i took the reopened broadway bridge into downtown the other day. they have restriped the last block approaching the bridge from the east, between benton and larrabee, so that the bike lane now hugs the right curb, inside the right turn lane.
before all this construction to put in the streetcar tracks, the bike lane had been to the left of the right turn lane for the last half block. there was a half block gap after benton that functioned, however inadequately, as a transition across the turning lane.
of course, i always took the travel lane anyway from at least ross, disregarding the bike lane against the curb, so that the merge to the through lane was a matter of only a few inches and i did not have to compete with motorists merging right. but with the lane striped solid all the way down to larrabee this becomes somewhat more overtly a political act.
there is an advanced stop line at larrabee, and one supposes that this will soon be marked as a bike box.
this was not on greg raisman's project list presented to BAC two weeks ago, incidentally.
when i got home, i sent somewhat intemperate e-mails to the entire crew at BAC (minus one, whose e-mail address i have not been able to unearth) and to rob sadowsky and gerik kransky over at BTA. "another genius move by PBoT," i said, and a couple of people reacted at least slightly negatively.
but it does seem to me that we are careening down a dangerous path with these bike boxes in lieu of proper lane placement and sharrows, and those who are positioned as advocates for cyclists either are silent or have affirmatively bought in to these treatments.
BTA is participating in the ribbon cutting for the burnside/couch couplet next tuesday, october 12. they have been promoting this with a variant of the "build it" logo saying "built." what the hell was "built" for cyclists? a striped lane on couch from 6th down, inside two right hooks and a bus stop, and a sidepath through an s-curve onto the bridge where lane widths and a tight radius at the last right turn pretty much force motorists to encroach. thanks a lot. "built."
oh, and a green box at couch and grand, which accomplishes nothing at all on the green signal phase. again, thanks. that atrocity actually was on greg's project list, at the very top, and no one at BAC said sh*t. but BTA has endorsed it.
but neither his project list, nor any project list anywhere that i have seen, says anything about whatever is going on at broadway and larrabee, and they do not include the reconfiguration of broadway at williams. it is my firm impression that neither of these was even reviewed by the BAC, [not] much less given a rubber stamp.
in a follow up message to rob sadowsky, i said, "i am good with advanced stop lines, and i am good with restricting right turns on red. my issue with the bike box is that it reinforces very forcibly the far to right and mandatory sidepath requirements."
for me, the descent on couch from 14th to MLK, downhill, with the lights timed to something less than 20 mph, is very comfortable. until you get to the lane striping at 6th. then all of a sudden you are told to squeeze to the right and let motorists overtake you in a not very wide travel lane. and then there is a bus stop and the right turn onto grand. i simply take the lane, and i defy anyone to show me that this facility, which was not included in the 1998 bike master plan, and which violates the technical specifications of that plan, can be treated as a mandatory sidepath.
this is what got that woman hurt the other day, not the absence of a bike box. indeed, a bike box would have had zero effect, because what happened to her happened during the green signal phase.
now, of course, i do realize that until PBoT gets these PSU studies squeezed through MUTCD the bike boxes, as such, are not mandatory sidepaths. but (a) they eventually will be, despite the weaknesses in the PSU studies, and (b) even now, before mandatory status kicks in, we have the problem of public perception.
i already get grief from the occasional motorist for not using the bike lane on couch from 6th to MLK or on the s-curve ramp onto the bridge. and i already get grief from the occasional motorist for not using the existing bike lane configuration on broadway from ross down to larrabee.
but if you push the striped bike lane over to the curb and put in a bright green box, even if the mandatory sidepath statute might not technically apply here or there, motorists (you know, those dull-witted motorists we all love to hate) will be led to believe that cyclists "belong over there," and not here, competing for space in the travel lane.
i reminded rob that when he and i first met, at the alice awards, just before he formally stepped into the executive director's chair, i described myself to him as a "vehicular cyclist" by inclination, self-taught, having read forester's book only after the fact, and i said, as i often say to people to explain my perspective, that "forester and i are no longer on speaking terms." there is actually a story behind that, and someday maybe i will tell it.
but the point is, i "get" that separated facilities have a place, and i "get" that we have to make it noticeably less convenient for motorists to run roughshod over all other modes. i do. i got rid of the car awhile back. but we have a very long way to go, and in the meantime we are putting in poorly conceived half-solutions that serve only (or largely) to exacerbate the problems.
people talk about encouraging the newbies, or whatever, and the "educational" function of some of these treatments. by striping a lane on couch from 6th to MLK, or by pushing the bike lane to the curb on broadway from ross to larrabee, and especially by capping these treatments with bright green boxes that serve no function at all during the green signal phase, we are encouraging and educating "newbies" to put themselves in harm's way.
