john schmidt
good God, well the BTA is certainly tenacious...
21 July 2005
Subject: St Johns Bridge Lanes
My response to a BTA Letter:
BTA is trying hard but it is very obvious that the people behind this
rarely use the bridge! I use the bridge frequently, both with a
vehicle and with a bicycle and did so before and after construction. I
am also analysis / design engineer, I am good at observing, analyzing
and making things better.
My comments:
BTA: "If you have (used the bridge), you know that the current
conditions for
bicycles (as well as pedestrians) are very poor."
I assume they are referring to prior to construction. This is not true.
I never had an issue crossing the bridge. Very very few pedestrians
use this bridge. Over a couple years of using the bridge, I have only
had to pass or get around pedestrians maybe once or twice.
BTA:"On the bridge surface, four narrow 10-foot lanes combined with
heavy truck traffic and high-speed traffic make bicycling hazardous even
for the most intrepid cyclist, while narrow sidewalks blocked by
structural poles are challenging for bicyclists to share with
pedestrians.
The sidewalks are narrower then most but not hazardously so. And the
structural poles do not "block" the sidewalks.
BTA: "ODOT is currently spending $38 million to upgrade the St. Johns
Bridge,
offering us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide a better,
safer connection between communities.
"Once-in-a-generation opportunity" ? ok fluff? at any time, It's only
a "new striping solution", right!?
BTA: ODOT looked at alternatives, including one that would provide wide
14? travel lanes flanked by two wide shoulders. They discovered that the
congestion problems happen at the ends of the bridges, and that ?no
capacity constraints or operational flaws on the bridge? would result
from a design using wide lanes mid-bridge."
After spending time driving and riding on the bridge during construction
I would sort of agree. BUT, I would change "Ends of Bridge" to "Exits
off of Bridge" I have observed that IT IS ESSENTIAL to keep the two
Exit lanes. (two entrance lanes are NOT essential since only single
lanes feed onto the bridge anyway.) AND EVEN MORE ESSENTIAL is that
these TWO exit lanes extend as far back as possible onto the bridge.
They can NOT be just a couple hundred feet long, otherwise traffic
backing up in one lane simple blocks the other lane (think heavy slow
trucks)! What I propose is THREE LANES. Two exits lanes that extend
halfway across the bridge. Thus you would feed onto the bridge on a
single lane and once halfway across it would expand into two lanes. So
I personally would like to see, say maybe, three 10' to 11' lanes and
then two 3.5' to 5' foot shoulders.
BTA: That?s good news: two wider lanes and shoulders will make the
bridge safer for ALL users (cyclists, pedestrians, cars and trucks) for
no additional cost!
But only in the middle of the bridge would it be safer. The hazardous
points are , have been and will be on the ends! Having two entrance
lanes for a short distance to only change into a single lane would be
really stupid since (as already mentioned) only single lanes of traffic
feed the bridge.
BTA: The bad news: ODOT has decided to disregard their own
results. Under pressure from special interests, ODOT has decided to
simply restripe the bridge as-is.
Well the BTA is a Special Interest too!! You can't really blame ODOT:
making the bridge only marginally better for cyclists while causing
congestion and traffic delays for the majority of the bridge users is
simply not logical. The bottom line is that before construction there
never were traffic delays. Now with construction, with single lanes,
the traffic congestion is terrible. Note that this is with two exit
lanes at one end and three turning exit lanes at the other end. BUT
these exit lanes are TOO short! And thus why it is essential that these
exit lanes extend as far back as possible.
BTA: ? Two wide lanes are a win-win solution that benefits neighbors,
helps
businesses move freight, creates transportation choices, and makes the
bridge safer for everyone.
From my observations this would not be true. Another observation that I
have is that the narrow four lanes may actually create heightened
awareness and concentration from drivers when crossing the bridge. A
wider lane would probably result in higher speeds, more careless
driving. Note this statement only holds for this bridge. Its straight,
its high, the lanes are narrow, and it?s a relatively short distance
(compared say to a narrow country road); it does have a psychological
effect of making one drive with more care.
BTA: ? New striping solution doesn?t add to congestion or cost taxpayers
any additional funds.
No, I would say that BTA's proposed striping (assuming four short lanes
at the ends with two wide lanes in the middle) solution would probably
add congestion as compared to before construction. But this is a good
point. Maybe we could try something for a while, if it doesn't work
then switch, simply re-stripe.
BTA: ? ODOT?s job is to create good routes for ALL users, including
cyclists and pedestrian.
My opinion is that the bridge was, with four full lanes, a good route
for cyclists! With four lanes, an occasional cyclist simply takes a
lane, yes temporarily impeding some traffic, but not bad since vehicles
can still get around in the other lane. And the best part is the
impediment is only temporary, not permanent as would be the case if a
lane was lost to a big shoulders or a bike lane. A sign reminding
drivers that cyclists may legally take a lane would be nice or simply
cyclist on bridge or something like that?
But I think though my idea of having three lanes would work well. It's
at least worth considering.