Schreck, George

Although I would prefer to see a bike lane, I have never found the

bridge to be that unsafe. I just take one of the outside lanes, and the

cars go around me in the other lane. Of course, I tend not to use the

bridge during rush hour, so this approach may not be feasible at that

time.



-----Original Message-----

From: john schmidt [mailto:twotireti-@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:40 PM

To: ob-@topica.com; markjgi-@yahoo.com

Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] St. John's Bridge, will there be bike lanes?

yes, if you act now



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.



To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com.

To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org

To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com







------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This email is confidential and may be legally privileged.



It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else, unless expressly approved by the sender or an authorized addressee, is unauthorized.



If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action omitted or taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please contact the sender, delete this e-mail and destroy all copies.



==============================================================================