BTA is identifying itself with the wrong side of these issues, and it would appear that BAC has been cut entirely out of the loop.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
the law of unintended consequences
so i went to this open house a couple of weeks ago for the davis street improvements project. ellen vanderslice was there to explain the storyboards, field questions, and listen to feedback from whoever stopped by.
during the time i was there, at least, the event was thinly attended. of the handful of people who showed, two or three were business owners there in the neighborhood, which i would describe as a sort of warehouse/industrial district.
one of these, whose name escapes me, was teasing ellen that "maintain truck circulation" should be moved from third to first in the list of project goals. ellen insisted gamely that there was no priority among the three listed goals, but she tried to accommodate him by writing "improve" on a post-it note and sticking it next to the word "maintain" on the first storyboard.
i think the larger point the guy was trying to make was that the project has been framed largely in terms of bike traffic.
i talked with this guy for a few minutes, and asked him to elaborate his concerns. has truck access already been adversely affected by the changes to burnside and couch, i asked, and is he worried that the proposed changes to davis -- speed bumps east of 12th, removing the center stripe, putting down sharrows -- will somehow make things worse, that kind of thing. yes, he said, and yes. and subtracting some small number of onstreet parking spaces on couch has made it more difficult for customers trying to get to his business.
and those g*dd*mned bikers blow right through the red lights. of course, i am standing there with the messenger bag and the fingerless gloves.
i asked him whether the trucks that were making deliveries to his business, or picking up or whatever, were coming in off sandy or down 12th from I-84 or from where. he didn't know.
i was curious about the parking issue, because (a) the businesses in this district are for the most part not retail, so we are talking primarily employee parking, and (b) the aerial photos seem to show a lot of offstreet surface parking alongside many of the businesses. and i pointed out (commiserating) that when the streetcar comes through there will be even less parking on couch. he knew, he knew.
somewhat interestingly, he claimed that the onstreet parking on davis is largely park and ride -- in other words, roof rackers from gresham who park in this district for free and bike the rest of the way in to their jobs downtown (and inflate the numbers on the bridge counts). i suggested that this problem could be addressed by limiting onstreet parking to two hours. but he and i agreed that lack of enforcement would probably undermine this approach.
also, i am wondering why these people don't just bike to the MAX. possibly this guy is overstating the problem, but it is certainly the case that we need to come to grips with onstreet parking as part of any comprehensive transportation strategy.
anyway, to get to the point.
the impetus for the project, according to the storyboards, is that the burnside/couch couplet has pushed some bicyclists onto davis, but also some motorists, quite a number of whom are speeding. the speed bumps are already scheduled to go in, pretty much right away. removing the center stripe and putting down sharrows are still awaiting approval.
the feedback PBoT was actually looking for from this open house has mostly to do with intersection treatments at 12th and at sandy. nothing in particular has yet been proposed, and in fact the third storyboard says pretty much straight out that they are not looking at signalizing the intersection with 12th or extending the curbs there, because this would impede the flow of truck traffic. they are looking for "creative" solutions. got any? i don't.
the situation at sandy for cyclists heading east is complicated by the fact that the approach is at such an oblique angle -- and midblock, halfway between 15th and 16th. there really is nothing you can do there, apart from a signal, but i scribbled out some post-it notes and stuck them here and there on the map to suggest that they divert eastbound bike traffic to 14th and then put a much larger cut through the island they have constructed there to allow cyclists to continue east on couch. of course this would require an additional signal phase specific to bike traffic, and possibly some alteration of the curb extension they have already built to prevent motorists from connecting across on westbound couch.
off in a corner of the third storyboard was a summary description of something called the "burnside bridgehead framework plan," which is a project of the portland development commission. among other things, that plan would connect davis down to 2nd and from there up to the burnside bridge. but there is a great deal more to it than that.
the plan would completely redevelop a four-block area north of the burnside bridge to davis, from 2nd to MLK, as a sort of catalyst to redevelopment throughout the district. all kinds of mixed use, etc. might have the effect of slowing traffic on MLK itself.
not sure what kind of feedback, if any, ellen is expecting on the bridgehead framework plan.
during the time i was there, at least, the event was thinly attended. of the handful of people who showed, two or three were business owners there in the neighborhood, which i would describe as a sort of warehouse/industrial district.
one of these, whose name escapes me, was teasing ellen that "maintain truck circulation" should be moved from third to first in the list of project goals. ellen insisted gamely that there was no priority among the three listed goals, but she tried to accommodate him by writing "improve" on a post-it note and sticking it next to the word "maintain" on the first storyboard.
i think the larger point the guy was trying to make was that the project has been framed largely in terms of bike traffic.
i talked with this guy for a few minutes, and asked him to elaborate his concerns. has truck access already been adversely affected by the changes to burnside and couch, i asked, and is he worried that the proposed changes to davis -- speed bumps east of 12th, removing the center stripe, putting down sharrows -- will somehow make things worse, that kind of thing. yes, he said, and yes. and subtracting some small number of onstreet parking spaces on couch has made it more difficult for customers trying to get to his business.
and those g*dd*mned bikers blow right through the red lights. of course, i am standing there with the messenger bag and the fingerless gloves.
