I wasn’t able to attend the Downtown Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory subcommittee meeting on Monday, but TPCBAC member Dave Boston, sent along this recap:
The T-PCBAC’s Downtown subcommittee reviewed two crucial topics at this Monday’s meeting.
First was the proposed modern streetcar’s effect on the current bicycling structure along its route. The stations (stops) along the majority of the route have been located in the center of the street, having minimal effect on cyclists. The stations at Cushing St. and at Congress St. (at Granada) pose some potential problems, depending on how much future usage there is.
However, the tracks at the intersections of 4th Ave./University Blvd. and at Park Ave./University Blvd. are very problematic. Cyclists will have to cross the tracks at a bad angle while dealing with intersection-type traffic. Please know that the tracks will be two-way: that means a set of tracks going each direction and doubling the amount of track that currently exists. Also cyclists will be riding parallel to the track on University Blvd. in the traffic lane.
To some at the meeting, introducing this level of hazard on an existing designated bike route is unacceptable, to the point of jeopardizing Tucson’s quest for a platinum level bicycle community.
It remains to be seen how well or in what manner cyclists handle this condition. It appears the City is comfortable with its level of liability that could arise from this situation.
The second topic was the subcommittee’s recommendation to the full BAC on the adjustment to the RTA funding level for Bike Boulevards. This is a complex issue.
The RTA is a Regional funding source, meaning county-wide. Bike boulevards are applicable to Tucson’s core cycling transportation needs. Bike boulevards are seen as crucial to increasing the level of bike ridership, providing a safer alternative to arterial routes. Current funding level proponents contend that bike boulevards can be adequately funded through existing designations without diluting the funds for greenway and road striping projects.
Greenway projects are those that are separate from auto traffic, such as the highly used Rilitto multi-use path. These facilities are attractive to different types of cyclists and the difficulty is determining the greatest number of who will be best served. The decision will also somewhat steer the type of cycling community Tucson is apt to become in the future. The BAC must give its recommendation on this subject to the RTA by the end of the month.
Please give this issue some thought and bring an opinion to express at the special T-PCBAC meeting on March 24th.
As soon as the TPCBAC announces a time and place for the meeting, I will post an update. Additionally, I am working on a story about bike boulevards and what the change to the RTA funding level will mean.
Thanks for the update, Dave.
I’m having a problem that a commitment
should be made on behalf of a group of
people not willing to commit to the
endeavor of cycling. Part of that endeavor
is the rational understanding of risk.
The risk is not that high and not pro-
portional to the number of times the
term ‘unsafe’ is evoked with the subject
of cycling. Committed long-time and recent
cyclists have done so on facilities at the
current level of safety or less. I’m sure they
don’t feel super-human or extra-bold or brave
to the point of irresponsible. The expenditure
of resources to achieve the feeling of extra-safe
seems a waste in a culture so geared to profit
from feelings of insecurity. “Cycling” is really
much more than just riding a bike. I don’t see
how the proposed style of facility contributes
toward that understanding.
More opinions, please.
BTW – anyone who can, should go out for a
ride with and watch the young El Grupo riders.
It will make your day!
I’m having a problem that a commitment
should be made on behalf of a group of
people not willing to commit to the
endeavor of cycling. Part of that endeavor
is the rational understanding of risk.
The risk is not that high and not pro-
portional to the number of times the
term ‘unsafe’ is evoked with the subject
of cycling. Committed long-time and recent
cyclists have done so on facilities at the
current level of safety or less. I’m sure they
don’t feel super-human or extra-bold or brave
to the point of irresponsible. The expenditure
of resources to achieve the feeling of extra-safe
seems a waste in a culture so geared to profit
from feelings of insecurity. “Cycling” is really
much more than just riding a bike. I don’t see
how the proposed style of facility contributes
toward that understanding.
More opinions, please.
BTW – anyone who can, should go out for a
ride with and watch the young El Grupo riders.
It will make your day!
Here’s my 2 cents on the streetcar tracks.
I’m a relative novice with cylcing – done the El Tour once and mostly a bike-commuter now. That said I don’t see how the tracks are that big of a danger. I ride almost every day through the Congress/Toole/4th Ave intersxn and often along 4th Ave. The only time I’ve had an issue is once when I was goofing off looking around at the scenery. If you’re paying attention, it’s fine.
I would hate to see the cyling community become a major opponent to the streetcar. I think advocating some reasonable safety features dealing with the tracks is fine, but I hope we don’t loose sight of the bigger picture that cycling and transit are trying to accomplish some of the same goals.
