the theme of last tuesday's meeting of the citizens advisory committee on the 50s bikeway project was a lowering of expectations.
feedback from the open house in january was largely positive, with comments focusing much more on reducing speeds and diverting motor traffic from neighborhood streets than on what have you done with my onstreet parking.
but co-project manager rich newlands wanted to brace the committee for some disappointments.
first, delay. they want to have a second open house, sometime in april or may. there will then have to be yet a fifth CAC meeting after that, in may or june. design and engineering will have to be pushed back to late 2011, and construction would begin in summer rather than spring 2012.
next, more delay. if they implemented everything in the november design proposal, they would be over the 1.5 million budget by some unspecified amount. so they are looking at breaking the project into two phases and funding the second phase from other sources down the road. the suggestion seems to be that the alternate route at the southern end of the corridor would be phase two.
and then the killer. while it looks like they will be able to put in some kind of user activated signal at 53rd and burnside, they have not been able to get ODoT approval for a crossing signal at 54th and powell, on the alternate route. maybe they can get a rapid flash beacon, maybe not.
this is a particularly horrible crossing, and several of the committee expressed disappointment bordering on anger -- one pointing out that the whole idea of the alternate route was to provide something less stressful than 52nd for the faint of heart, and that forcing these people to cross powell at 54th without a solid red signal for cross traffic would be "leading lambs to slaughter," another saying his neighborhood association would "walk away" from the project if ODoT could not be persuaded to change its position.
newlands said he would try to set up a further conversation with ODoT, maybe bring someone from the agency in to talk directly with the committee. another delay.
then, scaling back. the bike boxes and the "cross bike" markings are off the table for now. apparently none of the proposed locations for the bike boxes meets existing criteria for volumes of right turning motorists versus through bike traffic. there literally are no criteria at all for the "cross bike" markings, and head traffic engineer rob burchfield says "not yet."
note that these would not have been covered by the federal grant anyway, as they are not MUTCD compliant.
between foster and powell on 52nd, they are now looking at removing the center turn lane and widening the bike lanes, rather than painting the bike lanes green or blue or some such, which would have inconsistent with the uses of those colors elsewhere, to identify conflict zones.
and a non-controversial change. rather than struggle with removing parking on northeast 57th between hancock and thompson, they have decided to just take 53rd on up to thompson and connect to 57th from there. apparently there is already a pedestrian activated signal there.
the downside is that anyone coming west on hancock from father east, intending to head north on 57th, or anyone coming south on 57th intending to head east on hancock, would either be diverted a few blocks or have to suffer a couple of blocks on 57th without striped lanes. on the plus side, the existing curb extension on the northwest corner of 57th and hancock would not have to be rebuilt.
also the residents there get to keep their onstreet parking.
speaking of which. the project managers seem to be comfortable with the feedback from the open house on removing some parking from 52nd south of division. this would allow space for six-foot bike lanes, but it would also exacerbate the need for traffic calming and pedestrian crossing measures. and this was mentioned in the comments from the open house.
lewis wardrip was there from traffic operations to talk about curb extensions versus medians through this stretch. the latter treatment would actually remove more parking spaces from near the intersections, and if you made them 160 feet long instead of 120 you could get some serious traffic calming.
in deep wonk mode, wardrip explained the "gap study" his office would have to do before making final recommendations on pedestrian crossings. a pedestrian is assumed to be moving at 3.5 mph, which is a little over five feet per second. if the street is forty feet curb to curb, it would take a pedestrian about eight seconds to cross.
somebody stands there with a stopwatch and clipboard and counts the number of times per hour there is a gap in motor traffic of eight or ten seconds or whatever the criterion is. sixty gaps per hour does not need a refuge island or a curb extension, fewer than sixty does. you get down to twenty gaps per hour you got a whole 'nother set of issues.
the posted speed limit on 52nd south of division is 30 mph. measured 85th percentile speeds are 36 to 37 mph. you might not be able to get ODoT to consent to reducing the posted limit to 25 mph, says newlands, which i sort of get, but then he says "you might not want it."
if he explained why, i did not catch it. possibly this was supposed to connect up with one of his themes for the evening, which was something like, we have to keep in mind what is our scope here, are we planning a bikeway, or are we trying to address liveability issues more generally. seeming to imply that the liveability people can get their own d*mn process, though possibly the opposite was intended.
