Advocacy & Safety - PDX: TriMet Bus Driver proposes banning bicycles on neighborhood arterials

Here's a snippet from the BikePortland post:


Dangerous “chokepoints”
Paul described what he calls, “chokepoints” as highly trafficked streets where he feels bicycles should not even be allowed to ride,

“Some of these roads, like going up Hawthorne at rush hour, or Alberta or 23rd, are much too narrow. If it were up to me, bicycles would not be allowed on them at all…especially during rainy weather. I mean, we’ve got a rainy street, lots of traffic, our wipers are going full speed…our stress goes way up around these chokepoints."

The bus driver also discusses passing distances and other issues here (http://bikeportland.org/2007/04/10/trimet-bus-driver-gets-candid-about-stress-cyclists/#comments), plus there are some good comments from local cyclists on the blog.

I should point out that Hawthorne Boulevard is a designated bike route in the city's master plan, and the current lane configuration of two 9.5' lanes in each direction with parallel parking and no left turn lanes is a substandard design that the local business community fought to keep in a recent planning effort. The boulevard is currrently signed 'Narrow Lanes Bikes in Lane' (IMO not as good as the SF signage 'Change Lanes to Pass') and is a candidate for sharrows markings. Busses also run on the boulevard every 5 ot 15 minutes. From 12th to 27th is a hill climb in the eastbound direction, so bikes are going pretty slow, but due to the lane configuration, taking the lane is the only real choice for cyclists (unless the lane configuration is changed to one lane in each direction, a center left turn lane and a climbing lane for eastbound cyclists).

But (the bus driver) was quick to add that a ban of bikes on these roads should not even be considered until more investment is made in alternate routes. This gave me a chance to tell him about the effort to create more bicycle boulevard streets in proximity to major arterials.
So someone in Portland believes that bike facilities should result in bans on the right of cyclists to use the road. Who'd of thunk it? And the Bikeportland writer thinks that it's a good thing that the bus driver only supports a bike ban on road use when there are nearby bike faciltities?

On the other hand, the article shows the importance of riding safely around busses, and of making specific complaints about dangerous driver behavior. Given the strenghth of the union, you have to complain and give specific facts.

I liked the one comment about the pull-in parking being better for cyclists than parallel parking and also making more space for pedestrians.

Speaking only as a driver of a car. If the bus driver is against bikes then bikes must be OK. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Busses regularly pull out in front of me without looking or even after seeing me. If bike bother them because they have to actually pay attention I say it is a good thing for drivers, perhaps they will at least pay enough attention to see the SUVs.

Here's a snippet from the BikePortland post:



The bus driver also discusses passing distances and other issues here (http://bikeportland.org/2007/04/10/trimet-bus-driver-gets-candid-about-stress-cyclists/#comments), plus there are some good comments from local cyclists on the blog.

I should point out that Hawthorne Boulevard is a designated bike route in the city's master plan, and the current lane configuration of two 9.5' lanes in each direction with parallel parking and no left turn lanes is a substandard design that the local business community fought to keep in a recent planning effort. The boulevard is currrently signed 'Narrow Lanes Bikes in Lane' (IMO not as good as the SF signage 'Change Lanes to Pass') and is a candidate for sharrows markings. Busses also run on the boulevard every 5 ot 15 minutes. From 12th to 27th is a hill climb in the eastbound direction, so bikes are going pretty slow, but due to the lane configuration, taking the lane is the only real choice for cyclists (unless the lane configuration is changed to one lane in each direction, a center left turn lane and a climbing lane for eastbound cyclists).

How busy is this road (vehicles per hour)? Sounds like an ideal road for cycling with two lanes in each direction (motorists have a much easier time passing). Getting rid of one traffic lane in each direction would greatly slow traffic in the absence of cyclist traffic (my beef with "road diets").

I didn't read the blog but are cyclist delays causing busses to be late? Or is this just the typical motorist whining about having to slow down for a cyclist?

