize HH when HH discusses what could have prevented a specific cyclist's death. Second, all three of the deaths were hit-and-run accidents with only limited facts about the accident. How could Complete Streets have prevented those deaths?

DC,

I think you may be a bit confused about the cyclist who was killed. It was only one person. There are 3 articles about it on bikeiowa. Not 3 articles about 3 differant people. The 1st is about the incident itself, the 2nd is about her being caught & the 3rd is the Iowa Bicycle Coalition's reaction to it. Not to correct you or anything, but I can see how anyone could think it is 3 articles about 3 differant people.

The only people who will dismiss complete streets out of hand with a bunch of lame excuses are the few on this forum who support unfettered car-centric urban development. Complete streets is a good idea.

The only people who will dismiss complete streets out of hand with a bunch of lame excuses are the few on this forum who support unfettered car-centric urban development. Complete streets is a good idea.

Who does that diane? I'm either naieve & ignorant to this fact here on the forums, & don't know it when I see it & I may very well be, or it is not happening.

Nobody who posts regularly on the A&S forum dismisses the need to accomodate cyclists on the roadway. Different people have different ideas of what accomodating means. The fact that streets are paved smooth and plenty wide for even two cyclists to ride side by side to me is being accomodated. Only on roads where cyclists are specifically banned are cyclists not accomodated for. Lift that ban and there's no reason why cyclists could not use those roads.

The only people who will dismiss complete streets out of hand with a bunch of lame excuses are the few on this forum who support unfettered car-centric urban development....

There are some good ideas in Complete Streets, but its biggest problem is that it doesn't recognize that some streets are just fine for cyclists without special needs lanes. For instance, under Complete Streets, it's better to have a door-zone bike lane than no bike lane at all. Complete Streets uses Chicago as an example (http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/pdf/Chicago%20complete%20streets%20policy.pdf), but Chicago embraces the door-zone bike lane (http://www.chicagocarto.com/bikemap/doorzone.html).
<italics mine>
'nuff said.

<italics mine>
'nuff said.

That is why there is no prescribed design of a complete street, & there shouldn't be either.

This pretty much sums it up:
"Since each complete street is unique, it is impossible to give a single description. But ingredients that may be found on a complete street include: sidewalks, bike lanes, plenty of crosswalks, wide shoulders, medians, bus pullouts, special bus lanes, raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, and more. A complete street in a rural area will look quite different from a complete street in a highly urban area. But both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road."

For my community if Singing Hills Blvd is a complete street & Myrtle is too they will be differant in the design that makes them a complete street. Singing Hills is a 4 lane divided roadway through a commercial area. Myrtle is a 2 lane undivided roadway through a residential area.

DC,

I think you may be a bit confused about the cyclist who was killed. It was only one person. There are 3 articles about it on bikeiowa. Not 3 articles about 3 differant people. The 1st is about the incident itself, the 2nd is about her being caught & the 3rd is the Iowa Bicycle Coalition's reaction to it. Not to correct you or anything, but I can see how anyone could think it is 3 articles about 3 differant people.
OK. How could "Complete Streets" have helped this one cyclist? You haven't linked the problem with your proposed solution.


DC, I'm kinda wondering why you see the need to preemptively limit any criticism of any of HH's 'analysis' of these examples just because N_C cited them? I mean if you choose to accept HH as your lord and master who is beyond reproach that's fine, but trying to stop any debate before he even writes a word is silly and suspect.
That's just silly. Here, N_C gives articles about a cyclist's death, and then uses it to advance his agenda without explaining how his agenda would help have helped the dead cyclist. I criticize HH sometimes, but N_C is doing exactly what a lot of you criticize HH for doing, except N_C provides no reasoning to advance his agenda. Just emotion.

HH, you asked what the problem is. Well here you go. While this did not happen in Sioux City, it very could & I had way to many close calls last year by distracted & inattentive motorists to even want to count.

Along with Complete Streets educating drivers is also important.

There were 5 cyclists killed in Iowa last year. 1 is 1 too many. At the Iowa Bicycle Summit it was stated we need to make 2007 the year where there are no deaths. Too bad it won't happen this year.

Here are the links:

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1988
http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1989
http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1991
N_C,

Do you believe Complete Streets polices would lead to fewer cyclists deaths, perhaps even eliminate them?

If so, why do you believe this?
How would Complete Streets policies work to reduce cyclists deaths?

In other words, what are the causes of cyclist deaths that Complete Streets policies address?
And, of the causes of cyclist deaths that Complete Streets policies address, what percentage of total cyclist deaths do they account for?

That's just silly. Here, N_C gives articles about a cyclist's death, and then uses it to advance his agenda without explaining how his agenda would help have helped the dead cyclist. I criticize HH sometimes, but N_C is doing exactly what a lot of you criticize HH for doing, except N_C provides no reasoning to advance his agenda. Just emotion.

Dude, the thread had barely started, he never had a chance to advance anything. How often have I EVER defended N_C on anything? :lol:

N_C,

Do you believe Complete Streets polices would lead to fewer cyclists deaths, perhaps even eliminate them?

Yes, possibly.


If so, why do you believe this? How would Complete Streets policies work to reduce cyclists deaths?

It could do so by providing better bicycle facilties on roadways. I am very familiar with the roadway, SE 14th st the cyclist in the story was killed on. I have never ridden bike on it, but if it were a complete street the cyclist may have not been hit or killed. What should those facilities be? Well a BL, a MUP parrallel to the roadway or even a wider lane to share with motor vehicles, maybe even putting it on a rad diet & lowering the speed limit. To do that the medians would have to be completely removed as it is divided.



In other words, what are the causes of cyclist deaths that Complete Streets policies address? And, of the causes of cyclist deaths that Complete Streets policies address, what percentage of total cyclist deaths do they account for?

It doesn't address the causes of death if you're talking about the types of injuries this person died from, whether it was head or other bodily injury. As far as I know there are no statistics, yet, on whether or not Complete Streets will help protect cyclists from suffering injury or death. It is still brand new I do not think any studies have been done yet. But that should & will not keep me or anyone else from pursueing this & advocating for Complete Streets.

HH, I have some questions for you, it is a simple yes or no. Answer honestly & if you wish explain why. Are you against Complete Streets & Complete Street Policies? Because it sure seems that you are. If you are not do you support advocating for them? If you are, do you advocate against them? Why?

I used the BLOS/PLOS calculator to find out how SE 14th scores. Even though it does not take into consideration intersections, which in this case would not help the score any, it scored very low:

Score Level-of-service Compatibility Level
BLOS: 13.88 F ( above 5.50) Extremely Low
PLOS: 4.1 D (3.51-4.50) Moderately Low

Tell me it is a roadway that could not stand to have a complete street policy & have changes made to it.

. . . It could do so by providing better bicycle facilties on roadways. I am very familiar with the roadway, SE 14th st the cyclist in the story was killed on. I have never ridden bike on it, but if it were a complete street the cyclist may have not been hit or killed. What should those facilities be? Well a BL, a MUP parrallel to the roadway or even a wider lane to share with motor vehicles, maybe even putting it on a rad diet & lowering the speed limit. To do that the medians would have to be completely removed as it is divided.
But a narrow outside lane (which would lower the BLOS/PLOS score (http://bikelib.org/roads/blos/losform.htm)), could also have prevented her death. Same with bicycle education. The problem with your example is that there are so few facts, anyone with any set of beliefs could say, "If only _________, this cyclist might be alive today."


HH, I have some questions for you, it is a simple yes or no. Answer honestly & if you wish explain why. Are you against Complete Streets & Complete Street Policies? Because it sure seems that you are. If you are not do you support advocating for them? If you are, do you advocate against them? Why?
I am against the wholesale adoption of a "Complete Streets" program because, as I said above, it does not recognize that roads without official bicycle facilties can be perfectly fine for cyclists. As my Chicago example shows, cities can use "Complete Streets" to make cycling less safe by, for example, creating door-zone bike lanes. Also, narrow outside shared lanes make streets worse under the "Complete Streets" calculator.

There are many good ideas in Complete Streets. Cities should look at it for ideas. They just shouldn't adopt it wholesale as law as Thunderhead proposes.