which brings us finally to the one seriously positive development, which pretty much got buried in all this other negativity.
oh, but first. on this business about speed limits and traffic calming and median refuges and so forth on 52nd south of division. at the CAC meeting i attended back in september last year, i was among those who raised the question why we might not think more aggressively about reducing speeds and traffic counts through here. my recollection is that newlands said we were limited by the fact that south of powell, at least, 52nd is designated a neighborhood collector. (between powell and division is it actually a local street, where calming and diversion measures are permitted.)
at the time, newlands suggested that there is such a thing as revisiting the designation, but -- and here is the point i am making, finally -- it does not appear that he or anybody else is following up on that approach. you define certain things as not achievable, and then you simply do not pursue them.
anyway. the large positive.
the november design included diversion of motor traffic from 53rd between glisan and burnside, and from 52nd between lincoln and division. residents along the route between burnside and stark were asking for speedbumps, but apparently after talking with the project managers they would be satisfied instead with a diversion of traffic from their neighborhood.
unposted, thus default 25 mph. rather narrow right of way, with onstreet parking on both sides. a safer limit for all concerned would probably be below 20 mph, but of course that is not on the table.
newlands stopped short of making a firm commitment, and in fact he made it sound as though all three proposed diversions were uncertain, but he said he wanted to conduct a "separate public process" around these, apparently including presentations to each of the affected neighborhood associations. yet another delay.
bottom line. okay, there is a very serious stumbling block at the 54th and powell crossing. but this is the so-called alternate route, and we could always talk about taking it a block or two further east. the delays going forward seem modest in geologic time, and the disappointments on some of the non-MUTCD treatments here and there seem not only slight, but in retrospect obvious, as in, these could not have been funded with federal money anyway.
but we seem to be looking at three -- count 'em, three -- diversions. compare that to anything you could have accomplished ten years ago. and yet the committee is left feeling they did not get everything they wanted. meanwhile, the public has been engaged right and left, and apparently not only is losing some onstreet parking not such a big deal, but many of the neighbors along the route want even more traffic calming.
on balance, a reasonably good outcome.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
deconstructing joe rose
i sometimes wonder if there is some way to find out how many unique hits joe rose actually gets on his blog, "hard drive," on oregonlive.com.
maybe there is only some small handful of people who actually read the thing, and i am wasting my time monitoring the blog to correct misstatements he makes as he constantly stirs the "cars versus bikes" pot. and if i could somehow confirm this, maybe i could just let it go.
maybe i should just let it go anyway, like television and processed food and the consumerist culture generally.
but here is yet another case in point. a little over a week ago, rose posted what purported to be a reader's question about a supposed uptick in incidents of cyclists "slapping cars with their hands to get a driver's attention when things get tight in traffic."
rose calls this "the impolite and ubiquitous 'yo, i'm here' slap," as though it were a common practice, and as though it would be used in a situation where politeness could be even a marginal concern. the questioner says "i've seen a fight break out. is this legal? what can i do if a bicyclist damages my bmw x5?"
for purposes of discussion, let's suppose this is an actual question from an actual reader, though as a writer i will suggest that there are fairly clear indications that it has at least been edited, if not created from whole cloth, to set up what rose wants to get across.
things get tight. fight breaks out. x5. gimme a break.
rose begins by pretending to identify himself with the cyclist, saying he has been "mightily tempted" to use the technique "when i've encountered a space-case driver while pedaling downtown." not to mention a motorist who crowds you intentionally.
but then he immediately undercuts this by saying "we've evolved beyond such primal communication, right?" and "when you start abusing a stranger's property," etc., "don't expect it to change any hearts or minds."
well, let's hold up a minute here, joe.
first of all, let's make it clear to your handful of readers that we are talking about a serious threat to the cyclist's safety. this is nowhere mentioned in your summary, and of course it is completely ignored in the comments posted by the owners of x5s.
and "primal communication"? "abusing a stranger's property"? how is slapping a car any more "primal" than sounding a horn? [and how is it that the latter has become so accepted in this culture that someone parking at the curb and walking away from his x5 just touches his key fob and the horn blares. oh, i was just locking my car. b*llsh*t.]
