BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Before you water-color another bike lane

classic.

* Pass a “Cyclists allowed full use of lane: Change lanes to pass” ordnance.

this actually needs to be directed to state politicos. according to pa law, locals have no jurisdiction to legislate on the vehicle code. when we started inquiring about the banning cell phone laws (which are the same set of laws), there were some council people interested, but after researching it, realized that they can't. that's why it's been up (and shot down recently) in pennsylvania legislature.

i should also add that "safe passing legislation" is involved in the #1 and #2 Action Alerts on the front page of our site

http://bike-pgh.org/2009/02/10/important-safe-passing-legislation-contact-your-pa-state-representative/

with that said, when we brought this up to politicians in harrisburg at the PA Bike Summit on May 5th, many said they need to hear more from their constituents that a safe passing law is important to them.

it's really important, because we are up against things like this right wing talk radio show host from harrisburg that devoted a show to hating on the politicians for even thinking about this and cyclists for riding on busy roads. (i did agree with him on one point, you'll have to listen to it and guess)

scroll to may 7 if interested: http://www.whp580.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=bobdurgin.xml

sorry to derail, continue with greenwashing rant

There are many legal ways to get to Downtown from Oakland. I do it quite often. I'm not sure why you can't. I'll show you how on Friday morning if you like. PM me and I'll give you a phone number.

I share your skepticism towards bike lanes to nowhere. I used to be consistently opposed to bike lanes. And yeah, pols like to grandstand about *everything*. But a couple of the new lanes have been well placed and might turn out to be generally positive. I'm thinking of Wightman, mostly, and maybe Beacon.

Changing the aggressive "get outta my way" car culture would be a great thing. It seems like a tall order, but it has only been that way for the last few years. Ten years ago, people were nicer on the roads. Not any more competent, but at least they were less pushy.

Erok, I'm also skeptical of new legislation. I mean, nice idea, but I believe that new laws which aren't enforced are actually net negatives. Right hooks and left crosses kill more cyclists than passing too closely, but those are already illegal yet never, never, never enforced. Even after an injury accident, motorists don't get citations for failing to yield.

Ten years ago, people were nicer on the roads. Not any more competent, but at least they were less pushy.

really? i think it's quite the opposite. i think they are way better now than before. they are more used to us.

Even after an injury accident, motorists don't get citations for failing to yield.

that's because there is no law stating that they were wrong, thus leaving it up to the discretion of police officers, who for the most part, are ignorant of laws as they pertain to cyclists. my friend had the right hook happen to him on 40th, and his lawyers said that if there was a law in place, they could win a settlement for him, but since there wasn't an explicit law, he had nothing and had to pay for his medical bills

You can ride from downtown to Oakland without even going on the road if you'd like, not to mention the countless ways to legally ride there.

No road: Jail trail to Panther Hollow, up through Schenley Park, Neville or the cobbled road Iron City Bikes borders.

Legally via roads: Via Bloomfield, or Shadyside, or Uptown, or the Hill District, or the Southside

I find the roads much nicer to ride on than 5 years ago.

morgan, while i agree with your sentiment and impatience, i do have hope for this city.

montreal had a long history of bicycle activism, dating back to the mid 70s. we, really, have only had a bicycle advocacy group for only about 7 years. I wonder how long it took montreal to get where they are?

an inspiring group, Le Monde à Bicyclette, would do some pretty amazing stunts back in the day. One of their more memorable ones, there was no legal way to ride a bike from Montreal to the South Shore and it was also prohibited to take bicycles on the metro, says Silverman. Le Monde à Bicyclette organized a press conference in the Old Port at the time, telling journalists that they had finally found a way to take a bicycle across the St-Lawrence River. Silverman then showed up dressed as Moses, carrying a big stick. He called upon the Almighty to part the waters of the river, as had once happened with the Red Sea, permitting the Israelites to flee ancient Egypt.

heres a short article about them: http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=17261

ps. i am angry and frustrated too.

What way from Downtown to Oakland that isn't legal would you like to be legal? Sidewalks? Bus lane on Fifth?

i, personally, want the most direct, not one that takes me another mile or so of riding, many times at night. while it is technically legal to take forbes from downtown to oakland, it gets dangerous highway-like from the bridge to kraft.

the alternate is fifth, and who knows if the sidewalk is legal. Even if it can be an "official bike route," to get to the fifth sidewalk from forbes you need to turn left at the last possible street, moultrie, and take that to the bus lane until you're past the bridge to hop on the sidewalk. you can't hop on the sidewalk until part way up the hill, say at brenham do to the used car lot that still parks cars on the sidewalk, and the dilapidated sections which are an instant pinch.

admittedly, i love the new sidewalk, and take it, sometimes 3 times a day.

