UPDATED WITH NEW PHOTO: NYC Cyclist Calls Protected Bike Lanes 'Death Traps;' Reaction to Long Beach Bike-only Lanes Mixed
- Details
- By Allison Jean Eaton
- | Thursday, 12 May 2011 13:00
Bicyclists in downtown Long Beach take their first official spin in the city's new protected bike paths on April 23, the day they were officially opened to the public. Photo by Richard Risemberg.
UPDATE Monday, April 25, 5:55pm | Protected bicycle lanes similar to those that officially debuted in Long Beach over the weekend can be found in several other American cities, and while their design is aimed at boosting both the perceived and actual safety of biker riders, some East Coast cyclists say they accomplish the exact opposite.
The cycling community in New York City is reportedly divided on the issue of constructing bike paths that are sandwiched between the sidewalk and a row of parked cars in an effort to separate them from vehicle traffic. Some cyclists there say that while the lanes are well-intentioned, they effectively have the opposite effect, according to an April 23 Wall Street Journal report.
Dan Durller, a 29-year-old cyclist from Brooklyn, reportedly said that the separated bike lanes in New York City pose additional hazards for bike riders, who must dodge pedestrians and be wary of turning cars, slower cyclists and trucks loading and unloading through the cyclists' right-of-way.
"They're death traps and they're very poorly designed," Durller told the WSJ.
Still, many New Yorkers reportedly love the new lanes, and since their installation, statistics show that the number of commuters using bikes in the city of New York has risen considerably.
UPDATE Monday, April 25, 11:23am | Long Beach residents are expressing mixed feelings regarding the new bike-only lanes that have been installed downtown as part of a federal pilot program along Broadway and Third Street.
Reaction to the new cycle tracks, as they are often referred to, thus far appears to be close to equal parts love and hate.
Only time will tell as to the community's long-term reaction to the new bike-only paths, which are separated from vehicle traffic by a curb, parking lane and, in some areas, the installation of a median island.
The 12-month-long demonstration project made possible through the Federal Highway Administration and the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, set the city back about $700,000, according to a set of
frequently asked questions on a fact sheet posted on BikeLongBeach.org. It should be noted that this sum includes the cost of updating the city's current traffic signal system, which was installed approximately three decades ago, according to City Hall.
No money from the city's general fund was used for the project; rather, local transportation funds that were disbursed by the state originating from the federal government covered the construction and other, related costs. The funds came with a strict earmark delineating that they be used solely for improvements to the city's transportation system. The city was not permitted to use the funds for street maintenance and repair projects, such as filling potholes or resurfacing roadways.
After 12 months, should the FHA and CTCDC determine the separated bike lanes to have been "unsuccessful" (no parameters as to what might be considered "success" as opposed to "failure" are given), they will be removed and the third vehicle traffic lane that was sacrificed on each street to create the new bike paths will be restored.
Should the agencies determine them to have been "successful," the FHA and the CTCDC may choose to adopt the design "as a standard application that can be used by all cities," according to the fact sheet. In this case, the city would then decide whether to pursue more widespread installation of similar protected bike paths throughout Long Beach.
Friday, April 22, 11:45am | The city of Long Beach is about to join the ranks of a small handful of cities nationwide offering bicyclists what officials say is a safer way to ride amidst vehicle traffic.
The separated bike lanes, commonly referred to as "cycle tracks," recently installed along Broadway and Third Street are set to be officially opened for use beginning Saturday following a city-sponsored ceremony slated to mark the occasion.
Similar "protected" bike paths have already opened in San Francisco, Davis, Portland, Ore., and New York City.
The federally funded installation of the tracks on the one-way throughfares that provide drivers access to and from the I-710 (Long Beach) Freeway has resulted in some controversy, as the new bike lanes have replaced one of each street's three vehicle traffic lanes.
