Traffic Calming vs Bicycles

A few months ago I moved to a small city of 25,000 people. A few days after I arrived and was still
moving in, a new street project was begun on a busy 2 lane street. The city began taking up the
asphalt surface and replaced it with brick. The neighbors said it was an attempt to change a street
that had become a minor artery into a lesser used road for local traffic.

Bricking streets in this city has become a major effort. Looking over the city commission minutes
from the last few months, it appears that everyone in town wants brick streets to slow down traffic.
Indeed, when I saw all the bricked streets, many of them in disrepair, I purchased a MTB rather than
a street bike. The brick streets don't bother me too much.

But I was not happy when I saw what took shape as work continued over the last few months. The
street was dramatically narrowed as well as bricked. A sidewalk was added, so that there are now
sidewalks on both sides of the street, but the new sidewalk is almost 6' wide. This looked odd to
me, so I asked one of the workers why the sidewalk was so wide.

He said that the wider sidewalk was to give room to the bicycles since the street had been narrowed.
It is not illegal to ride on the sidewalks in Florida.

I am not too concerned about this particular stretch, since I have found side streets to get around
it, but I am concerned that the traffic engineer may be on the wrong track and already they are
talking about bricking a section where there is no way to get around it. I am also concerned that
the city got a federal grant to brick this street and I wonder if the state and fed engineers think
this wide sidewalk business is a good idea or if they even looked at the plans at all.

I am new here and don't know anyone. There is an advocacy club for the area, but not in the city. I
will join it this month. I am new to this whole idea of traffic planning for bicycles, but there is
a lot of info on the web and I haven't seen any of it advocating wide sidewalks for bicycles.

Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he got this idea knowing that he will probably
take offense to the question?

On Sat, 31 May 2003 08:38:05 -0700, Eric Vey wrote: ...
> Bricking streets in this city has become a major effort. Looking over the city commission minutes
> from the last few months, it appears that everyone in town wants brick streets to slow down
> traffic. Indeed, when I saw all the bricked streets, many of them in disrepair, I purchased a MTB
> rather than a street bike. The brick streets don't bother me too much.
...
> But I was not happy when I saw what took shape as work continued over the last few months. The
> street was dramatically narrowed as well as bricked. A sidewalk was added, so that there are now
> sidewalks on both sides of the street, but the new sidewalk is almost 6' wide. This looked odd to
> me, so I asked one of the workers why the sidewalk was so wide.
>
> He said that the wider sidewalk was to give room to the bicycles since the street had been
> narrowed. It is not illegal to ride on the sidewalks in Florida.

Riding on a sidewalk, expecially in a residential area, is unsafe, don't do it. You have the
bike, ride the street. The lanes are probably too narrow so you will need to take the lane.
Consider yourself a critical mass of one (except that you can control your actions and ride in a
legal manner).

> I am not too concerned about this particular stretch, since I have found side streets to get
> around it, but I am concerned that the traffic engineer may be on the wrong track and already they
> are talking about bricking a section where there is no way to get around it. I am also concerned
> that the city got a federal grant to brick this street and I wonder if the state and fed engineers
> think this wide sidewalk business is a good idea or if they even looked at the plans at all.

Enlist other cyclists to ride the street too. You may want to review your state's vehicle/traffic
code. There should be a bikes are vehicles or bikes have the same rights and responsibilities as
vehicles clause. This means you cannot be forced of the road by threats or by law. Your idea is to
make the city aware of the bad effects of narrow roads. Knowing the law ahead of time will keep the
backlash focused on the roads as the problem and not cyclists.

> I am new here and don't know anyone. There is an advocacy club for the area, but not in the city.
> I will join it this month. I am new to this whole idea of traffic planning for bicycles, but there
> is a lot of info on the web and I haven't seen any of it advocating wide sidewalks for bicycles.

Join ASAP. Get a copy of John Forester's Bicycle Transportation and JF's Effective Cycling if you do
not have a copy. Other good references are AASHTO's Guide to Bicycle Facilities (may not be the
exact title). If you are not familiar with the methods of Effective Cycling then find a League
Cycling Class. Read JF's five rules, they are available on his web site at
http://www.johnforester.com.

> Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he got this idea knowing that he will
> probably take offense to the question?

Propose that bicycle lanes be put in to narrow the lanes for traffic calming. While actually
detrimental to cyclists, they do seem better than what is being done. Make sure the bike lanes end
before each intersection. Where I live the bike lane lines turn to dashed lines and drivers still do
not merge to the right before turning right.

Someone better informed about federal programs may be able to help as these "improvements" are
removing bicycle facilities and may not conform to federal guidelines.

Richard "I have stuff to do in Huntington Beach too" Kaiser

"Richard Kaiser" <nospam@no.info> wrote in message news:9B5Ca.22949$Pb.11481@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Sat, 31 May 2003 08:38:05 -0700, Eric Vey wrote: ...
> > Bricking streets in this city has become a major effort. Looking over the city commission
> > minutes from the last few months, it appears that everyone in town wants brick streets to slow
> > down traffic. Indeed, when I saw all the bricked streets, many of them in disrepair, I purchased
> > a MTB rather than a street bike. The brick streets don't bother me too much.
> ...
> > But I was not happy when I saw what took shape as work continued over the last few months. The
> > street was dramatically narrowed as well as bricked. A sidewalk was added, so that there are now
> > sidewalks on both sides of the street, but the new sidewalk is almost 6' wide. This looked odd
> > to me, so I asked one of the workers why the sidewalk was so wide.
> >
> > He said that the wider sidewalk was to give room to the bicycles since the street had been
> > narrowed. It is not illegal to ride on the sidewalks in Florida.
>
> Riding on a sidewalk, expecially in a residential area, is unsafe, don't do it. You have the bike,
> ride the street. The lanes are probably too narrow so you will need to take the lane. Consider
> yourself a critical mass of one (except that you can control your actions and ride in a legal
> manner).
>

Right, but this *should* be a net positive for bikes. The idea is to slow traffic to such an extent
that riding with the cars should be safer than before (and the through traffic will seek other
routes). We've got some of those changes coming here, too -- mostly in the form of one way streets
being converted back to 2-way.

"Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote in message news:<bbai8u$7739n$1@ID-61706.news.dfncis.de>...

> Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he got this idea knowing that he will
> probably take offense to the question?

Perhaps its time to form a Bike Advisory group that would sit down with the traffic engineers and
planners on a quarterly basis to review changes that would affect bicycles.

At our last Bike/Ped Advisory meeting, we worked with a city engineer who was trying to figure out
how far to extend a speed hump on a street that needs traffic calming that the city has designated
as a bicycle route. He knew that they didn't want it to only go as far as the fog line, because
drivers would dip over to the right side past the fog line to avoid half of the hump. He thought the
best thing to do would be to have the hump go half way between the space between the fog line and
the curb pan. After much discussion, the cyclists on the committee said the best plan of action
would be to have the hump go all the way to the curb pan. Our concern was that a cyclist riding at
night to the right of the fog line could easily hit the sloping edge of the hump unexpectedly and
fall. If the hump went the whole distance to the curb pan and then was marked with reflective
chevrons, a cyclist would at least see the hump clearly, anticipate its existence, and hit it
straight on. Since the road is a back way in to Microsoft (accessible by bike but not by car) the
idea that there is a fair bit of regular bike commuter traffic in the dark on that street is not
that far fetched.

A part of the conversation I thought was revealing. I asked the engineer if the intent was to slow
the bicycle traffic to the same 15 mph as the cars. He looked dumbfounded and asked, "you mean, you
can go that fast?" As it turned out, the next weekend I happened to be riding on that street and
took a glance at my cyclocomputer. The road has a minor slope, and I was cruising at 24 mph with
little effort.

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are not
cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk when
they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists when they design
traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky (cpetersky@yahoo.com) Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm

Singing with you at: http://www.tiferet.net/

Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at: http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

"Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a88718b.0305311844.6ac0973d@posting.google.com...

