Police hand out tickets to Great Allegheny Passage bicyclists at Waterfront

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by gortonator

Yep - lets not get 'holier than thou' on this issue. Since this thread started I've been counting how many motorists actually come to a complete stop at stop signs in the back streets of Shadyside/SH where I ride a lot. There's many (IMHO too many) 4-ways on quiet roads, and about 50% of cars do what in WA we called a 'California stop', ie roll up and if its obviously clear, keep rolling. They don't stop.

My sample is still too small and not statistically significant, I'm sure. But its certainly indicative.

Originally Posted by tclifton

I would be happy to pay more taxes in order to create bike-only lanes that allow cars and bikes to share space. But there should be the same level of enforcement of road rules applied to bikes as there are to cars, as well as registration, inspection, etc. to help defray the costs of the bike-only lanes.

Also, the argument of "well I saw some cars break the law, so that invalidates any argument asking for enforcement of bicycle law breakers" is ridiculous. Ticket the cars AND ticket the bikes!

Pittsburghers overall are pretty smart cookies. We overwhelmingly voted in favor of a self-imposed tax increase a couple of years ago, during a recession, to save our libraries when they fell upon economic difficulties because we saw value in them. I know speaking from the perspective of someone who moved here only a few years ago I was able to secure employment prior to having my PC hooked up to the Internet at home ONLY because of being able to use the Hill District library's computer to apply for jobs and fire off resumes. If part of my rent increase was due to my landlady passing off that library tax onto her renters, then I'm perfectly fine with that.

In similar fashion for as much as I love our city I'm not going to hold back---our transit infrastructure is downright horrible. I'm pleased to see new bike lanes being added here in Polish Hill, on South Bouquet Street in Oakland, and in other areas recently, but we need many more. With that being said we also can't just put already congested four-lane roadways such as Penn Avenue, Bigelow Boulevard, or Fifth Avenue onto a "road diet" of only one lane for vehicles in each direction to permit bike lanes without creating NYC-styled epic rush-hour gridlock. I know conventional wisdom indicates "if traffic gets bad enough everyone will just use the bike lanes", but not all of us are able to give up our cars. As much as I'd love to live sans car I'd be unemployed if I did.

Originally Posted by Hopes

Before we spend money on bike lanes, we need to get sidewalks along busy roads.

Agreed. I remember the sheer terror I experienced as I tried walking along outbound Bigelow Boulevard between Downtown and Polish Hill when I first moved here as a "shortcut" after walking Downtown via the Strip District. I told myself "surely there must be a sidewalk up ahead" and kept walking. Nope. No sidewalk. No shoulder. Just people whizzing by at 55 miles per hour honking at me. I was nearly in tears. When I walked to work in Oakland I'd often take Bigelow Boulevard. When you reach the Bloomfield Bridge you can only cross that congested intersection via a crumbling pedestrian bridge, meaning if you're physically-disabled you're out of luck. I also worry about CMU students who I see walking along very narrow South Neville Street into and out of Panther Hollow. Vehicles FLY up and down that roadway, which is very narrow and has many hills and curves. There's no shoulder, let alone a sidewalk. I guess the city is just waiting to be billed for a lawsuit when someone is seriously injured or killed due to neglecting its infrastructure.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by gortonator

I'm good with that, whether I'm driving or biking. Pays your money, takes your chances ... no ridiculous argument at all.

I trust you never fail to completely stop at a stop sign, of course. Even when you can clearly see no other vehicle within 100's of feet.

That's not the point. Yes, I have been known to slow down and just barely stop when I'm coming to a four-way stop sign at quieter intersections, such as Aylesboro & Wightman in Squirrel Hill. The difference? If a cop was hiding there, observed me, and pulled me over I'd immediately apologize, plead guilty, and pay my fine for my errant behavior while these cyclist jagoffs in the article were ARGUING with the police because they felt that riding a bike ENTITLED them to break the law.

Why have we evolved into a society that is unable to accept personal responsibility for any of our own actions?

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by gortonator

I'm good with that, whether I'm driving or biking. Pays your money, takes your chances ... no ridiculous argument at all.

I trust you never fail to completely stop at a stop sign, of course. Even when you can clearly see no other vehicle within 100's of feet.

Of course, but I would not be indignant if I were to get a moving violation ticket were a police officer to be there.

[gortonator]

Originally Posted by tclifton

Of course, but I would not be indignant if I were to get a moving violation ticket were a police officer to be there.

agreed - me neither ... and believe me, on my bike, I look in every direction twice!!

