DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by glowrock

dmintz, there's nothing wrong with taking away a traffic lane when there's feasibly enough lanes to do so. Taking a lane out of a four-lane major artery is a recipe for disaster, however. Want to take a lane off of Broadway or Lincoln? Fine by me, there are more than enough traffic lanes to do it. But on 15th between LoDo and Highlands? No way...

Aaron (Glowrock)

Agreed. +1

And filling even more space...

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Is NYC's bicycle network really all that comprehensive?

There's not a city in the country that has done a better job with bike infrastructure in the last 5-10 years than New York. It's not just that they were the first US city to adopt cycle tracks or that they have the most of them. It's also that they have by far the most bike boxes, and also that the typical NY non-track regular bike lane is more substantial than in most other cities.

Here's a typical bike lane as they exist in most cities. This picture is from Arapahoe Street in Denver (they look the same in DC - I'm not picking on Denver):


photo from Google Street View

If you're not paying a whole lot of attention, you might not notice it's there. The visual clues designating it are very minimal.

New York on the other hand loads up its bike lanes with enough visual clues that you can't possibly miss it. A thicker white line that is clearly different than a normal lane break, green paint, and very frequent cyclist glyphs. It's much more substantial, and much more safe. The effect is that New York's regular bike lanes are almost as good as cycle tracks.


photo from flickr user parker yo

New York also has dozens and dozens of bike boxes at intersections. Maybe hundreds. I don't think any other American city has more than 2 or 3, and very few even have 1. Bike boxes give bikes a safe place to queue at red lights, eliminating the danger of being hit by turning cars.


photo from flickr user tastybite

And then there are the things that don't show up on pdf maps, such the Summer Streets program. On Saturdays during summer Park Avenue is closed to cars and becomes the biggest bikeway on the continent:


My picture

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Taking a lane out of a four-lane major artery is a recipe for disaster, however.

right, no one would ever think of taking a lane out of a major artery like this- http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.759025,-73...qsSWIU34JZgSMWCreQ&cbp=12,191.52,,0,2.59
there's just no capacity to spare- http://maps.google.com/?ll=39.755941,-10...9BU1bW3UWa2TrY08RJw&cbp=12,322.13,,0,6.4
are you sure that left hand turn lane couldn't be put to better use?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by dmintz

right, no one would ever think of taking a lane out of a major artery like this- http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.759025,-73...qsSWIU34JZgSMWCreQ&cbp=12,191.52,,0,2.59
there's just no capacity to spare- http://maps.google.com/?ll=39.755941,-10...9BU1bW3UWa2TrY08RJw&cbp=12,322.13,,0,6.4
are you sure that left hand turn lane couldn't be put to better use?

Yes, pick the only stretch of 15th with a 5-lane ROW. How about you show us the segment from railroad underpass to Wynkoop where the actual problems are if you want to be taken seriously. Because unfortunately, some poor public works sap someplace actually has to deal with both parts - where it's easy and where it's hard.

You really don't seem to get it. Or possibly you just don't care; you are anti-car to the point that traffic isn't even a concern on your radar. But anyways, there are diminishing returns with traffic lanes. Ignoring traffic counts for a moment... Expanding from 1-lane to 2-lanes is not the same as going from 4-lanes to 5-lanes. Similarly, a reduction from 5-lanes to 4-lanes is in no way comparable to a reduction from 2-lanes to 1-lane. I would think that is common sense, but apparently it is not.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

There's not a city in the country that has done a better job with bike infrastructure in the last 5-10 years than New York. It's not just that they were the first US city to adopt cycle tracks or that they have the most of them. It's also that they have by far the most bike boxes, and also that the typical NY non-track regular bike lane is more substantial than in most other cities.

On to the productive half of this discussion... I am, for all intents and purposes, a bicycle layperson, so a question for you. I like the green pavement markings, especially at the intersections, that's good stuff. But just comparing your first two pictures there, what you're saying seems counter-intuitive to me. I think I would prefer a buffered lane, Denver/DC style over a rightmost-4-feet bike lane, painted or not. It seems to me that most cyclists would want to stay off the curb and gutter, inlets, manholes, and everything else that makes for a rough ride in the closest 2-feet to the curb, essentially pushing bikes closer to traffic. Is that not how it plays out in practice?

