BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
86

A Different Idea....

When I drive around town, I am always on the lookout for better ways to get around by bike. One thing that stands out to me (bear with me before you start yelling please) are the miles of deserted sidewalk. There are certain areas where I think a shared sidewalk would be a much safer route for bicycles. These areas are not residential, or commercial, with a few if any curb cuts. These observations are from the East End / suburbs: One Wild Place from the bottom, to Negley Avenue Negley Run from the bottom, to East Liberty Blvd. Is this kind of thing done officially? Instead of sharing the road, why not share the sidewalk?
ericf
2013-08-05 09:49:42
You're totally allowed to ride on the sidewalk, as long as it's not a "business district." http://www.shippd.org/pa%20titles/PAbikelaws.pdf (Section 3508, on page 3) Having said that, a lot of Pittsburgh areas have really narrow sidewalks and many of the cyclists I see using them completely fail to yield to pedestrians the way they're supposed to.
mrdestructicity
2013-08-05 10:06:01
You are certainly allowed to ride on the sidewalk in those areas. It's allowed everywhere but in business districts. But I generally prefer the road, because the sidewalks are narrow and often have things that slow you down -- light poles etc -- and there is also the risk of pedestrians.
jonawebb
2013-08-05 10:07:02
To the best of my knowledge, the legal prohibition concerning bikes on sidewalks is for commercial areas. Residential areas are exempt so, in these areas, bikes on sidewalks is legally acceptable so people can ride those sidewalks nw But, I also know that declaring a sidewalk as multi-use for both bikes and pedestrians, has some design prerequisites. I don't know the details but I think it has to be a certain width and perhaps other criteria before you can start putting up signs and laying down pavement markings.
kordite
2013-08-05 10:07:19
You can do it, just don't be a jerk. Go slow if there are people around.
rsprake
2013-08-05 10:13:13
I understand the rules as far as not in a business district, etc. I was thinking of an official designation with signs and markings, along with a no bikes on the road restriction in these areas.
ericf
2013-08-05 12:26:03
ericf wrote:along with a no bikes on the road restriction in these areas.
You just touched the third rail...
jonawebb
2013-08-05 12:28:11
along with a no bikes on the road restriction in these areas.
I think your avatar is very appropriate in this context. ;-)
reddan
2013-08-05 13:21:08
ericf wrote:I was thinking of an official designation with signs and markings, along with a no bikes on the road restriction in these areas.
Have you seen the roadways in Pittsburgh, with the potholes, cracks, and whatnot that create hazards? In most of the areas you're talking about, the sidewalks are even worse: 50 year-old trees have cracked the sidewalks and in some cases created cliffs between adjacent blocks of pavement high enough to repel down. In my neighborhood (Regent Square) the sidewalks are generally a mish-mash of well maintained by responsible homeowners and downright abused sections of concrete that are jagged and crumbling. And don't even get me started about what happens when it snows.... I appreciate someone trying to think outside the box to create a workable solution, but banning bikes from the roadway shows a clear lack of creative thinking and is tantamount to caving into the auto-centric way of life that ruined cities to begin with.
jaysherman5000
2013-08-05 13:30:40
I would much rather see replacing a parking lane with about 400 traffic cones to make a two-way cycle track, than to intermix cycling and pedestrians on a sidewalk.
stuinmccandless
2013-08-05 15:21:44
I expected but don't understand the negative response. Maybe this isn't creative thinking, just common sense thinking. If you offer me a protected multi-use path in exchange for a dangerous street, I will take it every time.
ericf
2013-08-06 06:18:01
I am not willing to accept a "no bikes on the street" condition in trade for anything. Road and commuting cyclists travel anywhere from 15 to 30 mph, do not belong on sidewalks, and it would be an effective ban on them in those areas. And it is a dangerous precedent to set, if not on the street here, then why not there, and there.........
edmonds59
2013-08-06 06:35:18
ericf wrote:If you offer me a protected multi-use path in exchange for a dangerous street, I will take it every time.
