Bekologist

I'm glad you don't find it 'odd' that i used a off road path transportationally as a vehicular cyclist. so you think this is actually commonplace?

Vehicular cyclists use of MUPs for transportational purposes actually isn't odd at all. less so in other countries. more and more of american bike 'highway' infrastructure does have bonifide regional transportational purposes.

look at Minneapolis or Denver for good examples of transportational bike infrastructure.

Almost Any bike specific space is met by the star bellied sneetches, i mean bicyclists, with derision. these blanket (or near-blanket) condemnations of bicycle specific infrastructure fails to address real issues surrounding bicycle transportation.

one obvious gorilla in the room is speed differential.

If bike traffic moves at 10-15 miles an hour, and a road is signed for traffic at 45 miles per hour, how will bicyclists directly in the main traffic flow in narrow lanes affect LOS of the roadway? and how would this configuration affect overall traffic safety and ridershare along a road cooridor?

if the * bellied bicyclists want wide lanes for the bicyclists to 'share' they really just want to 'shove bikes out of the way' the same as the motorists, eh? and even increase right hook dangers at intersections with 'wide lane' notions.

but there's a plan to better design arterial intersections to facilitate bike traffic, njkayaker. lessen the hook and curb hug dangers at intersections with bike specific road space.

There's a wide variety of guidelines on this subject in the MUTCD.

john forester insisted on these bikeway designs back in the 1970's dontchyaknow?

road space or road sneak? which one is preferred to induce safer conditions for bicycling?

where should the lines be drawn?

njkayaker

People will use whatever works for them.

It isn't odd. It's just that use doesn't typically justify the MUP (since there are too few transportation cyclists). There certainly are differences in uses depending on location.

Look at NYC for some bad examples.

Cities have a sufficient density of population. The cost/benefit ratio of infrastructure might not work in suburbs.

These are pretty-typical riding arrangements where I am (in suburbia). (Keep in mind that there aren't huge swarms of cyclists.)

A "road corridor" implies a targeted facility (and a facility to solve a specific problem might make sense). What do the cyclists do outside of that corridor?

So what? Did he "insist" on these as the best possible arrangement or as the best option within a range of choices he was against?

John Forester

You forget the factual details to support your claim that I received a traffic ticket in California for riding near the lane dividing line. It is peculiar, but I have no recollection of such an event. Perhaps you, Bek, can provide some further details that might refresh my recollection? For example, where, when, and what violation of the California Vehicle Code? I suppose that you will fail to support your claim, but will continue to make it, to suit your agenda.

You claim that FHWA and AASHTO have produced improved ways to accommodate bicycle traffic. What have they done but push cyclists to the side? And what is the cost of causing this disruption to normal traffic operation? You have never produced an analysis of these standard traffic engineering questions. More important, since you are nothing but an ideological amateur, the professionals in FHWA and AASHTO have never justified their designs by standard traffic-engineering standards. They produced these designs without any investigative or engineering justification, just the desire to push cyclists aside. You claim that their designs are well considered; if that is so, then there ought to be the engineering documents to demonstrate that claimed fact. You haven't produced any, neither have they.

Bekologist

You really can't expect to be taken seriously, trying to make arguments like that. that is a ludicrous analysis of federal planning for bicycle transportation and the 2009 revisions that complete the latest, updated MUTCD guidelines.

Any discussions using arguments about 'shoving bicyclists aside' is marginalizing, rank, amateur sophistry in regards to planning for bikes in the transportation mix.

'pushing bicyclists aside' versus what? bicyclists not riding at all, or slowing traffic down to 10 miles per hour?

'pushing bicyclists aside' is worthless, ideologically inaccurate invective about federal design guidelines from the FHWA & AASHTO, and contained in the MUTCD on how to best manage and facilitate bicycle traffic on public roads while enhancing roadway safety.

Bekologist

excuse me, the cost/benefit of enhancing roadway safety for bicycle traffic might not work in suburbs?

'might not work'? for whom? I just rode thru a brand new 'suburb' miles away from a city center and it had a wide bikelane along the main street in the development. it works there to inculcate greater ridership on the surrounding roads and streets unmodified by this street acommodation. the state highway just outside the subdivision also has bikelanes to facilitate actual transportational bicycling place to place in a sparse, prototypical dispersed suburban fringe typical around larger american cities.