[groar]

Originally Posted by gortonator

Interesting link - thx. I've ridden that trail many times. The extracted quote below is illuminating and exactly what virtually every cyclist i know does (except the idiots who don't slow down):

"Poor bicyclist compliance with STOP
signs at path‐roadway intersections is well documented. Bicyclists tend to operate as though there are
YIELD signs at these locations: they slow down as they approach the intersection, look for oncoming
traffic, and proceed with the crossing if it is safe to do so. Yield control (either for vehicular traffic on
the roadway or for users on the pathway) can therefore be an effective solution at some midblock
crossings, as it encourages caution without being overly restrictive"

I never thought I'd type this, but Idaho has laws everyone should adopt

agreed, i'd like to see this kind of law in place everywhere.

until that happens, i have no issue with the existing law being enforced when cyclists break it.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

That's not the point. Yes, I have been known to slow down and just barely stop when I'm coming to a four-way stop sign at quieter intersections, such as Aylesboro & Wightman in Squirrel Hill. The difference? If a cop was hiding there, observed me, and pulled me over I'd immediately apologize, plead guilty, and pay my fine for my errant behavior while these cyclist jagoffs in the article were ARGUING with the police because they felt that riding a bike ENTITLED them to break the law.

Why have we evolved into a society that is unable to accept personal responsibility for any of our own actions?

The police aren't even sure that the small "stop signs" placed along that section of the trail are legal stop signs. So you are damn right people are going to try to argue their way out of a ticket that was given to them along that stretch. And they should, because the whole thing is a design f-up of the nth degree, a complete traffic engineering disaster. Why they didn't decide to simply route the trail behind the Costco to avoid this mess to begin with is the question people should really be asking, not these laughable $10 fines for blowing through toy stop signs.

[pwiegman]

Originally Posted by airwave09

Why they didn't decide to simply route the trail behind the Costco to avoid this mess to begin with is the question people should really be asking, not these laughable $10 fines for blowing through toy stop signs.

Before there is a positive or negative judgment concerning the route of the Great Allegheny Passage at Costco, within the Waterfront, or from McKeesport, PA to the former end of the Baldwin trail coming out of Pittsburgh, people need to understand the process that lead to the route.

The trail is the result of the work of the Allegheny Trail Association in conjunction with the Regional Trail Corporation, and the Steel Valley Trail Council. All of these are private, not-for-profit, volunteer organizations. They have no power of eminent domain. Nor would they turn to government to provide such power, an act that would jeopardize bike trail building in the region and across the state. In addition, they rely on funds raised through private donations, and grants from governmental programs and agencies so that funds are limited to what is considered reasonable.

The Great Allegheny Passage from Cumberland, MD to Boston, PA is built on abandoned railroad rights-of-way. The decision on the location of the trail was easy, follow the old rail road beds.

At Boston selection of the route became much more difficult. The difficulties of getting around existing industry was solved and the trail reached McKeesport, PA. From McKeesport the trail needed a major river crossing and there were no abandoned railroad corridors to follow. In addition the trail would be located on private properties fitting in with existing industries , railroads, roads, businesses, local governments, and residences. Every foot had to be negotiated with each of the myriad of private owners each with there own set of interests, concerns, and considerations for liability.

To piece together a continuous trail through negotiations with such a diverse industrial private landscape the Allegheny Trail Alliance brought in a professional project manager with years of experience planning and building bike trails. With an understanding of the needs of the trail the project manager negotiated with each of the private land owners and lease holders to establish a continuous trail from McKeesport, PA to the existing trail leading out of Pittsburgh.

This took years of work balancing competing issues just to establish a route. It took additional time to again have professional engineers prepare plans for the actual trail and present those plans to the private land owners involved and get their final approval.

In short, the present route is the result of balancing the needs, and in many cases demands, of private landowners with the basic surface and width requirements for a suitable trail. Of course there were routes that would have been better from a trail stand point, but those routes may not have been available because of cost or a land owner's concerns. From the beginning many routes, were considered. Some were abandoned because land owners refused to have the trail coming through their property at all.

There was no simple "they" deciding where the trail would be best routed. There was a series of long, complex, skilled, and patient negotiations with private individuals and large corporations, some based outside the local area, to finally link the Great Allegheny Passage to Pittsburgh.

To overly simplify the process and suggest that these people missed and important route is to depreciate their efforts and the work of the many volunteers and paid professionals who, over 40 years, have made the Great Allegheny Passage possible.

paul g wiegman

[gortonator]

Paul G Wiegman, great post ^^^^^ - I salute your efforts

[BarqCider]

Originally Posted by gortonator

Around 6.30pm? Most likely.

I was the one behaving perfectly

ha, i think i saw a group making a left from negley onto penn ave last night lol. i was making a left onto penn ave

[pwiegman]

Attached is an interesting article on pages 52 - 54 about bicycles and traffic laws.

Law and Order - JUL 2013

I rode the trail last week and it seems that if you're interested in a leisurely ride the shared bike/ped trail is perfect. Slowing to a stop is no problem. If you're intent on a training ride or commuting, the solution is to use the road from around the Pump House to the east gate of Sandcastle.

pgw