A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bicycle Infrastructure Tour of Davis, CA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 8th 19, 03:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Bicycle Infrastructure Tour of Davis, CA

Today I went up to Davis, CA
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/03/davis-california-the-american-city-which-fell-in-love-with-the-bicycle
for a tour of their bicycle infrastructure with a city bicycle traffic
engineer from Davis, as well as my own city’s traffic engineer.

We did about a ten mile ride exploring the various bicycle connections
in the city.

UC Davis is actually not in the City of Davis and there is not a big tax
base in the city so money is tight. Still they’ve done an amazing job of
expanding the bicycle infrastructure. But their PCI (Pavement Condition
Index) is rather poor and the bicycle infrastructure pavement is also
often poor. It is not a place for small-wheeled bicycles like Bromptons.

There is a three way conflict among different groups when it comes to
bicycle infrastructure. The experienced cyclists/vehicular cyclists
don’t like the type of infrastructure that the less experienced cyclists
and parents of children want installed. Protected bike lanes, where
there are crossings of perpendicular roads are especially contentious,
and the vehicular cyclists are annoyed because the designs often result
in slowing them down. Some residents oppose bicycle infrastructure
because it often makes driving places less convenient and slower.

I see similar conflicts in my city. When we propose new infrastructure
that will benefit less experienced cyclists, the experienced cyclists,
and some residents, insist that the infrastructure is not needed because
cycling on the existing streets has not been an issue. But the reality
is that cycling numbers are being depressed because without the new
infrastructure many people won’t bicycle, they drive, especially driving
their kids to school rather than letting them bicycle to school. However
there is no way to prove the level of increase that adding
infrastructure will bring, it’s “build it and hope that they eventually
come.”

In Davis there is one particularly big conflict with motorists. As I-80
traffic has increased, Waze has directed motorists onto city streets to
bypass choke points. This happened just about the time a major bicycle
infrastructure was completed that narrowed a street from two vehicle
lanes in each direction to one vehicle lane in each direction
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/08/02/in-davis-a-new-bikeped-safety-project-is-blamed-for-heavy-traffic/.
While the root cause of the congestion is the congested traffic on I-80,
some residents don’t want to understand this. They also don’t understand
that if the two vehicle lanes are put back that Waze will direct even
more vehicles onto that road. Waze is an equalizer when it comes to
traffic. If a road becomes uncongested then Waze directs more traffic
onto that road until that road, and the road that the traffic came from,
are about equally congested.

We have a similar issue with Waze in my city. Traffic is directed off of
I-280 to surface streets which makes it to dangerous to cross these
roads, especially for children and the elderly. We are looking at a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge over one busy, fast road but a few residents
oppose it, convinced that it will result in criminals having easier
access to their neighborhood. Explaining that it’s far more likely that
anyone wanting to rob them will arrive in a car, not on foot or on a
bicycle across a bicycle bridge, is difficult.

Traffic calming often infuriates motorists. The problem of motorists
creating a right turn lane that uses the shoulder is solved with islands
or bollards, which protect cyclists but further congests traffic,
especially right turn traffic. Motorists making high speed turns across
bike lanes, both protected and unprotected can be solved, but motorists
are upset at having to slow down to make a sharp right turn. So the City
of Davis ended up re-doing an intersection to remove traffic calming at
the insistence of some residents in a high-cost neighborhood.

In one place that they eliminated a self-created vehicle right turn lane
that was endangering cyclists by installing an island. But they had to
leave a narrow gap between the island and the curb for drainage. Some
cyclists thought that this gap was a right turn lane for cyclists,
because it really is wide enough for a skilled cyclist to navigate, but
it was not a right turn lane.

Bicycle advocates got the City Council to pass a law that requires
specific new striping to benefit cyclists whenever a road is re-striped
https://www.bikedavis.us/news/2018/06/18. This sounds wonderful, but
unfortunately, to comply with those requirements can be enormously
expensive requiring major changes to the roadway and lane widths. The
result is that many roads are not being re-striped at all and the
striping is fading away, often to dangerous levels.

