|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Tell Congressman Cantor to quit bashing bike-ped
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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Tell Congressman Cantor to quit bashing bike-ped
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MTB Bashing | BashXH3 | UK | 1 | March 10th 08 05:44 PM |
REI bashing | Cruiser Joe | Techniques | 54 | October 11th 07 02:53 AM |
Odd cyclist-bashing in Edinburgh News | spindrift | UK | 4 | September 24th 07 06:33 PM |
Highracer Bashing Blog? | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 13 | October 7th 05 09:29 PM |
Congressman Sam Farr at 8/17 Fest - Skot Creates New Route | Cycle America/Nat. Bicycle Greenway | Recumbent Biking | 0 | July 30th 03 10:11 AM |