Originally Posted by
B. Carfree
Buzz, you simultaneously claim the only reason the Pacific Coast works for cyclists is because there are so many who ride it and then claim there are very few because they are only that subset of cyclists who are hardier and brave. You're being inconsistent, and it seems to be coming from a need to impose ideology rather than contend with the facts on the ground.
Since you have never been bashful about dismissing people's notions of what is going on in your backyard that are at variance with your first-hand experience, I shall now return the favor. The southern half of the coast of OR is literally my backyard. I ride to/along it scores of times per year. I ride it between Reedsport and The Russian River twice per year to visit my dentist as well as friends and family. I haven't given all the potholes names yet, but I almost could.
During what others consider the peak riding season along the coast, from June to mid-October, pretty much every campground fills with cyclists. No, I don't know how many that is, but on any given day I will meet between five and fifty other riders. These folks are hardly the hardiest of souls. They span the cycling spectrum with what appears to be a bias towards relatively new riders who are enthusiastic as can be. They're hardly the "competent and confident" that Jan Heine references. They're just looking for an epic trip and, for the most part, they appear to be getting that. Many of the folks I meet are either riding the coast for the second time (or more) or have been doing it in parts for a couple of years as their vacation time allows.
How can that be? The roads are 55 mph speed limit roads with a high percentage of trucks. On uphill segments and in towns the shoulder disappears in order to have two travel lanes in that direction. What new cyclist would return to do this again after such an experience? They aren't conforming to the stereotype of fear, dagnabit!
Perhaps we're all a bit off in our assessment of what is needed. Enforcement of traffic laws (or any other laws, for that matter) does not happen on the stretch of the coast that I ride regularly. The infrastructure is fair, mostly four to seven foot shoulders, but has many sections of "take the lane" and some downright horrific bridge crossings in OR, followed by both narrower shoulders and extended stretches of no shoulder at all on Hwy 1 in CA. I doubt if it is a safety in numbers thing, since I certainly ride many miles between cyclist sightings.
Maybe what is working there is that the coast attracts people who want to ride their bike along the coast and so they leave their excuses at home. Simply put, what we need to get more cyclists may just be to have more people want to ride. Perhaps adding more bike-specific infrastructure will help us get there (hopefully we'll build good stuff, not dzbl and intersection-laden sidepaths), maybe better law enforcement would do it, maybe some social change that somehow encourages active lifestyles, maybe all of that. I just don't know. I do know we should stop pretending that no one will ride anywhere without changing everything, much as I would like to see some changes. And it certainly doesn't help to have everyone exaggerate their perceived narrow escapes into regular death-defying heroics. I've probably had more near-death experiences in cars and trucks than on my bike, and I have a lot more time in the saddle than behind the wheel.
To answer your questions to me: No, cost is not the only factor to consider and I would prefer we build quality roads that are safe and effective for all users no matter the cost and do that for all roads regardless of how many people are walking or riding at present. As a matter of our current political climate, that's not going to go far, so cost will be a factor.
That said, quality builds can often be had for trivial costs. How much does it cost to remove subsidized on-street parking in favor of two-meter bike lanes? How much does it cost to change the timing of traffic lights to reduce the prevailing speed on a roadway? I recently looked at the Tower Bridge into Sacramento, an old commuting route of mine. They spent the money to add wide sidewalks on both sides of this bridge, but didn't provide any means for cyclists to ride from West Sacramento to Sacramento across this bridge by any means but taking the lane; all that was needed was a bit of paint and a bit of ramping from the bike lane that ends at the bridge to the widened sidewalk, which was plenty wide to serve both peds and cyclists. If we're not doing the easy, cheap things, we shouldn't be holding out for a never-to-be-built second set of roadways, ramps and bridges.
Whoa, easy cowboy!
I wrote that an increase in cyclists
may be
somewhat responsible for improving the attitude/awareness of drivers. I made that statement in reference to a suggestion you made in your post about the numbers of riders that now ride that route. I was simply saying that the increase in cyclists
might have made it a bit better than when I rode it.
But yes, what do I know? I clearly state in my post that it has been
41 years since I've ridden the PCH I defer to those of you who have ridden it more recently. If you're riding it regularly then I certainly trust your opinion and take it into account. But in all fairness, unlike those whose opinions I question when they write about areas in my locale in which they have
never ridden at least I have ridden the PCH and have mostly fond memories of the ride. However, there were
sections that I thought were abysmal and so I googled more recent blog posts, some of which I quoted in my post. Those observations showed that the logging trucks, chip trucks and RV's were still an issue on portions of the PCH due to a lack of shoulder.
I don't know what "ideology" you think I am so strongly adhering to- perhaps it is my prioritizing infrastructural changes as primary and that creating safe routes and passage for cyclists is more important in my mind than thinking that laws and enforcement will suffice. Perhaps you interpret my use of the word "infrastructure" as a reference
only to bike specific infrastructure. If so, that is not the case. When I say infrastructure I am talking about roads, bridges, streets
any place cyclists ride whether there is bike specific infrastructure or not.
If it somehow serves you, and some others in A&S to paint me as some kind of bike infrastructure ideologue you're way off base. It's hysterical how quickly some will rip apart the design of bike infrastructure (a band wagon I could easily jump on at times) but are reluctant to rip apart road, street and highway design as if it's sacrosanct and something that we just have to live with as cyclists. These same traffic engineers that JF calls "not very bright" when condemning the bike infrastructure they have designed are the same people who design the roads we are supposed to safely negotiate and, IMO, sometimes they get it just as wrong, if not more wrong than when they design bike infrastructure.
Hey, for all I know the PCH has been paved in gold and covered in rose petals but my guess is that there are still some sections that just plain
suck. There's always lots of talk of the false perceptions of safety that bike infrastructure like bike lanes and segregated paths give riders well the same thing can be true for road riding. I'm not into kidding myself, or others, into thinking roadways are entirely safe when there are major flaws or issues with it.
Now the great irony of this post is that I spent an hour today with a former student who contacted me to talk about the bike ride he's planning from LA To Portland, OR this coming spring. I felt fully confident in enthusiastically encouraging him to do the ride but would have felt remiss if I did not give him some warnings about watching for trucks and RV's on the route, making himself as visible as possible, to take careful note in advance of what sections might be particularly gnarly and that sometimes, especially in rain and fog it might be best to take a break for a couple of hours till the weather clears rather than tackling shoulderless sections in bad visibility. I've counseled a lot of riders for long tours and I'm not into lulling them into an "anyone can do this" mentality. I would think that being realistic and situationally aware as opposed to being complacent is something we could all agree on.
The other irony is that I've been thinking doing the west coast ride again sometime in the next two years as part of a longer tour doing a cross Canada tour (a large portion of which would be on the Trans Canada Trail) to Vancouver and then heading south to LA on the PCH.
If I do this then I may ask for your advice on campgrounds and what sights and towns you would suggest. And perhaps we could even ride some sections together and you might find I am more a of a bike rider first and an ideologue second.
And like Genec I totally agree with your final paragraph (and with much that came before).
Edit:
Your post made me question my perception...especially due to the long duration between when I last rode the PCH... I felt like maybe I was way off base. But then I found this from Bike Portland and it makes me feel like my criticisms are still valid. And I suggest a google search of bicycling and the PCH and it turns up a whole lot of negative about this very scenic and popular route. Maybe not enough to discourage riding it but certainly enough to question the safety of relatively long sections of it.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/09/24/t...ke-route-94151