Going Nuts with Bike/Ped at the expense of roads

[Mergingtraffic]

Below is a press release from CT Governor Jodi Rell about increasing funding for bike/ped projects.  Of note:  
Researve 50% of funding for this...which means road projects will be scaled back to fit in the sidewalk/bike path aspects of a project.

Filling in the gaps of the ped trails in the eastern parts of the state.  Yeah, b/c we ALL commute on the bike/ped paths to work.  How about completing the missing sections of expressways!?!?


and...
restriping roads to provide wider shoulders for bikes...how about restriping roads to allow for left-turns lanes?!?!?  CT doesn't do enough of it.  

READ THE PRESS RELEASE BELOW!:


Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced that as part of an ongoing effort to provide a more balanced transportation network, the state is changing its policies and practices to be more supportive of bicycling and pedestrian projects — a move that will ultimately make it safer and more convenient for Connecticut residents to bike and walk.

"If we are going to have a truly "˜multi-modal' transportation system, our focus must include bicycle and pedestrian efforts,"  Governor Rell said during a news conference on a segment of the East Coast Greenway in Manchester. "As a state, we have made some progress in changing priorities to better incorporate and respond to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. However, the time has come to step up the pace."


"These new initiatives, implemented over the coming months, will continue to push us toward a more equitable statewide transportation infrastructure — one that reflects a growing sector of those walking and cycling on a regular basis,"  the Governor said. "Many of the improvements we have made so far have come at the local and regional level. They have not been as coordinated statewide as they could be — or should be. And I always believe we can do better."



Currently, for example, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at rail stations vary from station to station and from transit operator to transit operator. The DOT's initiative is intended to help address these and other impediments to bicycle and pedestrian options.



Governor Rell announced five immediate program changes at the DOT:



    Quick Fix Program: This DOT program will quickly respond to relatively minor bicycle and pedestrian issues
    DOT Sidewalk Policy: DOT policy will assure that sidewalks are considered as part of the normal roadway design process and that their funding is treated the same as any other element of a road construction project
    Funding: DOT will reserve 50 percent ($4 million) of State Transportation Plan-Enhancement funding each year for bicycle and pedestrian projects and allow the use of STP-Urban funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects
    Project Design Manual: DOT will enhance the existing project design manual so bicycle and pedestrians needs are fully considered as part of the project design process
    Inter-agency Collaboration: DOT and the state Department of Environmental Protection will collaborate more closely on issues related to bike and pedestrian needs


The DOT has identified several other important actions it will take immediately. These steps are intended to demonstrate the agency's commitment to implementing the new initiative and assuring it meets the goal of improving bicycle and pedestrian travel in Connecticut.



   East Coast Greenway — East Hartford segment: Provide $300,000 to finalize the design of a 2-mile segment that will fill a major gap in the Greenway, which is part of a larger greenway planned to extend from Maine to Florida
    East Coast Greenway — Manchester to Bolton: Provide funding to finish design plans through Manchester and Bolton Notch, which will advance plans to fill this second major gap in this statewide trail
    Farmington Canal Trail — Cheshire: Provide funding to design a key segment of a trail that extends from New Haven to Northampton, Mass., eliminating one of the remaining large gaps in the Canal Trail
    Bike Storage at Train Stations: Improve and expand bike storage facilities at the state's three largest train stations — New Haven, Stamford and Bridgeport — which will later be extended to all stations
    Small Safety Projects: Correcting small-scale pedestrian and bicycle safety problems such as the restriping of crosswalks and pavement markings at the intersection of Route 100 and Park Place in East Haven to allow safer crossings for pedestrians
    Road Re-striping: Expand the program of restriping state roads to widen shoulders and narrow travel lines where feasible, which will have the dual benefit of reducing travel speeds and providing more shoulder space for cyclists


"We are casting a wide net to improve both short-term, simple deficiencies in our infrastructure and, at the same time, change the way we do business when it comes to non-motorized infrastructure,"  said DOT Commissioner Jeffrey A. Parker. "This initiative won't change the face of our state overnight, but it will help us be more responsive to our constituencies. Under this program, we will be securing nearly $4 million dollars a year to put directly toward non-motorized programs, projects and fixes."

