Living Car Free - How do the suburbs improve bicycle infrastructure?

I attended a meeting of the West Des Moines Bike Plan committee last week. The idea here is to help the city develop a good Bicycle Plan for future development.

Problem is that West Des Moines is primarily a suburb. It's consists of a small downtown with grid-type streets and then a complete mess of winding street suburbs, huge mega-malls, major speedway arterials, very little in the way of public transit and occasionally not great even for pedestrians.

The city has hired a company with a lot of experience in bike infrastructure (Alta Planning (http://www.altaplanning.com/)), but I have the impression that even they see the city layout as a big challenge.

What infrastructure features have you seen in suburbs that make them more bike friendly?

Often subdivisions have sections which sprout off a main road like separate petals of a flower, and cars can only enter and exit at the base - this is to stop too much through traffic. However if they can provide pass throughs for pedestrians and bikes, it helps create shortcuts which avoid cyclists having to use the main roads. Unfortunately, the residents may resist this as they assume the riff raff will come through that way.

I have not seen any, but I have an idea that might work for the suburb where I work: The Parallel Universe of Biking (PUB). I work in a suburb that has no real downtown, hardly any public transit, a freeway that cuts right through the middle, and several arterial streets. Between the arterial streets is the standard suburban mess of winding streets.

The main streets (four lanes, two in each direction, 35 MPH speed limit, no extra width to aid biking) divide the city into a coarse grid. There are about half a dozen in the north-south direction, and in the east-west direction. Inside each rectangle formed by these streets, one can move around by bike safely, but the streets inside these rectangles don't form nice grids. They don't go all the way through, they might be cut off by a park, they might wind around and dead-end. Because of the lack of the grid, if one wants to move from one rectangle into another, one not only has to cross the busy dividing street (not a big deal in itself), but one has to go out onto the perpendicular busy dividing street to do it. You have to go on a busy street to cross a busy street.

So, to the PUB. You could try this in your town and see what you get.

Imagine laying a transparency on top of a street map of the city. Take a marker, and draw lines on all those major speedway arterials. See if you get anything approaching a grid. Then, move the transparency a distance of half a rectangle in both the X and Y directions. Now the lines you drew will fall somewhere else.

Look at what is under where those lines on the transparency fall. See if there are any streets there, or near. Those are going to be the bike routes of the PUB. Because of the nature of the suburban street plan, the streets under your lines are not going to be nice bike routes from one side of the city to the other. There will be things in the way; dead-ends, parks, shopping areas, office complexes. To make the PUB, find all those spots where the proposed bike route is cut off, and fix those spots. At a park, put in a paved path across the park. At a major street, put in a button-activated stop light. At a freeway, build a pedestrian bridge (just an idea; those things cost a lot of money). If one of the obstructions is some major business complex, it might be possible to negotiate some sort of right-of-way through it.

The goal of the PUB is to make as many bike routes across the city as there are major arterial streets, but the bike routes will not be on those major streets. They will be parallel to them, between them. A person can move around the city as easily as he could if he were on the major streets, but he won't be on them. He will be existing in a parallel universe, the Parallel Universe of Biking.

The reasoning behind this approach is that it would cost a huge amount of money to try to turn an American suburb into something like Amsterdam. Even if you did, would enough people use it, or would it be a waste of money. Little fixes, connecting discontinuities in existing streets, might make a huge difference for those people who are interested in traveling more by bike.

In Dayton we have an amazing network of MUPaths. They are very close to being what I would consider bicycle freeways. The key for the suburbs would be to provide access to those MUP. I think this could be done by 1. Utilizing the residential streets. 2. Providing cycling crosswalks at major intersections, making it easier for cyclists to ride up and trigger a light. 3. Create a bicycle commuting map that would be both in paper and on-line form. 4. Creating access over difficult sections.

Since most suburbs were designed with the automobile in mind they often have wider streets. Since they are primarily residential in nature they have many alternative routes through neighborhoods that urban streets don't provide. In the suburb I live in often the biggest challenge is negotiating a few crossings or a few major streets. On our MUP we already have cycling crossings I think we should extend that to routes that would get us quickly and easily to our MUPaths. We often get into the "street most traveled mode" as the quickest way to get from one point to the next. When cycling its often quicker and definitely safer to take an alternative route (thus the concept of bicycle maps instead of mere street maps). Our suburbs are working to connect the missing pieces to our MUPath structure. Once complete it should be much easier to get to a MUP which could take you to other parts of the city. The great part about this "freeway system" is that there are no cars and the grades are never over 2%. Dayton's MUP systems greatest flaw is it is still based on a hub and spoke concept (with two hubs in Dayton and Xenia, kind of like a bicycle). They need connectors between the suburbs.

I can't speak to other cities but with a reasonable investment Dayton and it's suburbs could be well served by bicycles.

Connect adjacent suburban neighborhoods with short MUPs. Maybe use existing public easements. Do it as incremental small projects. Justify each connection in terms of recreational amenity and improving property values. Do the easiest ones first.

Often subdivisions have sections which sprout off a main road like separate petals of a flower, and cars can only enter and exit at the base - this is to stop too much through traffic. However if they can provide pass throughs for pedestrians and bikes, it helps create shortcuts which avoid cyclists having to use the main roads. Unfortunately, the residents may resist this as they assume the riff raff will come through that way.


Connect adjacent suburban neighborhoods with short MUPs. Maybe use existing public easements. Do it as incremental small projects. Justify each connection in terms of recreational amenity and improving property values. Do the easiest ones first.

I think these are great ideas. I also like the idea of bike shortcuts behind the shopping malls and big box stores, connecting them all together. These are relatively cheap and easy fixes for the short term.