> "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote in message
news:<bbai8u$7739n$1@ID-61706.news.dfncis.de>...

> > Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he
got this idea
> > knowing that he will probably take offense to the
question?

> Perhaps its time to form a Bike Advisory group that would
sit down
> with the traffic engineers and planners on a quarterly
basis to review
> changes that would affect bicycles.

<snip>

> OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the
people
> designing these facilities are not cyclists, and perhaps
the majority
> of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk
when they
> were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about
regular
> bicyclists when they design traffic facilities, and
perhaps they might
> appreciate your input.

I think you're right on all counts.

What do you think the best resource is that we could point traffic engineers to? What would a
cycling-savvy traffic engineer use as a reference for best practices?

Matt O.

In our city of about 25,000 there's an effort to speed traffic up, not slow it down. Consider
youself lucky. Traffic planners insist on keep traiffic moving as quickly as possible, safe or not.

Regards,

"Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote
> Bricking streets in this city has become a major effort. Looking over the city commission minutes
> from the last few months, it appears that everyone in town wants brick streets to slow down
> traffic.

Rainman wrote:
>
> In our city of about 25,000 there's an effort to speed traffic up, not slow it down.
> Consider youself lucky. Traffic planners insist on keep traiffic moving as quickly as
> possible, safe or not.
>

Well, if they accomplish this by creating roads with multiple lanes, it's good. I'd rather ride on a
road with 2 lanes going in my direction because I can just take the lane whenever I want. Those
sections that have had "traffic calming"(which I call driver enraging, because that's all it does),
and are reduced to one lane and instead have a quite useless left turn lane are rather difficult to
navigate. People trying to pass in all sorts of unsafe ways.

Goimir wrote:

> I'd rather ride on a road with 2 lanes going in my direction because I can just take the lane
> whenever I want.

One wide lane is better than two narrow ones, IMO. Motorists seem comfortable with sharing one wide
lane with a bicycle, but they tend to get testy when the see you taking up one of "their" lanes.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Terry Morse wrote:

> One wide lane is better than two narrow ones, IMO. Motorists seem comfortable with sharing
> one wide lane with a bicycle, but they tend to get testy when the see you taking up one of
> "their" lanes.

I've had more obscenities yelled at me, by far, when cycling on a street with one lane in the
direction that I'm traveling in. If your experience is different, let me know, I've really only
cycled in the Scranton PA area.

Goimir wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
> > One wide lane is better than two narrow ones, IMO. Motorists seem comfortable with sharing one
> > wide lane with a bicycle, but they tend to get testy when the see you taking up one of "their"
> > lanes.
>
> I've had more obscenities yelled at me, by far, when cycling on a street with one lane in the
> direction that I'm traveling in. If your experience is different, let me know, I've really only
> cycled in the Scranton PA area.

No such problem around here when the lane is wide enough. Maybe the lanes in Scranton don't have a
wide curb. When there's plenty of width, cars don't seem to have any problem sharing the lane around
here. I suspect bikes on the street are more common in this area, also.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Claire Petersky wrote:

[ ... ]

> A part of the conversation I thought was revealing. I asked the engineer if the intent was to slow
> the bicycle traffic to the same 15 mph as the cars. He looked dumbfounded and asked, "you mean,
> you can go that fast?" As it turned out, the next weekend I happened to be riding on that street
> and took a glance at my cyclocomputer. The road has a minor slope, and I was cruising at 24 mph
> with little effort.
>
> OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are
> not cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk
> when they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists when they
> design traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

This is one of the most important things to keep in mind when the issue of bicycle/motorist
interaction is at issue -- both from the standpoint of the planners and traffic engineers, as well
as individual motorists. For the majority of the non-cycling public, a cyclist is essentially a
glorified pedestrian, not a vehicle that participates in traffic as another vehicle with the same
rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle.