Both Broadway and Third now feature two lanes for vehicle traffic, while the third has been transformed into a wide bike lane and parking lane separated by a painted median island and asphalt curb. Both the curb and the parking lane serve as a buffer between cyclists and cars in an effort to increase the safety of bicyclists who ride downtown.
While motorists have complained about the new lanes, which were installed under a federally-backed, yearlong pilot project, because they have slowed traffic by decreasing the number of lanes on the two test streets, traffic engineers and cycle proponents are cheering the decreased speeds at which cars are now forced to travel.
The two-mile-long sections of buffered bike lanes heading east on Broadway and west on Third run from Alamitos to Golden avenues.
Published on Feb. 9 of this year, the study found that bicycle riders suffer fewer injuries when they ride on physically separated, bicycle-exclusive paths along roadways than they do when riding in the road. The study compared injury rates of cyclists on cycle tracks in Montreal, Canada, with injury rates of cyclists who ride on streets in that city.
Cyclists using bicycle-exclusive lanes are 28 percent less likely to suffer an injury, the study found.
Cycle tracks are popular and widely used in Montreal as well as in The Netherlands, where 27 percent of the population uses bikes as a primary mode of transportation. There, cyclists are at least 26 times less likely to suffer injuries than their counterparts in the United States, where cycle track construction has been "hampered," according to the study. This, researchers say, correlates to the fact that a mere .5 percent of American commuters use bikes as their primary mode of transportation.
People are more likely to use bicycles as a primary mode of transportation when cycle tracks are available because they offer cyclists both a perceived and real sense of safety, researchers said. The study found that the chief obstacle to bicycling, especially for women, children and seniors, is the perceived danger of vehicular traffic, which the study suggests is a real threat based on corroboration by bike riders surveyed by the study's research team.
Local critics, however, say that the study doesn't apply to the new bike lanes in Long Beach, which they believe were poorly designed and therefore dangerous.
Long Beach resident Kirk Jordan is concerned about the lack of safety offered by the cycle tracks. He told the Long Beach Post that he continually sees cars driving in portions of the protected bike lanes (see photos at end of post), which are supposed to be closed to vehicle traffic.
"I just drove past the Post Office again today,and once more saw cars driving down the bike path after depositing mail in the drive-through mailbox," Jordan said in an e-mail on Thursday. "The reason? They have to drive in the path because the new curb as constructed blocks cars from pulling back out onto Third Street."
This is among a host of other issues he perceives as design flaws. Others include areas along the cycle tracks that lack a curb separating cyclists from cars. He also cites areas in which the bike lanes "cross dangerously" with vehicle lanes, which happen to be located at some of the city's busiest intersections.
At the intersection of Long Beach Boulevard and Third, for example, cyclists must cut to the right to continue heading west on Third at the same point at which drivers on Third who are turning left to head south on Long Beach Boulevard must cut to the left.
While Jordan said he is "all for" protected bike paths, he believes the paths installed downtown fall far short of boosting safety for cyclists.
It appears that the questionable design features aren't unique to the separated bike lanes in Long Beach. Cycle tracks in other U.S. cities are constructed similarly, and cyclists and motorists in at least one of those communities have complained about issues that are nearly identical to those raised by Jordan.
In the city of Portland, similar issues have cropped up with its experimental cycle track, which was installed in 2008. When it first opened, motorists often parked, stopped or drove in the protected lane, and while the frequency of that problem has lessened, it still exists, according to cyclists discussing the cycle track at BikePortland.org.
Additional problems associated with the cycle track cited by Portland cyclists include their visibility to motorists being lessened; inattentive pedestrians crossing or standing in the middle of the track; and insufficient space to safely pass other cyclists or other obstructions without entering a door zone or parking area.
Whether similar issues will be identified by Long Beach cyclists remains to be seen.
The city of Long Beach will hold a grand-opening-style ceremony Saturday on The Promenade between Broadway and Third, where Mayor Bob Foster and several other elected and city officials will hop on bikes and take the "first ride" at the conclusion of a ribbon-cutting ceremony.