OTOH, in most areas at least some of the major destinations are going to be right on the main arterial roads. Until people can ride comfortably on the arterials themselves, cyclists will be second-class citizens. Long-term, I think we need a permanent fix like complete streets.

In this Florida suburbs you have buses that can carry bikes. You lock your bike on the front of the bus and away you go.

This makes it easier to go to the other side of town where service is not available. You basically get as close as the bus will take you and cycle the rest of the distance.

The negative about this though is that it can only hold maybe 3-4 bikes. If you're the 4-5th biker though, the bus driver will let you bring your bike on board but the bus is so small that you take up a fair amount of room. I've never seen more than one bike in the bus too. Something tells me the 6-7th biker is out of luck. The bus does take power wheel chair users and they naturally take priority.

Of course, you can only use this option when the bus is operating and the buses here have banker's hours.

Of course trike and recumbent riders are totally out of luck. No accomondation at all.

Long-term, I think we need a permanent fix like complete streets.

I just can't see how you could implement a Complete Streets strategy on one of those suburban arterials with big residential feeders. There's just too much traffic and it gets worse when the arterials are also fed by traffic coming off the Interstate or other freeways. It might be possible if there were adjacent roadways or some type of grid-pattern to the road layout.

I like Platy's idea about interconnecting neighbourhoods with short MUPs. This sounds like a "bicycle highway" type concept where the winding surburban streets could be clearly marked so that the cyclist would know the street actually goes somewhere. On my trip to the bike meeting, I googled a bike route which lead me through a very winding residential roadway. I had no idea it existed, but when the map showed me where to go, I realized it was a very serviceable route.

Of course, these route normally lead nowhere, which is what short MUPs might do for it.

Edit: actually, I also what ndbiker suggested, but was completely lost about the PUB system that swwhite mentions.

I just can't see how you could implement a Complete Streets strategy on one of those suburban arterials with big residential feeders.
Can you pick a typical example, viewable on Google Maps, that we can discuss? It would be convenient if the example isn't one of the worst case scenarios.

Okay, here's a map showing a a bike trip across a section of older suburbs of Toronto. Two friends of one of my kids live at the ends of this path. The kid in Downsview has to cross under Highway 401 at Dufferin, somehow get around Yorkdale Mall (nestled in the corner between mile 1 and 2, or km 2 and 2) and then cross the Allen Expressway. The section of Dufferin under the 401 is wickedly congested and has freeway on and off ramps to contend with, and then a busy shopping mall which has an underpass as well. A kid got killed biking on the sidewalk there a couple of years ago, by a driver turning into the mall. The last section, Ranee, is not too bad- it goes under the Allen Expressway and is not too busy, so either as is, or with a bike lane added, it makes that part of the route tolerable., But how to get past the 401 and Yorkdale? URL for this route is: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=3697231

If the map appears squashed, try refreshing the page. If you want to use google maps, try entering the keywords Yorkdale Mall, Toronto.
[/QUOTE]

...Yorkdale Mall...
What about using Wilson to cross Allen and Bathurst to cross 401? There are also a few opportunities to get off onto parallel residential streets along the way.

What about using Wilson to cross Allen and Bathurst to cross 401? There are also a few opportunities to get off onto parallel residential streets along the way.

At the moment Wilson is badly rutted and potholed and has a lot of strip malls which are hazardous for bikes due to entering and exiting traffic. The section between Dufferin and the Allen has big box mall (Costco, Home Depot) on the south side with bad traffic jams around it. At least there are no freeway ramps as the access to the Allen is a mile or two north.

There might be a possibility to route a bike path south of Costco along Billy Bishop Way, then it would curve up to Wilson to go under the Allen, and then back south to the edge of the 401 for a little way. Eventually you have to cope with a freeway exit just before Bathurst. Southbound on Bathurst there are no freeway ramps, which is good, but northbound there is an entrance ramp the cyclist would have to cross.

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=3697328

By the way, the city cycling committee's map (see section 2, coordinates H-15)) shows nothing in this area:
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/map/pdf/map02.pdf

...Yorkdale Mall...
My neighborhood has several mixmaster type arterial intersections. My urban riding methods would probably shock and dismay the other posters here. Having said that, here's what I'd do.

I can't see good enough detail on Google Street View, but it looks like there possibly two short MUPs or cut throughs which connect side streets in the Bathurst/Marquette area. You'd have to check them out in person to know for sure.

1 - An unbuilt section of Rajah which connects Baycrest to Neptune through a parking lot (medical center?)

2 - A private road (?) and a possible easement (?) which goes from the intersection of Neptune and Hotspur, north to Marquette. Can't see whether there's a fence or not.

Anyway, I'd go north on the side streets to either Marquette or Hotspur, then north on the sidewalk of Bathurst (yes, wrong way), crossing busy intersections as a pedestrian if necessary. This would let me cross 401 without having to cross the freeway ramp.

I'd consider this to be one of the worse case urban situations. That highway 401 rivals the Great Wall of China in being an effective barrier to pedestrians. On a philosophical note I see there's a big mural painted on the side of 401 at Bathurst which seems to express someone's wish for the 401 barrier to disappear.

I'd suggest putting bike/pedestrian paths to connect up the cul-de-sacs and shopping centers, with readily available mappage and signage.

I agree that at first some of the homeowners might object in anticipation of the riff-raff it might attract, but once you got a few in, people would see how well it worked.

Can you pick a typical example, viewable on Google Maps, that we can discuss? It would be convenient if the example isn't one of the worst case scenarios.

