(Photo by J. Maus/BikePortland)
Let me make this as clear as possible: If Portland wants to get more people cycling, we must provide a network of high-quality, physically protected routes that are connected to destinations. Any bikeway that does not provide physical protection from “A to B” that’s both real and perceived is a gap in the network.
I bring this up because of the fanfare that launched Better Naito last week. Don’t get me wrong, I think the fanfare is justified. The volunteers who advocated for the project initially and the city staff that have embraced it have many reasons to be proud. But let us not forget that this is still second-rate infrastructure designed on the cheap.
So we shouldn’t be surprised that it doesn’t work as well as it should.
During the Better Naito press conference, a man in a small Acura SUV drove right into the bike-only lane, following right behind a woman on a bicycle (in photo above). He was completely clueless that he had crossed over in a no-car zone. I dismissed it as a fluke and thought, surely, that with 470 plastic bollards installed by expert city engineers, we wouldn’t have to worry about such things.
Then I got home and someone texted me a video…
Advertisement
Then I saw this via Twitter today…
@CCCPortland driver N-bound, turning R in truck almost hit me in #betterNaito. #WTH #bikemonth @PBOTinfo @BikePortland #ifNotThereThenWhere
— JayBee (@j3pdx) May 2, 2017
Sigh.
How do we prevent this? It’s extremely simple. Just design it like we mean it and add real protection. Make our bikeways clueless driver proof. Here are a few examples I saw during a trip to New York City in 2012…
It’s widely known that Portland’s reputation as a great cycling city has been damaged by our lack of protected bike lanes. The most recent example is an article in Sightline by David Goldberg (the man who coined the term “complete streets”) who determined that Vancouver, Canada is now the best big bike city in Cascadia. That’s despite the fact that by sheer volume we have nearly twice as many “bikeway miles” as they do. The chart below shows the key discrepancy…
We must do more to protect the most vulnerable road users from the ones with the potential to do most harm. I guess we’re making progress. Better Naito started with traffic cones and wood palettes. Now it’s got flexible plastic bollards. How long do we have to wait for something that will actually deter people from putting their dangerous motor vehicles where they don’t belong?
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
BikePortland is supported by the community (that means you!). Please become a subscriber or make a donation today.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
the ones in New York seem to mostly just be narrower. Plastic wands at intersections splitting the bike lanes in half would probably give a better visual cue. Of course, they would have to be easily replaceable
Yes, put some bollards at the entrance to that bike lane so no car will fit in it. That lane LOOKS like a car lane; just separated by the “bollards” for who knows what reason. PDX streets have so many weird markings for bikes (that no other place in the world uses) that most car drivers, including me, have no idea what many of them mean!
Well, at least PBOT/City Council can be complacent, er… comfortable, in the knowledge that the League of American Bicyclists will again re-certify Portland as “Platinum” despite all evidence to the contrary.
/s
Hate to break it to you, but plenty of people drive and park in the bike lanes in New York also. So many drivers just don’t seem to care, or can’t be arsed enough to look up from their phones once in a while. Driving is inherently a selfish and anti-social act, so it’s no surprise that there are some drivers who couldn’t care less about the safety of others.
The one bike lane in Portland that never seems to have this problem is the SW Moody cycleway, and there’s a specific reason for this – it’s actually built as a proper cycleway. Permanent Better Naito should resemble this example. It’s too bad we didn’t just spend the money on getting Naito right the first time, rather than spending extra money iterating over the design every year.
I realize that Adam, and don’t think everything is perfect in NYC. I only shared those images as examples of what real protection looks like. design methods are not the problem here. PBOT knows exactly what to do. The problem here is about policy and priority and politics and urgency (all of which are intertwined of course).
and I agree with you about SW Moody (too bad it’s so short and doesn’t connect to anything. It should lead directly into downtown just like the streetcar line does!). But we don’t even need to spend that much money to make a big jump. Concrete jersey barriers would be a vast improvement over plastic sticks.
The problem with concrete Jersey barriers that are continuous is that when a delivery vehicle invariably parks in the lane, illegally of course, or a police car parking legally, bicyclists have no recourse to get around the vehicle. The best solution is a curb, but those are expensive.
When you say “priority”, do you mean “money”?
I don’t think priority is the same as money – at all. We have plenty of money (per capita, earmarked for transport, etc.); the problem is that we spend it on expensive, cars only sh!t which the next freeze + studded tires will invariably disintegrate, and we’ll have to re-spend those dollars to fix it all over again. If instead we spent that money on decent bike infrastructure it wouldn’t wear out in 18 or 36 months and it would serve and encourage the kind of mode choice that pays dividends, saves the city money, rather than draining the coffers of our city and state, not to mention climate and health.
No, but we *would* still have to rebuilt it every few years when cycling advocates change their mind about what “good enough” means to them.
Concrete jersey barriers would be difficult in this application. The bikeway is still used for loading/unloading during those specified hours. Each permit to load require heavy equipment and personnel to move the jersey barrier.
This is part of the problem in New York:
http://copsinbikelanes.tumblr.com/
Thanks for posting this. Here’s a recent article from Brooklyn Spoke
https://brooklynspoke.com/2017/05/01/law-order/
that gives a decent perspective on why the NYPD is not interested in safety, aside from the singular and lovely 49th (May their subversive ideas multiply within the NYPD).
https://twitter.com/NYPD49Pct/status/822511121911386113
That’s a really interesting take on it, and one I don’t think we’ve seen here before.
This ‘educational tool’ can apply to cop cars, too:
http://iparkedinabikelane.bigcartel.com/product/i-parked-in-a-bike-lane-sticker
$40 million to rebuild .7 miles of Moody Ave.! Let’s hope it works well…..
is that a good number?
How much for the bike path and paint? Surely not even 5% of that….
A LOT. Much more that 5%. They had to pour all of the new concrete for the walks and bikeways. This wasn’t just painting new lines on already there facilities.
“Much more that 5%”
Do you know the figure or are you just making stuff up? I’m genuinely curious.
I rode the street before and after, and I know how much a single mile of narrow sidewalk costs for the city.
I guess you could classify that as “just making stuff up”. A quick search provided nothing “concrete”.
“Driving is inherently a selfish and anti-social act” ? Please get over your false sense of superiority, for real. My 7 months pregnant wife is selfish for driving from 52nd & Foster to her job in downtown Gresham? Statements like yours make this website a lot less appealing than it used to be about 2 or 3 years ago. Oh yeah, isn’t that when you moved here?
Hold on a minute. I don’t happen to agree with Adam H’s statement but will say that I appreciate him contributing it as good for thinking. Perhaps it is worth taking his statement to heart, wrestle with it for a spell.