"Ten years ago, people were nicer on the roads. Not any more competent, but at least they were less pushy"

In the book the red badge of courage the question was asked " are men better more or just more timid"

As for motorist vs bicycles and their attitude towards them ( and perhaps everyone else) I ask " Are people angrier or just more fatigued"

I agree that 10 years ago people in general seamed to have a civility that there seems to be lacking today or is this a case of the good old days.

Wesley's dad

If you read bikeportland.org you will see that even a city that is considered to have the best urban biking scene in the US has issues just like we have here. Call 311, talk to your local representative. A safe passing law is ready to be passed, you just have to ask your representative to support it. I did and he is. I hope you vote.

Downtown to Oakland is probably the easiest ride in the city! I wish my commute was that easy. My commute, the east end to the Strip is not bad and I only have a few sections that I would consider risky. I have to travel on Braddock for a couple blocks, on fifth ave for two blocks where I take the lane, and lower Liberty where the bike lane ends where I also take the lane. The rest is laid back side streets or bike lanes.

It could be worse.

Cheers

Yeesh, I can't even remember five years ago. I do know that probably five years ago, I was probably more aggressive on my bike, and I used to get angry at motorists. These days, I just putt around and wave at people.....

I do think people are more less tolerant than they were ten years ago. Perhaps they are tired of 60 minutes commutes, perhaps we've just become less civil as culture.

The speed limit issue is the most serious, I think. There has been growing concern in Morningside about the speeds on the streets (which is amazing considering that it's hard to go more than 300 meters before you hit a stop sign). And many of us have said this before, but if you drive, try going the speed limit around the city. I've had other drivers do very dangerous things (or, at least honk their horn at me) because I was following the law.

Finally, give Pittsburgh some time. I have great hope that when my kids are older, Pittsburgh will be very bike friendly town...

Cars should never be going over 35mph in city limits (excluding the parkway, 28, etc).

Just going 35 in a 25 a driver is much more risky to pedestrians and cyclist.

The bike lanes are a bit lacking right now but, it is better then nothing. Seeing some separated bike lanes would be nice.

Morgan have you sent this email to the Mayor and your council members, as well as the other members of council who "support" safe cycling in the manner you describe? I think that would be a good place to start letting them know how you/the community feels.

I love that there is mention of cycling support as greenwashing. Who knew it was even possible?

i think a good first start would be to brush it up and send it to the PG

it's sad that in the new blvd of the allies bridge project that they are so proud of their new plaque on the bridge, but couldn't put in a safe ped crossing on fifth

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09154/974581-147.stm

hahahhahaha

erok i thought that said PLAGUE not PLAQUE. lolz

actually i am reading that article and am going to write a letter to editor regarding the gateway to oakland being for cars only. where is the gateway for everyone else?

boo, hiss.

My main point here is that Bike Lanes - at least the way that PGH paints them - are way down my priority list of things that would make cycling better.

Number one, by far, is enforcement of existing traffic laws and a sense that the City takes seriously the vulnerability of cyclists on these streets. In my life, the unenforced and flouted speed limit is most noticeable and dangerous example of this, especially on the Bridges (9th st, Bloomfield, 10th st.) and on Forbes Ave in Uptown. Bad design leading to conflict with drivers is most noticeable to me on Butler St past Stanton. It's unacceptable to be threatened with a deadly weapon (a car) for biking 15 in a 25, and all my interactions with the Police have made it clear to me that they don't give a damn when people do. The same for PAT drivers, I'm sure we all have bad bus driver stories.

As for getting to Oakland - I'm not going risk riding on Forbes, and the Jail Trail is only useful for CMU or South Oakland (and even then, Bates is pretty bad). There are ways to Oakland, but they are either out of the way by miles, or technically illegal - given limited options, I ride the bus lane, and the whole way up the hill, while being cursed at by buses, forced into the street by cars parked on the sidewalk, or left-turned into by cars flying on to 376, I think about how much the Oakland CDC and Pitt talk about being "green," while they highway-up all access to their neighborhood and turn Uptown into a parking lot.

Another step back, what I'd really like to talk about is what our priorities as cyclists are, and have the City work on those first, rather then have the City just sort of randomly paint bike lanes here and there (for example, a big WTF to the the Millvale Bridge). Having the City respond to some of these concerns would go a long way, in my mind, to feeling less like cyclists are just the green paint on the Hummvee of Pittsburgh's transportation policy.

Folks are right, it "could be worse," but City politicians and planners telling cyclists "it could be worse, suck it up," while simultaneously holding up pictures of us when they want to brag about a remade, green, hip and vibrant City makes me feel used.

Also, mad respect to the Bike PGH staff - I know you all probably have to take deep breaths and explain this calmly, over and over again, to a poorly functioning patchwork of government agencies, CDC's, and power brokers while nursing the scars, plates, and pins that come with riding a bike in a city designed for cars.

