AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021  (Read 2053 times)

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1334
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 01:58:52 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2021, 03:13:44 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm confused as to why planners put the parking along curb rather than the bus and bike lane. I'd prefer the street layout as follows:
 
Curb
12' bus lane
5' bike lane
8' parking
2 X 10' driving lanes
Median

This allows buses and bikes to share the outside part of the road where the most pedestrians are. Cars would not be maneuvering through the bus or bike lanes to get to parking. Lines of parking blocks could be placed along the inside of the bike lanes (I've ridden enough bikes to know 4½' is adequate for a bike lane.) so parked cars don't encroach on the bike lanes. Bicyclists in groups, who almost never stay in single file formations, would also only drift into the bus lane instead of blocking traffic.

It won't matter at corners as the parking lane is already set to be converted into a right turn lane. I'd also prohibit all right turns on red and have separate stop lights for the bus/ bike lanes which turn green for a couple seconds before the main traffic for their safety.

I hate placing the bus lanes along the medians as few buses are designed for left and right entrances as seen on page 14 of the presentation. The only reason to place it against the median is if the lanes will eventually be used by light rail or a tram.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3461
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 07:47:42 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2021, 05:48:18 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm confused as to why planners put the parking along curb rather than the bus and bike lane. I'd prefer the street layout as follows:
 
Curb
12' bus lane
5' bike lane
8' parking
2 X 10' driving lanes
Median

This allows buses and bikes to share the outside part of the road where the most pedestrians are. Cars would not be maneuvering through the bus or bike lanes to get to parking. Lines of parking blocks could be placed along the inside of the bike lanes (I've ridden enough bikes to know 4½' is adequate for a bike lane.) so parked cars don't encroach on the bike lanes. Bicyclists in groups, who almost never stay in single file formations, would also only drift into the bus lane instead of blocking traffic.

It won't matter at corners as the parking lane is already set to be converted into a right turn lane. I'd also prohibit all right turns on red and have separate stop lights for the bus/ bike lanes which turn green for a couple seconds before the main traffic for their safety.

I hate placing the bus lanes along the medians as few buses are designed for left and right entrances as seen on page 14 of the presentation. The only reason to place it against the median is if the lanes will eventually be used by light rail or a tram.

If we were to ignore the bus lanes for a minute, I would say that your ideas have a lot of merit.  Part of the idea of keeping the bike lane between parked cars and the curb is in order to have the parked cars as a crash barrier for the bicyclists.  Better a car getting hit than a human being.  But in order to plan it in such a way, there needs to be at minimum a 2' buffer between the parked cars and the bike lane, for two reasons. 1) to prevent the doors of people getting into and out of their cars from interfering with the bikes and 2) to provide a landing space for people going from parked cars to the sidewalk.  If you parked on this street and wanted to head to a business on that block, you will have to jaywalk across the bikelane.  This is feasible, since the bikes probably don't go very fast, but you will need a landing spot in order to give the peds a place to wait for a gap in bike traffic to cross from their parked car to the sidewalk.

Separating turning traffic from bikes by separate phases of a traffic signal is ideal, but not strictly necessary.  I have seen successful implementations of both.  BUt one thing to keep in mind is whether the multiple phases will be too restrictrive of traffic throughput.  If normally straight thru traffic has 50% of signal time, you now are separating it with 25% for biks and 25% for right turners.  Added safety for a significant time cost.

One of the best implementations of this bike lane on the curb side of parking exists in Downtown Long Beach. 

GSV tells an interesting story.

For a long time, this block of 3rd street was one-way with 3 moving lanes and 2 parking lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7705419,-118.1940084,3a,75y,257.66h,72.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dZwC-hSJBCahdvTdiEQgw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664 

Then, they decided to sacrifice one of the moving lanes to create a parking protected bike lane on the left side of the street.  This was a nice design that seemed to retain most of the parking.  If you look ahead, you can see the upcoming intersection has separate phases for left turns and bikes.  Part of the idea with a left turn bike lane was to avoid bike interaction with buses - it is very commonly done that way on one-ways in New York City, and Long Beach copied the model.  It also is more natural to have a left turn that is restricted by arrow than a right turn restricted by arrow, plus left turns are not allowed on red anyway (except from one-way to one-way).

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7705111,-118.1941324,3a,75y,249.02h,75.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjaQVC-2YBuYjTv30hvVlSA!2e0!5s20150101T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Most recently, it seems like they moved the bike lane to the right and they got rid of the traffic signal phase separation between turning traffic and bikes.  WHile this is less safe, it does reduce delay since bikes and right turners get full use of the time of the 3rd street signal phase.  They still maintain two traffic lanes and spaces for parked cars (or outdoor eating) on both sides of the street.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7705081,-118.1932091,3a,75y,262.91h,74.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOGQYPIqDtxYlieevdqC7pw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Adding in the buses, may make this a little tougher, because you now have the people going to the parked cars as well as the bicyclists needing to cross the bus lane in order to access a business.  If a goal is to allow for fast moving buses, it may not be safe to allow for people to cross back and forth all over the bus lane, not just at the intersections.

 
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3461
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 07:47:42 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021
« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2021, 09:16:59 PM »

More thoughts on Colorado Blvd Eagle Rock:

THe whole idea comes down to preferences.  Many configurations are possible, but it is a qn of which interest gets prioritized.  If the 96' ROW width is fixed (i.e. no narrowing of sidewalks to widen pavement), then you have a choice of options:

1) 5' bike lane + 3' buffer + 8' parking + 12' bus lane + 10' drive lane + 10' drive lane = 48'. (both directions) Provides protected bike lanes, a bus lane on the right (but must allow access to cars wanting to park and turn right), and 2 driving lanes in each direction.  One clear negative is that it leaves no room at all for medians.

