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.
I've commuted on Virginia crossing 3rd St for five years now. I rarely if ever see enough vehicular traffic to justify four vehicular travel lanes. Further, to say you don't see many bikes on 3rd Street is a bit unfair as it's not conducive to bikes right now (unless you're into cars wooshing inches past you at 45mph+). It's like saying you don't see many cars crossing a river where no bridge exist. Without the right infrastructure, you won't see a lot of a given means of transportation. As a resident of the immediate area, I think there are ample north/south options for cars (19th Ave, 7th Ave, Central, 7th St, 16th St, and two freeways). Accommodating a growing means of transportation which does not emit toxic pollution or greenhouse gases in my backyard is the right thing to do. It's about time.
If there isn't much vehicular traffic on 3rd street, then "sharing" the road shouldn't be a problem - no need for bike lanes. I really resent when city governments get hijacked by special interests.
If there isn't much vehicular traffic on 3rd street, then "sharing" the road shouldn't be a problem - no need for bike lanes. I really resent when city governments get hijacked by special interests.
Please explain how a form of transportation is a special interest. With that logic, then cars are also a special interest. I have as much right to a bike lane as you do to a car lane. Your ignorant comment makes it obvious that you've never ridden a bike on 3rd Street. (which is terrifying). If you had, you'd be advocating for bike lanes as well. Low volume traffic means that the street can easily accommodate people on bikes and people in cars. It doesn't mean that people on bikes should have to ride in dangerous 45 mile an hour traffic. I have a right to get from point A to point B in a safe manner. I really resent when people in cars tell me that I should risk my life and that I'm a special interest just because I have chosen a different form of transportation than they have.
Just to take a step back on this, it seems the thread of conversation is now essentially:
* We have a shared public space, which people want navigate with multiple modes of transport.
* We want our government to take steps to ensure people can use the space safely.
However it seems that when it comes to safety measures taken for the benefit of non-motorized modes, we've had a few objections about lane use, e.g:
* "I can only imagine how much longer it will take once you take out the second lane", and:
* "no need for bike lanes"
Well I'd like to raise some similar issues, but from the other perspective:
Why don't we remove all the traffic lights, stop signs, and lane markings?
Cyclists and pedestrians are perfectly capable of navigating safely without either, and they're incredibly inconvenient (not to mention expensive).
FWIW I'm sure downtown Phoenix has a long way to go before we could really consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space, and personally I'm not entirely sold on them either (I'd rather just ban all motorized vehicles in some spaces, as we ban all non-motorized vehicles on freeways).
I mentioned the shared space concept more to make the point:
I'm not sure that the "special interest group inconveniencing me" argument can ever stand up.
3rd St is a public space, where people not in motorized vehicles are legally allowed to be.
But, there's always going to be idiots who screw it up for the rest of us by endangering themselves and others, and so we have to inconvenience the many for the sake of the few.
Right now looking at the data it seems like there's a lot more 'endangering' going on towards to those people not in motorized vehicles, so (unless people are going to magically become less accident-prone) we'll have to keep changing things up.
Those bike lanes have been a life saver for me, I've ridden my bike down McClintock plenty of times and I can assure you that your count of bike traffic is drastically flawed. Also, encouraging future growth of commuting by bicycle is never going to happen without making these types of improvements. So take Price Road then, I can confirm no cyclist wants to travel that road with absolutely zero space to fit in.
I'm glad to hear it's used more than I've seen, I may not be on that road at the times the most bikes are there, but I will tell you I am on it every single day. I think Tempe took an "if you build it they will come" position on this, which does fit in with their 2040 plan, and with your comment. I am curious to see where they will be put in next.
I do try to stay off the north-south arteries during peak traffic times, but others are not so lucky. Rural, which doesn't have the bike lanes, is also a parking lot during those times.
I'm glad to hear it's used more than I've seen, I may not be on that road at the times the most bikes are there, but I will tell you I am on it every single day. I think Tempe took an "if you build it they will come" position on this, which does fit in with their 2040 plan, and with your comment. I am curious to see where they will be put in next.
I do try to stay off the north-south arteries during peak traffic times, but others are not so lucky. Rural, which doesn't have the bike lanes, is also a parking lot during those times.
It is a bit like that, if you build safer areas for bike commuting people do come. It's kind of a chicken and egg scenario, but nobody in their right mind is going to try commuting by bike on many of the valley roads. I've got caught up in areas where bikes are very "unwelcome" with zero shoulder space and drivers that clearly have no interest in yielding at all, despite the fact that is is the law. I'm not trying to be bias, because I get annoyed by traffic as much as anyone else. But there has to be some kind of balance and a way to navigate through the various cities without totally risking your life. For the most part bikers just need a few methods to go north/south and east/west and your rides can be planned accordingly.
I'm not sure if they ever did a bike count on McClintock but in the times I've ridden it I've passed many other riders, who tend to roll through at a more casual pace. When I compare here to a place like San Fran, where I actually sat in a bike traffic jam once, I wonder why we don't have more lanes. Our city for the most part is much friendlier for a bike commute with flatter streets and imo better weather for a good chunk of the year.