i asked him whether the trucks that were making deliveries to his business, or picking up or whatever, were coming in off sandy or down 12th from I-84 or from where. he didn't know.
i was curious about the parking issue, because (a) the businesses in this district are for the most part not retail, so we are talking primarily employee parking, and (b) the aerial photos seem to show a lot of offstreet surface parking alongside many of the businesses. and i pointed out (commiserating) that when the streetcar comes through there will be even less parking on couch. he knew, he knew.
somewhat interestingly, he claimed that the onstreet parking on davis is largely park and ride -- in other words, roof rackers from gresham who park in this district for free and bike the rest of the way in to their jobs downtown (and inflate the numbers on the bridge counts). i suggested that this problem could be addressed by limiting onstreet parking to two hours. but he and i agreed that lack of enforcement would probably undermine this approach.
also, i am wondering why these people don't just bike to the MAX. possibly this guy is overstating the problem, but it is certainly the case that we need to come to grips with onstreet parking as part of any comprehensive transportation strategy.
anyway, to get to the point.
the impetus for the project, according to the storyboards, is that the burnside/couch couplet has pushed some bicyclists onto davis, but also some motorists, quite a number of whom are speeding. the speed bumps are already scheduled to go in, pretty much right away. removing the center stripe and putting down sharrows are still awaiting approval.
the feedback PBoT was actually looking for from this open house has mostly to do with intersection treatments at 12th and at sandy. nothing in particular has yet been proposed, and in fact the third storyboard says pretty much straight out that they are not looking at signalizing the intersection with 12th or extending the curbs there, because this would impede the flow of truck traffic. they are looking for "creative" solutions. got any? i don't.
the situation at sandy for cyclists heading east is complicated by the fact that the approach is at such an oblique angle -- and midblock, halfway between 15th and 16th. there really is nothing you can do there, apart from a signal, but i scribbled out some post-it notes and stuck them here and there on the map to suggest that they divert eastbound bike traffic to 14th and then put a much larger cut through the island they have constructed there to allow cyclists to continue east on couch. of course this would require an additional signal phase specific to bike traffic, and possibly some alteration of the curb extension they have already built to prevent motorists from connecting across on westbound couch.
off in a corner of the third storyboard was a summary description of something called the "burnside bridgehead framework plan," which is a project of the portland development commission. among other things, that plan would connect davis down to 2nd and from there up to the burnside bridge. but there is a great deal more to it than that.
the plan would completely redevelop a four-block area north of the burnside bridge to davis, from 2nd to MLK, as a sort of catalyst to redevelopment throughout the district. all kinds of mixed use, etc. might have the effect of slowing traffic on MLK itself.
not sure what kind of feedback, if any, ellen is expecting on the bridgehead framework plan.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
re "move over" blog post
sent the following e-mail message to joe rose last night:
joe,
i really cannot express how disappointed i was to see this blog post.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/09/ant_keep_up_mr_bicyclist_the_p.html
the statute clearly says that a cyclist can claim the lane if it is too narrow to share.
typical speeds downtown are about 12 mph (unless you want to make a full stop at each light), and there are usually adjacent lanes motorists could use to overtake. (and hey, if they can't overtake, then maybe the cyclist isn't actually going slower than traffic after all.)
your treatment of this subject was very sloppy, and the headline is an outrage. in case you had not noticed, a great many people are completely incapable of thinking for themselves and rely on the popular media to tell them what to believe. this places a special responsibility on journalists to do the critical analysis and lay it out there for everyone to see. instead, you add fuel to this ongoing "controversy" between cyclists and motorists. i put the word in quotes because in fact the only motorists who have a problem are those who buy in to the story (see above re "incapable of thinking").
you say you spoke with this motorist on the phone. what street was it? how many lanes in each direction? what was the speed of traffic that this cyclist was supposedly not keeping up with? was there onstreet parking? etc., etc., etc. if you asked these questions, which i doubt, the answers should have been spelled out in your blog post (see above re "lay it out there").
i call shenanigans.
r.
p.s. on an unrelated subject. the phrase "begs the question" refers to a logical fallacy in which the conclusion you are trying to prove is assumed at the outset. the phrase you are looking for in your little aside about the $94 fines is "raises the question."
joe,
i really cannot express how disappointed i was to see this blog post.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/09/ant_keep_up_mr_bicyclist_the_p.html
the statute clearly says that a cyclist can claim the lane if it is too narrow to share.
typical speeds downtown are about 12 mph (unless you want to make a full stop at each light), and there are usually adjacent lanes motorists could use to overtake. (and hey, if they can't overtake, then maybe the cyclist isn't actually going slower than traffic after all.)
your treatment of this subject was very sloppy, and the headline is an outrage. in case you had not noticed, a great many people are completely incapable of thinking for themselves and rely on the popular media to tell them what to believe. this places a special responsibility on journalists to do the critical analysis and lay it out there for everyone to see. instead, you add fuel to this ongoing "controversy" between cyclists and motorists. i put the word in quotes because in fact the only motorists who have a problem are those who buy in to the story (see above re "incapable of thinking").
you say you spoke with this motorist on the phone. what street was it? how many lanes in each direction? what was the speed of traffic that this cyclist was supposedly not keeping up with? was there onstreet parking? etc., etc., etc. if you asked these questions, which i doubt, the answers should have been spelled out in your blog post (see above re "lay it out there").
i call shenanigans.
r.
p.s. on an unrelated subject. the phrase "begs the question" refers to a logical fallacy in which the conclusion you are trying to prove is assumed at the outset. the phrase you are looking for in your little aside about the $94 fines is "raises the question."
