Question for Joerg

On 2017-01-31 11:24, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:14:30 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

Why did Placerville, Folsom and Rancho Cordova get it done? And to
some extent Sacramento? Those are all old cities and nothing got
leveled. Yes, that does sometimes require reducing car lanes from
four to three.

Because a significant amount of tourist money comes from cycling -
both road and off-road. That is a pretty strong motivating factor but
also one that isn't liable to move large cities.


Not in those towns. It does foster business though because the locals
eat out more, they head to town on bicycles.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-01-31 12:46, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-31 09:32, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:14:30 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-30 11:30, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-8, Joerg
wrote:
On 2017-01-28 14:34, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-8, Joerg
wrote:

But you keep telling us about all the life
threatening incidents that magically occur to you
WHEREVER you ride, whether on or off-road. Why is it
only the on-road ones which result in you saying
"once is enough, never again!"?
snip

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because
about once a month those end deadly for the cyclist
around here. Here is this month's death:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html






It's blatantly obvious that you are either getting something
badly wrong, or your risk assessments are orders of
magnitude out, or you are trolling, and the majority
of your postings are unadulterated bull****.


Right, you know all this better.

Interestingly, my only near collision with a car today
occurred on a new, separate facility on a through road
that I used to ride down without a care. Now I have to
ride on a MUP that is bisected every 100 feet by a road,
driveway, hopscotch grid, etc., etc. It's a f******
nightmare.

Conceptualize this: an on-road bike lane that runs
parallel to traffic on a through street with numerous
intersecting roads with, of course, stop signs. You just
ride down the road with the cars off to your left. Now,
move the bike lane to the right ten feet onto an
over-sized sidewalk that now stops at every intersecting
road. The cyclist can't cross if there is a car waiting
to enter traffic from the intersecting road because the
car blocks the path, and even if there is no car blocking
the path, the cyclist is now exposed to the risk of being
hit by a car turning on to the intersecting road from the
the through street (from either direction) because the
cyclist is not easily seen and is moving far faster than
pedestrian traffic. Today, I almost got whacked by a
turning car as I was trying to cross -- at a walking
speed because I actually stopped. In 30 years of riding
that road, I had never been hooked or nearly hooked. The
previous bike lane was ten times more convenient and
safer.

My second near disaster was on the "cycletrack" in front
of PSU. Cars had parked in the track, and I had to weave
around them, and then pedestrians were wandering into the
track from both sides -- from the sidewalk on the right
and the line of parked cars on the left that creates the
supposed "shelter." Another total infrastructure mistake.
It should be called the "chute of death."


Then take action and call them out on it. In public.
Loudly.


On-street bike lanes made life better for me in a number
of places, and in fact, most places except where the
bikes lanes were placed in the door-zone. I can think of
only one or two separate facilities that are safer for me
than a well-designed on-street bike lane or traffic
calmed street (bike boulevard). Any mixed use facility
and any separate facility that intersects roads exposes
cyclists to new and different dangers ...


Not true. Come to Folsom (with your bike) and see how it
can be done correctly. Grade separation is the magic word.
They know how it's done right. There can be thick crawling
traffic or total standstill on the large roads while I blow
through on my road bike and don't even have to tap the
brakes.

I am sick and tired of people blanket-condemning bike
infrastructure just because the authorities in their
region screwed up the design. You need to get out more. A
very educating trip for you could be a long vacation (with
bike) in the Netherlands.

I don't blanket condemn bicycle infrastructure. On-street
bike lanes are infrastructure. I'm not excited about the US
implementation of separate bicycle facilities where, unlike
NL (for example), right of way remains with cars and
pedestrians. I can't comment on the Folsom bicycle Eden,
because I haven't been there in 18 years, ...


18 years ago Folsom was quite horrid for cycling. That is way
different now that they put in the infrastructure.


... but our separate facilities expose cyclists to
pedestrians, trains, buses, etc., etc. They are far less safe
and convenient than on-street bike lanes.