I didn't read the blog but are cyclist delays causing busses to be late? Or is this just the typical motorist whining about having to slow down for a cyclist?
The latter. The busses are too large to fit in the 9.5' lanes so they take up both lanes. The busses are both held up by cars in either lane when they are rolling and block at least one lane when they make a stop. Except for the uphill portion of the route (eastbound from SE 12th to SE 28) an average or above cyclist can generally keep up with traffic reasonably well, especially when it's congested. The posted speed limit is 30mph, reduced to 25 mph in the central business district.

The average daily vehicle count on this arterial is 20,000 VPD.

The average daily vehicle count on this arterial is 20,000 VPD.
That is very light for a two lane in each direction arterial. What is the problem again?
Al

I rode down to Portland last friday and spent four days cycling in Portland. I was staying right on Hawthorne at 30th.

The bus driver is whining and complaing if he's got a beef with cyclists on Hawthorne. It's NOT an 'ideal' road for bicyclists, joejack, because of the impatient drivers and asshat bus drivers. very easy for the assertive cyclist to simply take the lane. I saw a few sidewalk cyclists riding up Hawthorne, a clear sign not all riders are comfortable on it.

I bet there's a lot of riders that prefer less travelled streets just to either side of Hawthorne. I certainly saw more bike traffic on Salmon and Harrison, parallel streets to Hawthorne.

I would postulate that not every cyclist enjoys streets like Hawthorne. Portland recognizes that, as should any city, and develop and encourage alternate routes for the expediency of cyclists, kids, families, slower paced, utility riders, all the while not restricting cyclists from roads like Hawthorne, a pretty easy road to ride nonetheless.

Certainly easy to negotiate for cyclists, but there are much nicer routes up and down that parallel Hawthorne that are even more accomodating for bikes.

right now Portland is doing a lot of construction up and down Hawthorne, orange cones and the whatnot, forcing bikes to take the one remaining lane on Hawthorne. maybe this is the cause of some of the bus driver's frustration.

Daily commute, I think it's incredibly unlikely Portland is going to even consider 'banning bikes' on a road like Hawthorne. and not all cyclists are comfortable on roads like Hawthorne. what's a city to do?

I think the anwser is to build in bike infrastructure that encourages cycling. the anwser is NOT to force bicyclists to ride conditions they are uncomfortable with, or leave roads that move the less assertive cyclists onto the sidewalks.

That is very light for a two lane in each direction arterial. What is the problem again?
Al
IMO, primarily substandard 9.5' lane widths, the presence of parallel parking the entire length, restrictions on left turns at arterial crossings, and a 16 block uphill section where bicyclist speeds are less than 10 mph.

I would postulate that not every cyclist enjoys streets like Hawthorne. Portland recognizes that, as should any city, and develop and encourage alternate routes for the expediency of cyclists, kids, families, slower paced, utility riders, all the while not restricting cyclists from roads like Hawthorne, a pretty easy road to ride nonetheless.

Certainly easy to negotiate for cyclists, but there are much nicer routes up and down that parallel Hawthorne that are even more accomodating for bikes.

I think the anwser is to build in bike infrastructure that encourages cycling. the anwser is NOT to force bicyclists to ride conditions they are uncomfortable with, or leave roads that move the less assertive cyclists onto the sidewalks.

The problem is now becoming overcrowding on the parallel neighborhood parallel routes, resulting in complaints from neighbors about the bicyclists in their neighborhood, resulting in a lot of police activity targetted at bicyclists (http://bikeportland.org/2007/04/11/enforcement-action-at-ladds-circle/).

IMO, primarily substandard 9.5' lane widths, the presence of parallel parking the entire length, restrictions on left turns at arterial crossings, and a 16 block uphill section where bicyclist speeds are less than 10 mph.
I understand, I just do see how these things lead to any real 'conflict' given the low traffic volume. Sure a wait here and there. I regularly ride on 5 lane arterials (one shared center turn lane) with no onstreet parking with 48k vehicle/day with busses stopping and also 9-10' lanes. Sure I hold up some drivers, but all seem to be able to get around me if they try. The turn lane and lack of on street parking help flow, but even at 48k, traffic moves 40-45mph between lights near rush hour.