Octavio Orduño, a 103-year-old Long Beach man who has been dubbed "The World's Oldest Cyclist," is expected to join them.
The event begins at 11 a.m., and festivities will also include a bike safety rodeo for kids, bike decorating, bike tune-ups and a screening of Michael Baugh's film, "Riding Bikes with the Dutch."
Motorists apparently confused or indifferent about the city's new bike-only lanes, including this one on Third Street that separates drivers from the drive-thru mailboxes on the curb, drive into the bike path to access the mailboxes. Photo courtesy of Kirk Jordan.
This shot, taken just a few seconds after the photo directly above, illustrates two vehicles illegally driving in the new bike-only lane on Third Street, posing a safety hazard to the bicyclist using the new cycle lane. Photo courtesy of Kirk Jordan.
More importantly, these streets are now much safer and nicer places to walk, with speeding reduced. Before many people would drive 40 mph (I was always passed while going the 30 mph speed limit), now most traffic is at 25 mph or less. If you have been downtown, you will see how much more pleasant it is to walk along Broadway now.
I've seen a dozen bike riders every time I've used these lanes on my commute (at rush hour), even before they were officially opened or the bike signals were turned on, so I think they will become very popular once word gets out that there is now a safe way to ride a bike downtown.
This will help businesses and residents Downtown. People driving to the freeway can take Shoreline or 7th instead, if they want to go fast.
I would if my bike hadn't been ripped off last fall...
What this city needs is to FOCUS on its problems and not create them.
And LB Resident1, TOTALLY with you on that suggestion and the sooner the better.
The downtown lanes will inconvenience thousands of citizens with longer commutes and diversions. When will this be counted?
I wish the feds would have actually thought about doing something worthy instead of clowning around with cash to spend.
Now, both everyone has to adjust to cyclists being in the left lane! Motorists will be making left hand turns without looking back over their left shoulder for bikes (because they never had to before) and such turns will be creating dangerous surprises for cyclists.
Constructing the bike lanes on the right would also have eliminated the absurd conflict with the drive-through mailboxes. How did this design get through plan check?
Since 99% plus of us LB citizens drive our cars to work, doesn't it strike you as a little bit piggish that you want 1/3 of traffic lanes on main east/west arterials dedicated to bikes, that make up 0.5% of drivers going to work?
And does driving an ice cream cooler around the neighborhood count as driving to work?
Also, getting off the freeway one exit before or after Broadway or driving a couple of blocks north or south to get to Ocean/7th will take you significantly less time than biking all the way to the beach path--presuming there is even an entrance close by--and then making your way downtown. It would be particularly bad the further you live from the coast. So your alternatives for bicycling are not a fair comparison.
You'd have to ask the census about the ice cream cooler driving, but I'm sure reasonable minds could differ. ;)
And the statement that it's just 2.4 miles of thousands of miles in LB is ridiculous. Broadway is the primary eastbound arterial from the 710 to Alamitos Beach, Belmont Heights and Belmont Shore. That is like saying we just took .001% of New York state for redevelopment - midtown Manhattan.
So we need to start changing the way we travel and join other major cities around the world that have huge numbers of people cycling. Do you remember the smog days in the 70's in LB- where we couldn't go out at PE time!!
In London and Paris, they're offering inexpensive hire bikes to go from train stations to people's work and it has increased cycling by 40% in some areas. See: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/14808.aspx
Holland has done studies that show that people who cycle to work are healthier, less weight issues and have less absentism.
And watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk6YxhKH590
"Nobody bikes" Of course not, we need to build a safe, convenient network first like we have tried to do for cars.
"Who paid for this/we're broke/waste of money" This project was mostly paid or with transportation funds and grants, money that could not have gone towards schools or whatever.
