The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[ruraljuror]

Off-topic to the transportation thread, but it is a truly hilarious voyage into cognitive dissonance. "High taxes = good; low taxes = bad."

 

At first I was like, FMDJ is really oversimplifying the argument that the these professional economists are making and doesn't seem to be addressing their scores of data at all, but that ROFL emoji you included at the end is a winning argument that's hard to deny.  Can't top that. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

RJ, I didn't want to embarrass you further by pointing out the "author" of your 4-year old piece is one Henry Blodget, a rather notorious figure of ill-repute. Besides usually being wrong on economics (which those conclusions you highlighted clearly demonstrated) as a doctrinaire leftist, he is also infamous in that in 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement. Anywho, do carry on...

[samsonh]

Excellent point by point rebuttal. Bravo fmj

[smeagolsfree]

No More Left, Right / Republican, Democrat / Elephant, Donkey   Discussion.

 

Just to let you know, I can close the thread for a while if needed.

 

No more comments other than directly about the issues, ideas, etc., keeping the politics out of the mix......PLEASE

[Hey_Hey]

Actually anyone using the roads is paying for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund

I don't! I drive an electric car. :-)

We really need to scrap the gas tax and charge based on usage.

[37206dude]

The last thing we need to be doing is raising taxes. We need to be cutting taxes and drastically curtailing spending. If you leftists adore taxes so much, how about you voluntarily pay more ?

 

There are many areas of public policy (schools, health care, etc) where if I went into what I believed you could correctly call me leftist.

 

My view on transportation is fairly libertarian. I stated earlier I want to get rid of mandatory minimum requirements for parking lots on private commercial property. The costs of building and repairing highways are astronomical and not sufficiently paid for directly by the people who use them.  It has been explained many times here that the gas tax itself does not pay for all the costs, not even close.  If you don't want the gas tax to go up then you need to

1) find some other revenue source to build and fix highways

or

2) start charging money to drive

or....

3) let the highways rot and people will find other ways to get around

 

What I like about the concept of a congestion/demand based pricing for highway use is that it kills 2 birds with one stone:  raising revenue for transportation infrastructure and alleviating traffic gridlock.

 

If we make pay to use lanes during high demand, those who cannot afford it will be SOL for now but like everything else people will adjust where they live, where they work, what time they travel, etc.  There's really no other way to begin to fix this.  It would of course work best in conjunction with giving people some safe, affordable, convenient transportation choices.  This includes everything from big mass transit to improved sidewalks and crosswalks.

 

The cost of mass transit projects always generate a lot of criticism but I hear very little about what we spend now on maintaining highways.  I hear often that roads should be one of the core functions of a limited government, but I think we need to modify that slightly to broadly include all transportation.  This is not to say we necessarily need to spend more, only to consider the proportion of what we spend to support (and therefore subsidize) individual auto travel vs mass transit vs walk/bike etc and make some choices about where we get the best return on investments.  Give people some real choices and let them vote with their feet and their wallets.

Edited May 19, 2015 by 37206dude

[samsonh]

I don't! I drive an electric car. :-)

We really need to scrap the gas tax and charge based on usage.

 

Ha, that was said 2 lines later in my post! I agree. Or else you will have a situation where roads continue to deteriorate because those with hybrids/electrics are paying little if no tax for the roads they are using.

[Nashville Cliff]

Actually anyone using the roads is paying for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund

 

 

Good take down on this often cited, but wrong, point on Citylab the other day. They pay for part of it, unless they're driving a hybrid, but far from all of it.  http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-that-only-drivers-pay-for-roads/393134/

Edited May 19, 2015 by Nashville Cliff

[PruneTracy]

I agree. Or else you will have a situation where roads continue to deteriorate because those with hybrids/electrics are paying little if no tax for the roads they are using.

 

At the moment the effect of EVs and hybrids on gas tax revenue is negligible (since hybrids do still pay some).  But yes, it's a growing number.

 

Ironically, the main causes of the deterioration in gas tax revenue are both the result of government policy: fuel-efficiency mandates and inflation.

 

The third rail is this, though: in terms of wear and tear on pavement, one fully-loaded truck = about 9,000 cars.