John Forester

I note that you are unable to present engineering research results that justify the FHWA and AASHTO bikeway designs. It appears that the only justification that you can make is that you like those bikeways, meaning that you are possessed of the same bias as the motorists who created them.

njkayaker

What bicycle traffic? If there is no one around to use facilities, there is no one to make "safe". But it does cost money.

It's nice that you have places that you can build "brand new" suburbs from scratch! You seem to think that the world is homogenous.

gcottay

What techniques do you use in reading the minds of these unnamed professionals?

Bekologist

Ah, the lousy VC gambit of 'there's no bicyclists, just cars. why plan for bicyclists?" ( is that even a serious rebut?) what a marginalizing view of actual and potential ridership in the USA by the VC, * bellied bicyclists.

"What bikes?"

What bicycle traffic? Why, the one percent of ALL trips outside the home in the USA last year that were done on bicycle.

Perhaps, with a bit more dedication towards considerate planning for bicycles on the public roads, ridership in the USA will someday, perhaps, reach the ridership rates of more civilized countries.

I think of Germany, and its senior citizens. In Germany, Over 10 percent of ALL TRIPS OUTSIDE THE HOME, by SENIOR CITIZENS, both men AND women, are done on bicycle.

their health, vitality, public health costs, personal mobility, active living, etc all are supported by and made more economical there by better planning for bikes as transportation.

Germany, folks. 10 percent of all trips outside the home by seniors are done by bicycle.

think about it.

John Forester

Very simple. First, I was present at the origination of the bikeway standard designs, and I heard all their arguments. Second, it is standard procedure, when any such major redesign of the highway system is undertaken, that there be engineering research documents demonstrating the advantages, and disadvantages, of the new designs. No such was done.

Bekologist

interesting. how did you come up with your idea that a pocket bikelane was a sounder bikelane than an edge of roadway configuration? what engineering documentation led you to that opinion back in the 1970s?

No matter.....

and this is when you endorsed those early bikeway designs for arterial intersections that routed thru bike traffic to the left of all right turning traffic in early reiterations of pocket bike lanes, correct?

you insisted on this configuration, leading the course for bikeways planning that enhances bicyclist safety at intersections, as are seen in the current revisions of the MUTCD.

good one john~


but this?

are you seriously trying to tell us the the current federal bikeway planning guidelines have had no steerage, no investigative or engineering guidance of any kind?

that is laughable and you can't expect people to take commentary like that seriously, john forester. That is so off-course it's Queegish.

...but how did you come up with that1970's endorsement of pocket bikelanes, john? just a hunch? A gut feeling about road movements of traffic with obvious speed differentials or was it something else? perhaps some early sketches on a barnap about bikeways at intersections?

njkayaker

If you can only argue by yelling at people, you are doing it wrong.

Anyway, you are misrepresenting what I said ("The cost/benefit ratio of infrastructure might not work in suburbs.")

I didn't say that there shouldn't be any "planning for bicyclists". It may not have been clear but I was referring to separate facilities (not bikelanes).

That number seems way too large.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It would be a hard sell in many places (not all of them).

They also have a higher proportion of people living in denser areas. I bet that there has been a decline in bicycle trips in Germany over 20 years.

John Forester

[QUOTE=Bekologist;10340210]are you seriously trying to tell us the the current federal bikeway planning guidelines have had no steerage, no investigative or engineering guidance of any kind?

that is laughable and you can't expect people to take commentary like that seriously, john forester. That is so off-course it's Queegish.


Read what I wrote: It is standard procedure, when any such major redesign of the highway system is undertaken, that there be engineering research documents demonstrating the advantages, and disadvantages, of the new designs. No such was done. You claim that those designs had no steerage, no investigative or engineering guidance of any kind, which is a misstatement of my position. Of course the bikeway designs had some engineering guidance, such a consideration of the width of a cyclist's shoulders. What was never done was to compare the traffic movements produced by the various designs in the light of the known collision statistics, to see which designs would be most likely to reduce car-bike collisions.

