john schmidt
Actually in the case of the saint johns bridge two exit lanes off the
bridge does Equal less congestion (versus only one). Yes I have heard
and read the studies of less lanes equals better traffic flow and it IS
true but with qualifiers: These single lanes must have turning lanes
and it must be a fairly light free road (and there are probably other
qualifiers too). You take a road like interstate avenue with only
single lanes to feed through the lights and its now an absolute
nightmare to drive on. Put a big truck or two on it that accelerate
slow and use up most of a light cycle themselves and you instantly have
a traffic jam. So big trucks don't need to use Interstate anymore and
cars niether, they take other roads. But St Johns bridge is needed by
all. So you simply can not make the st johns bridge two single lanes
unless you want more congestion, pollution, wasted time.
Now, as Dave A. mentioned, I would be all for signs saying something
like bikes can legally accomodate the right lane or something like that.
Or if present bicycles have full use of right lane.. But riding across
the sidewalk is just fine, everyone does it, so it really is a multi-use
sidewalk.
I am saying chose battles carefully because I think pissing off the
community and non-cyclists also hurts the cycling community and also
prevents them maybe from joining us or from maybe not running us over.
There needs to be a nice balance. We've never not had the right to ride
on the road.
Jonathan Maus wrote:
John,
I respect your opinion.
When no bike lanes are in the plans and the sidewalk is not classified
as "multi-use" than that means bikes are not accommodated. End of
story.
Please understand that the concern is not for people like you and me. I
would be fine riding on Fremont bridge if I could!...what is important
is making the bridge safe for famillies, recreational riders and novice
commuters. What is also important is principal and precedent. Whenever
decisions are made that exclude cyclists input and rights to the road it
hurts the entire cycling community.
I'm also sorry to hear that you've bought into the fallacy of more lanes
= less congestion. This is simply not true, according to the research.
This is a myth perpetuated by those who are in bed with auto makers,
freight interests, road construction companies, etc...
Sorry you think my opinions don't make sense but I'm even more sorry
that you feel the need to insult them.
--Jonathan Maus
----- Original Message -----
From: john schmidt
To: ob-@topica.com
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: [OBRA Chat] bikes on St. Johns Bridge
What do you mean bikes aren't accomodated? Of course they are. There
just won't be a bike lane (which in my opinion typically reduces
flexibility and causes problems, although I am all for 3-4 foot
shoulders..). Also the sidewalk is really great if you don't feel like
riding in traffic. I use the sidewalk for the uphill direction. With
four lanes, cars are able to pass you you if you decide to ride on the
road. What could be safer?
Now my personal opinion is they could have easily had only three lanes
on the bridge with a nice shoulder. Since only single lanes feed the
bridge, only one lane really is needed for bridge entrance, and of
course two lanes to exit the bridge as normal (which is absolutely
needed to keep traffic from backing way up as it does now), with the
switch from single to double in the middle. But maybe doing that would
cause problems, so just keep it simple and leave the 4 lanes probably
really is the best solution.
Its always a good idea to think these things through first before
raising hell. If there is not clear logic and pressing reasons for
making things different, for creating permanent hassle for Freight
traffic, and for creating resentment, why do it? For me getting across
the st johns bridge on a bicycle would be no more or no less hassle with
a bike lane or without. For a Truck driver, four lanes vs two lanes
would be a huge difference, a huge hassle, time lost, and more pollution
from congested traffic. When your ideas don't "make sense", people will
stop listening to you, shake their heads and maybe even laugh. But
worse yet is that people will group you as a "cyclist" and now will be
less likely to listen to the rest of us.
-st johns resident, daily bicycle commuter
Jonathan Maus wrote:
> what do you guys think about ODOTs decision to not accommodate bikes on
> the St. Johns Bridge? I was at the Portland Bike Advisory Committee
> meeting on Tuesday night and the ODOT guy ended up taking a seat
> directly adjacent to Portland main bike planner, Roger Geller. It was
> high-drama believe me. The ODOT guy didn't really have anything to say,
>
> other than, "sorry guys, I'm just the messenger". Anyways...you can
> read more about it on my blog post if you're interested....
> http://www.oregonlive.com/bikefun/weblog/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_bike/archives/2005_05.html#060725
>
>
>
> thanks.
> --jonathan
>
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