FLCC> Bike lane for uphill state st?

[Paul Monkman]

Ok, I'll be sucker and respond to this for the last time even though  
I know this is a debate with religious like devotion on both sides.   
I, by the way, do not whole heartedly support, or use, bike lanes or  
paths in every case.  They aren't the best solution to every traffic  
situation.   But they aren't evil incarnate for every case either. I  
think State Street is one of those cases where adding some paint and  
restricting a very modest amount of parking would be helpful both to  
the cyclists and drivers.

Now to respond to Bill's points:

Paint:  The paint can help because it defines the space for the  
cars.  Just like on the open highway, most people do actually stay  
between the lines.   (Might be all those years of coloring in  
elementary school ...)

Shared lanes:  That can definitely work in many cases, but not all  
cases.  For almost all downtown riding, I agree that it's the way to  
go.  Take your space and follow the rules of the road.  But on open  
highways with high speed traffic, or crawling up a steep hill like  
State St., you're really asking for it to stick yourself in front of  
cars going so much faster.  Plus it's just rude if there is a way to  
safely travel without causing an obstruction.

Left turn:  As far as I  know nobody's saying a bike can't move into  
the car lane in order to make a left hand turn as far as I know.  All  
you've got to do is wait for a break in the traffic.  That's not a  
big deal 99% of the time here in little Ithaca.

Effect of separating cycling facilities:  Perception is important.   
Many beginning riders, and some not so beginning riders, are  
intimidated by traffic and having seperate facilities can be helpful  
in some situations.  Not all.   My wife and I were lucky to live in  
Boulder, CO for 10 years, using our bikes exclusively for our  
transportation, and believe me, the network of interconnected bike  
paths and lanes were very heavily used, and were very useful.  That's  
not to say they couldn't be improved or that they were the best  
solution in every case, but I do think they are one important reason  
Boulder has a reputation as a cyclists haven.  From what I hear,  
other successful cycling cities in the US also provide some separate  
facilities.  Then there is the example set by Holland ...  Obviously,  
any facilities have to be thoughtfully designed or they can be a real  
hazard.

Fatter tires:   Fatter tires actually have lower rolling resistance  
than the equivalently constructed thin tire pumped to the same  
pressure.  Any reduction in rolling resistance with increasing tire  
pressure drops off pretty darn quickly over about 70 psi.   There are  
plenty of inexpensive tires in the range of 1.5" that can take 80  
psi. Of course the point isn't that 1.5" is some magical number -  
just that fatter tires in general tend to be more robust.  They do  
have more air drag of course, but when people are biking around town,  
air drag really isn't a concern, especially for non-racers, i.e., the  
vast majority of the people using bikes in Ithaca.   And most  
practical riders I see in town are using MTBs, so it's pretty safe to  
assume that for the vast majority of users, for whom the lane is  
presumably being designed, avoiding minor obstacles isn't a big deal.

Lane Width:  I'm going to have to believe you that 5' isn't enough  
for you.  I think most would disagree.  I know I feel down right  
relaxed whenever I have a shoulder in that ballpark.

Useable bike lane:  That's not a new problem.  We are required to  
ride as far to the right as is safe now aren't we?  Motorists still  
may not be able to understand why it may not be safe to ride further  
to the right than we are.

That's all I've got to say.  Here's to safe and happy riding no  
matter what part of the lane you occupy ...