Monday, August 30, 2010
first foray
last friday evening we did this scattermass traffic-calming pedestrian action l. is calling "the human speed bump project." all two of us met outside the star e rose and went inside for a cup of something before hitting the streets. the organizer required us to swear commitment to "safety first." at five promptly we went out into the field.
one by one, at a distance of roughly a block apart, we crossed each and every zebra striped crosswalk, two at each intersection, working our way east to 31st and then back, sometimes the same crosswalk twice in a row if the opportunity afforded. we gave buses and fire trucks and even cyclists a pass.
the idea was to start into the crosswalk just an instant before the gesture would seem political, but when the effect would still be to cause the motorist to slow down. if the motorist had to stop, i would give a friendly wave thank you. l. had one situation where the motorist simply veered around her, a big red pickup. but that was unusual.
even with just the two of us this was surprisingly effective. we often succeeded in slowing motor traffic for two blocks at a time. with a much larger scattermass the effect might be to take back the street for primary pedestrian use. this is something people can actually do.
one by one, at a distance of roughly a block apart, we crossed each and every zebra striped crosswalk, two at each intersection, working our way east to 31st and then back, sometimes the same crosswalk twice in a row if the opportunity afforded. we gave buses and fire trucks and even cyclists a pass.
the idea was to start into the crosswalk just an instant before the gesture would seem political, but when the effect would still be to cause the motorist to slow down. if the motorist had to stop, i would give a friendly wave thank you. l. had one situation where the motorist simply veered around her, a big red pickup. but that was unusual.
even with just the two of us this was surprisingly effective. we often succeeded in slowing motor traffic for two blocks at a time. with a much larger scattermass the effect might be to take back the street for primary pedestrian use. this is something people can actually do.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
a tally of two intersections
recently i volunteered to count bicyclists at each of four intersections as part of PBoT's annual effort to estimate the number of total bike trips. they are trying to do counts at about 175 intersections during peak hours in july, august, and september. not sure if they have enough volunteers to cover everything.
i chose these four intersections specifically because they have issues with which i am familiar, and because i have my own ideas about what "should" be done to make them more amenable to bike traffic.
so i admit i went into this with an agenda.
let me talk about just two of the four intersections. the intersection of northeast 28th with glisan, and the intersection of northeast 12th with irving. there is some pretty substantial throughput of cyclists through these intersections during peak hours, together with some pretty high volume motor traffic.
northeast 28th at glisan
in the space of two hours, from four to six p.m. on tuesday, july 27, i counted 277 cyclists, about two-thirds male, about one-third not wearing helmets, of which latter group not quite three-quarters were male.
i mention helmets because they had us counting that, and the male/female split, together with how many of each of the twelve possible maneuvers through the intersection -- straight through, left turn, right turn from each of the four directions -- cyclists performed.
somewhat more than half the bike traffic was straight through north or south on 28th. slightly over one-third arrived at the intersection from the south on 28th, slightly less than a third from the north. about twenty percent arrived from the west on glisan, and only about one-eighth from the east. fully seven percent were riding on sidewalks through part or all of the intersection, mostly north along 28th, which brought the nominal intersection count down to 269.
five people (not quite two percent) found it necessary to execute left turns in the "copenhagen" or "box" fashion, including at least three arriving from the west on glisan and heading north on 28th -- and this despite the fact that there is a dedicated left turn lane there.
quite a number of cyclists heading straight through north on 28th were positioned so far to the right that they found themselves trapped behind parked cars on the far side of the intersection, outside the laundromat, and had to wait to swerve out. to me, this says "sharrows on 28th, throughout the corridor" but again, i have an agenda.
northeast 12th at irving
on thursday, august 5, again from four to six p.m., i counted 302 cyclists, again about two-thirds male, about one-quarter not wearing helmets (a different crowd), of which latter group slightly over three-quarters were male.
somewhat over half of the bike traffic was straight through north or south (about two to one north in the first hour, about even the second hour). roughly one-quarter were turning left onto irving from southbound 12th, and of these more than a quarter -- close to seven percent of the entire intersection count -- executed this turn as a "copenhagen" left, many of them arriving on the sidewalk. a fair number made the turn from the left edge of the through lane, but those who asserted the center of the left turn lane seemed to be confident of their position. my observation.