(I see that this is a pedestrian street, but I am still curious, do we have data on which trumps - dedicated pavement markings versus buffers? I can see real resistance to coloring a buffered lane, although I agree, that would be ideal. I have always been a proponent of colored concrete, or some other form of differentiated sidewalks - doing the same for bicycles seems obvious too. That is a cost I believe we should happily stomach to improve the overall streetscape...not to mention, I've also believed that the horrendous costs of colored concrete would come down, if only one decent sized municipality would make a long-term and large-scale commitment to using it! How does fill-paint hold up through the winter plowing season - I assume it doesn't deteriorate/damage the same as regular striping? I sure I have something in some book on that someplace... although maybe not, how many regular public works crews ever have to deal with that on a widespread basis?)

[Cirrus]

It seems to me that most cyclists would want to stay off the curb and gutter, inlets, manholes, and everything else that makes for a rough ride in the closest 2-feet to the curb, essentially pushing bikes closer to traffic. Is that not how it plays out in practice?

I picked that particular NY picture to illustrate the various visual clues, not because of its curbside location.

But since you asked, separation from cars is the most important thing. People will put up with a rumbly surface if they feel safe from cars, which is why cycle tracks are preferable to regular bike lanes. Also, it's preferable for bikes to be on the right side of cars rather than the left because of the dooring problem.

The NY picture is a little bit of a weirdo because its on a pedestrian street. Given that location it probably would have been more ideal to pull it off the curb a couple of feet. But under normal operating circumstances a curb buffer is definitely a lower priority than a car buffer.

Of course you can avoid both problems by putting the bikeway down the middle, like this, but that introduces its own set of problems.


my picture

I can see real resistance to coloring a buffered lane, although I agree, that would be ideal... How does fill-paint hold up through the winter plowing season - I assume it doesn't deteriorate/damage the same as regular striping?

I'm not sure what New York uses. Portland does a lot of lane painting too, and I think Seattle does as well. It would be interesting to know what they all use.

Obviously from a maintenance perspective the best way to do it would be with colored concrete, but it's hard enough to get approval for bike lanes when you're just painting a stripe. Good luck getting funding to repave.

Also, if we can get to the point where colored lanes are practical, transit lanes should be a third color.

[bunt_q]

(Bunt picturing the Tea Party Caucus going for a lunchtime bike ride.)

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yes, pick the only stretch of 15th with a 5-lane ROW. How about you show us the segment from railroad underpass to Wynkoop where the actual problems are if you want to be taken seriously. Because unfortunately, some poor public works sap someplace actually has to deal with both parts - where it's easy and where it's hard.

actually, wynkoop to the railroad pass is 5 lanes- http://maps.google.com/?ll=39.751397,-10...NcJicYPukkYYONh-A&cbp=12,328.81,,0,14.65

the only choke point is under the bridge which already allows bikes along the sidewalk or a detour around wewatta would be fairly straight forward.

Similarly, a reduction from 5-lanes to 4-lanes is in no way comparable to a reduction from 2-lanes to 1-lane. I would think that is common sense, but apparently it is not.

that first photo (http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.756945,-73...qsSWIU34JZgSMWCreQ&cbp=12,191.52,,0,2.59) was from broadway through times square which was turned entirely into a pedestrian plaza (not just removing 1 out of 4 lanes). where ever did all those cars go?

[wong21fr]

^Oh, probably over to the two other major N/S arterial's that parallel Broadway through Times Square. You know, the one's with four to five lanes of one way traffic. You don't have multiple avenues in the CPV to absorb the the vehicle traffic that would be displaced. Only two streets feed into the CPV from the Highlands, 15th and 20th (with 20th being a really, really shitty connection). A rather tragic lack of infrastructure investment IMO.

