Comments on: AZ Daily Star: Arizona spends $2.16 per person, per year, on bike-ped projects

By: Mickey

Mickey — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:33:52 +0000

AZTT,
I used to do the same commute from swan and fort lowell.
I would recommend cutting down to glenn, heading east until either alvernon or swan, and taking either of those all the way to the golf links/aviation bike path. Then take that west to the palo verde overpass, and loop that going south. Keep going until you hit irvington and make a right (this intersection sucks because the bike lane disappears right as there is an onramp to the highway, but if you can watch traffic and take the lane early it’s not too bad. Certainly not as bad as doing the same on kino, going uphill without anywhere to stop.) Then take irvington west until you hit Tucson blvd and take that south to the airport.
I guess you could take ajo to country club to irvington to bypass the i10 intersection, but country club doesn’t have a bike lane and has some really beat up roads.

Alternatively, instead of heading east, you could cut all the way west to silverbell/mission road, but that’s kind of out of the way and isn’t really the safest route either, as evidence by all the trouble with the shootout riders.

By: AZTT

AZTT — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:57:13 +0000

If I look at the top 15 cities for Bicycle Commuting, why is Tucson the only city with negative growth? What are we doing wrong that less people are commuting today than in 2000? What is our vision for the future? Many cities are being proactive and building the future that they want now. I contend that if we continue to spend what we have in the past that we will continue to see about 2% ridership in Tucson.

On a practical level, my wife commutes from Campbell/Ft Lowell to the airport, any ideas on how to get their other than taking Kino?

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:24:33 +0000

$8/gallon gasoline would go a long ways to provide that incentive, Cog – just wait a couple years.

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:21:01 +0000

The heavy emphasis on safety in this
culture has resulted in the expectation
that cycling must be unsafe. We get in
the car (and some on a bike) and want
to go from where we are to where we’re
going as fast as possible everyone else
be damned. An attitude that can affect
safety to all modes of transportation.
In the Netherlands, thousands of cyclists
ride without helmets and no one seems
concerned about safety. Maybe they have
raised their social consciousness to
mean getting somewhere rationally is
more important than five or ten minutes
sooner.
What needs to be ’spent’ to attain this
cultural shift?

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:18:58 +0000

Well, we can stay grounded in reality, or we can shovel away money we don’t have in pursuit of unsubstantiated and unquantifiable “feelings.” I know plenty of people who don’t “feel” safe biking on even an empty dedicated bike path. I know as many who “feel” perfectly at ease riding Gates Pass at night. Who’s right? Where should the line be? Do you really think that it’s the ridership that increases as a result of infrastructure spending, or is the spending a result of increasing riders making up a larger percentage of the local voting constituency?

It’s funny how for the last 15 years or so I’ve been able to ride pretty much anywhere within the city limits from Houghton to Silverbell, DM to the foothills, by sticking to all those empty residential streets while everyone keeps telling me that it can’t be done. I don’t deny that the sprawl areas around the outskirts can be tough to get to without riding on a “car route,” and would be good candidates for paths, but what sense does it make to build additional infrastructure within the city that duplicates what we already have? Just so people who don’t know any better can “feel” safer even though they won’t actually *be* safer?

By: AZTT

AZTT — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:18:48 +0000

For me personally, Mtn is fine and I feel safe. I’ve only been on Third a few times but have liked it although once you get East, the road winds all over the place and gets confusing. I know Portland started with the bike
boulevards and I have no problem with them. I would love to see more designed with out of the box thinking. I have seen some designed with restricted car traffic and they have no stop signs. I was recently in NYC and saw miles of separated bike lanes. There is more to Tucson than just central Tucson. I know several people who would ride their bike if they felt more safe. For the other end of the spectrum, Boulder spends 46% of their transportation funds on pedestrian, bike & public transit. If you like watching videos, check out the Boulder story: http://vimeo.com/6666520

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:18:07 +0000

So, are bike boulevards money well-spent,
being merely enhancements of existing
bike routes? Will they address the ‘feeling
safe’ issue enough to make a difference in
the number of bike trips?
BTW, the current design for these bike
boulevards falls short of the Mountain Ave.
design, but more than what exists on 3rd St.

And for giggles, check out the lady who feels
unsafe in her “Nav” from the threat of all
these bikers.
http://www.streetfilms.org/meet-veronica-moss-auto-lobbyist/

By: AZTT

AZTT — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:07:00 +0000

If we ever want more than 2% of trips to be by bike, we need infrastructure! Every city that is increasing their share of bike riders is spending money on infrastructure. In case you didn’t know, we have a lower % of bike riders now than in 2000. Portland is hoping to spend $15 million next year on bike projects. Riders will never ride in Tucson if they don’t think it is safe. Oh, and Tucson is not fully networked. There are many places that I ride that end with no place to go.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:48:38 +0000

Good grief – Tucson is fully networked with a rectilinear grid of nearly deserted residential streets, as all the car drivers stay as much as possible on the primary multi-lane thouroghfares like Speedway, Broadway, Campbell, Alvernon, Craycroft, etc. This town is nothing *but* bike routes, interrupted by having to cross a “car route” only every mile or so. Money spent on those streets *is* money spent on bicycle infrastructure. We are vehicles.

I’ll say it again – infrastructure *ain’t* the big problem in Tucson. You can already ride just about anywhere in this town in safe quiet solitude without having to travel a “car route” unless you choose to do so.

By: BB

BB — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:37:40 +0000

I am a 2nd class citizen. One who reduces my carbon footprint, relieves congestion, and reduces our need for cash.