Protected Bike Lanes Mean Business
01-23-14, 10:17 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
John, while I agree with you that bicyclists should be required to drive as other road users I think that there is a great deal of difference between a double semi gravel hopper truck driving at 80 mph on Niles Canyon and a bicyclist riding through a four way stop in Palo Alto with no traffic in sight and yet the fines are liable to be identical.
I wouldn't have any idea of how to write laws that would give both the requirement for bicycles to act in a vehicular manner when around motorized traffic and yet be free to act as a much slower and man power device when traffic is not around but the fact is that not being able to ride through a stop sign or being required to touch a foot down does nothing but discourage cycling by greatly increasing travel times.
I wouldn't have any idea of how to write laws that would give both the requirement for bicycles to act in a vehicular manner when around motorized traffic and yet be free to act as a much slower and man power device when traffic is not around but the fact is that not being able to ride through a stop sign or being required to touch a foot down does nothing but discourage cycling by greatly increasing travel times.
01-23-14, 10:19 AM
#52
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
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.
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.
01-23-14, 02:18 PM
#53
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I toured the PCH (Olympia, WA to San Fran) back in the early 1970's and my memory of it was a combination of visual splendor and sections of some of the worst cycling I've encountered on any of my tours. The downside was logging trucks, "chip" (?) trucks and RV drivers that could barely control their vehicles at times. There weren't as many cyclists on the route at that time and certainly an increase in numbers may have made drivers somewhat more aware and accommodating.
My understanding is that the road has had little change since that time and before I posted my response thought I'd google for some on line comments about riding the PCH more recently. These were the first few hits on Google and I didn't have to do much looking before I came across these comments, which are pretty good examples of what most of the blogs and comments I found said.
And from a thread on BF about riding the PCH:
Now due to the road construction it is probably pretty accurate that much improvement to the existing infrastructure may not be all that possible. It's a pretty unique landscape and strong enforcement of passing and speeding laws might do some good. Using the PCH as an example of why bike infrastructure is not "cheaper and easier" is a bit of a reach.
And is the measure of whether bike infrastructure is worth it to be based on the "cheaper and easier" alternative? Since B.Carfree seems to advocate for "quality" infrastructure I'm guessing he understands that quality is not always cheap.
B.Carfree also makes mention of the "few thousands" of cyclists who take this route. Is that meant that the fewer numbers of cyclists are also a reason to not provide infrastructure? As someone who just rode home on a plowed bike path tonight in Boston as thousands of cars passed by and I counted the barely half dozen bike tracks for my 10 mile ride home I was glad that our small numbers warranted not only a path but plowing. I choose to ride a bike to work, to a lot of places and as someone who chooses that alternative I feel I deserve as safe a route to my destination as possible.
Expecting cyclists to accept conditions the average motorist would never tolerate seems inequitable at the very least. We deserve safe passage. The cyclists who ride the PCH are the hardier in spirit and nerve and not representative of the average citizen who would never take on such a challenge, in large part due to passing motor vehicular traffic.
In my opinion, every reasonable effort should be primarily made to make the roadways we travel on as safe as possible and then enforcement.
So for me: PRIMARY- infrastructure (and not always bike specific-only when necessary due to poor road conditions) and
SECONDARY- Enforcement and education.
But enforcing laws and educating drivers and cyclists but forcing them to share inadequately designed infrastructures is shortsighted.
My understanding is that the road has had little change since that time and before I posted my response thought I'd google for some on line comments about riding the PCH more recently. These were the first few hits on Google and I didn't have to do much looking before I came across these comments, which are pretty good examples of what most of the blogs and comments I found said.
And from a thread on BF about riding the PCH:
Now due to the road construction it is probably pretty accurate that much improvement to the existing infrastructure may not be all that possible. It's a pretty unique landscape and strong enforcement of passing and speeding laws might do some good. Using the PCH as an example of why bike infrastructure is not "cheaper and easier" is a bit of a reach.
