37 replies to this topic

[Veloise]

fotoman311, on 23 June 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

I rode my bicycle from Weston to Wealthy today on my way to work and I think the diet made a noticeable difference.  I was thinking about it afterward, and I think it's the combination of the wider lane and the fact that cars seemed more comfortable giving more space by going into the center turn lane to pass me instead of having to move over into another lane where there could be traffic going the same direction.

Motorists, or drivers of cars. kthxbai

[jas49503]

fotoman311, on 23 June 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

I rode my bicycle from Weston to Wealthy today on my way to work and I think the diet made a noticeable difference.  I was thinking about it afterward, and I think it's the combination of the wider lane and the fact that cars seemed more comfortable giving more space by going into the center turn lane to pass me instead of having to move over into another lane where there could be traffic going the same direction.

It may be easier with wider lanes and a center lane for drivers to move over but the whole concept of a "sharrow" seems flawed (at least in that location) because traffic still moves way to fast for bikes and drivers will still be angry if some slow cyclist is taking up their lane and they have to drive 12 mph.  As I understand it with sharrows, bikes are free to ride down the center of the lane because they are supposed to have equal access to it. all that's going to do is get them run over.   they should have put some skinny bike lanes to define where the bikers are supposed to ride, knowing that cars are going to be infringing in them most of the time, getting over when there is an actual cyclist.   at least most people know what a bike lane is as opposed to the sharrow, where your average dope smoking (medical of course) factory worker is going to look at that  and go "WTF is that bike arrow thingy in the lane for"  and then proceed to plow over the next biker that enters the lane.

Edited by jas49503, 28 June 2011 - 04:32 AM.

[tSlater]

I disagree with that assumption.  What usually gets bicyclists run over is lack of awareness that a bicyclist is there -- visibility.  With bikes going down the center of the lane they will thus be much more visible than if they are going down some narrow strip off to the side.

[GRDadof3]

jas49503, on 28 June 2011 - 04:30 AM, said:

It may be easier with wider lanes and a center lane for drivers to move over but the whole concept of a "sharrow" seems flawed (at least in that location) because traffic still moves way to fast for bikes and drivers will still be angry if some slow cyclist is taking up their lane and they have to drive 12 mph.  As I understand it with sharrows, bikes are free to ride down the center of the lane because they are supposed to have equal access to it. all that's going to do is get them run over.   they should have put some skinny bike lanes to define where the bikers are supposed to ride, knowing that cars are going to be infringing in them most of the time, getting over when there is an actual cyclist.   at least most people know what a bike lane is as opposed to the sharrow, where your average dope smoking (medical of course) factory worker is going to look at that  and go "WTF is that bike arrow thingy in the lane for"  and then proceed to plow over the next biker that enters the lane.

I've put over 1000 miles on my bike outdoors since the beginning of this season, on city streets, on 55 mph country roads, in groups, singular, and I seldom have people "plow me over" when I'm riding legally in the traffic lane (within 3 feet of the shoulder), sharrows or no sharrows.  Every once in a while you get assholes, but for the most part people are accommodating of bicyclists who are obeying traffic laws.

As I understand it from Suzanne Schulz, MDOT would not allow the exterior lanes to be designated bike lanes "yet" until the experiment is run through.  You know, MDOT, the one who spent $15 Million on big digital signs along the highways to tell us what we already know.

GGRBC has a great flickr photo set of the road diet:

[OneSweetWorld]

GRDadof3, on 28 June 2011 - 09:11 AM, said:

GGRBC has a great flickr photo set of the road diet:

Those pictures remind me, I wonder when we'll finally get some larger street signs. Having the same size signs as small residential neighborhoods makes some of them very hard to see, especially on busier roads like Division, Monroe, and Fulton.

[jas49503]

well it may have been a bit of hyperbole to say that bicyclists will get plowed over.  It doesn't change the fact that that you will have a lot more A--hole drivers because some slow biker is taking up the whole lane for several blocks through downtown.  I think the whole concept is trying to jam a square peg in a round hole to the detriment of both drivers and cyclists.

[fotoman311]

jas49503, on 28 June 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

well it may have been a bit of hyperbole to say that bicyclists will get plowed over.  It doesn't change the fact that that you will have a lot more A--hole drivers because some slow biker is taking up the whole lane for several blocks through downtown.  I think the whole concept is trying to jam a square peg in a round hole to the detriment of both drivers and cyclists.

The sharrows on Division aren't like what you are talking about where the rider is placed exactly in the center of the lane.  Because the lanes were reduced from 4 lanes to three, the two outside lanes are pretty wide, 13.5' according to the engineering drawings, just not wide enough for an adequate 6' - 7' bike lane that is preferred next to parked cars to keep bicyclists from being in the "door zone", the area where car doors reach when they swing open.  