[samsonh]

Good take down on this often cited, but wrong, point on Citylab the other day. They pay for part of it, unless they're driving a hybrid, but far from all of it.  http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-that-only-drivers-pay-for-roads/393134/

 

Agreed, But a large part of it still comes from the traditional fuel tax.

[ruraljuror]

RJ, I didn't want to embarrass you further by pointing out the "author" of your 4-year old piece is one Henry Blodget, a rather notorious figure of ill-repute. Besides usually being wrong on economics (which those conclusions you highlighted clearly demonstrated) as a doctrinaire leftist, he is also infamous in that in 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement. Anywho, do carry on...

 

FMDJ, what's funny is that I skipped over the first 4 or 5 articles that came back in my search (all of which support the same conclusions) because I knew you would immediately discredit the sources as biased and attack the messenger instead of the content.  Little did I know that Business Insider had also become a suspect platform known for doctrinaire leftist propaganda.  

 

Sorry Smeagols, you're right.  You can lead a horse to water, but there's no need to beat it to death if it won't drink.  

 

This is me walking away, embarrassed.  

[Hey_Hey]

Ha, that was said 2 lines later in my post! I agree. Or else you will have a situation where roads continue to deteriorate because those with hybrids/electrics are paying little if no tax for the roads they are using.

I predict there will be a period of about 5 years in which there's an inflection point in the adoption of electric cars. Right now around 2-3% of cars are either electric, plugin electric, or conventional hybrid (the share inside this 2-3% is shifting more toward plugins and less from conventional hybrids like the Prius). We haven't seen that percentage shift much at all over the last couple years, however 2016 begins the introduction of many "second generation" models of plugins that will be better in performance and range as well as cheaper than their first generation counterparts. This starts with the new Chevy Volt (plugin hybrid) and Bolt (150-200 mile all electric range) in 2016 and will also include the introduction of at least two plugin hybrid SUVs (Mitsubishi Outlander and Volvo XC90), the second generation LEAF in 2017, and maybe most importantly the Tesla Model 3 in 2017-18 which could really be a game changer.

I don't know if the 2016-2021 time period will be that inflection point or not, but I suspect at some point there will finally be a combination of range and price that will attract buyers in droves and we'll see that 2-3% turn into 15-20% in 5 years. If that happens, and we haven't changed the way we charge drivers, then road construction will come to a screeching halt and maintenance will start to seriously lag behind the needs of drivers.

[37206dude]

The funding/gas tax issue is important but slightly tangential to my main point which is that in order to relieve traffic gridlock it will be necessary to reduce driving demand through a combination of tolls and/or building alternative transportation choices.  Although it is very well established, it's somewhat counter-intuitive for a lot of people that when you widen roads (over a fairly large range of sizes) then throughput does not increase, all you do is induce more demand and the speeds do not improve.  If you build it, they will drive on it but no one will get anywhere any faster.  Here is one in the long line of examples of wasteful highway projects by folks who refuse to accept that induced demand is real:

 

The surprising part to me is that according to this article adding capacity for public transportation didn't have much of an effect on congestion either.   The only effective way to alleviate traffic is to charge during high demand.  It's really about the choices people make about how frequently and how far to drive.

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/6994159/traffic-roads-induced-demand

The latest example of this is the widening of Los Angeles' I-405 freeway, which was completed last May after five years of construction and a cost of over $1 billion. "The data shows that traffic is moving slightly slower now on 405 than before the widening," says Matthew Turner.

....

This is because, for the most part, drivers aren't charged for using roads. So it's not surprising that a valuable resource, given away for free, leads people to use more of it. Economists see this phenomenon in a lot of places, and call it induced demand.

If you really want to cut down on traffic, Turner says, there's only one option: charge people to use roads when they're crowded.

A model showing how induced demand works. Typically, traffic volume levels off and reaches an equilibrium over time, but when new capacity gets added, the volume increases to fill it, before reaching a new equilibrium. (Victoria Transport Policy Institute)

Edited May 19, 2015 by 37206dude

[rookzie]

... Although it is very well established, it's somewhat counter-intuitive for a lot of people that when you widen roads (over a fairly large range of sizes) then throughput does not increase, all you do is induce more demand and the speeds do not improve.  If you build it, they will drive on it but no one will get anywhere any faster. ...