One Wild Place -- going up is pretty slow but still around 8-9 mph for me and I am slow/ Some people are going like 15 mph. Going down... I easily hit 35 without pedaling. There is no problem to keep with traffic on West Liberty Ave (like ajbooth told) and speed limit is 35 but traffic goes 40. There is no way it' safe for pedestrians.
mikhail
2013-08-06 06:50:35
One Wild Place is so wide throughout much of it, PAT buses often idle on it. I'd rather see bike lanes at the bottom and sharrows at the top. Plus, the sidewalk is just on the one side. Transitioning from sidewalk back to street would be tricky in a plan like what OP proposes - could create a more dangerous circumstance. (Not to mention there is a bus stop on the sidewalk that somehow sees a lot of use).
atleastmykidsloveme
2013-08-06 07:10:26
I think the idea of multi-use sidewalks on streets like One Wild Place is a good one. It would allow people who don't feel comfortable riding in traffic the ability to ride to places where they probably wouldnt. I guess I only take exception to the 'bikes not allowed in the street' portion of the plan. But that doesnt stop the multi-use sidewalk from being a decent idea. I saw a lot of these in DC the last time I was down there, and would be interested to know how useful & safe they are for both cyclist and pedestrians. How these sidewalks are maintained would also be an issue.
marko82
2013-08-06 07:35:09
Mikhail wrote:I easily hit 35 without pedaling.
Pictures, or it didn't happen! You must butter those bearings daily! :P
headloss
2013-08-06 07:53:50
Just like any other multi-use path, there would be a speed limit. The burden would be on cyclists to watch out for pedestrians. As far as "giving up the road", safety is the reason. Negley Run in particular is a race track. I don't care how much cake you eat, you are not keeping up with traffic there. Not to single out anyone, but I see quite a few racers on the way to the oval mixing it up there and frankly it is not safe. They create a hazard. The sidewalk on the one side goes the whole way from the intersection at Washington Blvd to East Liberty Blvd. bike lane. There would be no transition back to the street. There is also an underpass that crosses E.L.B., but I don't know where it comes out. One Wild Place is different, as stated above it is wide, and traffic is much slower there. To me it is just easy fruit, in that it has limited curb cuts, and goes the whole way to North Negley from the bottom, again with no transition back to the street. Both of these areas are probably 1/2 mile -1 mile long, restricting road access is not going to slow anyone down enough to make a difference in their commute.
ericf
2013-08-06 08:14:52
"Not to single out anyone, but I see quite a few racers on the way to the oval mixing it up there and frankly it is not safe. They create a hazard." Except you got this exactly backwards. That is kind of a surprising interpretation of the situation. The "racers" are utilizing the road in an entirely legal manner, and they are not the ones creating the hazard.
edmonds59
2013-08-06 09:13:48
@Edmonds59, Although "the racers" are legally using the road, and they do so in a safe manner, most drivers react poorly to cycles in heavy traffic. I say cyclists should ride wherever they want, but when the idiot driving beside me is freaking out, slamming on brakes in the middle of 2 lanes of traffic, because a cyclist choose to ride in the left lane of 2 lanes full of traffic, then the cyclist is causing the hazard.
ericf
2013-08-06 10:13:24
I can't see having a downhill like One Wild Place or Negley Run where the bicyclist are limited to the sidewalk. The speeds bikes tend to go would be unsafe toward pedestrians - and even for the bikers. I would be totally OK with uphill travel on One Wild Place being sidewalk only, although I'm guessing some might object. With Negley run? There is this little parklet off of it that I checked out at about 9 am one day. Filled with broken bottles and lots of little emply crack bags. I want to be out on the street if I go near there after dark. Um... and "idiot drivers freaking out" is not caused in any way by bicyclists. Plenty of drivers shouldn't.
mick
2013-08-06 10:23:25
PA 3301(c) makes clear that cyclists shouldn't be in the left lane unless they are planning on turning left.
jonawebb
2013-08-06 10:28:47
ericf wrote:I expected but don’t understand the negative response. Maybe this isn’t creative thinking, just common sense thinking.
Except that what you proposed is the opposite of common sense thinking. Instead of enforcing the traffic laws or treating those sections of roadway with the necessary implementations to stop the biggest threat to safety (cars) from acting unsafely, you want to move the group that does the least damage to roadway, and is arguably the safest group using the road, to the sidewalk like petulant children... ... ... wait a minute 5/10 for getting responses. troll harder.
jaysherman5000
2013-08-06 11:15:52
jonawebb wrote:PA 3301(c) makes clear that cyclists shouldn’t be in the left lane unless they are planning on turning left.
Which you would be doing if you are coming down Negley Run and going to the Oval. So the question is how far from the intersection were the "racers"? And the faster the traffic, the earlier "I" would move over to the left lane. YMMV, but waiting to merge at the last minute is surely not the safest way to ride/drive.
marko82
2013-08-06 11:37:59
jonawebb wrote:PA 3301(c) makes clear that cyclists shouldn’t be in the left lane unless they are planning on turning left.