Davis has a bike share program “Jump” which is very popular but oddly it
has only electric bicycles, and the City is flat.

Cyclists in Davis stop at stop signs and use hand signals. DRL use is
widespread. There were even several bicycles with hub dynamos.

We often see posts in this newsgroup attacking some piece of bicycle
infrastructure, or showing a picture of some piece of infrastructure
that seems counter-intuitive, but the reality is that traffic engineers
are trying to balance competing interests from vehicular cycling
advocates, cyclists that will only ride if there is infrastructure that
makes them feel “comfortable,” and motorists that are furious about
anything delaying them an extra few seconds.
Ads
  #2  
Old November 8th 19, 03:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Bicycle Infrastructure Tour of Davis, CA

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 21:13:41 UTC-5, sms wrote:
Today I went up to Davis, CA
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/03/davis-california-the-american-city-which-fell-in-love-with-the-bicycle
for a tour of their bicycle infrastructure with a city bicycle traffic
engineer from Davis, as well as my own city’s traffic engineer.

We did about a ten mile ride exploring the various bicycle connections
in the city.

UC Davis is actually not in the City of Davis and there is not a big tax
base in the city so money is tight. Still they’ve done an amazing job of
expanding the bicycle infrastructure. But their PCI (Pavement Condition
Index) is rather poor and the bicycle infrastructure pavement is also
often poor. It is not a place for small-wheeled bicycles like Bromptons.

There is a three way conflict among different groups when it comes to
bicycle infrastructure. The experienced cyclists/vehicular cyclists
don’t like the type of infrastructure that the less experienced cyclists
and parents of children want installed. Protected bike lanes, where
there are crossings of perpendicular roads are especially contentious,
and the vehicular cyclists are annoyed because the designs often result
in slowing them down. Some residents oppose bicycle infrastructure
because it often makes driving places less convenient and slower.

I see similar conflicts in my city. When we propose new infrastructure
that will benefit less experienced cyclists, the experienced cyclists,
and some residents, insist that the infrastructure is not needed because
cycling on the existing streets has not been an issue. But the reality
is that cycling numbers are being depressed because without the new
infrastructure many people won’t bicycle, they drive, especially driving
their kids to school rather than letting them bicycle to school. However
there is no way to prove the level of increase that adding
infrastructure will bring, it’s “build it and hope that they eventually
come.”

In Davis there is one particularly big conflict with motorists. As I-80
traffic has increased, Waze has directed motorists onto city streets to
bypass choke points. This happened just about the time a major bicycle
infrastructure was completed that narrowed a street from two vehicle
lanes in each direction to one vehicle lane in each direction
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/08/02/in-davis-a-new-bikeped-safety-project-is-blamed-for-heavy-traffic/.
While the root cause of the congestion is the congested traffic on I-80,
some residents don’t want to understand this. They also don’t understand
that if the two vehicle lanes are put back that Waze will direct even
more vehicles onto that road. Waze is an equalizer when it comes to
traffic. If a road becomes uncongested then Waze directs more traffic
onto that road until that road, and the road that the traffic came from,
are about equally congested.

We have a similar issue with Waze in my city. Traffic is directed off of
I-280 to surface streets which makes it to dangerous to cross these
roads, especially for children and the elderly. We are looking at a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge over one busy, fast road but a few residents
oppose it, convinced that it will result in criminals having easier
access to their neighborhood. Explaining that it’s far more likely that
anyone wanting to rob them will arrive in a car, not on foot or on a
bicycle across a bicycle bridge, is difficult.

Traffic calming often infuriates motorists. The problem of motorists
creating a right turn lane that uses the shoulder is solved with islands
or bollards, which protect cyclists but further congests traffic,
especially right turn traffic. Motorists making high speed turns across
bike lanes, both protected and unprotected can be solved, but motorists
are upset at having to slow down to make a sharp right turn. So the City
of Davis ended up re-doing an intersection to remove traffic calming at
the insistence of some residents in a high-cost neighborhood.