2) 8' parking + 5' bike lane + 12' bus lane + 10' drive lane + 10' drive lane = 45'.  (both directions) Provides regular bike lanes (but not "protected"), a bus lane on the right and 2 driving lanes in each direction.  It also leaves room for a 6' median.

3) 8' parking + 12' bus lane + 10' drive lane + 10' drive lane = 40'.  (both directions) Bikes and buses must share their 12' lane.  Maintains the existing 16' median, which is wide enough to accommodate a left turn lane. [Metro alternative on page 11]

4) 5' bike lane + 3' buffer + 10' drive lane + 10' drive lane +12' bus lane = 40'; 5' bike lane + 3' buffer + 8' parking + 10' drive lane + 10' drive lane + 12' bus lane = 48'.  Leaves an 8' median, but only allows parking on one side of the street. [Metro alternative on page 14]

5) 5' bike lane + 3' buffer + 12' rush hour bus lane + 10' drive lane + 10' drive lane = 40'; 5' bike lane + 3' buffer + 8' parking + 12' bus lane + 10' drive lane = 10' drive lane = 48'.  Leaves an 8' median.  On one side of the street, a bus lane is provided only during rush hour and at other times parking is permitted in the bus lane.  This may work if westbound is significantly heavier in the morning, and the westbound side prohibits parking during morning rush, in order to provide room for buses.  Depending on the types of businesses on the street, losing half of parking during the early morning may not be a big deal, but it is still a negative.

6) 5' bike lane + 3' buffer + 8' parking + 10' drive lane + 12' bus lane = 38'. (both directions).  Allows for all users to have their lanes and allows for a 20' wide median.  But the clear down side is that it only provides 1 lane in each direction for general traffic.  IMO, this would be an absolute disaster for area traffic, but it seems to be the choice of local authorities.

{I am sure there are other possible configurations as well, but I cannot think of them.}

IMO, of the above configurations, #2 seems to be the most balanced choice.  It maintains two full time traffic lanes in each direction to keep traffic moving.  It provides an additional lane primarily for buses, but also to be used by cars to access parking and local right turns.  It provides parking on both sides of the street.  And it still provides for an on-street bike lane.  Not a protected bike lane, but adjacent to parked cars and the bus lane.  It seems better than alternative 3, because it at least provides separate paths for bikes and buses to maneuver around each other.

THen again, no choice is perfect, but it's a shame that if they choose an option with only one driving lane in each direction, they will cause significant traffic to this corridor and that will negatively affect the residential community and the businesses on this stretch.

One other thing to keep in mind is that for the whole NoHo-Pasadena corridor, this is a very small stretch.  The widest portions of Colorado, between Eagle Rock and Townsend, is only about 0.75 miles and the full corridor where there is a current bike lane, from Broadway to the 134 ramps, is less than 2 miles.  So bus lanes will have a very limited utility here, and perhaps it is best not to do anything at all.
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 515
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: July 18, 2021, 09:10:09 PM
    • California Highways
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2021, 03:33:16 PM »

Related to Colorado: This will be in the next headline post: https://www.boulevardsentinel.com/kevin-de-leon-tells-metro-to-slow-down-its-push-for-one-car-lane-each-way-on-colorado-boulevard-calls-for-study-of-an-alternative-route-option/

Quote
Los Angeles City Councilmember Kevin de León has called on Metro to delay moving forward with its proposal for a bus rapid transit (BRT) route in Eagle Rock that would reduce much of Colorado Boulevard to one car lane each way. 

In a letter posted on social media and provided to the Boulevard Sentinel, De León said a delay was needed because Metro had pushed ahead with the one-car-lane-each-way proposal without presenting a full picture of the plan to Eagle Rockers and adequately soliciting their feedback.

De León also wrote that Metro needed to take the time to develop a route option for Colorado Boulevard that attempts to preserve two car lanes each way and safe bike lanes, without eliminating the medians and curb extensions. Metro should then hold public meetings where both the one-car-lane proposal and the two-car-lane proposal are presented so that Eagle Rockers can weigh the options and provide feedback, he wrote, adding: “I firmly oppose moving forward with an alternative for Colorado until Metro has held the aforementioned meetings.”
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3461
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 07:47:42 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2021, 11:15:33 PM »

^^^^^^

I guess there is more on the Colorado BRT saga to come.  Let's hope that 2 regular traffic lanes in each direction are maintained.
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 515
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: July 18, 2021, 09:10:09 PM
    • California Highways
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2021, 04:57:27 PM »

^^^^^^

I guess there is more on the Colorado BRT saga to come.  Let's hope that 2 regular traffic lanes in each direction are maintained.

The answer is: Maybe. https://www.boulevardsentinel.com/metro-will-study-two-options-for-colorado-boulevard/
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8261
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 03:31:11 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2021, 08:31:57 PM »

^^^^^^

I guess there is more on the Colorado BRT saga to come.  Let's hope that 2 regular traffic lanes in each direction are maintained.

The answer is: Maybe. https://www.boulevardsentinel.com/metro-will-study-two-options-for-colorado-boulevard/


If the board even gives weight to a call/email-in comment grouping with a n=44, they're out of their minds!   Any "cohort" that small will invariably be dominated by activists on one side or the other, particularly if their replies have been prompted by their own leaders or principals.  There should be more comprehensive polling of residents in the area between the 134 freeway and about York Blvd and from the Glendale city line to at least Figueroa Street to elicit a more valid cross-section of people who will be affected by whatever decision is eventually rendered.   
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.