in fact, more than one-sixth of the entire count, exclamation point, completed some portion of their transit through the intersection on the sidewalk -- mostly southbound on the west side of the bridge, and then getting into the bike lane on the far side of the intersection. this did not bring the nominal count down much at all, because nearly all cyclists who did some part of their transit on the sidewalk did another part on the street.
it was my impression that the northbound count was probably low, due to the construction that still continues at 12th and burnside. the counts are continuing through september, and if the construction clears up, i intend to go back and count this intersection again.
anyway.
what lessons to take from this left turn business, and from the high proportion of riders taking the sidewalk (again, this is primarily a matter of southbound traffic on the west sidewalk). one: people don't much, statistically, "like" the southbound setup on the bridge in general, and they don't like the left turn situation in particular. granted, we are talking about one-sixteenth of the total bike volume here, people southbound, turning left to go irving. but even the through lane, some significant number of people don't like. if there is no striped lane, you gotta fend for yourself, and a lot (and i mean "a lot") of people just will not do it.
however. and here i am speaking as a vehicular cyclist, if you will forgive me. oh, and incidentally. quite a number of left turning motorists were firing up their cell phones for the long highway trek east on 84. quite a number. i wasn't counting them. anecdotal.
okay, so i don't really object to marking these sidewalks as multi-use paths. go for it. and you can even guide people in to the copenhagen left the way you did at weidler and williams. i get it, okay. and hey, maybe a sufficiently intrusive infrastructure will get some of these motorists off their cell phones. right now they are on autopilot.
but there are twenty-something percent of people making this left who kinda know how to do it (though some of them hang just outside the right edge of the turn lane). and what i do not want to see is something that tells motorists, "they [meaning "those cyclists"] belong over there."
not just talking the mandatory sidepath legality here, though it seems to me this kind of treatment could actually fall within 814.420. i am talking perception. you have been putting sharrows all over these sidestreets, but out here where they could do some good, nothing. and if you put up the multi-use path and the copenhagen box, and you do not put down sharrows, the message will be clear, and the vehicular cyclist will be even more unwelcome. the motorist will feel that his sense of entitlement to the travel lanes has been vindicated. sharrows are a must here, whether or not you do the multi-use path.
but these people are not entitled, they are intruders, and they need to be reminded of this. i was once one myself. man, i was mean, but i'm changing that scene, and i'm doing the best that i can. let's not continue to cut motorists slack. you wanna get vehicle miles traveled down, you gotta bring down the hammer, make it difficult, turn the tables, make them the outsider.
there. i spit my piece.
and another point. i was not stationed at the north end of the bridge, but i go through there all the time, and can tell you -- again anectodally -- that a cyclist coming off the sidewalk northbound unexpectedly when i am making a right onto lloyd to get to the left turn lane, a cyclist doing that at anything faster than a walking pace, is a problem. first hand experience just the other day. so let's not be exacerbating that problem, either.
i chose these four intersections specifically because they have issues with which i am familiar, and because i have my own ideas about what "should" be done to make them more amenable to bike traffic.
so i admit i went into this with an agenda.
let me talk about just two of the four intersections. the intersection of northeast 28th with glisan, and the intersection of northeast 12th with irving. there is some pretty substantial throughput of cyclists through these intersections during peak hours, together with some pretty high volume motor traffic.
northeast 28th at glisan
in the space of two hours, from four to six p.m. on tuesday, july 27, i counted 277 cyclists, about two-thirds male, about one-third not wearing helmets, of which latter group not quite three-quarters were male.
i mention helmets because they had us counting that, and the male/female split, together with how many of each of the twelve possible maneuvers through the intersection -- straight through, left turn, right turn from each of the four directions -- cyclists performed.
somewhat more than half the bike traffic was straight through north or south on 28th. slightly over one-third arrived at the intersection from the south on 28th, slightly less than a third from the north. about twenty percent arrived from the west on glisan, and only about one-eighth from the east. fully seven percent were riding on sidewalks through part or all of the intersection, mostly north along 28th, which brought the nominal intersection count down to 269.
five people (not quite two percent) found it necessary to execute left turns in the "copenhagen" or "box" fashion, including at least three arriving from the west on glisan and heading north on 28th -- and this despite the fact that there is a dedicated left turn lane there.
quite a number of cyclists heading straight through north on 28th were positioned so far to the right that they found themselves trapped behind parked cars on the far side of the intersection, outside the laundromat, and had to wait to swerve out. to me, this says "sharrows on 28th, throughout the corridor" but again, i have an agenda.
northeast 12th at irving
on thursday, august 5, again from four to six p.m., i counted 302 cyclists, again about two-thirds male, about one-quarter not wearing helmets (a different crowd), of which latter group slightly over three-quarters were male.
somewhat over half of the bike traffic was straight through north or south (about two to one north in the first hour, about even the second hour). roughly one-quarter were turning left onto irving from southbound 12th, and of these more than a quarter -- close to seven percent of the entire intersection count -- executed this turn as a "copenhagen" left, many of them arriving on the sidewalk. a fair number made the turn from the left edge of the through lane, but those who asserted the center of the left turn lane seemed to be confident of their position. my observation.