In one place that they eliminated a self-created vehicle right turn lane
that was endangering cyclists by installing an island. But they had to
leave a narrow gap between the island and the curb for drainage. Some
cyclists thought that this gap was a right turn lane for cyclists,
because it really is wide enough for a skilled cyclist to navigate, but
it was not a right turn lane.

Bicycle advocates got the City Council to pass a law that requires
specific new striping to benefit cyclists whenever a road is re-striped
https://www.bikedavis.us/news/2018/06/18. This sounds wonderful, but
unfortunately, to comply with those requirements can be enormously
expensive requiring major changes to the roadway and lane widths. The
result is that many roads are not being re-striped at all and the
striping is fading away, often to dangerous levels.

Davis has a bike share program “Jump” which is very popular but oddly it
has only electric bicycles, and the City is flat.

Cyclists in Davis stop at stop signs and use hand signals. DRL use is
widespread. There were even several bicycles with hub dynamos.

We often see posts in this newsgroup attacking some piece of bicycle
infrastructure, or showing a picture of some piece of infrastructure
that seems counter-intuitive, but the reality is that traffic engineers
are trying to balance competing interests from vehicular cycling
advocates, cyclists that will only ride if there is infrastructure that
makes them feel “comfortable,” and motorists that are furious about
anything delaying them an extra few seconds.


Build it and hope they will come is right. Many imes the infrastructure is built and they don't come.

Segregated/protected bike lanes are dangerous simply because of all those intersections including driveways and entrances to parking lots. Drivers don't expect bicyclists to be riding fast past them and bicyclists don't expect vehicles to be in them. Those do a great job of setting up a bicycle/vehicle conflict. That's not to mention the conflicts that are present when the segregated/protected bike lane crosses a road or ends. Now you have inexperienced with traffic bicyclists being dumped into traffic. When the lane ends do those bicyclists become pedestrians and walk their bikes the rest of the way to their destination?

Cheers
  #3  
Old November 8th 19, 08:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle Infrastructure Tour of Davis, CA

On 11/7/2019 9:46 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 21:13:41 UTC-5, sms wrote:

We often see posts in this newsgroup attacking some piece of bicycle
infrastructure, or showing a picture of some piece of infrastructure
that seems counter-intuitive, but the reality is that traffic engineers
are trying to balance competing interests from vehicular cycling
advocates, cyclists that will only ride if there is infrastructure that
makes them feel “comfortable,” and motorists that are furious about
anything delaying them an extra few seconds.


Traffic engineers are also faced with dictates from politicians, who are
swayed by lobbying from "badvocates" under the influence of propaganda.
The current push for "protected bike lanes" is an excellent example.
Social Justice Warrior bicyclists now demand these - especially
bi-directional ones - as the default road design. But science
https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2193 and experience
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06...cle-track.html
shows them to be dangerous.

But they're trendy, dude! We gotta have them!


Build it and hope they will come is right. Many times the infrastructure is built and they don't come.


I regularly visit a little town with miles of bike lanes. IIRC, this
year's count is three. That is, three cyclists using those lanes since
January 1.

Segregated/protected bike lanes are dangerous simply because of all those intersections including driveways and entrances to parking lots. Drivers don't expect bicyclists to be riding fast past them and bicyclists don't expect vehicles to be in them. Those do a great job of setting up a bicycle/vehicle conflict.


Exactly. See
https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...5ge-story.html

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #4  
Old November 9th 19, 12:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Bicycle Infrastructure Tour of Davis, CA

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:36:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/7/2019 9:46 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 21:13:41 UTC-5, sms wrote:

We often see posts in this newsgroup attacking some piece of bicycle
infrastructure, or showing a picture of some piece of infrastructure
that seems counter-intuitive, but the reality is that traffic engineers
are trying to balance competing interests from vehicular cycling
advocates, cyclists that will only ride if there is infrastructure that
makes them feel comfortable, and motorists that are furious about
anything delaying them an extra few seconds.