I will agree that the tracks along University and Park may be more of a challenge to some of the beginner UA student cyclist and may warrant some special lane striping/signage/education.
Just my opinion – willing to learn from others experiences.
Colby
Here’s my 2 cents on the streetcar tracks.
I’m a relative novice with cylcing – done the El Tour once and mostly a bike-commuter now. That said I don’t see how the tracks are that big of a danger. I ride almost every day through the Congress/Toole/4th Ave intersxn and often along 4th Ave. The only time I’ve had an issue is once when I was goofing off looking around at the scenery. If you’re paying attention, it’s fine.
I would hate to see the cyling community become a major opponent to the streetcar. I think advocating some reasonable safety features dealing with the tracks is fine, but I hope we don’t loose sight of the bigger picture that cycling and transit are trying to accomplish some of the same goals.
I will agree that the tracks along University and Park may be more of a challenge to some of the beginner UA student cyclist and may warrant some special lane striping/signage/education.
Just my opinion – willing to learn from others experiences.
Colby
I’ve biked through those intersections many times myself… the tracks really don’t bother me. They are something of a hazard, but it’s so obvious that they exist that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a cyclist to see them and act accordingly. If it was something difficult to see, or a hazard that crept up on you like a pot hole, that would be one thing – but the tracks are hugely visible and generally tricky only in places where there are stop signs and such.
The above commenter said, “I would hate to see the cyling community become a major opponent to the streetcar.” Amen. A couple minimally funky intersections aren’t worth making enemies in my opinion….
I’ve biked through those intersections many times myself… the tracks really don’t bother me. They are something of a hazard, but it’s so obvious that they exist that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a cyclist to see them and act accordingly. If it was something difficult to see, or a hazard that crept up on you like a pot hole, that would be one thing – but the tracks are hugely visible and generally tricky only in places where there are stop signs and such.
The above commenter said, “I would hate to see the cyling community become a major opponent to the streetcar.” Amen. A couple minimally funky intersections aren’t worth making enemies in my opinion….
The tracks on lower forth are placed extremely poorly for bicycling. The problem mainly come from inattentive motorists and the possibility of dooring (when a car door opens right in front of you). You are left with the options of hitting the door or eating it sideways due to the tracks grabbing your wheel.
If you don’t think 4th and University is dangerous try sitting in front of epic for an hour or two. I guarantee that you will see someone crash because of the tracks.
I would like to see bike paths expanded or made safer in poorer parts of town where people are forced to ride instead of choosing to ride.
Also bikes should have the yield option at four-way stops on any ‘bike path’ such as Blacklidge. That or remove all stop signs on the path (which won’t happen because cars will then cruise the streets at faster speeds.
The tracks on lower forth are placed extremely poorly for bicycling. The problem mainly come from inattentive motorists and the possibility of dooring (when a car door opens right in front of you). You are left with the options of hitting the door or eating it sideways due to the tracks grabbing your wheel.
If you don’t think 4th and University is dangerous try sitting in front of epic for an hour or two. I guarantee that you will see someone crash because of the tracks.
I would like to see bike paths expanded or made safer in poorer parts of town where people are forced to ride instead of choosing to ride.
Also bikes should have the yield option at four-way stops on any ‘bike path’ such as Blacklidge. That or remove all stop signs on the path (which won’t happen because cars will then cruise the streets at faster speeds.
Your willingness to learn, Colby, places you
far above the City which seems unwilling to
learn anything from the Jose Rincon incident.
In that case, the road was deemed a significant
contributor to the fatality. Many disagree with
that due to the lack of previous incidences to
validate the finding. However, the city took a
shortcut in the design, and that bit its butt.
Is the city not hanging its butt out again with
its deliberate choice of the street car’s placement?
Even with proper design (for the street car’s
use) there are plenty of documented incidences
validating the hazard that tracks create for cyclists.
Thousands of bike trips daily (going and coming)
with tracks in a more unavoidable location and
street cars adding to the congestion. If a cyclist had
to make a sudden move to avoid a threat and, duly
distracted, fell on the track and was injured or killed,
would not, again, the road, as modified, be considered
a contributor. I would rather not have that be
determined in retrospect.
It was put forth that the line be set on 2nd St.
all the way to 4th Ave. rather than University Blvd.
Businesses would be just as well-served from that
placement – people walk farther in malls to get
where they want. Some construction savings
might be realized and a significant demonstration
of concern for bike safety, along with some sensitivity
to congestion in general, would be made.
