Tell Congressman Cantor to quit bashing bike-ped

On Jul 5, 10:37*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not sure how you want to achieve that. *Certainly, bike paths with
blind corners, collision hazards and the like aren't going to be major
contributors. *Rather than advocating for such things, try working for
lower motorist speed limits and other reductions in motorist
privilege. *Also work for more compact city development, more mixed-
use zoning and other structural changes. *Even the best bike paths
won't make nearly as much difference as those sorts of changes.

I think we can (broadly) agree on that.

Hurrah!

I think the appeal of
segregation is proportional to the degree to which streets have been
optimized for motor vehicle traffic. Traffic calmed routes are a much
more practical option, particularly in urban areas. Lowering speeds may
be a tough sell, but it's a progressive approach. Not only does it
improve safety for everyone, but it also makes the streets more pleasant
and, in many cases, actually improves the flow of traffic.

Agreed.

First generation traffic calming measures, like speed bumps, are
immensely unpopular and have some unintended consequences. The real (and
until now unanswered) question is how to reduce traffic speeds in a way
that's economically feasible and doesn't encourage resentment and
motorist counter-measures. It's a tough problem, but I think solving it
will do more for cycling in the long run than segregated facilities.
Having calmed streets, even if no cyclists showed up to take advantage
of them, would still benefit the city.

In our area, one beautiful, historic-register neighborhood was being
overrun with cut-through traffic at rush hour. They successfully
lobbied for speed _humps_, not the harsher speed bumps. Apparently,
that installation was very successful. Also, a bike advocate friend
of mine (who used to post here) lives in a different city, on a street
with speed humps. IIRC, he and his neighbors are quite pleased with
them.

Sharp speed _bumps_ are another matter. I don't think anyone likes
them.

I guess my real complaint is about what seems to be the built-in
assumption in traffic planning that speed is a high priority. As roads
are re-engineered, the "improvements" always seem to be packing more
traffic at higher speeds. According to the widely accepted ideas about
risk compensation, making the roads "safer" actually doesn't because
people's behavior compensates. That's the flaw in AASHTO basic
principles, it's also a long standing debate in highway design.

I think that's all very plausible, regarding highway design. When I
mentioned AASHTO approvingly, it was specifically regarding their bike
facility manual, which I still believe should be used as a minimum
standard. Again, I say this because I've encountered many bike paths
and lanes that violate that AASHTO standard, and they are _not_
acceptably safe.

The "shared space" idea is interesting, only because it doesn't try to
force lower speeds by fiat, but instead works by cuing drivers that a
lower speed is actually required to avoid crashes. Whether it actually
works or not, it is a departure from traditional thinking -- actually
the opposite of traditional thinking.

Just one example: traffic lights. Most people think traffic lights make
a road safer and improve traffic flow. It seems that those conclusions
were reached without real study (or maybe I'm just ignorant of the
history). Traffic lights segregate (by time) flows in intersections,
reducing the opportunities for collisions, but at the same time
encourage stop & go flow with high peak speeds and increasing the
severity of crashes when they do occur.

Although I haven't studied any real research on this issue, I believe
you're correct. Recently, there was a letter to the editor praising
my village for having its few traffic lights go to blinking caution
lights at night; versus the nearby major city, at which a motorist is
asked to stop for 30 to 45 seconds at a deserted inner city
intersection at midnight. Certainly, nobody could argue that those
lights are beneficial at night.

But more to the point, the plug-and-unplug effect of ordinary traffic
lights does cause backups, and those backups require storage space for
the waiting motorists - storage space in the form of extra paved
lanes. I've read that there are countless intersections that have
four lanes only because of that phenomenon - that otherwise, two lanes
would be plenty.

Supposedly, roundabouts or rotaries are much more efficient regarding
throughput, don't require those extra "storage" lanes, and are safer
as well. What I don't know is how roundabouts work for cyclists.
I've ridden some (here and overseas) but not many. My general
impression is that small, low-speed ones are easy for cyclists, but
larger faster ones are more dangerous than traffic lights. Can anyone
comment?

Removing signals and signs, curbs and fencing, lane stripes and most
other traffic control mechanisms achieves the opposite of segregation.
That's so contrary to historical thinking that it may be a long time
before it's adopted in the US.

There's _lots_ of inertia in this system. That's in the minds of
traffic engineers (who fear liability as well as failed innovation, I
suppose). It's also in the mind of the public, since everyman is
convinced he's an absolute expert on traffic engineering (and a highly
skilled driver, of course).

Here in our village, a civic group floated a modest proposal regarding
a five-lane arterial that bisects (and ruins) the village. They asked
to have the DOT investigate placement islands in the _unused_ portions
of the continuous center turn lane. Again, the islands would not be
placed where anybody ever drove. Their idea was to make it look less
like a freeway and more like a village, plus to give pedestrians
midway refuge when trying to cross that road.

At the village council meeting, rabble rousers succeeded in getting
about 30 people out with torches and pitchforks, claiming that those
islands would _obviously_ back up traffic and kill people. They
demanded that Village Council not even ask the DOT for a traffic
study! IOW, they demanded continued ignorance.

Similarly, one civic-minded retired civil engineer proposed a
roundabout for a problematic intersection, citing the ideas I
mentioned above. It sounded brilliant to me, but he merely proved
that lead balloons fly very poorly, even in dense atmospheres.