As I said, your planners may not be smart enough.

Maybe not, although our planners set standards nationwide.


I am sure glad they don't for our area.


... Lover her or hate her, Mia Burke of Alta Planning started at
the PDOT, and her company has been calling the tunes in a lot of
cities. She also wrote about me in her book!


That may be so but from what you just wrote they must have messed
up a lot of designs. So I won't buy her book :-)


I live in a city that is as close to the NL as you're going
to get in the US -- lots of cyclists and legal dope, but the
fact is, it isn't NL and never will be. Not unless it gets
leveled and much of the city is erased. In my experience, in
a large-ish city that prides itself on improvements, separate
bicycle facilities are more often a hazard than a blessing.


Why did Placerville, Folsom and Rancho Cordova get it done? And
to some extent Sacramento? Those are all old cities and nothing
got leveled. Yes, that does sometimes require reducing car
lanes from four to three.

Who knows. I do know that the Central Valley and Sierra
foothills have a lot more available dirt than Portland. Your
town, for example, was created out of a cow pasture when I was a
kid. Folsom had less than half its current population in 1990.
http://www.clrsearch.com/Folsom-Demo...ion-Statistics



So what often happens when you get the big building booms is that
developers are obligated to put in infrastructure ...


Bingo! This also goes for existing areas with infill construction.


... or the tax base is swollen to the point where cities can
afford to build luxury items like separate bicycle facilities.


They didn't have to swell it. The recipe was simple: Build it and
they will come. I have met a lot of people who bought a house in
Folsom because of the bicycle infrastructure. This in turn means
more property taxes into the city coffers. Which means more bike
path. Which means ... talk about a win-win constellation.

Track with me he I'm talking about swollen tax coffers, and in
Folsom, I assume the construction of an Intel plant in 1984 caused
the town to boom tax-wise.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...4/09/06/focus1. I'll
bet the bicycle infrastructure went in after 1984 -- with all the
transplants and all their property tax payments. The city also had
the dirt. Money and dirt will do it every time.

I seriously doubt people are moving to Folsom because of the bike
lanes or bike trails....


I have personally talked to people who said so. They were almost all
retirees and mostly what we call "Bay Area transplants". They told their
realtors that they wanted to buy a home in Folsom. Not Cameron Park or
El Dorado Hills, no, in Folsom. And then they bought one there.


... You can put a wonderful bike-only trail in a
****-hole town, and it's still a ****-hole town. Folsom is attracting
people because it is relatively close-in; it has good weather, and
there are jobs at and Intel. It seems like a nice place, although the
prison is kind of a drag. Why don't you move there. It's just a
short distance away from your current car Mecca. You picked a town
that was built by a former auto dealer with his earnings from his
auto dealerships. It was built for cars and airplanes and golfers. Go
to bike Eden over there in Folsom.


I don't like living in a city. We have singletrack out here and my
favorite mode of transportation is the MTB. Which fits nicely. I use the
road bike only when heading into the valley and then I take major roads
only on the way back. Mainly because the road bike doesn't take kindly
to dirt trails when carrying back a load.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg considered Tue, 31 Jan 2017
08:14:28 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2017-01-30 11:30, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-28 14:34, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

But you keep telling us about all the life threatening
incidents that magically occur to you WHEREVER you ride,
whether on or off-road. Why is it only the on-road ones which
result in you saying "once is enough, never again!"?
snip

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because about
once a month those end deadly for the cyclist around here. Here
is this month's death:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html


It's blatantly obvious that you are either getting something
badly wrong, or your risk assessments are orders of
magnitude out, or you are trolling, and the majority of your
postings are unadulterated bull****.


Right, you know all this better.

Interestingly, my only near collision with a car today occurred
on a new, separate facility on a through road that I used to ride
down without a care. Now I have to ride on a MUP that is
bisected every 100 feet by a road, driveway, hopscotch grid,
etc., etc. It's a f****** nightmare.