I don’t see much future in opposing the street car. I
wonder if the city has contemplated the future with
its seemingly casual attitude toward the compromise
to cyclists’ safety that the street car poses.
Your willingness to learn, Colby, places you
far above the City which seems unwilling to
learn anything from the Jose Rincon incident.
In that case, the road was deemed a significant
contributor to the fatality. Many disagree with
that due to the lack of previous incidences to
validate the finding. However, the city took a
shortcut in the design, and that bit its butt.
Is the city not hanging its butt out again with
its deliberate choice of the street car’s placement?
Even with proper design (for the street car’s
use) there are plenty of documented incidences
validating the hazard that tracks create for cyclists.
Thousands of bike trips daily (going and coming)
with tracks in a more unavoidable location and
street cars adding to the congestion. If a cyclist had
to make a sudden move to avoid a threat and, duly
distracted, fell on the track and was injured or killed,
would not, again, the road, as modified, be considered
a contributor. I would rather not have that be
determined in retrospect.
It was put forth that the line be set on 2nd St.
all the way to 4th Ave. rather than University Blvd.
Businesses would be just as well-served from that
placement – people walk farther in malls to get
where they want. Some construction savings
might be realized and a significant demonstration
of concern for bike safety, along with some sensitivity
to congestion in general, would be made.
I don’t see much future in opposing the street car. I
wonder if the city has contemplated the future with
its seemingly casual attitude toward the compromise
to cyclists’ safety that the street car poses.
Here are some links to check out, one of them talk about “filler” in the track so cyclist don’t get caught if riding along the track.
http://www.bikeplan.com/traxq.htm
http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/Bicycle_Streetcar_Memo.pdf
in this minutes dated back in 2006 talked about putting in a filler
http://bikeped.pima.gov/Meetings/Minutes/minutes06/12-06%20final%20minutes.htm
(under “Downtown Links” )
Here are some links to check out, one of them talk about “filler” in the track so cyclist don’t get caught if riding along the track.
http://www.bikeplan.com/traxq.htm
http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/Bicycle_Streetcar_Memo.pdf
in this minutes dated back in 2006 talked about putting in a filler
http://bikeped.pima.gov/Meetings/Minutes/minutes06/12-06%20final%20minutes.htm
(under “Downtown Links” )
Yeah, don’t hate on the trolley because you’ll have to watch out for the tracks…
The fact that the “bus-on-rails” is probably the least flexible, least congestion-relieving, least useful, and least cost-efficient means of a public transport bottomless money-pit that logic-free idealists could dream up (short of flooding the washes and using gondola’s) ought to be reason enough all by itself. 🙂
Yeah, don’t hate on the trolley because you’ll have to watch out for the tracks…
The fact that the “bus-on-rails” is probably the least flexible, least congestion-relieving, least useful, and least cost-efficient means of a public transport bottomless money-pit that logic-free idealists could dream up (short of flooding the washes and using gondola’s) ought to be reason enough all by itself. 🙂
Scott has a point. Electric buses combined with some relatively minor infrastructure improvement (it’s not like there is shortage of vacant lots in the wasteland between UA and downtown and elsewhere) might be more beneficial to zip codes 85705 and 85719 than being locked-in to the costly and disruptive trolley, federal funding notwithstanding. Certainly electric buses are more flexible than trolleys and, with battery technology advancing more rapidly than putting iron in the ground, it seems to be a no-brainer except over at PAG, a group that seems to be stuck in a Federal fund-grabbing rut.
Electric bus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_bus#Electric_bus
A useful statement from an evil tyrannical socialist:
“United States Department of Transportation
Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation
Regulations and Recommendations”
over at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/policy_accom.htm
Scott has a point. Electric buses combined with some relatively minor infrastructure improvement (it’s not like there is shortage of vacant lots in the wasteland between UA and downtown and elsewhere) might be more beneficial to zip codes 85705 and 85719 than being locked-in to the costly and disruptive trolley, federal funding notwithstanding. Certainly electric buses are more flexible than trolleys and, with battery technology advancing more rapidly than putting iron in the ground, it seems to be a no-brainer except over at PAG, a group that seems to be stuck in a Federal fund-grabbing rut.
Electric bus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_bus#Electric_bus
A useful statement from an evil tyrannical socialist:
“United States Department of Transportation
Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation
Regulations and Recommendations”
over at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/policy_accom.htm