Beck the biker
Senior Member
Posts: 871
Joined: Sep 2004
|
Tuesday November 11, 2008 10:30 AM
|
|
Quote
Originally posted by: Shaun Darragh
Hi Mike,
My questions is an honest one - not trying to be snarky.
We've spent a lot of time and money producing a BMP and then starting to implement it. We've all noted examples in which the implementation has been atrocious - whether that's zig zag sharrows on 45th in Wallingford, sharrows in parking lanes on 4th downtown, tiny door zone sharrows going downhill on 10th from Capitol Hill, or downhill door zone bike lane that disappears/reappears on Eastlake by Fred Hutch.
Now, there appears to be an absurd plan to paint a shared bike/bus lane on the right side of Stewart.
As far as I'm concerned, a poorly implemented sharrow or bike lane is worse than nothing at all. Most of the implementation has been of the "lip service" variety that I, and others, specifically warned about before this all began.
Off hand, I can only think of a couple of well implemented facilities engendered by the BMP - Sharrows on 45th in the U District and the uphill bike lane on 10th up Capitol Hill come to mind.
Do you have any other examples that you'd like to share?
My metrics are safety and visibility. Any level or downhill facilities that are within a car door zone are automatically dangerous and very counterproductive.
I'm all for well implemented bike facilities, but paint for paint's sake - when it actually decreases safety is insulting at best. If we're going to do this, we should do it right.
Shaun,
I wanted to get back to you on this topic. Your concerns for 'good' bike infrastructure is valid but you are focused on your interpretions of 'bad infrastructure' to the extent you're not seeing the good designs across town. I don't know, maybe you don't get around town on a bike much, but there's flipping new intersection treatments, bike lanes, and sharrows popping up all over town ,bruther. calling it counterproductive and most of it 'lip service' is inflammatory rhetoric not backed up by reality.
Streets mixed with lanes and sharrows depending on how the streetscape needs it. And IF some original placement of new paint doesn't work, the city has come out, scraped and remediated the placements that don't work. 40th and stone way as a very good example of initial master plan striping that got reworked to a more appropriate bike treatment.
You wanted me to name off a few street reworks because you "can't think of any offhand?"
1)24th in ballard,
2)8th in ballard,
3)72 between greenlake and roseveldt.
4) sharrows on 19th on capitol hill,
5) stone way cooridor.
6)bike lane improvements up pine street from 6th.
7)intersection treatments along greenlake way.
8) Sharrows on Dravus across 15th.
9)Sharrows between Fred Meyer and old town Ballard.
Unfortunately you also subjectively criticize bike lane designs and infrastructure that make cyclists safer. You say any bike lanes within the door zone are "automatically dangerous and very counterproductive." BZZZZ. Incorrect. I don't know how much damn space some of you need in a double striped bike lane to feel like you're safe (The WRONG expectation from both bike lanes and LACK of bike lanes) but there's a LOT of bike lanes around the city now shaun would consider of 'dangerous' design that
1)increase cycling along corridors.
2) condition motorists to the presense of bicyclists.
3) improve lateral road positioning of riders versus unaccommodated street design.
4) allow bicyclists to move along cooridors unimpeded by motorist backups.
5)build a bicycling network of bikeable streets across the metropolis.
6) reduce sidewalk cycling.
I brought up the Oregon model of striping bike lanes solid to the intersection as an example of infrastructure that is PROVEN to
1) decrease sidewalk cycling; and 2)decrease intersection conflicts. I'm not suggesting seattle move to this, i much prefer the dashed treatment and merge zones, but the Oregon model has a proven positive effect. Would you be able to endorse this road treatment?
Shaun, if bike lanes (even your dreaded 'downhill' and 'level' bike lanes) were shown to 1) reduce intersection conflicts and 2) improve bicyclist road positioning versus unaccommodated streets, could you endorse them then? safer bicycling.....
This is my experiences riding the streets in seattle the last decade and a half. on roads previously unstriped for bikes I would see bikes weaving in and out of parked cars, riding on sidewalks, moving along not well positioned at all. then, with the additions of bike lanes, bicyclists were out in the road more, NOT weaving in and out of parked cars, and with less sidewalk cycling. even along these streets with the maliciously 'dangerous' bike lanes.
Shaun. yes, better implementation of infrastructure is better. Don't fret the 'bad' designs you are seeing, partly it is you misreading the validity and safety effects coupled with your own subjective opinions masquerading as fact.
The poorly implemented designs, they can/will get reworked. this stuff isn't set in stone. PLUS, we're all free to ride pretty much anywhere on the street and avoid any of that 'bad' infrastructure.
There's a LOT of bike lanes and sharrows I've seen around town that are by and large placed well. keeping on the city to place large sharrows only in lanes too narrow to be safely shared so they indicate to motorists bikes are allowed full use of lane is a good goal; I see these larger sharrows much more often than the mini-versions.
Beck
Edited: Tuesday November 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM by Beck the biker
|
|
