Portland gets a Cycle-Track
And Tom Thivener, Tucson Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator, tells me it isn’t totally out of the question here.
Portland’s Cycle Track allows cyclists to get out of the door zone like so:
Check it all out at Bikeportland.org. The folks in the comment section are giving it great reviews.
Thivener has asked me where I think a good Cycle Track like this would best be implemented in Tucson. What should I tell him?
–Erik Ryberg
September 1st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Tucson is blessed with some extremely wide streets in its older residential neighborhoods; it’d be interesting to see something like this on maybe 9th or 4th St east and south of the University.
University Blvd itself would probably be ideal but, with the trolley tracks necessitating a middle lane, the car lanes can’t be made too close together.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:53 pm
How do they prevent right turning cars from colliding with bicycle thru traffic? the parked cars seem to create visibility issues for both types of traffic. It also reinforces the idea that bikes aren’t legitimate traffic and deserve to coexist with cars. However, I applaud the efforts of transportation planners who are willing to explore creative solutions like this.
I can’t think of any underutilized large roads in Tucson that also have on-street parking. Maybe Broadway downtown, but it’s supposed to become 2-way after downtown links is built. Without existing parking, it takes 2 full lanes to implement this system — a futile proposal in a city where we barely get 3ft for a bike lane.
On major roads without parking, perhaps we could win an extra 1-3′ for a physical barrier (curb, concrete barrier wall, steel posts) to separate bikes from cars. This might be especially useful for popular cycling routes in areas with high speed traffic, few right turns & no safe alternate routes, i.e. Mission, Silverbell, Kinney, Gates Pass, Catalina Hwy, Skyline/Sunrise, Spanish Trail, etc.
on the other hand, it would be great to have a buffer along University. I never use the bike lane, which is totally in the door zone, even though the city promotes it as a major bike route. The newly striped sections of S.6th & S. Stone have similar issues with bike lanes in door zones.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 am
You should tell him, Thanks, but
No Thanks.
It changes the situation,
but does it fix a problem?
It seems a high price for
’some’ protection from moving
traffic. Being hidden from cross
traffic by parked cars makes
me queazy.
If you’re going to give bikes
this much room, then swap the
bike lane and parking lane and
keep the clearly defined door zone.
I’d like to see door zones like that
on University.
I applaud the outside-of-the-box
thinking this represents, but the
practical application doesn’t
seem to cut it.
As it is, I’ll wager this is not
a keeper.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:06 am
University. Or 4th Ave (but there’s minimal space there). Though neither of them get the level of traffic that the section of Broadway (where the cycle-track is) had in Portland (it used to be on my commute when I lived there).
I like that the door zone is clearly defined, since so many car drivers are unaware of the door zone, and University is especially dangerous in that regard.
Coughauler might have a good point about being hidden from cross-traffic. In Portland’s case, the area to the right where cyclists would be hidden is a college campus, so the only cross-traffic concerns are pedestrians and delivery trucks. But other cycle tracks seem more visible, though it might just be how the pictures were taken. There might be other cycle tracks out there which are more like what we’d likely see. There is a proposal at http://www.bikearlington.com/cycletrack.cfm which talks about tracks in Copenhagen (of course) and Boulder, CO.
However, I’d like to see it tried in some form or other. If it works, great! If not, try another solution. Eventually one of the trial solutions will coincide with other factors that reduce car use/increase bicycling, so that will be deemed “the” solution.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 am
The existing infrastructure in Tucson is wonderful! You know better than anyone that it’s TPD that stands in the way of platinum status – what can Tom do about TPDs “second-class citizen” attitude and treatment towards bicyclists?
Let’s spend money and effort where it will do the most good instead of more overpriced make-work projects.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
I like that Portland is willing to try new ideas. As more cities try out different ideas, new solutions will emerge. Not all of these solutions will work in all situations, but we will have more ways to solve problems to choose from.
Hopefully Portland knows the number of trips taken for this stretch of road and can compare to see if trips increase year on year. If Portland can show a significant increase without more accidents, then we know that the experiment worked. As Russ Roca has said, everyone is watching Portland and everyone will definitely be watching this.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
“What should I tell him?” (Erik Ryberg)
Tell him? Hmmm…
Why not ask questions first? Why not, “What should I ask him?” ((especially in light of the coy “And Tom Thivener, Tucson Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator, tells me it isn’t *totally out of the question here*.” ** emphasis added by beloved Red Star))
And leave “telling” for the closing argument?
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
That’s convenient, its not out of the question, just never going to happen in town who can’t even apply for a bike lane. Let alone give up a lane of traffic.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Man, you guys are a tough crowd. I spent a few days trying to ride a bike in Albuquerque last month and it was total hell. They don’t have any bike striping at all and there are no amenities whatsoever for bikes other than some bike racks downtown.
I agree that Tucson has a long way to go, and there will always be plenty to complain about, but as far as infrastructure goes, I think we are doing pretty well. We just need to keep doing more of it.
And someday somebody needs to walk into the TPD Traffic Division and clean house.
Erik Ryberg
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Frankly, I’d take basic maintenance of the bike lanes over fancy projects like this. You can rarely ride without having to swerve around potholes, cracks or some other hazard.
If and when the city decides to fill them, they usually end up leaving a 2 inch bike speed bump in place of the crack.
I don’t think a lot of the construction workers get that a small crack or bump are magnified when you are on a bike. Nor do they seem to get when you are doing work on the street that the bike lane is not the place to brush all your debris into. My favorite, though, is putting up a “Share the Road” sign in the bike lane. Hello!?
Let’s take care of the infrastructure we have now before we go adding a bunch of new stuff that won’t be maintained either.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
#10
Egg Zackley