And is the measure of whether bike infrastructure is worth it to be based on the "cheaper and easier" alternative? Since B.Carfree seems to advocate for "quality" infrastructure I'm guessing he understands that quality is not always cheap.
B.Carfree also makes mention of the "few thousands" of cyclists who take this route. Is that meant that the fewer numbers of cyclists are also a reason to not provide infrastructure? As someone who just rode home on a plowed bike path tonight in Boston as thousands of cars passed by and I counted the barely half dozen bike tracks for my 10 mile ride home I was glad that our small numbers warranted not only a path but plowing. I choose to ride a bike to work, to a lot of places and as someone who chooses that alternative I feel I deserve as safe a route to my destination as possible.
Expecting cyclists to accept conditions the average motorist would never tolerate seems inequitable at the very least. We deserve safe passage. The cyclists who ride the PCH are the hardier in spirit and nerve and not representative of the average citizen who would never take on such a challenge, in large part due to passing motor vehicular traffic.
In my opinion, every reasonable effort should be primarily made to make the roadways we travel on as safe as possible and then enforcement.
So for me: PRIMARY- infrastructure (and not always bike specific-only when necessary due to poor road conditions) and
SECONDARY- Enforcement and education.
But enforcing laws and educating drivers and cyclists but forcing them to share inadequately designed infrastructures is shortsighted.
01-23-14, 03:37 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
Your statements about "not being able to ride through a stop sign" and "being required to touch a foot down" are the superstitions propagated by those opposed to vehicular cycling rather than being anything required by those, like myself, who advocate vehicular cycling. I have always stated that the laws about stop signs should be enforced equally for motorists and cyclists. It has long been recognized by both motorists and by police that crawling through a stop sign, particularly where such is required to get to the position where approaching traffic can be observed, is the normal means of operation. Furthermore, there is nothing in the law about anybody having to put a foot on the road. The most important part of the stop-sign law is that it requires yielding to approaching traffic; the actual stop is only a minor part of it.
https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress....-liability.jpg
Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-23-14 at 06:47 PM.
01-23-14, 05:29 PM
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
8 Posts
Your statements about "not being able to ride through a stop sign" and "being required to touch a foot down" are the superstitions propagated by those opposed to vehicular cycling rather than being anything required by those, like myself, who advocate vehicular cycling. I have always stated that the laws about stop signs should be enforced equally for motorists and cyclists. It has long been recognized by both motorists and by police that crawling through a stop sign, particularly where such is required to get to the position where approaching traffic can be observed, is the normal means of operation. Furthermore, there is nothing in the law about anybody having to put a foot on the road. The most important part of the stop-sign law is that it requires yielding to approaching traffic; the actual stop is only a minor part of it.
https://cyclingweekly.media.ipcdigita...1-50-100pc.jpg
01-23-14, 07:25 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There are differences between obeying stop and yield signs. Unless one is particularly adept at doing a track stand, placing one's foot on the ground is the only way to obey a stop sign. Here's what Johnny Helms noted a long time ago.
https://cyclingweekly.media.ipcdigita...1-50-100pc.jpg
https://cyclingweekly.media.ipcdigita...1-50-100pc.jpg
01-23-14, 10:36 PM
#57
----
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.
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.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/09/24/t...ke-route-94151
Last edited by buzzman; 01-23-14 at 11:41 PM. Reason: Added link
01-24-14, 10:09 AM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
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.
i would also add that the majority of cyclists in portland who advocate for speed reduction, road diets, and traffic calming are separated-infrastructure skeptics. the cycletrackistas in portland are simply echoing the "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane project" focus on separation, separation, and separation. i challenge anyone to find a single example of "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane" advocating for a lowered speed limit, traffic calming, and mixing of traffic (even though this type of infrastructure is fairly common in europe).
