America’s road problem — any Tucson solutions?
Streetsblog has a wonderful article with some great links about America’s Big Fat Road Problem, and argues for a reduction in the sheer availability of roads.
I’ve been thinking about this in here Tucson. The City is already doing it in some places. Granada is now one lane each way with a (scary) bike route on each side and a middle lane (equally scary, I imagine). A year ago it was two lanes each direction. Stone and Sixth Avenues south of town have been transformed into two lane streets, one lane each way and a middle lane, with bike routes on the sides. They used to be one-way streets with three lanes each, and the congestion there has increased considerably.
My friend Leo hates the new configuration of Stone and Sixth because he says it directs bicyclists right into the “door zone.” He says the white line forces him to either really suffer the wrath of drivers who have no good way to get around him when he is out in the lane or to risk his life by getting doored. It’s a good point, but I still think the net change is positive for us bicyclists. (Opposing views?)
One thing I’ve been thinking about: who is in favor of turning at least one full lane of the massive frontage road into a separated bike route once the freeway work is done? Any takers for raising that option?
–Erik Ryberg
April 15th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“He says the white line forces him to either really suffer the wrath of drivers who have no good way to get around him when he is out in the lane or to risk his life by getting doored. It’s a good point, but I still think the net change is positive for us bicyclists.”
What’s the positive?
April 15th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
The original intent for the Stone &
6th Ave. re-dos was to have ’sharells’
(I don’t know how you spell it) out
in the lane giving cyclists a little
more room. They are those diagrams
of cyclist embedded on the asphalt.
That would have indicated a sharing of
the lane, calmed the traffic, made it
safer-yada,yada yada.
The neighborhoods involved in the area
selfishly demanded that bike lanes be
utilized in the change. THANK YOU
CARHEADS. Put the bicycles ‘over there’
where we don’t have to think about them.
One way streets are preferable and easier
to navigate and safer, I think, to two-way
traffic and it was pretty ideal the way it was.
All these make-overs…people just watch too
much Oprah.
The freeway access roads are supposed to
return to the way they were after the
construction is finished which seemed OK.
Nobody much bothered you over there.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I like the idea of a bike lane on the Frontage Rd when the Hwy construction is done. An entire lane? That would be nice–just wide enough for two riders to ride side-by-side, like on parts of River Rd. and Ina would be okay with me. I’ve ridden the Frontage Rd before and while not scenic, it offered a few alternatives to getting across differnt parts of the city. Thanks Erik!
April 16th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Hi Mike,
Well, I don’t actually find riding those routes that bad. Maybe I am suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, but I find the routes okay. Not ideal, but okay. I ride both streets pretty commonly and I hated it before the road work was done. Traffic moved a lot faster and, it seemed to me, gave me less room.
I am also a believer in reducing the roadways available to cars, which these designs accomplished.
I see Coghauler’s point though, very clearly. This was far from an ideal solution.
–EBR
April 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I think the 4 to 3 conversion is a big improvment, cars do tend to slow down a bit. The real waste is to provide space for the storage of cars (on street parking) in our valuable roadways. There is more and more people needing to use these right of ways, why do parked cars trump traffic (both bicycle and motor)?
April 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Coghauler: The term i think you are searching for is “sharrow” (i.e. share + arrow)
Here’s a picture of a sharrow somewhere around Pike’s place market in Seattle…
http://azbikelaw.org/albums/2008/c8ae_summer/slides/c08ae011.html
April 17th, 2009 at 8:26 am
@Ed, that looks like a horrible sharrow implementation, putting it in the door zone. How’d you like to be between the white van and the school bus?
Sharrows have the potential to designate when a lane is too narrow for a bike and vehicle to fit side by side in the lane. Instead, they’re often used to squeeze cyclists into a small or non-existent space on the road.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Ah ’sharrows’, that’s good then.
Sharrows are supposed to induce
cyclists to take the lane in
appropriate situations. The picture
is a very good example:
Downhill sharrow–bikes move out
into the lane as they and cars move
at similar speeds.(bike would be in
front of the school bus)
Uphill bike lane–bike moves slower
than cars and supposedly has time
for a ‘looksee’ at what is happening
ahead with the doors, etc.
The lack of lane designation with sharrows
is supposed to mean to cars,”bikes are not
resrticted to that (bike) lane you are used
to and may be sharing (taking)(acting as another car)
the lane with you.
How long it will take for cars and bikes to
adopt this approach is a good question.
Do you as a cyclist want to be a ‘live’
traffic calming entity?
So let’s say that maybe sharrows aren’t for
timid cyclists or impatient motorists……
April 17th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Details on the sharrow (more officially referred to as a “Shared lane marking” a.k.a. SLM) proposals are here
http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/
There’s supposed to be no less than 11 feet from the curbface to the center of the marking. I can’t quite tell from the picture but it looks like about 11′…
Also, and i don’t really follow the rationale, they may not be placed on roads with posted speed limits above 35mph.