I agree with David on the Engineering approach.  We have long talked about the complete streets solution where roads are designed to facilitate (and encourage) all forms of transportation.  In towns where this is done properly the results are amazing.  When I was in San Francisco (SF) about a week ago, the approach to accomplishing this was delightfully simple.  Traffic signals were optimized for all forms of users rather then having long timeouts, something that is becoming exceeding popular in the Eastern United States under the premise that it is more efficient to move car traffic with longer wait periods.  However, traffic signals were set at reasonable time periods so that ALL TRAFFIC could move efficiently and unimpeded.  Pedestrian signals worked in a predictable and expected manner, and crosswalks were clearly defined.    It wasn't necessary to press a button and there was a clear number countdown showing how much time was left to safely cross the street. Never did I encounter an intersection where all four lanes were stopped to allow pedestrians to cross, and while it is legal to turn right on red in SF, all drivers (both in cars and on bicycles) clearly understood the requirement that they must stop for all pedestrians walking on crosswalks.   Yes, it was amazing!

Yet, there was no perceivable congestion, the designers in SF got it right!  Transit, which includes buses attached to electric wires, benefit greatly from these arrangements because they deliver people to their desired locations in the expected manner rather then waiting in inexorable traffic jams.  This ofcourse increases ridership to such a large degree that to maintain the efficiency of the system, bus drivers will occasionally allow riders to enter the buses without paying or with expired transfers so as to not to create delays.  When you engineer a system that delivers positive feedback to people, it encourages people to use that system with the result that more people commute via transit, bicycles and walking, with the net effect of "continually" reducing traffic congestion.

Software programmers call this concept affordances, it's is more about human engineering rather than just civil engineering.  They build feedback systems into their software user interface design that cause people "almost automatically and without thinking" to use their program in the way the programmer designed and intended it to be used.  Obviously, the greatest software (road system) in the world is worthless if the user can't properly benefit from it.

I often talk about how if you install racks it sends a message to people that encourages them to commute, yet, in Morgantown where it is legal to lock your bicycle on parking meters,  very few know or even do that.  SF does have a program where bicyclists can suggest locations for bicycle racks, however, everywhere I went, parking meters were the preferred venue for locking up bicycles.  The intriguing message here, though, is that because the feedback system in SF is so encouraging, many, many people choose to bicycle in SF without even needing the additional feedback of formal bicycle parking  facilities .. even though studies (such as in school systems) have shown them to statistically increase the amount of bicyclists who would commute.

I wanted to end this discussion with one funny.  While most roads in SF don't have bicycle lanes, I observed one road which had two lanes going in one direction and one lane going the other direction.  On the two-lane side, shared-lane markings were installed in the right-hand lane, however on the one-lane side there was a bicycle lane clearly demarcated from the road!   I think the designers were concerned about this road because it goes through a very long tunnel, though this may be an experiment which they are in the process of evaluating.  Actually, there were some other unorthodox things I saw in SF (like very few locals wore helmets or used lights in the nightime), and yet, SF residents can enjoy bicycling (walking and transit) safely and fearlessly anywhere, anytime, for any reason!

-Jonathan
p.s.  My vote is for studying successful systems that have already solved problems like we have, and to apply the solutions learned from those systems in a way that takes into account the differentials that exist in our town (and our state).

Frank Gmeindl wrote:
David,

Thanks for your thoughtful and clear input.  Do you mind if I forward your message to the Bicycle Board? Or, could you just resend it to bikeboard@cheat.org?

You make an excellent point that I never considered:  Engineering gives us a product that we can sell.  I've discounted engineering because I've thought of engineering, e.g. bike lanes, bike paths, etc. as ideas to either get cyclists off the roads or to compensate for their lack of education and skill in how to drive their bicycles as vehicles on the roadway.  I admit however, that I could not envision anything but an engineering solution namely, widening the curb lane, to the motor vehicle / bicycle speed difference on steep hills with narrow lanes.  I expect that your idea may change the Bicycle Board's paradigm about engineering and hopefully generate some synergy that could well result in at least an effective demo project.

Frank

David Bruffy wrote: 
Bike Board Members,
 
It seems to me the biggest obstacle is engineering.  It very much reminds me of the difficulty with bus shelters.  They were never considered when public spaces were designed and engineered, meaning there is no public property to locate them (no adequate public property for bike lanes), no accommodation for their use such as curb cuts (no consideration of how bikes and cars could interact in places with steep grades), and no awareness or interest on the part of designers and engineers to include them in new projects (the new streetscape in Downtown Morgantown gets us both I think).
 
Without engineering, we don't have a product.  Without a product to sell, we have little to offer, to market, to educate, or to encourage use.  Without a good initial product for show and tell, it is a hard sell.  Before there was any streetscape in downtown Morgantown, Wall Street was redone.  Although small, it spurred imagination, created interest, and demonstrated what was possible.  15 years later, downtown streets are being redone.  The first piece of the rail-trail was 150 feet long.  Again, it demonstrated to the community what "could be" and helped people to imagine more (Hazel Ruby-McQuain's interest and financial support certainly helped as well).
 
Perhaps we need a Demonstration Project?  Probably one of the best candidate locations is outside the City of Morgantown.  Granville is interested in re-developing their main streets and sidewalks and would serve as a great demonstration project.  Is there a similar opportunity in Morgantown? 
 
David A. Bruffy
General Manager
Mountain Line Transit Authority
420 DuPont Road
Morgantown, WV  26501
Bruffy@busride.org
(304) 296-3680 - Administrative Offices
(304) 291-RIDE (7433) - Bus Information
Fax (304) 291-7429
WWW.BUSRIDE.ORG

 


_______________________________________________
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
  

_______________________________________________
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard