Changes in the attitudes towards transit in the area?
http://www.freep.com/article/2013123...grosse-pointes
Printable View
Changes in the attitudes towards transit in the area?
http://www.freep.com/article/2013123...grosse-pointes
The MDOT is doing this all over Michigan. They basically will take two lanes of traffic going in one direction and turn it into one. The right side will have a bike lane about three feet wide with a buffer space about four feet and no parking. On the left will be a center turn lane. The same for the opposite direction.
This will do two things...
1) It will force everyone into one lane and slowdown, which is the real goal.
2) The people waiting to enter the lane that is now full will pull out into the center lane and wait or force their way into traffic.
Your commute is going to take longer, no doubts about it.
The bike path angle is all public relations. The cyclists are not out in abundant numbers. I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to walk in that lane.
There have been communities that have nullified the efforts of the MDOT. Mt. Pleasant is one. If the MDOT had done that on the main drag the backup would have stretched far beyond the city limits. People would have been resorting to using residential streets to circumvent Main Street.
The other thing their doing is increasing the use of roundabouts. Some are designed well others have been ripped out. Then you get those drivers that don't know how to use the roundabout.
Operationally three lanes can carry as much traffic as four in most cases due to left turns blocking traffic for those in the center lanes of four lane roads. At above 20k vehicles per day is where you start to have issues. By having a center turn lane instead of two through lanes you reduce rear end accidents considerably and make the road much safer for users. It is not a PR stunt. It is engineering [[safer) and economics [[less injuries and property damage) driving these road diets. http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/roaddiets.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
I, too, am so sick of the outright persecution of motorists in Southeastern Michigan. It's like they don't even know we exist!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
When will planners learn: progress and improvements should always take a back seat to those who "don't know how" upon their first encounter with said improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
I was just responding to that particular news article pasted in the OP. But after reading the Walkable pdf I see there is a lot of Rhetoric, [[in the classical sense) and justification on humanizing motorized thoroughfares. Nothing wrong with that at all, in fact, that is part of the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
But do read past all that and notice that to make roads safer they are going to slow you down. As they said, no reason to reward speeders who dodge in and out of traffic.
As for that center lane the idiots use that to pass slower traffic and at times you have people driving towards each other head on in that lane while trying to merge in or running up on someone who is turning.
The "roaddiet" being implemented is not written in stone. Local road agency's can add their input and hopefully so can the citizenry.
I just don't see it as a way to facilitate and enhance traffic flow during rush hour traffic. I do see it as a way to tame the yahoo's. Who I have encountered driving the roads around Detroit and other cities.
Although, I have never encountered the idiot drivers who tailgate so close as to be "drafting like the guy's and gall's in Nascar", as I have with my last foray to the Big D. Cripes!! Speed limit, what's that!? All I see in the rear view mirror is the grille of a Dodge Ram Pickup Truck!! Attachment 22312
I do see the "roaddiet" as a way to civilize the uncivilized, inconsiderate driver and attitudes that seem to be on their way to becoming the norm today.
Here up state we can tell by their driving who's up for the weekend. Just sayin... and I'm smiling when I say that Pardner!
Sometimes things go right over my head...Quote:
Originally Posted by KOMPOST
Was that post written with sarc/on or off?
Nah if you live in Cheboygan, Presque Isle, or Montmorency Counties thats probably just my 75 year old Aunt. I followed her once from her house to my cousins. She was doin' 65-70 down two lane highways. It was all I could do ro keep up with her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
Believe it or not we as planners get as many comments from people who want us to widen roads as we get from those who don't want them widened. We also get as many if not more anti-transit comments as we do pro-transit ones. At the very local level people for some reason think that bicyclists should be banned from roads. Unfortunately there are a lot of bad apples among the biking community that spoil it for everyone [[blowing through reds, wrong way on one way streets, insisting on taking full lanes where there are paved shoulders).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
Do we ban cars from the streets for blowing thru redlights? Or only hunt down evil cyclists that dont follow the signage/stoplight system?Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Education and training of ALL who share the road is a slow, messy affair. There will be yelling. There will be accidents. There will be many things. And in the end- if all the cyclists were somehow removed from the streets -there'd still be cars running red lights...
Exactly. The good roads movement was started by bicyclists. However, the motorist does pay for the streets. Bike have no mechanism to contribute to transportation taxes. The motorist in general needs to be more open, but incidents of law breaking are not confined only to motorists. Cops do enforce the laws for motorists but they turn a blind-eye to the bicyclist. I can't ever recall being in court and seeing a bicyclist fighting a ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by acer_ventura
Getting back to the original post, I can't see what transit has to do with improving the safety for bicyclists other than both should be included in looking at complete street assessments.
MSU came out with a recommendation of volumes less than 10,000 or peak hours less than 1,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Safety and Operational Analysis of 4-lane to 3-lane Conversions [[Road Diets) in Michigan.
The Michigan Avenue road diet from a few years ago has not increased congestion. But that road was severely overbuilt for the traffic.
I am such a huge proponent of bike lanes, especially being a biker coming from Grosse Pointe into the city. While I agree that there needs to be more bike lanes and better education for both bikers and drivers alike, there is one issue that really grinds my gears, pun intended. Why is there a bike lane on Kercheval after St. Jean? That is one of the most dangerous streets, on so many different levels. First off cars zip up and down that street at 50 + mph [[present company excluded); they fail to stop at the few working traffic lights; and it is quite frankly not the safest neighborhood, not to mention hardly any of the street lights work. In the rare case I do see a biker and they are given some respect of the bike lane, cars bounce right back into the bike lane. I guess my issue is, why in the world was this street designated as a bike lane, when A. it is not typically a route most bikers take and B. it is a dangerous road!!!??? Why not Jefferson? I get the traffic issue, but most people biking to and from the Pointes are typically taking Jefferson. And when we do take Jefferson we take the risk of being honked at and yelled at. Not like on Kercheval, where you take the risk of getting out of there alive or with a bike!
Does anyone have any insight as to what MDOT was thinking?
Kercheval is under Detroit's jurisdiction. The city putting most of their bike routes on 'secondary' roads for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by warsaw7
I was bike-jacked, well at least fought off attempted bike-jackers twice years ago on the east side.
conscii ascensorem
Riding a bike in a major metropolitan setting is dangerous in so many ways. How can you guarantee their safety.
Given our horrible weather and long distances between activity centers, biking will be primarily recreational. More bike lanes are good, but they should be designed for recreational use, not "complete streets" style, slowing traffic and increasing pollution from idling.
Interesting.. MDOT's previous version also used 20k!Quote:
Originally Posted by RO_Resident
I'm skeptical of the value of the MSU report. It doesn't appear any of the road diets analyzed were in urban areas. Also, it uses a LOS of D as the threshold for raising a red flag on conversions. But in congested urban areas, most major roads already operate at poor LOS. Using that as the determining factor doesn't make sense and ignores the significant safety improvements that comes with the addition of a center turn lane.
Like Grand River Avenue, Michigan Avenue was also not overbuilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by RO_Resident
It's just that the folks who utilized Michigan/Grand River Avenue have moved away from the Michigan/Grand River Avenue corridors, and the commercial districts that people would patronize along Michigan/Grand River Avenue have also been completely decimated.
They both merely underutilized.
[[not to mention the fact that Michigan Avenue/Grand River Avenue were built prior to all the freeways were plopped down).
I agree with everything you say. Bike Lanes would only be useful in either recreational environments, or environments that are densely populated, well-patrolled by law enforcement and well-lit.Quote:
Originally Posted by warsaw7
7 mile [[west of Schoenherr) also had a bike lane for a quick second. But for the exact reasons you listed, it was re-painted into a parking lane not even a few weeks later
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
I've had a few close calls with bicyclists that treated stop signs or traffic lights as if they didn't exist. I'd be in favor of MDOT issuing occasional reminders of the "Rules of the Road" for bicyclists issued in conjunction with the new lanes so autos and bikes can coexist as peacefully as possible.
Personally, the bike lanes near me seem to be little-used [[if at all), but I can appreciate the desire and rationale behind having them.
I hope that more bike lanes can be carved out of Detroit's neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
Signaling negates the travel time increase from subtracting vehicle lanes. Drivers complain all the time that they are losing vehicle lanes when bike lanes cycle tracks are installed. But the data shows they are actually benefiting with signaled left turns, bicycle stoplights and efficient travel without cyclists in vehicle lanes.
Generally walking in a bicycle lane is illegal. Don't think all places enforce the law equally. But I've seen joggers ticketed. And while the number of cyclists may be low, nearly all US cities report increases in bicycle commuting when lanes are provided.
Personally, I don't think bike lanes are good enough. They should be cycle tracks with physical separation. Bike lanes are nice for residential streets, but not effective on commercial and arterial streets where there are far more safety considerations.
Beyond that there are high capacity cycle tracks where there are entirely separate signaling systems for bikes a well as multi-lane bike lanes and even merge points. In these cases car traffic will rarely interact with cyclists. They are completely separated and only cross paths when one of those modes gets a green light.
Also, I applaud any city that makes an effort to reduce the size of one ways. They are perhaps the worst streets for any business district in terms of promoting a good pedestrian environment as well as good visibility for businesses. Nothing says, get the hell out of town with a one way that has two or more lanes.
This is why separate lights for cyclists help. Even stop signs with a bicycle on it. Chicago Department of Transportation did a nice little studyQuote:
Originally Posted by 248lurker
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...s-bike-traffic
I knew very many bicyclists who were in accidents in NYC. Most, but not all, were caused by bikers behaving irresponsibly [[often weaving in and out of cars in slow traffic). Motorists need to respect bikers when their paths cross, but at the end of the day, it's not the motorists who get killed. I am in favor of bike lanes where they are feasible, but they are not a cure-all for bike safety.
Back in the day when M59 [[Auburn Road), M150 [[Rochester Road) Dequindre, Romeo Plank, Van Dyke [[north of Utica), and 12 to 26 Mile Roads were two lane blacktops, we used to go 65-70 MPH on them as well. 23 Mile from Van Dyke to North Boulevard had no traffic lights or stop signs and we used to go 65 on it to get from Rochester to Algonac.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Nah, just have the dedicated bike lanes go through selected neighborhoods with enterprising denizens. That would eliminate problems with bikes [[and their riders)Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Check out the new sign on Grand Blvd. at E. Lafayette. I glanced up Grand Blvd. looking north and saw two or three more of these. This is just outside of Bell Isle. Maybe there is anticipation of more bicyclists heading over to the island because they won't be charged a fee.
-DVD
Attachment 22386
[QUOTE=DetroitPlanner;416415]However, the motorist does pay for the streets. Bike have no mechanism to contribute to transportation taxes. QUOTE]
http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports...pay-themselves
Except Minneapolis:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...top_honors.php
Because it's the 'real' connectivity that allows people who want to bike to do so on a regular basis:
http://www.bicycling.com/news/featur...ty-minneapolis