As for detouring bikes onto the sidewalk. I, as a pedestrian, do not want to have to share the sidewalk with cyclists shooting down 15th at high speeds trying to get to work. Though I wouldn't mind cross-checking a couple with a baton.

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

^Oh, probably over to the two other major N/S arterial's that parallel Broadway through Times Square. You know, the one's with four to five lanes of one way traffic.

there are no avenues that parallel broadway (it is the only one which runs diagonal to the grid).

As for detouring bikes onto the sidewalk. I, as a pedestrian, do not want to have to share the sidewalk with cyclists shooting down 15th at high speeds trying to get to work. Though I wouldn't mind cross-checking a couple with a baton.

and I as a bicyclist do not want to share the road with traffic speeding down 15th st at 40 mph. so how about we make accommodations for every type of user which allows for some separation?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by dmintz

there are no avenues that parallel broadway (it is the only one which runs diagonal to the grid).

Fine, the avenues that roughly parallel Broadway while disregarding the observation that the avenues are not perfectly parallel to Broadway. The point is, there are multiple N/S avenues with multiple lanes in NYC that are within two blocks to either side of Broadway that could accommodate the traffic. That is not the case with 15th.

and I as a bicyclist do not want to share the road with traffic speeding down 15th st at 40 mph. so how about we make accommodations for every type of user which allows for some separation?

Sure, there's the Cherry Creek trail, the Millennium Bridge, or why not put the bike lane on the road that does have the excess space: 20th St? The choke point on 15th just seems like it's too much of a constraint (and you need to get past it to make a bike lane effective) and would be a very costly fix whereas a shift to 20th would be easier.

[Cirrus]

I'm not familiar enough with 15th to comment on this question, but I will say this: 20th is 5 blocks away from 15th. It's a half mile, one direction. If the idea here is that 20th should be the only crossing then that's asking too much of cyclists. That's 10 extra blocks and a full extra mile they'd have to ride to get to 20th from 15th and then come back to 15th once across the valley. That's enough to pretty much dissuade all but the most hardcore people from doing it.

I *assume* that's not really what's going on, and that there's some sort of alternate off-street bike crossing near the confluence somewhere, or maybe the new CPV foot bridges. If so, no worries. But sending everyone to 20th isn't good enough.

[EngiNerd]

Many bikers use the Millennium bridge/16th...A stop sign was recently installed at Platte St. for safety, and they have even provide bike tracks along the edge of the bridge stairs to make it easier to walk them up/down (or take the elevator). Just go to 16th St., its much safer than 15th St.

[bunt_q]

There is another connection - through the park and over the 16th Street bridges (the one that even has neat little walk-your-bike-up concrete grooves). But that was already deemed inadequate by the anti-car crowd in the previous conversation.

Taking a lane on 15th is simply a non starter. It will never ever happen. But by all means, continue to push for that, and you'll undermine support for bike lines everywhere you turn.

As for the left turn lane at Wewatta, whatever it looks like today, that is destined to be a major major street. It's the only real access to the entire Union Station neighborhood. And only really ties into downtown at two places, 15th and Park (and Speer, I suppose). It is inconceivable to me that those turn lanes won't be over-capacity on day one. Taking them out is a ludicrous suggestion that only a cars-will-go-away-entirely believer could deliver with a straight face.

[Cirrus]

We had unlimited right of way to work with when designing Wewatta. There should have been bike lanes there from the start.

Oops.

[Okayyou]

16th through the CPV has both good and bad. The ped bridges over I25 and the Platte are easy and quick to navigate on a bike. The main issue stems from how to cross the tracks. Dismounting and pushing or carrying your bike doesn't sound like much but it is a hindrance. Mentally, your speed and fluidity are disrupted; you are forced to become slower than a pedestrian. I watched a small woman struggle to push her b-cycle up the ramp. Those bikes, as discussed before, are pretty heavy. Not everyone on a bike is a 20-35 yo fit male.