Here’s a distinction that Adam’s post raised for me: Your pregnant wife isn’t consciously, deliberately committing a selfish act, but could it be that from a different perspective (your not-yet-born child?) this reflexive falling back on the car to get ourselves anywhere at any time may be seen as selfish, far from unproblematic, ecocidal, etc. I’d rather have the discussion, be prompted to see these problems in a light I wouldn’t have thought of than tell someone they are out of line.
But that’s not what he said. Adam thinks that anyone who drives a car, for any purpose, is a selfish a$$hole, full stop. There is no room for nuance in his worldview. He also hates sunshine.
Wait wait wait. All he said that was driving was inherently selfish and antisocial. I appreciate that those terms have strong negative connotations, but in their literal meanings, they’re true. When I drive out to The Dalles most weekends lately to see the FREAKING SUN for my mental health, I am benefiting myself at the expense of others (selfish). The costs that I’m imposing on others are significant – local air pollution, noise, danger, increased climate change, and continued occupation of copious public space by vehicles which almost completely eliminate positive social interaction by their occupants with people outside the vehicles (antisocial).
Personally, I have decided that the selfish and antisocial aspects of those driving trips are worth the benefits, both for myself and for others. I do lots of work that is good for others, and am less able to do that work when I’m suffering from seasonal depression. However, I think that KTaylor and others on this thread are right that many people either have never really considered the negative impacts of driving on others, or have decided to ignore them rather than weighing them as a real cost in their decision-making. I think many of those folks are still making the right decision (their life circumstances and our government policy are often huge barriers to the non-car options). But, not considering the negative aspects of driving is a significant factor leading people to be mean to people traveling by other modes, oppose government spending and prioritization of those other modes, etc.
Ah yes, the “outsiders with a different persecutive than my own are ruining Portland” attitude. Perhaps you’d prefer we build a wall around our city so that those pesky midwesterners stop ruining your way of life?
On the contrary — many of us appreciate you telling us how we need to change.
It’s not so much what you say but more how you say it… if you turn people off who agree with you, that’s not effective communication, Adam. I agree with most of what you say but your comments still get under my skin.
For example, your ‘selfish’ comment… I could easily say that moving to Portland from the midwest is a selfish act (and I just did 🙂
Adam, please do not put words in my mouth, I never said anything bashing all people from the midwest, did I? I like midwesterners, some of the hardest working people I have ever had as co-workers.
Your wife is neither selfish for driving nor superior for being with child – Medical conditions are some of the only reasons for habitual vehicle use, and ideally only in the short term. The problems being discussed are being caused by the majority of people in cars who have the option to get around via a less impactful method of transportation but can’t be bothered – not by the minority who actually need to use a car because of reduced mobility.
And having kids doesn’t necessitate the use of an automobile. Despite popular opinion to the contrary, babies can in fact ride the bus.
So anyone who can’t ride a bike should limit their choice of destinations to those that are within waking distance of a TriMet stop? Do you ever take a step back and read the things you post here?
Straw man. I never made that claim, only that you don’t need to own a car if you have kids.
True, but it can make it easier to accomplish all of life’s daily tasks efficiently so that one can do things like help with homework and spend some quality time with them. Selfish? Perhaps. Important as hell for parents? Definitely.
It is not a straw man. You posited transit as an alternative to someone who is driving to work due to a pregnancy, while ignoring the fact that transit dependence severely limits one’s mobility. So, in all seriousness: what if you are 8 months pregnant, or have one of many medical conditions that prevent you from riding a bike, or have an infant that can’t safely be a passenger on a bike, and have to go to destinations not served by transit? How do you get there?
I know all manner of women who have been pregnant and didn’t rely on a car at all, right here in Portland. Not saying that some don’t face different circumstances but as you can perhaps appreciate women have been getting pregnant and giving birth for thousands of years before the car. Let’s not start from the perspective that it can’t be done.
“True, but it can make it easier to accomplish all of life’s daily tasks efficiently so that one can do things like help with homework and spend some quality time with them. Selfish? Perhaps. Important as hell for parents? Definitely.”
This is so problematic a place to start. If you have a car, have no experience living without a car then… of course… you may see things as dependent on a car as you suggest above. But if you live without a car—before you have a kid—the situation as you find yourself with a child may look completely different. Having a child in no way necessitates or even benefits from having a car. Do you really not know anyone with children who does not have a car?
Back when I had an uncomplicated life, I was an always-ride bicyclist and proud of it. Rain for my work commute – no problem. Grocery shopping – use the trailer. Dogs to the vet – walk two miles. Spouse did the same.
Times change. Employer changed my work location from 4 to 13 miles away. Spouse’s job location changed. Added children. Not much change at first. Now children with different after school activities – music, sports, etc. Aging parent with medical appointment needs. Oh, yeah. I have to keep earning a living. My balance between work, family activities, and transportation changed. I still drive lots less than the average, but more than I did.
Twenty years made a difference in my life and made me appreciate the factors that go into one’s transportation choices.
“Times change.”
Sure. I get that.
But one of the things about times changing is that we (soon) won’t have the luxury of debating whether going carfree is convenient or not because the option to continue relying on our car as a matter of course, as most of us have gotten used to won’t be a given. So perhaps it is worth trying a little harder to imagine doing without, and then implement those ideas. It is definitely going to be harder for some than for others but I start from the perspective that most people could, in theory, rely far less on their cars than they do now, and would be surprised (a) how many others superficially like them do so already, and (b) what the side benefits turn out to be.
“Let’s not start from the perspective that it can’t be done.”
I’m not starting from that perspective, and I said no such thing. Adam started this subthread by saying that driving is fundamentally a selfish and antisocial behavior. I, along with most people (especially those among us who aren’t healthy, wealthy, young white men), completely disagree with that. I notice that Adam does not seem willing to address my question: how does someone physically incapable of riding a bicycle reach a destination not served by TriMet? Since you seem determined to weight in here, I’ll pose the same question to you.
Uber.
“how does someone physically incapable of riding a bicycle reach a destination not served by TriMet? ”
There are many options. Walking shouldn’t be discounted. Taxi. Ride with friend. Dial-a-Ride.
But before we get too far down that road let’s not forget what we learned from Ivan Illich forty-three years ago, which is that having thrown our lot in with the automobile we’ve lost the autonomy, the freedom, the mobility we once had. He calls us habitual passengers:
The habitual passenger cannot grasp the folly of traffic based overwhelmingly on transport. His inherited perceptions of space and time and of personal pace have been industrially deformed. He has lost the power to conceive of himself outside the passenger role. Addicted to being carried along, he has lost control over the physical, social, and psychic powers that reside in man’s feet. The passenger has come to identify territory with the untouchable landscape through which he is rushed. He has become impotent to establish his domain, mark it with his imprint, and assert his sovereignty over it. He has lost confidence in his power to admit others into his presence and to share space consciously with them. He can no longer face the remote by himself. Left on his own, he feels immobile.