in fact, more than one-sixth of the entire count, exclamation point, completed some portion of their transit through the intersection on the sidewalk -- mostly southbound on the west side of the bridge, and then getting into the bike lane on the far side of the intersection. this did not bring the nominal count down much at all, because nearly all cyclists who did some part of their transit on the sidewalk did another part on the street.
it was my impression that the northbound count was probably low, due to the construction that still continues at 12th and burnside. the counts are continuing through september, and if the construction clears up, i intend to go back and count this intersection again.
anyway.
what lessons to take from this left turn business, and from the high proportion of riders taking the sidewalk (again, this is primarily a matter of southbound traffic on the west sidewalk). one: people don't much, statistically, "like" the southbound setup on the bridge in general, and they don't like the left turn situation in particular. granted, we are talking about one-sixteenth of the total bike volume here, people southbound, turning left to go irving. but even the through lane, some significant number of people don't like. if there is no striped lane, you gotta fend for yourself, and a lot (and i mean "a lot") of people just will not do it.
however. and here i am speaking as a vehicular cyclist, if you will forgive me. oh, and incidentally. quite a number of left turning motorists were firing up their cell phones for the long highway trek east on 84. quite a number. i wasn't counting them. anecdotal.
okay, so i don't really object to marking these sidewalks as multi-use paths. go for it. and you can even guide people in to the copenhagen left the way you did at weidler and williams. i get it, okay. and hey, maybe a sufficiently intrusive infrastructure will get some of these motorists off their cell phones. right now they are on autopilot.
but there are twenty-something percent of people making this left who kinda know how to do it (though some of them hang just outside the right edge of the turn lane). and what i do not want to see is something that tells motorists, "they [meaning "those cyclists"] belong over there."
not just talking the mandatory sidepath legality here, though it seems to me this kind of treatment could actually fall within 814.420. i am talking perception. you have been putting sharrows all over these sidestreets, but out here where they could do some good, nothing. and if you put up the multi-use path and the copenhagen box, and you do not put down sharrows, the message will be clear, and the vehicular cyclist will be even more unwelcome. the motorist will feel that his sense of entitlement to the travel lanes has been vindicated. sharrows are a must here, whether or not you do the multi-use path.
but these people are not entitled, they are intruders, and they need to be reminded of this. i was once one myself. man, i was mean, but i'm changing that scene, and i'm doing the best that i can. let's not continue to cut motorists slack. you wanna get vehicle miles traveled down, you gotta bring down the hammer, make it difficult, turn the tables, make them the outsider.
there. i spit my piece.
and another point. i was not stationed at the north end of the bridge, but i go through there all the time, and can tell you -- again anectodally -- that a cyclist coming off the sidewalk northbound unexpectedly when i am making a right onto lloyd to get to the left turn lane, a cyclist doing that at anything faster than a walking pace, is a problem. first hand experience just the other day. so let's not be exacerbating that problem, either.
Monday, July 12, 2010
open letter to the BAC
July 12, 2010
Open Letter to the Bicycle Advisory Committee:
At the BAC meeting in April, vice chair Robert Pickett gave a report from a subcommittee looking into the committee's policy review process. Among other things, Ofcr. Pickett proposed that the committee find some mechanism by which it might "proactively" seek presentations on projects the committee itself identifies from PBoT's inventory, rather than limiting itself to reviewing projects PBoT chooses to bring to the committee.
After the meeting, I approached Ofcr. Pickett to suggest that the committee might go farther, by proposing projects or policy that PBoT has not already come up with. Ofcr. Pickett acknowledged the point.
As it happened, something along these lines had occurred earlier that very evening, when Liz Mahon, project manager for the Division "streetscape" project, presented draft language to be added to the project report prior to its being adopted by the city council. The draft language acknowledged BAC's expressed concern that diversion of Division motor traffic onto Clinton as a result of the project would be unfortunate.
The draft language proposed to monitor traffic counts between 12th and 39th, and specifically to take counts before the project is commenced and again after the project is completed in about two years, and it committed, in the event PBoT found diversion did occur, to take "measures" to "prevent any further diversion," with input from "the community and residents on Clinton," possibly including traffic calming devices "or passive/active diversion measures on Clinton" between 12th and 39th.
At least one member of the committee expressed the concern that the phrase "any further" did not address the problem of remediation (i.e., bringing the counts back down), and Ms. Mahon said she would try to work on appropriate language. One member of the committee, Tom Ralley as I recall, noted that traffic counts on Clinton at 26th are already right around 3k.
Roger Geller agreed the draft needed "a more comprehensive look."
I will acknowledge that this interchange did not take the form of a motion, with a second and discussion and a vote expressing the sense of the committee that language concerning remediation "should be added" to the report as submitted to the council. In any event, no change was made to the draft language in the final report as submitted to the council, i.e., nothing was said about remediation. Of course, remediation of an existing situation is not really within the scope of Ms. Mahon's project.