And if you think that some people cite to Effective Cycling like the Bible, you should listen to some of the people who have drunk the Complete Steets Kool Aid.

But a narrow outside lane (which would lower the BLOS/PLOS score (http://bikelib.org/roads/blos/losform.htm)), could also have prevented her death. Same with bicycle education. The problem with your example is that there are so few facts, anyone with any set of beliefs could say, "If only _________, this cyclist might be alive today."


I am against the wholesale adoption of a "Complete Streets" program because, as I said above, it does not recognize that roads without official bicycle facilties can be perfectly fine for cyclists. As my Chicago example shows, cities can use "Complete Streets" to make cycling less safe by, for example, creating door-zone bike lanes. Also, narrow outside shared lanes make streets worse under the "Complete Streets" calculator.

There are many good ideas in Complete Streets. Cities should look at it for ideas. They just shouldn't adopt it wholesale as law as Thunderhead proposes.

And if you think that some people cite to Effective Cycling like the Bible, you should listen to some of the people who have drunk the Complete Steets Kool Aid.

A Complete Street Policy is not needed for all roadways. Some are already a complete street. Some only need minor changes, like all one may need is wider sidewalk with the smooth transition across intersections for the disabled. But the road surface is fine for cyclists & motor vehicles.

A roadway that is a Complete Street does not have to have official bicycle facilties. No one has ever said it does.

Example: a residential 2 lane 25 mph roadway should have the lanes wide enough for cyclists & traffic to easily share the road & pass safely if on street parking is not allowed, or if on street parking is allowed the travel lanes should be wide enough for a cyclist to be out of the door zone & for motor vehicles to pass safely within 3 feet. The sidewalks should be at least 8' wide, at least 10' from the curb & all transitions across intersections are to meet ADA standards. The roadways would need to be sigend appropriatly for all users. This is an ideal complete residential street.

A roadway in a commercial zone would be differant, but have similarities.

. . .
Example: a residential 2 lane 25 mph roadway should have the lanes wide enough for cyclists & traffic to easily share the road & pass safely if on street parking is not allowed, or if on street parking is allowed the travel lanes should be wide enough for a cyclist to be out of the door zone & for motor vehicles to pass safely within 3 feet. . . .
I would hate to live on such a street--it's so wide that it encourages speeding. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. I'd much rather live on a street where the car has to wait a little while to get around the cyclist. Heck, I'm glad that on most of my street, cars going in opposite directions have to find gaps in parked cars to get by each other.

Your example demonstrates one of the problem with Complete Streets--it assumes that cyclists and cars must be able to travel side-by-side in the same direction without changing road position. Cyclists and cars can share the road without creating such wide thoroughfares. Cars just have to wait for a safe space to pass. On a 25 mph residential street, a car might get stuck behind a cyclist for a block, but so what?

Complete Streets also makes narrow outside lanes as cyclist unfriendly, even on 25mph downtown streets with lots of intersections. Striped lanes make no sense in that situation. WOL's make little sense. But Complete Streets encourages both.

Your example also reminds me of someone I spoke with on the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. MORPC requires following "Complete Streets" when it doles out federal money. She talked about an 11' road, and repeatedly said that "there's not room for a bicycle." I repeatedly said that 11' was plenty of space for a cyclist. But she only thought that a cyclists could fit on the road if the cyclist and car could ride side-by-side for the entire length of the road.

I would hate to live on such a street--it's so wide that it encourages speeding. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. I'd much rather live on a street where the car has to wait a little while to get around the cyclist. Heck, I'm glad that on most of my street, cars going in opposite directions have to find gaps in parked cars to get by each other.

Your example demonstrates one of the problem with Complete Streets--it assumes that cyclists and cars must be able to travel side-by-side in the same direction without changing road position. Cyclists and cars can share the road without creating such wide thoroughfares. Cars just have to wait for a safe space to pass. On a 25 mph residential street, a car might get stuck behind a cyclist for a block, but so what?

Complete Streets also makes narrow outside lanes as cyclist unfriendly, even on 25mph downtown streets with lots of intersections. Striped lanes make no sense in that situation. WOL's make little sense. But Complete Streets encourages both.