01-24-14, 11:22 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
...
i would also add that the majority of cyclists in portland who advocate for speed reduction, road diets, and traffic calming are separated-infrastructure skeptics. the cycletrackistas in portland are simply echoing the "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane project" focus on separation, separation, and separation. i challenge anyone to find a single example of "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane" advocating for a lowered speed limit, traffic calming, and mixing of traffic (even though this type of infrastructure is fairly common in europe).
i would also add that the majority of cyclists in portland who advocate for speed reduction, road diets, and traffic calming are separated-infrastructure skeptics. the cycletrackistas in portland are simply echoing the "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane project" focus on separation, separation, and separation. i challenge anyone to find a single example of "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane" advocating for a lowered speed limit, traffic calming, and mixing of traffic (even though this type of infrastructure is fairly common in europe).
Anyhow, an example in Boston. More info on LiveableStreets.
And I'll remind you again, it really is all of the above, in building and using. At the end of a cycle track which drops to a bike lane, here's someone doing what we do around here. Driving his bike.
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 01-24-14 at 11:30 AM.
01-24-14, 11:48 AM
#60
----
Man, I simply don't get this civil war. I really don't. Around here, it's all of the above, not one or the other.
Anyhow, an example in Boston. More info on LiveableStreets.
And I'll remind you again, it really is all of the above, in building and using. At the end of a cycle track which drops to a bike lane, here's someone doing what we do around here. Driving his bike.
-mr. bill
Anyhow, an example in Boston. More info on LiveableStreets.
And I'll remind you again, it really is all of the above, in building and using. At the end of a cycle track which drops to a bike lane, here's someone doing what we do around here. Driving his bike.
-mr. bill
01-24-14, 11:58 AM
#61
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
as for the civil war...just imagine a serviceable (but not perfect) DZF bike lane replaced by a poorly designed "protected lane" that in the eyes of many is worse than no infrastructure at all. then imagine this repeated multiple times.
thankfully, in pdx, there is some evidence that we are maturing beyond knee jerk cheerleading of protected infrastructure.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/11/20/c...e-bridge-97471
Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-24-14 at 12:03 PM.
01-24-14, 12:25 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
I figured that if I posted these, you'd ask yeah, but what about what they are funding. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
One Two....
-mr. bill
01-24-14, 12:30 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
And This project too. If you want details there is not a single "protected" anything here.
-mr. bill
-mr. bill
01-24-14, 04:58 PM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
And This project too. If you want details there is not a single "protected" anything here.
-mr. bill
-mr. bill
And exceptions who prove the rule.
https://goo.gl/maps/IksFN
north american cycletrackistas love their parked cars don't they. (not so much in denmark)
this cycle track is also frequently blocked by "world class" kamikaze pedestrians and "world class" car/bus pull ins. it's proximity to buildings makes it a great spot for "world class" construction crews to store their vehicles and equipment for week to months at a time.
another cycle track with "world class" twisting curves and a "world-class" right hook at every intersection!
https://goo.gl/maps/5qQPV
and the moody has a "world class" pillar that completely blocks view of the path ahead.
https://farm7.static.flickr.com/6051/...6651b3e26c.jpg
the criss-crosses and mixing zones are also very "world class"
and, finally, the world class multnomah protected bike lane.
martha approves:
https://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...-as-separation
"world class" mixing zones!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/
"world class" intersection treatments!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/
"world class" leaves!
https://24.media.tumblr.com/580ebcd74...opw0o1_500.jpg
i'll post a few pics of the "world class" right hook zone later.
Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-24-14 at 05:52 PM.
01-24-14, 05:57 PM
#65
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
a few fancy advertisements, a tiny amount of funding for parking at transit stations, and a michael andersen news piece. bravo!
check out the lovely right hook where i almost died a few years back:
https://goo.gl/maps/IksFN
north american cycletrackistas love their parked cars don't they. (not so much in denmark)
this cycle track is also frequently blocked by "world class" kamikaze pedestrians and "world class" car/bus pull ins. it's proximity to buildings makes it a great spot for "world class" construction crews to store their vehicles and equipment for week to months at a time.
another cycle track with "world class" twisting curves and a "world-class" right hook at every intersection!
https://goo.gl/maps/5qQPV
and the moody has a "world class" pillar that completely blocks view of the path ahead.
https://farm7.static.flickr.com/6051/...6651b3e26c.jpg
the criss-crosses and mixing zones are also very "world class"
and, finally, the world class multnomah protected bike lane.
martha approves:
https://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...-as-separation
"world class" mixing zones!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/
"world class" intersection treatments!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/
"world class" leaves!
https://24.media.tumblr.com/580ebcd74...opw0o1_500.jpg
i'll post a few pics of the "world class" right hook zone later.
check out the lovely right hook where i almost died a few years back:
https://goo.gl/maps/IksFN
north american cycletrackistas love their parked cars don't they. (not so much in denmark)
this cycle track is also frequently blocked by "world class" kamikaze pedestrians and "world class" car/bus pull ins. it's proximity to buildings makes it a great spot for "world class" construction crews to store their vehicles and equipment for week to months at a time.
another cycle track with "world class" twisting curves and a "world-class" right hook at every intersection!
https://goo.gl/maps/5qQPV
and the moody has a "world class" pillar that completely blocks view of the path ahead.
https://farm7.static.flickr.com/6051/...6651b3e26c.jpg
the criss-crosses and mixing zones are also very "world class"
and, finally, the world class multnomah protected bike lane.
martha approves:
https://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...-as-separation
"world class" mixing zones!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/
"world class" intersection treatments!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/
"world class" leaves!
https://24.media.tumblr.com/580ebcd74...opw0o1_500.jpg
i'll post a few pics of the "world class" right hook zone later.
I have to wonder what the speed limit is on these streets... a couple of them look like 25MPH downtown corridor streets. Are any of these "world class ways" high speed (45MPH+ roads)?
01-24-14, 09:20 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
many of the people who clamor for cycle tracks are simply unwilling to challenge current road, street, and highway design. in fact, the ridiculous and unhelpful "bike ambassador" meme originates from this camp. northern europe did not become a cycling mecca by making nice with motorists. cycling is in many respects in direct opposition to motoring.
i would also add that the majority of cyclists in portland who advocate for speed reduction, road diets, and traffic calming are separated-infrastructure skeptics. the cycletrackistas in portland are simply echoing the "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane project" focus on separation, separation, and separation. i challenge anyone to find a single example of "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane" advocating for a lowered speed limit, traffic calming, and mixing of traffic (even though this type of infrastructure is fairly common in europe).
i would also add that the majority of cyclists in portland who advocate for speed reduction, road diets, and traffic calming are separated-infrastructure skeptics. the cycletrackistas in portland are simply echoing the "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane project" focus on separation, separation, and separation. i challenge anyone to find a single example of "bikes belong/people for bikes/green lane" advocating for a lowered speed limit, traffic calming, and mixing of traffic (even though this type of infrastructure is fairly common in europe).
Of course, the real problem with this street is the crossings at arterioles, where there are no traffic controls for the plentiful, speeding cross traffic. Thus, no matter what he does the street will continue to be a failure as a so-called "bike boulevard". He doesn't have authority to change that, but I believe him when he tells me he would if he could.
01-24-14, 09:46 PM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
Whoa, easy cowboy!
...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...
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.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/09/24/t...ke-route-94151
...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...
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.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/09/24/t...ke-route-94151
As to the link on riding on the OR coast, bear in mind that I don't ride the coast in the northern portion of the state. The police up there are notoriously anti-cycling and the fatalities that occur on the coast are almost all in the first hundred miles. Down here, we have only a handful of bridges, only one is at all long (into North Bend) and no tunnels. I suspect our criticisms of the infrastructure would be nearly identical, as would our solutions.
Do take a look at the close pass that was shown in the link. I hate blaming the victim, but riding the fog line in an eleven foot lane is not a wise thing to do. Sure, we all do it sometimes, but not when it would invite an RV to "share" the lane with us. Such situations are too common everywhere and I'm sure we both agree that such builds are inadequate and uncomfortable. They needn't be dangerous, but that depends on many factors (social, training, enforcement...) They certainly create unnecessary risks for all road users and should never, in my opinion, be allowed to remain thus. (There are very few such circumstances in the southern portion of the state, but the portion of US 101 in CA between Orick and Patrick's Point is similarly built, and is not as easily avoided as the similar section north of Leggett.)