Any changes in American traffic are going to take a long, long time,
unless we really do get some huge crisis thrown at us. The only
benefit I see to this situation is that we'll have plenty of meat for
discussion for the foreseeable future.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 5, 1:34*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:

When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When I'm on my bike on certain streets, I feel much more like a nail,
actually.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:37 am, Peter Cole wrote:


In our area, one beautiful, historic-register neighborhood was being
overrun with cut-through traffic at rush hour. They successfully
lobbied for speed _humps_, not the harsher speed bumps. Apparently,
that installation was very successful. Also, a bike advocate friend
of mine (who used to post here) lives in a different city, on a street
with speed humps. IIRC, he and his neighbors are quite pleased with
them.

Sharp speed _bumps_ are another matter. I don't think anyone likes
them.

Perhaps humps/tables are better tolerated, and more effective, the
articles I've read seemed to indicate otherwise. My city has put a
moratorium on them (very few currently installed).


I guess my real complaint is about what seems to be the built-in
assumption in traffic planning that speed is a high priority. As roads
are re-engineered, the "improvements" always seem to be packing more
traffic at higher speeds. According to the widely accepted ideas about
risk compensation, making the roads "safer" actually doesn't because
people's behavior compensates. That's the flaw in AASHTO basic
principles, it's also a long standing debate in highway design.

I think that's all very plausible, regarding highway design. When I
mentioned AASHTO approvingly, it was specifically regarding their bike
facility manual, which I still believe should be used as a minimum
standard. Again, I say this because I've encountered many bike paths
and lanes that violate that AASHTO standard, and they are _not_
acceptably safe.

OK, well we'll have to agree to disagree. My feeling is that bike paths
are somewhat of a myth as long as they're shared with pedestrians,
they're just sidewalks by another name, so I'm not all that excited
about "state of the art" paths. If I want to ride at all fast, I ride in
the streets.


Just one example: traffic lights. Most people think traffic lights make
a road safer and improve traffic flow. It seems that those conclusions
were reached without real study (or maybe I'm just ignorant of the
history). Traffic lights segregate (by time) flows in intersections,
reducing the opportunities for collisions, but at the same time
encourage stop & go flow with high peak speeds and increasing the
severity of crashes when they do occur.

Although I haven't studied any real research on this issue, I believe
you're correct. Recently, there was a letter to the editor praising
my village for having its few traffic lights go to blinking caution
lights at night; versus the nearby major city, at which a motorist is
asked to stop for 30 to 45 seconds at a deserted inner city
intersection at midnight. Certainly, nobody could argue that those
lights are beneficial at night.

But more to the point, the plug-and-unplug effect of ordinary traffic
lights does cause backups, and those backups require storage space for
the waiting motorists - storage space in the form of extra paved
lanes. I've read that there are countless intersections that have
four lanes only because of that phenomenon - that otherwise, two lanes
would be plenty.

I didn't know that, but it makes sense. As I cyclist, I particularly
dislike the constant acceleration/deceleration of packs of cars between
lights.


Supposedly, roundabouts or rotaries are much more efficient regarding
throughput, don't require those extra "storage" lanes, and are safer
as well. What I don't know is how roundabouts work for cyclists.
I've ridden some (here and overseas) but not many. My general
impression is that small, low-speed ones are easy for cyclists, but
larger faster ones are more dangerous than traffic lights. Can anyone
comment?

Massachusetts is somewhat unique in having more rotaries than most
states. Even here they're somewhat derided. I've always liked them as a
motorist. As a cyclist, they can be a little intimidating, but only
because they're not all that common even here, and motorists seem even
less adept at handling cyclists in them. They require a lot of
"negotiation", even if you are driving, so if the others in the rotary
don't feel like sharing, it can be tough, just like any other merge
situation. Boston drivers used to be terrible in that regard -- much
worse than other parts of the country. In common situations like 2 lanes
merging to 1, Bostonians would usually play chicken rather than smoothly
alternate. I thought that was how everyone drove until I got out of
state. Fortunately, they've gotten better over the last decade or so.


Removing signals and signs, curbs and fencing, lane stripes and most
other traffic control mechanisms achieves the opposite of segregation.
That's so contrary to historical thinking that it may be a long time
before it's adopted in the US.

There's _lots_ of inertia in this system. That's in the minds of
traffic engineers (who fear liability as well as failed innovation, I
suppose). It's also in the mind of the public, since everyman is
convinced he's an absolute expert on traffic engineering (and a highly
skilled driver, of course).

Here in our village, a civic group floated a modest proposal regarding
a five-lane arterial that bisects (and ruins) the village. They asked
to have the DOT investigate placement islands in the _unused_ portions
of the continuous center turn lane. Again, the islands would not be
placed where anybody ever drove. Their idea was to make it look less
like a freeway and more like a village, plus to give pedestrians
midway refuge when trying to cross that road.

At the village council meeting, rabble rousers succeeded in getting
about 30 people out with torches and pitchforks, claiming that those
islands would _obviously_ back up traffic and kill people. They
demanded that Village Council not even ask the DOT for a traffic
study! IOW, they demanded continued ignorance.

Similarly, one civic-minded retired civil engineer proposed a
roundabout for a problematic intersection, citing the ideas I
mentioned above. It sounded brilliant to me, but he merely proved
that lead balloons fly very poorly, even in dense atmospheres.

Any changes in American traffic are going to take a long, long time,
unless we really do get some huge crisis thrown at us. The only
benefit I see to this situation is that we'll have plenty of meat for
discussion for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, I've heard it described as: progress -- one funeral at a time.
Change seems to come when people take their old ideas to the grave.

The last major road built around here was the Massachusetts Turnpike
(60's). That highway split my town with the usual eminent domain takings
(the sort of thing that couldn't be done today). They've finally gotten
around to putting up sound barriers for the homeowners who had a 6-lane
highway run through their backyards. It only took 40 years.