Paul








On Sep 15, 2007, at 9:59 AM, William Lodico wrote:

> Well, Paul, you confirm I'm not preaching to the choir.  If there  
> are cyclists on this listserve who support bike lanes, I've got  
> work to do.
>
> Let me start with this question:  how does a bit of paint protect a  
> cyclist from drivers who don't fit into the "non-aggressive,  
> attentive, reasonable, patient, competent" mold?
>
> I've found that a bike lane makes it harder for me as a cyclist to  
> deal with drivers of whatever ilk or tendency.  It can also make it  
> harder for me as a motorist to deal with cyclists.
>
> My opposition to bike lanes does not rest on the premise that there  
> are no problems without them.
>
> My opposition to bike lanes rests on the well supported and so far  
> unrebutted argument that the solutions they pretend to provide (and  
> some of the problems they pretend to solve) are illusory, and that  
> almost always they aggravate problems (or create them) rather than  
> solve them.
>
> There are solutions to real problems with the bike/motor interface  
> that actually have a chance of working, including "shared lanes"  
> and signage that reminds both motorists and cyclists how to conduct  
> themselves.  Bike lanes draw resources and attention away from  
> those solutions; and they delude bike-ped committees and traffic  
> planners into believing they're taking concrete steps to improving  
> things for bicyclists, when they're really making things worse.    
> More cynically stated:  Bike lanes let authorities take credit  
> where credit is not due, for the price of a few gallons of paint.
>
> The idea of isolating bike traffic from motor traffic is  
> attractive, but a bike lane only pretends to do that.  It really  
> can't achieve that goal.  It's a futile, counterproductive goal  
> anyway, and when we go after it, we're grasping at straws.
>
> My opposition to bike lanes is also based on my experience as a  
> motorists.  Cyclists in bike lanes are encouraged to believe and  
> act as if their occupation of a bike lane protects them from my  
> car.   They don't have to worry about whether I want to turn right  
> or left or enter from a cross street or driveway.  They don't have  
> to worry about whether I can see them. They don't have to let me  
> know what they're doing.  Because they're in a bike lane!
>
> The left turn maneuver you suggest is a whole lot easier for me on  
> my bike if I can use the whole roadway and move over and claim my  
> space when an opening permits rather than being confined to the  
> bike lane until I get to (or near) the intersection.
>
> Your suggestion of using fatter tires makes sense for short  
> commutes in town, bike lane or no, and I sometimes use them for  
> that purpose.  But I and a lot others have no interest in trading  
> our efficient, high pressure 23mm tires for softer 35's or 45's  
> (assuming our bikes can accommodate them) just so we can ride  
> through the hazards in a five foot bike lane somewhere along a  
> training ride or a tour, which is what we do most of the time on  
> our bikes.  Long commutes are not exactly a fat tire opportunity,  
> either.
>
> As for 3 feet of clearance between cyclist and traffic lane, do the  
> math.   Put me in a 5 foot bike lane.   My moderately wide-body  
> construction occupies 2 feet elbow to elbow.  (I've measured it.)  
> To maintain 3 feet of space between me and the right edge of the  
> motor traffic lane, which is where motorists are expecting to be  
> able to drive, I've got to ride with my tire a within one foot of  
> the curb.  Grate city, and I'm brushing telephone poles with my  
> right elbow.  It's hard for me to see traffic (including  
> pedestrians and other bikes) entering from the right and it won't  
> see me, since I'm hiding by the curb.   If the bike lane goes by  
> parked cars, I'm confined to the opening-door zone, which can have  
> painful, even fatal consequences.
>
> The NY Vehicle and Traffic Law requires me to ride in a "usable"  
> bicycle lane.  There may be some out there, but I've yet to see a  
> truly usable bike lane.  I've got lots of pictures of the three  
> bike lanes in Chemung County clearly demonstrating that they aren't  
> usable:  broken pavement, garbage and broken glass, weeds and  
> shrubs, broken tree branches and rocks, tire-eating drainage  
> grates, cyclists riding the wrong way (posing a clear hazard to  