01-25-14, 01:00 AM
#68
----
I was over-the-top negative and a bit too personal in my characterization. I apologize. We differ in strategies, but not in most aspects of the overall goals we pursue relative to cycling advocacy. I should keep that in mind and feel chastened for allowing a spur on my saddle to distract me.
As to the link on riding on the OR coast, bear in mind that I don't ride the coast in the northern portion of the state. The police up there are notoriously anti-cycling and the fatalities that occur on the coast are almost all in the first hundred miles. Down here, we have only a handful of bridges, only one is at all long (into North Bend) and no tunnels. I suspect our criticisms of the infrastructure would be nearly identical, as would our solutions.
Do take a look at the close pass that was shown in the link. I hate blaming the victim, but riding the fog line in an eleven foot lane is not a wise thing to do. Sure, we all do it sometimes, but not when it would invite an RV to "share" the lane with us. Such situations are too common everywhere and I'm sure we both agree that such builds are inadequate and uncomfortable. They needn't be dangerous, but that depends on many factors (social, training, enforcement...) They certainly create unnecessary risks for all road users and should never, in my opinion, be allowed to remain thus. (There are very few such circumstances in the southern portion of the state, but the portion of US 101 in CA between Orick and Patrick's Point is similarly built, and is not as easily avoided as the similar section north of Leggett.)
As to the link on riding on the OR coast, bear in mind that I don't ride the coast in the northern portion of the state. The police up there are notoriously anti-cycling and the fatalities that occur on the coast are almost all in the first hundred miles. Down here, we have only a handful of bridges, only one is at all long (into North Bend) and no tunnels. I suspect our criticisms of the infrastructure would be nearly identical, as would our solutions.
Do take a look at the close pass that was shown in the link. I hate blaming the victim, but riding the fog line in an eleven foot lane is not a wise thing to do. Sure, we all do it sometimes, but not when it would invite an RV to "share" the lane with us. Such situations are too common everywhere and I'm sure we both agree that such builds are inadequate and uncomfortable. They needn't be dangerous, but that depends on many factors (social, training, enforcement...) They certainly create unnecessary risks for all road users and should never, in my opinion, be allowed to remain thus. (There are very few such circumstances in the southern portion of the state, but the portion of US 101 in CA between Orick and Patrick's Point is similarly built, and is not as easily avoided as the similar section north of Leggett.)
No worries.
I don't take this stuff personally- it's the internet- too tough to read tone and intent at times.
In any case, your comments are useful and I'll pass them on to my student about to ride the coast. Too bad it weren't consistently as bike friendly as it sounds like it is on the stretch you ride most frequently. My Google search of the whole coast ride shows some really gnarly sections in more southern CA to northern CA.
I did ride the PCH in the Malibu area not all that long ago (within 10 years) and the road width was inconsistent due to mudslides, wash outs and road construction. It seems like those issues continue to plague much of the southern part of the PCH.
It was funny to read a series of hostile Tweets by Cher about bicyclists on the PCH and I was reminded of some aggressive over privileged drivers I encountered in the LA area. And while I agree with your observation about the close pass of the RV due to cyclist lane position it is sometimes unavoidable especially when you know a certain percentage of drivers, like Cher, are seeing you as the aggressive, over privileged a-hole for moving into the lane.
All of this would be just more fodder for discourse in internet forums etc if it weren't for the fact that more cyclists than I would like to imagine do get killed or seriously injured riding the PCH.
I was wrong, it was 1974 not '72 when I did the coast ride (not that it makes all that much difference) but the fact that 40 years has gone by and that the coast route is still plagued with some serious issues for cyclists shows how slow the pace of advocacy is. In doing a bit of on line research the progress that has been made seems to be in some basic attention to the infrastructure- better striping for shoulders, bike lanes, signage, perhaps some widening of the road and some repaving in sections. the scenic beauty of the route has, over the years, made it a popular route for group tours and that has exponentially increased the numbers of cyclists who ride both with these groups and individually.