"we're creating more congestion, that isnt eco friendly/ now i spend more time looking for parking, that's not eco friendly/etc"
Well driving isn't eco friendly to begin with, so stop driving if you're at all concerned. If we continue to solely accommodate cars that isn't eco friednly either. This project is part of a vision that has safer streets, more efficient land-use, allows people the opportunity to cycle safely, and comfortably and not be dependent on cars.
If more people cycle your 'glidlock' and 'traffic jams' will be reduced. Traffic runs on induced demand, the more car lanes, the demand to drive by car.
This project is the product of a city that has to be able to propser in 10 years, 50 years, and beyond. This cannot be done by car centric planning as we have limited space and a growing population. Also, if the population shrinks cars will have more superfluous space than they already do and this there'll be no problem in turning space over to pedestrians, bicyclists or transit users.
Stop with the complaining and excuses for why this is a bad idea.
Stop complaining because you can no longer speed at 50 mph down Broadway like a tool.
Transportation in America is horrid compared to the rest of the world. We have a significant lack of alternative transit options because we dedicate all space to the private automobile. Look at how wide our freeways and roads are...and yet you still need more space? What's going to happen when gas approaches $5, $6 or $7 a gallon? Will you still advocate for roads, or will you finally realize that due to the U.S.'s lack of rail, bus or bike transporation OPTIONS that you are forced to pay $13K a year in car ownership (i.e. gas, parking, maintenance, tickets, insurance). Imagine the amount of money you would save with less expenditures on transportation. Ride a bus, the Blue Line or bike. It may not be reasonable everyday or for everyone, but look at the bike lanes as an OPTION.
By the way, while you are out spending $13K a year on car maintenace, I'm using that money on fine dining, drinking and retail purchases. I have better things to do with that money than waste it on driving all the time.
A previous poster pointed out that car drivers are conditioned to look for bike riders on the right, so this configuration could be a problem for anyone turning left into a driveway or alley. Also, it seems that additional congestion is created for vehicle traffic because vehicles turning left now have to wait for a signal, while vehicles in the right lane, turning right, might be waiting for pedestrians to cross. Both lanes are now out of commission.
To say that 90% of the time, two lanes are enough on Broadway or Third Street (as the City's project manager states) is really naive since the point of traffic engineering is to make roads navigable when usage is highest.
Public acceptance depends on the buy-in of all stakeholders. Making it confusing for vehicle drivers, as well as bike riders, does help that. Hooray for separated bike lanes! Meh for the confusion.
let's get some things straight her pal
the bike lanes lead to nowhere
this city -actually this whole country is getting bigger, hence more people=more cars
not all of us spend time in our cars
I ride a LeMond almost every weekend
mass transportation is not cool in So. CA and people like their cars. Will always be and there is nothing you can do about it.
This project is a big mistake for the city. The left hand turn from Alamitos onto Broadway was already dangerous - merging into oncoming traffic - and the taking away of a driving lane has made the turn even more dangerous.
The the caption on the photo above maybe incorrect, as cars are directed out of the driving lanes into the bike lanes to access the Post Office mail boxes. The boxes are being blocked by the four door, grey sedan.
And that, my friends, is a summary of anit-bike lane arguments.
Pleople need to remember that this is a PILOT PROGRAM that made possible by Federal funds we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. It's a test. This will be analyzed after to see if it's worth it. If not, I assure you it will go back the the old congested contaminating speeding accident prone traffic you want and miss so much.
I really enjoy the bike lanes and makes locals like myself more likely to go downtown and visit, and spend my money.
I would like it if they share how they will report a year later. What numbers will make it "successful/ unsuccessful".
There is that better?