The habitual passenger must adopt a new set of beliefs and expectations if he is to feel secure in the strange world where both liaisons and loneliness are products of conveyance. To “gather” for him means to be brought together by vehicles. He comes to believe that political power grows out of the capacity of a transportation system, and in its absence is the result of access to the television screen. He takes freedom of movement to be the same as one’s claim on propulsion. He believes that the level of democratic process correlates to the power of transportation and communications systems. He has lost faith in the political power of the feet and of the tongue. As a result, what he wants is not more liberty as a citizen but better service as a client. He does not insist on his freedom to move and to speak to people but on his claim to be shipped and to be informed by media. He wants a better product rather than freedom from servitude to it. It is vital that he come to see that the acceleration he demands is self-defeating, and that it must result in a further decline of equity, leisure, and autonomy.
“Energy and Equity” (1974).
There’s also walking, hitchhiking, carpooling with friends and neighbors. For those with proven disabilities, Trimet offers dial-a-ride (lift) service far beyond their bus service area, for both the disabled person and one service “companion”. Parts of East Portland are still without minimal bus service, as well as basic bike and sidewalk amenities, so these means can be regularly seen, and more so at night when Trimet reduces service system-wide. To measure how often people walk, look for beaten-down pathways where sidewalks should be – the more beaten, the more it’s used, often at night, especially in industrial areas without reliable transit service during graveyard shifts.
So, it sounds like some of these solutions to “not having a car” are just “find someone else with a car”…….
Did you read the piece from Illich? Do you have any comments?
As for the collective dependency we’ve created by over-emphasizing the car as the solution to all transport needs, I don’t think anyone is going to be surprised that the answers to your hypothetical will (also) involve piggybacking onto others’ cars. Let’s walk before we run, eh?
I agree with the “Let’s walk before we can run” approach. However, it’s one that regularly gets criticized here.
That was sneaky, q.
I advocate running when it comes to demands, policies, language, but walking when it comes to compassion for our fellow bipeds who are stuck in the predicament we’ve inherited.
Can’t something be selfish and anti-social but also convenient? I can think of a lot of things that fall into that category.
uh, privilege?
Sure. Cars are convenient for sure, though only up to a certain point. If everyone uses them at the same time, you end up stuck in traffic. It’s also convenient to throw your garbage anywhere you please, though most would consider that to be a selfish act. Smoking indoors is more convenient than stepping outside into the cold, but it hurts others around you.
If something is convenient for you, but at the expense of others around you, then it is not a just act.
Bingo!
My point here is that just because you prefer to do things a certain way (drive everywhere in a car), that doesn’t mean it’s harmless. People don’t tolerate conscious awareness of doing harm very well. If people didn’t insist on feeling good about everything they do, the world wouldn’t be such a mess.
Breathing. Our CO2 contributes to global warming.
If that was all we were contributing and we didn’t cut down all the trees, it wouldn’t be an issue. Our petroleum-burning cars and trucks, on the other hand, are another story. Also, I think even the most die-hard motorist would agree that it’s easier to wean ourselves off of cars than to stop breathing.
two different carbon cycles: ancient fossil carbon burned vs. the diurnal and annual cycles of carbon being sucked out of the atmosphere by plants and respired back by animals like us. If we didn’t eat so much oil through fossil fuel drenched agriculture the breathing part of the second, much shorter cycle, would not be a problem.
For the record, I didn’t write this. Different “chris”.
I dunno, I think there’s always been bike supremacists on this site. They’re just part of the scenery. You come to appreciate it. Some people really hate cars for one reason or another. I used to be anti-car. But now I work and go to school full-time. I often have to drive because I have such a busy schedule. Can’t call it selfish as I’m getting a degree to work in social services. I really dislike driving, but seeing as to I want to live a life of helping others, I’m willing to do it for now.
I don’t think anti-car is very useful, at least in describing some of us who comment here. I tried to distinguish some of the epithets people throw out here a few years back; taking a dim view of automobility was my attempt at a phrase that seems more apt:
taking a dim view of automobility: focusing on the downsides, risks, inherent flaws, costs, injustices of the car, in part because of the dominant boosterist narrative which skips over all of this, and also because it doesn’t have to be this way, we don’t have to keep perpetuating the same inequities
https://bikeportland.org/2015/05/12/travel-time-speed-data-shows-impact-powell-protest-143102#comment-6385002
Seems to be working fine in Seattle:
They need to have the plastic wands at all the crosswalks across Naito running parallel to the crosswalk (like the put on the south end of Better Naito near the Salmon Spring Fountain). Problem is they can’t in certain stretches as long as the bike/ped lane serves as a loading zone and vehicles need to enter and exit the bike/ped lane. Even if they put up Jersey barriers, you’d still see oblivious drivers entering the bike/ped lane as long as there isn’t anything blocking their entry. So really, this isn’t a problem with the plastic wands, it’s a problem with the contracts the city has made that forces Better Naito to do double-duty as bike lane and loading zone.
Why not place a plastic bollard in the center of the expanded bikeway at the start of each block? It would be just like the off road routes in Fort Stevens and other state parks that prevent cars and trucks from entering in the first place.
I agree, but I’m guessing the main issue will be blocked access for police, fire, & EMT.
Where is the enforcement ?
Ladd’s Addition.
This is related tangent and open question: I frequently see delivery trucks stopping on E Burnside between Grand and 11th. The bike lane is not narrow enough to accommodate the trucks, but they put on their hazards and pull all the way into the bike lane, fully blocking the bike lane and partly blocking the right-hand motor vehicle lane. Is there any reason they could not simply stop in the right-hand lane, put on their hazards and make their deliveries? They would still have to cross the ike lane, but it would leave the bike lane open and only block one lane instead of 2.
To be fair, in that Prius video there’s no real clue after the railroad track that it isn’t just another (auto) lane with a bike lane to the right. The original bike lane maintains its “bike-person” marking to the right of the bike-lane-width paint stripe, and there are no other signs or street markings (that I saw).
I think as a (cycling-aware) driver I’d have taken a clue from the context that it was a ‘protected’ bike lane before the tracks, so probably after, but I think the city could have done a better job of making that transition ‘idiot-proof’. The fact a driver could so effortlessly and easily make that transition is proof enough for me.
Well, there is the massive solid white line which means “Do not cross.” But yeah, far from idiot-proof.
Plus, they failed to signal a lane change.
That makes them criminals. Anyone get the license plate number?
This.
I searched through all the comments to find this one.
Plastic wand all you want, but the driver made an improper (unsignaled) lane change, a class D traffic violation.