I do think that the strength in numbers makes some difference. Driver expectation of cyclists is higher, even if their general resentment is higher as well. And businesses- campgrounds, restaurants, motels, inns and hotels may be more accommodating to cyclists who generate a certain amount of economic benefits for the area. Perhaps there is a slight "culture shift" in our favor.
And not to be overly argumentative or "ideological" but I do hold that my primary emphasis when looking at a route like the PCH is on the infrastructural changes like these ones that have occurred since I last rode it. Without cyclists presenting a unified front, however, it will be at least another 50 years before the route is truly bike friendly and "safe".
01-25-14, 09:17 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
And not to be overly argumentative or "ideological" but I do hold that my primary emphasis when looking at a route like the PCH is on the infrastructural changes like these ones that have occurred since I last rode it. Without cyclists presenting a unified front, however, it will be at least another 50 years before the route is truly bike friendly and "safe".
In NorCal, CalTrans has added some nifty emblems to the mileposts that let cyclists know how far to the next campground, grocery store and restaurant. I wish they gave information about the next two and included a shower symbol for the campgrounds with showers, but it's a start. There is also wayfaring signage for cyclists guiding them off of Hwy 101 where feasible, although they don't show every nice alternative route (I generally ride the Lost Coast since I prefer car-free hills to highway traffic, even at the inconvenience of riding a bit of dirt road.) While it would be nice to have some shoulder on hwy 1, it's not going to be easy to get that done.
All of this is largely the result of the cycling community presenting a united front and courting allies in the restaurant/resort industries along the coast. If some people start pushing for segregated facilities, other than outriggers on bridges, our progress may come to a screeching halt as we begin wasting energy and political capital bickering with each other. I strongly agree with you that we need to be better about working together to achieve those things that are achievable rather than bickering with each other publicly. Compromise and pragmatism are the currency of politics, and all road projects involve quite a bit of politics.
01-25-14, 10:57 PM
#70
----
Thankfully, on routes like the Pacific Coast there isn't much division amongst people advocating for improved cycling conditions. Increased law enforcement isn't politically feasible at the moment, so no one is pushing hard on that front. What has happened is that ODOT is required to improve the shoulders in both width and surface (chip seal is not allowed on the shoulders even if it is used for the travel lanes), although they are prioritizing southbound shoulders over northbound (which won't help your former students). Off-highway routing, with signage, is identified where possible. The plentiful state campgrounds have abundant hiker/biker spaces for a nominal fee (less than $10) complete with free hot, well warm, showers and ODOT has produced some decent maps with elevation profiles, campground locations and amenities and restaurant/grocery store locations as well as bike shop locations. These are available both on line and as a paper product (free).
In NorCal, CalTrans has added some nifty emblems to the mileposts that let cyclists know how far to the next campground, grocery store and restaurant. I wish they gave information about the next two and included a shower symbol for the campgrounds with showers, but it's a start. There is also wayfaring signage for cyclists guiding them off of Hwy 101 where feasible, although they don't show every nice alternative route (I generally ride the Lost Coast since I prefer car-free hills to highway traffic, even at the inconvenience of riding a bit of dirt road.) While it would be nice to have some shoulder on hwy 1, it's not going to be easy to get that done.
All of this is largely the result of the cycling community presenting a united front and courting allies in the restaurant/resort industries along the coast. If some people start pushing for segregated facilities, other than outriggers on bridges, our progress may come to a screeching halt as we begin wasting energy and political capital bickering with each other. I strongly agree with you that we need to be better about working together to achieve those things that are achievable rather than bickering with each other publicly. Compromise and pragmatism are the currency of politics, and all road projects involve quite a bit of politics.
In NorCal, CalTrans has added some nifty emblems to the mileposts that let cyclists know how far to the next campground, grocery store and restaurant. I wish they gave information about the next two and included a shower symbol for the campgrounds with showers, but it's a start. There is also wayfaring signage for cyclists guiding them off of Hwy 101 where feasible, although they don't show every nice alternative route (I generally ride the Lost Coast since I prefer car-free hills to highway traffic, even at the inconvenience of riding a bit of dirt road.) While it would be nice to have some shoulder on hwy 1, it's not going to be easy to get that done.