...

...

The surprising part to me is that according to this article adding capacity for public transportation didn't have much of an effect on congestion either.   The only effective way to alleviate traffic is to charge during high demand.  It's really about the choices people make about how frequently and how far to drive.

added, the volume increases to fill it, before reaching a new equilibrium. (Victoria Transport Policy Institute)

 

I read similar testimonials and studies while in Northern Indiana back in 1995.  I recall at least one relevant, empirical study stating that within about 5 years following a significant lane increase, driving demand will have offset any speed benefit which might have been realized at the point of roadway project completion, such that passage rate between two given points of comparison analysis would have reverted to pre-construction levels.

 

Sad thing about it all is that no one seems to catch on, despite the continued commissioning of analyses.  Glad you interjected this issue, as I don't think anyone else would chime in, had I brought it up, since I might be considered biased on transport. (you think?)

-==-

Edited May 20, 2015 by rookzie

[Nashvilletitans]

I bought a totally electric car and put solar panels on my house.  I feel good every where I go especially when I am stuck in traffic.  It makes sense to me and I invested it .  My attitude is I can do my part.   but I am not a vegetarian  yet.

[37206dude]

Atlanta is doing this the right way:

They keep one lane moving around 45 mph and adjust the price for the express lane in real time.

I don't see why this won't eventually be expanded to 2 lanes or even the whole highway.

 

This is Atlanta GA here, the solid south and the mecca of excessive sprawl.  If Atlanta can do this there's no excuse for Nashville not to find a way.

 

You can see express lane prices in real time:

http://peachpass.com/cam/lawrenceville

Edited May 20, 2015 by 37206dude

[RonCamp]

The funding/gas tax issue is important but slightly tangential to my main point which is that in order to relieve traffic gridlock it will be necessary to reduce driving demand through a combination of tolls and/or building alternative transportation choices.  Although it is very well established, it's somewhat counter-intuitive for a lot of people that when you widen roads (over a fairly large range of sizes) then throughput does not increase, all you do is induce more demand and the speeds do not improve.  If you build it, they will drive on it but no one will get anywhere any faster.  Here is one in the long line of examples of wasteful highway projects by folks who refuse to accept that induced demand is real:

 

The surprising part to me is that according to this article adding capacity for public transportation didn't have much of an effect on congestion either.   The only effective way to alleviate traffic is to charge during high demand.  It's really about the choices people make about how frequently and how far to drive.

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/6994159/traffic-roads-induced-demand

The latest example of this is the widening of Los Angeles' I-405 freeway, which was completed last May after five years of construction and a cost of over $1 billion. "The data shows that traffic is moving slightly slower now on 405 than before the widening," says Matthew Turner.

....

This is because, for the most part, drivers aren't charged for using roads. So it's not surprising that a valuable resource, given away for free, leads people to use more of it. Economists see this phenomenon in a lot of places, and call it induced demand.

If you really want to cut down on traffic, Turner says, there's only one option: charge people to use roads when they're crowded.

A model showing how induced demand works. Typically, traffic volume levels off and reaches an equilibrium over time, but when new capacity gets added, the volume increases to fill it, before reaching a new equilibrium. (Victoria Transport Policy Institute)

 

 

Atlanta is doing this the right way:

They keep one lane moving around 45 mph and adjust the price for the express lane in real time.

I don't see why this won't eventually be expanded to 2 lanes or even the whole highway.

 

This is Atlanta GA here, the solid south and the mecca of excessive sprawl.  If Atlanta can do this there's no excuse for Nashville not to find a way.

 

You can see express lane prices in real time:

http://peachpass.com/cam/lawrenceville

 

37206dude, thank you for making this point.  Induced demand is one of the most important aspects of transportation planning for areas, like Nashville, which are heavily dependent on the single-occupancy automobile.  Unfortunately most people either are not aware of the concept or choose to ignore it.    

