Tom Thivener on bike boulevards
In response to my earlier post on bike boulevards, Tom Thivener, Tucson’s Bike and Pedestrian Program Manager, sent me a few comments. He said that people here in Tucson don’t always have a clear picture of what a bike boulevard is (I think he was including me in that statement), which he says is “understandable,” because
. . . we don’t have great examples in town yet except for parts of 3rd Street and University Blvd. That facility only has two out of the five core elements that make up a bike boulevard. We have some work to do on that corridor to prioritize bikes better in removing some stop signs, adding better wayfinding signage, adding pavement markings and in calming traffic better. The two core elements that it has today are the bike/pedestrian signals to help cross busy roads and it has pretty low traffic volumes.
The same recipe should work well on other local streets given that not everybody in town lives off of 3rd Street. We have over 600 miles of bike lanes in Tucson, yet only 96 miles of residential bike route. Most of the 96 miles lack the five core elements that make up a bike boulevard. Tucson’s urban core is as dense as Portland’s neighborhoods where bike boulevards are thriving (both at about 5,000 people per square mile). These residential bike routes should be upgraded. If we can do that we might then some new riders out on the streets.
Anyway, below is how Boulder, now a “Platinum” bike-friendly city, does it.
EBR
July 21st, 2010 at 11:32 am
Great video!
July 21st, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Well, Erik…
strange you should include this video
on a thread about bike boulevards.
No mention, no footage of boulevards
anywhere in Boulder.
Two key things they did mention that
Tucson lacks:
Attention to details that add to the
pleasure of riding and
Priority that bikes have in the design
of facilities, ie. bikes not being an
afterthought or secondary.
Everything they said and do concerning
safe routes is spot on and probably
deserving of platinum in itself.
I think if Tom T. does not bring
back some video or images of the
boulevards in Portland, it will be
telling in that boulevards cannot
sell themselves. The more I
contemplate boulevards, the more
I think they are a diversion from
doing more meaningful things for
cycling in Tucson.
I believe Tucson is past boulevards
already and needs to make the ‘leap’.
Thanks for this post!
July 21st, 2010 at 8:43 pm
The bike route map of Tucson shows the 3rd street path going all the way to Wilmont. This is absurd. I normally bike from the university home along Broadway, but due to the rain today at 5pm, I took the 3rd street route.
The bike route effectively ends at Columbus. There is no crosswalk or light there. I waited 5 minutes for a break in traffic to cross there and again another 5 minutes at Swan. Swan has a median with bushes so from the west side of the street it is difficult to see the northbound traffic.
At Craycroft there are no lights but a painted crosswalk on the road. In the rain, at 5:30pm it seems foolish to trust traffic to stop for a pedestrian walking a bike across the road there.
I would have been time ahead to ride down Swan to 5th, cross and ride back up at these streets.
Seems like a core element is missing there.
July 21st, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Coghauler- I’m curious as to what you feel the next “leap” is.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am
The ‘leap’ is an attitude
necessary to commit to a goal
and stay focused to completion.
I think Tucson’s leadership
is a bit uncoordinated and
easily distracted.
Things happen but in a hurky-
jerky sort of way. They can’t
seem to trust that they know
where they’re going.
Some neat goals might be:
A radial system of greenways
from outlying areas to and through
Dowmtown.
A velodrome.
Completion of the perimeter
bikeway.
And, like in Boulder, attention
to the details that add to the
attractiveness of cycling.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
If the University if Arizona tore down say, 60% (or 70%, or 80%, or 90%)of its parking garages and 90% of its remaining parking lots (and replaced them with whatever — classrooms, labs, dorms), how might commuter cycling in Tucson change in terms of infrastructure and innovation?
Just a thought experiment that considers the 800 lbs. inertia-driven and neurotic gorilla in the background…
July 22nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
“How might commuter cycling in Tucson change in terms of infrastructure and innovation?”