> cyclists riding the right way), barriers, etc etc.  I'm sure I'd  
> have little trouble convincing police officers that I don't have to  
> ride in them, and less trouble convincing judges.   Nevertheless,  
> many otherwise reasonable motorists are going to expect me to stay  
> in these boggle-headed abominations, just because they're there --  
> and it's the motorists, not the police officers or judges, that  
> worry me.
>
> I'm not alone in this, thank God.  Do a google on bicycle lanes and  
> you'll turn up all sorts of commentary critical of them, with some  
> pretty good illustrations and arguments -- even an occasional  
> report on how a bike lane was a major factor in a fatal accident.
>
> Bill Lodico
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Paul Monkman wrote:
>
> I'd like to chime in on this one, not because I'm interested in a  
> protracted email discussion but because I think it's a important  
> topic.  Bill, your arguments against this bike lane are all good  
> and well, but they assume non-aggressive, attentive, reasonable,  
> patient, competent drivers who believe there is such a thing as  
> cyclists "rights".  I'd agree that a large fraction of the drivers  
> probably more or less fit that description most of the time.  It's  
> the small remainder that'll get you.  Those are the guys/gals that  
> I prefer to be as far from as possible.
>
> Regarding wobble room, I think most of us can stay well within a  
> five foot lane.  Heck, if MTB riders can routinely negotiate 6"  
> singletracks strewn with rocks, roots etc. I'm betting that most  
> riders can easily keep 3' or so between themselves and a passing  
> car in a five foot lane.  Even clutsy types like myself!
>
> Fatter tires can reduce the need to dodge every little stone, bit  
> of glass, etc.  I know others may disagree and that's fine, but  
> over the years I've found myself migrating to about an 1.5" high  
> pressure tire mounted on sturdy wheels for practical riding.   
> Hardly ever get flats, last forever, cheap, plenty fast, haven't  
> trued a wheel in years, plus you can ride dirt roads and moderate  
> trails on a whim.
>
> Left hand turns:  Check for traffic behind you, wait for a break,  
> stick out your left arm, move into the car lane and take your  
> turn.  Piece of cake.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:27 PM, William Lodico wrote:
>
>> Is a bike lane on the State Street Hill such great news?
>>
>> A five foot wide bike lane isn't very wide, especially for riders
>> struggling to go uphill.
>>
>> I occupy about two feet, elbow to elbow, on my bike.   If there's a
>> bike lane I'm expected to stay in the bike lane.  I should be aiming
>> at keeping my  tire on a line about 3 feet from the right curb, to
>> give myself wobble room and a chance to avoid hazards by going to the
>> right without hitting the curb, since if I go the left, I'll be
>> suddenly in motor traffic that is expecting me to stay in the bike
>> lane.  Even without the inevitable going-slow-uphill-side-to-side-
>> wandering this gives me only about one foot between my right elbow
>> and a vertical drawn from the bike lane stripe (as long as nothing
>> forces me farther left).   Everything to the left of the bike lane is
>> for cars only.
>>
>> I haven't ridden up State Street in a long time, but the last time
>> was about midway through a 400k, and I was going about 5 mph, if
>> that.  Without bike the lane, I was able to claim my space, make sure
>> traffic accommodated my interest in having it pass me slowly giving
>> me wide berth.  With the bike lane, traffic will feel free to pass me
>> at 35 mph (a 30 mph differential), without worrying about how close
>> they are, as long as they are not in the bike lane.  Many motorists
>> will probably consider themselves to the left of the bike lane if
>> their right tires are to the left of it, which will put fenders, door
>> handles within inches of my left elbow, and mirrors possibly into my
>> left shoulder.   I can have my tire to the right of the bike lane
>> stripe and not be clear of traffic to the left of it.
>>
>> Is the City of Ithaca committed to daily sweepings of the bike lane?
>> Is it committed to removing all potential hazards, including manhole
>> covers?  Is it committed to maintaining the bike lane above standards
>> for the rest of the road, so there are NO pot holes, cracks, broken