[Duke87]

$4 million a year dedicated to bicycle projects doesn't seem all that outrageous. That's pennies.

[Alps]

A lot of state DOTs already have provisions to consider ped/bike facilities in new projects.  This is just bringing CT up to speed.

[myosh_tino]

Going Nuts with Bike/Ped at the expense of roads

That's nothing new here the Bay Area, specifically San Francisco.  The new eastern span of the Bay Bridge is going to have a pedestrian walkway/bike path going from Oakland to Treasure Island.  The S.F. Bicycle Coalition wanted that path extended to San Francisco by adding on to the existing suspension bridge but that idea was shot down by Caltrans and the state legislature because it was too expensive.

There are also plans in San Francisco to remove traffic lanes and parking spaces to make room for additional bike lanes.  Driving in S.F. and finding parking are already difficult so it makes perfect sense to take away lanes and parking spaces and replace them with bike lanes... ugh! 

[froggie]

$4 million a year dedicated to bicycle projects doesn't seem all that outrageous. That's pennies.

In the grand scheme of things, that is indeed pennies.

Bike/ped projects tend to provide the most bang for the buck.  Perhaps not so much in more rural areas, but definitely the case in urban areas, where their costs are miniscule compared to highway projects.

[jjakucyk]

For the past 60+ years the mantra in the US has been roads, roads, and more roads, to the detriment of all else.  Bringing some balance back into the equation is most certainly a good thing.  Froggie's mention of "bang for the buck" is very apt, because we've already picked all the low-hanging fruit of good road projects.  It's gotten to the point where we're spending so much money on new and expanded roads that provide little to no benefit, while saddling taxpayers with huge construction and maintenance bills.  It's time to look elsewhere to maximize the potential of all the other modes of travel that have been neglected for so long.  That diversified portfolio of transportation options provides a safety net in the face of rising energy prices, weather catastrophes, changing land use patterns and the like.  It's also cheaper. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BUyWVg1xI

[Scott5114]

Is there any bang at all? Certainly it's nice to have bike facilities, but do they actually contribute anything towards improving the transportation situation in a given area (i.e. add more capacity to the transport network, reduce congestion on other modes, etc.)?

[jjakucyk]

Capacity isn't everything, safety is another big factor (and you should definitely watch the YouTube video I posted above to see that safety is very relative).  For instance, my street was recently changed from 3 lanes each way to 2 with a center turn lane and bike lanes against the curb.  A lot of the local residents who are not cyclists still applauded the project because of the extra buffer space the bike lanes put between traffic and pedestrians.  The sidewalks are unfortunately very close to the road, and in several places right up against the curb and 35 mph traffic.  The elimination of a few infrequently used parking spaces and the re-striping has made the road hugely safer for everyone, and it actually seems to have improved traffic flow among all the other benefits. 

Of course, any individual project might not have much of an impact on overall capacity/congestion concerns, but you do have to start somewhere.  Certain obstacles like motor vehicle-only bridges or certain dangerous stretches of roads can be insurmountable to cyclists or pedestrians, even if the overall distance isn't very far.  There's a huge number of people (children included) who would like to use their bike for more day-to-day trips, but they're not comfortable riding with traffic.  Painted bike lanes aren't the answer for everyone of course, but it's a step in the right direction to building a more comprehensive network that's actually usable for more people. 

[triplemultiplex]

Bring in all the pedestrian and bicycle accommodations we can.  That's what makes a neighborhood a place where people live instead of a place where cars live.  It creates a community instead of a face-less strip of bumpers and driveways. With the increased property values and a greater sense of place, it's a good bang for the buck.