The allowed amount of distance from the turn they are intending to make is not defined. I often ride the far left lane (adjacent to the bus lane on 5th ave) from bigelow blvd to meyran ave. Which is 4 blocks, so that I don't have to try to merge through 3 lanes of traffic. Is this legal? I intend on turning left after a couple blocks.
benzo
2013-08-06 12:33:50
You can be in the left lane there if you're "preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway" (3301(c)) or if it would be unsafe to do otherwise (3505(c)). Seems to me, both of those would apply, but you only need one to make it legal.
steven
2013-08-06 13:13:08
ericf, nothing in your further elucidation of the conditions convinces me that the cyclists are creating the problem. As Marko said, if you are headed to the oval, you should be in the left lane at the bottom of Negley Run. It sounds convincingly like it is drivers driving inappropriately and too fast for conditions. I don't mean to trivialize another serious circumstance, but your argument is not too much different from recommending that women not wear provocative clothing because men can't control themselves. If you really want to get to the root of the problem, one of the causes of the "conflict" is the design of Negley Run itself, that road needs to go on a radical road diet. There is no way it should be 2 lanes each way, that encourages driving faster than the 35 mph speed limit. That road need to be de-highway-ized. If casual cyclists want to ride on the sidewalk there, that is entirely legal and fine. If we want to build more mixed use paths so less "hard core" riders feel more comfortable and ride more, that's awesome too. Trading off the right to use the road as some kind of bargaining chip to obtain those other measures is a step too far and unacceptable.
edmonds59
2013-08-06 13:45:18
Drewbacca wrote:
Mikhail wrote:I easily hit 35 without pedaling.
Pictures, or it didn’t happen! You must butter those bearings daily! :P
Well, we have to ask someone who rides with Team Decaf and has camera. PS My weight is 250 plus two water bottles plus bike. That is enough to hit 25 mph on a small hill from HMB toward to Sand Castle. But it's very hard to go up. :)
mikhail
2013-08-06 13:54:18
ericf wrote:because a cyclist choose to ride in the left lane of 2 lanes full of traffic, then the cyclist is causing the hazard. Quot
Left lane is for the reason (and it's legal). They make left turn on Washington and then left turn again to the Oval. and it's not th cyclists that causing the hazard -- it's a driver that cannot estimate his/her own speed, keep attention on the road and control the his/her vehicle.
mikhail
2013-08-06 14:10:48
jonawebb wrote:PA 3301(c) makes clear that cyclists shouldn’t be in the left lane unless they are planning on turning left.
And in this particular case -- left and then left again.
mikhail
2013-08-06 14:13:15
Hmm. OK, first of all your weight nothing to do with how fast you can go downhill, as Galileo showed. And while I can see topping out at 35 mph I don't think you could go much beyond that, unless you're incredibly aero. But maybe you are. I'm always amazed that racers regularly exceed 50 mph on downhill runs. I don't know Negley Run and have certainly been in situations where it was safer and better to take the left lane sooner rather than later. If there's a lot of traffic in the middle lane, say, it can be really hard to move over, especially if motorists behind you start honking and passing on the left when you do. And I think cyclists have just about the best view possible of what condition the road and traffic are in, so they can be be the best judge. But I don't think it's the intent of the law to allow you to take the left lane well in advance of your turn -- not that you're likely to get a ticket for doing so. Maybe it would be good to consider -- just consider -- whether this is the best strategy; if it is, fine, go with it. If I could slow down closer to the turn and create a safe opportunity to move from the right lane to the left, I would do that instead.
jonawebb
2013-08-06 14:14:20
jonawebb wrote:Hmm. OK, first of all your weight nothing to do with how fast you can go downhill, as Galileo showed.
You forgot to tell "in vacuum". In air -- 9 gram bullet is gong to go down much faster than 9 gram geese feather. So for bicyclist you have to consider the sum of all forces. Taking into account that at 25 mph 85% of energy you produce is working against air resistance and that my Cd is not that larger than 150 lbs rider assuming aerodynamic position -- as a result I have approximately 1.7 times more forces moving me forward in compare to 150 lbs bicyclist.
mikhail
2013-08-06 14:21:55
And 1.7 times more momentum to overcome in moving you downhill...
jonawebb
2013-08-06 14:23:41
jonawebb wrote:And 1.7 times more momentum to overcome in moving you downhill…
And? Or you did not count air resistance? Did you ever try to drop a piece of lead and feather of the same weight from, say, 1 meter down and measure the speed? Try it and you would be surprised. :)
mikhail
2013-08-06 14:30:34
Thread derailment: Successful. LOL My top coasting speed is currently 39mph. I may have gone faster but I only recently started carrying a Garmin. That's on a road that is longer, steeper, and straighter than One Wild Place. If you hit 35mph (coasting), then I'm desperately in need of new tires and a hub repack.
headloss
2013-08-06 14:38:32
I guess I just don't get it. 'Nuff said. Seems like some of you want everything without giving anything in return. More power to ya ! Road bans are already in place, on every interstate highway.
ericf
2013-08-06 14:41:59
Don't forget about the strategy of crossing the intersection in the right lane, stopping, turning around on the sidewalk, and reentering the perpendicular road to go straight. This can be much less stressful. I currently employ this tactic at 5th and Bigelow to get down to Schenley park. It's much easier than getting out into the far left - especially with all the merging traffic due to construction there.
andyc
2013-08-06 14:42:44
wow - this thread really changed a lot between the time that I started writing, had some actual work to do, and then finished.
andyc
2013-08-06 14:44:43
@mikhail, heavier cyclists do have a (slightly) higher terminal velocity--at high speeds your airflow is non-laminar, so you're dealing with a cubic relationship between speed and force. So I still don't think you easily break 35 mph while coasting down One Wild Place, as you said. @ericf, as I said, third rail. People here really don't want to give up the right to ride on the road in exchange for well-designed separated cycletracks. Sidewalks, forget about it.
jonawebb
2013-08-06 14:51:32
jonawebb wrote: ...well-designed separated cycletracks...
now there's an oxymoron if I ever read one!
jaysherman5000
2013-08-06 14:54:31
Drewbacca wrote:Thread derailment: Successful. LOL My top coasting speed is currently 39mph. I may have gone faster but I only recently started carrying a Garmin. That’s on a road that is longer, steeper, and straighter than One Wild Place. If you hit 35mph (coasting), then I’m desperately in need of new tires and a hub repack.
My top coasting speed is 47. We specifically reset our bicycles computers on our PMTCC ride to Midland. Just for the fun -- today's Team Decaf ride is going through HMB. I can show you my 25 mph at that small hill.
mikhail
2013-08-06 14:55:04
ericf wrote:I guess I just don’t get it. ‘Nuff said. Seems like some of you want everything without giving anything... Road bans are already in place, on every interstate highway.
Exactly, we've already given up so much by giving the speeding, drunken, murdering motorists their own exclusives roadways, so why give anymore? I'm glad you finally caught on and joined the right team!
jaysherman5000
2013-08-06 14:57:15
re: "Seems like some of you want everything without giving anything in return." Since, over decades, trillions of dollars of infrastructure have been built with little to no consideration to cycling infrastructure, I don't find it necessary to start looking for things to give up in order to have current needs met.
edmonds59
2013-08-06 14:59:56
@mikhail I would totally believe 25 mph.
jonawebb
2013-08-06 15:26:19
Well that was fun.
atleastmykidsloveme
2013-08-06 15:57:02
OK, some photos. Today I use my car to go to TeamDecaf ride. I rode from home and while I was in Mt. Lebanon I saw this gentlemen on a bike. So I started to take pictures of him and my speedometer. This is just past cemetery at the boundary of Mt. Lebanon. And then when we hit West Liberty going down: Actually he was running away from me just coasting. He turned right at the intersection. Now I tried something today. From Highland Park down Highland Ave up to Bryant Str since there is a stop sign and I have to start breaking about 20 yards before it. If I accelerate to 15 mph and then assume aerodynamic position then my maximum speed is: Marko saw it. :)
mikhail
2013-08-06 22:19:17
As a "person of mass" myself I empirically know Mikhail is correct - I coast past tons of people going downhill, and in turn I've had tandems blow by me as if I were standing still. Since I dropped out of physics as a freshman I won't take that route, but I believe the bit about cross-section not increasing in proportion to mass. I'm sure it's not the bike When I rode home down Steuben St. past 79 (which is not particularly steep, just long) I would regularly hit 45, although the peak was not much higher, probably 46-47. You cannot do useful pedaling at those speeds without a huge gear (I had 50x12 and that was only good to 40 at most). I've never tried coasting all the way down One Wild but I can believe 35 easy. quizbot lost a bet to me about doing 40 down Liberty (probably not smart). I bet I could also hit 45 down Negley if someone would stop traffic at the bottom so I don't die.
salty
2013-08-06 23:59:40
Back on topic, I'm completely against forcing cyclists onto the sidewalk and particularly downhill it's a terrible idea. Negley Run should have bike lanes and there should be a way to get to the oval without having to deal with the idiots who treat the entirety of Washington Blvd as a highway/speedway.
