After having ridden the streets of Portland, OR this summer with Roger Geller; and the streets of Seattle, WA the year prior with Peter Lagerway (both were instrumental in facilitating a bicycle culture in their respective cities), I am not altogether certain that treatments such as sharrows on bike boulevards are all that necessary. I think a bike boulevard is like urban sprawl - you know it when you see it. There are many low traffic areas in Madison that already qualify. Tarting up our streets with paint and blue signs is not necessarily the indicator of a well designed (or managed) bicycle facility. The real hallmark of a bicycle boulevard is reduced automobile traffic and the prioritization of bikes within the design hierarchy. Diverting traffic, for example, by only allowing bicycles on certain segments is much more effective in creating a bicycle-friendly environment than a sharrow. This is especially important to consider in light of the fact that most people operating on streets with sharrows don't necessarily know what they are. I have ridden the E Wilson Street segment all winter and motorists are no more inclined to "share the road" with me than they are on any other road. However, if we divert traffic, or make it difficult for autos to operate on that street, then the priority for cyclistss is clear and we wouldn't need to rely on signage or pavement markings to convey that message. We should also be careful to supplement our efforts with an effective public awareness campaign. Portland spent months engaging the public when they first installed their bike boxes at intersections. Anybody remember a bike box campaign in Madison? I don't either, and that's probably why we have autos parked in them at red lights.
- Reed Dunbar ________________________________ From: "Schimpff, Jeff A - DNR" <[email protected]> To: Mitch at. Well <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 12:34:33 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] Kendall Ave. Bike Blvd Discussion > On a related note, there was pretty good support for the Kendall Bike > Boulevard concept Wed. evening, despite the obligatory objections of a > couple attendees. The skeptics were not seeing things from a cyclist's > perspective, so several of us explained the nature of bike commuting to them, > and pointed out that having fewer cars and more bikes pass through their > blocks would make their homes quieter. By the end of the meeting they seemed > more at ease with the proposal. > > It took discussing some specific route examples to get some people to > understand that the Campus Drive path serves the campus well, but is not al > all convenient if your destination is downtown, and is not useful for kids > going to Randall School or West High. >Another person was adamant that Old U. bike lanes are all that's needed for >bike commuters - And still another was sure that Regent Street was fine for >bike commuters -- It was clear they'd never biked these streets in the >morning or evening, so we talked about traffic volumes and other impediments >to safe and enjoyable biking. Old U. lands would be good for people going to >businesses in the area but with frequent bus traffic and heavy car traffic for >many hours, Old U. is not a suitable bike commute route. > >The city Streets/Engineering staff person there (Mark?) was very helpful in >explaining the concepts to the audience of about 40 people. In addition to >"Sharrows" and Bike Boulevard signs like on Mifflin & Wilson, options under >consideration include a possible speed hump or two on Highland, and bulb-outs >at Franklin, Highland, and possibly Farley. The bulb-outs would serve to >deflect eastbound through-commuter traffic coming from Midvale*, onto >University/Campus to reduce traffic on Kendall (which is twice or more that of >parallel residential streets). No one objected to the notion of having to >circle around a block in response to the bulb-outs to get to their homes when >they do drive. The bulb-outs would like not reduce on-street parking, being >installed near the intersection where parking is not allowed anyway. > (*ed note: a license plate survey I did 15 years ago pointed out that 65% of all commute-hours traffic on Kendall originates west of Midvale.) >Stop signs at Grand and other cross streets to the east, which used to be >aimed at cross traffic but which were turned to stop Kendall traffic a few >years ago (maybe in hopes of discouraging car commuters?), could be turned to >stop cross-traffic again, making Kendall more of a through-way for bikes. But >it's not clear whether this would also increase Kendall's appeal to cars... > >These was some concern for having people stop on the hills on Princeton and >Forest when they are icy in winter. I thought installing a San >Francisco-style cable car cable in the street that cars can use like a ski >rope tow would solve that for uphill traffic, and an aircraft carrier crash >net would