Do I think that it's justified that drivers should add a couple or a few minutes to their commute either by continuing to go down these lanes or by diverting to Ocean/7th? Yes, but not just because it would "save a few minutes" for cyclists. These lanes are significantly safer for cyclists, and therefore encourage more people to use alternate modes of transportation, mainly bicycling. I acknowledge that the design of the lanes isn't perfect yet. However, it's still safer than before and can always be improved upon. Further, cycling is a healthy activity and with the increasing rate of obesity in this country, encouraging active lifestyles through our infrastructure is not a bad idea. Not only do cyclists feel safer because of these lanes, but the reduced speed of cars on these corridors makes pedestrians feel safer. When pedestrians feel safer, they're more likely to walk--also an active lifestyle worth encouraging--and shop in local businesses. Studies also show that cyclists are more likely to shop locally than drivers. So, in essence, this project encourages not just cycling, but more street life, active lifestyles, more local shopping (ie local tax revenue), and a safer environment. That is why I am okay with tacking on a couple or a few minutes to commutes.
Also, your framing that Broadway/Third St are main arteries to the 710 ignores the reality that they aren't just thoroughfares to get to the freeway, but commercial corridors, which could benefit, as I explained earlier, from a safer environment. It also ignores the fact that there are reasonable alternatives routes to get to the freeway. In light of the substantial possible benefits to the downtown community and Long Beach as a whole, the extra few minutes is fine with me.
Of course, you don't have to agree with anything I just said. :) This is a pilot project after all, and if it doesn't work out this way, it can always be changed. I'm supportive of the experiment, though, especially since it has achieved great success elsewhere.
While the outcome will likely be neither of the doomsday traffic scenario nor the utopian Copenhagen style bicycling environment proffered depending on your point of view, it is a shame that the underlying premise of the lanes resulted in an outcome that is sub-optimal for both bicyclists and automobiles
So having some extra time this morning, I decided to go count the bikes at rush hour. Didn't count cars, but saw hundreds of them heading west. The back-up on Ocean started almost a mile before Alamitos.
Coming from the south, that new west turn on 3rd is an accident (accidents) waiting to happen. I arrived a little before 8:00 am, and drove all the way down to Maine. I saw one cyclist on 3rd, heading the wrong way. Cut down to Broadway, and went back to Alamitos. No bikes on Broadway. Did the loop again and this time, not a single cyclist.
A couple of other notes: 1) glad to see they didn't take away the third lane on Broadway until after the civic center. Would hate to inconvenience the city workers. 2) there was a dipstick that wedged into a non-space on Broadway to talk on his cellphone. And yes, that did take Broadway down to one lane (as would parallel parking). Not a big deal in the morning, but that is the main choke point during the evening rush hour.
Lastly, what the heck is the retail vacancy rate downtown? 50%? 60%? 70%? It looks more like Riverside than coastal California. We don't need more redevelopment downtown; we need more bulldozers. Who built all this space, and why?
#1) If Long Beach wants to BE bike friendly then take 4 minutes at the next city council and all say "Aye" to quickly remove all requirement for bicycle licenses in the city. Done deal. NO need for debate.
#2) What is at either end of the bike lane, or in between them that is an attraction for bike riders?
#3) Sure, this is FEDERAL money. It is still TAXPAYER dollars that come from working people. If Long Beach and hundreds of other cities/states had the integrity to say "We don't really need this project at this time. Here is your money back." Billions of dollars would be saved, and the budget may come closer to a balance. Oh well, one can dream.
Why do I love the bikeways/trikkeways?
For a carless citizen like myself, it's nice to have an alternative to walking, busses and cabs. It also feels much safer than the street or the sidewalk, and it's great way too commute east to west and vice versa downtown!
Good job, LBC, here's hoping the bikeways become permanent!
We need professionals that can plan this out to incorporate safe and proper ingress and egress to the bike lanes by bicyclists. We definitely need to relocate the median curb from the right side of the painted median to the left to allow for a driver walkway with one crosswalk for the drivers to get across to the sidewalk.
As for the second picture with cars in the bike lane, did we really communicate this effectively? I mean a real communication effort? How about enforcement? What did we have in place to prevent cars from entering the bike lane or at least an official to explain how the driver really messed up?