"ten years ago" - well, maybe not better towards cyclists in particular, but there was a lot less red-light running and aggressive driving in general. So, one step forward, one step back.

Ditto on driving the speed limit. That should be the easiest bike advocacy activity that anyone can do. It takes maybe a minute or two, hardly more, and costs nothing.

point taken that downtown to oakland outbound is harder than inbound, and I would never recommend that bad bit of Forbes, but that still leaves:

1. Through the Hill: Centre Ave and some messing around on roads whose names I don't know that will leave you up by the VA, or Bedford, Wylie, etc.

2. Jail Trail to Bates St (not preferred after dark)

3. Jail Trail to Boundary, Joncaire or Neville

4. Liberty to Millvale, Centre

Yes, some of these are a little out of the way, and yes, it wouldn't take that much from the city/state/PAT to get around the deadly bit of forbes under the B'ham bridge. But I wouldn't say "there's no legal way to do it" as things stand. I think these are the routes BradQ alludes to.

As for explicit laws against right hooks, doesn't "failure to yield", "failure to signal", "failure to change lanes safely" cover it? If the police won't enforce failure to yield -- even after the fact -- why will they enforce safe-passing? I don't want an insurance settlement after I've had a serious injury, I want prevention.

the police aren't the ones who decide whether something is legal or who is right or wrong. that's what the courts are for. they don't have the training to understand the intricacies of the law.

for instance, for my friend who was riding straight on 40th when someone turned right in front of him into the wendy's parkinglot, maybe the cop thought that he "failed to yield" to the car. we all know that is stupid. but would that surprise you if a cop gave that "assessment" of the situation?

Seems like they don't have the training to understand the basics of the law, let alone the intricacies of it.

I know I haven't had good experiences as a cyclist with the Police in this town.

If they can be counted on to "misinterpret" things in favor of drivers, then there is a systematic training problem that needs to be addressed - and that retraining would do more for cyclist safety then bike lanes in a park. My understanding is that the laws are there for the most part - the speed limit, priority in lane, yield to oncoming traffic, terroristic treats, etc, but that the City and Port Authority Cops don't treat bikes the way the law requires them to, let alone provide them the extra protection that vulnerable cyclists need.

Wow- it's all perspective.

Sure, after going to Portland or Seattle or Denver or Boston, or even DC, I always felt wherever I was did not measure up regarding ease of cycling or just livability. But I find Pittsburgh very livable, and very cylable.

Morgan, I ride Squirrel Hill to past the stadiums 5 days a week every week, going through downtown, and it's a great ride every single day, even after dark. A bit slower going home because of all of the uphill, but I just embrace the altitude changes as part of my quest to stay fit.

Yes, things could be better, but that's part of our purpose is it not?

well, i noticed a day or two ago that one little step is being made that will make a big difference (in my opinion). it's been bothering the heck out of me all year that the street i see by far the most cyclists on -- ellsworth ave. -- is one of the worst streets to bike on because of the wretched conditions of the road.

but now, it's all tore up from amberson to aiken. if they fix that, then get around to the neville-to-morewood (or maybe just devonshire?) stretch, much of my cycling angst will be relieved.

ellsworth is such a great route, but could be better. the on-street parking plan there is chaotic, and really, do all of those houses with huge driveways really need to use the public thru-way to park their cars as well?

Erok:

"...for instance, for my friend who was riding straight on 40th when someone turned right in front of him into the wendy's parkinglot, maybe the cop thought that he "failed to yield" to the car."

This happened to my mother in law out in Pine township. A cop saw it and yelled at her for not yielding to the oncoming vehicle. What do you do when the enforcers are clueless?

I almost got hit by a pair of cycle cops that were riding through a red light on the wrong side of the road with their helmets unbuckled. I rode back and asked them if they always ride through redlights without looking. They said yes. I told them that they could have hit me. They said something smartassed like "that would have been a real fatal accident."

Is there a way we could offer road training for cycle cops? so they know what side of the road to ride on and which side the red blinky goes and where the button is that turns it on. And bicycle laws and practices. You know, basic stuff...

If it were offered to the departments that employ bicycle-riding officers, do you think they might be interested?

the laws of the road were designed for cars. sometimes there needs to be some clarifications in order to protect other and more vulnerable road users.

philly just passed a complete streets policy yesterday. the mayor said he was serious about sustainability, and guess what, is doing something about it.

it's not really on the internet yet, but here's a blog post: http://whyy.org/blogs/itsourcity/2009/06/03/philadelphia-bicyclists-and-pedestrians-move-higher-in-the-food-chain/

i was a little mistaken. mayor nutter of philly signed an executive order to develop a complete streets policy. sorry. still, takin' a stand

The laws of the road were designed for cars, horses, and bicycles. Horses and bicycles were there first.

