U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2014, 10:22 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,847 posts, read 30,373,205 times
Reputation: 22356

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This bill is making its way through Congress.

S.2004 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Safe Streets Act of 2014 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The sponsors are not who you'd think it is popular in red and blue states and the AARP is a major proponent.

More info: New Senate bill would make America

What do you think about the complete streets movement?
I smell video cameras *everywhere*. Maybe they should just send someone from the government out to hold the hand of every person who is trying to cross the street. Maybe that would help. ya think?

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2014, 11:02 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson View Post
I smell video cameras *everywhere*. Maybe they should just send someone from the government out to hold the hand of every person who is trying to cross the street. Maybe that would help. ya think?

20yrsinBranson
what on earth does that have to do with the billl?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 01:43 PM
bu2
 
10,038 posts, read 6,448,118 times
Reputation: 4170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This bill is making its way through Congress.

S.2004 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Safe Streets Act of 2014 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The sponsors are not who you'd think it is popular in red and blue states and the AARP is a major proponent.

More info: New Senate bill would make America

What do you think about the complete streets movement?
I think its one of the most dangerous, idiotic ideas of our time.

Has anyone ever seen a cyclist who is crazy enough to drive on a busy street obey all the traffic laws? No, they run stop signs or drive between cars. This simply means more dead cyclists. The slower moving vehicles should be separated, not intertwined. And cyclists who ride other than for leisure are a tiny, tiny fraction of commuters. Take out people at colleges and universities and its hardly anyone.

As our cities get more dense, we need to move traffic through more efficiently. This is designed to impede traffic.

And its up to the cities to build sidewalks. The feds should stay out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
I think its one of the most dangerous, idiotic ideas of our time.

Has anyone ever seen a cyclist who is crazy enough to drive on a busy street obey all the traffic laws? No, they run stop signs or drive between cars. This simply means more dead cyclists. The slower moving vehicles should be separated, not intertwined. And cyclists who ride other than for leisure are a tiny, tiny fraction of commuters. Take out people at colleges and universities and its hardly anyone.

As our cities get more dense, we need to move traffic through more efficiently. This is designed to impede traffic.

And its up to the cities to build sidewalks. The feds should stay out.
You do not understand how it works, complete streets means carving out space on each road for all of the types of traffic that will use it, pedestrians, bicycles, transit and cars.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but slower traffic also improves the safety for everyone on the road. Ro.ad speed and safety are really design conditions
Traffic calming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Designing traffic for more road uses is better. We have some "complete" streets projects planned now, and they include wider sidewalks and physically separated bike lanes. It sounds amazing to me.

I am one of those "unicorns" if you will, who does sometimes bike for transportation. It is pretty popular where I live, and gets more popular as the infrastructure increases. I am not in college, didn't bike in college, I have a car, and I am not a white hipster.

I don't like busy streets, and I have biked on semi-busy streets. Stopping at red lights, stop signs and crosswalks. It isn't so crazy, I figured out that many errands take the same amount of time or less via bike vs car. So I might as well hop on my bike.

Amazing! I got an email about a complete streets plan in my city just now:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/n/OAK046218

Last edited by jade408; 03-25-2014 at 04:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Amazing! I got an email about a complete streets plan in my city just now:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/n/OAK046218
Just finished reading the report on the complete street survey I posted. And oddly, all of the results, not matter which mode to travel to the street was most used, lined up. The street needs better bike and transit "facilities" and that should be given the highest priority for street redevelopment. These answers stayed consistent, even for people who mostly drove to the street. The drivers also said improving the street for motorists was the lowest priority.

This is what I would call wide reaching consensus! (The survey respondents were roughly equal across biking, walking, transit, and driving. All totaling about 23-28% of the respondents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 06:45 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,842,524 times
Reputation: 9769
"Complete streets" means gold-paving every road project so roads don't actually get built.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 09:15 PM
bu2
 
10,038 posts, read 6,448,118 times
Reputation: 4170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
You do not understand how it works, complete streets means carving out space on each road for all of the types of traffic that will use it, pedestrians, bicycles, transit and cars.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but slower traffic also improves the safety for everyone on the road. Ro.ad speed and safety are really design conditions
Traffic calming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Designing traffic for more road uses is better. We have some "complete" streets projects planned now, and they include wider sidewalks and physically separated bike lanes. It sounds amazing to me.

I am one of those "unicorns" if you will, who does sometimes bike for transportation. It is pretty popular where I live, and gets more popular as the infrastructure increases. I am not in college, didn't bike in college, I have a car, and I am not a white hipster.

I don't like busy streets, and I have biked on semi-busy streets. Stopping at red lights, stop signs and crosswalks. It isn't so crazy, I figured out that many errands take the same amount of time or less via bike vs car. So I might as well hop on my bike.

Amazing! I got an email about a complete streets plan in my city just now:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/n/OAK046218
In the Atlanta area, they seem only have plans to put them on busy streets. They've done it on Ponce de Leon near town, the only major east-west arterial in central Atlanta. They narrowed the lanes and striped off an edge for a bike lane. Its clogged traffic and I have yet to see a cyclist. Again, few are crazy enough. They're also talking about Peachtree which is the busiest arterial and one of two or 3 major north-south arterials. Its insane. Bike lanes should not be on major arterials. And they do have a trail through Candler Park and Freedom Park completely separate from auto traffic about a half mile south of and parallel to Ponce de Leon.