The curb bump-outs at pedestrian crossings are such an asset.  I can't understate how much less of a psychological barrier that is when crossing even a moderately busy street.

[Scott5114]

You will never be able to "create a community" through infrastructure. Creating a community involves people, not technology. If right now you walk next door and give your neighbor a bunch of cookies that will do more for creating a community than $4 million worth of bike stuff ever will.

[jjakucyk]

That's a very narrow point of view Scott.  Hundreds, even thousands of communities have been destroyed by thoughtless construction of infrastructure.  You can't walk next door if your neighbor is on the other side of a major interstate highway, or if they're in the next subdivision separated by a concrete wall.  Cycling/pedestrian/transit oriented development is all about improving access, by breaking down barriers and making it actually easier to walk next door or down the street or wherever you need to go without absolutely having to get in your car for every single trip. 

[Scott5114]

It may be narrow but it's 100% true. Creating a community through infrastructure is like fixing the economy through slot machines.

[jjakucyk]

Creating community is very much about infrastructure, in addition to other things.  The decisions that are made about where infrastructure goes and how it's used have an enormous impact on the community.  Wide arterial streets and highways with lots of traffic separate neighborhoods from one another, so you end up with neighborhood "pods" bounded by those main streets.  On the other hand, narrow more pedestrian friendly streets act more as the focus of the neighborhood, linking the people on both sides, rather than acting as a barrier between them.  Projects that narrow streets, demolish urban highways, build bike paths, etc., link neighborhoods and communities together.  How can you say that has no impact?  You're taking an oddly absolutist view to it, using terms like "never be able to" or "100% true" for instance.  That in and of itself is just flat out wrong.  I'm not saying community is 100% about infrastructure, or that it's always a factor, but it IS a factor that can't be ignored.  After all, without any infrastructure, even if it's just a dirt path between houses, there can be no community anyway, so it's certainly important.  

[NE2]

Creating a (good) community is done by avoiding infrastructure that doesn't fit with the community, like highways designed for through traffic. Extra infrastructure can also help, such as linking cul-de-sacs with short paved trails, or connecting subdivisions with abutting existing longer trails.

I don't see a world free of the car. I do, however, see a world where a car is not necessary for ordinary trips, but existing patterns of suburban development make this impossible. The problem is entitlement: people feel that they're entitled to their own piece of land and all that comes with it.


Aside: let's not bring bike lanes into it. Their main impact for cyclists who already know what they're doing is that motorists no longer have to pay attention to them, at the expense of cyclists' safety. (The same is true for sidepaths - basically wide sidewalks - at intersections with cross streets and driveways.)

[Revive 755]

Bring in all the pedestrian and bicycle accommodations we can.  That's what makes a neighborhood a place where people live instead of a place where cars live.  It creates a community instead of a face-less strip of bumpers and driveways. With the increased property values and a greater sense of place, it's a good bang for the buck.

Until those greater property values start killing those along the streets with the increased property taxes.  I could also care less about of a "sense of place" relative to the quality of the home/apartment I get for my limited dollars.

[quoute]The curb bump-outs at pedestrian crossings are such an asset.  I can't understate how much less of a psychological barrier that is when crossing even a moderately busy street.
[/quote]

And those bump outs really make biking in traffic so much more fun.  As a ped, I much prefer the islands between the right turn lane and the cross street, as these elimate walk time being wasted due to conflicts with right turners.

Yes, governments have started to go too far with the ped improvements; some of the road diets for ped safety have created new congestion, and have likely reduced bicycle safety.  In a metro area with a population greater than 1 million there will need to be other ways to get around besides walking, but these needs seem to be forgotten.

[NE2]

A cyclist's view on traffic calming: http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/09/20/traffic-calming-what-does-it-say-about-us/ (don't read other stuff on the site if you're easily annoyed by cyclists)

[froggie]

Until those greater property values start killing those along the streets with the increased property taxes.