Saying 'whats the prob?' was not meant to be doubting you, just suggesting that the complaining by motorists sounds more like whining.

Al

Don't forget that most of those 20,000 trips are concentrated into a few peak hours. Traffic volumes are pretty low the other 18 hours of the day.

Don't forget that most of those 20,000 trips are concentrated into a few peak hours. Traffic volumes are pretty low the other 18 hours of the day.
I've often seen 2-3x average used for peak.
Here are hourly counts for the road I was talking about.

The problem is now becoming overcrowding on the parallel neighborhood parallel routes, resulting in complaints from neighbors about the bicyclists in their neighborhood, resulting in a lot of police activity targetted at bicyclists (http://bikeportland.org/2007/04/11/enforcement-action-at-ladds-circle/).


So you think the cyclists don't have to follow the laws? They were ticketed for blowing through stop signs. What is wrong with that?

So you think the cyclists don't have to follow the laws? They were ticketed for blowing through stop signs. What is wrong with that?
see post # 120 on the BikePortland thread

see post # 120 on the BikePortland thread


The comments that follow the article you posted or some other thread? I don't see another thread and the article only has 47 comments. Do you have a link?

police activity targetted at bicyclists (http://bikeportland.org/2007/04/11/enforcement-action-at-ladds-circle/)
129 comments and counting

police activity targetted at bicyclists (http://bikeportland.org/2007/04/11/enforcement-action-at-ladds-circle/)
129 comments and counting


Look, I totally get that they should probably change the signage to reflect the kind of riding done. I also totally get the whole busy body neighbor thing. And the bus drivers need to get over it.

Heck I have an annoying neighbor who tries to get me fined or taken to court for the dumbest things. Fortunately none of them are actually illegal. For example, last year I was sent a citation for trespassing chickens. There is no such law. The judge actually called me at home to applogize that the citation was sent. He was also laughing at the time. This is the same neighbor that dumps dog feces on my property. So, like I said, I get the whole overzealous(and possibly insane) neighbor thing. Some people have nothing better to do than try to find other people who are doing things that annoy them.

I do agree that the police probably have better things to do than ticket cyclists. But, they are violating the law and until the law changes they will keep getting ticketed. Right now it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the police.

If enough letters were sent and enough people went to the council meetings, you would get the signage changed. It doesn't matter that the law is stupid. You aren't going to sway anyone in a position of authority with illegal behavior.

those damn trespassing chickens!

Hitting bicyclists with the same $242 fine as motorists is a gross miscarriage of justice, as is selective enforcement.

Tresspassing chickens?

We've got a neighbor who will turn your car in if you park it more than 3 days on the street. Funny thing is, this anonymous neighbor we've never been able to identify only goes after ugly vehicles.

Anyway, total digression. Bek has the right idea. The road should not be banned to cyclists, but other more desireable roads should be promoted.

I really don't get the bus driver antagonism toward cyclists. In my area the bus drivers and cyclists are on the same side. Maybe it helps the director of the MTD is a total environmentalist experimenting with electric and hybrid buses. Maybe it helps those electric buses can barely accellerate to 5 miles an hour on the overpass.

Isn't it absurd that someone operating a six- to eight-foot-wide vehicle has nerve to suggest banning two-foot-wide vehicles because there isn't enough road width to pass them? I could more justifiably suggest that cars be banned from narrow roads because there isn't enough road width for cyclists to pass. In fact, I get stuck behind cars on a regular basis. Cars are SO SLOW!

the street is a bit tricky since going up hill and lots of traffic and lots of parked cars. myself I don't go up it I will use a side street. going down is fine as I fly down it.

Hitting bicyclists with the same $242 fine as motorists is a gross miscarriage of justice, as is selective enforcement.
In Ohio, we have what I think is a fair compromise--cyclists face the same fines, but we don't get points on our license for routine traffic violations.