Traffic engineers are also faced with dictates from politicians, who are
swayed by lobbying from "badvocates" under the influence of propaganda.
The current push for "protected bike lanes" is an excellent example.
Social Justice Warrior bicyclists now demand these - especially
bi-directional ones - as the default road design. But science
https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2193 and experience
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06...cle-track.html
shows them to be dangerous.

But they're trendy, dude! We gotta have them!


Build it and hope they will come is right. Many times the infrastructure is built and they don't come.


I regularly visit a little town with miles of bike lanes. IIRC, this
year's count is three. That is, three cyclists using those lanes since
January 1.

Segregated/protected bike lanes are dangerous simply because of all those intersections including driveways and entrances to parking lots. Drivers don't expect bicyclists to be riding fast past them and bicyclists don't expect vehicles to be in them. Those do a great job of setting up a bicycle/vehicle conflict.


Exactly. See
https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...5ge-story.html


It is called "democracy" Frank. You know the majority (or the loudest
mouths) get to have their own way.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #5  
Old November 9th 19, 01:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Bicycle Infrastructure Tour of Davis, CA

On 11/8/2019 3:33 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

It is called "democracy" Frank. You know the majority (or the loudest
mouths) get to have their own way.


In Davis it's the "vehicular cyclists" and the motorists that are the
ones that "have to get their own way."

The attitude of "we were here long before all these new cyclists so we
have to get what we want" echos the attitude of Mike Vandeman demanding
that hikers and equestrians should have access to trails, but mountain
bikers shouldn't, because hikers and equestrians were there first
(despite the fact that horses cause far more trail damage than mountain
bikes).

The reality is that if the goal of a city is to increase the number of
residents that commute by bicycle then the only way to do this is to put
in more bicycle infrastructure. It's that way in the Netherlands and
it's that way everywhere else as well. Nothing else works. Period.

In Davis the bicycle mode share is over 20%. In San Francisco it's 3%
and that's considered high! In San Jose it's 1% despite the fact that
San Jose is flat. Mountain View, which is doing well with more bicycle
infrastructure is at 6%. The main MUPs in Mountain View go very close to
some of the largest employers including Google, Microsoft, Symantec, and
Samsung.

When you get more cyclists out there it becomes safer as motorists get
more used to cyclists. Trying to increase safety by demanding that
cyclists wear helmets is not the right approach.
  #6  
Old November 9th 19, 03:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Bicycle Infrastructure Tour of Davis, CA

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:27:22 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/8/2019 3:33 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

It is called "democracy" Frank. You know the majority (or the loudest
mouths) get to have their own way.


In Davis it's the "vehicular cyclists" and the motorists that are the
ones that "have to get their own way."

The attitude of "we were here long before all these new cyclists so we
have to get what we want" echos the attitude of Mike Vandeman demanding
that hikers and equestrians should have access to trails, but mountain
bikers shouldn't, because hikers and equestrians were there first
(despite the fact that horses cause far more trail damage than mountain
bikes).

The reality is that if the goal of a city is to increase the number of
residents that commute by bicycle then the only way to do this is to put
in more bicycle infrastructure. It's that way in the Netherlands and
it's that way everywhere else as well. Nothing else works. Period.

But that isn't what happened in the Netherlands. Initially there were
far more bicycles than automobiles. Prior to WW II the majority of
trips were made by bicycle. Even today there are more bicycles than
residents and in The Hague something like 60% of trips are by bicycle.

So in discussing Holland you are talking about a country where until
very recently bicycles were the most common means of transportation
and building bicycle facilities is not a matter of modifying auto
paths for a relatively small number of bicycles it building
facilities for perhaps a majority of the transportation vehicles.

In the U.S. you are talking about the opposite.

In Davis the bicycle mode share is over 20%. In San Francisco it's 3%
and that's considered high! In San Jose it's 1% despite the fact that
San Jose is flat. Mountain View, which is doing well with more bicycle
infrastructure is at 6%. The main MUPs in Mountain View go very close to
some of the largest employers including Google, Microsoft, Symantec, and
Samsung.