In the cities I'm familiar with, this isn't as much of a problem as you portray it to be.

As a ped, I much prefer the islands between the right turn lane and the cross street, as these elimate walk time being wasted due to conflicts with right turners.

The problem here is that right-turners tend to take those "free rights" much faster than they should, with the ensuing safety/severity risk for peds trying to cross.

[Mergingtraffic]

In my area they have added a Ped Phase only for traffic lights where all 4 sides of traffic are stopped for peds.  This adds more congestion for vehicles as there are 30 seconds where all traffic is stopped in addition to the vehicle phases.

So traffic can be sitting at the light for a minute or longer. 

[froggie]

Two questions I'd have to ask there:

- Are peds allowed to cross during the green phase?

- Is there a lot of existing pedestrian traffic at that intersection, or is there planned development that would increase pedestrians?

[jjakucyk]

A pedestrian scramble (I think that's the technical term for it) can be very advantageous in areas of high pedestrian volume, or where a lot of them need to cross diagonally, but I've never heard of it being used anywhere other than downtown areas.  They can also be very useful at intersections with odd geometries, like 5 and 6 way intersections that would require a pedestrian to wait through two or three cycles of the light to get all the way across.

[mightyace]

The problem is entitlement: people feel that they're entitled to their own piece of land and all that comes with it.

And what is wrong with that?

In previous centuries, land ownership was only for the powerful and wealthy.

Here in the U.S. anyone with the money, and before the mortgage fiasco, many without the money were able to own a bit of land.

I'll tell you this much, I feel much less of a serf now that I have my own property.

[agentsteel53]

The problem is entitlement: people feel that they're entitled to their own piece of land and all that comes with it.

And what is wrong with that?

it's unintended consequences.  I'd love to own land and so would everyone else, but when you put together a bunch of landowners, you get such blights as planned subdivisions, gated communities, homeowners' associations, arterial roads, strip malls, labyrinthine parking lots, and other misfeatures that give rise to sprawl, sprawl, sprawl.

the problem with people isn't that they're "entitled to own their piece of land"; it's that they feel entitled to use a car to go 0.6 miles down to the grocery store, purchase two items, and return.

[mightyace]

^^^

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

It may be part of our "NOW" culture.  Just because we can, we do.

For example, before cars, people who lived where I do (over 5 miles to any stores) went "to town" sporadically.  (i.e. once every week, two weeks, etc.)  This was in part because either using a horse or walking would literally take all day.

I try to minimize my trips out of the house and try to do my shopping coming home from work rather than making a separate trip.

And, if it's only two items, I will "do without" until it is more economical for me to go unless there is a pressing need for the item.

[agentsteel53]

yep, I run errands whenever I have a car, which is about every weekend, sometimes less frequently.  This weekend I grabbed about 40 pounds of supplies at Home Depot, and mailed out maybe 130 pounds of highway signs.  (Neither of which would have been too fun to do on foot.)

if I need supplies or groceries or whatnot extemporaneously, I will walk to the store and pick up just no more than I can carry home. 

[triplemultiplex]

This implication that we're discussing a zero sum game in regards to car infrastructure vs. bike and pedestrian infrastructure is false.  Especially when the cost of striping a bike lane or bumping out a crosswalk or slapping in a sidewalk is paltry compared to the cost of expanding capacity for cars.  Now obviously a distinction must be made between major corridors of regional significance and the local and arterial streets in a given city. In the latter, too many roads are built for absolute peak traffic conditions and we wind up with streets that are wider than they need to be 90% of the time.  And all those decades of only improving the infrastructure for cars means residents find themselves with no other option but to drive everywhere.  When people have those other options, they use them.  Every new bike path I've ever seen is instantly a big hit.  I've seen it in small towns, suburbs, mid-size cities and big cities the same.  The new bike path behind my apartment building was seeing major usage before they were even done paving it.