you attack me with your x5, you can expect to hear someone knocking on the panels. the "stranger's property" is at that moment an immediate threat, a weapon.
and who said anything about "hearts and minds"? a hundred years ago, it was the stranger operating one of these killing machines on the public right of way who was stigmatized, not those whom he was threatening. somehow we have gotten this turned around.
then rose takes it a step further by actually encouraging motorists to escalate the situation. "it's not illegal" to slap an x5, he quotes the traffic division captain todd wyatt as saying, "but it's a good way to incite some serious road rage."
excuse me? the guy threatens my life because he is not paying attention, i give him the ubiquitous "yo, i'm here" slap, and somehow it is i who is inciting him? again, we are turned around here.
but wait, it gets worse.
"if an angry bicyclist leaves a dent and rides off," rose continues, "that's vandalism. and oregon law gives the victim of a crime the right to use 'reasonable force' to make a citizen's arrest."
leaves a dent? what is your x5 made of? a minute ago we were talking about the ubiquitous "yo, i'm here" slap, and now we seem to be talking about hammers or u-locks or something.
okay, so now we are saying to the motorist, go ahead, chase the cyclist down, and feel free to use "reasonable force" to detain him. this is how we share the roads. thanks, joe.
and it is not even good legal advice. oregon law does not in fact give a motorist whose x5 has been slapped by a cyclist he nearly ran off the road a right to use force, reasonable or otherwise, to effect a citizen's arrest.
this is a close question, so bear with me a minute. but it has everything to do with what kind of society we want to live in.
ORS 161.205 says you can use reasonable force to defend your property, "as hereafter prescribed," and the relevant "hereafter" is ORS 161.229, which says only as necessary to "prevent or terminate" a theft or "criminal mischief."
we are not talking about theft here, so let's look at "criminal mischief," which is what rose is apparently talking about when he uses the word "vandalism."
ORS 164.345 defines third degree criminal mischief, a class C misdemeanor, as "tampering" or "interfering" with someone' property "with intent to cause substantial inconvenience," and without "reasonable ground to believe" you have a right to do it -- as in, y'know, warning someone he is about to kill you through inattention.
second degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354, a class A misdemeanor, is where you do more than five hundred dollars damage, and first degree, ORS 164.365, a class C felony, is where you do more than a thousand dollars damage. these x5s are delicate beasts.
in any event, if we are talking about chasing the cyclist down after the damage is done, we are not talking about "preventing" or "terminating" anything, so let's look at the actual citizen's arrest statutes.
ORS 161.255 says a private citizen can use physical force only as reasonably necessary to make a citizen's arrest or to prevent the escape of the person arrested, per ORS 133.225. that statute, in turn, permits a private citizen to arrest someone for a "crime" committed in his presence, where he has reasonable cause to believe the person he is arresting committed the "crime."
ORS 161.515 defines "crime" as "an offense for which a sentence of imprisonment is authorized." so is a class C misdemeanor a "crime"? well, yes, under ORS 161.615 the maximum sentence is thirty days.
so, let's review:
you nearly run me off the road with your x5, i slap the fender to get your attention, you imagine that i have left a dent. you chase me down to detain me, i resist, you wrestle me to the ground.
you had better be careful not to use more force than "necessary," and you had better be reasonably certain not only that i intended to cause you "substantial inconvenience," but that i had zero reasonable ground for doing what i did.
in other words, you have to know a lot about what was going on in my head. whereas a minute ago, you didn't even know i was there.
you might also want to look at ORS 163.275, which makes it a class C felony to detain someone under threat. "coercion," or what they used to call "false imprisonment." the punishment for a class C felony is a bit more than that for a class C misdemeanor. five years and a $125k fine.
anyway, my point is.
the guy has a platform that he could be using to persuade people to behave with some consideration toward one another on the roads. weirdly, that was actually the frame of this particular column. the anniversary of brett jarolimek's death, and why can't we all just get along.
but the default point of view on the blog is that of the beleaguered motorist asking "why do i have to put up with these g*dd*mn cyclists, and within what limits might i retaliate against them." not "how can we get motorists to wake up and pay attention."
if a motorist calls or writes in saying "i had thus and such a negative interaction with a cyclist the other day," instead of always stirring the pot, rose could use his platform to suggest "maybe you could think of doing things differently. the age of the complete dominance of the private automobile over absolutely everything else is fading."