Okay... this was the route I took between my workplace and city hall to attend the Bike Plan meeting :http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=3700046

I don't live in this city, but commute from the center of Des Moines... features of this route:

- 50th Street one of the heavily travelled North/south arterials, very busy at 5:00. I started out on the sidewalk bike path, but it degenerated into a sidewalk.
- Wistful Vista Drive, which Google maps suggested. Quiet residential street. But pretty easy to get lost in.
- 39th Street leads into City Hall

distance: 3 miles

I guess this is not the worst route. But if you scout around, you'll see why the layout is a challenge for bicycles. Most of the North South routes are pretty busy. East/West routes are usually narrow and busy. No great options for side-streets. Most bicycle paths are the older, "sidewalk" style (basically wide sidewalks...)

Okay... this was the route I took between my workplace and city hall to attend the Bike Plan meeting :http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=3700046

I don't live in this city, but commute from the center of Des Moines... features of this route:

- 50th Street one of the heavily travelled North/south arterials, very busy at 5:00. I started out on the sidewalk bike path, but it degenerated into a sidewalk.
- Wistful Vista Drive, which Google maps suggested. Quiet residential street. But pretty easy to get lost in.
- 39th Street leads into City Hall

distance: 3 miles

I guess this is not the worst route. But if you scout around, you'll see why the layout is a challenge for bicycles. Most of the North South routes are pretty busy. East/West routes are usually narrow and busy. No great options for side-streets. Most bicycle paths are the older, "sidewalk" style (basically wide sidewalks...)
My first impression is that your arterial roadways are underbuilt in the sense that they are too narrow for simply adding bike lanes. On the other hand, the sidewalks seem to be overbuilt and underutilized. You've got superb pedestrian accommodations -- but nobody seems to be out walking. Your sidewalk network is close to forming a parallel transportation system. The problem for bikes is, as we all know, the uncontrolled way in which cars cross sidewalks.

The worst offender in the suburbs IMO are the interchanges between freeways and surface arterials. They typically are angled merges and diverges that are controlled by Merge or Yield signs. You have to cross through a wide "throat" of fast moving traffic while checking behind you on both sides.

They are difficult for cyclists and almost impossible for pedestrians. Bike lanes and sidewalks do not help one bit.

There are only 2 solutions that I can think of. First is to make freeway/arterial interchanges like the "old-fashioned" 90 degree intersections, controlled by traffic signals. The sedond is to build a separate parallel bridge over the freeway for bikes and walking.

The worst offender in the suburbs IMO are the interchanges between freeways and surface arterials. They typically are angled merges and diverges that are controlled by Merge or Yield signs. You have to cross through a wide "throat" of fast moving traffic while checking behind you on both sides.

They are difficult for cyclists and almost impossible for pedestrians. Bike lanes and sidewalks do not help one bit.

There are only 2 solutions that I can think of. First is to make freeway/arterial interchanges like the "old-fashioned" 90 degree intersections, controlled by traffic signals. The sedond is to build a separate parallel bridge over the freeway for bikes and walking.
If one of the intersecting arterials is below grade and the other is elevated above grade, the access (frontage) roads can be at grade with signalized intersections. With this design, bike/ped and local traffic at grade can coexist fairly well.

There are only 2 solutions that I can think of. First is to make freeway/arterial interchanges like the "old-fashioned" 90 degree intersections, controlled by traffic signals. The sedond is to build a separate parallel bridge over the freeway for bikes and walking.

Des Moines, sister city of the suburb, somehow finagled a series of these pedestrian bridges over the freeway during the last freeway upgrade. I must say, they are just *wonderful*. For one thing, they are accessed through quiet residential streets. Another is that they are positioned next to major arterial overpasses, just far enough away to avoid the chaos,


My first impression is that your arterial roadways are underbuilt in the sense that they are too narrow for simply adding bike lanes. On the other hand, the sidewalks seem to be overbuilt and underutilized. You've got superb pedestrian accommodations -- but nobody seems to be out walking. Your sidewalk network is close to forming a parallel transportation system. The problem for bikes is, as we all know, the uncontrolled way in which cars cross sidewalks.

Yes, you describe it precisely. Sidewalks do exist adjacent to the arterials, but there is very little foot traffic. Which is usually a symptom of several other issues (mainly the fact that things are too spread out for walking, but also that walking isn't part of the culture...).

An idea you mentioned earlier, building MUPs between residential clusters, would probably not work either unless the city were to either tunnel under or bridge over existing freeways.

Where current arterials do exist, things are probably too scary for the majority of cyclists. One problem I notice is that traffic coming down the merge lanes is moving way too fast. And the speed is generally infectious for other car traffic on the arterials. As you approach an intersection like this, you can expect to see a lot of cars moving at 50-60mph... even though the speed limit is 35.

[West Des Moines]...building MUPs between residential clusters, would probably not work either unless the city were to either tunnel under or bridge over existing freeways.
I have zero local knowledge of your area but I looked around for a reasonable example. South of about 4880 Cedar Drive, there appears to be an unbuildable flood channel between residential properties where storm water drains from Cedar Drive to a couple of floodwater detention ponds. There appears to be some kind of walkway separating two of the detention ponds. It's not shown on Google Maps whether there is sufficient public property surrounding the detention ponds to allow a greenbelt type of MUP to be defined between Cedar Drive and Ashworth. But this is the kind of situation I was talking about. I was looking in that area for ways to create a bike route parallel to 50th St. Of course sooner or later you'll run into that railroad track, but that's another kind of problem.