You say that it is laughable to claim that this was not done. Well, I did it long ago, and my work was thrown out because it demonstrated that the policy of pushing cyclists aside produced more conflicts.

John Forester

As I have repeatedly written before, we California cyclists were confronted with a bike lane design that put the bike lane on the right hand side of traffic that had to turn right. We could not get rid of the bikelane, that was decreed by California government. Therefore we negotiated to get the bike lane that we had to have moved to the left of the traffic that had to turn right. The negotiation was difficult, against CalTrans's opposition, but we finally convinced the other committee members that compelling straight-through cyclists to stay on the right-hand side of traffic that had to turn right was very dangerous and would constitute an obvious traffic defect justifying personal liability lawsuits. I don't know why you think this was so unusual an action, or something drawn up on a paper napkin without much thought.

Bekologist

...and you helped 'them' build better bikeways!

congratulations, john. so it was a hunch, or engineering sense.

I suggest there are other considerations about bikes on the public roadways that are also basic tenets of traffic management.

speed differentials come to mind.

Are you familiar with concept of LOS of roadways? How about the algorithms for BLOS and BCI?

You understand why your claims about the governments' failure to apply engineering rigor to roadway bikeway guidelines are so dubious.

Bekologist

earlier, njkayaker asked "what bicyclists?"

not willing to buy into this marginalizing idea there aren't any bicyclists in america,




I responded with "What bicycle traffic? Why, the one percent of ALL trips outside the home in the USA last year that were done on bicycle."

Njkayaker, you then figured that 1 percent ridershare of all trips seems way too large.

let me ask you this: If ridershare was actually at 1 of all trips outside the home, would you then think it makes sense to more seriously consider and plan for bikes on the public roads and highways of america?

John Forester

That is not my understanding. Note that in the example that you love to quote, it was government who was insisting on the dangerous design standard, and it was California cyclists, led by me, who finally forced government to accept a less dangerous design.

njkayaker

Another lie. I didn't say there "weren't any bicyclists in america". What I was clearly talking about, more than once, was regional differences. What is appropriate in one place (eg, Portland) isn't going to be appropriate in other places.

You provided no citation for this figure.

Bekologist

another lie?

You asked, "What bicycle traffic?'

it's very clear your opinion is there is no bicycle traffic. or should we plan for bike traffic where there are bikes, like oh, roadways and public space in towns and cities?


dude. if you can't handle your own rhetoric, maybe you had better bow out of the conversation.

and you provided no citation for your opinion that 1 percent 'seems way too high' - oh, except of course your 'what bicyclists'......

if you look into ridership, you'd see where american ride share is. maybe you should simply accept my statistic.

some of us might have our fingers a bit more firmly on the handlebar grip of reality than

"what bicyclists?"

Bekologist

actually, john its the example YOU like to bring up, about you insisting on better designs for bikeways.

that time back in the 1970's (long ago) when john forester went on and insisted (your words) on better designed bikeway intersection treatments to caltrans. and good job, btw.

but john, where do you stand on CURRENT MUTCD or Cal-trans (its not clear what standards you claim have no sound engineering backing) guidelines? not the ones in 1972 but now.

do you insist or are you trying to insinuate there is no engineering basis for roadway bikeway planning?

are there, or are there no basic traffic management and engineering standards backing the current MUTCD guidelines?

any shred of basic traffic management engineering in bikeways planning, john? yes or no?

are you familiar with LOS? and how about BLOS? or BCI?

familar or unfamilar? care to explain to the forum the latter two concepts?

John Forester

I don't know why you keep bringing up this subject. You quote my account of a few days ago, made in the way that I have always put it, but you evidently don't accept it. Note that the problem to be corrected was CalTrans's standard design that put a bikelane on the right hand side of a lane of traffic that was obliged to turn right. Since government required bike lanes of some type, it was obviously far less dangerous to have the bike lane to the left of the right turn only lane. If you have evidence that causes you to doubt my word on this subject, then advance it. If you have a different interpretation of the events, then advance that. Otherwise, quit your foolishness.