 

It should be noted that Atlanta is also implementing congestion pricing (otherwise known as dynamic price tolling) on new lanes being added to the Northwest Corridor there, along I-75 and I-575 from the Perimeter through to the Acworth and Woodstock areas.  

 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/DS/GEL/NWC 

[RonCamp]

Just remembered that GDOT is also adding congestion pricing to new capacity express lanes south of Atlanta:

 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/DS/GEL/I75ExpressLanes

 

To 37206dude's point, this is Atlanta we are talking about - the capital of southern sprawl and hardly a progressive city known for forward-thinking transportation planning.  If they can do it, we can do it.  

[37206dude]

I think we always need to look at the real data.  We need to look at other cities and see what works and what doesn't.

 

I would have bet a lot based on intuition that having good public transit options would cut highway congestion but according to the article above about L.A. it doesn't seem to make much difference and dynamic pricing is the only strategy shown to dramatically cut congestion.

 

The "induced demand" of additional road capacity seems to be a really robust effect in cities large and small all over the world.  Our natural intuition is that we don't think that many people have much discretion about their driving, but according to the data they do.  There are many small discretionary trips that add up over the whole population and for example if there is a disincentive to driving a long distance to shop people will shop more locally on their way home etc.

 

I have a general interest in transportation but really follow trends in walk/bike infrastucture.  Induced demand works extremely well there too, but only if it is 

1) safe, well protected from car traffic

2) convenient, goes where people need to go.

3) connected, transportation decisions are based on the weakest link.

 

This is a demand that is beneficial to induce.  Relieves congestion, also incrementally improves air quality, health.  Going back to the data again:  Most businesses fight bike lanes tooth and nail because they are scared to lose parking but the data are overwhelmingly positive for small businesses.  Bike/ped have a lower barrier to come into a store, they make more frequent smaller shopping trips which are a net positive for businesses, etc.

Edited May 20, 2015 by 37206dude

[nashvillwill]

I have a general interest in transportation but really follow trends in walk/bike infrastucture. Induced demand works extremely well there too, but only if it is

1) safe, well protected from car traffic

2) convenient, goes where people need to go.

3) connected, transportation decisions are based on the weakest link.

Most businesses fight bike lanes tooth and nail because they are scared to lose parking but the data are overwhelmingly positive for small businesses. Bike/ped have a lower barrier to come into a store, they make more frequent smaller shopping trips which are a net positive for businesses, etc.

37206dude,

Since you brought it up, I will chime in here. And I am welcoming your comments here because I am not trying to persuade anyone on my opinion.

I'm a cyclist. I'm opposed to bike lanes. Wait, wait! Hear me out!

I've spent somewhere around 25k miles in the saddle, so I'm no rookie. But I also realize my opinion is not popular, so I am also not an advocate for "anti-bike lanes", by any stretch. But my reasoning is very simple.

When I ride a bike, I do what's called "taking the lane". What I mean by that is that I position myself in a lane of travel to make the intention clear that a motorist is not going to pass me within the lane I occupy. I'm not in the gutter, I'm not a inferior vehicle. This is my lane. You can perform a dangerous pass, but I'm not going to make it easier on you.

I don't do this to be a jerk, or as some bicycle "rights" advocate. It's simply for the sake of visibility.

On to my point. Bike lanes put cyclist outside of the "threat zone" of motorist. "He's not in my path of travel, so it's not a threat." In my experience, motorist give very little respect to something that is not a threat. I won't even open the can of worms of turning and visibility blind spots of bike lanes.

I simply feel much safer in a vehicular lane of travel. It's just my style.

BUT!! There are some huge limitations to this theory of mine. Once a bicyclist gets onto a road with vehicular traffic over 40-45 mph, they become a danger in most cases. At that point, they are making an inherantly unpredictable situation even more unpredictable. Furthermore, it requires proper street design to make a cyclist be considered as a true vehicle. Out in the suburbs (or much of Nashville), where there is a 8-10' shoulder on every road, I understand motorist desire to scream "get over there!!!". But in the city, with buildings fronting the street, sidewalk and parallel parking, there is nowhere that a cyclist "should" be. Therefore, they ARE a vehicle and must act and be respected accordingly.