A more expensive, but way better option, is improving the paths along the canals and building over or under passes on major streets, or doing the HAWK pedestrian crossing lights like they have through Chandler and Tempe along the consolidated canal path. That works out pretty nice and completely separates vehicles from bikes.
"A bikeway is a symbol that shows that a citizen on a $30 bicycle is equally important as a citizen on a $30,000 car." - Enrique Penalosa
The fact that there's even an argument against safer streets is truly mind boggling. Streets belong to everyone and they should be made safe and easy to navigate for all users, not just those in cars.
I drive a car, ride a bike, walk and take public transit to get around Phoenix. Luckily, because of light rail and improvements in bike infrastructure, I rarely need to drive a car and we now only have one car for our family. This is becoming more common in our city, but it's still not completely safe or easy - which is why you also don't see bikes everywhere...yet. But I see the numbers increasing all the time and we need connected, safe bike lanes so that more people can use them. I'm glad to see that the City of Phoenix is working on this and is catching up with what's happening in cities everywhere.
The people complaining about bike lanes should be the one advocating for them, don't you think? Would you rather drive behind a bike or would you rather have that person in a bike lane? Are you glad that I rarely drive or would you rather take away and prevent bike lanes so that I have to start driving again, adding another car to the streets? What about people who can't afford cars or who can't drive? How do we make it safer and easier for them to get around without one? Apparently, all that matters is being able to make a left hand turn from your comfortable car. Everyone else can find their own way.
I would much rather someone be riding a bike than driving a car, given the level of particulates in our sky during an inversion. We need to do more to make the city bike-friendly (and bike-safe - I have a friend who was struck by a truck while riding a bike twice - first time a fractured pelvis, the second time a fractured collarbone. Another friend, who opened the first Aikido school in Arizona,, was struck and killed while riding his bike.)
One of the most common themes on this city forum is why isn't Phoenix more urbane, and hip, and livable, and just like whatever place the poster came from. Well, one of the ways you do that and attract people to the city core, or any older areas you are trying to make more liveable, is make the city more amenable to bike riders. People nowadays are looking for places where they can live and get around to enjoy themselves and do basic chores without having to get in a car. Bikes can do that. People complain that we are too obese in national standings polls. Bikes will help with that. People complain that we are too insular and no one ever gets out and meets their neighbors, because we are all clustered on our patios or around our swimming pools. Bikes get you out and around, and reduce local crime because it gets people out of the house and moving through the neighborhood, more likely to spot vandalism and home break-ins. It's a more active version have having people sitting on their front porch, keeping an eye on the neighborhood. Bikes are good. Bikes are very good.
Technical question for those involved in this project, though - I've been in cities where the bike lanes are demarcated by low concrete curbs, like the ones you can see around the light rail. Those seem to be much safer for the bicyclists, as it keeps a car from swerving in and cutting into their lane. Any thought been given to doing that?
Technical question for those involved in this project, though - I've been in cities where the bike lanes are demarcated by low concrete curbs, like the ones you can see around the light rail. Those seem to be much safer for the bicyclists, as it keeps a car from swerving in and cutting into their lane. Any thought been given to doing that?
At the meeting I went to, many attendees suggested that the city use curbs, planters, bumps, or posts to separate bike lanes from travel lanes. It will be interesting to see what is in the final plans.
At the meeting I went to, many attendees suggested that the city use curbs, planters, bumps, or posts to separate bike lanes from travel lanes. It will be interesting to see what is in the final plans.
That's exactly what Mesa is doing. Buffered bike lanes.
A more expensive, but way better option, is improving the paths along the canals and building over or under passes on major streets, or doing the HAWK pedestrian crossing lights like they have through Chandler and Tempe along the consolidated canal path. That works out pretty nice and completely separates vehicles from bikes.
Phoenix is currently working on that type of project with the Grand Canal, which passes near Third Street on the north side of Steele Indian School Park. When both projects are done, it will be helpful to have two well-designed bicycling corridors -- one running north-south and one running east-west -- near each other in central Phoenix.
Please explain how a form of transportation is a special interest. With that logic, then cars are also a special interest. I have as much right to a bike lane as you do to a car lane. Your ignorant comment makes it obvious that you've never ridden a bike on 3rd Street. (which is terrifying). If you had, you'd be advocating for bike lanes as well. Low volume traffic means that the street can easily accommodate people on bikes and people in cars. It doesn't mean that people on bikes should have to ride in dangerous 45 mile an hour traffic. I have a right to get from point A to point B in a safe manner. I really resent when people in cars tell me that I should risk my life and that I'm a special interest just because I have chosen a different form of transportation than they have.
No, you don't have a "right" to a bike lane. Biking is a fringe interest in Phoenix, the city isn't bike friendly, and can't ever be bike friendly without major structural changes. Just because a few goobers in Anthem want to "commute" by bike to south mountain doesn't make it a "need" that the rest of the city needs to indulge. You willingly moved to a non-bike friendly city, and evidently chose a home too far from work. There's a fix for that, move closer to work, or drive a car like everyone else does.
This is no different than people insisting on growing grass lawns in the desert, or digging canals so you can commute by gondola, like they do in Venice. Quit trying to make Phoenix something it was never intended to be.
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.
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.
