Originally Posted by joejack951
Look no further than the homepage of the *greatest* bicycling city in the country:
Originally Posted by Portland Office of Transportation
Bicycle lanes provide enormous benefits to all users. They define a space in which to ride, eliminating the need to weave in and out of traffic or parked cars; they help novice cyclists feel more confident and willing to ride; they increase the visibility of bicyclists in our transportation system; and they give motorists the security of where to expect cyclists.
http://www.portlandonline.com/transp...ex.cfm?c=34826
You and several others seem to think that I am some sort of emmissary for PDOT. I can assure you that I am not and that I don't generally agree completely with their position on bike lanes or with their general philosophy of accomodating cyclists. There are some people at PDOT (who shall remain nameless) who I consider to be the dogmatic opposites of HH and the other foresterologists here, who mistakenly assume that they can create an Amsterdam style cycling nirvana in Portland - a nirvana for all the sufferers of CIC
- I disagree with them as much as I disagree with the foresterologists and wish them all the best of luck.
In the meantime, if you ride in PDX you're going to have to continue to mix it up with motorists on the arterials at the river crossings, downtown and in many other locations throughout town for the forseeable future. You shouldn't have to be able to ride as fast as you can pedal on a carbon fiber race bike mixed in with the distracted, oblivious motorists to do this. Bike lanes, blue and otherwise, help cyclists negotiate these situations. At the same time, I am completely appalled and embarassed at how long it's taken PDOT to get sharrows approved and in use on other roads. Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that the suburban California VC WOL is entirely impractical in the inner Portland nedighborhoods that support the highest numbers of cyclists?
OTOH, given the political realities, and despite the program's shortcomings, I think Portland's doing a decent job with bike infrastructure, and is certainly better off than most major metropolitan areas in the US who aren't doing likewise; and also better off than if no 'improvements' at all for cyclists had been built in the last 10 years, pursuant to the foresterologist's recommendation.
I see new cyclists everyday. Some are newcomers who left some *****hole car dominated midwest or northeastern city, some are locals cycling for the first time in many years. I don't understand how anyone can say this isn't a good thing. In my opinion the only thing that's really missing from the Portland formula is an education program for motorists.