Long and short is, I'm more an advocate of proper street design, which lowers speeds, creates a buffer between pedestrians/ building and traffic. I don't like bike lanes. It's just how I feel. In my experience, they make bikes invisible, encourage speeding and in so may documented cases, allow reckless drivers to get away with homicide with the 'ol "I didn't see him" excuse.

Just my thoughts. Like I said, I don't in anyway fight against bike lanes. But I don't really fight for them either.

[37206dude]

Thanks Will,

 

Just to clarify when I say "bike lane", I only mean a protected lane with a real physical barrier (which could be parked cars) separating said lane from traffic.

The FHWA just very recently released their own guidelines:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf

 

 

I have had many discussions with public works and with bike advocates and you will be surprised to know that I 100% agree with you, but we are both very rare even among cyclists.   I have tried to convince many others, and it's almost always no sale even among experienced riders. I am way safer taking the lane, no questions, not even close.  However I do ride through downtown during rush hour, and although the unprotected bike lanes are extremely dangerous I ride in them anyway because it is way way faster than sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.

 

If I were in charge of designing roads then there would either be protected lanes or none at all.  I feel much safer with a car behind me honking and threatening than I do squeezed to the side of the road with cars buzzing by me, riding in a debris filled gutter. Dealing with the road rage that accompanies riding in a full traffic lane is not tolerable for most riders, but I'm pretty well numb to it at this point.

 

I got pissed off during bike to work day when a bunch of riders were squeezing over to the side of a traffic lane (no bike lane) instead of taking the lane properly.  This is insanely dangerous but is what >90% of riders do (of the remaining ones 9% ride on the sidewalk, the other 1% are you and me).

 

Then at the bike to work day reception, I thought one guy at  was going to punch me in the face when I told him that I see no real difference in the last 10 years since we still have no protected lanes.  My statements that paint and signs don't make biking any safer definitely lit a fire for this dude.

 

So I agree with you, in the absence of a protected bike lane it is better to ride in the full traffic lane.  Given the mentality of drivers, and the resulting beaten-dog mentality of most bike riders, this will never happen much.  

Even if it did, that would be dumb road engineering.  You are devoting an entire 12 ft wide lane to a 2 ft wide vehicle that goes 10 mph.  That's a very inefficient use of road space and only a few bikes would dramatically slow car throughput (I haven't modeled it but in a city the size of Nashville the 2 of us are likely to have a negligible effect).

 

The data are overwhelming that traffic flows more efficiently on a complete street with a protected bike lane than with even a few bikes sharing a full lane with cars (I can look up refs another time...).  It is also very clear that road diets lowering lane widths to 11 or even 10 ft have very marginal effects on throughput for cars, especially near saturation.  There are also many very smart ways to design streets to mix bike traffic with turn lanes etc to maximize efficiency of road space.  Even if public works refuses to build real protected lanes, for God's sake on streets with parking put the parked cars next to traffic as a buffer for bikes instead of using riders in the bike lane as human shields to protect parked cars.

 

As far as inducing demand for bike riding, this can be done very robustly but requires the commitment to build a connected grid of protected lanes.

 

 

 

 

37206dude,

Since you brought it up, I will chime in here. And I am welcoming your comments here because I am not trying to persuade anyone on my opinion.

I'm a cyclist. I'm opposed to bike lanes. Wait, wait! Hear me out!

I've spent somewhere around 25k miles in the saddle, so I'm no rookie. But I also realize my opinion is not popular, so I am also not an advocate for "anti-bike lanes", by any stretch. But my reasoning is very simple.

When I ride a bike, I do what's called "taking the lane". What I mean by that is that I position myself in a lane of travel to make the intention clear that a motorist is not going to pass me within the lane I occupy. I'm not in the gutter, I'm not a inferior vehicle. This is my lane. You can perform a dangerous pass, but I'm not going to make it easier on you.

I don't do this to be a jerk, or as some bicycle "rights" advocate. It's simply for the sake of visibility.

On to my point. Bike lanes put cyclist outside of the "threat zone" of motorist. "He's not in my path of travel, so it's not a threat." In my experience, motorist give very little respect to something that is not a threat. I won't even open the can of worms of turning and visibility blind spots of bike lanes.