We have a community culture to shift here (that is one heck of an undertaking reading all the comments below). With gas prices climbing and people looking to alternatives, this really needs to be considered as a viable alternative and with that proper methods to roll it out and change the culture. Basically, if we are going to do it (and I believe it is inevitable) then let's do it right before we kill someone.
And to explain my display name - I am an HSE professional and my priority job is to make sure all my people go home with the same number of fingers and toes as they came to work with everyday. Are we accomplishing that with this project? The jury may be out on that one...
1. Broadway lost a lane from the 710 to alamitos. It doesnt "stop at the civic center".
2. The bike registration requirement was removed earlier this year. There is no bike "licensing" requirement and never was.
3. Give back the federal money would "save billions?" Uh, no. Give back the money would mean another state gets it.
4. Are we saying the federal government should give NO MONEY to cities for bike infrastructure? If so, why are we not also demanding they give no money to the oil industry? In case you're wondering, the oil subsidies exceed bike subsidies by many orders of magnitude. Where are the complaints about that? 750 thousand dollars is NOTHING in the federal budget, so if you're concerned about overspending, you're barking up the wrong tree.
5. Keep in mind California sends 1.18 to DC for every buck we get.
As for these lanes, I ride them pretty much every day, and I think they confuse cyclists as much as drivers. The harlequin pattern of black, green, and white stripes is bewildering, but hopefully everyone will get used to it over time, as well as the more egregious design errors being adressed. The placement of the lanes on the left is strange, I think - I would love to hear from the city what the thinking behind this was.
The lanes also begin and end in awkward places, and it's not clear what a rider is supposed to do next when they bottom out at Alamitos.
A few suggestions regarding the curb - it should be painted white so that pedestrians can see them at night. I've seen people trip over them (they are jaywalking, but still), and cars drive over them. I understand that these are a part of an experiment and thus need to be built in a way that they can be removed without major surgery, but I think that the curb would be better as a 3-ft piece of sidewalk instead, with the parking meters set on top - this would provide physical and visual separation, and prevent drivers from turning their ankles when they get out of parked cars (this is really awkward now).
Like the lanes, and with a few changes, might come to love them.
Listen pal--In case you haven't noticed...this city has a HUGE gang problem. There is a shooting, stabbing, murder every night in case you have not noticed. The money could have gone to make this city better by wiping out these thugs with more police, more blitz kreigs on gangs, solving drug problems etc.
The crooked cronie politicians just want bike lanes. Yay!
1/19 LBPost article comments Campos soon discovered that Long Beach, which claims to be "The Most Bike Friendly City in America," is one of the few Cities in the State that enforces a mandatory bicycle registration program. Because he isn't a resident, and Tustin doesn't enforce such a rule, his bike wasn't registered. Much to his horror, his $1,200 custom built bicycle was thrown to the ground by an officer, and soon had other bikes piled on top of it, all of which were loaded onto a big flat-bed truck.
About giving back federal money. I suggested that if "Long Beach and hundreds of other cities/states" gave money back or refused it in the first place we could save billions of dollars. That means that everyone stop the Porkbarreling...and be more fiscally responsible we could straighten out our budget mess. Just because another city is wasting Federal dollars (taken from productive working people) does not mean we should grab some too.
So much for that. I do not think the "thinker" thinks deeply enough to be taken seriously.
Why are they on the left? Seriously, did the designers not see the mail boxes? Wouldn't there be less need to re-educate everyone if the folks on bikes rode on the same side of the road as they always have in the past?
Why are the lanes that large? If they had made them smaller than bikes could still use them and cars could not!
Why are there not better/more signs "no cars allowed?"
Fix these problems now.. and for all future bike lanes in LB and I'll be on board!
You know why LA/LB is park poor and sprawled out? Because we keep adhering to the needs of the private automobile. Do you reasonably expect to pay cheap gas in the future? What's wrong with letting bike riders get some equality? How many more times do we put the needs of drivers above people?