Morgan, I don't think the new bike lanes are chaotic or random. It looks to me like the powers-that-be have embraced the reality that there is a lot more biking in the East End of Pittsburgh than anywhere else, and are focussing on placing bike lanes so that they connect to each other (or nearly so). I'm as cynical as they come, but my gods, they took a lane out of ELB, and they actually narrowed the lanes on Forbes between Braddock and Dallas! That shows that they aren't *completely* in thrall to the automobile. Okay, I didn't really mind riding ELB before the restriping, and I'm not sure it's an actual improvement, but it is symbolic, and symbols have value.

Erok, I still don't understand -- how is a safe-passing law substantially different from the below?

75 Pa. C. S. § 3303. Overtaking vehicle on the left

(1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance and shall stay to the left of the other vehicle until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.

I think that bicycle-specific laws *weaken* the other laws with respect to bicycles, because the existence of bicycle-specific laws implies that the other bits of the vehicle code don't really apply to bicycles, that bicycles aren't really vehicles, and that they don't really belong on the roads.

i'm not a lawyer, but there is no definition of "safe distance" - 3 ft, 6 inches?

this guy is a lawyer (from OR), and says: Right now, it seems that ORS 811.410 (vehicles required to pass “at a safe distance”) and 811.135 (careless driving) are all we’ve got. Do you really want to have to rely on being subjected to this sort of terror and then going to court and getting a good (ahem) lawyer to argue that what the driver did was so dangerous and irresponsible as to be illegal? Or, would you like to have a clear standard that everyone can understand?...It seems to me that, if we really want to encourage people to get on their bikes and ride around Portland – and that’s what I want – we need a specific standard that everyone can understand, a standard that protects bicyclists from the risk of being killed by people trying to save a few seconds on their drive...If our City leaders truly want to encourage people to ride around town, they can do something very simple to remove one important daily source of fear and frustration for Portland’s bicyclists, not to mention something that will perhaps provide a key source of education for Portland’s police officers. They can enact an ordinance that tells motorists, plain and simple, to give bicyclists room.

source: http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/30/guest-article-why-portland-needs-a-safe-passing-distance-ordinance/

now i know this is totally unenforceable, unless something unfortunate happens, but what about the situation where a car is about to pass you with 1 foot (safe distance?), and you swerve into their path to avoid a pothole.

i doubt any law that were originally developed in the 1800s for bicycles road use are still on the books.

the problem is, bicycles aren't cars. we don't kill. that's why we are allowed (at times) do do things that cars can't do, like use the sidewalk.

i would rather have the law state what constitutes "safe passing" than a jury full of motorists

the police aren't the ones who decide whether something is legal or who is right or wrong. that's what the courts are for. they don't have the training to understand the intricacies of the law.

Try telling a cop that. I have some video footage somewhere of three different Pittsburgh cops on three separate occasions telling me that they "make the laws", all in the same night.

hey, the City wants some input from yinz. this is mostly about the liberty ave sharrows, but i thought some of the questions were relevant to those who were following this thread.

Take the survey, it only takes a minute:

http://bike-pgh.org/2009/06/05/please-take-this-quick-survey-from-the-city-of-pittsburgh-about-the-liberty-ave-shared-lane-markings/

helicopter? what the hell?

Lyle, I don't know if you meant to, but you are making the exact opposite point to the one I'm trying to make.

My point it that bike lanes are not supposed to be symbols, they are supposed to be traffic control devices that protect cyclists. They are one tool in the toolbox of urban design; one that in Pittsburgh is both being applied incorrectly and being used instead of more appropriate tools.

I object to bike lanes being used as symbols because, used in this way, they don't protect cyclists or encourage more cycling. Further, when they are water-soluble symbols, they are used by politicians to appear "green" or "young and hip" without making any effectual or permanent changes to the city's streets that would make cycling safer, easier, or more accessible. I don't want Pittsburgh to look like a bike-friendly city, I want us to be a bike friendly city.

Finally, my larger point is that I think that the priorities for improving cycling infrastructure should come from the cycling community, rather then the cycling community reacting to and being politically forced to defend nowhere-to-nowhere bike lanes that don't do us any good. You said it: no one really minded riding on East Liberty Blvd before it was striped, and now that it is striped, all I can muster is a shrug. What I do mind, however, is aggressive drivers swerving at me and yelling "get off the road," an unenforced speed limit, untrained police officers misapplying bad laws, and the City and PennDOT spending millions upon millions on highways and highway-like local roads, then fronting like they're "green" because they spent a thousand bucks watercoloring a half-mile bike lane to nowhere.

Symbolic gestures will not stop me from being hit again. Changes to Police officer training, enforcement of the speed limit and aggressive driving laws, retraining PAT drivers, and passing better laws (like cyclists allowed full lane): these are my priorities. After that, then we can talk about bike lanes. But I'm going to start that conversation with a route to Oakland, not connecting the East End parks.