To the majority of non-cyclists, the term "biker" (which, from that perspective, is interchangeable
with "cyclist") tends to conjure a number of stereotypes:

- A child that rides a bicycle to school;
- A casual adult who rides a low-end bike purchased at *-Mart, in mostly residential neighborhoods;
- The person who rides an ill-repaired beater bike, with little regard for any kind of traffic
rules, including (frequently) riding against traffic.

These are all casual riders with frequently junk equipment, and minimal enough bike handling skills,
that are ill-prepared to ride in real traffic. The number of people who actually ride regularly and
whose cumulative weekly mileage is measured in tens, if not hundreds of miles
(e.g., commuters, fast fitness or competitive riders) is small enough as to be frequently invisible
to the planners.

For me personally, I find that the most frequent source of run-ins that I have with motorists is not
understanding how fast I'm going; even on a busy road that has traffic going in excess of 50 mph
(e.g., Hayden Road in Scottsdale, AZ), the 15 to 20 mph I'm going is far more compatible with the
motor vehicle traffic on the road, than the collection of miscellaneous runners, joggers, walkers,
roller bladers, etc.) on the nearby "bicycle path".

To this end, there are a handful of places where I ride, where I may stay well to the center of the
lane, because of the relative speed factor (motor vehicle traffic in these places is not especially
fast), I want to make sure that if a motorist overtakes and passes, he/she does so by having to move
into the left lane (on a 4-lane road) to deliberately pass me as a vehicle, rather than trying to
squeeze past me, and pass too closely.

When I lived in Pasadena, CA, there's a place near the Rose Bowl, where there's a 4-lane road that
goes about 1/8 of a mile between a major boulevard and a freeway crossing. In that place, the
majority of vehicles comes up the boulevard, makes a left turn onto the crossroad, and the moves
over into the right lane to make a right turn (normally on a red light) on to the freeway onramp.
When I rode there, I had numerous problems with impatient drivers that would cut me off, mostly
because they didn't realize that I was going a lot faster than they realized. On that particular
place, when I started riding the center of the lane, I had a lot less problem with being cut off.

Anyway, my .02

George Peavy

"George Peavy" <gqpeavy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3EDC3685.DC3A8E27@yahoo.com...
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > A part of the conversation I thought was revealing. I
asked the
> > engineer if the intent was to slow the bicycle traffic
to the same 15
> > mph as the cars. He looked dumbfounded and asked, "you
mean, you can
> > go that fast?" As it turned out, the next weekend I
happened to be
> > riding on that street and took a glance at my
cyclocomputer. The road
> > has a minor slope, and I was cruising at 24 mph with
little effort.
> >
> > OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of
the people
> > designing these facilities are not cyclists, and perhaps
the majority
> > of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a
sidewalk when they
> > were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking
about regular
> > bicyclists when they design traffic facilities, and
perhaps they might
> > appreciate your input.
>
>
> This is one of the most important things to keep in mind
when the issue
> of bicycle/motorist interaction is at issue -- both from
the standpoint
> of the planners and traffic engineers, as well as
individual motorists.
> For the majority of the non-cycling public, a cyclist is
essentially a
> glorified pedestrian, not a vehicle that participates in
traffic as
> another vehicle with the same rights and responsibilities
as a motor
> vehicle.
>
> To the majority of non-cyclists, the term "biker" (which,
from that
> perspective, is interchangeable with "cyclist") tends to
conjure a
> number of stereotypes:
>
> - A child that rides a bicycle to school;
> - A casual adult who rides a low-end bike purchased at
*-Mart, in mostly
> residential neighborhoods;
> - The person who rides an ill-repaired beater bike, with
little regard
> for any kind of traffic rules, including (frequently)
riding against
> traffic.

I think these stereotypes are held more by people who consider themselves serious cyclists than the
public at large -- who probably lump the last 3 together.

> These are all casual riders with frequently junk
equipment, and minimal
> enough bike handling skills, that are ill-prepared to ride
in real
> traffic. The number of people who actually ride regularly
and whose
> cumulative weekly mileage is measured in tens, if not
hundreds of miles
> (e.g., commuters, fast fitness or competitive riders) is
small enough as
> to be frequently invisible to the planners.