And improper lane use: crossing a wide solid white line ( W-2: A wide white line shall be used when crossing of the line is discouraged and to form channelizing
islands.) And driving in a bicycle lane (which oddly enough, I can’t find the statute that defines a penalty for that, maybe there isn’t one)
As long as we continue this now four-decades long experiment of zero traffic law enforcement, all the separation we build will be for naught. Our motorists are running into houses and retail stores, for goodness sakes. A bit of mid-block concrete will not only not protect cyclists (take a look back at the post of the motorist who managed to get stuck on the new Sellwood bikeway while it was under construction), it will certainly do no good at intersections and will likely do much harm. Add in the fact that what some are asking for is to basically ban bikes from using general roadways, and the more separated facilities are built the stronger their case becomes, and you can count me out.
We can and should invest our limited resources on raising the quality of roadway use. That means education, most of which will come with tuition (citations). This is how Davis got cycling to be the majority modal share back in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. People can and do learn how to behave, especially when the instructors wear badges or robes. Absent that, we can expect more of the same (failure). Removing that enforcement is also how Davis came back to Earth in the mid-1980’s and has struggled to regain its mojo ever since.
Mostly agreed with this.
The insistence on total separation will get bikes off the roads entirely and that is a bad thing. And enforcement is an important tool for communicating what motorists need to take things seriously.
In the case at hand, I don’t think enforcement would help. There is no incentive to drive in this lane since doing so gets you slowed down and trapped while raising the ire of everyone.
and Kyle, I totally agree with you. I’m more than a little agnostic on the question of separated/protected infrastructure (which has over the past few years become the unquestionable dogmatic goal of the “cycling community”), but one thing is clear: we cannot build a protected bike lane from every cyclist’s door to their every destination. Every bike lane eventually ends, and cyclists need to know how to ride with motorists and far more importantly motorists need to learn how to drive with cyclists.
Better enforcement is the only way that can move forward.
I’m sure some read what I say here as advocating sacrificing our children today in the name of a spurious hope that the motorists of the future will be better. Obviously that’s not what I mean.
I agree 1000%. There are not even any Public Service ads. Nothing is said or done about traffic violations. Imagine how many lives would be saved if everyone obeyed the law, heaven forbid! No one seems to care – despite the rhetoric.
They do have those signs for people to turn off their cars at bridges. That’s kinda like a public service ad. They can just add a bit that says “and don’t hit bikes” at the end.
I don’t think it would help very much, but my interpretation of the MUTCD suggests that the wands between the northbound auto lanes on Naito and the southbound cycle track should be yellow with yellow pavement markings. White is for delineating the lanes of traffic moving in the same direction.
Priuses are not allowed to use bike lanes?
Ooops… my bad.
Only with a yellow Calif. HOV sticker.
This article doesn’t actually make the case that plastic bollards don’t work, since none of the drivers mentioned drove over any bollard.
It simply observes that you need a bollard to actually block off the entry to lanes that you don’t want people to drive into.
If you can’t block off the entry to a lane, because you need access for deliveries, then you need to use a lot more signage.
No amount of signage will work if they are looking down at their phones. Never mind their extreme cager arrogance.
Complete lack of signage doesn’t work either. If you make a lane as wide as a car lane and don’t mark it with a bike symbol, even attentive drivers are going to drive in it.
A bit off subject, but does anyone else think the metal railings on top of the NY concrete barriers look a bit dangerous? It may never occur, but they look like hand- or handlebar catchers if someone fell or brushed into them. At least they’re not sharpened metal spikes like Portland has along SW Vista railings that I always felt like I’d get skewered on if I tripped running.
They dress up the concrete and provide a bit more visual separation, but otherwise seem expensive and non-functional. (Or is NY trying to prevent people from climbing over them?) The exception is the first photo with the low concrete barriers that could be too low by themselves. Horizontal railings–metal or cable–would seem safer than the designs pictured. Small quibble in the overall picture.
I had a similar reaction to the stanchions on the Tilikum Bridge but I haven’t heard of anyone being impaled there, yet. The trim does look nice. Maybe New York is trying to keep down the Brumotti wannabes.
I think your pedals would hit the concrete barriers before your handlebars could hit the railings.
Yes, certainly, if you remain upright. It’s if you fell, or suddenly reached out and got your hand caught–or even just hit–by a vertical, that would be the problem.
Again, it’s not anything likely to happen much. But my overall impression is that they look arbitrary, and not particularly safe or inexpensive to build or maintain. They look like something the city already had drawings for from some other use, or some arbitrary ideas by drafters or facilities people–not something designed from scratch with rigor.
But it’s not so much a criticism as a hope that bike facility design will evolve to a point where every component will have been well considered. My hope is that people in 20 years will look back at these Portland and NY photos and think, “Nice effort, but they really didn’t know what they were doing back then, did they?”
Pedestrian railing height 42 to 54 inches, depending on how you read it.
NCHRP report: “Currently, the AASHTO “Bridge Specifications” require a 1.4-meter (54-inch) bicycle railing height1 on bridges. Alternatively, the current AASHTO “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” specifies a minimum bicycle railing height of 1.1 meters (42 inches) on bridges, which is consistent with the height required for pedestrian railings. The difference in recommended railing heights is a point of discrepancy between bicycle facility designers and bridge designers. Many bicycle facility designers prefer the lower height, while bridge designers feel they must specify the higher height to adequately protect the public. The higher height involves higher costs, requires additional hardware, and impacts the view and sight distance. However, no empirical data exists to support the selection of either height for bicycle railing.”
Full report at: http://design.transportation.org/Documents/BikeRailHeight,NCHRP20-7(168)FinalReport.pdf
Thanks for that link–interesting. Those are for bridges, but maybe the idea here is NY was worried about people falling over the concrete barrier into traffic?
I was wondering about those black metal railings too. Does NYC have that much money to burn on such niceties? Or do the railings serve a greater purpose than I realize?
And the money for this comes from where?
Fining people who drive and park in bike lanes.
Second-rate infrastructure. Yikes. How would Greeley and Willamette rank?
I’ve also seen people drive (and get stuck) in the bikeway crossing the river on I205. An oddball cluеless driver like this one is a nuisance rather than a safety problem or any kind of issue worth solving.
Much better to direct resources where they’ll do some good. BTW, there are a lot of places where people routinely park, wait, or drive in separated bike lanes. I see this almost every day on Broadway as you approach PSU. That is also a nuisance rather than a safety problem.
If drivers keep making this mistake, something can be done near the entrance. But focus really needs to be on making the whole city rideable (i.e. put infrastructure where there is none) rather than wasting time on showcase stuff in the core.
A bollard centered in the bike space every couple hundred feet would also get the message across.
Great idea — putting posts in the middle of a crowded bike lane couldn’t possibly be a threat to cyclists…
Concrete (perhaps with a warning flag).
Don’t forget caltrops…
I recently concluded a relatively longitudinal, sorta peer reviewed, somewhat scientific study that concluded that the worst drivers on the road in PDX are Prius drivers.
I don’t know, man. SUV drivers seem to own that distinction nationwide.