keep downhill traffic from sliding into bike commuters... So, >turning the signs there might not be workable. > > It's not at all clear when we'd see any initial bike boulevard signage or >"sharrows," on Kendall, but most people agree the Bike Boulevard is a useful >concept, and something like it has (or at least had) been in the RNA >transportation plan for the past 15-18 years. A 2011 date came up several >times in relation to the Highland repavement, as a logical time to add any >boulevard features at that intersection. Four or more blocks of Kendall were >just rebuilt in the past 2-3 years, so an opportunity to fold some >boulevard features into that construction was missed. > > Someone in the 2500(?) block pointed out they are seeing less bike traffic on > Kendall since the Campus Drive path opened, and therefore a bike boulevard > is not needed. It has dawned on me that I am seeing fewer bikes in that part > of Kendall, too - it appears some cyclists coming from Midvale are now > turning north on Farley to take their chances with crossing Campus Drive to > get to the bike path, instead of continuing east on Kendall to the Ashman > bridge or beyond -- but the consensus was "so what? - the added features > will attract a lot more bikes over time." That is our hope, and the staff > person was very good about explaining the bike boulevard concept within the > context of the city's need to get more people out of cars. It's just one of > many elements focusing on overall motorized traffic reduction. > >In regard to traffic reduction, many people were very supportive of and >impatient for commuter rail, designed to get people to the hospital/campus >area, cutting traffic on Univ. Ave, and therefore reducing drivers' desire to >commute on residential streets. > >A number of neighbors pointed out the huge volume of traffic generated by the >UW hospital complex and the rest of the UW, and felt that the West Campus >Committee was not coming up with effective solutions that would contribute to >the success of a Kendall bike boulevard. Very little ride sharing is evident >among all that traffic, and more parking is due to be built on campus. >Ald. Shiva pointed out that Dane Co. was in the midst of an extended (7 days, >it turned out) period of unhealthy air quality, and the city needs to pitch in >on reducing air pollution (ed. note: and less foot-dragging at the state and >national levels is needed as well). One of the few elected officials to note >the connection between transportation policies and human health. Jeff Schimpff Madison, WI 608-233-2962 "Bus, Bike, Carpool to Work for Clean Air for Kids" "Pedestrians and cyclists are the indicator species of a healthier community" ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mitchell Nussbaum >Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:20 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Bikies] E Mifflin Bike Boulevard > > >A related question: > >When I went to the Regent Co-op on Wednesday evening, I noticed a flyer for a >community meeting about a Kendall Avenue bike boulevard on Wednesday evening. >The meeting was probably over by the time I saw the notice, but I'd be >interested to know what happened, and what's being planned for Kendall Avenue. > >I think E. Mifflin and Kendall are both excellent candidates for bike >boulevards, but the details of implementation are important. For E. Mifflin >St., I wonder about the 100 block. When this was discussed earlier, people >talked about a contraflow lane to allow westbound bikes to get to the >Square. Is this part of the plan? I hope so; without it, westbound bike >will go against traffic or use the sidewalk -- neither is a good idea. > >On Kendall Ave., planners need to give some thought to the connections at >either end of Kendall Ave. At the east end, Kendall dumps you onto Lathrop >St., and there's no really good way to continue downtown, especially for >riders who don't feel confident in traffic. On the west end, planners need to >think about connections to Hilldale and beyond. I don't have any trouble with >Bluff St. and Regent St., but I'm told that some people do, and it's probably >not suitable for the proverbial 70-year-old grandmother pulling a trailer. > >I do think these boulevards are steps in the right direction, and I thank city >staff and the alders involved for pushing them forward. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Michael Leland" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 7:24:51 AM >Subject: [Bikies] E Mifflin Bike Boulevard > >Bike Boulevard signs are up on East Mifflin beginning at Blount and continuing >toward the river. Haven't heard anything about this project since last >summer. Is anything else planned besides the new signs? > >Michael > >________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. >_______________________________________________ >Bikies mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
