Thursday, September 9, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
first foray
last friday evening we did this scattermass traffic-calming pedestrian action l. is calling "the human speed bump project." all two of us met outside the star e rose and went inside for a cup of something before hitting the streets. the organizer required us to swear commitment to "safety first." at five promptly we went out into the field.
one by one, at a distance of roughly a block apart, we crossed each and every zebra striped crosswalk, two at each intersection, working our way east to 31st and then back, sometimes the same crosswalk twice in a row if the opportunity afforded. we gave buses and fire trucks and even cyclists a pass.
the idea was to start into the crosswalk just an instant before the gesture would seem political, but when the effect would still be to cause the motorist to slow down. if the motorist had to stop, i would give a friendly wave thank you. l. had one situation where the motorist simply veered around her, a big red pickup. but that was unusual.
even with just the two of us this was surprisingly effective. we often succeeded in slowing motor traffic for two blocks at a time. with a much larger scattermass the effect might be to take back the street for primary pedestrian use. this is something people can actually do.
one by one, at a distance of roughly a block apart, we crossed each and every zebra striped crosswalk, two at each intersection, working our way east to 31st and then back, sometimes the same crosswalk twice in a row if the opportunity afforded. we gave buses and fire trucks and even cyclists a pass.
the idea was to start into the crosswalk just an instant before the gesture would seem political, but when the effect would still be to cause the motorist to slow down. if the motorist had to stop, i would give a friendly wave thank you. l. had one situation where the motorist simply veered around her, a big red pickup. but that was unusual.
even with just the two of us this was surprisingly effective. we often succeeded in slowing motor traffic for two blocks at a time. with a much larger scattermass the effect might be to take back the street for primary pedestrian use. this is something people can actually do.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
a tally of two intersections
recently i volunteered to count bicyclists at each of four intersections as part of PBoT's annual effort to estimate the number of total bike trips. they are trying to do counts at about 175 intersections during peak hours in july, august, and september. not sure if they have enough volunteers to cover everything.
i chose these four intersections specifically because they have issues with which i am familiar, and because i have my own ideas about what "should" be done to make them more amenable to bike traffic.
so i admit i went into this with an agenda.
let me talk about just two of the four intersections. the intersection of northeast 28th with glisan, and the intersection of northeast 12th with irving. there is some pretty substantial throughput of cyclists through these intersections during peak hours, together with some pretty high volume motor traffic.
northeast 28th at glisan
in the space of two hours, from four to six p.m. on tuesday, july 27, i counted 277 cyclists, about two-thirds male, about one-third not wearing helmets, of which latter group not quite three-quarters were male.
i mention helmets because they had us counting that, and the male/female split, together with how many of each of the twelve possible maneuvers through the intersection -- straight through, left turn, right turn from each of the four directions -- cyclists performed.
somewhat more than half the bike traffic was straight through north or south on 28th. slightly over one-third arrived at the intersection from the south on 28th, slightly less than a third from the north. about twenty percent arrived from the west on glisan, and only about one-eighth from the east. fully seven percent were riding on sidewalks through part or all of the intersection, mostly north along 28th, which brought the nominal intersection count down to 269.
five people (not quite two percent) found it necessary to execute left turns in the "copenhagen" or "box" fashion, including at least three arriving from the west on glisan and heading north on 28th -- and this despite the fact that there is a dedicated left turn lane there.
quite a number of cyclists heading straight through north on 28th were positioned so far to the right that they found themselves trapped behind parked cars on the far side of the intersection, outside the laundromat, and had to wait to swerve out. to me, this says "sharrows on 28th, throughout the corridor" but again, i have an agenda.
northeast 12th at irving
on thursday, august 5, again from four to six p.m., i counted 302 cyclists, again about two-thirds male, about one-quarter not wearing helmets (a different crowd), of which latter group slightly over three-quarters were male.
somewhat over half of the bike traffic was straight through north or south (about two to one north in the first hour, about even the second hour). roughly one-quarter were turning left onto irving from southbound 12th, and of these more than a quarter -- close to seven percent of the entire intersection count -- executed this turn as a "copenhagen" left, many of them arriving on the sidewalk. a fair number made the turn from the left edge of the through lane, but those who asserted the center of the left turn lane seemed to be confident of their position. my observation.
in fact, more than one-sixth of the entire count, exclamation point, completed some portion of their transit through the intersection on the sidewalk -- mostly southbound on the west side of the bridge, and then getting into the bike lane on the far side of the intersection. this did not bring the nominal count down much at all, because nearly all cyclists who did some part of their transit on the sidewalk did another part on the street.
it was my impression that the northbound count was probably low, due to the construction that still continues at 12th and burnside. the counts are continuing through september, and if the construction clears up, i intend to go back and count this intersection again.
anyway.
what lessons to take from this left turn business, and from the high proportion of riders taking the sidewalk (again, this is primarily a matter of southbound traffic on the west sidewalk). one: people don't much, statistically, "like" the southbound setup on the bridge in general, and they don't like the left turn situation in particular. granted, we are talking about one-sixteenth of the total bike volume here, people southbound, turning left to go irving. but even the through lane, some significant number of people don't like. if there is no striped lane, you gotta fend for yourself, and a lot (and i mean "a lot") of people just will not do it.
however. and here i am speaking as a vehicular cyclist, if you will forgive me. oh, and incidentally. quite a number of left turning motorists were firing up their cell phones for the long highway trek east on 84. quite a number. i wasn't counting them. anecdotal.
okay, so i don't really object to marking these sidewalks as multi-use paths. go for it. and you can even guide people in to the copenhagen left the way you did at weidler and williams. i get it, okay. and hey, maybe a sufficiently intrusive infrastructure will get some of these motorists off their cell phones. right now they are on autopilot.
but there are twenty-something percent of people making this left who kinda know how to do it (though some of them hang just outside the right edge of the turn lane). and what i do not want to see is something that tells motorists, "they [meaning "those cyclists"] belong over there."
not just talking the mandatory sidepath legality here, though it seems to me this kind of treatment could actually fall within 814.420. i am talking perception. you have been putting sharrows all over these sidestreets, but out here where they could do some good, nothing. and if you put up the multi-use path and the copenhagen box, and you do not put down sharrows, the message will be clear, and the vehicular cyclist will be even more unwelcome. the motorist will feel that his sense of entitlement to the travel lanes has been vindicated. sharrows are a must here, whether or not you do the multi-use path.
but these people are not entitled, they are intruders, and they need to be reminded of this. i was once one myself. man, i was mean, but i'm changing that scene, and i'm doing the best that i can. let's not continue to cut motorists slack. you wanna get vehicle miles traveled down, you gotta bring down the hammer, make it difficult, turn the tables, make them the outsider.
there. i spit my piece.
and another point. i was not stationed at the north end of the bridge, but i go through there all the time, and can tell you -- again anectodally -- that a cyclist coming off the sidewalk northbound unexpectedly when i am making a right onto lloyd to get to the left turn lane, a cyclist doing that at anything faster than a walking pace, is a problem. first hand experience just the other day. so let's not be exacerbating that problem, either.
i chose these four intersections specifically because they have issues with which i am familiar, and because i have my own ideas about what "should" be done to make them more amenable to bike traffic.
so i admit i went into this with an agenda.
let me talk about just two of the four intersections. the intersection of northeast 28th with glisan, and the intersection of northeast 12th with irving. there is some pretty substantial throughput of cyclists through these intersections during peak hours, together with some pretty high volume motor traffic.
northeast 28th at glisan
in the space of two hours, from four to six p.m. on tuesday, july 27, i counted 277 cyclists, about two-thirds male, about one-third not wearing helmets, of which latter group not quite three-quarters were male.
i mention helmets because they had us counting that, and the male/female split, together with how many of each of the twelve possible maneuvers through the intersection -- straight through, left turn, right turn from each of the four directions -- cyclists performed.
somewhat more than half the bike traffic was straight through north or south on 28th. slightly over one-third arrived at the intersection from the south on 28th, slightly less than a third from the north. about twenty percent arrived from the west on glisan, and only about one-eighth from the east. fully seven percent were riding on sidewalks through part or all of the intersection, mostly north along 28th, which brought the nominal intersection count down to 269.
five people (not quite two percent) found it necessary to execute left turns in the "copenhagen" or "box" fashion, including at least three arriving from the west on glisan and heading north on 28th -- and this despite the fact that there is a dedicated left turn lane there.
quite a number of cyclists heading straight through north on 28th were positioned so far to the right that they found themselves trapped behind parked cars on the far side of the intersection, outside the laundromat, and had to wait to swerve out. to me, this says "sharrows on 28th, throughout the corridor" but again, i have an agenda.
northeast 12th at irving
on thursday, august 5, again from four to six p.m., i counted 302 cyclists, again about two-thirds male, about one-quarter not wearing helmets (a different crowd), of which latter group slightly over three-quarters were male.
somewhat over half of the bike traffic was straight through north or south (about two to one north in the first hour, about even the second hour). roughly one-quarter were turning left onto irving from southbound 12th, and of these more than a quarter -- close to seven percent of the entire intersection count -- executed this turn as a "copenhagen" left, many of them arriving on the sidewalk. a fair number made the turn from the left edge of the through lane, but those who asserted the center of the left turn lane seemed to be confident of their position. my observation.
in fact, more than one-sixth of the entire count, exclamation point, completed some portion of their transit through the intersection on the sidewalk -- mostly southbound on the west side of the bridge, and then getting into the bike lane on the far side of the intersection. this did not bring the nominal count down much at all, because nearly all cyclists who did some part of their transit on the sidewalk did another part on the street.
it was my impression that the northbound count was probably low, due to the construction that still continues at 12th and burnside. the counts are continuing through september, and if the construction clears up, i intend to go back and count this intersection again.
anyway.
what lessons to take from this left turn business, and from the high proportion of riders taking the sidewalk (again, this is primarily a matter of southbound traffic on the west sidewalk). one: people don't much, statistically, "like" the southbound setup on the bridge in general, and they don't like the left turn situation in particular. granted, we are talking about one-sixteenth of the total bike volume here, people southbound, turning left to go irving. but even the through lane, some significant number of people don't like. if there is no striped lane, you gotta fend for yourself, and a lot (and i mean "a lot") of people just will not do it.
however. and here i am speaking as a vehicular cyclist, if you will forgive me. oh, and incidentally. quite a number of left turning motorists were firing up their cell phones for the long highway trek east on 84. quite a number. i wasn't counting them. anecdotal.
okay, so i don't really object to marking these sidewalks as multi-use paths. go for it. and you can even guide people in to the copenhagen left the way you did at weidler and williams. i get it, okay. and hey, maybe a sufficiently intrusive infrastructure will get some of these motorists off their cell phones. right now they are on autopilot.
but there are twenty-something percent of people making this left who kinda know how to do it (though some of them hang just outside the right edge of the turn lane). and what i do not want to see is something that tells motorists, "they [meaning "those cyclists"] belong over there."
not just talking the mandatory sidepath legality here, though it seems to me this kind of treatment could actually fall within 814.420. i am talking perception. you have been putting sharrows all over these sidestreets, but out here where they could do some good, nothing. and if you put up the multi-use path and the copenhagen box, and you do not put down sharrows, the message will be clear, and the vehicular cyclist will be even more unwelcome. the motorist will feel that his sense of entitlement to the travel lanes has been vindicated. sharrows are a must here, whether or not you do the multi-use path.
but these people are not entitled, they are intruders, and they need to be reminded of this. i was once one myself. man, i was mean, but i'm changing that scene, and i'm doing the best that i can. let's not continue to cut motorists slack. you wanna get vehicle miles traveled down, you gotta bring down the hammer, make it difficult, turn the tables, make them the outsider.
there. i spit my piece.
and another point. i was not stationed at the north end of the bridge, but i go through there all the time, and can tell you -- again anectodally -- that a cyclist coming off the sidewalk northbound unexpectedly when i am making a right onto lloyd to get to the left turn lane, a cyclist doing that at anything faster than a walking pace, is a problem. first hand experience just the other day. so let's not be exacerbating that problem, either.
Monday, July 12, 2010
open letter to the BAC
July 12, 2010
Open Letter to the Bicycle Advisory Committee:
At the BAC meeting in April, vice chair Robert Pickett gave a report from a subcommittee looking into the committee's policy review process. Among other things, Ofcr. Pickett proposed that the committee find some mechanism by which it might "proactively" seek presentations on projects the committee itself identifies from PBoT's inventory, rather than limiting itself to reviewing projects PBoT chooses to bring to the committee.
After the meeting, I approached Ofcr. Pickett to suggest that the committee might go farther, by proposing projects or policy that PBoT has not already come up with. Ofcr. Pickett acknowledged the point.
As it happened, something along these lines had occurred earlier that very evening, when Liz Mahon, project manager for the Division "streetscape" project, presented draft language to be added to the project report prior to its being adopted by the city council. The draft language acknowledged BAC's expressed concern that diversion of Division motor traffic onto Clinton as a result of the project would be unfortunate.
The draft language proposed to monitor traffic counts between 12th and 39th, and specifically to take counts before the project is commenced and again after the project is completed in about two years, and it committed, in the event PBoT found diversion did occur, to take "measures" to "prevent any further diversion," with input from "the community and residents on Clinton," possibly including traffic calming devices "or passive/active diversion measures on Clinton" between 12th and 39th.
At least one member of the committee expressed the concern that the phrase "any further" did not address the problem of remediation (i.e., bringing the counts back down), and Ms. Mahon said she would try to work on appropriate language. One member of the committee, Tom Ralley as I recall, noted that traffic counts on Clinton at 26th are already right around 3k.
Roger Geller agreed the draft needed "a more comprehensive look."
I will acknowledge that this interchange did not take the form of a motion, with a second and discussion and a vote expressing the sense of the committee that language concerning remediation "should be added" to the report as submitted to the council. In any event, no change was made to the draft language in the final report as submitted to the council, i.e., nothing was said about remediation. Of course, remediation of an existing situation is not really within the scope of Ms. Mahon's project.
However, I would suggest that this is exactly the sort of issue on which the BAC might find its proactive role. Something needs to be done at 26th and Clinton. The committee might ask PBoT what has become of the Clinton Street bike boulevard "enhancement" project, that was supposed to have been completed last year. The committee might write a formal letter to PBoT expressing the sense that the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection at 26th is urgent, etc.
The committee might make similar inquiry of PBoT with respect to the diversion of motor traffic onto Ankeny as a result of the Burnside/Couch couplet project. This does not appear to be a temporary phenomenon, related only to the ongoing roadwork at Burnside and 12th, but a potentially permanent consequence of perceived bottlenecks at that intersection and at Sandy and 14th.
In each case, the committee might recommend that "passive/active diversion measures" be implemented. There are four speed bumps on Ankeny between 12th and 20th, but these do not seem to have alleviated the problem. Perhaps something a bit more forceful, like the diverter at 20th, could be put in every three or four blocks, restoring Ankeny and the various side streets to their intended use as local service streets and neighborhood collectors.
In this connection, it might be noted that using shared lane markings, or "sharrows," on bike boulevards is at least arguably inappropriate, as these are intended to indicate lateral lane positioning on somewhat more heavily traveled streets, where the outer travel lane is too narrow to safely share, advising cyclists to move away from the curb or out of the "door zone" and advising motorists that they should expect to see cyclists claiming the entire lane. Sharrows are not intended to designate lower trafficked streets as giving priority to cyclists, and although they might be seen as "passive" traffic calming devices, they are unlikely to have the effect of stemming the diversion of, for example, Burnside traffic onto Ankeny.
Yet (and this is another issue on which the BAC might become proactive), PBoT has begun to use sharrows in exactly this manner, as "wayfinders" on several of the newer bike boulevards. Evidently, PBoT sought and obtained a grant of $1 million from federal stimulus funds specifically for this purpose. On the narrower streets, such as Klickitat and Holman, these markings are placed literally on or even to the left of the center line, so that it is apparent they are not being used (and no motorist seeing these would imagine that they are being used) to indicate lateral lane positioning.
The committee might ask PBoT to explain its decision to put sharrows down as wayfinders on bike boulevards, rather than as lateral lane positioning indicators on streets where they are much more obviously needed -- 28th from Stark to Broadway, for example, or Division itself (and not just at 21st), or Hawthorne from 12th to 50th. Or instead of the striped bike lane on Couch from 6th down to the bridge ramp.
The committee might express a concern that the use of sharrows as wayfinders on bike boulevards could dilute the intended function of this traffic control device, so that if they ever are installed on some of the streets where they are needed, they will have become ineffective.
There are no doubt fifty or a hundred other issues on which the BAC might proactively engage, but I mention these because it seems to me they have some urgency.
None of this is meant, incidentally, as an attack on PBoT's efforts, but simply as underscoring the need for BAC to adopt a more proactive stance in order more effectively to fulfill its advisory role.
I would also like to express some slight concern as to the legal status of the committee's voting membership. Section 2 of Article II of the committee's bylaws requires that invitations to the community to apply for membership on the committee are to be extended "at intervals not to exceed two years." Section 3 of the same article states that the term of membership is three years. The last invitation to the community was made sometime in 2007. Five members joined the committee in January, 2008. Probably the terms of some of the other members have expired. This matter should be addressed sooner rather than later.
As indicated above, this is an open letter. I am sending a .pdf copy to Roger Geller with the request that he distribute it to the committee, but I have also posted the text to my blog, with a .pdf copy linked, at http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/07/open-letter-to-bac.html. The text as posted includes hyperlinks to various documents and to earlier blog posts. These links are listed below.
In addition, although my list of e-mail addresses for individual committee members is incomplete, and although it may include some stale addresses, I intend to distribute the letter to at least some of the committee members directly.
Signed,
R. Willis
rawillis3@juno.com
http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/
Open Letter to the Bicycle Advisory Committee:
At the BAC meeting in April, vice chair Robert Pickett gave a report from a subcommittee looking into the committee's policy review process. Among other things, Ofcr. Pickett proposed that the committee find some mechanism by which it might "proactively" seek presentations on projects the committee itself identifies from PBoT's inventory, rather than limiting itself to reviewing projects PBoT chooses to bring to the committee.
After the meeting, I approached Ofcr. Pickett to suggest that the committee might go farther, by proposing projects or policy that PBoT has not already come up with. Ofcr. Pickett acknowledged the point.
As it happened, something along these lines had occurred earlier that very evening, when Liz Mahon, project manager for the Division "streetscape" project, presented draft language to be added to the project report prior to its being adopted by the city council. The draft language acknowledged BAC's expressed concern that diversion of Division motor traffic onto Clinton as a result of the project would be unfortunate.
The draft language proposed to monitor traffic counts between 12th and 39th, and specifically to take counts before the project is commenced and again after the project is completed in about two years, and it committed, in the event PBoT found diversion did occur, to take "measures" to "prevent any further diversion," with input from "the community and residents on Clinton," possibly including traffic calming devices "or passive/active diversion measures on Clinton" between 12th and 39th.
At least one member of the committee expressed the concern that the phrase "any further" did not address the problem of remediation (i.e., bringing the counts back down), and Ms. Mahon said she would try to work on appropriate language. One member of the committee, Tom Ralley as I recall, noted that traffic counts on Clinton at 26th are already right around 3k.
Roger Geller agreed the draft needed "a more comprehensive look."
I will acknowledge that this interchange did not take the form of a motion, with a second and discussion and a vote expressing the sense of the committee that language concerning remediation "should be added" to the report as submitted to the council. In any event, no change was made to the draft language in the final report as submitted to the council, i.e., nothing was said about remediation. Of course, remediation of an existing situation is not really within the scope of Ms. Mahon's project.
However, I would suggest that this is exactly the sort of issue on which the BAC might find its proactive role. Something needs to be done at 26th and Clinton. The committee might ask PBoT what has become of the Clinton Street bike boulevard "enhancement" project, that was supposed to have been completed last year. The committee might write a formal letter to PBoT expressing the sense that the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection at 26th is urgent, etc.
The committee might make similar inquiry of PBoT with respect to the diversion of motor traffic onto Ankeny as a result of the Burnside/Couch couplet project. This does not appear to be a temporary phenomenon, related only to the ongoing roadwork at Burnside and 12th, but a potentially permanent consequence of perceived bottlenecks at that intersection and at Sandy and 14th.
In each case, the committee might recommend that "passive/active diversion measures" be implemented. There are four speed bumps on Ankeny between 12th and 20th, but these do not seem to have alleviated the problem. Perhaps something a bit more forceful, like the diverter at 20th, could be put in every three or four blocks, restoring Ankeny and the various side streets to their intended use as local service streets and neighborhood collectors.
In this connection, it might be noted that using shared lane markings, or "sharrows," on bike boulevards is at least arguably inappropriate, as these are intended to indicate lateral lane positioning on somewhat more heavily traveled streets, where the outer travel lane is too narrow to safely share, advising cyclists to move away from the curb or out of the "door zone" and advising motorists that they should expect to see cyclists claiming the entire lane. Sharrows are not intended to designate lower trafficked streets as giving priority to cyclists, and although they might be seen as "passive" traffic calming devices, they are unlikely to have the effect of stemming the diversion of, for example, Burnside traffic onto Ankeny.
Yet (and this is another issue on which the BAC might become proactive), PBoT has begun to use sharrows in exactly this manner, as "wayfinders" on several of the newer bike boulevards. Evidently, PBoT sought and obtained a grant of $1 million from federal stimulus funds specifically for this purpose. On the narrower streets, such as Klickitat and Holman, these markings are placed literally on or even to the left of the center line, so that it is apparent they are not being used (and no motorist seeing these would imagine that they are being used) to indicate lateral lane positioning.
The committee might ask PBoT to explain its decision to put sharrows down as wayfinders on bike boulevards, rather than as lateral lane positioning indicators on streets where they are much more obviously needed -- 28th from Stark to Broadway, for example, or Division itself (and not just at 21st), or Hawthorne from 12th to 50th. Or instead of the striped bike lane on Couch from 6th down to the bridge ramp.
The committee might express a concern that the use of sharrows as wayfinders on bike boulevards could dilute the intended function of this traffic control device, so that if they ever are installed on some of the streets where they are needed, they will have become ineffective.
There are no doubt fifty or a hundred other issues on which the BAC might proactively engage, but I mention these because it seems to me they have some urgency.
None of this is meant, incidentally, as an attack on PBoT's efforts, but simply as underscoring the need for BAC to adopt a more proactive stance in order more effectively to fulfill its advisory role.
I would also like to express some slight concern as to the legal status of the committee's voting membership. Section 2 of Article II of the committee's bylaws requires that invitations to the community to apply for membership on the committee are to be extended "at intervals not to exceed two years." Section 3 of the same article states that the term of membership is three years. The last invitation to the community was made sometime in 2007. Five members joined the committee in January, 2008. Probably the terms of some of the other members have expired. This matter should be addressed sooner rather than later.
As indicated above, this is an open letter. I am sending a .pdf copy to Roger Geller with the request that he distribute it to the committee, but I have also posted the text to my blog, with a .pdf copy linked, at http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/07/open-letter-to-bac.html. The text as posted includes hyperlinks to various documents and to earlier blog posts. These links are listed below.
In addition, although my list of e-mail addresses for individual committee members is incomplete, and although it may include some stale addresses, I intend to distribute the letter to at least some of the committee members directly.
Signed,
R. Willis
rawillis3@juno.com
http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/
Monday, June 21, 2010
sharrows as wayfinders
the device over there on the right, with the silhouette of the bike and the two chevrons, is a "shared lane marking," or more colloquially, a "sharrow."
the 2009 manual on uniform traffic control devices includes the sharrow at section 9C.07 as an optional treatment on roads on which the outer travel lane is too narrow to share. the intended purpose of the device is to indicate "lateral lane positioning," that is,
(a) to tell cyclists they should move to the left, away from the curb or out of the door zone, and
(b) to tell motorists they should expect to see cyclists claiming the entire lane.
the device may be used in conjunction with signage indicating "bicycles may use full lane," though this is not required.
over the past several weeks, PBoT has been putting these down on some of the newly designated bike boulevards -- klickitat, holman, going, etc. but they are not being used to indicate lateral lane positioning. they are being used as wayfinders.
evidently, PBoT made this choice because there was stimulus money available, but they needed to use MUTCD compliant signage and pavement treatments to get the grant. they did snag close a million dollars for this project, but it seems to me the money would have been better spent putting sharrows where they are actually needed, for example on northeast 28th, or on southeast hawthorne, or on the couch/burnside couplet. evidently putting sharrows on those roads is not a priority for PBoT.
as wayfinders, the sharrows are quite visible. but something else on a similar scale would have served just as well, though the money would have had to come from some other source, maybe bioswales.
my objection is not only that we need sharrows elsewhere, but that they are inappropriate here. lane positioning is not really an issue on a bike boulevard, where there is hardly any motor traffic, relatively few cars parked on the street, and average speeds are in the teens and low twenties.
and to make matters worse, on the narrower streets, like klickitat and holman, these sharrows have been placed not just to the left of the door zone, as contemplated in the MUTCD, but right on the center line (sometimes, weirdly, slightly to the left of center). this completely negates the intended purpose of the sharrow, diluting its usefulness in situations where it is actually needed.
the 2009 manual on uniform traffic control devices includes the sharrow at section 9C.07 as an optional treatment on roads on which the outer travel lane is too narrow to share. the intended purpose of the device is to indicate "lateral lane positioning," that is,
(a) to tell cyclists they should move to the left, away from the curb or out of the door zone, and
(b) to tell motorists they should expect to see cyclists claiming the entire lane.
the device may be used in conjunction with signage indicating "bicycles may use full lane," though this is not required.
over the past several weeks, PBoT has been putting these down on some of the newly designated bike boulevards -- klickitat, holman, going, etc. but they are not being used to indicate lateral lane positioning. they are being used as wayfinders.
evidently, PBoT made this choice because there was stimulus money available, but they needed to use MUTCD compliant signage and pavement treatments to get the grant. they did snag close a million dollars for this project, but it seems to me the money would have been better spent putting sharrows where they are actually needed, for example on northeast 28th, or on southeast hawthorne, or on the couch/burnside couplet. evidently putting sharrows on those roads is not a priority for PBoT.
as wayfinders, the sharrows are quite visible. but something else on a similar scale would have served just as well, though the money would have had to come from some other source, maybe bioswales.
my objection is not only that we need sharrows elsewhere, but that they are inappropriate here. lane positioning is not really an issue on a bike boulevard, where there is hardly any motor traffic, relatively few cars parked on the street, and average speeds are in the teens and low twenties.
and to make matters worse, on the narrower streets, like klickitat and holman, these sharrows have been placed not just to the left of the door zone, as contemplated in the MUTCD, but right on the center line (sometimes, weirdly, slightly to the left of center). this completely negates the intended purpose of the sharrow, diluting its usefulness in situations where it is actually needed.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
pushback
some weeks ago in "so is this a done deal," i described the first of two open houses at which PBoT rolled out its plans for the klickitat bike boulevard, um, neighborhood greenway. the subtext was the extent to which decisions might already have been made, and the open houses might have been a facade.
but something did actually happen on the way to the second forum.
at the first open house, the storyboards showed alternative intersection treatments at key crossings such as MLK, 15th, and (the focus of today's discussion) 33rd.
klickitat at 33rd is a pretty tricky situation even if you are not trying to put in a bikeway. just a block down a pretty steep hill from a signal at fremont. close to 10k cars each direction every day. posted thirty, but you know how people do.
there is a striped crosswalk on the north side of the intersection, with the yellow diamond signs, etc., but not on the south. in fact, on the south, there are signs warning pedestrians not to cross. there is a median strip to the north of the crosswalk which presumably is intended to slow the downhill traffic somewhat. and it provides something of a pedestrian refuge halfway across, albeit unprotected.
why anyone thought it would be better to put the crosswalk only on the uphill side of the intersection i don't know. possibly so that a northbound motorist wanting to turn left onto klickitat would not be left hanging in the intersection waiting for pedestrians to clear. though there is a center turn lane there. hard to say, really.
the existing design exposes a southbound motorist who condescends to respect the pedestrian crosswalk to the risk of being rear-ended.
anyway, the proposed treatment at this intersection, as presented at the first open house, was to extend the median through the entire intersection, with cut-throughs for bike traffic and another pedestrian crosswalk on the south, with both pedestrian refuges protected. the existing center left turn lane northbound on 33rd would be removed, and left turns would be forbidden (actually, physically prevented) from any direction.
well.
this drew a response from at least one resident. a guy named jim knoble, who lives a few doors east of the intersection on klickitat, put up flyers around the neighborhood, urging people to contact kyle chesik at PBoT and voice objections to the proposed median extension. and show up at the second open house.
knoble's argument was that residents in that one block of klickitat would be forced to travel uphill either on 33rd or on klickitat itself to get out of the neighborhood, and that this would be especially troublesome when there was snow or ice on the streets. he also noted that the proposed treatment would do nothing to slow motor traffic pouring downhill from fremont, which is of course the actual problem.
what knoble proposed was to retain the existing configuration but add a pedestrian and cyclist activated crossing signal, synchronized with the signal at fremont.
the flyer did attract quite a number of fresh faces to the second open house, which was crowded into a space in the front end of the library in the alameda elementary school. not all of them agreed with knoble's analysis. some people felt that if you were going to leave the intersection at 33rd unregulated and then also turn some of the stop signs along klickitat west of 33rd around, you would defeat the purpose of discouraging cut-through traffic.
but the weird thing was, and this is the point i have been leading up to here, before the meeting even began, PBoT had taken the extended median idea completely off the table. no longer even an option. the new storyboards showed simply that the intersection remained a problem, and that maybe a hawk beacon (question mark) might be put there.
greg raisman was there at the second open house, along with an engineer whose name escapes me, providing backup to kyle. greg said it would cost too much to put in a pedestrian and cyclist activated crossing signal, etc., under more recent MUTCD standards -- a quarter mil or something --, and that the beacon actually has a higher compliance rate anyway.
he did not really respond to the objection that leaving the intersection unregulated while turning stop signs along klickitat would invite cut-through traffic, except to say that other calming measures several blocks away would somehow discourage this. he pointed repeatedly to a proposed pocket park at the alameda crossing, and to the closing of the block between 23rd and 24th at the magdalen school.
so that is what we are left with, subject to possible adjustment after monitoring the situation for a couple of years. the existing striped crosswalk, with maybe a hawk signal. kudos to knoble for effective advocacy, i guess, and a lesson to the rest of us.
in a followup posting to his webpage, knoble says PBoT has committed to "a pair of better-marked, more visible crosswalks," plus the hawk beacon (without the question mark). i think this somewhat overstates the actual commitment.
interestingly, an "evaluation goals" document released after the second open house mentions "curb extensions" at a number of intersections, to "reduce crossing distance and improve crossing visibility." 33rd is listed, though this may be an error.
but something did actually happen on the way to the second forum.
at the first open house, the storyboards showed alternative intersection treatments at key crossings such as MLK, 15th, and (the focus of today's discussion) 33rd.
klickitat at 33rd is a pretty tricky situation even if you are not trying to put in a bikeway. just a block down a pretty steep hill from a signal at fremont. close to 10k cars each direction every day. posted thirty, but you know how people do.
there is a striped crosswalk on the north side of the intersection, with the yellow diamond signs, etc., but not on the south. in fact, on the south, there are signs warning pedestrians not to cross. there is a median strip to the north of the crosswalk which presumably is intended to slow the downhill traffic somewhat. and it provides something of a pedestrian refuge halfway across, albeit unprotected.
why anyone thought it would be better to put the crosswalk only on the uphill side of the intersection i don't know. possibly so that a northbound motorist wanting to turn left onto klickitat would not be left hanging in the intersection waiting for pedestrians to clear. though there is a center turn lane there. hard to say, really.
the existing design exposes a southbound motorist who condescends to respect the pedestrian crosswalk to the risk of being rear-ended.
anyway, the proposed treatment at this intersection, as presented at the first open house, was to extend the median through the entire intersection, with cut-throughs for bike traffic and another pedestrian crosswalk on the south, with both pedestrian refuges protected. the existing center left turn lane northbound on 33rd would be removed, and left turns would be forbidden (actually, physically prevented) from any direction.
well.
this drew a response from at least one resident. a guy named jim knoble, who lives a few doors east of the intersection on klickitat, put up flyers around the neighborhood, urging people to contact kyle chesik at PBoT and voice objections to the proposed median extension. and show up at the second open house.
knoble's argument was that residents in that one block of klickitat would be forced to travel uphill either on 33rd or on klickitat itself to get out of the neighborhood, and that this would be especially troublesome when there was snow or ice on the streets. he also noted that the proposed treatment would do nothing to slow motor traffic pouring downhill from fremont, which is of course the actual problem.
what knoble proposed was to retain the existing configuration but add a pedestrian and cyclist activated crossing signal, synchronized with the signal at fremont.
the flyer did attract quite a number of fresh faces to the second open house, which was crowded into a space in the front end of the library in the alameda elementary school. not all of them agreed with knoble's analysis. some people felt that if you were going to leave the intersection at 33rd unregulated and then also turn some of the stop signs along klickitat west of 33rd around, you would defeat the purpose of discouraging cut-through traffic.
but the weird thing was, and this is the point i have been leading up to here, before the meeting even began, PBoT had taken the extended median idea completely off the table. no longer even an option. the new storyboards showed simply that the intersection remained a problem, and that maybe a hawk beacon (question mark) might be put there.