if i slap your car to get your attention because you are about to run me down, is this not also "self-defense"? why are we even talking about whether you can then chase me down and beat me and get away with it?
maybe there is only some small handful of people who actually read the thing, and i am wasting my time monitoring the blog to correct misstatements he makes as he constantly stirs the "cars versus bikes" pot. and if i could somehow confirm this, maybe i could just let it go.
maybe i should just let it go anyway, like television and processed food and the consumerist culture generally.
but here is yet another case in point. a little over a week ago, rose posted what purported to be a reader's question about a supposed uptick in incidents of cyclists "slapping cars with their hands to get a driver's attention when things get tight in traffic."
rose calls this "the impolite and ubiquitous 'yo, i'm here' slap," as though it were a common practice, and as though it would be used in a situation where politeness could be even a marginal concern. the questioner says "i've seen a fight break out. is this legal? what can i do if a bicyclist damages my bmw x5?"
for purposes of discussion, let's suppose this is an actual question from an actual reader, though as a writer i will suggest that there are fairly clear indications that it has at least been edited, if not created from whole cloth, to set up what rose wants to get across.
things get tight. fight breaks out. x5. gimme a break.
rose begins by pretending to identify himself with the cyclist, saying he has been "mightily tempted" to use the technique "when i've encountered a space-case driver while pedaling downtown." not to mention a motorist who crowds you intentionally.
but then he immediately undercuts this by saying "we've evolved beyond such primal communication, right?" and "when you start abusing a stranger's property," etc., "don't expect it to change any hearts or minds."
well, let's hold up a minute here, joe.
first of all, let's make it clear to your handful of readers that we are talking about a serious threat to the cyclist's safety. this is nowhere mentioned in your summary, and of course it is completely ignored in the comments posted by the owners of x5s.
and "primal communication"? "abusing a stranger's property"? how is slapping a car any more "primal" than sounding a horn? [and how is it that the latter has become so accepted in this culture that someone parking at the curb and walking away from his x5 just touches his key fob and the horn blares. oh, i was just locking my car. b*llsh*t.]
you attack me with your x5, you can expect to hear someone knocking on the panels. the "stranger's property" is at that moment an immediate threat, a weapon.
and who said anything about "hearts and minds"? a hundred years ago, it was the stranger operating one of these killing machines on the public right of way who was stigmatized, not those whom he was threatening. somehow we have gotten this turned around.
then rose takes it a step further by actually encouraging motorists to escalate the situation. "it's not illegal" to slap an x5, he quotes the traffic division captain todd wyatt as saying, "but it's a good way to incite some serious road rage."
excuse me? the guy threatens my life because he is not paying attention, i give him the ubiquitous "yo, i'm here" slap, and somehow it is i who is inciting him? again, we are turned around here.
but wait, it gets worse.
"if an angry bicyclist leaves a dent and rides off," rose continues, "that's vandalism. and oregon law gives the victim of a crime the right to use 'reasonable force' to make a citizen's arrest."
leaves a dent? what is your x5 made of? a minute ago we were talking about the ubiquitous "yo, i'm here" slap, and now we seem to be talking about hammers or u-locks or something.
okay, so now we are saying to the motorist, go ahead, chase the cyclist down, and feel free to use "reasonable force" to detain him. this is how we share the roads. thanks, joe.
and it is not even good legal advice. oregon law does not in fact give a motorist whose x5 has been slapped by a cyclist he nearly ran off the road a right to use force, reasonable or otherwise, to effect a citizen's arrest.
this is a close question, so bear with me a minute. but it has everything to do with what kind of society we want to live in.
ORS 161.205 says you can use reasonable force to defend your property, "as hereafter prescribed," and the relevant "hereafter" is ORS 161.229, which says only as necessary to "prevent or terminate" a theft or "criminal mischief."
we are not talking about theft here, so let's look at "criminal mischief," which is what rose is apparently talking about when he uses the word "vandalism."
ORS 164.345 defines third degree criminal mischief, a class C misdemeanor, as "tampering" or "interfering" with someone' property "with intent to cause substantial inconvenience," and without "reasonable ground to believe" you have a right to do it -- as in, y'know, warning someone he is about to kill you through inattention.
second degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354, a class A misdemeanor, is where you do more than five hundred dollars damage, and first degree, ORS 164.365, a class C felony, is where you do more than a thousand dollars damage. these x5s are delicate beasts.
in any event, if we are talking about chasing the cyclist down after the damage is done, we are not talking about "preventing" or "terminating" anything, so let's look at the actual citizen's arrest statutes.