All of this is largely the result of the cycling community presenting a united front and courting allies in the restaurant/resort industries along the coast. If some people start pushing for segregated facilities, other than outriggers on bridges, our progress may come to a screeching halt as we begin wasting energy and political capital bickering with each other. I strongly agree with you that we need to be better about working together to achieve those things that are achievable rather than bickering with each other publicly. Compromise and pragmatism are the currency of politics, and all road projects involve quite a bit of politics.
It would be great if a major push was put on routes like this to make them really 100% bike able without the "Russian roulette" feeling many blog posts mention. If a good west cost route, a good east coast route and a northern and southern cross country route were more solidly in place in North America it could really kick start biking into an even better place. Often people who do a good lengthy tour become year round transportational and recreational cyclists and major advocates for better accommodations for getting around by bike.
01-26-14, 06:56 PM
#71
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
And it looks like all of that is due to giving the motor vehicle (even empty) priority on our world class streets. Of course the biggest thing missing is the actual signal light for a cyclist phase.
I have to wonder what the speed limit is on these streets... a couple of them look like 25MPH downtown corridor streets. Are any of these "world class ways" high speed (45MPH+ roads)?
I have to wonder what the speed limit is on these streets... a couple of them look like 25MPH downtown corridor streets. Are any of these "world class ways" high speed (45MPH+ roads)?
Of course the biggest thing missing is the actual signal light for a cyclist phase.
Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-26-14 at 07:02 PM.
01-26-14, 07:00 PM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
Much of what you post here makes it sound much better than it was when I rode it. Very tempting to do that ride again. and I would be doing it north to south. My student is planning the reverse so maybe not quite as amenable but still the improvements can make a big difference.
It would be great if a major push was put on routes like this to make them really 100% bike able without the "Russian roulette" feeling many blog posts mention. If a good west cost route, a good east coast route and a northern and southern cross country route were more solidly in place in North America it could really kick start biking into an even better place. Often people who do a good lengthy tour become year round transportational and recreational cyclists and major advocates for better accommodations for getting around by bike.
It would be great if a major push was put on routes like this to make them really 100% bike able without the "Russian roulette" feeling many blog posts mention. If a good west cost route, a good east coast route and a northern and southern cross country route were more solidly in place in North America it could really kick start biking into an even better place. Often people who do a good lengthy tour become year round transportational and recreational cyclists and major advocates for better accommodations for getting around by bike.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/08/26/o...idelines-92957
https://bikeportland.org/2013/09/06/u...shoulder-93572
Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-26-14 at 07:10 PM.
01-26-14, 07:08 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
Of course, the real problem with this street is the crossings at arterioles, where there are no traffic controls for the plentiful, speeding cross traffic. Thus, no matter what he does the street will continue to be a failure as a so-called "bike boulevard". He doesn't have authority to change that, but I believe him when he tells me he would if he could.
01-26-14, 07:33 PM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
you describe precisely what is happening in pdx. pbot engineers want to install signals/mitigation but lack the funds (or cannot solve conflicts with odot). what is galling is that even though they know the new infrastructure may create increased risk they are willing to "build it" in the hopes that some day they will have the money to fix dangerous gaps.
Locally, our traffic engineering standards are up for review this year. The traffic planning department wants to keep it at the administrative order level so they can keep control. Some of us are looking to bring in our elected officials to write them some specific ordinances to correct this problem. I'm not optimistic, and neither are the planners that I have talked to.
01-26-14, 08:40 PM
#75
----
Like many bike projects they are not prioritized unless public attention is drawn to them and often they have to be shamed into taking action. And, as in this case, it's usually a pretty simple task to make it better and they usually do a little, "There, you happy now?"- two step, no big deal shoulder shrug, after the fact. Well, if it was so easy to do why not do it right in the first place?