As a result of that wide lane, there is enough room for the bicyclist to be riding on the sharrow, safely outside of the door zone, and the motorist only has to move a few feet into the center turn lane to provide adequate, safe passing room for the bicyclist.  Typically a motorist barely has to slow down at all, and a cyclist will not be "taking up the whole lane for several blocks through downtown."  Additionally, motorists having to slow down and watch for bicyclists also makes the road safer for pedestrians.  You can see the dramatic crash reduction numbers for road diets in the first couple of pages of this report by the Federal Highway Administration: http://www.revisiond...n_Road Diet.pdf

Here's what I'm talking about in this photo:



The sharrow is not directly in the middle of the path of travel of the motor vehicles, like you seem to imply in your posts.  In my opinion, this is an excellent application for sharrows.

Gary Howe in Traverse City has written an excellent, straightforward article with more information on these "shared lane pavement markings": http://mywheelsaretu...res-my-sharrow/

[GRDadof3]

There's a Rapid Growth event tonight at Wealthy Theatre for those looking for more info on biking facilities and best practices:

https://www.facebook...226167244076455

For those non-facebook users:

http://www.rapidgrow...yclingcity.aspx

[fotoman311]

Reporting live, from the South Division sharrows, it's Courtney Perna.

http://www.fox17onli...-Rapids-6-29-11

Good to see an explanation of these relatively new pavement markings in the mainstream media.

Edited by fotoman311, 29 June 2011 - 09:43 PM.

[OneSweetWorld]

Anyone else noticed they changed the sharrows on Division to bike lanes?

[John E]

What Division needs is to eliminate parking and standing between 28th Street and Michigan Street. All businesses need to have sufficient parking for employees and customers/clients next to or behind their place of business with some being able to have parking across the street with a nearby crossing. Then we could have a safe smooth flowing "main street" with two lanes in each direction with a left turn lane where their is room and a bike lane that would be shared with buses and right turning vehicles. There should not be a dedicated lane for the Rapids Silver Line if there can not be two lanes for other traffic in both directions.

~John

[tSlater]

I think eliminating parking on Division would hurt far more than anything.

[John E]

It may at first but it will allow business to establish themselves when people get use to "their" parking. How many businesses on Division rely on street parking? Should they? For Division to prosper as a shopping or business "main street" they NEED to make changes. Obviously the current setting is not working.

~John

[Timize]

I don't know about anyone else, but if I am forced to find a parking spot that is not directly outside or near the business I am going to, I won't go at all... unless it's downtown. It's just not convenient.

[Ted]

On street parking is critical in crafting a successful urban streetscape - beyond the needs of car storage. Division needs less lanes of traffic, not more.

http://www.originalg...-on-street.html

[organsnyder]

This isn't news to many here, but I figured I'd put it on the record:
Burton Street to be put on 'road diet'

I'm really looking forward to this (other than the construction next summer). My family and I live a few blocks south of Burton and attend Hope Reformed Church at Burton & Kalamazoo, so this will impact our transportation plans quite a bit (mainly mine - still trying to get my wife to bike with me more).

Sorry for the WOOD link - no other news outlet has mentioned it yet. The ill-prepared reporter in the video mentions that they'll be sure to continue to cover the story as it develops (to stoke the anger in the typical viewer, I'm sure) - good to know that Target 8 Is On My Side.

Edited by organsnyder, 09 January 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Quercus]

organsnyder, on 09 January 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Burton Street to be put on 'road diet'

I'm really looking forward to this...

I attended the public meeting about this project last month and most everyone at the meeting was in full support of the idea. And if the road diet turns out to be a disaster (it won't), the city can very easily re-paint the road as the location of the curbs will be unchanged. I hope News 8 provides additional information, because that report was pretty thin and the angry story commentators would benefit from more in-depth coverage. A few highlights from the meeting:

• The change is expected to reduce side-swipe and rear ending accidents
  
• That stretch of Burton sees about 16,000 daily vehicle trips, fewer than the other GR streets that have already undergone diets
  
• One mile south, 28th Street sees between 35,000-40,000 daily vehicle trips (pdf)
  
• Traffic lights along the changed route will be timed in order to create "pods" of traffic, making access to residences and businesses easier

I think it's a great move. If you want a quick east-west trip across town, 28th Street is one mile to the south, offers a 45mph speed limit, no RR stops, and has seen reduced traffic since M-6 was built.

[organsnyder]

Also, it will be nice to have a bike-friendly E-W street at that latitude. There are some other options (Boston, Alger...), but none that have the same connectivity; Hall is the closest street that compares.

The opposition seems to be mainly from the party store owner, who complains about losing parking. I'm not sure what the road diet has to do with that - if the streetscape is going to be reconstructed, he'll lose parking whether there are four lanes or three. My guess is that he's mainly concerned about the construction closing off access to his business for the summer, which could put him out of business. Again, this is unrelated to the road diet - the road needs to be reconstructed regardless.

It'd be awesome if Burton east of Plymouth could see the same treatment some day - would the traffic volumes be too high? Burton from Plymouth to the East Beltline would certainly benefit from adding a turn lane.