Your example also reminds me of someone I spoke with on the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. MORPC requires following "Complete Streets" when it doles out federal money. She talked about an 11' road, and repeatedly said that "there's not room for a bicycle." I repeatedly said that 11' was plenty of space for a cyclist. But she only thought that a cyclists could fit on the road if the cyclist and car could ride side-by-side for the entire length of the road.

Did you not notice the word example? That means it is only an example, not that it is ideal.

Here's another example of a Complete Street: A 2 lane 25 mph roadway with on street parking where it is not wide enough for motor vehicles to pass cyclists in the same lane with out crossing into the on coming lane, meaning to pass a cyclist a same direction motorist will have to cross at least partially into the oncoming lane, & a side walk that is at least 8' wide & 10' from the curb & meets ADA requirments when crossing intersections. This roadway too is or could be a Complete Street.

BTW I ride on a roadway like that all the time in my community, with the exception of the side walk part. In fact all that it will take to make this roadway a Complete Street is to improve the sidewalk to 8' wide, if it is not already have it 10' from the curb & meet ADA requirements where it crosses intersections.

Another example of a Complete Street is the same type of roadway I describe above, but with out on street parking where a BL can be on the street. But I suppose you'll say that encourages speeding too.

You're theory of a wider street encouraging speeding is not correct. That is like saying a smooth transition for sidewalks & side walks being at least 8' wide encourage motorists to drive on them. Or that saying not having any kind of bollard or barrier at trail heads encourage motorists to drive on an MUP. If a motorist is going to speed they will speed regardless of any kind of traffic calming, whether it be a narrower street or curves in a roadway or traffic circle, etc.

Another example of a Complete Street is the same type of roadway I describe above, but with out on street parking where a BL can be on the street. But I suppose you'll say that encourages speeding too.

BTW I don't like having to find "holes" between parked cars to let an oncoming vehcile pass me when I drive. All to often they speed up to get through first & I can not always find a "hole" to move into because there are too many parked cars one right behind another. If anything encourages speeding is is the way some of the roadways are now, not a wider lane. At least in my experience & in my community. Then again I did say if a motorist is going to speed no amount of traffic calming will prevent it.

Most of the residential streets in Sioux City would be a Complete Street if the sidewalks are improved. At least 8' wide, further from the curb then they currently are on some of them & meets ADA requirments at intersections.

Some streets could stand to be widened a little & a lot of them could use a re-surfacing while some need a complete tear down & rebuild with new curbing. Some should not have on street parking, if everyone on that lives on the roadway has at least a driveway. In that case if there is a big family get together & their driveway is not large enough then a permit can be purchased from the city to allow temporary parking on the roadway. Or it will automatically be allowed during holidays, 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc.

Want to hear something really intersting? I-29 from Floyd Blvd to Riverside Blvd is a Complete Street. Yeah you heard me right, it is a Complete Street. You're probably wondering how. Well it easily accomodates all roadway users.

Here's how:
1st picture this, Missouri River, the Sioux City Riverfront which has the MUP, the public boat launch, a public museum, interpritive center, marina, resteraunt, public parks, casino, public parking & business parking & a roadway connecting all of this called Chris Larsen Rd. All of these things go from Floyd to Hamilton. Only the MUP continues up to Riverside & terminates in Riverside Park. Then after all of that there is I-29 itself. As a result it is accidently a Complete Street. Because all of those things on the riverfront & the MUP are all on the Iowa DOT right of way, thus considered part of the I-29 Corridor. Pretty cool huh? That an interstate is a Complete Street. This corridor accomidates all potential users that would use inside an urban area, this making an Urban Complete Street.

Sometimes streets as they are designed are sufficient. MANY public rights of way in America could be redesigned for the betterment of the public at large.

Pedestrians, cyclists, joggers, rollerbladers, people in electric mobility devices, etc. should be considered in the frequent, necessary and inevitable upgrades to public thoroughfares. A consideration for all user of public space increases livability, increases use of non motorized transit, encourages mass transit use, redevelops human scaled communities, and redesigns public rights of way for the betterment of community.