ORS 161.255 says a private citizen can use physical force only as reasonably necessary to make a citizen's arrest or to prevent the escape of the person arrested, per ORS 133.225. that statute, in turn, permits a private citizen to arrest someone for a "crime" committed in his presence, where he has reasonable cause to believe the person he is arresting committed the "crime."
ORS 161.515 defines "crime" as "an offense for which a sentence of imprisonment is authorized." so is a class C misdemeanor a "crime"? well, yes, under ORS 161.615 the maximum sentence is thirty days.
so, let's review:
you nearly run me off the road with your x5, i slap the fender to get your attention, you imagine that i have left a dent. you chase me down to detain me, i resist, you wrestle me to the ground.
you had better be careful not to use more force than "necessary," and you had better be reasonably certain not only that i intended to cause you "substantial inconvenience," but that i had zero reasonable ground for doing what i did.
in other words, you have to know a lot about what was going on in my head. whereas a minute ago, you didn't even know i was there.
you might also want to look at ORS 163.275, which makes it a class C felony to detain someone under threat. "coercion," or what they used to call "false imprisonment." the punishment for a class C felony is a bit more than that for a class C misdemeanor. five years and a $125k fine.
anyway, my point is.
the guy has a platform that he could be using to persuade people to behave with some consideration toward one another on the roads. weirdly, that was actually the frame of this particular column. the anniversary of brett jarolimek's death, and why can't we all just get along.
but the default point of view on the blog is that of the beleaguered motorist asking "why do i have to put up with these g*dd*mn cyclists, and within what limits might i retaliate against them." not "how can we get motorists to wake up and pay attention."
if a motorist calls or writes in saying "i had thus and such a negative interaction with a cyclist the other day," instead of always stirring the pot, rose could use his platform to suggest "maybe you could think of doing things differently. the age of the complete dominance of the private automobile over absolutely everything else is fading."
if i slap your car to get your attention because you are about to run me down, is this not also "self-defense"? why are we even talking about whether you can then chase me down and beat me and get away with it?
Saturday, October 16, 2010
open note to dan gutierrez
hey, dan, a voice from the past.
saw your post on the CABO boards the other day, where you say roger geller told you thus and such to your face at the LAB bike summit three years ago.
specifically, you said roger
gotta say it, dan, that sounds like you are paraphrasing rather than quoting. maybe the original sounded more like
ya think?
and for those on this thread who have tossed about the word "charlatan." that word has a dictionary definition. it means someone who pretends to an expertise he does not in fact have, in order to deceive someone. this could be seen as a slander, if we are talking about someone's profession. the guy has a masters from tufts in urban and environmental policy, which maybe should be a hint why he sees things differently than you do. but presumably you are not calling into question the quality of the education he received at tufts. he has himself been a vehicular cyclist for thirty-odd years, quite a number of them on the streets of boston.
i have it on reasonably good authority that roger has moved on from this conversation. you guys are fighting a rear guard, and you find yourselves defending a status quo that was created by the dominance of the private automobile and need not be preserved.
r. willis
saw your post on the CABO boards the other day, where you say roger geller told you thus and such to your face at the LAB bike summit three years ago.
specifically, you said roger
told me to my face at the [2007 summit] when I asked him about the driver rights in Portland, that those who prefer to act like drivers will just lose their rights in Portland, Oregon, in order to further the City's social goal of promotion of bicycling through mandatory segregation.
gotta say it, dan, that sounds like you are paraphrasing rather than quoting. maybe the original sounded more like
"dan, we are working toward a future in which the private automobile is completely secondary in the urban transportation mix, and unless someone works to get the far to right law and the mandatory sidepath law repealed, which is not PBoT's role, but which we do not oppose, and in fact our master plan for 2030 includes express statements that we want to have that conversation, then yes, someone who adheres to vehicular principles will find himself outside the law. but we are not going to let that stop us from implementing strategies that will lead us ultimately to complete streets."
ya think?