Back to the thread topic. Part of the natural tension between cyclists and busses is leap frog. Busses generally go faster than us between stops, but they stop a lot. They pass us, we pass them, they pass us, we pass them. Either one of us could end the leap frop by just staying behind, but we both have a schedule and I don't want to suck their fumes the whole way.

On one multi-lane one-way street, I've sometimes moved to the far left lane just to avoid the leap frog. That works in the early morning hours when there is little traffic.

Back to the thread topic. Part of the natural tension between cyclists and busses is leap frog. Busses generally go faster than us between stops, but they stop a lot. They pass us, we pass them, they pass us, we pass them. Either one of us could end the leap frop by just staying behind, but we both have a schedule and I don't want to suck their fumes the whole way.

Yes. Sometimes when I am approaching a bus at a bus stop, I will stop and wait for the bus to leave rather than pass it and risk initiating a game of leap frog.

i think leap frog with busses is actually fun.

there's never going to be a perfect 'solution' for bikes mixing it up with automobiles. some bicyclists can mix it up with traffic, a lot of bikes make traffic more aware of bikes, but....

some asshat drivers will always take offense.

Hawthorne where it has a bike lane, coming off the bridge heading East, there's probably little issue. When the bikes are having to take to the hill and take the single lane because of the current road construction limiting the lanes, i bet thats' where some of this bus drivers anger is based from.

some cyclists will not feel comfortable riding hawthore up that hill, its likely no problem for the assertive cyclists like al, DC, me, randya, or many of the 'usual suspect' posters here, but seeing steve knights' post here, and my experiences in Portland last week- seeing cyclists on the sidewalk, seeing the large numbers of cyclists choosing alternate routes, believe communities that have roads LIKE Hawthorne can do a lot to encourage cycling by the installation of bike lanes or alternate routes.

cyclists shouldn't be forced to ride streets they are uncomfortable with, or forced onto the sidewalks. public rights of way should be designed with the consideration of all users. Bus, bikes, peds, the 35 percent of americans that DON'T drive....

What's with stopping at traffic circles anyway? Seems lame. Damn yanks!

Anti-cyclist sentiment in "pro" segregated-cyclist-facilities Portland? I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

What's with stopping at traffic circles anyway? Seems lame. Damn yanks!
The one in the Ladd's Addition neighborhood isn't the same sort of traffic circle. Here (http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/LaddCircleTrafficControlPDO.jpg), let the engineer explain it.

actually, mr. Head, there's a lot less bike lanes in Portland than you realize. they've moved well beyond the bike lane into more far-reaching plans for bicycling expediency.

The bike lanes are there on some of the high speed arterials. It sounds like San Diego has a lot of bike lanes too, maybe even more than Portland.....
...(I'm) now living in San Diego, where there are bike lanes on most of the surface streets

I think the bus driver is griping because Hawthore is currently under construction restrictions, limiting the (non bike laned) hilly portions to one lane of traffic and assertive cyclists taking the whole lane.

I'm probably one of the bicyclists the bus driver was griping about :D, I'm pretty sure I held up a couple of buses on my rides up Hawthorne this last week.

actually, mr. Head, there's a lot less bike lanes in Portland than you realize. they've moved well beyond the bike lane into more far-reaching plans for bicycling expediency.

The bike lanes are there on some of the high speed arterials. It sounds like San Diego has a lot of bike lanes too, maybe even more than Portland.....

I think the bus driver is griping because Hawthore is currently under construction restrictions, limiting the (non bike laned) hilly portions to one lane of traffic and assertive cyclists taking the whole lane.

I'm probably one of the bicyclists the bus driver was griping about :D, I'm pretty sure I held up a couple of buses on my rides up Hawthorne this last week.
I sometimes go out on recreational rides on Hawthorne, just to let the motorists and bus drivers know that 'bikes belong', and that every street is a bike route.