salty
2013-08-07 00:02:37
salty wrote:As a “person of mass” myself I empirically know Mikhail is correct
I never objected to this... my objection was that one-wild-place isn't a good decent for reaching that speed without the aid of pedaling. Perhaps going into it with momentum? I wouldn't have doubted the speed if we were talking about W.Lib. in the first place. Either way, I was just having fun with the claim; apologies to the OP.
headloss
2013-08-07 00:59:04
One Wild Place is a 4.5% grade overall (from the top near the reservoir to the bottom). Using Mikhail's weight and the defaults otherwise http://www.gribble.org/cycling/power_v_speed.html estimates a terminal speed without pedaling of just under 35 mph. So, nah...
jonawebb
2013-08-07 07:40:05
jonawebb wrote:One Wild Place is a 4.5% grade overall (from the top near the reservoir to the bottom). Using Mikhail’s weight and the defaults otherwise http://www.gribble.org/cycling/power_v_speed.html estimates a terminal speed without pedaling of just under 35 mph. So, nah…
Well, Highland Ave from park down to Tazza (Bryant) is about 4-5%. And 32.1 pretty easily achievable. If someone could block intersection so I should not break, I think 34+ is not a problem. BTW, West Liberty is about 4-5%. Just long enough. I looked at the calculator. My weight is 250. My bike is 18. Two bottle of water is 5. Extra stuff in my saddle bag -- 3. Some extra stuff in my pockets -- 2. Total around 278. I put -4.5%. Left all other numbers intact. With 1 watt of power speed shown is 35.49.
mikhail
2013-08-07 08:02:27
The reason I started this thread has nothing to do with riding in the left lane, or how fast one goes down a hill. I picked One Wilde Place and Negley Run in particular because I travel them regularly, and as Salty indicated there is no good way to get to the oval from the East End. It would be nice if casual cyclists could bike to the oval and watch the races. The only non-road way I know is MTB or hike a bike through the woods to the park. I understand banning bikes from the road really isn't correct or necessary so I will drop it. That said, I have taken a closer look at Negley Run, what would it take to get the existing sidewalk widened, painted green and signed up? Then cyclists could easily use the crosswalk at the bottom and, with the addition of a few yards of path, have access to the oval from the bike lane on ELB without using the road.
ericf
2013-08-07 08:04:25
ericf wrote:...as Salty indicated there is no good way to get to the oval from the East End.
What's wrong with just descending down Washington from Penn & 5th? It's a nice downhill, so you can probably maintain close to the speed limit, and as long as you signal your turn ahead of time, it's never been a problem for me. On the way back, just practicing good vehicular cycling keeps me feeling safe, and the more cyclists that take the road, the more drivers will expect to see us. It's win-win.
jaysherman5000
2013-08-07 09:51:29
The city's old East End Loop bike plan includes widening the sidewalk on Negley Run into a multi-use path. The trail status page at Friends of the Riverfront still mentions this plan, though it's been saying "Additional information will be posted shortly" for a long, long time. I'm assuming the Negley Run bike path remains part of the plan.
steven
2013-08-07 10:18:11
They could easily just make Negley Run two lanes for autos, with bike lanes on either side in the current car lanes. There is no way that road should be four lanes--I drive it every morning in rush hour and it's mostly empty. And with only two automobile lanes to maintain, maybe the city could afford to keep the road surface in better shape.
joanne
2013-08-07 18:32:23
+1 joanne @steven Thank you for the links, looks like a nice plan. Has anything been done on it since the Murphy administration (2005)? Either one of these solutions would make a huge improvement to cycling safety in the East End, how do we make it happen? @JaySherman5000 Taking the idea of visibility in a slightly different direction, with the above mentioned improvements, the oval could become an epicenter. With the high volume of car traffic, it would stand as a shining example of proper cycling infrastructure.
ericf
2013-08-08 05:47:07
@ericf: how, exactly, would removing bikes from the road make us more visible to drivers on the road? If we're not on the road, drivers don't see us, and they will remain unaware of how to handle an interaction with a cyclist. The more cyclists there are ACTUALLY ON THE ROAD, the more likely drivers are to encounter one and learn how to properly handle the situation. Your proposal makes as much sense as smoking your way thin and lacks a basic understanding of infrastructure and traffic control. The problem (i.e. biggest safety hazard) on the roads you mention is the large number of scofflaw motorists that disregard all speed limits and basic common sense. Removing their ability to do so via a road diet and law enforcement would do far more to improve safety than would removing the safest group of law-abiding users from the roadway. Please just stop bumping your troll thread. You'll never convince a message board full of avid cyclists that they should give up their right to use the roads that they pay for. If you do somehow manage to win cyclists over to your side, you should consider a career in politics. And with that, I bid you farewell. As always, YMMV, IANAL, FOMF, & EAD.