I thought it was German car owners? My Dad told me a joke about roses/porcupines and BMWs when I was little that still seems to apply. Oh wait, I drive an Audi… it must be pickup truck drivers I’m thinking of.
(But seriously, though, here in Cali it seems to be Prius owners… 😉 ).
I used to think that, but my indisputable research says otherwise. BMW drivers came in a close second.
Mainly because most priuses are being driven as cabs, by cab drivers. BMW is by far the worst offender in private vehicle category.
What color is your Prius? 😉
I’ve been driving a brown jeep because of a debilitating injury. I normally ride a grey bike, which I should be back to in about two weeks.
I don’t know … I’ve seen plenty of bad Prius drivers, but a lot of perfectly fine ones too. A lot of people love to resent Priuses and their owners, so I always wonder how much observational (availability and comfirmation) biases are coming into play.
My own biased observations have been that pickup truck drivers seem disproportionately involved in dangerous driving that I’ve witnessed. Luxury-brand SUVs being a close second.
No way. BMW drivers all the way!
Seems like it would be pretty easy to enforce this with an automated camera system. I am sure there is a standard fine for driving in a prohibited lane. I don’t buy that most of these folks are “confused”, they are making a decision to disregard that the lane is not for cars, while physical separation would be better some strict enforcement would probably also be pretty effective.
I think using jersey barriers for most of the route would help here, but while retaining the removable plastic wands at the driveway accesses under the Morrison and Burnside bridges. That way, loading could still be accomplished by removing those bollards under the bridges and parking the loading vehicles in the spaces under the bridges. Along with adding single plastic wands right in the middle at crosswalks, by those driveways, and up at the RR xing, to prevent drivers from getting in at those locations, that could pretty much eliminate bad/clueless drivers from taking over this space.
PBOT could also temporarily remove parking and designate more loading/unloading zones on streets perpendicular to Naito, so that the heavy loading/unloading can occur under the bridges, and the lighter loading/unloading can occur just across the street. I don’t think it’s too much to ask of the festival organizers to cross a single street as part of their setup/teardown instead of inconveniently and unsafely blocking Better Naito; businesses do this all the time throughout downtown already.
Where is this six miles of “protected” bike lane?
I’m not sure what “protected” bike lane means. It must not include multi-use trails like the Springwater Corridor (about 20 miles), the Trolley Trail (about 5 miles), the I-205 Trail (about 12 miles), the Marine Drive Trail (about 6 miles) or the Columbia Slough Trail (about 4 miles).
Cully, Moody, Broadway, and Multnomah (NE and SW)
What others am I missing?
The Morrison Bridge has a protected cycleway, and is in fact the only bridge with a separated cycle-only facility. Not sure if the shared sidewalks on the Broadway, Hawthorne, or Tilikum bridges count.
Oh, and you forgot SW 3rd Av protected bike lane.
Sorry, that should be SW/NW 2nd Avenue, not 3rd.
The 2nd Avenue Mess is to a first class bike facility as a greasy shop rag is to the Mona Lisa. Absurdly dangerous, a total waste of materials and mostly a waste of space (sorta handy for getting from the XV bar up to Oak St.) It’s a fine argument against all such things.
Half of SW Multnomah is a Multi Use Path, most of the other half is mountable curb — not particularly protected.
So, .6×2 + .2×2 + .3 + .5×2 + .4. = 3.3mi and it’s quite a stretch to call NE Multnomah a full .5mi of protected lane on each side.
Maybe we’re counting some MUPs and other sidewalks in that number?
Yeah, add a few bridges, and a few 50-yard sections, and it’s hard to get to 6 miles if the MUPs are not counted. I’m guessing the city has tallied a few questionable “protected bike lanes” by polishing the Bronze up until it shines like Platinum.
In Minneapolis.
“Where is this six miles of “protected” bike lane?”
In Minneapolis.
One of the reasons why Better Naito cannot be made better is because it is temporary. For instance, painting the bike lane would help, at least a little bit, but that’s not an option here. This way is just looks like a separated street for cars to drive on.
Where is judge Dredd when you need him?
also note same seems still happen at the end of the hawthrone bridge on east side.
I really do not know anyone with children who do not own a car. Do you really disagree that using a car can free up time for life’s pleasures for some people?
“Do you really disagree that using a car can free up time for life’s pleasures for some people?”
As an across the board statement, which is how is took your earlier post, yes, I do disagree. It simply doesn’t make sense if you are starting from a position where you don’t have a car. The statement is simply a reflection of how those who already have a car, have organized their lives around a car, can’t imagine not having one, see things. This is not interesting or useful if we are on the hook to extract ourselves from the death grip of our auto-dependence. Pretending, arguing that families without cars are unthinkable or are making sacrifices is just hopelessly ethnocentric, not to mention no fun at all.
as for life’s pleasures… biking* is one of my chief life pleasures. having to jettison the bike in favor of a car would diminish those pleasures, at least at that first order.
*the ability to rely on it for most if not all of my and my family’s transportation needs.
“…in favor of a car would diminish those pleasures”
not to mention the hassle and expense of worrying about gas and oil and wiper blades and and running over others and parking and insurance and oil wars and climate change and Shell Oil’s human rights violations and Exxon Mobil’s climate denial campaigns and environmental racism that led to freeways always being built through minority or poor neighborhoods and declining bus ridership and carnage on our streets and the need for people to spend years drafting and fighting for Vulnerable Road User laws, which then won’t even be enforced. Shall I go on?
All so I can sit in a car with my kid three times a week on the way to/from soccer practice across town?!
I think we agree far more than we disagree, but we both probably have the luxury to do so given our circumstances. You are bringing up points that most have never heard, or would never consider given their life circumstances. Some are struggling to just make it. Single parent, little to no access to public transportation, midwestern Winters, long shifts in a factory, working multiple jobs (some shifts ending at night), few apartments they can afford for their family, no apartments near the factory at all, grocery shopping, kid birthday parties across town, still Winter, pick up from child care, more errands. I can go on, too.
I’m not disagreeing with your catalog of challenges. What I’m disagreeing with is the implication that (a) most have never thought of this –
I think a fair number have thought about it but have for plenty of well-understood reasons decided to think about something else instead, since driving is (relatively speaking) still so absurdly cheap, and further that more folks than you may realize already don’t have a car; they’re just not that visible to the rest of us, in part because our supremely unhelpful public priorities would rather give those who buy a Chevy Volt or Tesla or Prius thousands of dollars in credits and rebates rather than giving those who are carfree free exposure. Exposure that would have far more beneficial pedagogic value than the rebates do.
and (b) that your list of challenges means doing without a car is impossible or too much hassle. That sort of thinking will get us nowhere. What we should be doing is finding ways to make that transition easier, figure out how to charge the full social and environmental cost that automobility exacts, and use the money to subsidize all the alternatives….