and for those on this thread who have tossed about the word "charlatan." that word has a dictionary definition. it means someone who pretends to an expertise he does not in fact have, in order to deceive someone. this could be seen as a slander, if we are talking about someone's profession. the guy has a masters from tufts in urban and environmental policy, which maybe should be a hint why he sees things differently than you do. but presumably you are not calling into question the quality of the education he received at tufts. he has himself been a vehicular cyclist for thirty-odd years, quite a number of them on the streets of boston.
i have it on reasonably good authority that roger has moved on from this conversation. you guys are fighting a rear guard, and you find yourselves defending a status quo that was created by the dominance of the private automobile and need not be preserved.
r. willis
back to the fifties
sat in on this community advisory committee stuff on the fifties bikeway project a couple of weeks ago. a number of neighborhood associations and business associations at the table, but a very bicycle friendly crowd, and if anything the voices from the table were pushing rich newlands farther than he seemed ready to go. he backed away early from moving the entire route south of lincoln off 52nd into some convoluted side routes through the neighborhoods. by the end of the meeting, he seemed willing to just do some crossing work and signage there and focus the identified route as 52nd, but he was still hesitant about the extent to which the city can expect to remove onstreet parking without substantial pushback from the residents.
and that is where we still are today, when i joined the crew for a ride of the route, to discuss specifics at a number of selected intersections. maybe cut back the curb extension at 57th and hancock, maybe some signage at the unsigned crossing of hancock with 53rd, maybe an advance stop line at halsey, maybe some lane striping and possibly a box at glisan, that kind of thing. whether to divert traffic south of glisan or do a partial diversion at everett. whether to put a HAWK beacon at the intersection with burnside. i could go on.
we ran into something really quite remarkable at 52nd and madison, coming down the steep hill from salmon. the moms and kids, and actually even dads, were out in force, with signs and chalk on the street, lying in wait for this group to arrive, to again ask the city (in the persons of mr. newlands and sarah figliozzi) to put in speed bumps and a four-way stop.
there was a moment of confusion that might have become awkward, but [someone in our group] said loudly and in an exaggerated tone, "yes, we have come from the sky to bring you speed bumps," and then we all stopped and had quite a conversation, lasting several minutes. how they are lying at the bottom of two descents, how often there are crashes or near crashes, how intersections a block in either direction have been given stop signs, and so on.
biking away, ms. figliozzi told me they are ineligible for a four-way stop for some reason i did not quite get, but that the likely outcome will be speed bumps with a two-way stop giving the bikeway on 52nd dominance. her concern seemed to be how to sell this to the residents who would see it as a half-measure.
the low point of the expedition was the intersection of 52nd and foster. six lanes on the diagonal, two and a center turn lane on 52nd. parking lots and vacant buildings and pavement everywhere. i don't know what the traffic volumes are, let's just say high. what is needed there is comprehensive redevelopment, bringing store fronts to the sidewalk and putting the parking lots behind. unfortunately, that is not where the city is headed with this, yet. the little ceasar's pizza just went in a couple of years ago.
and then the whole what to do about 52nd on south thing. will five-foot lanes be enough? if six, then we have to get rid of parking on one side, but which side? get rid of parking on both sides you have enough room for buffered bike lanes, but you might be removing enough clutter that motorist speeds will increase. they are already a bit high.
in the end, whatever comes out of this process will be more friendly to cyclists than may float with stakeholders who have not yet been part of the process. moving the route away from 52nd south of lincoln seems to be off the table, so we are looking at some kind of intrusion into the space that motorists have come to understand 52nd to be, and probably removing quite a bit of onstreet parking.
mr. newsome and ms. figliozzi seemed anxious about the rollout, wondering whether to so a mail-in survey first or just go ahead and stage a bunch of public forums. in which manner it would be more productive to deal with whatever pushback will surely come.
postscript 10/18
i was talking with someone about this entry, who said these two, rich newlands and sarah figliozzi, seemed to know what they were doing, having learned from past experiences dealing with upset neighbors. this person felt that his own experience of the route would be improved by the proposed treatments.
i agreed to both points, but with slight reservation. part of the reason i wanted to get involved in the 50s bikeway planning process though i myself seldom use the route, was to be able to talk with whoever from PBoT as they go through that process. these two were thinking, what if we take a survey and people say "no"?, should we frame the question so that bikes are not the centerpiece somehow?, etc.