Detention ponds south of Cedar Drive (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&q=west+des+moines&fb=1&gl=us&ei=eRfiS42WE42MzASPu72dCw&ved=0CBgQpQY&view=map&geocode=FfxqegIdHBRq-g&split=0&sll=41.548965,-93.773111&sspn=0.103075,0.150018&hq=&hnear=West+Des+Moines,+Polk,+Iowa&t=h&ll=41.585184,-93.767881&spn=0.003447,0.005456&z=18)

The worst offender in the suburbs IMO are the interchanges between freeways and surface arterials. They typically are angled merges and diverges that are controlled by Merge or Yield signs. You have to cross through a wide "throat" of fast moving traffic while checking behind you on both sides.

They are difficult for cyclists and almost impossible for pedestrians. Bike lanes and sidewalks do not help one bit.

There are only 2 solutions that I can think of. First is to make freeway/arterial interchanges like the "old-fashioned" 90 degree intersections, controlled by traffic signals. The sedond is to build a separate parallel bridge over the freeway for bikes and walking.

If we have to have freeways, and I guess according to the Robert Fosters of the world, we do, then we should lobby for the adoption of a building standard that they should have pedestrian and bike overpasses or underpasses at regular intervals, and midway between, or at least separate from, car interchanges with on and off ramps.

I have zero local knowledge of your area but I looked around for a reasonable example. South of about 4880 Cedar Drive, there appears to be an unbuildable flood channel between residential properties where storm water drains from Cedar Drive to a couple of floodwater detention ponds. There appears to be some kind of walkway separating two of the detention ponds. It's not shown on Google Maps whether there is sufficient public property surrounding the detention ponds to allow a greenbelt type of MUP to be defined between Cedar Drive and Ashworth. But this is the kind of situation I was talking about. I was looking in that area for ways to create a bike route parallel to 50th St. Of course sooner or later you'll run into that railroad track, but that's another kind of problem.

Detention ponds south of Cedar Drive (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&q=west+des+moines&fb=1&gl=us&ei=eRfiS42WE42MzASPu72dCw&ved=0CBgQpQY&view=map&geocode=FfxqegIdHBRq-g&split=0&sll=41.548965,-93.773111&sspn=0.103075,0.150018&hq=&hnear=West+Des+Moines,+Polk,+Iowa&t=h&ll=41.585184,-93.767881&spn=0.003447,0.005456&z=18)

Yes.. I see what you mean. This might work if you could string together enough of these. But, as you say, there are serious road blocks like the railroad tracks or the two freeways that cut off neighborhoods.

But then there's the issue of the homeowners themselves. There's a reason why Cedar Drive is semi-circular and I believe the reason to be the owners desire to keep all kinds of traffic... cars... peds... bikes... out of their area. I'm not actually familiar with this area, but have biked through such neighborhoods before. The residents are quite surprised to see you and not all that welcoming.

Yes.. I see what you mean. This might work if you could string together enough of these. But, as you say, there are serious road blocks like the railroad tracks or the two freeways that cut off neighborhoods.

But then there's the issue of the homeowners themselves. There's a reason why Cedar Drive is semi-circular and I believe the reason to be the owners desire to keep all kinds of traffic... cars... peds... bikes... out of their area. I'm not actually familiar with this area, but have biked through such neighborhoods before. The residents are quite surprised to see you and not all that welcoming.
That's why you'd propose it as a little neighborhood dog walking park or something that just happens to have rustic trails leading to it from two adjacent neighborhoods. [Edit to add: if the local residents are averse to outsiders, emphasize that no additional parking will be provided and that access to the park will be by walking and bike only.]

So looking for something easier...how about a bike/ped connection between 39th/Ep True and Mills Civic Parkway? Looks like it's an unbuilt segment of 39th that goes by the electrical substation. The deal here is that it would come close to completing what appears to be a lower traffic bike route from IH-35/235 to the city hall via Prairie View Dr to what appears to be a MUP parallel to the RR track, then east to 39th.

That's why you'd propose it as a little neighborhood dog walking park or something that just happens to have rustic trails leading to it from two adjacent neighborhoods. [Edit to add: if the local residents are averse to outsiders, emphasize that no additional parking will be provided and that access to the park will be by walking and bike only.]


I guess that's how you would sell it :)



So looking for something easier...how about a bike/ped connection between 39th/Ep True and Mills Civic Parkway? Looks like it's an unbuilt segment of 39th that goes by the electrical substation. The deal here is that it would come close to completing what appears to be a lower traffic bike route from IH-35/235 to the city hall via Prairie View Dr to what appears to be a MUP parallel to the RR track, then east to 39th.

Interesting that you found this existing MUP leading from City Hall , under the I-35 and ending at Prairie View drive. I didn't know it existed and apparently Google maps didn't find it when I got their route to City Hall. The street where it ends (Prairie Drive) appears to be pretty low traffic (no cars in the photo) so it might become part of a route. However, as you head north, you'll run into I-80 and the options there are fewer. I see on possible bridge (it might be a catwalk) a little more to the West... as Prairie Drive becomes Vista Drive. (I like these imaginative names :))

It's a real pity in that this section of I-80 was "upgraded" less than 10 years ago and West Des Moines ended up with few under or over passes. A similar upgrade to the freeway through Des Moines netted the city several pretty neat pedestrian bridges. These really make the freeway a lot less like a wide, impassible obstacle.

BTW, I did pass along this thread to the consultants/planners, so, Platy, if you get a call, it's probably a head hunter. :)

Okay then, there's one other special safety issue I noticed with West Des Moines. At every arterial intersection I looked at, the rightmost lanes combine both right turning traffic and straight-through traffic.