jaysherman5000
2013-08-08 08:16:16
@benzo, Any idea how or who came up with the road ratings on the sustainability maps?
ericf
2013-08-08 09:25:48
@JaySherman5000 I don't understand why you keep referring to this as trolling, I think we are suffering from the shortcomings of internet communication. Back a few posts,
ericf wrote:I understand banning bikes from the road really isn’t correct or necessary so I will drop it.
I am not trying to convince cyclists to give up the road. I never claimed to have any understanding of infrastructure or traffic control, not even anywhere near my field. If you would like to bomb down Washington Boulevard in an attempt to educate drivers, I wish you luck. I think at best you will succeed in pissing off whatever drivers are in proximity to you at the time.
ericf
2013-08-08 09:54:41
ericf wrote:Has anything been done on it since the Murphy administration (2005)?
Since then, they've built the Nine Mile Run Trail proposed in item 1 and the Penn Avenue bike path in item 4. I think they've also signed Reynolds for bikes as in item 3 since then. The proposed shared sidewalk on East Liberty Blvd in item 4 were built as bike lanes instead. I think there's some kind of (mountain bike?) trail in Highland Park now (near the bottom of One Wild Place?) that might match up to item 7, but I don't know much about it. And the plan for that still-upcoming Butler Street Bridge replacement project mentioned in item 8 did include some trails, I think, the last time the PG reported on it. So basically, they've done 1-4. I'm not aware of anything else yet for items 5-9 in the list.
ericf wrote:Either one of these solutions would make a huge improvement to cycling safety in the East End, how do we make it happen?
Friends of the Riverfront says they're working on it. Maybe ask them how you can best help. Volunteer, donate, pester officials, etc.
steven
2013-08-08 09:56:16
@ericf, I don't think you'll be able to get cyclists here to agree to give up the road by arguing with them. However, if someday there is good cycling infrastructure, and a lot of riders using it, I think people here will go along with leaving some roads to cars. There will be grumbling, and some folks will probably never give in (and end up getting ticketed) but most will go along. A culture shift like that is happening in NYC right now. But we're a long ways away from that point here in Pgh. We're just barely (but much faster, lately, thanks to Pgh, BikePgh and other organizations) getting to the point where you can ride on lanes (not even protected lanes, just paint) from one part of the city to another. So, naturally, people don't want to give up their right to the road.
jonawebb
2013-08-08 10:12:36
jonawebb wrote:However, if someday there is good cycling infrastructure, and a lot of riders using it, I think people here will go along with leaving some roads to cars.
Any reason why? I understand freeways with limited access. I don't understand why in a city we need to have a separate infrastructure for cars. City is designed for people. Pedestrians, runners-joggers, bicyclist, buses, light rails vehicles, cars all equal partners. Moreover, pedestrians and joggers should have highest priority then bicyclist then cars in terms that could exist slightly separated but as soon as pedestrian needs to cross (probably not everywhere but at designated crossings) car or bicycle path the last two should yield or stop. The same rule for cars-bicycles.
mikhail
2013-08-08 10:48:26
@Mikhail, safety, mainly. Bicycles are different enough from cars so it makes sense to have separate infrastructure for each, in high traffic areas. Just like there is separate infrastructure for transit and pedestrians.
jonawebb
2013-08-08 11:08:51
I'm definitely on-board with infrastructure reserved for specific forms of transit, where it makes sense; but I prefer an additive approach over a zero-sum "gain a lane, lose a road" one. Much like building a new highway (in theory!) provides an opportunity for motorized traffic to travel more efficiently, building separate bike paths meets the same need. However, building a new highway rarely includes a provision that you're no longer allowed to use existing infrastructure; it's an additional option, not a mandated replacement. I'd also argue that well-designed infrastructure sells itself; if you need to force people to use it, the design is likely fundamentally flawed, or at least not actually focused on the needs of the intended users.