Conceptualize this: an on-road bike lane that runs parallel to
traffic on a through street with numerous intersecting roads
with, of course, stop signs. You just ride down the road with the
cars off to your left. Now, move the bike lane to the right ten
feet onto an over-sized sidewalk that now stops at every
intersecting road. The cyclist can't cross if there is a car
waiting to enter traffic from the intersecting road because the
car blocks the path, and even if there is no car blocking the
path, the cyclist is now exposed to the risk of being hit by a
car turning on to the intersecting road from the the through
street (from either direction) because the cyclist is not easily
seen and is moving far faster than pedestrian traffic. Today, I
almost got whacked by a turning car as I was trying to cross --
at a walking speed because I actually stopped. In 30 years of
riding that road, I had never been hooked or nearly hooked. The
previous bike lane was ten times more convenient and safer.

My second near disaster was on the "cycletrack" in front of PSU.
Cars had parked in the track, and I had to weave around them,
and then pedestrians were wandering into the track from both
sides -- from the sidewalk on the right and the line of parked
cars on the left that creates the supposed "shelter." Another
total infrastructure mistake. It should be called the "chute of
death."


Then take action and call them out on it. In public. Loudly.


On-street bike lanes made life better for me in a number of
places, and in fact, most places except where the bikes lanes
were placed in the door-zone. I can think of only one or two
separate facilities that are safer for me than a well-designed
on-street bike lane or traffic calmed street (bike boulevard).
Any mixed use facility and any separate facility that intersects
roads exposes cyclists to new and different dangers ...


Not true. Come to Folsom (with your bike) and see how it can be
done correctly. Grade separation is the magic word. They know how
it's done right. There can be thick crawling traffic or total
standstill on the large roads while I blow through on my road bike
and don't even have to tap the brakes.

I am sick and tired of people blanket-condemning bike
infrastructure just because the authorities in their region screwed
up the design. You need to get out more. A very educating trip for
you could be a long vacation (with bike) in the Netherlands.

I don't blanket condemn bicycle infrastructure. On-street bike lanes
are infrastructure. I'm not excited about the US implementation of
separate bicycle facilities where, unlike NL (for example), right of
way remains with cars and pedestrians. I can't comment on the Folsom
bicycle Eden, because I haven't been there in 18 years, ...


18 years ago Folsom was quite horrid for cycling. That is way different
now that they put in the infrastructure.


... but our
separate facilities expose cyclists to pedestrians, trains, buses,
etc., etc. They are far less safe and convenient than on-street bike
lanes.


As I said, your planners may not be smart enough.


I live in a city that is as close to the NL as you're going to get in
the US -- lots of cyclists and legal dope, but the fact is, it isn't
NL and never will be. Not unless it gets leveled and much of the
city is erased. In my experience, in a large-ish city that prides
itself on improvements, separate bicycle facilities are more often a
hazard than a blessing.


Why did Placerville, Folsom and Rancho Cordova get it done? And to some
extent Sacramento? Those are all old cities and nothing got leveled.
Yes, that does sometimes require reducing car lanes from four to three.

Which is only an option if you have four general traffic lanes to
start with.
When you only have one each way, and they are already narrow, with the
streets bounded by historic buildings, what then?
Best practice, in that situation, is to heavily restrict motor vehicle
access.
The first rule of dealing with safety problems is to eliminate them
where possible, and only protect against them if removal is not
possible. For some reason, this principle seems to get thrown out of
the window when the hazard is motor traffic - which to me indicates an
endemic policy of negligence among traffic planners.

On 2017-01-31 15:47, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 31 Jan 2017
08:14:28 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2017-01-30 11:30, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

I live in a city that is as close to the NL as you're going to get in
the US -- lots of cyclists and legal dope, but the fact is, it isn't
NL and never will be. Not unless it gets leveled and much of the
city is erased. In my experience, in a large-ish city that prides
itself on improvements, separate bicycle facilities are more often a
hazard than a blessing.