This means that right turning traffic stacks up behind straight-through traffic at red lights. When the light turns green (which is when sidewalk pedestrians and bikes on the right side of the road are supposed to cross), there is a certain fraction of motorized traffic which is guaranteed to be crossing the paths of the bikes and peds.

I think it's safer at the intersection of two arterials to have dedicated right turn lanes that bypass the traffic signal. You know, where a right turn lane splits off, curves around before the traffic signal, and then yield-merges with the other arterial. There is typically a little median island separating the right turn lane from the intersection, where bikes and peds wait for the green light. It's a little hard to pick out in this photo but if you look closely you can see it:

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/pndslr/rtl-1.jpg

Bikes/peds still have to cross the right turn lane, but I think it's safer with the right turning traffic isolated from the actual intersection.

Okay then, there's one other special safety issue I noticed with West Des Moines. At every arterial intersection I looked at, the rightmost lanes combine both right turning traffic and straight-through traffic.

This means that right turning traffic stacks up behind straight-through traffic at red lights. When the light turns green (which is when sidewalk pedestrians and bikes on the right side of the road are supposed to cross), there is a certain fraction of motorized traffic which is guaranteed to be crossing the paths of the bikes and peds.

I think it's safer at the intersection of two arterials to have dedicated right turn lanes that bypass the traffic signal. You know, where a right turn lane splits off, curves around before the traffic signal, and then yield-merges with the other arterial. There is typically a little median island separating the right turn lane from the intersection, where bikes and peds wait for the green light. It's a little hard to pick out in this photo but if you look closely you can see it:

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/pndslr/rtl-1.jpg

Bikes/peds still have to cross the right turn lane, but I think it's safer with the right turning traffic isolated from the actual intersection.

I disagree. This intersection is difficult for pedstrians and cyclists who are on the cross street in the photo. (That is, travelling from the lefthand side of the photo to the righthand side.) After going through the main intersection, they still have to check for traffic merging from behind themselves, while at the same time paying attention to parallel traffic overtaking them. At this type of intersection, you almost always see peds running across the little merge, while older and slower peds will totally avoid walking in the area.

The best solution for bikes and walkers, IMO, is to return to the "old-fashioned" squared off intersections, where all traffic is required to stop for red lights. Then throw in a red light that allows no turns (by cars) on red lights while the "Walk" signals are on. Right turns on red are a good deal for cars and even bikes, but they can be deadly for pedestrians.

I disagree. This intersection is difficult for pedstrians and cyclists who are on the cross street in the photo. (That is, travelling from the lefthand side of the photo to the righthand side.) After going through the main intersection, they still have to check for traffic merging from behind themselves, while at the same time paying attention to parallel traffic overtaking them. At this type of intersection, you almost always see peds running across the little merge, while older and slower peds will totally avoid walking in the area.

The best solution for bikes and walkers, IMO, is to return to the "old-fashioned" squared off intersections, where all traffic is required to stop for red lights. Then throw in a red light that allows no turns (by cars) on red lights while the "Walk" signals are on. Right turns on red are a good deal for cars and even bikes, but they can be deadly for pedestrians.

I understand your objection, which has considerable merit. My assumption is that the right on red option will be maintained in most places.

Dedicated free right turn lanes could be enhanced by signage indicating "Yield to bikes & peds", or crosswalks on distinctively colored and slightly elevated speed cushions (fractional height speed bumps).

I disagree. This intersection is difficult for pedstrians and cyclists who are on the cross street in the photo. (That is, travelling from the lefthand side of the photo to the righthand side.) After going through the main intersection, they still have to check for traffic merging from behind themselves, while at the same time paying attention to parallel traffic overtaking them. At this type of intersection, you almost always see peds running across the little merge, while older and slower peds will totally avoid walking in the area.

The best solution for bikes and walkers, IMO, is to return to the "old-fashioned" squared off intersections, where all traffic is required to stop for red lights. Then throw in a red light that allows no turns (by cars) on red lights while the "Walk" signals are on. Right turns on red are a good deal for cars and even bikes, but they can be deadly for pedestrians.

I agree. I have an intersection near my home like this one. Luckily I have the option a couple blocks down which allows me to cross at a regular square intersection. I'll choose that one as a cyclist or a pedestrian every time.

I agree. I have an intersection near my home like this one. Luckily I have the option a couple blocks down which allows me to cross at a regular square intersection. I'll choose that one as a cyclist or a pedestrian every time.
If those two intersections are available on Google Street View, I'd like to look at them and get a comparison. In general, I also prefer to cross arterials at signalized intersections with lightly trafficked streets when possible. It's not because the intersections are squared off, though, it's more because there's less traffic likely to be turning left or right across my path.

If those two intersections are available on Google Street View, I'd like to look at them and get a comparison. In general, I also prefer to cross arterials at signalized intersections with lightly trafficked streets when possible. It's not because the intersections are squared off, though, it's more because there's less traffic likely to be turning left or right across my path.

I'm somewhat technologically challenged, so though I was able to view it on Google Maps, I am not sure how to create a link. The intersection is at Whipp Road and Far Hills Ave. in Dayton, OH. South of that intersection is a road called Boundbrook which also has stop light. I can meander my way through the neighborhoods pretty well without having to use a heavily trafficked street. Boundbrook is just the kind of street you were mentioning. It's a lightly traveled residential street and other than having to be patient at the light is just much easier to cross. About 1.5 miles east on Whipp is a MUP that will someday be connected to the rest of the Miami Valley Recreational Trails. The Google maps are a bit behind because that section is completed now. On the map photo it's just dirt.