Like many have said, WHY did they put them on the left side?
And I'd like to add, WHY did they choose 3rd Street and Broadway? These two streets end at the freeway. Do they really think cyclists want to bike down to the freeway entrance? WTF? And the biggest issue is taking away a full lane of traffic on these main throughfares to the freeway.
A better solution would have been to put the bike lanes on the right side, and on streets that don't end at the freeway (4th/5th, etc). Or maybe along Ocean, where you can get a great view while biking. Of course with people speeding along Ocean all the time, they'd have to lower the speed limit or something else to make it safer.
http://www.gazettes.com/news/government/article_9640fc7c-348f-11e0-84d3-001cc4c03286.html
"Mandatory bicycle registration now is a thing of the past, thanks to City Council's unanimous vote Tuesday evening to amend the city's municipal code"
Fix the problems: The mailboxes have been moved.
Everyone with questions complaints: It's a trial project. And you're not traffic engineers. Maybe be a bit more humble with your questions, instead of acting so certain that no one thought of them or can give a good answer. If you want answers, dont post comments here - call the city! Sheesh
Although LB needs to stop doing this piecewise cr@p and figure out a good, comprehensive plan that works for everyone (as best as it can at least).
As to the mailbox photo: I personally was confused the first time I went to mail something in those mailboxes. I ended up circling back around the entire block (since it's a one way street), parked and walked into the post office. Much less convenient and more time consuming, and that was with me being lucky enough to find a parking spot. Hopefully they can move the boxes somewhere else.
I do think the design of these lanes is very dangerous, but not for bicyclists. The problem I have with the design is the row of parked cars which block the line of sight from anyone pulling out, and into traffic, from a parking lot or driveway. For example, if you are coming out of driveway and have to cross the bike path to get into the lanes of traffic, you can see the bikers because they are right in front of you, but you can't see the car traffic moving in the street whether you're turning left or right because of the row of parked cars blocking your view so far away from the curb you are exiting. I've seen numerous others have this problem and they get stuck trying to get into traffic, and end up blocking the bike lane anyway as they try to inch out to see traffic.
Long story short, my opinion is good concept, but bad design!
LONG BEACH PD, WHERE ARE YOU?
It doesn't do a damn bit of good to have bike lanes if people still ride on the sidewalks. Not only is this unsafe, it is illegal in the State of California.
I've driven this stretch 6 out of the last 7 days and have seen only one biker using the bike lane.
I'm a supporter of bike paths and increasing bike ridership. However, this bike lane to nowhere is ill-designed and was a TOTAL WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY. Anyone associated with its creation should be rode out of town on something more uncomfortable than their bike.
The 25 (not 300) spaces lost are easily made up for by people not driving to downtown but instead, riding their bikes.
Your right about the majority of commuters driving. You have to make it sensible and safe for them to choose biking before they actually will.Cycling is not some fad, it's transportation, just like a car, and it costs NOTHING. If everyone who was able to ride a bike did, they'd loose that belly and start screwing their wives again.
This is one of those things that people who can't adapt well will lose their minds over.Then, in ten years, after it's completely commonplace and normal, they'll crawl out of their hole again looking for something other new idea to resist.
I do agree, the lanes should been on the right side though, that should have been considered.
Lastly,the cost of these lanes was paid for by federal money set aside specifically for these types of improvements.
No, it isn't. But, in the 20 minutes you've spent circling the block in your car because you're too lazy to walk a few hundred extra feet, I've ridden my bike to the store, got what I needed, and am on my way back home, secretly laughing at every motorist I pass on the way. Have fun with that impending heart attack.
Great post!
Anyway, I hope more people figure out the fact that cycling can cover much more distance than walking, five times the distance really, so I don't know how anybody could not think of cycling as transportation.
Get a bike and learn.