You said it: no one really minded riding on East Liberty Blvd before it was striped, and now that it is striped, all I can muster is a shrug.

tell that to the scores of people that contacted us who use it everyday for transportation and commuting to work. i've talked with people who would never use ELB, but now it's part of their daily ritual.

i'm definitly not a "something is better than nothing" type of person, and, in my opinion, ELB has made it safer and more accessible and is a great cycling route, especially once it's connected to Highland Park, Squirrel hill, regeant sq, homewood, and point breeze.

last year, we couldn't take this picture on elb:

as far as the "cycling community" the idea is to have the bikepgh map marked and clearly signed one day. aint gonna happen overnight. i didn't feel defensive until your last post.

Why do you feel defensive? I didn't say you're not doing enough or doing it fast enough - far from it. But I do think that short unconnected bike lanes aren't good cycling infrastructure, but are easy things for politicians and CDC's to point to when they need some green cred.

I hope that it's fair to assume, as I have been, that folks that post here share the goal of making Pittsburgh a better city to bike in. I'm trying to talk about traffic control and urban planning tools and their use and misuse in the political power structure of Pittsburgh. I'm not sure how my opinion of the East Liberty lane insulted you, but it was unintentional - sorry.

Hidden Variable- Helicopter is a joke. I generally fail with my sense of humor.

Morgan- Thank you for starting this conversation. You raise several valid points. One point I think I can add some info and maybe clarification pertains to the bike lanes to no where. The City's bike routes are a work in progress. The City is in the process of adding several more miles of bike lanes and shared lane markings that will connect existing lanes and sharrows. These pavement markings will continue to be installed expanding the network and establishing connections.

FIY- The City has a thermoplastic contractor on board. Lanes and sharrows will no longer be watercolored.

Just found this positive post from Diana Nelson Jones' blog on the PG: http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/citywalkabout/archive/2009/06/05/the-great-green-way-east-liberty.aspx

Mentions the bike lanes in E. Liberty and road diets.

My point it that bike lanes are not supposed to be symbols, they are supposed to be traffic control devices that protect cyclists.

i don't disagree with your overall assessment that the things that have been done are not enough, but i must completely disagree with this point of view. having been a city-commuting cyclist for years and years, i feel like the more things that tell motorists that we're out there and they should look for us, the better.

i much prefer the bike lanes of wightman to the sharrows of liberty or the completely useless lines occasionally drawn on beechwood. at the same time, though, these things and the "share the road" signs (which we love to complain about--we've all had drivers yell "share the road" at us) are all steps toward the goal of making pittsburgh a bike-friendly city.

having safe streets can not be an overnight thing. for me, the most important thing about riding on city streets is that people know i'm there. i'm part of traffic and should be regarded accordingly. if i'm the only one, why would they care? but the new bike lanes that they see--even as they ignore them--are an indication that i'm not the only one, and that the rest of us are serious about this and we're willing to fight for our spot on the road. and we should be respected.

honestly, the biggest thing i could get from motorists is for them to actually notice me. if more "share the road" signs, or more bike lanes, or more shared use lanes cause more people to yell threats out their window at me, i'll take that over them all just not knowing i'm there.

the only accidents i've ever been in, and 99.6% of the ones that i avoided judiciously avoided, were because the people using roads along with me just didn't even know i was there (even when they made eye contact). it's more important that drivers know to watch for us than it is that the local constabulary knows how to prosecute those who endanger us.

in my opinion.

I think Morgan's comments are pretty much 100% on the mark. And at this stage of the game, honest comments ought to make us all defensive. We're not where we want to be, and there's hella more to be done. Arguments, criticism, discussion, that's how we make progress.

(I'll yield to no-one in my appreciation of Bike-Pgh and that photo totally rocks. Also I thought helicopter was funny.)

I think the cycling community can and should simultaneously appreciate the cycling changes as substantive improvements and criticize them as cheap easy pseudo-green pandering.

As for ELB, I used to ride it before it was repaved and striped and the change is night and day, so much better. And I ride in on Forbes from Regent Square, where the lousy striped shoulder really does make for a much much better cycling experience.

Pittsburgh's a hard case -- I think we have to feel our way forward -- the City bureaucracy will implement (or permit) various "solutions", and the cyclists will render judgement, good or bad. We can learn as we go. And the criticisms, "watercoloring a half-mile bike lane to nowhere", are most important.

We need to have a discussion about bridges.

Hidden Variable- Helicopter is a joke. I generally fail with my sense of humor.

well, i definitely did laugh a whole lot. i just wasn't expecting a joke at that time.

ok, actually, i'm still laughing at it.

p.s. I was going to link this:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/05/safety-in-numbers-its-happening-in-nyc/

best answer: more cyclists

"they are supposed to be traffic control devices that protect cyclists."