greg raisman was there at the second open house, along with an engineer whose name escapes me, providing backup to kyle. greg said it would cost too much to put in a pedestrian and cyclist activated crossing signal, etc., under more recent MUTCD standards -- a quarter mil or something --, and that the beacon actually has a higher compliance rate anyway.
he did not really respond to the objection that leaving the intersection unregulated while turning stop signs along klickitat would invite cut-through traffic, except to say that other calming measures several blocks away would somehow discourage this. he pointed repeatedly to a proposed pocket park at the alameda crossing, and to the closing of the block between 23rd and 24th at the magdalen school.
so that is what we are left with, subject to possible adjustment after monitoring the situation for a couple of years. the existing striped crosswalk, with maybe a hawk signal. kudos to knoble for effective advocacy, i guess, and a lesson to the rest of us.
in a followup posting to his webpage, knoble says PBoT has committed to "a pair of better-marked, more visible crosswalks," plus the hawk beacon (without the question mark). i think this somewhat overstates the actual commitment.
interestingly, an "evaluation goals" document released after the second open house mentions "curb extensions" at a number of intersections, to "reduce crossing distance and improve crossing visibility." 33rd is listed, though this may be an error.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
well, well, well
some interesting stuff at tonight's BAC meeting.
item one:
roger geller asked for input on the current ODoT bike/ped grant cycle. proposals due july 9. up to one million to be awarded on a single project, twenty pct. of the entire grant budget. OBPAC saying "think big," "showcase projects," "community-wide impact," etc.
roger mentioned a couple of "candidate projects," maybe put "hawk" signals at every major intersection along some corridor out east, beyond 82nd, maybe "improve" the klickitat walkway, taking advantage of a greater portion of the sixty-foot right of way. looking for other suggestions.
alicia crain urged that any proposal should focus on closing what she called the "equity gap," increasing bike/ped access for underserved populations. she mentioned cully in particular. mark ginsberg suggested going for the cutting edge, maybe close the transit mall to automobile traffic. several other ideas put forward.
item two:
among the informal announcements at the start of the meeting, mark ginsburg mentioned that the BTA board election is coming up in september, and in effect put out a call for anyone interested in contesting some seats.
item three:
katja dillmann, transportation policy advisor to the mayor, asked for feedback on the difficulties with the couch approach to the burnside bridge and on PBoT's response to date. maybe implying that further decisionmaking on this matter might be made over susan keil's head.
ian stude said he had biked down couch from 14th and found that the lights seemed to be timed to about 20 mph, rather than 12 mph as had been stated in the planning documents. dillmann actually confirmed that this was the case. apparently the change was made by some traffic engineer (she said who, but my notes are sketchy) in order to accommodate the throughput from sandy.
i seconded stude's suggestion that the timing be brought down closer to 12 mph, and i also suggested that PBoT simply get rid of the bike lane altogether, pointing out the conflict with the bus stop and the right hook at grand, and that they reduce the posted advisory speed on the transition itself to 15 mph.
somewhat to my surprise, there was a certain amount of support for these views among the committee. a straw poll actually favored asking the mayor's office to "look at" taking out the bike lane.
more to come.
item one:
roger geller asked for input on the current ODoT bike/ped grant cycle. proposals due july 9. up to one million to be awarded on a single project, twenty pct. of the entire grant budget. OBPAC saying "think big," "showcase projects," "community-wide impact," etc.
roger mentioned a couple of "candidate projects," maybe put "hawk" signals at every major intersection along some corridor out east, beyond 82nd, maybe "improve" the klickitat walkway, taking advantage of a greater portion of the sixty-foot right of way. looking for other suggestions.
alicia crain urged that any proposal should focus on closing what she called the "equity gap," increasing bike/ped access for underserved populations. she mentioned cully in particular. mark ginsberg suggested going for the cutting edge, maybe close the transit mall to automobile traffic. several other ideas put forward.
item two:
among the informal announcements at the start of the meeting, mark ginsburg mentioned that the BTA board election is coming up in september, and in effect put out a call for anyone interested in contesting some seats.
item three:
katja dillmann, transportation policy advisor to the mayor, asked for feedback on the difficulties with the couch approach to the burnside bridge and on PBoT's response to date. maybe implying that further decisionmaking on this matter might be made over susan keil's head.
ian stude said he had biked down couch from 14th and found that the lights seemed to be timed to about 20 mph, rather than 12 mph as had been stated in the planning documents. dillmann actually confirmed that this was the case. apparently the change was made by some traffic engineer (she said who, but my notes are sketchy) in order to accommodate the throughput from sandy.
i seconded stude's suggestion that the timing be brought down closer to 12 mph, and i also suggested that PBoT simply get rid of the bike lane altogether, pointing out the conflict with the bus stop and the right hook at grand, and that they reduce the posted advisory speed on the transition itself to 15 mph.
somewhat to my surprise, there was a certain amount of support for these views among the committee. a straw poll actually favored asking the mayor's office to "look at" taking out the bike lane.
more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