Complete streets. its a good plan for community. only autocentric, 'its good enough for me' anti-populist bicyclists would think Complete Streets consideration for public rights of way to be a bad thing for communities.

grow up and embrace liveable communities. your neighborhood will thank you.

Cars are not meant to rule public rights of way. America has been sold a faulty lot of goods with that billing.

Did you not notice the word example? That means it is only an example, not that it is ideal.
That's the problem. "Examples" of Complete Streets can turn out a lot less than ideal.


You're theory of a wider street encouraging speeding is not correct. That is like saying a smooth transition for sidewalks & side walks being at least 8' wide encourage motorists to drive on them. Or that saying not having any kind of bollard or barrier at trail heads encourage motorists to drive on an MUP. If a motorist is going to speed they will speed regardless of any kind of traffic calming, whether it be a narrower street or curves in a roadway or traffic circle, etc.
Then you really know squat about traffic planning. Every traffic planner with whom I have spoken says that the driver's perception of the narrowness of the road and the lane reduces speed. I see that on my street. One end has very few cars parking on street. Cars rush through that section, and then slow down when it gets constricted.

One way to make the road feel narrower is to have trees on both sides of the street. There is a major push here to get and keep trees along roadways, partly for that reason. Is that in Complete Streets? I'm not asking that to make a point, I really want to know the answer.


Another example of a Complete Street is the same type of roadway I describe above, but with out on street parking where a BL can be on the street. But I suppose you'll say that encourages speeding too.
In a residential neighborhood, that would encourage speeding. With rare exceptions, 25 mph streets need no specific bicycle facilties. Further, on 25 mph roads with lots of intersections and driveways, striped lanes, barrier lanes, WOL's can make cycling more dangerous by putting cyclists to the right of traffic. Complete Streets has soom good idea, but as you have shown in this thread, sometimes it just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone.


. . . Then again I did say if a motorist is going to speed no amount of traffic calming will prevent it.
Nothing can stop every driver, but traffic calming can slow a lot of drivers down.


Complete streets. its a good plan for community. only autocentric, 'its good enough for me' anti-populist bicyclists would think Complete Streets consideration for public rights of way to be a bad thing for communities.
Actually, Complete Streets is auto-centric by focusing on helping cars zip through residential neighborhoods.

As I said in my original post, it has some good ideas. Traffic planners should think about cyclists when designing roadways and traffic signals. Some arterials are good candidates for striped lanes, NOL's, WOL's and other bike faciltities. It's just that, as N_C has demonstrated, Complete Streets focuses on striped lanes and WOL's where those make cycling (and walking) more dangerous, like 25 mph residential and downtown streets.

Complete Streets presents some interesting ideas, and traffic planners should read it. But it should not be used as a traffic planning Bible.

There is no prescribed design for Complete Streets. Saying Complete Steets focuses on striped lanes & WOL's & other bike facilities is inaccurate.

In case you have not read the definition of a Complete Street, here you go:
"What does a complete street look like?

Since each complete street is unique, it is impossible to give a single description. But ingredients that may be found on a complete street include: sidewalks, bike lanes, plenty of crosswalks, wide shoulders, medians, bus pullouts, special bus lanes, raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, and more. A complete street in a rural area will look quite different from a complete street in a highly urban area. But both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road."

A Complete Street does not have to include specific facilties for cyclists & motorists. A Complete Street can have both share the same facilities, meaning a BL or a wider lanes are not needed or practicable on all roadways, but on some it is.

All I'm trying to do is have a Complete Streets Policy adopted for my area that will require it be used when road projects are done. And that all roadways from here on out be made Complete Streets, whatever it takes to do so. Again understanding there is no prescribed design. There is nothing that says here is what a Complete Street has to be & that's it. But there should be a policy stating all roadways from here on out have to be Complete Streets, not just streets for motorists only.