I'm somewhat technologically challenged, so though I was able to view it on Google Maps, I am not sure how to create a link. The intersection is at Whipp Road and Far Hills Ave. in Dayton, OH. South of that intersection is a road called Boundbrook which also has stop light. I can meander my way through the neighborhoods pretty well without having to use a heavily trafficked street. Boundbrook is just the kind of street you were mentioning. It's a lightly traveled residential street and other than having to be patient at the light is just much easier to cross. About 1.5 miles east on Whipp is a MUP that will someday be connected to the rest of the Miami Valley Recreational Trails. The Google maps are a bit behind because that section is completed now. On the map photo it's just dirt.

The example of Whipp Road and Far Hills illustrates what Platy suggested I think.

Far Hills Ave & W Whipp Rd, Dayton, OH 45429 (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=Whipp+Road+and+Far+Hills+Ave.+in+Dayton,+OH&fb=1&gl=us&ei=cpPkS_amHoL2M9nC4YEN&ved=0CBEQpQY&hl=en&view=map&geocode=FbslXQIdO9v7-g&split=0&sll=39.658939,-84.157637&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&hq=&hnear=Far+Hills+Ave+%26+W+Whipp+Rd,+Dayton,+Montgomery,+Ohio&ll=39.658666,-84.157272&spn=0.001712,0.004128&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A)

I think the intersection type is driven by car volume. This doesn't look like a road I would like to walk on and I could see why there aren't any peds in the satellite photo. (Also, there's no sidewalk at all heading north...)

[Edit: one thing I don't like about this type of intersection is that the angle allow cars to proceed through without actually slowing down. I bet the majority of drivers coming through are focussed on their left side -- looking for oncoming cars-- and probably less aware of peds or whatever might be trying to cross.]

BounderBrook is just South of this.,, and yes a nicer commuting road... if it actually gets you somewhere.

The example of Whipp Road and Far Hills illustrates what Platy suggested I think.

Far Hills Ave & W Whipp Rd, Dayton, OH 45429 (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=Whipp+Road+and+Far+Hills+Ave.+in+Dayton,+OH&fb=1&gl=us&ei=cpPkS_amHoL2M9nC4YEN&ved=0CBEQpQY&hl=en&view=map&geocode=FbslXQIdO9v7-g&split=0&sll=39.658939,-84.157637&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&hq=&hnear=Far+Hills+Ave+%26+W+Whipp+Rd,+Dayton,+Montgomery,+Ohio&ll=39.658666,-84.157272&spn=0.001712,0.004128&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A)

I think the intersection type is driven by car volume. This doesn't look like a road I would like to walk on and I could see why there aren't any peds in the satellite photo. (Also, there's no sidewalk at all heading north...)

BounderBrook is just South of this.,, and yes a nicer commuting road... if it actually gets you somewhere.
Good point.... If a city wants to reduce car congestion by making bikes a serious part of the mix, it's going to have to make major arterials comfortable to cyclists, because most of the important destinations are on those big and busy streets. Until then, we cyclists can only find alternate routes, hone our traffic skills. and be activists for positive changes.

...The intersection is at Whipp Road and Far Hills Ave. in Dayton, OH. South of that intersection is a road called Boundbrook which also has stop light. I can meander my way through the neighborhoods pretty well without having to use a heavily trafficked street...
Something to notice about this area is the small creek that runs from west to east parallel to Boundbrook. It costs money to build creek crossings, so often there aren't enough of them. In many cases the only creek crossing in an area is the major arterial. When that happens, cyclists are forced to ride on the arterial.

Lack of secondary creek crossings such as at Shadybrook and Seton Hill is one of the big reasons there might be no bikeable parallel route in an area. Sometimes it is possible to create a relatively inexpensive bike/ped bridge between residential streets to establish bike/ped connectivity between neighborhoods. Some bike/ped bridges could be justified for recreational purposes (if parks or nature preserves are in the unbuildable floodplain), or for purposes of allowing students to walk to neighborhood schools.

Edit to add: By the way, if the Bethany Hills retirement community could be persuaded to put in a bike/ped entrance between Brookway Rd and Sanibel Ct, you'd have some very nice bike/ped connectivity in that part of Dayton. But everyone is so pessimistic about getting any private party to do anything for the public good any more, so I doubt it could ever happen.

I understand your objection, which has considerable merit. My assumption is that the right on red option will be maintained in most places.

Dedicated free right turn lanes could be enhanced by signage indicating "Yield to bikes & peds", or crosswalks on distinctively colored and slightly elevated speed cushions (fractional height speed bumps).

Right on red is frickin' evil. I can cope with it here, but that's because you can't turn right on red on small streets, and the big arterials have the bike lane set up to go straight, so bike and turning traffic conflicts happen well before the intersection. On foot, it's a lot worse.

Roody is correct that right on red causes tremendous pedestrian/driver conflict. It's particularly noticeable on my way over to Willy Bikes (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=South+St,+Madison,+WI+53715&daddr=Fish+Hatchery+Rd+to:S+Park+St+to:43.065847,-89.396589+to:W+Washington+Ave&hl=en&geocode=FTHrkAIdq-Wr-int6U-n1FIGiDGmaG12NMeSyA%3BFVb9kAIdZOGr-g%3BFbMQkQIdmdqr-g%3B%3BFXErkQIdFPer-g&mra=dpe&mrcr=2&mrsp=3&sz=16&via=3&dirflg=b&sll=43.06489,-89.394851&sspn=0.004499,0.013797&ie=UTF8&ll=43.067289,-89.394379&spn=0.004499,0.013797&z=16&lci=bike). (the route also highlights more than a few issues with the Google maps biking directions... need to ponder and figure out how to poke them about it. a number of spots on the first choice route it is trying to stick you on the sidewalk when there is a good wide and SAFE bike lane. I have forced it to be the route I actually use.)