Why did Placerville, Folsom and Rancho Cordova get it done? And to some
extent Sacramento? Those are all old cities and nothing got leveled.
Yes, that does sometimes require reducing car lanes from four to three.

Which is only an option if you have four general traffic lanes to
start with.
When you only have one each way, and they are already narrow, with the
streets bounded by historic buildings, what then?
Best practice, in that situation, is to heavily restrict motor vehicle
access.


Placerville's planner were smarter than that. They did the obvious,
building the bike lane partially where alleys were and partially where
an abandoned rail track was. For a mile or so they added "sharrows" and
the speed limit is 25mph. Works. No restriction of car access. In fact,
they also built a large free (!) parking structure so you can enter the
city with you car, park it and then explore on foot.

Folsom did it in part similar. Alleys, backyard river areas, plus a huge
parking structure in the center. Thing is, this parking structure now
sits empty to a large extent because more and more people like to come
.... drum roll ... by bicycle.


The first rule of dealing with safety problems is to eliminate them
where possible, and only protect against them if removal is not
possible. For some reason, this principle seems to get thrown out of
the window when the hazard is motor traffic - which to me indicates an
endemic policy of negligence among traffic planners.


Some planners are smart, some are less smart and some are outright stupid.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-01-28 22:37, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:46:51 -0800, Joerg
wrote:

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because about once a
month those end deadly for the cyclist around here. Here is this month's
death:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html

Please pardon the topic drift. I was wondering how the People's
Republic of Santa Cruz compares. This is only up to 2013, but does
show the general cycling carnage level on Table 2:
http://www.santacruzhealth.org/Portals/7/Pdfs/CTSC/Bicyclist%20State%20of%20the%20County%20Report%202 013.pdf
Looks like 1 to 3 fatalities per year with a population of 280,000.

Did you know that paved bike paths are also dangerous? Looks like the
sole 2011 fatality didn't require getting hit by a motorcycle or
automobile:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20160113/NEWS/160119866
"He was wearing a helmet and using a bike light as he cycled
down the Great Meadow Bikeway, a paved path that ends at
university’s music center."
"Burgueno had a head injury..."


That article is the usual shallow journalism and lacks important
details. Such as:

a. What exactly was the obstacle or defect that caused him to crash?

b. What was the cyclists speed and was it adequate given the curve and
how far he could see?

c. Did he fail to see the pavement issue or whatever else was deemd the
cause?

Yesterday I "derailed" off of the paved section of the El Dorado Trail
for the 2nd time. There was a large pebble on the pavement which made
the road bike's front wheel jut to the left and we were riding next to
each other talking, at high speed. I'd never sue Placerville for that
had I crashed.

A lot of cycling crashes without involvement of others are the result of
over-correction or brute force reaction. It is often better to let the
bike loose a bit, let it find its way through rocks and stuff. Other
times it is best to catapult oneself from the bike. Dirt bikers and
mountain bikers develop good instincts in that domain. Similar to GA
pilots in smaller aircraft who always scan the ground for a good
emergency landing spot or at least an opportunity for a somewhat
controlled and potentially surviveable crash.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 8:03:57 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

Yesterday I "derailed" off of the paved section of the El Dorado Trail
for the 2nd time. There was a large pebble on the pavement which made
the road bike's front wheel jut to the left and we were riding next to
each other talking, at high speed. I'd never sue Placerville for that
had I crashed.

People today are sure than anything that befouls them is the fault of others. In the one case where my crash from a seizure injured someone it was a minor injury of no count such as a sprained back, which was bad enough that victim was sent to the hospital to be immediately released with minor pain pills and a totaled car.

Bu the time the lawyers were done with it, the insurance company had to pay out $350,000.

Santa Crus is a feudal state with limited land area

Your community was owned n planed by the owner.