When you get more cyclists out there it becomes safer as motorists get
more used to cyclists. Trying to increase safety by demanding that
cyclists wear helmets is not the right approach.

--
cheers,

John B.

  #7  
Old November 9th 19, 05:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle Infrastructure Tour of Davis, CA

On 11/8/2019 7:27 PM, sms wrote:

In Davis it's the "vehicular cyclists" and the motorists that are the
ones that "have to get their own way."


Oh, please. A "vehicular cyclist" is really just a cyclist who rides
according to the rules of the road that apply to all vehicles. It's what
we all should do when we're not on kiddie paths or trapped in cattle
chutes. If you don't do that, you're either a timid gutter bunny or a
"salmon" rider. You shouldn't brag about that.


The reality is that if the goal of a city is to increase the number of
residents that commute by bicycle then the only way to do this is to put
in more bicycle infrastructure. It's that way in the Netherlands and
it's that way everywhere else as well. Nothing else works. Period.

In Davis the bicycle mode share is over 20%. In San Francisco it's 3%
and that's considered high! In San Jose it's 1% despite the fact that
San Jose is flat. Mountain View, which is doing well with more bicycle
infrastructure is at 6%. The main MUPs in Mountain View go very close to
some of the largest employers including Google, Microsoft, Symantec, and
Samsung.


First, bike mode share in Davis has been on a downward trend for a long
time. Even Streetsblog has noted this: "Even Davis, California, one of
the country’s longtime leaders in bicycle mode share, saw its third
straight year of falling estimates in the Census Bureau’s American
Community Survey. The university town estimated 17 percent of trips by
bike, down from 25 percent in 2013." It's glory days were way back in
the 1960s, when bike mode share was above 30% - but probably because the
campus was newly expanded, the town was much smaller and the campus
greatly restricted car use.

And despite the hype, bike mode share in the U.S. has lately been on a
downward trend. From the useless LAB, at
https://bikeleague.org/content/new-data-bike-commuting

"The Census Bureau has released the 2017 1-year estimates for how people
are commuting to work based on the American Community Survey.

"The 2017 1-year data shows that overall, commuters are choosing to use
a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation to work slightly less
than in recent years. Year-over-year, the rate of people biking to work
has decreased 4.7%. Among the 70 largest cities (as of 2009 when the
League began tracking), a slight majority (37) cities had a
year-over-year decrease in bike mode share."

One reason given for the decrease in bicycling is the lower cost of
gasoline. I recently paid more for gas than I have in a long time, at a
remote rural gas pump, $2.55 per gallon. That's about 0.60 Euros per
liter, or maybe half what Europeans are paying. If and when gas prices
rise to over $4 per gallon, U.S. bike mode share might surge back to its
high of ... what? 0.6% or so?

Keep in mind, this is a country where cities brag about bike mode share
of 2%.

When you get more cyclists out there it becomes safer as motorists get
more used to cyclists.


Yes, I believe that's true. But if the cyclists are all corralled in
separate chutes, they are subject to hazards where the chutes intersect
MV paths. Which is not to mention the other problems in the chutes:
wrong way riders, debris, bad pavement, collision hazards, various
delays, etc. And they're often subject to harassment for daring to leave
the chutes.

Trying to increase safety by demanding that
cyclists wear helmets is not the right approach.


I agree.


--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stress Analysis in the Design of Bicycle Infrastructure sms Techniques 122 August 21st 17 04:01 PM
Bicycle Light Theft & Bicycle Parking Infrastructure sms Techniques 18 March 11th 17 12:51 AM
A small bicycle infrastructure victory in my city, thanks to me. sms Techniques 86 April 9th 16 10:20 PM
"Bicycle Infrastructure Promotes Observance of Bicycle Laws" sms Techniques 97 January 27th 14 01:55 AM
Bicycle Infrastructure and Safety: Death in PDX Jay Beattie Techniques 20 May 26th 12 02:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.