How does this happen? How do you convince the majority of Americans who enjoy their current standard of living as being (a) not ideal, and (b) needs to change because of the things you listed above (climate, environment, possibly killing others), and (c) they need to force their elected leader to enact policies than necessitate that change. I wish I wasn’t so pessimistic, but man…..
This is a dynamic situation. The longer we refuse to listen to this particular music the tougher the transition will be. Most people already know that we’re in trouble, but we’ve tacitly agreed not to take it seriously in the vain hope that the issue will either go away or be fixed by someone else.
“Most people already know that we’re in trouble”
IMO, many people look at climate change as a diffuse, uncertain, far-off issue that will not impact them or their family.
Some no doubt take this view. But I think it equally plausible that projecting that stance to others (you) can mask a deeper, suppressed dread. Denial is a coping mechanism.
There is NO WAY denial is a coping mechanism.
🙂
It’s not about organizing your life around a car. It’s about a car being a tool to help you get what you want.
For a number of years, I had no car. Didn’t want one because I didn’t need one and would rather save tons of money on depreciation, insurance, gas, etc.
I wouldn’t need one now except giving up a car means I have to give up the activities I love the most. Someday, I won’t be able to do them at which point I won’t need a car and I’ll ditch mine in a heartbeat since I’d be happy to dump the cost and hassle. But in the meantime, I’d rather do what I want.
I frankly don’t understand what you guys see in urban cycling. You never ever get to just ride in a Zen sort of way because of signals, signs and traffic. You can’t even hold a hard sustained effort. As an experience, cycling in Portland is neither here nor there. Despite all the great infrastructure here, cycling here is not 1/10 as good as it is in many places with no infrastructure.
“It’s not about organizing your life around a car.”
Except that we all (well most of us) have done just that. Which is why figuring out how to do those things, or a similar set of things, but without a car is so difficult.
“It’s about a car being a tool to help you get what you want.”
That does sound pretty selfish.
“I frankly don’t understand what you guys see in urban cycling. …cycling here is not 1/10 as good as it is in many places with no infrastructure.”
What sort of standard are you importing here? What is the scale? I’m not grooving to your cycle-tourist’s disdainful vibe.
I’m not sure I’m following your point. Of course I try to set myself up to do things I value. So do you — your ideal specifically excludes cars.
Very few of my miles are cyclotourist miles. Before I moved here, my commute was 22 miles each way. 19 miles with no stop signs, no lights, and nothing limiting me except my own legs. With that kind of ride, you can feel like a million bucks every single day while you enjoy some burn in your legs, some fire in your lungs, and you get your blood pumping. BTW, one of my officemates and a neighbor who worked at Les Schwab also had 40+ mile RT bike commutes. I’m pretty certain what we all thought was an awesome bike commute would be considered unrideable by practically everyone here
Putzing around in a crowded area is not fun to me. Rather, it is a reality that anyone in a densely populated area needs to come to terms with. I don’t consider constantly starting, stopping, and slowing down cycling — it’s just a way to get around.
Elsewhere, there is nothing unusual about being able to ride unobstructed for miles which is a totally different experience than you can get riding around here. I like that Portland encourages cycling and makes it easy, but I still think there’s a lot better despite its reputation as a cycling Mecca. Even in other populated areas it a lot more fun.
“I’m not sure I’m following your point.”
I found it odd that you would come along and diss our stop-light-riddled commutes by comparing them to your youthful periurban adventures. What exactly was your point?
I frankly don’t understand what you guys see in urban cycling. You never ever get to just ride in a Zen sort of way because of signals, signs and traffic. You can’t even hold a hard sustained effort. As an experience, cycling in Portland is neither here nor there. Despite all the great infrastructure here, cycling here is not 1/10 as good as it is in many places with no infrastructure.
If this is where we live and the kind of urban context in which we ride, how is your superiority complex helpful? Do you think we’re going to ride somewhere else because you made us feel what we have is inadequate, even though riding somewhere else doesn’t help us get where we’re going, or did you just want us to envy you?
You asked directly what standard I was applying and I simply said. There’s a whole world out there to ride in and people don’t seem to get that because of the constant droning here that it’s not safe unless the cars are going slower than the bikes and they’re fully separated.
People need a reason to ride. If it’s so they can give up things they love as well as their cars you won’t get many takers. If an “active” commute gets so slow you don’t really get any exercise, what’s the point of getting wet? And who on earth looks forward to constantly stopping and starting?
Riding the mountains, coast, and countryside is incredibly fun and a great way to experience the country. Many people enjoy racing. And commuting is not a bad way to get introduced to a whole range of fantastic experiences. Except we promote only one kind of cycling here and keep repeating that it’s only safe in very limited circumstances found only in a tiny bubble. Might not hurt to expand horizons a bit.
“If an ‘active’ commute gets so slow you don’t really get any exercise, what’s the point of getting wet? And who on earth looks forward to constantly stopping and starting?”
I think we must be from different tribes. I can’t make any sense out of that sentence above. I need to get from A to B on a bike; I couldn’t care less about exercise potential, and as for stop signs, what is the use of whining about how many there are, or learning that in your mountains you keep talking about there may be fewer? I need to go where I need to go.
“Riding the mountains, coast, and countryside is incredibly fun and a great way to experience the country.”
Sure. But what does this have to do with people biking for transportation?
The difference is you need to get from A to B on a bike. Most people, including myself, just need to get from A to B and will use the best means available.
Unless there is a specific benefit to using the bike, I won’t and neither will others. In my case, door to door speed is the biggest specific benefit with exercise being second. In the past, the ride itself was a benefit because it was so enjoyable. Just as some people find driving enjoyable, cycling can be that way too under the right circumstances.
Getting wet/grimy, needing to keep separate shoes at the destination or walk in cycling shoes, lack of cargo/passenger capacity, and other things are disadvantages so the total benefits need to exceed the total disadvantages.
If you find everything you like in a small, crowded urban area, that’s fine. But many people are not like that. Some find all the steel and concrete, the total lack of living things beyond the sea of humanity, and being trapped in a super loud artificial environment outright depressing.These people go elsewhere to relax.
Even if you don’t enjoy physical activity, an absolutely massive percentage of our population wants/needs to lose weight. So the exercise thing is relevant for many people.
so we should fat-shame our way to high mode share?
If people are going to change how they get around, they need a reason that makes sense.
So they can get messy going slower and less comfortably doesn’t qualify. Make it unattractive enough and even the die-hards go away. I’ve always gotten around by bike but making it much slower than it is already would be enough to change my mind.