i said put on a lot of public forum stuff early and then if people don't come, to hell with them. that's why i was so impressed with these people standing at the corner of 52nd and madison. they live there and they care what the hell is going on. people want to protect their onstreet parking, let them show up and identify themselves, none of this return a survey nonsense.
then maybe when they actually engage with their neighbors, they will come to see that accommodations should be made for other human beings. if you take the other approach, hide the ball, how do we educate them?, you get the perception, and ultimately the reality, of demagoguery and totalitarianism.
and that is where we still are today, when i joined the crew for a ride of the route, to discuss specifics at a number of selected intersections. maybe cut back the curb extension at 57th and hancock, maybe some signage at the unsigned crossing of hancock with 53rd, maybe an advance stop line at halsey, maybe some lane striping and possibly a box at glisan, that kind of thing. whether to divert traffic south of glisan or do a partial diversion at everett. whether to put a HAWK beacon at the intersection with burnside. i could go on.
we ran into something really quite remarkable at 52nd and madison, coming down the steep hill from salmon. the moms and kids, and actually even dads, were out in force, with signs and chalk on the street, lying in wait for this group to arrive, to again ask the city (in the persons of mr. newlands and sarah figliozzi) to put in speed bumps and a four-way stop.
there was a moment of confusion that might have become awkward, but [someone in our group] said loudly and in an exaggerated tone, "yes, we have come from the sky to bring you speed bumps," and then we all stopped and had quite a conversation, lasting several minutes. how they are lying at the bottom of two descents, how often there are crashes or near crashes, how intersections a block in either direction have been given stop signs, and so on.
biking away, ms. figliozzi told me they are ineligible for a four-way stop for some reason i did not quite get, but that the likely outcome will be speed bumps with a two-way stop giving the bikeway on 52nd dominance. her concern seemed to be how to sell this to the residents who would see it as a half-measure.
the low point of the expedition was the intersection of 52nd and foster. six lanes on the diagonal, two and a center turn lane on 52nd. parking lots and vacant buildings and pavement everywhere. i don't know what the traffic volumes are, let's just say high. what is needed there is comprehensive redevelopment, bringing store fronts to the sidewalk and putting the parking lots behind. unfortunately, that is not where the city is headed with this, yet. the little ceasar's pizza just went in a couple of years ago.
and then the whole what to do about 52nd on south thing. will five-foot lanes be enough? if six, then we have to get rid of parking on one side, but which side? get rid of parking on both sides you have enough room for buffered bike lanes, but you might be removing enough clutter that motorist speeds will increase. they are already a bit high.
in the end, whatever comes out of this process will be more friendly to cyclists than may float with stakeholders who have not yet been part of the process. moving the route away from 52nd south of lincoln seems to be off the table, so we are looking at some kind of intrusion into the space that motorists have come to understand 52nd to be, and probably removing quite a bit of onstreet parking.
mr. newsome and ms. figliozzi seemed anxious about the rollout, wondering whether to so a mail-in survey first or just go ahead and stage a bunch of public forums. in which manner it would be more productive to deal with whatever pushback will surely come.
postscript 10/18
i was talking with someone about this entry, who said these two, rich newlands and sarah figliozzi, seemed to know what they were doing, having learned from past experiences dealing with upset neighbors. this person felt that his own experience of the route would be improved by the proposed treatments.
i agreed to both points, but with slight reservation. part of the reason i wanted to get involved in the 50s bikeway planning process though i myself seldom use the route, was to be able to talk with whoever from PBoT as they go through that process. these two were thinking, what if we take a survey and people say "no"?, should we frame the question so that bikes are not the centerpiece somehow?, etc.
i said put on a lot of public forum stuff early and then if people don't come, to hell with them. that's why i was so impressed with these people standing at the corner of 52nd and madison. they live there and they care what the hell is going on. people want to protect their onstreet parking, let them show up and identify themselves, none of this return a survey nonsense.
then maybe when they actually engage with their neighbors, they will come to see that accommodations should be made for other human beings. if you take the other approach, hide the ball, how do we educate them?, you get the perception, and ultimately the reality, of demagoguery and totalitarianism.
Monday, October 4, 2010
because this sh*t matters
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.
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