However, I would suggest that this is exactly the sort of issue on which the BAC might find its proactive role. Something needs to be done at 26th and Clinton. The committee might ask PBoT what has become of the Clinton Street bike boulevard "enhancement" project, that was supposed to have been completed last year. The committee might write a formal letter to PBoT expressing the sense that the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection at 26th is urgent, etc.
The committee might make similar inquiry of PBoT with respect to the diversion of motor traffic onto Ankeny as a result of the Burnside/Couch couplet project. This does not appear to be a temporary phenomenon, related only to the ongoing roadwork at Burnside and 12th, but a potentially permanent consequence of perceived bottlenecks at that intersection and at Sandy and 14th.
In each case, the committee might recommend that "passive/active diversion measures" be implemented. There are four speed bumps on Ankeny between 12th and 20th, but these do not seem to have alleviated the problem. Perhaps something a bit more forceful, like the diverter at 20th, could be put in every three or four blocks, restoring Ankeny and the various side streets to their intended use as local service streets and neighborhood collectors.
In this connection, it might be noted that using shared lane markings, or "sharrows," on bike boulevards is at least arguably inappropriate, as these are intended to indicate lateral lane positioning on somewhat more heavily traveled streets, where the outer travel lane is too narrow to safely share, advising cyclists to move away from the curb or out of the "door zone" and advising motorists that they should expect to see cyclists claiming the entire lane. Sharrows are not intended to designate lower trafficked streets as giving priority to cyclists, and although they might be seen as "passive" traffic calming devices, they are unlikely to have the effect of stemming the diversion of, for example, Burnside traffic onto Ankeny.
Yet (and this is another issue on which the BAC might become proactive), PBoT has begun to use sharrows in exactly this manner, as "wayfinders" on several of the newer bike boulevards. Evidently, PBoT sought and obtained a grant of $1 million from federal stimulus funds specifically for this purpose. On the narrower streets, such as Klickitat and Holman, these markings are placed literally on or even to the left of the center line, so that it is apparent they are not being used (and no motorist seeing these would imagine that they are being used) to indicate lateral lane positioning.
The committee might ask PBoT to explain its decision to put sharrows down as wayfinders on bike boulevards, rather than as lateral lane positioning indicators on streets where they are much more obviously needed -- 28th from Stark to Broadway, for example, or Division itself (and not just at 21st), or Hawthorne from 12th to 50th. Or instead of the striped bike lane on Couch from 6th down to the bridge ramp.
The committee might express a concern that the use of sharrows as wayfinders on bike boulevards could dilute the intended function of this traffic control device, so that if they ever are installed on some of the streets where they are needed, they will have become ineffective.
There are no doubt fifty or a hundred other issues on which the BAC might proactively engage, but I mention these because it seems to me they have some urgency.
None of this is meant, incidentally, as an attack on PBoT's efforts, but simply as underscoring the need for BAC to adopt a more proactive stance in order more effectively to fulfill its advisory role.
I would also like to express some slight concern as to the legal status of the committee's voting membership. Section 2 of Article II of the committee's bylaws requires that invitations to the community to apply for membership on the committee are to be extended "at intervals not to exceed two years." Section 3 of the same article states that the term of membership is three years. The last invitation to the community was made sometime in 2007. Five members joined the committee in January, 2008. Probably the terms of some of the other members have expired. This matter should be addressed sooner rather than later.
As indicated above, this is an open letter. I am sending a .pdf copy to Roger Geller with the request that he distribute it to the committee, but I have also posted the text to my blog, with a .pdf copy linked, at http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/07/open-letter-to-bac.html. The text as posted includes hyperlinks to various documents and to earlier blog posts. These links are listed below.
In addition, although my list of e-mail addresses for individual committee members is incomplete, and although it may include some stale addresses, I intend to distribute the letter to at least some of the committee members directly.
Signed,
R. Willis
rawillis3@juno.com
http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/
Open Letter to the Bicycle Advisory Committee:
At the BAC meeting in April, vice chair Robert Pickett gave a report from a subcommittee looking into the committee's policy review process. Among other things, Ofcr. Pickett proposed that the committee find some mechanism by which it might "proactively" seek presentations on projects the committee itself identifies from PBoT's inventory, rather than limiting itself to reviewing projects PBoT chooses to bring to the committee.
After the meeting, I approached Ofcr. Pickett to suggest that the committee might go farther, by proposing projects or policy that PBoT has not already come up with. Ofcr. Pickett acknowledged the point.
As it happened, something along these lines had occurred earlier that very evening, when Liz Mahon, project manager for the Division "streetscape" project, presented draft language to be added to the project report prior to its being adopted by the city council. The draft language acknowledged BAC's expressed concern that diversion of Division motor traffic onto Clinton as a result of the project would be unfortunate.