BTW, how do people feel about this kind of transport? https://www.instagram.com/p/BTsNH2Hg7ol I might add that yesterday the cars were treating this vehicle far worse than I’ve ever been treated on this stretch of road which I’ve biked down many thousands of times
You’re pretty focused on preferences/preference change. I am much more interested in constraints. Once the constraints kick in, they’ll easily swamp preferences. I’ve mentioned this here before, but during Cuba’s Special Period when the collapse of the Soviet Union turned off the oil spigot for the Cubans the attitude expressed by someone in the eye-opening film The Power of Community said that bicycles/bicycling wasn’t for Cubans; that was just not how they did things. Well, all of a sudden it was how they did things; how they got around.
“they need a reason that makes sense.”
Only if we are calling the shots, if we can command the rest of the world, the planet to do our bidding. Once that comes to an end so will this high and mighty stance.
Once the constraints kick in, we’ll be governed by constraints. Until then, we’re dealing with preferences.
Isn’t that a long winded way of saying myopia?
Or, to look at this another way.
Preferences are a concept based in an economistic/consumer view of our situation. It isn’t clear to me that this is the best or even a useful frame in this case. We’re dealing with larger issues than what kind of dish soap I’d prefer. Perhaps this should discourage us from using that decision making framework to make sense of the end of the world as we know it.
People don’t think about long-term issues that they do not deal with on a day to day basis. Maybe it’s myopia, or just human nature, but, whatever it is, it is.
That is kind of a blanket statement, wouldn’t you agree?
I mean, some people obviously do think about things that are not right in front of them. The question is or should be what we can do to inspire more to do this, or fewer to mistakenly assume they don’t already.
The motivation for cycling should be that constraints require it? Good luck getting many people on board with that — including cyclists.
I wouldn’t consider adjustments to hardships people made in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union to be a positive example. By curious coincidence, at the time I lived 3 blocks from where Yeltsin famously stood on the tank.
Want to hear some other great things that came from that time? Neither I nor the people I knew would away a plastic bag or a can at that time since they were useful in their own right or could be repurposed for many other things so we weren’t filling landfills or even wasting energy on recycling. My friends and I searched separately for food every day which we always shared bringing a sense of community (can’t say I ever saw food get thrown away). The garbage haulers couldn’t afford petrol so dumpsters were just lit on fire which eliminated the noise as well as unnecessary consumption of fuel. And there’s nothing like having no water to prevent people from wasting the stuff. BTW, that last thing helps with sewage too since people won’t needlessly flush toilets if there’s no water to flush them with.
There’s nothing like constraints to help people do all the right things and create a utopia on earth
Some might argue that the society and infrastructure we have is a constraint since it would take a very long time to change either. But I’m sure someone will figure out a way to wave a magic wand or will it into reality.
Yes, it’s a generalized statement that may not apply to every person in every circumstance. But it’s true for most people most of the time.
“I wouldn’t consider adjustments to hardships people made in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union to be a positive example.”
Don’t consider all you want.
You’re still stuck in the Theory of Progress; constraints are just temporary; ingenuity will overcome them. Because we’ve diddled for the past few generations, have chosen to ignore the warning signs, our options, the number of as you call them ‘positive examples’ continues to shrink rapidly.
All signs are that the “theory of progress” is still a useful model. Problems on the horizon don’t invalidate it.
“All signs are that the “theory of progress” is still a useful model. Problems on the horizon don’t invalidate it.”
Wow.
You believe that?
The expectation that exponential growth will continue indefinitely on a finite planet has served us so well. I guess we’re further apart than I thought.
https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/01/12/chronology-of-the-u-s-military-and-intelligence-communitys-concern-about-climate-change/
I don’t expect exponential growth to continue.
If you’re using the Soviet Union following the collapse as an example, you truly don’t know what you’re talking about. BTW, there are much more difficult areas of the world about which equally uninformed claims of how great it is can be made.
I can come up with much more compelling arguments for why all Caucasians or residents of First World countries are destroying the world than I can for drivers.
I’m not sure where you got that I have any “Theory of Progress.” I do think it’s unrealistic to impose constraints that either don’t exist or can be adjusted to. Given how little it takes to keep cyclists off the road (i.e. a bit of cold, hot, wet, wind, dark and road conditions that are anything other than super easy), calling the idea that cycling can be forced on people a pipe dream makes it sound more realistic than it is.
“If you’re using the Soviet Union following the collapse as an example, you truly don’t know what you’re talking about.”
We’re talking past each other. I’m not looking for or interested in ranking positive or negative examples; I’m calling into question your perspective here that we must or are in a position to entice people with juicy examples to join us, have that kind of latitude or time. I’m arguing that we’ve moved beyond this advertising/preference/consumer model to a situation where we’ve run out of options, where we are going to take whatever comes, including oil at prices our economy can’t afford, extreme weather, climate change none of us have prepared to weather, hunger, disease, etc.
“I’m not sure where you got that I have any ‘Theory of Progress.'”
see your next sentence which I’ve quoted below –
“I do think it’s unrealistic to impose constraints that either don’t exist or can be adjusted to.”
I’m not sure which constraints you have in mind. The ones I’m thinking of we’ve saddled ourselves with. No one is imposing them or in a position to withhold them; they are the result of our collective refusal to scale back our appetites, recognize hard limits. You appear to be unable to let go of the view of our future that is equipped to solve all our problems, fix things so we can keep on doing what we’ve grown accustomed to.
“…cycling can be forced on people…”
I’m not following. No one is forcing anyone to bike; what I am quite certain is going to happen though is that our comfy and familiar and reassuring relationship to the automobile is going to end in divorce. What people do, how they get around, after ubiquitous, cheap automobility has dried up and blown away is up to them, but I predict that—as in Cuba—the bicycle will start to look really tempting, really useful.
have you considered that some people bike for transportation and not for “feeling the burn” or “smelling the roses”?
Sure — I imagine that would be most people.
But if you want people to change what they’re doing, the draw needs to be compelling. Environmentally friendly transportation that’s slow and exposes you to cold and rain is not compelling
Also, I believe that a vision of what cycling could be shouldn’t be limited to supporting short slow hops a la Amsterdam, particularly since this tends to discourage people from expanding out.
The trend in PBOT new cycle infrastructure design has clearly been to shoehorn, slowdown, stop, delay, yield, beg-button, build temporary structure, and design to a standard of the slowest possible rider all in the name of safety and compromise for freight and business interest; as well as, throw in as many other purposes to the mix as well: emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, parking, joggers, mass transit access, dog-walkers, campers, tourists, etc. Much of this is an obvious conclusion in a growing city, but it would be nice to see them build some new stuff that can get you on a bike from point A-B in a hurry that can also be maintained by PBOT street sweepers. Is it Bike Transportation Infra, or is it just a linear park?
I agree, but there are some examples where they have added facilities for faster riders (on street bike lanes on the Sellwood bridge being an obvious example).
efficient bicycle infrastructure is hard to implement because it typically involves taking lanes/parking away from cars and slowing them down. imo, lack of support for this kind of infrastructure by “experienced” bike commuters who are more or less content with the status quo* is one of the reasons progress has been so slow.