>> glass, stones, loose bits of pavement and other debris, that will
>> force cyclists out of the bike lane when traffic is expecting them to
>> stay in it?  I'll bet the answer is no, no, and no again.
>>
>> And is there going to be appropriate and effective signage telling
>> motorists they have to give room to cyclists making left turns,
>> avoiding hazards in the bike lane, etc?  Throw in another no.
>> Remember, they've been forced to give up five feet of otherwise
>> available roadway.
>>
>> The real effect of bike lanes (and maybe their real purpose) is not
>> to help cyclists.  It's to confine them to what is often the most
>> dangerous  and hazard ridden part of the road.  It might also be to
>> "promote" cycling by making cyclists feel safer because there's a
>> quarter of a millimeter of paint on the road that's supposed to keep
>> cars from hitting them.  Actually, bike lanes make it harder for
>> motorists to accommodate bicyclists and vice versa, since both have
>> lost accessibility to sizable chunks of roadway.
>>
>> It's just way better to try to get motorists to learn to accommodate
>> cyclists, to give them room, to see them as equally entitled users of
>> the roadway -- and to get cyclists to learn how to ride in traffic --
>> than to start cutting up the roadway into little pieces that
>> ultimately everyone is going to fight over anyway.
>>
>> I'm doing my best to kill bike lanes in Chemung/Schuyler/Steuben.
>> It's up to you-all to kill the bike lanes in Tompkins.
>>
>> Bill Lodico
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Wayne Gottlieb wrote:
>>
>> This is great news!  Thanks for sharing.  Now there's
>> no excuse not to bike up that hill.  I'm sure after
>> they put the new lane in people will be abandoning
>> their car in droves. But, seriously, I've often chosen
>> to go up Buffalo or Court instead because it's so hard
>> to turn left onto 366 .  I wonder how they're going to
>> solve that problem.  Wayne
>> --- Amanda and Mark Shenstone <gardens at lightlink.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This just in from Ithaca Journal:
>>>
>>>
>>> Part of the State Street hill may become more
>>> bike-friendly
>>>
>>>       The Ithaca city Board of Public Works is
>>> considering making bicycle-friendly improvements
>>> to the part of State Street from the vicinity of
>>> the Commons to Mitchell Street. Among improvements
>>> being considered is an uphill bike lane.
>>>
>>>       The city Board of Public Works is
>>> considering a plan that includes five-foot-wide
>>> uphill bicycle lane for the street, also known as
>>> state Route 79, from the Tuning Fork area, where
>>> State Street, Green Street and Seneca Way come
>>> together, to Mitchell Street, which at that point
>>> is also Route 366.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       This segment of State Street has been
>>> identified as a good place for improvement because
>>> it has a lot of traffic, is a link to key
>>> destinations, and has a relatively gentle slope.
>>>
>>>       According to the city engineering office,
>>> the proposal before the Board of Public Works
>>> includes:
>>>
>>>       A 5-foot wide uphill (eastbound) bicycle
>>> lane to allow bicyclists to ride at their own pace
>>> without obstructing motor vehicle traffic or
>>> feeling like they are obstructing motor vehicle
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>>       . Relocation of centerline striping to
>>> create a wide downhill (westbound) travel lane
>>> that allows motorists and bicyclists to have
>>> adequate shared maneuvering space.
>>>
>>>       . Consolidation of parking on the south side
>>> of the street and revision of on-street parking
>>> regulations.
>>>
>>>       . Installation of bicycle-related signage
>>> and crosswalks.
>>>
>>>       The Board of Public Works is taking public
>>> comment through the end of September and may vote
>>> on the project on Oct. 10. Comments and feedback
>>> can be directed to Tim Logue as above or at
>>> timlo at cityofithaca.org.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> Amanda and Mark Shenstone
>>> Graceful Gardens
>>> PO Box 100
>>> Mecklenburg, NY 14886
>>> 607.387.5529
>>> http://www.gracefulgardens.com
>

Paul Monkman
pmonkman at twcny.rr.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://icycle.org/pipermail/flcc_icycle.org/attachments/20070915/d0ba83cd/attachment-0001.html