I bet there are more people riding this "junk equipment", often reasonably long distances to work,
than "serious" cyclists on "good' bikes. I used to live in one of the most outdoor sports oriented,
toy obsessed, yuppie neighborhoods in the entire US. Still, there were many more restaurant and
warehouse workers riding Walgooses to and from work than all the yuppies on their "good" bikes. And
for every Walgoose rider going the wrong way or riding with no lights at night (while dressed in
black), theres probably a yuppie on a Merlin who's too important to obey red lights or stop signs.

In summary, I don't think these stereotypes are appropriate at all.

> For me personally, I find that the most frequent source of
run-ins that
> I have with motorists is not understanding how fast I'm
going; even on a
> busy road that has traffic going in excess of 50 mph
(e.g., Hayden Road
> in Scottsdale, AZ), the 15 to 20 mph I'm going is far more
compatible
> with the motor vehicle traffic on the road, than the
collection of
> miscellaneous runners, joggers, walkers, roller bladers,
etc.) on the
> nearby "bicycle path".

I agree, and this is what caught my eye about your post. This is the #1 danger while riding in
traffic, and the #1 thing I've had to learn through all my years riding. I notice others with less
experience in traffic than I tend to have close calls related to this issue -- whether it's getting
right-hooked, people making left turns in front of them, or people pulling out right in front of or
on top of them, it's all drivers not judging cyclists' speed accurately.

> To this end, there are a handful of places where I ride,
where I may
> stay well to the center of the lane, because of the
relative speed
> factor (motor vehicle traffic in these places is not
especially fast), I
> want to make sure that if a motorist overtakes and passes,
he/she does
> so by having to move into the left lane (on a 4-lane road)
to
> deliberately pass me as a vehicle, rather than trying to
squeeze past
> me, and pass too closely.

The law in most states usually says something about riding as far to the right as is practicable.
This means staying to the right in general, but allows you to make whatever adjustment is necessary
to avoid hazards, while still making reasonable progress. These hazards can be potholes, the threat
of car doors opening, or being squeezed off the road by an impatient driver. You are required to
stay to the right, but you are not required to yield right of way.

> When I lived in Pasadena, CA, there's a place near the
Rose Bowl, where
> there's a 4-lane road that goes about 1/8 of a mile
between a major
> boulevard and a freeway crossing. In that place, the
majority of
> vehicles comes up the boulevard, makes a left turn onto
the crossroad,
> and the moves over into the right lane to make a right
turn (normally on
> a red light) on to the freeway onramp. When I rode there,
I had
> numerous problems with impatient drivers that would cut me
off, mostly
> because they didn't realize that I was going a lot faster
than they
> realized. On that particular place, when I started riding
the center of
> the lane, I had a lot less problem with being cut off.

I am familiar with that spot, and I have done the same thing.

Matt O.

In article <bbai8u$7739n$1@ID-61706.news.dfncis.de>, junk@ericvey.com says...

>Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he got this idea knowing that he will probably
>take offense to the question?

No. Ask them.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

In article <1a88718b.0305311844.6ac0973d@posting.google.com>, cpetersky@yahoo.com says...

>OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are not
>cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk when
>they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists when they design
>traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

I have doubts about any traffic engineer who thinks adding a a bump, or hump to a roadway is a good
idea. It is stupid and at best a band aid solution to the real problem.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

Terry Morse wrote:

> No such problem around here when the lane is wide enough. Maybe the lanes in Scranton don't have a
> wide curb. When there's plenty of width, cars don't seem to have any problem sharing the lane
> around here. I suspect bikes on the street are more common in this area, also.

It would seem that I'm a problem to them when there isn't a line (solid or dotted) in between us.
Either in another lane, or in the shoulder(there's one shoulder that I ride in on my commute, up
what all you guys would consider a small 200' climb. I manage about 6 mph up it, and that's huffing
and puffing).

But there are some sections where it's a fairly wide single lane, and cagers still can't seem to
deal, at least not all of them.