reddan
2013-08-08 11:32:47
@reddan I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're suggesting. You know that infrastructure for, say, transit is dedicated, right? We don't let motorists use the East Busway. And they aren't supposed to drive in bike lanes. So maybe what you're discussing is the difference between "new" and "existing" infrastructure. "Existing" infrastructure is what everyone is allowed to use, "new" infrastructure is OK to restrict. But what about when the city re-signed lanes downtown to make bus lanes? Was that new or existing? And when they repave a street they can draw lanes wherever they want, so is it all new? The point is, there's only so much space to go around for transit of all types, and in heavy traffic areas it works better if road users that are very different have their own dedicated infrastructure, instead of having to share and getting in each other's way.
jonawebb
2013-08-08 11:58:25
Again, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we give up the road. It was just a bad idea that I have given up on. I added that as a suggestion, because in the end of it all, there is a negotiation going on to get this stuff done.(behind closed doors of course) Looking at the links provided by@Benzo and @steven, there are some great plans out there, but they are not high enough priority for those that make the decisions. I am surprised that there is not one "master plan", the fragmentation is another hindrance to getting things done.
ericf
2013-08-08 12:09:50
I agree with Reddan. When the Jail Trail opened, they didn't prohibit bikes on Second Avenue. The Jail Trail got most of the bike traffic in that corridor on its own merits. That's how it should work. @Ericf: Yes, it's not encouraging that the city has prioritized work like improving Negley Run for bikes into the "15-20 years from now" category (according to MovePGH). Sure, there's only so much they can do each year, but still.
steven
2013-08-08 12:46:27
@ericf Any idea how or who came up with the road ratings on the sustainability maps? That would be a question @swalfoort can answer. She's on here fairly often. Sara?
stuinmccandless
2013-08-08 12:52:37
@Steven and @ericf, I was actually pleasantly surprised to see how much of MovePGH had bike infrastructure in the high priority 1-5 year category.
willb
2013-08-08 12:59:54
The point is, there’s only so much space to go around for transit of all types, and in heavy traffic areas it works better if road users that are very different have their own dedicated infrastructure, instead of having to share and getting in each other’s way.
In a limited-space environment (e.g. 5th Ave downtown), you have less room for dedicated infrastructure, so a focus on sharing is more important. In an area with more space (e.g. northern side of the Mon near town), you can support dedicated infrastructure like highways(376) and MUPS(Jail Trail), in addition to shared infrastructure like Second Ave. So, what I'm saying is, put in the dedicated stuff where there's room(and value, and budget), but never forget that the vast majority of travel for all modes of transport in the city (other than rail, obviously) will of necessity be in a shared environment.
reddan
2013-08-08 13:03:53
@Steven, yeah, but we didn't let cars drive on the Jail Trail, which was OK because it was "new". So now that West Carson, say, is shut down, when it is opened up again two years from now is it "new" or "existing"? Most folks expect it to go back to auto use. But if we think of it as "new" we could dedicate it to public transit or bikes, right? Or would it be OK to have a dedicated and protected cycletrack and a dedicated auto lane? The distinction between new and existing infrastructure is arbitrary and misleading, especially in a city as old as Pittsburgh. Every road downtown was at one point existing infrastructure for a different use. What we really have to do is decide how we should use the space we have available for transit. "Existing" uses shouldn't have priority.
jonawebb
2013-08-08 13:09:26
If I ruled the world, West Carson would be very high on my list as a good place for a protected parallel cycletrack or MUP. Few intersections mean few opportunities for turning traffic to interfere with through traffic and vice-versa; most cyclists who are willing to ride in that corridor now would be delighted to have their own roadway, and a lot of cyclists who wouldn't ride on it now would be able to safely hop on and go. Perfect for a bike highway, and exactly what I mean by infrastructure that sells itself.
reddan
2013-08-08 13:26:15
ericf wrote:I expected but don’t understand the negative response. Maybe this isn’t creative thinking, just common sense thinking. If you offer me a protected multi-use path in exchange for a dangerous street, I will take it every time.
During my trip to Boulder a while back, there were countless "multi-use paths" all over the place. The infrastructure is amazing out there and it is a cycling mecca, so I do feel your suggestion should be looked at closely. A goal would be to get more people cycling and if more people feel they can travel safely on a bike, then more would leave cars at home. Once people start cycling and feeling comfortable, I suspect they would prefer to ride a bike. As it is right now, Pittsburgh is a very tough place to cycle, BUT it is certainly better than years ago. One Wild Place could be an example to use. The sidewalk in the bottom section is in horrible condition, but very wide, so it would be pretty easy to use that as a multi use path. Not to mention it isn't used by pedestrians all that much. I ride on that road almost every day and I do indeed use the sidewalk on the upper half when I get to that parking lot on the right riding up the hill. That is where the road gets narrow. I have been riding it for over a year and encountered about two people that entire time on that sidewalk, so I feel I am just enjoying a little safer section by taking the sidewalk. When I do encounter people on a sidewalk I give them the right away in full and if that means I have to stop, I would. I think the idea of multi-use paths is something to be considered, but I don't know of many places around that it would work. On the other hand, I haven't been looking that closely.
