these special interest groups kill me...

[Mergingtraffic]

In New Haven, CT, there are plans to tear up the CT-34 expressway spur and make it into a blvd.   Ok, that is bad enough. 

Not only are you ripping up a highway (granted it isn't even a mile long but still..) but all that traffic is going on surface streets and the DOT planners added in bike lanes, bike boxes, exclusive ped walk signals where all traffic stops, raised intersections, narrow lanes at the expense of traffic flow to appease the bike/ped people. 

Bikers balked at CT-34 being five lanes at one intersection. In reality, there were 3 through and 2 turning lanes.   I think they saw the plans on paper and freaked...omg five lanes! 


(To appease the bikers: "ConnDOT has pushed the limits of transportation engineering practices to develop a plan that meets the bare minimum standards for vehicular accommodations while maintaining eligibility for financing through the Federal Highway Authority's funding program." ) and the bike people are STILL complaining. 

It amazing me, that these groups want it ALL. 

These articles give you an idea of how the groups want it all:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/downtown_crossing_debate/

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/islands_disappear/

[mcdonaat]

In their eyes, highways are meant to serve cyclists. I think bicycling is a good idea, but not at the expense of the cars that the road should be meant for.

[Alps]

I don't see a big deal tearing this one down - there's really not much traffic on it because it's constrained by the feeder roads. So I'm OK with the boulevard concept in this instance. Not okay with exclusive ped walk signals and raised intersections. This is a through route.

[flowmotion]

Not familiar with the area & the exact issues, but I don't think there's much value in tearing down a short freeway only to replace it with a highway-style "stroad". You end up with all the negatives of high traffic and none of the positive pedestrian enhancements which can bring life to the area.

Looking at a map (http://goo.gl/maps/qkFLx ) it seems that they could just shift traffic to the one-way "Frontage roads" and develop the land in between.

[vdeane]

I don't think these people would be happy unless cars were banned entirely.  Converting major arteries into glorified sidewalks that allow cars to drive on them only serves to advance the front in the War on Cars.

These people can't be reasoned with.  If they want a car-free future, they should go found their own community, not force their vision on the rest of us.

[Mergingtraffic]

Not familiar with the area & the exact issues, but I don't think there's much value in tearing down a short freeway only to replace it with a highway-style "stroad". You end up with all the negatives of high traffic and none of the positive pedestrian enhancements which can bring life to the area.

Looking at a map (http://goo.gl/maps/qkFLx ) it seems that they could just shift traffic to the one-way "Frontage roads" and develop the land in between.

That is what they plan to do, is develop the land and bring the traffic to the frontage roads, but I think all the bike and ped enhancements will create a vehicular nightmare (it already is).  One city official said they want some congestion to force people to take other routes.....but there are no other routes.  No beltway was ever built, there is no expressway on the CT-34 corridor. 

Where is all the traffic going to go?  It won't just evaporate. 

[Special K]

I don't think these people would be happy unless cars were banned entirely.  Converting major arteries into glorified sidewalks that allow cars to drive on them only serves to advance the front in the War on Cars.

These people can't be reasoned with.  If they want a car-free future, they should go found their own community, not force their vision on the rest of us.

The reality is nothing like what your statement suggests. 

[Duke87]

The stupid part is, you don't need to remove the freeway to develop the land it sits on. It's already below grade. Just build over it. Remove the redundant ramps to College St if that makes developing the parcel easier. For Christ's sake, there's already a facility called the Air Rights Garage sitting right at the end of the freeway, designed for it to have gone under it. Clearly somebody was able to grasp of the concept!

But no, this is about transportation politics, not pragmatic problem solving.

[cpzilliacus]

But no, this is about transportation politics, not pragmatic problem solving.

I have never been in New Haven, so I do not know the particulars, but still, I am confident in saying that your sentence above is absolutely correct.

[Mergingtraffic]

But no, this is about transportation politics, not pragmatic problem solving.

I have never been in New Haven, so I do not know the particulars, but still, I am confident in saying that your sentence above is absolutely correct.

Exactly!  Anything pro-highway (meaning vehicular traffic ONLY) is not politically correct.  However, if you talk public transportation, bike paths, multi-use trails and sidewalks then that is politically correct. 

In CT, we can no longer just have a highway project, we have to include something else such as sidewalks.  No matter how ridiculous it is, we have to put it in there. 

I noticed there are sidewalks on the side of the 8-lane bridge on I-95 just adjacent to the US-7 expressway (exits 15-16) and have NEVER seen anyone walking on it.

