markjgi-@yahoo.com
John and John
First, ranting on the obra list in entertaining, but
telling folks at State what we think is realy what
matters, b/c other bike races aren't going to go build
you or I a bridge.
The actual studies of St. John's bridge showed that
the biggest congestion problem was not the bridge
itself but the timing of the lights on each end. The
lights are controlled by City, the bridge is
controlled by state.
City re-timed the lights.
The traffic engineering studys showed clearly that
making the St. J bridge one auto lane and one bicycle
lane in each direction would not actually affect
travel time across the bridge at all.
For those concerned about turning radius, rather than
turning lane, bicycle lanes do improve turning radius
beacuse they give a big truck room to move. But that
is not the issue on the St. J bridge.
The primary issue was that State took the time to do
the traffic study and then ignored their own study and
went with emotional arguments that were not supported
by the study and chose to not put in bicycle lanes.
The sidewalks on the bridge are sidewalks, they have
not been widened. The area around each big stantion
has been lengthed about 3 feet to make the angle at
which you can ride around them shallower, which is
good.
As other have metioned this bridge is a great
connection between important parts of our city.
We had (and maybe still have) opportunities to improve
the facility for all users. We have the ability to
make the bridge work better for truck, cars, bikes,
little old ladies walking, and we as a State, made a
choice to ignore the science and go with the emotion.
For a lot of people who work on transportation issues,
this was, and still is very frustrating.
Mark Ginsberg, Esq.
Chair,
Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee
--- john schmidt <twotireti-@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
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 was sent to: markjgi-@yahoo.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
http://topica.com/help/unsub.html.bWFya2pn
Or send an email to: obra-uns-@topica.com
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing
solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
=== message truncated ===
Mark J. Ginsberg
Attorney At Law
621 SW Morrison St., Ste. 900
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 542-3000
Fax (503) 227-2530
markjgi-@yahoo.com
www.bikesafetylaw.com
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail