the couch street portion of the burnside/couch couplet project is essentially completed, and there has already been some negative response from cyclists.
couch itself is now one-way west from 14th to MLK, with signals at every intersection timed to about 20 mph during peak hours. posted limit 25 mph. seven foot parking lanes on both sides, two eleven foot travel lanes, no striped bike lane until you get to 6th.
at MLK, the entry ramp onto the burnside bridge begins. an "s" curve of about 300 linear feet. there is a striped bike lane, five feet wide, and two travel lanes, each twelve feet wide. a hard turn to the left, followed almost immediately by a hard turn to the right onto the bridge.
over on the left as you cross MLK is a yellow diamond hazard sign showing the left turn, with an advisory speed reduction sign indicating 20 mph. nothing similar on the right.
a more sensible speed indication would be 15 mph, and a more sensible treatment would be not a striped bike lane but sharrows. a motorist in the right travel lane making the final right onto the bridge will tend to encroach into the striped bike lane, and a cyclist who allows herself to be relegated to the bike lane will inevitably get pinched in the corner.
what has already happened is that a cyclist or two has wiped out on the thermoplastic lane stripe itself. and in the course of responding to this apparently PBoT discovered that the line between the two travel lanes was mistakenly placed a couple of feet to the right of center, making the right travel lane too narrow (and exacerbating the problem at the right turn onto the bridge).
the present plan apparently is to widen the bike lane to six feet and create a four foot buffer. not sure where they are going to find room for all that. through most of the "s" curve the available pavement width is 29 or so feet. so presumably we are talking only about the final right turn onto the bridge.
again, getting rid of the sidepath and slowing motor traffic to 15 mph would have been a much better treatment. in my view.
early on, some of the negative commentary on bikeportland.org was to the effect that PBoT should have striped a bike lane on couch from 14th on down. and here i disagree. with eleven foot travel lanes and lights timed to 20 mph, a cyclist should have no difficulty taking the lane. again, maybe sharrows. (note: when the streetcar goes in, the design calls for dropping the north parking lane, which would then become a seven foot bike lane.)
aside: why they want to waste paint putting sharrows on these "next generation" bike boulevards is beyond me. these are not route markers, they are a device to alert cyclists and motorists that the lane is too narrow to share, and to indicate that a cyclist is likely to assert a position somewhat to the left of the door zone or the gutter. in other words, to discourage unsafe passing. if motor traffic on the bike boulevard is sufficiently calmed (or diverted), sharrows should not be necessary.
meanwhile, there are thoroughfares where this kind of marking is actually needed, such as couch, and instead we are given sidepaths at the critical junctures.
query whether this sidepath, couch from 6th onto the bridge, is mandatory per ORS 814.420(2). there was a public process, after all.
but incidentally. or not so incidentally.
in applying to ODoT for an exception from AAHSTO standards on lane widths on couch -- cross section 36 feet rather than 38 on a minor arterial -- PBoT indicated it would post the speed limit at 20 mph rather than 25 mph. among other things, they wanted to preserve the twelve foot sidewalk and planting strip to enhance walkability. no indication in the public documents whether the exception was granted (presumably yes), whether the exception was conditioned on the lower limit, or what the hell happened to the 20 mph limit.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
diversion street
liz mahon, PBoT project manager for the division "streetscape design" project, distributed this memo at the BAC meeting last week. it does not purport to be bureau policy. what it purports to be is an internal memo, liz to roger, copy to the BAC, suggesting that certain language be added to the project report prior to its presentation to city council, addressing concerns expressed by BAC at an earlier meeting. her stated purpose in appearing before the committee last week was to confirm that this language sufficiently addressed those concerns.
if that does not give the appearance of public input from a bicycling constituency into the policymaking process, then you have to ask yourself what exactly BAC is.
and what the proposed language said was
(a) it acknowledged the existence of the clinton street bike boulevard as "a vibrant and well-established bicycle facility."
(b) it acknowledged BAC's expressed concern that diversion of division traffic onto clinton as a result of the project would be unfortunate.
(c) it 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.
(d) 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.
someone expressed the concern that "any further" did not address the problem of remediation (i.e., bringing the counts back down), and liz said she would try to work on appropriate language. someone else asked what about diversion during construction itself, and liz said the project plan would provide for diversion that did not encourage motorist use of clinton. tom ralley noted that traffic counts on clinton at 26th are already right around 3k. roger suggested that was sort of the upper limit, clinton was an early rollout of the bike boulevard model, etc.
roger said the memo needed "a more comprehensive look."
the rest of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of the project review process. a subcommittee headed by robert pickett gave its report, proposing a more formal process for presentations by staff, and a mechanism by which the committee might pro-actively seek presentations on projects the committee itself identifies from PBoT's inventory.
another way in which the committee might be proactive would be in proposing projects or policy that PBoT has not already come up with. for example, the BAC might suggest to PBoT that the existing situation on clinton already needs to be addressed with calming and/or diversion, without regard to what further burdens might flow from the division streetscape project. i suggested as much to officer pickett. he seemed to take my point.
if that does not give the appearance of public input from a bicycling constituency into the policymaking process, then you have to ask yourself what exactly BAC is.
and what the proposed language said was
(a) it acknowledged the existence of the clinton street bike boulevard as "a vibrant and well-established bicycle facility."
(b) it acknowledged BAC's expressed concern that diversion of division traffic onto clinton as a result of the project would be unfortunate.
(c) it 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.
(d) 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.
someone expressed the concern that "any further" did not address the problem of remediation (i.e., bringing the counts back down), and liz said she would try to work on appropriate language. someone else asked what about diversion during construction itself, and liz said the project plan would provide for diversion that did not encourage motorist use of clinton. tom ralley noted that traffic counts on clinton at 26th are already right around 3k. roger suggested that was sort of the upper limit, clinton was an early rollout of the bike boulevard model, etc.
roger said the memo needed "a more comprehensive look."
the rest of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of the project review process. a subcommittee headed by robert pickett gave its report, proposing a more formal process for presentations by staff, and a mechanism by which the committee might pro-actively seek presentations on projects the committee itself identifies from PBoT's inventory.
another way in which the committee might be proactive would be in proposing projects or policy that PBoT has not already come up with. for example, the BAC might suggest to PBoT that the existing situation on clinton already needs to be addressed with calming and/or diversion, without regard to what further burdens might flow from the division streetscape project. i suggested as much to officer pickett. he seemed to take my point.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
so is this a done deal
went to this open house the other night. the guy from PBoT was there, kyle chisek, project manager, with three easels and a bunch of huge storyboards, the first set of which introduced the idea of what exactly a bike boulevard -- excuse me, "neighborhood greenway" -- is, and sort of generally why klickitat was chosen, etc.
and at this point a naysayer puts up a hand and asks, "so is this a done deal," and then, "but it's a done deal, isn't it," when kyle doesn't all that clearly explain that sir, you did have your chance back when we were doing the 2030 plan, and if you showed up then and objected, guess what, the party has moved on. three or four people from the audience heckled "let the man give his talk," and after awhile the guy left.
i heard later that a cyclist waylaid him in the vestibule on his way out and had a civil conversation in which they concluded that they actually agreed on some things. actually, the guy says, i'd rather put more bikes on fremont and slow these speeding cars the hell down.
meanwhile kyle moves forward, talking about traffic counts and calming and the benefits to everyone, on a bike or not, and people seem receptive, actually, with the conversation occasionally nudged by one of several bike activists who have placed themselves about the room. friends of trees gonna put in some street trees.
and pretty soon we are talking about specific treatments at specific intersections and which of two or three proposed alternatives do people like or hate. a consensus actually emerged that west of 11th and maybe even as far as 19th you pretty much should be on siskiyou, and the only real question is how to get across at MLK, and there were some voices in favor of morris, which is what the storyboard indicated was PBoT's favored choice.
interesting conversation about what to do at 23rd, where one block has been closed during school hours at the magdalen school. kyle had a card suggesting some serious narrowing and maybe bollards, and if it turned out there was still a problem with cyclists blowing through a bunch of kids, maybe even a gated chicane. someone pointed out that the intrepid one percent would simply deviate several blocks in advance, and this linked back in an interesting way to the comment one resident made near the outset -- yes, there was more than one cautious to negative voice in the room -- that hey, if this is the bike boulevard, can we then ban bikes on fremont? to a lesser extent, the party had moved on from this as well.
there was more, but right about here i split. it was after eight. a little over fifty people in the room when i arrived, maybe twenty when i left.
there will be a follow up on may 6, similar format, in which however what kyle will be presenting will in fact be the done deal.
and at this point a naysayer puts up a hand and asks, "so is this a done deal," and then, "but it's a done deal, isn't it," when kyle doesn't all that clearly explain that sir, you did have your chance back when we were doing the 2030 plan, and if you showed up then and objected, guess what, the party has moved on. three or four people from the audience heckled "let the man give his talk," and after awhile the guy left.
i heard later that a cyclist waylaid him in the vestibule on his way out and had a civil conversation in which they concluded that they actually agreed on some things. actually, the guy says, i'd rather put more bikes on fremont and slow these speeding cars the hell down.
meanwhile kyle moves forward, talking about traffic counts and calming and the benefits to everyone, on a bike or not, and people seem receptive, actually, with the conversation occasionally nudged by one of several bike activists who have placed themselves about the room. friends of trees gonna put in some street trees.
and pretty soon we are talking about specific treatments at specific intersections and which of two or three proposed alternatives do people like or hate. a consensus actually emerged that west of 11th and maybe even as far as 19th you pretty much should be on siskiyou, and the only real question is how to get across at MLK, and there were some voices in favor of morris, which is what the storyboard indicated was PBoT's favored choice.
interesting conversation about what to do at 23rd, where one block has been closed during school hours at the magdalen school. kyle had a card suggesting some serious narrowing and maybe bollards, and if it turned out there was still a problem with cyclists blowing through a bunch of kids, maybe even a gated chicane. someone pointed out that the intrepid one percent would simply deviate several blocks in advance, and this linked back in an interesting way to the comment one resident made near the outset -- yes, there was more than one cautious to negative voice in the room -- that hey, if this is the bike boulevard, can we then ban bikes on fremont? to a lesser extent, the party had moved on from this as well.
there was more, but right about here i split. it was after eight. a little over fifty people in the room when i arrived, maybe twenty when i left.
there will be a follow up on may 6, similar format, in which however what kyle will be presenting will in fact be the done deal.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
meeting notes
this is is a page from a presentation PBoT has put together to promote bike boulevards:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29513837/Northeast-Going-at-33rd
the page shows the intersection of NE going with 33rd, crossing offset more than a hundred feet. no signal, stop signs on both going approaches, 33rd treated as the through street, posted limit 30 mph. right of way 36 feet, parking on both sides, with occasional bulbouts, effective travel lane about 11 feet each way.
the plan is to carve out a two-way cycle track along the west edge of 33rd, with some kind of box at the north end for cyclists heading north and east to sit in, waiting for cross traffic to clear. not entirely clear from this diagram how wide the bike lanes would be, but let's say six feet with maybe a three-foot buffer. something like that.
onstreet parking would be eliminated in this half block, and motor traffic would be forbidden to enter going from 33rd altogether.
a modest accommodation for the going bike boulevard, if a bit clumsy at the box. existing signals at alberta and again at prescott perhaps explain a decision not to simply signalize the intersection.
my point is this:
(a) obviously it would be absurd to require me to veer across 33rd to pick up the cycletrack if i am heading north on 33rd from farther south;
(b) even if i am turning left onto 33rd from going heading north, if i am not planning to continue east on going there is no point in my getting onto the cycletrack and getting hung up in the box when I could simply take the lane;
(c) there will be all kinds of confusion in and around the box;
(d) motor vehicles parked along the west edge of the road north of the crossing will block my view of southbound traffic;
(e) etc., etc.
frankly, I do not care for the proposed treatment at all, and if it were within the scope of any of the upcoming open houses i would state my objections there.
also [footnote] since this is not an AASHTO/MUTCD approved treatment, it may not technically be subject to 814.420(2), but i begin to tire of PBoT's intentionally obfuscating that question.
bottom line, i should not be required to use this facility, and there should not be a statute on the books that gives the police a weapon to require me to show up in traffic court to defend my decision not to use it.
if the concern is what do "we" say to a legislator who says, hey, you asked for all this paint and we have a statute that requires motorists to keep out of the designated lane, how can you also ask that you yourselves not be required to use it?, my answer would be, the paint is there to provide comfort to the less intrepid, to encourage them to leave the truck in the driveway every once in awhile and bike to the grocery or the library or whatever.
but the more intrepid -- the vehicular cyclists who have been out there for years, just going about their business and mixing it up with the motor traffic -- do not need or want the sidepaths and should not be corralled into them. an analogy might be training wheels, or one of those pedestrian-activated crossing signals: if you do not need it, you should not be required to use it.
i know BTA has been supportive of all this infrastructure, but i think the constituency is larger than that, and "we" need to not ignore the needs of the vehicular cyclist. if not BTA then someone needs to maintain a voice that is identifiably separate from PBoT.
the city takes the position that the public process preceding adoption of the 1998 bike master plan is sufficient for the public hearing requirement. but in the 2030 plan PBoT is considerably more ambiguous with respect to whether the mandatory sidepath statute applies to the "experimental" treatments, and possibly the two-way track on 33rd would fall into that category. but again, it would be better to have clarity across the board that cyclists are not required to use even the striped bike lanes, period.
and frankly my longer range agenda would include getting rid of the far to right law. ORS 811.315 already requires a slower moving vehicle to stay to the right. there is no reason to treat cyclists as secondary road users in the statute, at all.
though i do appreciate the exception at 814.430(2)(c) for asserting the lane where it is too narrow to share.
at section 4.2D of the 2030 plan, PBoT says they want to engage with "community groups," among others, on the question of possible legislative changes to the mandatory sidepath law. who will step forward?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29513837/Northeast-Going-at-33rd
the page shows the intersection of NE going with 33rd, crossing offset more than a hundred feet. no signal, stop signs on both going approaches, 33rd treated as the through street, posted limit 30 mph. right of way 36 feet, parking on both sides, with occasional bulbouts, effective travel lane about 11 feet each way.
the plan is to carve out a two-way cycle track along the west edge of 33rd, with some kind of box at the north end for cyclists heading north and east to sit in, waiting for cross traffic to clear. not entirely clear from this diagram how wide the bike lanes would be, but let's say six feet with maybe a three-foot buffer. something like that.
onstreet parking would be eliminated in this half block, and motor traffic would be forbidden to enter going from 33rd altogether.
a modest accommodation for the going bike boulevard, if a bit clumsy at the box. existing signals at alberta and again at prescott perhaps explain a decision not to simply signalize the intersection.
my point is this:
(a) obviously it would be absurd to require me to veer across 33rd to pick up the cycletrack if i am heading north on 33rd from farther south;
(b) even if i am turning left onto 33rd from going heading north, if i am not planning to continue east on going there is no point in my getting onto the cycletrack and getting hung up in the box when I could simply take the lane;
(c) there will be all kinds of confusion in and around the box;
(d) motor vehicles parked along the west edge of the road north of the crossing will block my view of southbound traffic;
(e) etc., etc.
frankly, I do not care for the proposed treatment at all, and if it were within the scope of any of the upcoming open houses i would state my objections there.
also [footnote] since this is not an AASHTO/MUTCD approved treatment, it may not technically be subject to 814.420(2), but i begin to tire of PBoT's intentionally obfuscating that question.
bottom line, i should not be required to use this facility, and there should not be a statute on the books that gives the police a weapon to require me to show up in traffic court to defend my decision not to use it.
if the concern is what do "we" say to a legislator who says, hey, you asked for all this paint and we have a statute that requires motorists to keep out of the designated lane, how can you also ask that you yourselves not be required to use it?, my answer would be, the paint is there to provide comfort to the less intrepid, to encourage them to leave the truck in the driveway every once in awhile and bike to the grocery or the library or whatever.
but the more intrepid -- the vehicular cyclists who have been out there for years, just going about their business and mixing it up with the motor traffic -- do not need or want the sidepaths and should not be corralled into them. an analogy might be training wheels, or one of those pedestrian-activated crossing signals: if you do not need it, you should not be required to use it.
i know BTA has been supportive of all this infrastructure, but i think the constituency is larger than that, and "we" need to not ignore the needs of the vehicular cyclist. if not BTA then someone needs to maintain a voice that is identifiably separate from PBoT.
the city takes the position that the public process preceding adoption of the 1998 bike master plan is sufficient for the public hearing requirement. but in the 2030 plan PBoT is considerably more ambiguous with respect to whether the mandatory sidepath statute applies to the "experimental" treatments, and possibly the two-way track on 33rd would fall into that category. but again, it would be better to have clarity across the board that cyclists are not required to use even the striped bike lanes, period.
and frankly my longer range agenda would include getting rid of the far to right law. ORS 811.315 already requires a slower moving vehicle to stay to the right. there is no reason to treat cyclists as secondary road users in the statute, at all.
though i do appreciate the exception at 814.430(2)(c) for asserting the lane where it is too narrow to share.
at section 4.2D of the 2030 plan, PBoT says they want to engage with "community groups," among others, on the question of possible legislative changes to the mandatory sidepath law. who will step forward?
Monday, March 22, 2010
the outbox
sent the following to mark moline in the city attorney's office:
back in november you sent me the attached letter, taking the position (in effect) that the public hearing requirement of ORS 814.420(2) is met, and a striped bike lane is therefore subject to the mandatory sidepath requirement, if (paraphrasing here) the facility was listed in the 1996 bike master plan, as updated in 1998, and conforms to the design and engineering guidelines set out in appendix A to that plan.
i did already understand that this was the city's position, but it was useful (in my view) to get it out in the open, on paper.
taking this conversation a step further, i would like to suggest to you that quite a number of the facilities mentioned in the BMP do not in fact, paint on the ground, conform to the stated guidelines.
one example would be northeast tillamook at 41st -- a four-foot bike lane sandwiched between a seven-foot parking lane and a ten-foot travel lane, flat out nonconformance with the engineering guidelines. and there are many others.
in the particular case, you might say, well, if it's in the door zone, and ORS 814.420(3) says you can leave the bike lane to avoid a hazard, what is the problem? but you are telling me the bike lane is certified "safe" per 814.420(2), so how can it make sense to disregard the stripe because i think the stripe itself is unsafe? probably subparagraph (3) is limited to the case where someone is actually opening a door.
more generally, where a narrow bike lane is placed alongside a relatively narrow travel lane, an experienced "vehicular" cyclist would simply take the lane, and the argument would be that she is avoiding the hazard of being overtaken too close. as you may know, ORS 811.065, the statute that requires a motorist to leave a safe passing distance in overtaking a cyclist, expressly does not apply when the cyclist is in a striped bike lane.
i would like to encourage the city to re-think this, and to announce publicly that the BMP does not, in itself, constitute a public hearing for purposes of 814.420(2), at least with respect to facilities that do not in fact conform to the engineering guidelines that were the subject of (purported) public hearings.
thank you for your continued attention to this matter.
back in november you sent me the attached letter, taking the position (in effect) that the public hearing requirement of ORS 814.420(2) is met, and a striped bike lane is therefore subject to the mandatory sidepath requirement, if (paraphrasing here) the facility was listed in the 1996 bike master plan, as updated in 1998, and conforms to the design and engineering guidelines set out in appendix A to that plan.
i did already understand that this was the city's position, but it was useful (in my view) to get it out in the open, on paper.
taking this conversation a step further, i would like to suggest to you that quite a number of the facilities mentioned in the BMP do not in fact, paint on the ground, conform to the stated guidelines.
one example would be northeast tillamook at 41st -- a four-foot bike lane sandwiched between a seven-foot parking lane and a ten-foot travel lane, flat out nonconformance with the engineering guidelines. and there are many others.
in the particular case, you might say, well, if it's in the door zone, and ORS 814.420(3) says you can leave the bike lane to avoid a hazard, what is the problem? but you are telling me the bike lane is certified "safe" per 814.420(2), so how can it make sense to disregard the stripe because i think the stripe itself is unsafe? probably subparagraph (3) is limited to the case where someone is actually opening a door.
more generally, where a narrow bike lane is placed alongside a relatively narrow travel lane, an experienced "vehicular" cyclist would simply take the lane, and the argument would be that she is avoiding the hazard of being overtaken too close. as you may know, ORS 811.065, the statute that requires a motorist to leave a safe passing distance in overtaking a cyclist, expressly does not apply when the cyclist is in a striped bike lane.
i would like to encourage the city to re-think this, and to announce publicly that the BMP does not, in itself, constitute a public hearing for purposes of 814.420(2), at least with respect to facilities that do not in fact conform to the engineering guidelines that were the subject of (purported) public hearings.
thank you for your continued attention to this matter.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
followup
awhile back, in an entry called "unfinished business," i talked about a hit and run that happened back in st. louis two years ago. some jerk blew through a red light in a 98 yukon and took out a guy on a mountain bike, breaking his leg and his pelvis and puncturing his lung.
lots more detail in the earlier post, but briefly:
the prosecutor went to the trouble of getting a grand jury indictment, and the perp was required to post a secured bond of $25k. but then he failed to show for some pretrial hearing, because (as it turned out) he had been jailed across the river on a burglary charge (unrelated, unless maybe he was trying to pay off the bail bondsman).
eventually he pled guilty on what they call a "blind plea," meaning the prosecutor was not offering to recommend a reduced sentence. the maximum sentence in missouri for leaving the scene, class d felony, is four years prison and a $5k fine. the judge actually did impose the four years, but then suspended execution on two years' probation. apart from the usual conditions -- weapons, controlled substances, associating with other criminals, checking in with your probation officer before leaving the area, etc. -- the probation order required the guy to keep a full time job.
what prompted the earlier post was that there was a hearing scheduled to revoke the probation. at the time i supposed that he might have lost a job, but from talking with the prosecutor's office i am gathering that this was actually some kind of fallout from the burglary conviction in illinois.
so anyway this is an update.
bottom line, on february 19 of this year the probation was reinstated. if this guy can stay out of trouble until march 25, 2011 (which does seem unlikely), he is clear.
oh, and he is required to pay $46 to the victims compensation fund. not clear whether he has paid that yet. also unable to find whether the victim has sued the guy for his injuries, which were pretty severe . . .
lots more detail in the earlier post, but briefly:
the prosecutor went to the trouble of getting a grand jury indictment, and the perp was required to post a secured bond of $25k. but then he failed to show for some pretrial hearing, because (as it turned out) he had been jailed across the river on a burglary charge (unrelated, unless maybe he was trying to pay off the bail bondsman).
eventually he pled guilty on what they call a "blind plea," meaning the prosecutor was not offering to recommend a reduced sentence. the maximum sentence in missouri for leaving the scene, class d felony, is four years prison and a $5k fine. the judge actually did impose the four years, but then suspended execution on two years' probation. apart from the usual conditions -- weapons, controlled substances, associating with other criminals, checking in with your probation officer before leaving the area, etc. -- the probation order required the guy to keep a full time job.
what prompted the earlier post was that there was a hearing scheduled to revoke the probation. at the time i supposed that he might have lost a job, but from talking with the prosecutor's office i am gathering that this was actually some kind of fallout from the burglary conviction in illinois.
so anyway this is an update.
bottom line, on february 19 of this year the probation was reinstated. if this guy can stay out of trouble until march 25, 2011 (which does seem unlikely), he is clear.
oh, and he is required to pay $46 to the victims compensation fund. not clear whether he has paid that yet. also unable to find whether the victim has sued the guy for his injuries, which were pretty severe . . .
Monday, March 8, 2010
two more examples
recently i posted a piece detailing how the bike lane on northeast tillamook at 41st, outside the hollywood library, very obviously does not comply with the engineering guidelines in the 1996 bike master plan, as updated in 1998.
the city attorney says the public hearing requirement for the mandatory sidepath law is met with respect to facilities mentioned in the BMP because, um, the guidelines were adopted after public comment. or something like that.
of course, the guidelines are for the most part a mere reiteration of AASHTO and ODoT standards. no independent engineering analysis went into this, and it would be a stretch to say that there was any meaningful public input.
but here we have a facility that does not even meet the guidelines. the striped lane is considerably less than five feet wide, and it is sandwiched between a seven foot parking lane and a ten foot travel lane. flat out noncompliance.
so are we supposed to think maybe it is not subject to the mandatory sidepath law?
the easy answer is, hey, it's in the door zone, and ORS 814.420(3) says you can leave the bike lane to avoid a hazard. but that reasoning is too circular even for me. my question was, is the bike lane certified safe per 814.420(2), and the city attorney said yes. so how can it make sense to disregard the stripe because you think the stripe itself is unsafe?
anyway.
last week L. and i measured a couple more bike lanes.
one was on lovejoy between northwest 10th and 11th. i had wanted to measure the lane coming down the hill on lovejoy from the broadway bridge (which was among those i had specifically identified in my correspondence with PBoT, and which the city attorney specifically acknowledged was covered by the BMP), but there is a sort of jersey barrier separating the road from the sidewalk there, making it a little difficult to get into and out of the roadway quickly (and giving the cyclist nowhere to bail). maybe another time.
but down there between 10th and 11th (again in the door zone), the measurements are these: bike lane 56 inches, a bit short of five feet, parking lane 86 inches, just over seven feet, travel lane exactly ten feet even. the BMP says in no event should a four-foot bike lane be put next to either a seven-foot parking lane or a ten-foot travel lane. does this comply? hard to say. maybe.
does not matter much to me because usually i am making a left at 11th, so i have another justification for not being in the bike lane, and if i am going further north i make my turn at 9th. but this stuff should matter to someone.
the other bike lane we measured was glisan at northeast 28th, out there in front of the laundromat and the cuban restaurant, with the new bike corral and everything.
bike lane 58 inches to the outer edge of each stripe, almost the full five feet. parking lane 89 inches, somewhat over seven feet, but not eight. travel lane 126 inches, ten and a half feet. pretty much no question this meets the stated guidelines, sorta.
but let's look at a couple of other numbers. a toyota prius is 68.7 inches wide, not quite six feet. an f150 pickup if 78.9 inches wide, a little over six and a half. a hummer h3 is 85.0 inches wide, more than seven feet.
let's say the prius driver parks six inches from the curb. a foot you say? probably, but let's give this particular prius driver some credit. so the left side of the car is maybe a foot from the bike lane, if that. if the driver's side door is opened, how far does the door extend into the bike lane? let's say it is more than zero. with the f150 or the h3 it would be that much worse.