Something to notice about this area is the small creek that runs from west to east parallel to Boundbrook. It costs money to build creek crossings, so often there aren't enough of them. In many cases the only creek crossing in an area is the major arterial. When that happens, cyclists are forced to ride on the arterial.

Lack of secondary creek crossings such as at Shadybrook and Seton Hill is one of the big reasons there might be no bikeable parallel route in an area. Sometimes it is possible to create a relatively inexpensive bike/ped bridge between residential streets to establish bike/ped connectivity between neighborhoods. Some bike/ped bridges could be justified for recreational purposes (if parks or nature preserves are in the unbuildable floodplain), or for purposes of allowing students to walk to neighborhood schools.

Edit to add: By the way, if the Bethany Hills retirement community could be persuaded to put in a bike/ped entrance between Brookway Rd and Sanibel Ct, you'd have some very nice bike/ped connectivity in that part of Dayton. But everyone is so pessimistic about getting any private party to do anything for the public good any more, so I doubt it could ever happen.

It does look as if you can use BoundBrook going West if you cut South to ShadyBrook. There seems to be a creek crossing there. And while the route is not exactly direct... there is a route.

But a problem I see with using this type of road, especially if travelling to the north is that you can't cross Whipp Road directly. You need to either turn left or right onto Whipp -- a very busy street -- before you find a sidestreet that heads north. Why don't planners make these side streets in a grid pattern? It would be so helpful.

Roody is correct that right on red causes tremendous pedestrian/driver conflict. It's particularly noticeable on my way over to Willy Bikes (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=South+St,+Madison,+WI+53715&daddr=Fish+Hatchery+Rd+to:S+Park+St+to:43.065847,-89.396589+to:W+Washington+Ave&hl=en&geocode=FTHrkAIdq-Wr-int6U-n1FIGiDGmaG12NMeSyA%3BFVb9kAIdZOGr-g%3BFbMQkQIdmdqr-g%3B%3BFXErkQIdFPer-g&mra=dpe&mrcr=2&mrsp=3&sz=16&via=3&dirflg=b&sll=43.06489,-89.394851&sspn=0.004499,0.013797&ie=UTF8&ll=43.067289,-89.394379&spn=0.004499,0.013797&z=16&lci=bike). (the route also highlights more than a few issues with the Google maps biking directions... need to ponder and figure out how to poke them about it. a number of spots on the first choice route it is trying to stick you on the sidewalk when there is a good wide and SAFE bike lane. I have forced it to be the route I actually use.)

The smallest zoom level of this map seems a little poorer that others we've looked at.
I'm guessing the right turn at South Park to Washington could be troublesome if you had to continue north on Park. How do you cross the street?
(Still you have bike lanes... we've been talking about trying to transform the suburban wilderness into some civilizing shape for a bicycle route... Madison is a lot more evolved.)

The smallest zoom level of this map seems a little poorer that others we've looked at.
I'm guessing the right turn at South Park to Washington could be troublesome if you had to continue north on Park. How do you cross the street?
(Still you have bike lanes... we've been talking about trying to transform the suburban wilderness into some civilizing shape for a bicycle route... Madison is a lot more evolved.)

On foot, that is um... fun. It's one of the intersections that is high on my blind neighbor's hate list, since it's one of the many intersections with a weird crosswalk arrangement, and there is right turn on red. On a bike, it's no big deal, since the bike lane goes straight. The Park/Fish Hatchery intersection is a lot worse if you're on a bike going southbound, and it is really awful on foot.

The Regent/Proudfit/Washington intersection is good on paper. In practice, it's spectacularly bad. The traffic lights have serious timing issues, so it is difficult for me to get across in ANY direction on foot on a walk signal. It was difficult when I moved here. I had a number of near misses or trapped at median instances while my knee healed over the last 18 months. Now it's back to just difficult on foot. On a bike on Washington, you will reliably leave the intersection on a red light, even if you entered on green.

Technically, we're more evolved. But this particular route shows off a lot of really tough engineering problems and solutions, and it has a lot of spots where it is really obvious just how much bikes and pedestrians are second class citizens. Sometimes, as you've found... on the same intersection.

Something that is maybe less obvious is left turns. They're juuuuust barely doable on Fish Hatchery, since it's technically a two lane road. Most cyclists will not try left turns on Park or Washington. It's very common to see cyclists cross as a pedestrian or do jug handle style turns. People will often heavily modify their routing to avoid left turns. It's also very common on this route to see a lot of sidewalk biking, and it seems likely to me that sidewalk bikers are trying to avoid tough left turns. They're usually going against the flow of car traffic.

Henderson NV has built a 50 mile system of trails, mainly paved that follows the arroyo and natural drainage. You never have to cross streets at all. The Boy Scouts built a three mile dirt section for hiking and biking. The most dangerous part is the abundance of rabbits darting in front of you. Plus if you know your way around, there is a Coffee Bar about every two miles just outside the trail.

Henderson NV has built a 50 mile system of trails, mainly paved that follows the arroyo and natural drainage. You never have to cross streets at all. The Boy Scouts built a three mile dirt section for hiking and biking. The most dangerous part is the abundance of rabbits darting in front of you. Plus if you know your way around, there is a Coffee Bar about every two miles just outside the trail.

Besides the coffee bars, do the Henderson trails connect popular destinations? Many trails are useful mainly for recreational cycling but don't really go anywhere that every day cyclists want to go. Then the problem is that some motorists think cyclists should use the trails instead of "their" streets: "If I'm paying all these taxes to build bike trails, how come all the damn bikes are still on the streets?"