I'm not sure how well they succeed at that goal. I haven't seen any data to support it. I'm willing to consider the possibility that they "legitimize" bicycle traffic, and in so doing, encourage cycling, and ultimately increase visibility and awareness. But I've heard it argued that they also "ghettoize" bicycle traffic, and I find that compelling too. I think they increase the likelihood of certain kinds of accidents (right-hooks, cars exiting driveways, right-on-red drivers failing to yield). When done well (as on Wightman) I think they can increase cyclist safety and improve a neighborhood. When done poorly (eg, by being squeezed into the door zone, or run right through sewer grates), I suspect they actually cause accidents. It's important that planners not let their enthusiasm for the well-implemented facility, convince them that all bike lanes are automatically good things.

I would bet that different people would give you wildly different answers about what bike lanes are "supposed to" do, and some of those answers will include "they're supposed to tell bikers where to ride, so they stay out of the street".

I also think that someone's opinion about the benefit of various bike facilities will depend on what they think bikes are for. If they think bikes are for toodling around on the weekend, or for kids to go out and play, then they'll build pretty things with swoopy curves and poor sightlines that are closed after dark. If they think that bikes are for *everything*, then they'll understand that we need a network of bike facilities that goes *everywhere*. Fortunately, the road network already does that. We just have to make it better...

morgan, i got defensive on this comment: Finally, my larger point is that I think that the priorities for improving cycling infrastructure should come from the cycling community, rather then the cycling community reacting to and being politically forced to defend nowhere-to-nowhere bike lanes that don't do us any good.

i should start by saying that i'm really glad you started this thread/conversation. and while i agree with pretty much everything you're saying, i think you're missing the mark a bit on that one. by saying this, i feel that you are completely ignoring the fact that there are people that live in these neighborhoods that use them on a daily basis, so i feel the comment is a bit counterproductive. i also don't know why you keep saying it despite knowing that there is a plan to connect it all in a meaningful way. i know you're upset at prioritizing the larger plan to connect, seemingly for recreation only, the east end parks, and that because of this the city doesn't "get it." i don't see why the idea of recreation vs transportation are mutually exclusive, as i know plenty of people that will be using this infrastructure for work/errands, etc. sorry if i came off harsh, i just know that the people who use these on a daily basis wouldn't appreciate another cyclist calling them "nowhere-to-nowhere bike lanes that don't do us any good," as that could lead credence to eliminating something that they now depend on.

If they think that bikes are for *everything*, then they'll understand that we need a network of bike facilities that goes *everywhere*. Fortunately, the road network already does that. We just have to make it better...

i should have just quoted that.

i also must say: the bit about the water-colored bike lanes was pretty fantastic. especially because i was just the other day complaining to the lady friend that the east liberty boulevard lanes no longer exist in paint.

seriously, the dashed line that makes it look like it's two lanes is way way more visible than the bike lane lines. if i didn't know better, i would think it went back to being two lanes. and if i didn't regularly bike in that area, and follow things here (i.e. if i were any random driver), i wouldn't know any better.

ps, morgan, the other reason that i really like your post is because i think you are expressing how i think alot of people feel, frustrated and restless, and if things don't start moving quicker, or just continue to be in a half done state, more people are going to start getting angry and calling out those that are symbolically benefiting off of this.

the canary in the bike lane

Connecting East End parks needs to be a very critical part of any plan to improve the bike infrastructure of the city. Not everyone might consider riding to work straightaway, but they would consider riding to the park with their kids. That's exactly the sort of behavior that would lead to more people on bikes.

That said, I appreciate Morgan's post, too. I think enforcing existing traffic laws (and clarifying pedacycle laws) would make a huge difference in our lives as cyclists every day, regardless of where we are traveling. I suspect few politicians are willing to stand up and say "I support ticketing people who break the speed limit."

We can quibble over various points -morgan- makes, but overall I think she speaks for many people who *would* bike but do not.

I just had a conversation online with someone in the city which went something like this:

Her: I just missed my bus to Oakland.

Me: Can you bike there?

Her: That could be an option if I wasn't terrified of all of the asshole drivers in Pittsburgh! [almost exact quote]

As long as there's the perception that it's too dangerous to bike, then we really do not yet have a pro-bike culture. Yeah I know, we're getting there, but not fast enough.

I am heartened, however, that the city's Bike-Ped coordinator participates on this board. Everything we say here is getting to the right people, so speak your minds!

Morgan, thanks so much for posting this and sparking this discussion. It's EXACTLY what we as the cycling community should be doing — talking, criticizing, brainstorming, rabble rousing. It's great and it's the perfect use of these forums.

I can tell you that I've felt very similarly to Morgan over the years, but I can't stress enough how much things are changing and how rapidly when compared to the past.