Have you been to the Complete Streets web site DC? It sounds like you haven't. Here is the link:
http://www.completestreets.org/index.html

Before you say anymore please read the material available in the web site. Especially this:
http://www.completestreets.org/g-completestreetsPlanningmag.pdf

More on this story:

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1998

I understand if people want to remain private, that is fine. But at least have someone to contact if you have friends or family of any kind, even if they are estranged. That way in case something like this happens someone can be notified. No one deserves to be buried after they die & not have anyone there at their funeral to honor their memory. Everyone should have at least one person to remember & honor who they were. Especially in a case like this. What a lonely way to die.

I can not imagine dying like that. I told my wife if I die before her to throw a party & not to mourn or wear black, but celebrate the life I lived. I'm talking bright colors, loud music, with all my friends & family who are still alive, the whole nine yards. That is how I want to be remembered.

It looks like Hill either did not have a liscense or it had expired. It happens. But I think had she stopped to render aid all that may have happened is a ticket for driver with out a liscense. I'm not defending her & this is a tragedy but it seems to be the facts of this situation. The ADT is spot on for SE 14th. Maybe if it were a Complete Street this may have been prevented.

There is no prescribed design for Complete Streets. Saying Complete Steets focuses on striped lanes & WOL's & other bike facilities is inaccurate.

In case you have not read the definition of a Complete Street, here you go:
"What does a complete street look like?

Since each complete street is unique, it is impossible to give a single description. But ingredients that may be found on a complete street include: sidewalks, bike lanes, plenty of crosswalks, wide shoulders, medians, bus pullouts, special bus lanes, raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, and more. A complete street in a rural area will look quite different from a complete street in a highly urban area. But both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road."

A Complete Street does not have to include specific facilties for cyclists & motorists. A Complete Street can have both share the same facilities, meaning a BL or a wider lanes are not needed or practicable on all roadways, but on some it is.

All I'm trying to do is have a Complete Streets Policy adopted for my area that will require it be used when road projects are done. And that all roadways from here on out be made Complete Streets, whatever it takes to do so. Again understanding there is no prescribed design. There is nothing that says here is what a Complete Street has to be & that's it. But there should be a policy stating all roadways from here on out have to be Complete Streets, not just streets for motorists only.

Have you been to the Complete Streets web site DC? It sounds like you haven't. Here is the link:
http://www.completestreets.org/index.html

Before you say anymore please read the material available in the web site. Especially this:
http://www.completestreets.org/g-completestreetsPlanningmag.pdf
Yes, I have to to the web site. And I have also seen how "Complete Streets" works in reality. The planners think that "there's no room for a bicycle" on an 11' road.

Under the Complete Streets formula, a 25 mph street with a door-zone bike lane (which is approved in ASHTO) is more "bicycle friendly" than the same road without a stripe. You have argued that Complete Streets encourages extra-wide residential roads that encourage speeding but you laughably argue that wide roads don't encourage speeding.

As I said from the beginning, Complete Streets has some decent ideas, as long as you don't treat it as a Bible. Hey, isn't that what a lot of people say about John Forester's Effective Cycling?

Yes, I have to to the web site. And I have also seen how "Complete Streets" works in reality. The planners think that "there's no room for a bicycle" on an 11' road.

Under the Complete Streets formula, a 25 mph street with a door-zone bike lane (which is approved in ASHTO) is more "bicycle friendly" than the same road without a stripe. You have argued that Complete Streets encourages extra-wide residential roads that encourage speeding but you laughably argue that wide roads don't encourage speeding.

As I said from the beginning, Complete Streets has some decent ideas, as long as you don't treat it as a Bible. Hey, isn't that what a lot of people say about John Forester's Effective Cycling?

I understand that. And I have said from the beginning it will not be used as a bible for roadway design. But used in conjunction with existing roadway procedures to require appropriate bicycle facilities are taken into consideration. And if possible require that bicycle facilties be constructed. I'm talking about a melding of the 2. Right now in my community when it comes to roadway design the only facilties that are considered is how to get motor vehicles down a roadway at the best possible way.

Making an existing roadway complete may only require signage be installed telling motorists it is a shared roadway with cyclists. This particular roadway may be a simple 2 lane residential roadway that is 25 mph.

Where along a 4 lane roadway to make it complete it could be putting it on a road diet with BL's on each side. On another 4 lane roadway it may be providing an MUP parrallel to the roadway.