BikePGH!

pittsburgh gets selected for green lane project

This topic contains 51 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by  jonawebb 4 mos, 1 week.

Viewing 12 posts - 41 through 52 (of 52 total)
 
Author Posts
Author Posts

salty

Private Message

Mar 17 2014 at 11:17pm #

Make Boundary (and a lot of other streets, like Gold/Melwood for example) like this:

Cars are allowed to go in the “bike lane” when they need to pass head-on, but otherwise they have to stay in the car lane.


jonawebb

Private Message

Mar 18 2014 at 7:30am #

I know there is some long-term plan for a trail there but I agree that in the short run it makes sense to slow cars down with stuff like on Gold Way. It is just not a good fast shortcut for cars, given Joncaire, but they treat it like one and endanger cyclists connecting to the PHT from Shadyside.
BTW I like Stu’s suggestion for the protected bike lanes better than any of the others, including mine. It’s level, connects between CCAC and other Northside stuff and Downtown, etc.


byogman

Private Message

Mar 18 2014 at 7:42am #

Salty, it’s an interesting idea. But I think it can only work places where traffic volumes are absurdly low. Lower, I’m pretty sure, than is the case on Boundary. Can’t speak to Polish Hill because I cut through that way rarely.

My concern with this is you’d be giving drivers that aren’t already driving all over the bike lanes a lot of practice driving all over the bike lanes.


jonawebb

Private Message

Apr 2 2014 at 8:03am #

Info about where the bike lanes will be here: http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5864832-74/downtown-bike-lanes#axzz2xjXhXZIc
They’re thinking Fort Pitt Blvd for east-west and Smithfield for north-south. They’re supposed to be up by late summer.


scott

Private Message

Apr 2 2014 at 12:55pm #

No pressure, but this might be a great time for some positive LTEs in the papers in support of this announcement.


scott

Private Message

Apr 2 2014 at 1:12pm #

btw, Salty, I too like that design. It hasn’t caught on anywhere that I know of in the U.S. I think Minneapolis was going to try this, but they had to set up an entire experiment in order to use that type of design.


byogman

Private Message

Apr 2 2014 at 2:29pm #

If you can gather some crossing stats, bikes, cars, direction, and speed, you can get some data from which you could run a model to find out how often drivers would have to cross into the bike path.

So, that’s a behavioral concern, how much of this behavior are you forcing drivers into and would that train them to think of it as a less serious behavior elsewhere? I think it would, but that’s admittedly hazy.

But there’s also a very specific scenario here that concerns me quite a bit… a driver downhill coming upon a car coming uphill with a downhill cyclist behind them.

Whether because of the “oh ^&* reaction”, not having seen the cyclist (perhaps then in the blind spot), slowing down a lot so a cyclist that wasn’t on their radar comes up a lot, or just by assuming that they’re faster and have nothing to worry about, they move right into the bike lane and… you have a potential right hook if not an outright splat.

As a cyclist you could, having run that thought experiment, instinctively slow in advance and some would. But by no means all. Especially if this is marketed at and is successful at drawing in newbies who aren’t used to having to think a step or two ahead… look at traffic in the opposite direction to see if you’re about to loose your bike lane from a driver not looking for you… dunno, but I prefer a simpler social contract and think a bike lane in principle promises one.

I want to do something here… both of these places. This approach just really concerns me.


scott

Private Message

Apr 2 2014 at 5:34pm #

Not sure I really understand your hill scenario, but hese types of facilities don’t typically go on big hills. Intersections are signalized. Driveways will be signed. Intersections colored green.


byogman

Private Message

Apr 2 2014 at 6:57pm #

Basically, any driver move to the right is a right hook in waiting and this type of facility makes that need and hence that type of crash entirely plausible along it’s entire length, not just intersections.

Furthermore, because of it being a novel type of road arrangement, there’s more potential for a lack of understanding and mistakes in driver action, and because it’s something built to attract newer riders, there’s more likelihood that those riders would not be as alert to what’s coming.

The hill is not a prerequisite to having these problems, but it’s certainly a multiplying factor on the badness by increasing the speed of the collision. I think it also contributes to the likelihood that a driver would misjudge speeds or not have seen the cyclist behind at any point because they never passed him or her. Our standards for what compromises a big hill are skewed here, but factually, even mild grades like the one on boundary make a significant difference in cyclist speed.


byogman

Private Message

Apr 2 2014 at 8:39pm #

Sorry, was refering to Boundary but thinking of Boundary/Neville as a unit… the stretch that’s just Boundary may be low traffic enough, being a dead end, that it’s fine to do this. Would have major concerns with this for Neville.

Unless Neville were one way (preferably in downhill direction to reduce relative velocities). Then there’s no need for cars to leave the car lane, so it would be awesome and I say go for it!


jonawebb

Private Message

Apr 7 2014 at 7:52am #

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/letters/2014/04/07/Biking-progress/stories/201404070018


jonawebb

Private Message

Apr 13 2014 at 3:16pm #

http://triblive.com/opinion/letters/5882378-74/bike-lanes-downtown#axzz2ynczkJii

Viewing 12 posts - 41 through 52 (of 52 total)
 

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.