I simply feel much safer in a vehicular lane of travel. It's just my style.

BUT!! There are some huge limitations to this theory of mine. Once a bicyclist gets onto a road with vehicular traffic over 40-45 mph, they become a danger in most cases. At that point, they are making an inherantly unpredictable situation even more unpredictable. Furthermore, it requires proper street design to make a cyclist be considered as a true vehicle. Out in the suburbs (or much of Nashville), where there is a 8-10' shoulder on every road, I understand motorist desire to scream "get over there!!!". But in the city, with buildings fronting the street, sidewalk and parallel parking, there is nowhere that a cyclist "should" be. Therefore, they ARE a vehicle and must act and be respected accordingly.

Long and short is, I'm more an advocate of proper street design, which lowers speeds, creates a buffer between pedestrians/ building and traffic. I don't like bike lanes. It's just how I feel. In my experience, they make bikes invisible, encourage speeding and in so may documented cases, allow reckless drivers to get away with homicide with the 'ol "I didn't see him" excuse.

Just my thoughts. Like I said, I don't in anyway fight against bike lanes. But I don't really fight for them either.

[rookzie]

Thanks Will,

 

Just to clarify when I say "bike lane", I only mean a protected lane with a real physical barrier (which could be parked cars) separating said lane from traffic.

The FHWA just very recently released their own guidelines:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf

 

 

I have had many discussions with public works and with bike advocates and you will be surprised to know that I 100% agree with you, but we are both very rare even among cyclists.   I have tried to convince many others, and it's almost always no sale even among experienced riders. I am way safer taking the lane, no questions, not even close.  However I do ride through downtown during rush hour, and although the unprotected bike lanes are extremely dangerous I ride in them anyway because it is way way faster than sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.

 

If I were in charge of designing roads then there would either be protected lanes or none at all.  I feel much safer with a car behind me honking and threatening than I do squeezed to the side of the road with cars buzzing by me, riding in a debris filled gutter. Dealing with the road rage that accompanies riding in a full traffic lane is not tolerable for most riders, but I'm pretty well numb to it at this point.

 

I got pissed off during bike to work day when a bunch of riders were squeezing over to the side of a traffic lane (no bike lane) instead of taking the lane properly.  This is insanely dangerous but is what >90% of riders do (of the remaining ones 9% ride on the sidewalk, the other 1% are you and me).

 

Then at the bike to work day reception, I thought one guy at  was going to punch me in the face when I told him that I see no real difference in the last 10 years since we still have no protected lanes.  My statements that paint and signs don't make biking any safer definitely lit a fire for this dude.

 

So I agree with you, in the absence of a protected bike lane it is better to ride in the full traffic lane.  Given the mentality of drivers, and the resulting beaten-dog mentality of most bike riders, this will never happen much.  

Even if it did, that would be dumb road engineering.  You are devoting an entire 12 ft wide lane to a 2 ft wide vehicle that goes 10 mph.  That's a very inefficient use of road space and only a few bikes would dramatically slow car throughput (I haven't modeled it but in a city the size of Nashville the 2 of us are likely to have a negligible effect).

 

The data are overwhelming that traffic flows more efficiently on a complete street with a protected bike lane than with even a few bikes sharing a full lane with cars (I can look up refs another time...).  It is also very clear that road diets lowering lane widths to 11 or even 10 ft have very marginal effects on throughput for cars, especially near saturation.  There are also many very smart ways to design streets to mix bike traffic with turn lanes etc to maximize efficiency of road space.  Even if public works refuses to build real protected lanes, for God's sake on streets with parking put the parked cars next to traffic as a buffer for bikes instead of using riders in the bike lane as human shields to protect parked cars.

 

As far as inducing demand for bike riding, this can be done very robustly but requires the commitment to build a connected grid of protected lanes.

 

The two of you probably are among the very few non-lurkers (or any would-be lurkers) who evidently are the most competent in critiquing and identifying specific and compelling rationale on municipal biking provisions and practices.