The second issue i've found, when exiting the ped bridge onto the CBD side of the tracks, where should one go? Onto the mall? I think bikes might be allowed on the lower portion but you can't continue through downtown on 16th. Paths to 14th or 18th aren't signed. This might be fixed with the Union Station redesign. Biking with the mall ride behind you isn't a great solution for either party. Again, not a problem for avid cyclists but it can be confusing for the occasional commuter or weekend rider.

I think the city missed an opportunity with the 18th street bridge. Putting in some corkscrew ramps or extending the bridge as a ramp like the calatrava bridge in Venice,



from http://slowtalk.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/862600685/m/1521095754

would have allowed bikes to fluidly move from the CPV to the CBD and would spit them out near the 18th&19th bike routes through the CBD.

[awholeparade]

Not that everyone should do this, but for those that are literally struggling to push their bikes up the bridge...why don't they use the massive, cargo sized elevators on either side of the bridge?

I agree with Okayyou on the issue of where to go once you cross. It took me a long time (too long, maybe) to figure out how to consistently navigate my way back to Capitol Hill, if i wasn't planning on going down 17th.

[The Dirt]

They really should tunnel 19th under the tracks one of these days. Whether this is pedestrian/bike access only or mixed with car access, the neightborhood really needs more connections across the tracks.

While they're at it, a bridge over the Platte at around 17/18th would be great as well. Eventually, I'd love to see another bridge over I-25 at Central Ct/18th. I love the Highland Bridge, but it's quite narrow, which makes the walk very noisy. A wider bridge would block a lot more of the highway noise.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

We had unlimited right of way to work with when designing Wewatta. There should have been bike lanes there from the start.

Oops.

A lot of bad planning in that area. No further comment.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I'm not familiar enough with 15th to comment on this question, but I will say this: 20th is 5 blocks away from 15th. It's a half mile, one direction. If the idea here is that 20th should be the only crossing then that's asking too much of cyclists. That's 10 extra blocks and a full extra mile they'd have to ride to get to 20th from 15th and then come back to 15th once across the valley. That's enough to pretty much dissuade all but the most hardcore people from doing it.

I *assume* that's not really what's going on, and that there's some sort of alternate off-street bike crossing near the confluence somewhere, or maybe the new CPV foot bridges. If so, no worries. But sending everyone to 20th isn't good enough.

IMO, you raise an interesting question.

What grid spacing should bike lanes have on the road grid? In a hypothetical rectolinear grid, there would be an X distance between- say the streets- and a Y distance between the avenues. Maybe 1 kilometer?

And, if such a grid of bicycle lanes were laid out, where would the bicyclists ride between dedicated lanes of the bicycle grid? On the street or the sidewalk?

On streets with bicycle lanes, does that mean that cars cannot parallel park on the outside of the bike lane? If permitted on the inside, what about open doors?

I had a very close call with a biker on the one way 14th Avenue south of Colfax. A bike rider insisted on biking parallel on the traffic side of a continuous row of parked cars. If I had hit him due to someone opening their car door in his way, should I be liable? Should the occupant of the car who opened his car door be liable?

Should bicyclists or the bikes themselves be required to carry some type of insurance?

This all ties together. If you have a dedicated bicycling grid, should the bicyclists be able to ride their bikes on parallel streets? What, besides convenience do dedicated bike landes provide?

I can see their practicality if bikers had to dismount and walk their bikes between dedicated bike lanes in the grid. Instead, this provides bicyclists with their own ROW, which they can use in addition to riding on parallel streets and on the sidewalk.

My opinion is to license bikes and bicyclists and have some kind of insurance. Have enforcable laws governing bicycle traffic and penalties for breaking them. If this were done, then dedicated bicycle lanes make a lot of sense.

[awholeparade]

As far as 14th goes, it's really the safest to ride on the side where cars park, since drivers pay more attention to that side, due to opening doors, people walking between parked cars, and just more possible hazards on that side. Also, it gives a cyclist a spot to get some more room, if no cars are parked in the space. It doesn't look like it, but 14th is a seriously sketchy road to ride on. I've lived directly off of it twice, and kinda hated that it was the most direct way to get home.

Edited for reading comprehension failure.