Originally Posted by John Forester
That is not my understanding. Note that in the example that you love to quote, it was government who was insisting on the dangerous design standard, and it was California cyclists, led by me, who finally forced government to accept a less dangerous design.

Bekologist

don't be unassuming, you often bring up your involvement in these early caltrans powwows about bikelane designs.



was your insistence on pocket bikelanes at significant intersections an opinion framed by engineering analysis and detailed whatsay on your part, or was it simple, basic concepts of traffic management issues like speed differentials that led you to 'insist' on this pocket bikelane design?


no matter, gut instinct or rigorous engineering analysis would lead to the same conclusions -better intersection arterial treatments for bicycle traffic.



it's been made abundantly clear by you, john, that john forester himself insisted on better bikeway intersection treatments in early meetings about bikeways with caltrans.


once you accept your own retelling of history, perhaps you can go on to explain what appears to be a condemnation of current bikeway design guidelines as having no engineering guidance whatsover.

perhaps you have been unclear. perhaps you think that now there has been some engineering rigor applied to bikeway design standards.

it is certainly clear that the purview of the most current MUTCD guidelines consist of significant engineering analysis applied to bikeway design in america - Even the types of signage used for bikeways is evaluated with engineering rigor before approval in the MUTCD.

Bikeways which are by and large vehicular by design, becasue of early adopters of arterial inersection designs incorporating pocket bikelanes, bike facilities insisted upon by john forester back to caltrans in the 1970's, the nascent foundations of bikeway planning in america.

again, good work ,john forester, for that early insistence on those bikelane designs.

Bekologist

once we get past the nascent days of bikeway design in california, perhaps john, as a bicycle transportation engineer, can illustrate and explain the algorithms for BLOS and BCI.

John Forester

Your insistence on use of the plural "intersection treatments" is false. The only occurrence is the one we have been discussing.

I have always realized that bikeway promoting bicycle advocates, such as yourself, are peculiarly ignorant about traffic operation, but I did not realize that you would require an explanation of why straight-through cyclists should not be forced to be on the right-hand side of traffic that is obliged to turn right. It was my recognition that government was forcing cyclists into a continuous series of mandatory right-hook conflicts that motivated my action, and the same recognition on the part of some other motoring committee members, once that had been pointed out to them, that changed the design standard. Surely, Bek, you have heard enough about right-hook car-bike collisions to recognize their importance? Of course, your ideology causes you to ignore them, but in this case, when it was government who produced the danger, surely you see the danger, once it has been explained to you? Or do you require some further explanation, considering fields of view and the other analyses presented in my book Bicycle Transportation and worked out at the time we have been discussing? Perhaps, you should ameliorate your ignorance by reading up on the subject on which you like to pontificate?

Bekologist

trust me, john, i'm cognizant of intersection conflicts.

That's why there are roadway design standards to mitigate intersection conflicts between cars and bikes approaching arterial intersections codified in america's standard highway design manual. similar to that early bikeway design you insisted upon.


let's be brief:

in the nascent days of bikelane design implementation in California, you offered your expertise and insisted on a safer bikeway design.

this was just one intersection, or intersection design standards? no matter.

you identified a pocket bikelane as a preferred roadway design among choices developed by caltrans for at least one intersection treatment on one or more arterials with bikeways.

fine.

let's accept you insisted on safer bikeway designs at at least one arterial intersection, likely engineering design standards in development by caltrans, and move on.


Road sneak, or road space, john? which is a preferable lane position? have you seen the latest MUTCD revisions? the design standards expound upon that pocket bikelane design you insisted upon back in the 1970's.

the FHWA looks like they have taken a good hard look and considered the 'road sneak' methods of not taking up lane space, and given bicyclists dedicated space even in some left hand turn configurations. a lot less 'road sneak' required now at some significant arterial intersections.


definitely codified in the book.

destination & speed positioning, perhaps you're familiar?



maybe, once the debate about john foresters early insistence on pocket bikelane designs in california is finished, he can clarify if he thinks there is still no engineering guidance given to the FHWA highway planning for bicycle traffic on public roads and highways in america.

And then in light of his answer to that, john could lend his expertise as a bicycle transportation engineer and explain the equation for BLOS of a roadway.