To give you an idea of how things are ramping up behind the scenes, we now have two meetings a month with people representing the City, SPC, PennDOT, amongst others. These are working meetings where we discuss exactly how we can get more safe cycling infrastructure on our streets and start to make it all connect. We have a full-time bike/ped coordinator with the City. We have a full time transportation planner who rides his bike to work every day. After many years of not even having a traffic engineer, we now have one at the City who gets it and is working with us to make all of this happen.

I'm not telling you all of this to say that I'm satisfied. I'm not. Much more political leadership needs to be taken on this.

That's why we need YOU. All of you. We need you to CONSTANTLY remind our elected officials that we (cyclists) expect more resources put towards this and that WE VOTE. But we also can't just be a pissed off mob. We need to show that if our elected officials invest in bike infrastructure, better enforcement and more, that we will support their efforts just as vocally.

About East Liberty, I have used the new lanes twice in the last two weeks when I stop at Whole Foods on the way home from work. I use the lane to connect to Hamilton, Dallas and then Thomas. It's a nice stress free trip.

I loved "watercolor". I had a friend who described Pittsburgh roads as being paved with chocolate pudding.

I often use the helicoter example to people who say "I can't bike to work/shop/play becasue of where I live".

Me: "If you bought a house in Bedford you would 'need' a helicopter to get to work."

Mick

comments?

http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/cyclists-find-no-safety-numbers

Lyle,

I'm not sure taht "share teh road" signs and mroe bike lanes halp safety. OTOH, you areticle ahs bike fatalities in the US at about the same number for the past few years. If I'm not mistaken, the use of bikes has increased considerably in thsoe years, sop each individual is safer.

In an area with a lot of bike riders, drivers are more likely to be aware (voluntarily or otherwise) of bikes. Sure, there will be some fatal accidents, though, even the most biek friendly places.

Here's an argument FOR "safety in numbers."

http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/streetbeat/2009/June/0604.html#safety_in_numbers

complete with cool graphic:

http://transalt.org/files/campaigns/bike/images/ridership_graph.jpg

(I think someone else from here already posted this. Either that, or I spend way to much time surfing the net.)

Mick

2008.

portland

zero cyclist fatalities

http://bike-pgh.org/2008/09/13/safety-in-numbers/

and

http://bike-pgh.org/2007/12/11/bicycling-magazine-is-it-getting-worse/

More cyclists = safer streets... What's the number one thing that attracts MORE cyclists? Bike lanes plain and simple.

here's another one for you. Just posted today!

http://www.good.is/post/the-more-people-bike-the-safer-it-gets/

I'm glad to see bike lanes. I'll be more glad when I see markings that make dangerous intersections safer for bikes. That is my biggest pet peeve. Bike lanes are great, but so far in Pittsburgh they abandon riders at busy intersections where accidents are bound to occur. I have a feeling plans are in the works to remedy this.

Sounds like a few people have been reading some Forrester lately?

Concerning the ELB and the new lanes. I think that photo by erok above really says all there is to say about it. Sure young fit adults would ride ELB pre-bike lane, but now kids and families can ride it too. Getting all users not just us bike dorks out there should be the #1 goal of these lanes, and advocacy in general. I've had my kids in the trailer on ELB since the lane markings, something I would NEVER have considered before.

There is still plenty of work to be done, but let's look forward at connecting our infrastructure, not tearing down what is already there.

Eric, could you provide a concrete example of a dangerous intersection which I might be familiar with (or that I could go visit) and describe how you would mark it to make it safer? Just so we don't have to talk about hypotheticals...

here's another one that came out today:

On heels of some recent findings in NYC that the cycle fatality rate has declined, I came across this report from CTC with a few other interesting stats:

1. London has seen a 91% increase in cycling since 2000 and a 33% fall in cycle casualties since 1994-98. This means that cycling in the city is 2.9 times safer than it was previously.

2. The Netherlands has witnessed a 45% increase in cycling from 1980-2005 and a 58% decrease in cyclist fatalities.

3. Copenhagen, 1995-2006: 44% increase in cycling, 60% decrease in KSIs, with cycle to work modal share rising from 31% to 36%.5.

http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/06/08/safety-in-numbers-a-few-more-numbers/

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bloomfield+Bridge+at+main+st,+Pittsburgh,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&sll=40.463693,-79.952685&sspn=0.000793,0.001617&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=17&iwloc=A

First thing that came to mind, Bloomfield Bridge, Liberty and Main.

How should it be marked? I don't have any idea. I do know that our tax dollars do pay people who study these things to know.

My co-worker and I were just talking about that area yesterday. Leading up to the Bloomfield bridge on ramp is dangerous as is the standing at the light and traveling to the bike lane.

Coming the other direction towards town the turn to Main is very dangerous. After the Bloomfield bridge light it again gets dangerous.

First thing that came to mind, Bloomfield Bridge, Liberty and Main.