To be fair HH, Portland seems to have a helluva lot more cyclists doing daily battle than the average city.
More cyclists = more whiny motorists*.

* of course the idiots don't realize that if all those bikers where in cars, it would only slow them down more.

The one in the Ladd's Addition neighborhood isn't the same sort of traffic circle. Here (http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/LaddCircleTrafficControlPDO.jpg), let the engineer explain it.


Holy Shiite.
Are you telling me it would cost $11,000 to change the signs and paint?

Ahhh... government work. No wonder so many nere-do-wells enter the profession.

Its funny the people who are inconvenienced the least in realty
are the ones who generally make it hard for cyclists. Realistically,
how long and how much effort does it take to slow for a cyclist ??
Drivers need to get a grip on reality and realize the 2 to maybe 15
second average they might have to yield or slow for a cyclist does
not mean the world will end shortly.

Holy Shiite.
Are you telling me it would cost $11,000 to change the signs and paint?
Personally, I think the sign and paint option would not be so good. This "traffic circle" is in a quiet neighborhood with more than just cars and bikes. There are lots and lots of pedestrians. Old ones, young ones, leashed (and unleashed) ones, sick ones, etc. The center of the circle is a little park that people like to go to. There's a little cafe where people like to get something to drink, a video store, and a Pilates studio that seems to have an alarming number of pregnant ladies waddling in and out of at various times of the day. I would not support any plan that would include cars not having to stop. I would also be apprehensive about any plan that would not require cyclists to slow down at the very least. While that circle is on my daily work commute route, I also walk it as a pedestrian almost every day. I have seen too many near misses between cyclists who don't even want to slow down and pedestrians who certainly have the right of way. I've also been nearly hit by 2 cyclists who did not slow down. I do realize that had I been hit, I would have most likely not died, but I sure would have been in a world of pain, and I'm not old, infirm, pregnant, or a small child.

Yes. Sometimes when I am approaching a bus at a bus stop, I will stop and wait for the bus to leave rather than pass it and risk initiating a game of leap frog.
I'll wait if I think the bus is about to leave, but other than that, I generally won't because I know I know I'd just get stuck behind the bus at the next stop, too. It's fun looking in your rearview mirror and seeing the bus slowly get farther and farther behind.

I'll wait if I think the bus is about to leave, but other than that, I generally won't because I know I know I'd just get stuck behind the bus at the next stop, too. It's fun looking in your rearview mirror and seeing the bus slowly get farther and farther behind.
thats fun. but A bus stopepd at a corner to let someone on and I was doing 25mph to pass it and a idot desided to cross the street when he could not see if anyone was coming. I had fun stopping in time and I was glad I was on my bent.

Um, hello grasshopper. Buses always have the right of way. It is generally law many places- although compliance is often right up their with, well, yielding to peds in crosswalks. If the bus driver is signaling, she can pull out right in front of you--- and YOU must yield. It is the law. Not necessarily a good law.


Speaking only as a driver of a car. If the bus driver is against bikes then bikes must be OK. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Busses regularly pull out in front of me without looking or even after seeing me. If bike bother them because they have to actually pay attention I say it is a good thing for drivers, perhaps they will at least pay enough attention to see the SUVs.

Um, hello grasshopper. Buses always have the right of way. It is generally law many places- although compliance is often right up their with, well, yielding to peds in crosswalks. If the bus driver is signaling, she can pull out right in front of you--- and YOU must yield. It is the law. Not necessarily a good law.
Maybe the laws might be a little different where Keith99 lives, than Norway laws. In the US, buses do not have special rights of way, except for using bus only lanes. There is a mandatory stop requirement with school buses when their stop lights are flashing, but we are not talking about school buses here, are we.

The latter. The busses are too large to fit in the 9.5' lanes so they take up both lanes. The busses are both held up by cars in either lane when they are rolling and block at least one lane when they make a stop. Except for the uphill portion of the route (eastbound from SE 12th to SE 28) an average or above cyclist can generally keep up with traffic reasonably well, especially when it's congested. The posted speed limit is 30mph, reduced to 25 mph in the central business district.