The draft language proposed to monitor traffic counts between 12th and 39th, and specifically to take counts before the project is commenced and again after the project is completed in about two years, and it committed, in the event PBoT found diversion did occur, to take "measures" to "prevent any further diversion," with input from "the community and residents on Clinton," possibly including traffic calming devices "or passive/active diversion measures on Clinton" between 12th and 39th.
At least one member of the committee expressed the concern that the phrase "any further" did not address the problem of remediation (i.e., bringing the counts back down), and Ms. Mahon said she would try to work on appropriate language. One member of the committee, Tom Ralley as I recall, noted that traffic counts on Clinton at 26th are already right around 3k.
Roger Geller agreed the draft needed "a more comprehensive look."
I will acknowledge that this interchange did not take the form of a motion, with a second and discussion and a vote expressing the sense of the committee that language concerning remediation "should be added" to the report as submitted to the council. In any event, no change was made to the draft language in the final report as submitted to the council, i.e., nothing was said about remediation. Of course, remediation of an existing situation is not really within the scope of Ms. Mahon's project.
However, I would suggest that this is exactly the sort of issue on which the BAC might find its proactive role. Something needs to be done at 26th and Clinton. The committee might ask PBoT what has become of the Clinton Street bike boulevard "enhancement" project, that was supposed to have been completed last year. The committee might write a formal letter to PBoT expressing the sense that the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection at 26th is urgent, etc.
The committee might make similar inquiry of PBoT with respect to the diversion of motor traffic onto Ankeny as a result of the Burnside/Couch couplet project. This does not appear to be a temporary phenomenon, related only to the ongoing roadwork at Burnside and 12th, but a potentially permanent consequence of perceived bottlenecks at that intersection and at Sandy and 14th.
In each case, the committee might recommend that "passive/active diversion measures" be implemented. There are four speed bumps on Ankeny between 12th and 20th, but these do not seem to have alleviated the problem. Perhaps something a bit more forceful, like the diverter at 20th, could be put in every three or four blocks, restoring Ankeny and the various side streets to their intended use as local service streets and neighborhood collectors.
In this connection, it might be noted that using shared lane markings, or "sharrows," on bike boulevards is at least arguably inappropriate, as these are intended to indicate lateral lane positioning on somewhat more heavily traveled streets, where the outer travel lane is too narrow to safely share, advising cyclists to move away from the curb or out of the "door zone" and advising motorists that they should expect to see cyclists claiming the entire lane. Sharrows are not intended to designate lower trafficked streets as giving priority to cyclists, and although they might be seen as "passive" traffic calming devices, they are unlikely to have the effect of stemming the diversion of, for example, Burnside traffic onto Ankeny.
Yet (and this is another issue on which the BAC might become proactive), PBoT has begun to use sharrows in exactly this manner, as "wayfinders" on several of the newer bike boulevards. Evidently, PBoT sought and obtained a grant of $1 million from federal stimulus funds specifically for this purpose. On the narrower streets, such as Klickitat and Holman, these markings are placed literally on or even to the left of the center line, so that it is apparent they are not being used (and no motorist seeing these would imagine that they are being used) to indicate lateral lane positioning.
The committee might ask PBoT to explain its decision to put sharrows down as wayfinders on bike boulevards, rather than as lateral lane positioning indicators on streets where they are much more obviously needed -- 28th from Stark to Broadway, for example, or Division itself (and not just at 21st), or Hawthorne from 12th to 50th. Or instead of the striped bike lane on Couch from 6th down to the bridge ramp.
The committee might express a concern that the use of sharrows as wayfinders on bike boulevards could dilute the intended function of this traffic control device, so that if they ever are installed on some of the streets where they are needed, they will have become ineffective.
There are no doubt fifty or a hundred other issues on which the BAC might proactively engage, but I mention these because it seems to me they have some urgency.
None of this is meant, incidentally, as an attack on PBoT's efforts, but simply as underscoring the need for BAC to adopt a more proactive stance in order more effectively to fulfill its advisory role.
I would also like to express some slight concern as to the legal status of the committee's voting membership. Section 2 of Article II of the committee's bylaws requires that invitations to the community to apply for membership on the committee are to be extended "at intervals not to exceed two years." Section 3 of the same article states that the term of membership is three years. The last invitation to the community was made sometime in 2007. Five members joined the committee in January, 2008. Probably the terms of some of the other members have expired. This matter should be addressed sooner rather than later.
As indicated above, this is an open letter. I am sending a .pdf copy to Roger Geller with the request that he distribute it to the committee, but I have also posted the text to my blog, with a .pdf copy linked, at http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/07/open-letter-to-bac.html. The text as posted includes hyperlinks to various documents and to earlier blog posts. These links are listed below.
In addition, although my list of e-mail addresses for individual committee members is incomplete, and although it may include some stale addresses, I intend to distribute the letter to at least some of the committee members directly.
Signed,
R. Willis
rawillis3@juno.com
http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