Are you talking about on liberty? there are actually work orders done for bike stuff through the intersection on liberty. they should (better) be installed when liberty gets re-done.

that turn off of main, just past liberty always give me the chills

I've never had problems *at* the intersection, but always approaching and leaving it.

Traveling from the intersection on Main, I've been breezed by cars; traveling to the intersection eastbound on liberty, I've been nearly broadsided by cars rushing past me to get on the bridge; traveling from the intersection westbound on liberty I was almost hit by a car attempting a left turn off of liberty and onto Canoe - I barely had enough time to scream.

Erok, yep the Liberty lanes trail off right when cars and bikes really need them. Glad to hear there are plans in the works.

Portland has these:

http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=46717

yeah. the bike box. well, Liberty avenue (on the approach to the bridge both ways), goes from one lane to two lanes (at the bridge) back to one lane. this is pretty silly. most people in the know, line up in the through lane, even if the right lane is empty because they know that they're going to have to merge again anyway. the people who use the right lane to go straight (again this applies for both directions) either are out of towners who got confused, or aggressive drivers who want to get ahead, or a bus, who needs to pick up people in the right lane and merge anyway. the uphill right lane is to be converted into buses bikes and right turns only (for ella st). the downhill is to be converted into buses and bikes only, as there is a right turn off ramp from liberty to main. there is also supposed to be help at the crossing at the entrance to the bridge (going uphill) where it gets hairy.

What are the bike boxes made of? We all see how quickly water-based paint degrades on Liberty, and a full 12 foot by 12 foot square of thermoplastic paint can be quite hazardous in inclement weather.

Perhaps a polymer inlay, but that has to go down with a new wearing course.

don't know what they use there. on the birmingham bridge, PennDOT used an epoxy for the blue bike lanes. they just re blued the southbound lane which is nice. even that wore off mighty quick.

has it been 180 days since installation? may be under warranty...

Ah, I used to live right near that intersection, and rode it quite frequently until I moved last year. The sight lines are good, and the intersection is controlled by a light, there's an advance left-turn signal. It's not exactly *fun*, but I'd rather ride there than, say, the stub of the jail trail that tries to avoid riding on 2d avenue, or try to get out onto 2d avenue to avoid riding that abomination of a "separated bike path". (Anything that says "cyclists must dismount" is not a bike facility, by definition).

I'm not sure what direction you're concerned about. Riding over the bridge itself is probably the worst part. I don't think I've done that more than a half-dozen times -- usually I would prefer Millvale to get to and from Oakland.

Coming uphill from town and continuing on through on Liberty, the key is to treat the right-turn lane like it's an onramp for a limited-access highway. Which, it pretty much is. What you want to do is to minimize the amount of time you spend in conflict with crossing motorized traffic. That means, you ride along the right side of the roadway, checking over your shoulder for overtaking traffic until you see a clear space. You signal, cross over into the next lane, and continue on through. It's hard to draw a picture here...

Turning left onto Main, which is how I would go home from work, is just that, followed by another lane change. But you don't have to turn onto Main if that bothers you, there are lots of cross streets. Turn up 40th and ride along Howley. It's probably faster since you can skip the light at the intersection.

I'll write about problems with the bike box at another time as I have to run out now, but in a nutshell, they are timing-dependent.

Sloaps, alas, the only way that thermoplastic blue epoxy will protect us from motorists who won't yield the right-of-way when turning left, is if we can get PADOT to apply it inside their ignition switches.

Anybody who wants to "work" that intersection with me is welcome to ask -- unfortunately I'm tied up the next few evenings, but Thursday morning or sometime next week are open.

Doubters can stand on the corner with a video camera. If I'm wrong, you'll have an awesome video for YouTube.

Lyle you sound like an experienced cyclist. Probably fit and able to keep up with traffic through this and other dangerous areas, right?

Put yourself in the shoes of a newer rider, unsure of how to handle these types of situations. You've riding up Liberty in a bike lane, but as it approaches a confusing intersection it disappears, leaving you to figure it out on your own.

Or put yourself there with 2 kids and a weeks worth of groceries in tow. Suddenly your speed and maneuverability are at most half of what they are now.

Fit cyclists with experience have little need for bike lanes. The other 98% of the population do, as do automobile drivers that are completely unclear as to what we should be doing at intersections like this, and why we may be doing it.

I have no question you or most other people on this board can get through that intersection with ease.

The make bike boxes out of thermoplastic

An old friend of mine from high-school wants to start riding to work, but said to me "I have absence of bike lane fear." He speaks for thousands.

I was in Boston this past weekend where I saw a "bike box" green painted extension of the bike lane through a congested intersection where Commonwealth crossed a bridge with exit and entrance ramps. I only drove through it, but the green really made it clear that bikes belonged and would be going straight through across the bridge. It was fairly new, and the person I was visiting who rode to work there said it really makes a difference.