[NE2]

Exactly!  Anything pro-highway (meaning vehicular traffic ONLY) is not politically correct.

While in the dystopia pushed by many here, going anywhere except by car is not politically correct.

I noticed there are sidewalks on the side of the 8-lane bridge on I-95 just adjacent to the US-7 expressway (exits 15-16) and have NEVER seen anyone walking on it.

Sweet. Connectivity at a low cost. Not that it applies to this specific bridge, being a freeway, but would you rather have someone walking on the sidewalk or on the road, so you have to move over to pass?

[corco]

I noticed there are sidewalks on the side of the 8-lane bridge on I-95 just adjacent to the US-7 expressway (exits 15-16) and have NEVER seen anyone walking on it.

The problem with sidewalks is that you have to do them correctly for people to use them, otherwise they're a waste of money. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to walk down those sidewalks- narrow and way too close to traffic moving way too fast.

Of course, to do sidewalks correctly so that people are comfortable using them is pretty expensive, and that's where the "why the fuck are we putting in sidewalks" crowd ends up winning, so you get a compromise that does technically install sidewalks, but not sidewalks that most people would be comfortable using. If I had to use those out of desperation I might, but you're not convincing anyone who already has a car to take the sidewalk when they're that close to a freeway.

My argument on the whole sidewalk movement in general is that it's a nice idea, and I do think getting people out of cars for local travel long term is probably a good idea, but putting up sidewalks and bike lanes will only do so much before you have to address the actual cause of car use- people living really fucking far from where they work. If you lived a quarter mile from your job and the store, you probably wouldn't drive nearly as much.

The trick is finding a way to do that comfortably and without noticeable sacrifice. Part of that will require a culture shift (and I think we're seeing that with younger generations) and part of that will require some kickass design that I think a lot of people believe could exist one day but has not quite been developed yet.

I still commute, not because I enjoy it but because it's necessity (I love road trips, but the daily slog of commuting sucks). I have two focus points- my job in sprawling north Tucson and the university. If I lived near the university, I'd probably get shot in the rent range I can afford, and up here everything is so spread out I have no choice to drive, but I live up here because I can live in a nicer apartment for less money that's only two miles from one of my focus locations. If somebody could offer me something as nice as what I'm in now that's within walking distance of one of those places, I'd gladly do that, but until then I haven't been presented with a  good enough reason to forgo car transport. 

[flowmotion]

The advocates in question are actually requesting a couple pedestrian islands, which is hardly an extremist position.

I think many of you are using this as a proxy issue for the long-decided fact that this dead-end freeway is never going to be constructed. Which is fine, because if the suburbs want a freeway, they should volunteer to build one through the subdivisions.

Anyway, please tone down the persecution complex.

[vdeane]

The reality is nothing like what your statement suggests. 

How is it not?  This road already has narrow lanes (making life difficult for and when near larger vehicles, and making crossing less of a concern if the people worried could bother to do the math), an all-ped signal phase (which just makes both drivers and peds sit longer; pedestrians and traffic moving at the same green is much nicer for both), and "raised crosswalks" (translation: speed bumps people can walk on).

While in the dystopia pushed by many here, going anywhere except by car is not politically correct.

How is wanting the freedom to go anywhere you want, whenever you want to, without answering to anyone, worrying about the transit schedule, weather, or being by annoying people, a dystopia?  Walking SUCKS if it's hot, cold, raining or snowing outside.

The advocates in question are actually requesting a couple pedestrian islands, which is hardly an extremist position.

I think many of you are using this as a proxy issue for the long-decided fact that this dead-end freeway is never going to be constructed. Which is fine, because if the suburbs want a freeway, they should volunteer to build one through the subdivisions.

Anyway, please tone down the persecution complex.

They want a lot more than a couple pedestrian islands (which the DOT is correct in saying will encourage right turn people to blow right through the intersection).  They want reduced lanes (as doofy already said, where is the traffic going to go?) and higher speed bumps.

And how is this a proxy issue for a long-dead freeway proposal.  Many of us realize that the full CT 34 won't (can't since the ROW was sold off) be be built and that the short stretch that exists could be made a surface street (if done right).  However, that does not change the fact that CT 34 is a major artery, and you can't just wave your magic wand to make the traffic go away (no matter how much the urbanists think you can).

[Special K]

The reality is nothing like what your statement suggests. 

How is it not?

I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.

[hobsini2]

I know I am going to hear it from some of you cyclists out there but really you guys need to get a grip. I have no problem with cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks under a couple of conditions.

1. You have to obey the same signals and stop signs that vehicles do. No more blowing thru a red light or stop sign. I don't give a crap if there is no traffic around. The rules of the road apply to you cyclists too.

2. With the exception of larger cities, I would think it would be best for a cyclist to use a sidewalk or bike path that is just off the road when available. No good reason why the sidewalks in some places can not be used by them. Most small cities and towns do not have the foot traffic to make it necessary for a cyclist not to utilize a paved sidewalk.

3. When using the road as your path, you keep as close to the white line as possible. Do not block traffic by being 3 feet away from the line causing you to be in the vehicle lane hogging it.

I have no problem with responsible cyclists. Yes there needs to be more responsible drivers as well but the cycling community does not make it any easier for other people to go about there business when they do not obey the rules of the road. I am all for bike lanes on a roadway when the user of the said lane is responsible.

[agentsteel53]

with regard to #3, usually bicyclists (at least here in CA) have the right to a full lane.

#2, ever been buzzed by a cyclist when you're walking down the sidewalk?  especially the "salmoning" kind.  pedestrians are taught generally to salmon (walk opposite the flow of vehicle traffic) so that they can see what is happening ... a salmoning pedestrian being hunted down by a salmoning bicyclist is a scary, scary thing. 

as for #1... agreed; I've damn near killed several cyclists which have blown through traffic control devices and interrupted my right of way.  the worst was a sidewalk salmon (they're everywhere!) who blew through a four-way stop sign, coming up behind my left shoulder, and almost T-boned my driver's side when I made a legal left turn as it was my turn to go. 

bicyclists need to be ticketed aggressively for what is, in fact, reckless driving.  would you ride a car, or even a motorcycle, backwards to the flow of traffic, on a sidewalk?

oh wait, don't answer that... I've seen it done on a dirt bike.  people are fuckwits.

[Special K]

I know I am going to hear it from some of you cyclists out there but really you guys need to get a grip. I have no problem with cyclists sharing the road with cars and trucks under a couple of conditions.

1. You have to obey the same signals and stop signs that vehicles do. No more blowing thru a red light or stop sign. I don't give a crap if there is no traffic around. The rules of the road apply to you cyclists too.

Agreed... for the most part.  The difference being that traffic control/traffic law is currently geared for motor traffic.  There are certain instances when it makes little sense to require non-motor vehicles stop when there is no traffic.  Take for example mag-loop sensors at most intersections.  While sometimes it is possible for a bike to trigger the sensor, many times they just don't have the metal content to cycle the light.  So, there they sit...  My opinion is to treat Stop conditions as Yield in most cases.

2. With the exception of larger cities, I would think it would be best for a cyclist to use a sidewalk or bike path that is just off the road when available. No good reason why the sidewalks in some places can not be used by them. Most small cities and towns do not have the foot traffic to make it necessary for a cyclist not to utilize a paved sidewalk.

Mixing peds and transport-focused bikes is not often a good idea.  As a cyclist traveling from point to point, I need to be in traffic that follows a predictable pattern.  Ped traffic is much too erratic with joggers, dog walkers, stroller-pushing soccer moms, etc...  Also, separating bike traffic from normal vehicular traffic becomes hazardous at intersections, especially for through-traveling bikes as motor vehicles turn right.

3. When using the road as your path, you keep as close to the white line as possible. Do not block traffic by being 3 feet away from the line causing you to be in the vehicle lane hogging it.

Often times, that far right portion of the right lane is where debris collects and pavement degrades, making it a hazard for cyclists.  If I was to cling to the right side as you suggest, I'd constantly be swinging left to avoid these hazards, which makes an even more hazardous situation as motor traffic approaches from the rear.  As a cyclist, I want to keep a predictable line down the street, so the safest place for me to be is in the wear path of the street.

I have no problem with responsible cyclists. Yes there needs to be more responsible drivers as well but the cycling community does not make it any easier for other people to go about there business when they do not obey the rules of the road. I am all for bike lanes on a roadway when the user of the said lane is responsible.

I think we can agree that bike operation should be taught more as a mode of transportation than as merely a riding toy.  There are responsibilties to using the roadways and that should be taught better.

[agentsteel53]

My opinion is to treat Stop conditions as Yield in most cases.

fair enough.  we just need to get bicyclists to stop treating it as though it didn't exist, and assuming I will yield to them when I have the right of way.

one day, the laws of physics will catch up with these assholes.