Something to notice about this area is the small creek that runs from west to east parallel to Boundbrook. It costs money to build creek crossings, so often there aren't enough of them. In many cases the only creek crossing in an area is the major arterial. When that happens, cyclists are forced to ride on the arterial.

Lack of secondary creek crossings such as at Shadybrook and Seton Hill is one of the big reasons there might be no bikeable parallel route in an area. Sometimes it is possible to create a relatively inexpensive bike/ped bridge between residential streets to establish bike/ped connectivity between neighborhoods. Some bike/ped bridges could be justified for recreational purposes (if parks or nature preserves are in the unbuildable floodplain), or for purposes of allowing students to walk to neighborhood schools.

Edit to add: By the way, if the Bethany Hills retirement community could be persuaded to put in a bike/ped entrance between Brookway Rd and Sanibel Ct, you'd have some very nice bike/ped connectivity in that part of Dayton. But everyone is so pessimistic about getting any private party to do anything for the public good any more, so I doubt it could ever happen.

Across the street from Bethany is a "bike path" more of a wide sidewalk (I usually avoid this by riding through a church parking lot) which takes you to Loop Rd which gives you access to neighborhoods to the south and eventually get you out to the country roads. Dayton Cycling Club has a 50 mile ride every Saturday that when I go I use that route to ride to the meeting area (corner of Loop and Alex Bell for any who could possibly be interested). The problem with that area is negotiating I-675 which I prefer to do by crossing it over Loop Rd. to the east or to the west by means of an underpass on Paragon. Far Hills is busy enough without also having to watch for people merging on and off an interstate.

Just one other note. W. Whipp is a residential connector and while not heavily traveled it's reasonably narrow, winding and rolling. Seton Hill is the access (for bikes) to things south and west of Far Hills. A short ride ( a 100 yds. or so) on W. Whipp from Waterloo to Seton Hill gets you over the creek So far I've never had any problem negotiating that area. The area has a lot of small parks or green spaces which have walking paths but no bike paths. It would be nice if some of the walking connectors could be bike connectors.

Besides the coffee bars, do the Henderson trails connect popular destinations? Many trails are useful mainly for recreational cycling but don't really go anywhere that every day cyclists want to go. Then the problem is that some motorists think cyclists should use the trails instead of "their" streets: "If I'm paying all these taxes to build bike trails, how come all the damn bikes are still on the streets?"

I agree. I have heard that quite often (even from my wife). Most people see cycling as a recreation and not as a method of transportation. I like recreational trails and see them as an opportunity for recreational cyclists to travel more safely by limiting their interaction with cars, however, MUP are not a substitute for roads. I would suggest, however, that anything which gets more people biking is ultimately going to benefit the cycling community at large. I think the MU paths in our area are making it easier to get support for projects which improve the roads for cyclists. Things are changing in most areas and most communities are attempting to make changes that will make it easier for people to use their bicycles for transportation. It may be just riding to the library if it's nearby or a local market, but each trip by bike is one less by car. 5 years ago I didn't even own a bike. When I first got my bike I purchased it because of the network of recreational trails. Now, while I am certainly not car free I am an advocate for using the appropriate tool for the task. In my case that is often becoming the bicycle.

...It would be nice if some of the walking connectors could be bike connectors.
I guess "bike connector" is the exact concept I've been groping for - a short path that unites two existing bike-friendly routes into a longer bike-friendly route, or that bypasses some bike-hostile situation. If funding is limited, creating bike connectors is a way to make some infrastructure improvements. If there is no funding, it is at least possible for a group to identify existing local ad-hoc bike connectors that may not be known to all the cyclists.

Edit to add: ad-hoc bike connectors could be shown on local bike maps with dotted lines or something like that.

If there is no funding, it is at least possible for a group to identify existing local ad-hoc bike connectors that may not be known to all the cyclists.



Route identification is a key to helping cyclists get on the road. If a community added this element to their Bike Plan and also perhaps added some urban recreational rides, more people might be willing to navigate the 'burb. Platy, you pointed out a couple of aspects of the original map we looked at (West Des Moines...) which would have made a great route through the center of the town.

Now picture someone organizing a fun "family" ride through those neighborhoods.

Some of the issue really is differences in driving culture. I'm a daily cyclist in Lincoln, NE, and I'm in Des Moines for the week with a folding bike. I've been out on two long rides now starting fom the downtown area, and I'm noticing a substantial difference here in drivers. Several angry folks, people lurking behind me when they have safe opportunities to pass, etc.

The MUPs fom here are pretty, but they don't seem practical for crosstown travel, at least compared to Lincoln. Etc. The attitude thing is weird, though--and I don't know how one could solve that through design.

PS: mandatory travel photo.

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r378/Shinyville/ecc3aa12.jpg

Some of the issue really is differences in driving culture. I'm a daily cyclist in Lincoln, NE, and I'm in Des Moines for the week with a folding bike. I've been out on two long rides now starting fom the downtown area, and I'm noticing a substantial difference here in drivers. Several angry folks, people lurking behind me when they have safe opportunities to pass, etc.


I thought they were trying to draft on my rear wheel. :) You mean this doesn't happen in other cities?

I'm sure it can, but in my experiences in Lincoln I've had one person yell at me and zero people do this weird unnecessary draft thing in five years. I've had one telly dude and three unnecessary drafters in two days here. I don't feel like I'm riding strangely--pretty confident, can mostly keep up with downtown traffic, etc. So I don't know what to think.

Nice town, though! I'm up for a ride tomorrow night if you're bored :-)

Apologies for my typos, by the way--I'm relegated to an iPhone for web access.