I don’t think it would since not everybody in Tucson is a student or employee of the University, and a significant number of University students do not live anywhere near campus (and would recoil at the notion of having to ride a bicycle 8 miles in and 8 miles back in 110F weather while carrying books.) As nice as it is to think about becoming a Boulder or Davis, in Tucson we don’t have the weather for it to be a realistic idea.
I *do* think that if the UofA destroyed the majority of their garages and parking lots that it would lead to increased demand for rapid public transportation by students, especially those who live on the east side. It might mean investment for more buses that would run every 10 minutes instead of every hour. Maybe even light rail. Both things would make the city a lot more livable for everybody.
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:45 am
I just got back from PDX and rode on the bike boulevards and on street bike lanes.
I’ll post my observations, photos and video on Monday, but their bike boulevards worked really well. They get you places easily and they feel much safer. Many of the crossings at major intersections did not have signals, though.
The thing is, the drivers were pretty amazing. They were trained to look for bikes and would stop to let you cross the intersection. Even a bus driver stopped to let us pass.
I doubt that would happen here in Tucson.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:18 am
So it would seem that the sense of
safety stems from the behavior of
car drivers.
I’m really puzzled by the “feel
much safer” statement. What is it
about how the boulevard looks that
gives that sense? Because if there
aren’t many signalized crossings, then
the boulevards lack actual design
safety. Signalized crossings are a
safer design than unsignalized crossings.
I think of a definition of safe (safety,
safer) as being the removal of a hazard.
Then I get my feeling from that.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:23 am
They feel much safer because the speeds on the bike boulevards are much slower and there are a lot less traffic on them.
because there is less traffic on them, it is much easier for a car to go around you (at the slower speed) and give you a wide berth because they don’t also have to contend with oncoming traffic.
The drivers are much better trained too.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Good discussion. I have learned a lot from my vacation time in Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, BC this month. Portland has some great facilities in bike boulevards, the greenways along the river that runs through downtown, and the fabulous bridges that connect the downtown to the neighborhoods. Portland has few bike lanes compared to Tucson. They are mostly on streets where no low traffic option was available. More recently they’ve been doing a lot of road diets to get bike lanes or buffered bike lanes on major roads to slow down vehicle speeds and improve the overall bike network. Downtown lacks many bike facilities, but speeds are slow and the lights are timed so that if you are going 10 to 13 mph you can make every light, so car speeds are kept in check that way too.
Portland’s bike boulevards are well used and offer a low-stress way to bike from virtually any neighborhood to schools, businesses, transit centers, the downtown, etc. They seem to be a core facility in getting Portland’s bike use up to 6% but all the other pieces are equally as important. I can’t imagine the bike boulevards working as well if their bridges linking the downtown didn’t have bike paths on them and vice versa.
Portland’s recipe for bike boulevards seems pretty simple. Take the most direct residential street (about every 1/4 mile to half mile apart), add wayfinding signs to tell you when to turn, add shared-lane pavement markings, add traffic calming if speeds are higher than 25mph, turn stop signs to the side streets and provide help at key crossings. Portland has a couple bike signals but for the most part bikes either take advantage of the pedestrian signal at what are called ‘half-signals’ or there is some sort of median device to calm traffic/give bikes a refuge to wait in. I can see why they haven’t invested in many bike signals so far. The main roads that the bike boulevards have to cross are much smaller than Tucson’s. Portland’s main roads are typically 2 or 3 lanes to cross, while Tucson typically has 5 or 6 lanes, or more in some circumstances. An engineer I met here called Tucson the home of the mega-arterial roads.
More impressive than any facility in Portland is their encouragement programs. From the City’s Smart Trips program to the 5 Ciclovia’s this summer held in different neighborhoods, to Pedalpoloza in June to all the random bike stuff that the community is doing. All these programs, events, fun bike things seem to have created a super bike awareness here even among the folks who never get out onto bikes.
I think the debate over bike boulevards is largely over. The BAC, numerous neighborhoods, private citizens, health/wellness groups, etc are in support of this sort of infrasture. If you take yourself outside of the immediate vicinity of the university you will your options for riding a bike to be severly limited to basically riding on major roads. find our residential bikeway network to be severly lacking
From talking to The thinI have about 500 photos of bike facilities in Vancouver BC and Portland OR to sort through.
July 25th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Okay so I guess there is a time limit to this as it posted early. To continue…
If you take yourself outside the university area in Tucson, you’ll find that options are limited to the main roads. Imagine you live on the east side near 5th Street and Craycroft. If you wanted to ride Crossroads Festival at Grant/Swan to catch a movie, get grocercies, have coffee, you could drive or you could ride there. If you wanted to ride you could take the main roads, riding up Craycroft or Rosemont and Grant to get there. You could also take the residential routes like Sahuara, Seneca or Arcadia but since these bike routes don’t have signals to help you cross the road it can be quite difficult to do so. Put these diffulties together and not very many people bike to Crossroads Festival or very much at all on that part of town. Folks need options over there and bike boulevards are part of the solution to auto-dependency for some trips. So are the urban greenways that Parks and Rec is planning along the secondary wash system.
Perhaps the leadership of Tucson is distracted by other issues. Part of the problem lies in how Tucsonans advocate or don’t advocate for change. Tucson is probably the only community rated Silver or higher by the League of American Bicyclists that does not have an active bike advocacy organization. How can Tucson become a more livable community where the bike is seen as a valid mobility tool instead of just as a recreational tool, if no one is working on building consensus on what that vision is? We have some super active indivuals in this community who serve on numerous boards and committees, and who volunteer their time encouraging folks to ride, or teach folks how to be more confident riders. But we don’t have a group who has the time to work the many hours needed to define or implement such a vision for better bicycling in Tucson. This is a real weak spot that the League of American Bicyclists have pointed out. Until a group mobilizes and defines their vision, the leadership of this community will continue to focus on other issues.
July 25th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Coghauler is not anti-Bike Boulevard.
He’s just seeking a definitive positive
for them and thinks ‘feels safer’
is somewhat nebulous and subjective.
But, maybe it doesn’t work that way.
I was drawn to Tom T.’s comments on
support systems that help bike boule-
vards work…the bridges.
I have put forth as part of the Grant
Road project, underpasses like the ones
on Speedway at U.of A. at at least one
location serving bike and pedestrian
traffic. Crossroads seems a ripe location,
too. The idea was met with barely a ho-hum.
But, I don’t think they’re making Grant Rd.
narrower and easier to cross. There again,
the visual perception of safety.
I think Tucson’s connector streets are
ideal and need not be intimidating.
Glenn serves as a backdoor to Crossroads
for people to the North.
Does the city fear empowering such
an advocacy group with enough influence
to be effective?
July 25th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Cog, I think the underpass idea is AWESOME!
As far as the “feels safer” argument, the perception of safety is often more important that the actual safety.
Take SUVs for example, many people buy them because they are big and surrounded my metal, so they must be safer. In reality, passenger cars are much safer when you are in an accident.
That being said about perception versus reality, I’ve quoted a study Tom did about crashes on 3rd Street versus Broadway.
July 26th, 2010 at 10:09 am
I agree with Tom on the notion of the missing bike advocacy organization. ISTM that our current crop of local groups are more interested in organizing rides and races (and rides that masquerade as races) than they are in growing the pool of riders.
An advocacy organization, especially one that doesn’t cater to the spandex-wearing, fast-riding crowd, could work wonders.
July 26th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Anyone know if there are private grant funds available to get an advocacy group off the ground? BikesBelong, Trek, etc?
July 26th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
That’s exactly what I have thought, Martha.
The current group is interested in improving
the situation for riders as they know them.
Riding clubs and the BAC are basically
made up of that group. If you want to steer
that focus another way, then you should get
involved and represent what you think is
needed to bring more riders onto the streets.
It is difficult for riders to foresee and speak
for those who don’t ride yet or want to use
their bikes differently. The BAC is very
shorthanded as far as diversity of input
is concerned and welcomes all to get involved.