*crappy greenways and crappy 5 foot bike lanes near speeding traffic.
Please don’t blame cyclists for the lack of cycling infrastructure.
as cycling mode share increases the average speed of people cycling will certainly slow down. imo, this is a good problem.
and there are worse models than amsterdam.
With an average commute of 7 miles each way in Portland (plus many people don’t live right next to what they’re interested in), slowing down cycling has to be a selling point for getting more people interested 😉
Most people can’t ride as fast as you. So instead of saying we are “slowing down cycling”, think of it as if we are enabling cycling for a broader group of people.
I bet if you were on a drop bar bike you’d be able to keep up. 🙂
The barriers to entry should be as low as possible. But it should accommodate as wide a range of cycling needs as possible. Slow short hoppers, fast long haul commuters and electrically assisted cargo bikes, and everything in between.
definitely a better way to phrase my comment. however, i do want to challenge the idea that more wide-spread adoption of bike transportation requires faster (e.g. 15+ mph) speeds. just as in amsterdam, most non-work trips are just a few miles.
Unlike driving or even riding the bus, I never have to worry about getting stuck in traffic.
This isn’t exactly a draw. It’s good enough reason to get on the bike (and that’s frankly what makes my car not even tempting to use), but not good enough reason to get excited about it.
If it were actually fun, we’d go out on the roads just because it was the best way to spend the time.
You clearly don’t know enough people then. We’re out there.
I guess I do now (if chatting on a local msg board means “knowing” someone), though I don’t really feel a need to get out there and meet more parents who also happen to not own a car. I’m cool with the friends I have.
“I’m cool with the friends I have.”
The point here isn’t that you become friends with them, but that you *know of them* so as to expand your understanding of what is not only possible but perhaps even normal in those circles.
I get that, and I have done so as much as I care to by reading comments on here (and elsewhere online). I have different priorities in life than using my free time to seek out this small subset of people in person for the purpose you alluded to. I’m glad that it is important to you and others, and that you are hopefully able to affect change, but it isn’t my passion.
In years of reading your comments, I had no idea you are a parent.
Wait, hang on, we have 6 protected bike lanes? Are we counting the ones that a “pseudo-protected” by parked cars? Or vaguely protected by planters? Because I honestly can’t think of any, otherwise.
Got to Paint/Stain green (or red like the Dutch bike lanes) all the bike/pedestrian lanes that are not physically protected..some plastic bollards and little white symbols on the ground don’t cut it…
And why did Portland Pick green for bike lane stuff anyhow..why not red like to dutch..red to me is stop in a car..easier for driver to associate..in my opinion.
This very site has posted multiple articles over the years about drivers getting onto completely separated paths (like the 205 bridge, 205 path, and Springwater). Occasionally people do dumb things. This happens a lot more when things are new to people.
Do we have any real data this is happening with much frequency? One or two cars a day driving in this facility (especially as it’s so new) doesn’t seem like a major fail.
My point here is that just because you prefer to do things a certain way (drive everywhere in a car), that doesn’t mean it’s harmless. People don’t tolerate conscious awareness of doing harm very well. If people didn’t insist on feeling good about everything they do, the world wouldn’t be such a mess.
How does this happen? How do you convince the majority of Americans who enjoy their current standard of living as being (a) not ideal, and (b) needs to change because of the things you listed above (climate, environment, possibly killing others), and (c) they need to force their elected leader to enact policies than necessitate that change. I wish I wasn’t so pessimistic, but man…..
This was meant as a reply to 9watts.
Has anyone considered simply putting the PBL on or next to the waterfront path itself? That would answer the issue with drivers absentmindedly driving into the PBL, as the drivers would first have to absentmindedly drive into the park.
I quit “Better Naito” last year after nearly being hit by a school bus in the lane and then getting yelled at by that driver to, “Get out of the lane”. Seemed most the times there was some lame reason a vehicle needed to be parked in that lane, forcing me into head-on Naito traffic… Well bus driver, I hope you’re happy, I got out and stayed out.
I don’t see parking enforcement or Portland police bureau penalizing these people for any of these infractions. Nor do I see police pull people over for egregious traffic violations in Portland or neighboring communities. If people were penalized where they really feel it (their bank account) they might start to take notice!
“Our road designs must be clueless driver proof.”
Our penalties and the pricing thereof ought to “clueless driver” proof our roads.
Our driver licensing standards ought to be more clueless-person-proof.
Three cars stopped today for the all important Cinco festival on OUR waterfront.
I politely suggested to one as I rode around that they were not supposed to be in this lane.
The 2 passengers and driver screamed obscenities (probably already drunk) and then followed me in their car across the steel bridge to threaten me some more.
Have fun with your waterfront this summer, I guess I will finally, after years of commuting on Naito, find another route.
Wouldn’t have hurt to take a photo and call them in. With a little luck, a cop might be nearby to check them out.
I’m working a week a month in Minneapolis right now. The investment in separate infrastructure is truly impressive. Of course having recreational multiuser trails along aren’t the same as having a network that allows biking as transportation. The rails to trails conversion of abandoned rail corridors begins to address this. 3 bridges across the Mississippi that are car and pedestrian only is really amazing.
But what is really awesome is the rapid construction of complete streets in the redeveloping areas in the central city. The new NFL stadium and MLB field are served by bike trails. Imagine catching a game without the traffic! There must be billions being spent on infrastructure here!
I was trying to figure out a way to upload a picture of a complete street under construction. It’s inspiring. Yes a curb separates the auto traffic. And there is dark concrete that is the bike lane separated from the ped space by a planting area and trees.
…should say “trails along the RIVER” in line 2.
I get so tired of all the complaining. Our lack of appreciation makes all of our community look bad.
That’s how government works. No complaining = no improvements.
Yeah, and people working in low-paid professions are always complaining about abuse of power by their employers and the fact that they can’t live a decent lifestyle on the money they’re paid and the fact that they get no paid time off or benefits. Those whiners. Their lack of appreciation for the $8.00/hr. they’re paid to wipe butts and care for our society’s old and young and pretty much make our world work makes all low-paid workers look bad.
Appreciate the pittance that you’re given! Don’t question the system of dominance, exclusion, power, and influence that massively favors some and gives crumbs to the rest!
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Never Mind the Bollards
Here’s the SUV Drivers
God Save the Ford Explorer.
Although I’ve been critical of Better Naito in the past, this is better executed than in the past. The bollards give more space than the cones did, and the markings so far have helped keep things a little more sane. We’ll see what happens when the festival starts.
BTW, I clipped one of the bollards at speed yesterday. Surprisingly bike friendly — it slammed down immediately and didn’t destable my ride.
i’d like the markings to be larger but they seem to be helping.