Bike lanes on a Pittsburgh bridge

[froggie]

http://www.crystalbae.com/2013/05/31/first-looks-pittsburgh/#more-3469

1st photo shows a multi-lane bridge, presumably over one of the rivers, with 3 lanes in one direction and a striped bike lane along the shoulder.  Any PGH-locals know which bridge this is?

[rickmastfan67]

That's the Birmingham Bridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Bridge
http://goo.gl/maps/OxpwG

[froggie]

Can't get to those sites out here. Can you point out location/route/body of water?

[rickmastfan67]

Can't get to those sites out here. Can you point out location/route/body of water?

It crosses the Monongahela River between the 10th Street Bridge and the Hot Metal Bridge.  Connects Fifth Avenue to East Carson Street (PA-837).

[seicer]

Froggie: https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.432457,-79.972972&spn=0.002902,0.004128&t=k&dg=opt&z=19

Thankfully, the freeway was never completed, but it's now an underutilized bridge. Protected bike lanes or a path with a barrier would be even more ideal.

[rickmastfan67]

Froggie: https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.432457,-79.972972&spn=0.002902,0.004128&t=k&dg=opt&z=19

He can't view Google Maps while on the ocean because of limited bandwidth.  That's why he asked me to describe the location to him.

[wphiii]

Thankfully, the freeway was never completed, but it's now an underutilized bridge. Protected bike lanes or a path with a barrier would be even more ideal.

Agree 100%, especially because people routinely fly over that bridge at 60 mph.

I'm of the opinion that bike lanes should never be striped on a road with a speed over 25 mph unless there's some form of physical protection between the lane and the flow of traffic, but that's another discussion entirely.

[NE2]

I'm of the opinion that bike lanes should never be striped on a road with a speed over 25 mph unless there's some form of physical protection between the lane and the flow of traffic, but that's another discussion entirely.

Unless you separate turning traffic from the bike lane somehow, the separation from the car lanes makes it worse on an ordinary surface road.

[wphiii]

I'm of the opinion that bike lanes should never be striped on a road with a speed over 25 mph unless there's some form of physical protection between the lane and the flow of traffic, but that's another discussion entirely.

Unless you separate turning traffic from the bike lane somehow, the separation from the car lanes makes it worse on an ordinary surface road.

As long as the "protection" for the bike lane isn't a row of parked cars (something I don't agree with), there should be sufficient visibility on a motorist's part when making turns.

Bike signalization is also a popular solution.

Too many people just don't realize how vulnerable they are when there is just a stripe of paint between them and a several-ton metal object traveling in excess of 30mph. One marginal drift of the steering wheel because some driver is looking at a text, and you're done.

[NE2]

As long as the "protection" for the bike lane isn't a row of parked cars (something I don't agree with), there should be sufficient visibility on a motorist's part when making turns.

Visibility isn't the problem. Expectation is. Most turning motorists aren't going to realize the bike they just passed before slowing down to turn is now in their blind spot.

Too many people just don't realize how vulnerable they are when there is just a stripe of paint between them and a several-ton metal object traveling in excess of 30mph. One marginal drift of the steering wheel because some driver is looking at a text, and you're done.

Too many people just don't realize that most bike-car crashes are at intersections.

[agentsteel53]

Expectation is. Most turning motorists aren't going to realize the bike they just passed before slowing down to turn is now in their blind spot.

... where else would you expect it to be? 

[NE2]

Expectation is. Most turning motorists aren't going to realize the bike they just passed before slowing down to turn is now in their blind spot.

... where else would you expect it to be? 

Waiting at the crosswalk like a good docile pedestrian.

[agentsteel53]

has anyone actually seen a bicyclist?

see just one do something stupid like run a stop sign opposite to the flow of one-way traffic, and you'll quickly learn that "docile" is to be discarded immediately as a possibility.

[NE2]

Why would there be a stop sign for wrong-way traffic?

[agentsteel53]

Why would there be a stop sign for wrong-way traffic?

I described it poorly.  divided arterial; the bicyclist is in the left side of things, i.e. opposite the flow of traffic. 

[NE2]

Many cyclists do that because they (erroneously) think it's safer than riding with traffic. Misguided arguments like wphiii's help reinforce the perceived risk.

[agentsteel53]

Many cyclists do that because they (erroneously) think it's safer than riding with traffic. Misguided arguments like wphiii's help reinforce the perceived risk.

at the very least, stop at the implied stop sign (there's one on the right side of the road for you!) instead of barging through.

blowing stop signs and forcing people to suddenly yield to you is the definition of "asshole", regardless of what vehicle you're in.

[Brandon]

has anyone actually seen a bicyclist?

see just one do something stupid like run a stop sign opposite to the flow of one-way traffic, and you'll quickly learn that "docile" is to be discarded immediately as a possibility.

I see you've driven in Chicago. 

I've come across these sorts of idgits near the University of Chicago and University of Illinois at Chicago while in Chicago.  They seem to assume that everyone (motorists and pedestrians) should stop for them, the little bike people.  I'm thisclose to sticking a tree branch into their spokes while I'm walking in the city sometime due to their incivility toward both motorists and pedestrians. 

[agentsteel53]

I see you've driven in Chicago. 

San Francisco.  same general idea, apparently.

[kphoger]

Back to the original discussion of separating the bike lane over the bridge with a physical barrier or not–can we all agree that only dividing it with stripes is better than no extra width at all?  I applaud the bike lane not just for the striping, but much more for the added width that made it possible.

[kphoger]

Thankfully, the freeway was never completed, but it's now an underutilized bridge. Protected bike lanes or a path with a barrier would be even more ideal.

Agree 100%, especially because people routinely fly over that bridge at 60 mph.

I'm of the opinion that bike lanes should never be striped on a road with a speed over 25 mph unless there's some form of physical protection between the lane and the flow of traffic, but that's another discussion entirely.

In the case of the bridge at hand, I'd rather not have a physical barrier.  Shoulders provide important wiggle room for vehicles, as a way of avoiding a collision with a car that either drifted across a line or didn't look before changing lanes.  If you put a physical barrier where the cross hatching is in the photo, then you take away cars' wiggle room.

Plus, you would basically eliminate the possibility of one cyclist overtaking another–a maneuver which could safely be done as is by glancing behind you, drifting into the cross hatched area, and regaining the bike lane a mere seven seconds or so later.  Put a barrier in the cross hatching, and you risk one cyclist clipping the other's pedal and causing them both to fall.

[Brandon]

Back to the original discussion of separating the bike lane over the bridge with a physical barrier or not–can we all agree that only dividing it with stripes is better than no extra width at all?  I applaud the bike lane not just for the striping, but much more for the added width that made it possible.

Most agreed.  The lanes look rather nice on the bridge, and judging from the photograph from Froggie, they get used.

[kphoger]

judging from the photograph from Froggie, they get used.

Hmmm, I wouldn't judge its use based on a photo in which only one cyclist appears, and which was framed for the specific purpose of showing off the bike lane.

[kphoger]

......besides which, the cyclist looks like he's on a long-distance trip, and may not even be from the area at all.

[NE2]

Back to the original discussion of separating the bike lane over the bridge with a physical barrier or not–can we all agree that only dividing it with stripes is better than no extra width at all?

Yes, on a bridge with no intersections, separation is good.

http://bikepgh.org/2007/09/27/birmingham-bridge-is-getting-bike-lanes/
I don't know about that crossing of the onramp though, but it may have been done reasonably per this comment: "i also have to say that it appears that cars from the forbes on ramp are approaching the bridge proper (and the bike crossing) much slower due to the added angle that they have to make"