[Special K]

My opinion is to treat Stop conditions as Yield in most cases.

fair enough.  we just need to get bicyclists to stop treating it as though it didn't exist, and assuming I will yield to them when I have the right of way.

one day, the laws of physics will catch up with these assholes.

Fair enough.  Just, when speaking of the bike lobby, don't automatically lump the a-holes in with the rest of us.

[vdeane]

Most of those stop situations were bikes would be better with a yield are also situations where cars would be better off with a yield.  We should take some ideas from Europe: traffic lights go to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night, and replace most stop signs with yield signs.

I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.

How is the bike/ped/urbanist conglomerate not trying to move to a car-free future?  Most of their proposals are hostile to motorists as far as I can tell.

[Special K]

Most of those stop situations were bikes would be better with a yield are also situations where cars would be better off with a yield.  We should take some ideas from Europe: traffic lights go to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night, and replace most stop signs with yield signs.

I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.

How is the bike/ped/urbanist conglomerate not trying to move to a car-free future?  Most of their proposals are hostile to motorists as far as I can tell.

Interesting take. 

For decades, the infrastructure (and culture) of this country has been geared strictly to motor vehicle travel.  The average work commute rises as the population moves their residence farther and farther from their workplace.  All the while fossil fuels deplete and become more and more expensive.  It's a trend that cannot be sustained and people are now realizing that.  So, now there's a movement to accommodate a valid mode of transportation within the existing travel corridors to where people need to be, either to work, shop, or recreate.  To have the gall to ask for a *small* *portion* of that corridor that's safe, direct and convenient; that's hostile to motorists.

The push isn't for car-free society.  It's for sensible multi-modal transportation.  And as many of our roadways come to the end of their design lives, now is a perfect time to include those elements within the reconstruction.

[Mergingtraffic]

Most of those stop situations were bikes would be better with a yield are also situations where cars would be better off with a yield.  We should take some ideas from Europe: traffic lights go to flashing yellow/flashing red late at night, and replace most stop signs with yield signs.

I was speaking to your assessment of the bike lobby.

How is the bike/ped/urbanist conglomerate not trying to move to a car-free future?  Most of their proposals are hostile to motorists as far as I can tell.

Interesting take. 

For decades, the infrastructure (and culture) of this country has been geared strictly to motor vehicle travel.  The average work commute rises as the population moves their residence farther and farther from their workplace.  All the while fossil fuels deplete and become more and more expensive.  It's a trend that cannot be sustained and people are now realizing that.  So, now there's a movement to accommodate a valid mode of transportation within the existing travel corridors to where people need to be, either to work, shop, or recreate.  To have the gall to ask for a *small* *portion* of that corridor that's safe, direct and convenient; that's hostile to motorists.

The push isn't for car-free society.  It's for sensible multi-modal transportation.  And as many of our roadways come to the end of their design lives, now is a perfect time to include those elements within the reconstruction.

That is fair Special K, but in the New Haven case, it seems the bike/ped improvements are at the expense of a design that improves vehicular traffic flow.  If both are improved 50%, without at the expense of the other, then that is a win for everyone.  But, I think the narrow lanes, raised intersections and ped only phases for walk signals will add congestion to an already badly congested corridor. 

....and, the designers have bent over backwards to appease the bike/ped community and they still aren't happy.   

[kphoger]

Walking SUCKS if it's hot, cold, raining or snowing outside.

Your opinion.  I enjoy walking in the heat, the cold, and especially the snow.  Rain, you can have.  When there's a foot of snow on the ground, and blizzarding all around, it's the perfect time to take a walk.

[Alps]

Ehh... regarding bike laws:

1) Yes, bicyclists MUST stop at red lights and stop signs and treat them like cars do - IF they're riding in the road. You always have the option to dismount and walk your bike through the intersection. (Or go push a ped button and then return to your bike to wait.)
2) No, bicycles should NOT be on sidewalks. In many places it's illegal. Bicyclists belong on the road, which leads to #3.
3) Yes, absolutely, cyclists should keep right. We (and I say this as a very occasional cyclist) have the right to the whole lane, but I'm not using it unless I need it. It's very rare that I actually need a whole lane - typically only when I'm coming up to a left turn and see an acceptable gap in my mirror. I was once yelled at for passing a bicyclist when we got to a light, and I yelled right back, "I bike too, and I keep right. You have no right to yell at me, you were unnecessarily taking an entire lane so I passed you safely." (Paraphrased, obviously)