I have a question, not for the sake of resolving any unanswered factual matter, but rather to get you take on an issue I feel needs addressing with correction.  In your reference to putting parked cars next to traffic as a buffer for bikes, I see almost every morning a pack of human animals (joggers), sometimes several packs, who jog in the designated bike lanes between 18th and Portland Ave., the one block of Portland alongside the Belmont University campus, where Portland transitions into Belmont Blvd, and along the Blvd.abot a distance of 1.3 mile.  This a highly visible and popular urban thoroughfare mostly residential, with parking along both sides, with sidewalks and parkway grass strips along the fronts of historic four-squares, bungalows, and Tudor-revivals built during the Arts-and-Crafts period of the early 20th C.  Belmont had been a former streetcar line until the early 1940s and following a massive replacement of buried utility infrastructure during the early 2000s, the Blvd. was repaved, eliminating a center lane in favor of unprotected bike lanes in each direction.

These packs of joggers hog the bike lanes, every morning, and during the dark-morning months of late fall, winter, and early spring, these joggers run abreast, sometimes dangerously close to the motor traffic lanes.  For personal safety, they run against the designated direction of the bike lanes, thereby running against the flow of traffic.  Making it even worse, some joggers don't even don reflective clothing, and the city-bus on which I ride every morning often has had to swerve suddenly, upon encountering these joggers.  These joggers don't seem the least intimidated by the darkness or imminently high risk in which they place themselves, and instead they run as if they feel entitlement to the bike lanes, with wanton disregard to both passing motor traffic and approaching cyclists.  What's wrong with that picture?  That's my question.  That should be, not only against the law, but it be enforced at least now and then, rather than condoned.  If those duellie back tires on my bus were to go "smack-smack!" on one of those joggers, who'd be at fault then?

Anyway, that's just a peeve of mind.  That these bike lanes are the unprotected type is sham enough, and it appears that the presence of joggers only places cyclists more at risk with oncoming joggers, the sight of which could drive a rider impulsively into the path of an oncoming vehicle approaching from behind.

-==-

Edited May 21, 2015 by rookzie

[Nathan_in_DC]

I sometimes use bike lanes, especially in low-traffic situations just to avoid causing backups to drivers. However, if there is any congestion or it's dark, I take a lane. No need to expound on the reasons, Will and 37206 have done that enough for me as well.

 

Rookzie: That is a problem that has plagued many bike lanes - if they don't get a lot of use, then they turn in to jogging paths and places for jerks to double park. Unfortunately, this is low on the enforcement priority list for Metro PD, so the problem isn't going away any time soon. It's just a matter of time until someone is seriously injured because A) they were biking and had to leave the lane because a driver or jogger was blocking it, or B) they were jogging and were hit by a cyclist or a car.

[Neigeville2]

...

I have had many discussions with public works and with bike advocates and you will be surprised to know that I 100% agree with you, but we are both very rare even among cyclists.   I have tried to convince many others, and it's almost always no sale even among experienced riders....

That's the problem with a lot of street improvements (and a lot of other changes), the people who are already biking/crossing dangerous streets/whatever are comfortable with it, others are used to avoiding it.  The point is to draw more people in but those people don't have a vested interest yet.  Currently a huge percentage of bikers are daredevil young males who seem to actually enjoy the danger.

[37206dude]

Currently a huge percentage of bikers are daredevil young males who seem to actually enjoy the danger.

 

I'm a 38 year old professional with kids.  I'm generally pretty risk averse.  I'm doing everything I can to try to make biking safer in Nashville.  I have mirrors, lights, and all kinds of gear to try to make myself insanely visible.  I make the best effort I can to ride as to be visible and predictable.

 

I ride because it takes me ~25-30 min including bad weather, CMAs, whatever.  I park my bike at my building.  I don't pay for parking or gas or much for car maintenance.  I get a little bit of activity and fresh air before sitting at a desk most of the day.

 

On the rare times I have to drive it takes 30-60 min (or more if it's raining or there's any events), including the time it takes to walk to the parking deck etc. It costs all the money I describe and I'm stuck in traffic a little pollution making box.

 

I'm making a transportation decision that actually has a positive impact on others as far as traffic congestion, air quality, etc so at the very least we shouldn't actively discourage this behavior.