The average daily vehicle count on this arterial is 20,000 VPD.

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the bus route? If it's that narrow, the buses are the impediment, not bikes.

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the bus route? If it's that narrow, the buses are the impediment, not bikes.
The alternative would be to run it on quiet residential streets that are far narrower. Also, this is one of the most heavily used bus routes in the metro area. Get on one of these buses, and it's almost always full.

Maybe the laws might be a little different where Keith99 lives, than Norway laws. In the US, buses do not have special rights of way, except for using bus only lanes. There is a mandatory stop requirement with school buses when their stop lights are flashing, but we are not talking about school buses here, are we.
In Portland the busses do indeed have the right of way. They even have a rear-facing flashing yield sign the driver can turn on, to inform overtaking motorists that they are supposed to yield and let the bus pull out in front of them. On many streets, including SE Hawthorne Blvd., there are curb extensions at the bus stops, and the busses actually stop in the lane.

I have only lived most of my life in the US. I suggest you google bus right of way laws before chalking this up to some foreigner who has no clue about US law. You might want to check the laws in your home state/country.



Maybe the laws might be a little different where Keith99 lives, than Norway laws. In the US, buses do not have special rights of way, except for using bus only lanes. There is a mandatory stop requirement with school buses when their stop lights are flashing, but we are not talking about school buses here, are we.

there are curb extensions at the bus stops, and the busses actually stop in the lane.


Curb extensions suck.

Curb extensions suck.
I tend to agree, but they are a high priority 'pedestrian improvement' and the bus company likes them too, so cyclists lose on both counts.

In Portland the busses do indeed have the right of way. They even have a rear-facing flashing yield sign the driver can turn on, to inform overtaking motorists that they are supposed to yield and let the bus pull out in front of them. On many streets, including SE Hawthorne Blvd., there are curb extensions at the bus stops, and the busses actually stop in the lane.
In Hawaii, the buses do not have any such special right of way (ROW). When I lived in WA, CT, MD, VA, Washington DC, CA, WY, CO, FL, ID, GA none had a special ROW.
So it would seem a blanket statement on either side, would be incorrect. It is good to learn new things!
Might be a new trend. I do see NJ has an Effective August 1, 2004 law.
EDIT: randya - Is that a Portland law or is it for all of OR?
Filtersweep, how many states or cities currently have this special bus ROW?

WA state overtaking traffic must yield to buses merging.

randya - Is that a Portland law or is it for all of OR?
Not sure, but generally traffic law is promulgated at the state level.

State law in Oregon

811.167 Failure to yield right of way to transit bus; rules; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to yield the right of way to a transit bus entering traffic if the person does not yield the right of way to a transit bus when:

(a) A yield sign as described in subsection (2) of this section is displayed on the back of the transit bus;

(b) The person is operating a vehicle that is overtaking the transit bus from the rear of the transit bus; and

(c) The transit bus, after stopping to receive or discharge passengers, is signaling an intention to enter the traffic lane occupied by the person.

(2) The yield sign referred to in subsection (1)(a) of this section shall warn a person operating a motor vehicle approaching the rear of a transit bus that the person must yield when the transit bus is entering traffic. The yield sign shall be illuminated by a flashing light when the bus is signaling an intention to enter a traffic lane after stopping to receive or discharge passengers. The Oregon Transportation Commission shall adopt by rule the message on the yield sign, specifications for the size, shape, color, lettering and illumination of the sign and specifications for the placement of the sign on a transit bus.

(3) This section does not relieve a driver of a transit bus from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the roadway.

(4) As used in this section, “transit bus” means a commercial bus operated by a city, a mass transit district established under ORS 267.010 to 267.390 or a transportation district established under ORS 267.510 to 267.650.

(5) The offense described in this section, failure to yield the right of way to a transit bus entering traffic, is a Class D traffic violation. [1997 c.509 §2]

Thanks Bek, randya & Dogbait