One of the Atlanta Regional Commissions goals is to make it more difficult to drive cars (they don't word it quite that way). There is no doubt in my mind that is behind a lot of the people pushing this in the area.

I think bike lanes are great. But they are primarily recreational and should be in safe areas, like the one in Candler/Freedom Park. In Houston they have a lot of trails along the bayous. The Braes Bayou trail is contiguous for at least 15 miles and will go (and may already be complete) all the way from the University of Houston southeast of downtown to near Beltway 8 and Bellaire Blvd some 15 miles west of downtown. Now Houston also has a bike lane on Westpark Drive, which my cycling friends say they would NEVER drive on except on a Sunday. Just too fast and with overpasses, too hard to be seen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 09:26 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Most bicyclists don't want to bike on arterials unless there's no other choice? Why would bike lanes be primarily recreational?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
In the Atlanta area, they seem only have plans to put them on busy streets. They've done it on Ponce de Leon near town, the only major east-west arterial in central Atlanta. They narrowed the lanes and striped off an edge for a bike lane. Its clogged traffic and I have yet to see a cyclist. Again, few are crazy enough. They're also talking about Peachtree which is the busiest arterial and one of two or 3 major north-south arterials. Its insane. Bike lanes should not be on major arterials. And they do have a trail through Candler Park and Freedom Park completely separate from auto traffic about a half mile south of and parallel to Ponce de Leon.

One of the Atlanta Regional Commissions goals is to make it more difficult to drive cars (they don't word it quite that way). There is no doubt in my mind that is behind a lot of the people pushing this in the area.

I think bike lanes are great. But they are primarily recreational and should be in safe areas, like the one in Candler/Freedom Park. In Houston they have a lot of trails along the bayous. The Braes Bayou trail is contiguous for at least 15 miles and will go (and may already be complete) all the way from the University of Houston southeast of downtown to near Beltway 8 and Bellaire Blvd some 15 miles west of downtown. Now Houston also has a bike lane on Westpark Drive, which my cycling friends say they would NEVER drive on except on a Sunday. Just too fast and with overpasses, too hard to be seen.
There are different types of bike riders and different types of lanes. If you want people to trade car trips for bike trips, then bike lanes need to go on direct travel routes. If you put a lane on a major street, you should make it feel safe for all users. Buffered at the bare minimum, but having physical separation is best.

The link I posted is about a street I am too scared to ride one. There are fairly direct parallel routes I would take instead. But many many cyclists do ride the street. The count is about 1000 per day right now. In terrible conditions.

I have ridden on some busier streets during quieter times. I don't have a door to door safe bike route yet. So I am waiting for better infrastructure. Lots of people will sit on the fence till it looks and feels safe.

But if you only build recreation bike lanes, no one will use their bike to go to the drugstore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,335,456 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
In the Atlanta area, they seem only have plans to put them on busy streets. They've done it on Ponce de Leon near town, the only major east-west arterial in central Atlanta. They narrowed the lanes and striped off an edge for a bike lane. Its clogged traffic and I have yet to see a cyclist. Again, few are crazy enough. They're also talking about Peachtree which is the busiest arterial and one of two or 3 major north-south arterials. Its insane. Bike lanes should not be on major arterials. And they do have a trail through Candler Park and Freedom Park completely separate from auto traffic about a half mile south of and parallel to Ponce de Leon.

One of the Atlanta Regional Commissions goals is to make it more difficult to drive cars (they don't word it quite that way). There is no doubt in my mind that is behind a lot of the people pushing this in the area.

I think bike lanes are great. But they are primarily recreational and should be in safe areas, like the one in Candler/Freedom Park. In Houston they have a lot of trails along the bayous. The Braes Bayou trail is contiguous for at least 15 miles and will go (and may already be complete) all the way from the University of Houston southeast of downtown to near Beltway 8 and Bellaire Blvd some 15 miles west of downtown. Now Houston also has a bike lane on Westpark Drive, which my cycling friends say they would NEVER drive on except on a Sunday. Just too fast and with overpasses, too hard to be seen.
You clearly have not biked for transportation, at least not much. While bike lanes shouldn't be located on highways or 55mph roads, major arterials usually have more space and with dedicates lanes are great for commuting via bike. Bike commuters like less stop signs and lights, just like drivers.

Also, I'm curious as to why cycling is recreational only? I can see if you live in a very rural or sprawled environment, because it's not really as feasible to use it for such. However, there are lots of places where people depend on a bike for transportation...I am one in particular.

Another thing to consider, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of a commuting cyclist, is that rolling through stop signs isn't a bad thing...assuming that the cyclist is waiting their turn. I ride on a lot of streets where there is no bike lane. They are slow moving city streets and I can mostly keep up with traffic. However, stopping at every stop sign where it's vacant (no waiting cars at any of the other three stop signs) puts you in more danger and slows car traffic down. Here's the concept (Idaho Stop Law), which has been proven to be very successful:

Idaho-style STOP law - SF Bicycle Coalition

Now, I'm completely with you in terms of cyclists running up the right or in between traffic where they don't have their own lanes. Nothing is more frustrating than having to pass a cyclist only to have them drift by you between your car and a parked car...and then having to pass them again. Yes, there are other frustrating scenarios that inexperienced and lazy cyclists perform.

All in all, I see complete streets as a way to get drivers more used to non-vehicular traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists exist either way, and complete streets only lower risk. It also doesn't mean that every single road should be a complete street. Ideally it would be, but financially and feasibly; not so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top