so i am going to want to leave three feet or so between my path and the left side of the parked car. at least. maybe four.
could i stay in the bike lane? well, yes, most of the time, but why? we have almost fifteen feet between the parking lane and the center line. why not take some of it, give myself some cushion, and force an overtaking motorist to move a little to the left? what function does the striped lane actually serve here, except to force me to the side?
absent the mandatory sidepath law, would the far to the right law, ORS 814.430, require me to hug the door zone? not a question for the city attorney.
the city attorney says the public hearing requirement for the mandatory sidepath law is met with respect to facilities mentioned in the BMP because, um, the guidelines were adopted after public comment. or something like that.
of course, the guidelines are for the most part a mere reiteration of AASHTO and ODoT standards. no independent engineering analysis went into this, and it would be a stretch to say that there was any meaningful public input.
but here we have a facility that does not even meet the guidelines. the striped lane is considerably less than five feet wide, and it is sandwiched between a seven foot parking lane and a ten foot travel lane. flat out noncompliance.
so are we supposed to think maybe it is not subject to the mandatory sidepath law?
the easy answer is, hey, it's in the door zone, and ORS 814.420(3) says you can leave the bike lane to avoid a hazard. but that reasoning is too circular even for me. my question was, is the bike lane certified safe per 814.420(2), and the city attorney said yes. so how can it make sense to disregard the stripe because you think the stripe itself is unsafe?
anyway.
last week L. and i measured a couple more bike lanes.
one was on lovejoy between northwest 10th and 11th. i had wanted to measure the lane coming down the hill on lovejoy from the broadway bridge (which was among those i had specifically identified in my correspondence with PBoT, and which the city attorney specifically acknowledged was covered by the BMP), but there is a sort of jersey barrier separating the road from the sidewalk there, making it a little difficult to get into and out of the roadway quickly (and giving the cyclist nowhere to bail). maybe another time.
but down there between 10th and 11th (again in the door zone), the measurements are these: bike lane 56 inches, a bit short of five feet, parking lane 86 inches, just over seven feet, travel lane exactly ten feet even. the BMP says in no event should a four-foot bike lane be put next to either a seven-foot parking lane or a ten-foot travel lane. does this comply? hard to say. maybe.
does not matter much to me because usually i am making a left at 11th, so i have another justification for not being in the bike lane, and if i am going further north i make my turn at 9th. but this stuff should matter to someone.
the other bike lane we measured was glisan at northeast 28th, out there in front of the laundromat and the cuban restaurant, with the new bike corral and everything.
bike lane 58 inches to the outer edge of each stripe, almost the full five feet. parking lane 89 inches, somewhat over seven feet, but not eight. travel lane 126 inches, ten and a half feet. pretty much no question this meets the stated guidelines, sorta.
but let's look at a couple of other numbers. a toyota prius is 68.7 inches wide, not quite six feet. an f150 pickup if 78.9 inches wide, a little over six and a half. a hummer h3 is 85.0 inches wide, more than seven feet.
let's say the prius driver parks six inches from the curb. a foot you say? probably, but let's give this particular prius driver some credit. so the left side of the car is maybe a foot from the bike lane, if that. if the driver's side door is opened, how far does the door extend into the bike lane? let's say it is more than zero. with the f150 or the h3 it would be that much worse.
so i am going to want to leave three feet or so between my path and the left side of the parked car. at least. maybe four.
could i stay in the bike lane? well, yes, most of the time, but why? we have almost fifteen feet between the parking lane and the center line. why not take some of it, give myself some cushion, and force an overtaking motorist to move a little to the left? what function does the striped lane actually serve here, except to force me to the side?
absent the mandatory sidepath law, would the far to the right law, ORS 814.430, require me to hug the door zone? not a question for the city attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