gg
2013-08-09 07:27:15
Some of the pushback against any cycling infrastructure is how much it costs. We've already seen this at the federal and state levels in that bike/ped projects are among the first to be lopped off when budgets are being finalized. Never mind that one big road project costs more than all the imagined bike projects, not just those that are shovel ready. What I would like to see, now that a lot of this infrastructure is getting put in place, is some real data of what these projects costs. It would further help if it included some cost analysis, i.e., what were alternatives going to cost? Thus armed, we can go to the decision makers and say "They did this here and here, and it cost X and Y. We're asking for the same at similar cost, and the alternative is to spend whatever-much-more."
stuinmccandless
2013-08-09 07:58:53
@StuInMcCandless You hit the nail on the head and, in the same swift move, pushed me right back onto that third rail. Currently in PA, ATV's are required to have plates and proof of liability insurance if ridden on land not owned by the operator. If we do the same for bicycles, could that money be used to fund these projects?
ericf
2013-08-09 08:13:19
Currently in PA, ATV’s are required to have plates and proof of liability insurance if ridden on land not owned by the operator. If we do the same for bicycles, could that money be used to fund these projects?
Multiply number of bicycles that will be registered by the plate and registration fees. Let's say, in Allegheny County, 10,000 bicycles at $25/year (pulling numbers out of my butt). Gross revenue is $250,000...subtract administration costs (at least a couple full-time positions) and enforcement costs, and you won't have enough left to do more than install a few toaster racks. If you're lucky. Also, bear in mind that "proof of liability insurance" does not produce revenue for the state, so I'm not sure why you feel that it would help raise money to fund projects.
reddan
2013-08-09 08:25:03
Yeah, registration fees for cars don't pay for roads, either. Most of the money comes from general revenue, with about a third from the gas tax. Maybe we can get cyclists to pay a tax on Gatorade (jk). Anyway, with any road project, cycling infrastructure is a relatively small component, if it is figured in from the start. But if there's no state law requiring it, it won't be figured in, and we won't get it. So what we really need is a law requiring cycling infrastructure on any new roads or major road improvements. It is a terrible shame that the Boulevard of the Allies reconstruction didn't include a cyclepath, and that the Carson Street work now starting won't.
jonawebb
2013-08-09 08:46:18
In a-different-idea theme... I would still like to have one of these (plus a helmet cam)
marko82
2013-08-09 09:01:15
^Ha!
edmonds59
2013-08-09 09:22:55
jonawebb wrote:So what we really need is a law requiring cycling infrastructure on any new roads or major road improvements.
Nice thought... but also a formula for wasteful spending and cycling infrastructure where it isn't needed. Maybe if you amend it with a provision that considers population density in the formula.
headloss
2013-08-09 12:02:55
@Ed, I can't think of a road that doesn't need bike accessibility. How cool would it be if the Mon-Fay had it? Ever tried to ride to California University?
jonawebb
2013-08-09 12:05:37
In my opinion, EVERY road needs bike accessibility... but I think it opens up too much room for non-cyclist criticism.
headloss
2013-08-09 12:27:51
That's not really the point I was trying to make. Money for road work will be found one way or another. Heck, they may well find the five billion to build the Mon-Fayette monstrosity. All I want to know is, what do existing projects cost in places where they've put them -- not necessarily Pittsburgh, but comparable -- and what good have those projects done? There was a story a few weeks ago about a trail in Portland? Seattle? that was installed in the early 1970s, but which is now carrying more people than a parallel major highway. We need to do the same thing here. Case in point: The Fifth-Forbes corridor between downtown and Oakland will be getting a re-do in the next few years. WHEN they do that, it will have some sort of bike infrastructure, as well as some sort of transit infrastructure, hopefully to support Bus Rapid Transit. That will cost some money. The big money will go toward rebuilding the road in some fashion, so divert some of that money that's being spent anyway to making cycling easier. The difference between not having anything, having something at all but half-assed, and having very nice infrastructure, is puny, in comparison with building the project at all.
stuinmccandless
2013-08-09 16:24:49
Stu for mayor please! Yeah, I know you live outside the city limits, but I think exceptions need to be made.
gg
2013-08-11 19:35:26