Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
devicenull
May 30, 2007



Grimey Drawer

Devor posted:

I see like 24 feet from the edge of the travel lane (which is what we would measure) if the below image is what you're talking about

It's almost certainly fine.



Ah yea, that's the right place. It's weird, they kept talking about 10ft during the zoning meeting. Seemed scary to have giant pillars 10ft off the road there.

Here's a fun nearby thing: https://goo.gl/maps/4XN1bMap9xTAQsPN8

See that lightpost on the ground? At least 50% of the time that is down... the county puts it back up, and then someone takes it out within a few weeks. I don't know what it is about that ramp!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

devicenull posted:

Ah yea, that's the right place. It's weird, they kept talking about 10ft during the zoning meeting. Seemed scary to have giant pillars 10ft off the road there.

Here's a fun nearby thing: https://goo.gl/maps/4XN1bMap9xTAQsPN8

See that lightpost on the ground? At least 50% of the time that is down... the county puts it back up, and then someone takes it out within a few weeks. I don't know what it is about that ramp!

Maybe they were discussing required minimum setbacks, or setbacks from the ROW (front property) line.

Also that light pole is "not" outside the clear zone (but it's almost certainly breakaway, and not an obstruction per the RDG). It should probably still be moved, though.

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



"Oh no there's an obstacle next to the road"


I guess you guys have never driven in old European cities lol.

Lobsterpillar
Feb 4, 2014


There's already solid obstacles by the road: that whole row of power poles are likely to result in serious injury in the event of a runaway vehicle. They don't look particularly frangible. Ideally they'd all be set back further.

At a guess that big fencing might be privacy screening and a noise barrier - it can't be particularly quiet next to that road, and there may even be requirements for soundproofing from the local authority, depending on the nature of the development.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

Lobsterpillar posted:

There's already solid obstacles by the road: that whole row of power poles are likely to result in serious injury in the event of a runaway vehicle. They don't look particularly frangible. Ideally they'd all be set back further.

Utility poles don't count as fixed objects under the RDG (It doesn't make sense, it's just a decision they made in the name of practicality), and they're typically set within the Right-of-Way to avoid having to purchase a utility easement where it doesn't already exist.

It doesn't mean that you can build an object that would present a hazard within the clear zone, just because there's utility poles that are closer - adding more objects makes the road less safe.

devicenull
May 30, 2007



Grimey Drawer

Devor posted:

Maybe they were discussing required minimum setbacks, or setbacks from the ROW (front property) line.

Also that light pole is "not" outside the clear zone (but it's almost certainly breakaway, and not an obstruction per the RDG). It should probably still be moved, though.

If they moved it, what would they do with the time they spend every month putting it back up?

Sage Grimm
Feb 18, 2013

Let's go explorin' little dude!


Speaking of roundabouts in places where they shouldn't be..

https://twitter.com/jimpagels/status/1380578057598214149
https://twitter.com/Yewhomstda/status/1381346409329401864

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."




FWIW, I don't think it even counts as a roundabout if two of the arms go straight through it. It's just a weird and overly-convoluted freeway interchange cargo-culting a roundabout.

It also looks extremely dangerous for everyone involved -- cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It's a bit like the "before" picture for an intersection in Vancouver that was drastically realigned seven years ago to improve safety.

Before:


After:

https://goo.gl/maps/7nWGDpLGw9BGq8JW7

(Note the new bike off-street bike lanes in dark grey, and improved pedestrian paths in light grey.)

PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

Yes, it's like a lava lamp.



I mean it has traffic lights. That poo poo ain't no roundabout.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

PittTheElder posted:

I mean it has traffic lights. That poo poo ain't no roundabout.

If it's not a yield-controlled circular roadway, it's not a roundabout, just a sparkling rotary

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



Lead out in cuffs posted:

FWIW, I don't think it even counts as a roundabout if two of the arms go straight through it. It's just a weird and overly-convoluted freeway interchange cargo-culting a roundabout.

It also looks extremely dangerous for everyone involved -- cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It's a bit like the "before" picture for an intersection in Vancouver that was drastically realigned seven years ago to improve safety.

Before:


After:

https://goo.gl/maps/7nWGDpLGw9BGq8JW7

(Note the new bike off-street bike lanes in dark grey, and improved pedestrian paths in light grey.)

That new situation looks quite decent. How are the traffic light phases? Do cyclists get their own phase/shared with pedestrians? And does it last long enough to safely cross from southeast to northwest in one go if necessary?

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."



Carbon dioxide posted:

That new situation looks quite decent. How are the traffic light phases? Do cyclists get their own phase/shared with pedestrians? And does it last long enough to safely cross from southeast to northwest in one go if necessary?

If I recall right, it's three-phase:

a. Cars, bikes and peds going straight north-south
b. Cars going east turning right as well as cars going south turning right, plus bikes and peds going east-west.
c. A much shorter phase just for cars going north turning left (which is one of the least common manoeuvres), with the bike/ped crossings red.

So although there's no dedicated bike/ped phase, you're never in the crosswalk/bike crossing at a time when motor traffic is trying to cross it. And it's not a long wait between phases if you do need to cross diagonally on a bike (or on foot). But also, because of the way the connections work with the bridge (one-way bike lanes on either side, two-way pedestrian sidewalk on either side), most people on bikes or on foot only need to cross one arm to get where they're going.

It's a very elegant bit of engineering, but a bit of a unicorn situation that allowed them to do that.

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



Sounds like b gives a conflict here?



That doesn't HAVE to be a problem.This happens a lot on quieter intersections in the Netherlands. But in those cases this is resolved by
- Clear signage
- Giving bikes priority
- Putting the bike stop line far enough forward so that drivers coming from the east see directly if any bikes are waiting to cross, and so that bikes have a little headstart so cars have no choice but to wait for them. (this seems to be done correctly here)
- Giving cars enough space to line up past their green light but just before the bicycle crossing, and a few seconds extra before the next phase starts, so they can clear out of the intersection if passing bicycles take up the entire phase.
- And, perhaps most importantly: drivers knowing that this is a common setup and that these are the rules.

Because of that last point I don't think this is such a good idea to build just the one intersection like this in Canada.

Carbon dioxide fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Apr 13, 2021

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."



Carbon dioxide posted:

Sounds like b gives a conflict here?



That doesn't HAVE to be a problem.This happens a lot on quieter intersections in the Netherlands. But in those cases this is resolved by
- Clear signage
- Giving bikes priority
- Putting the bike stop line far enough forward so that drivers coming from the east see directly if any bikes are waiting to cross, and so that bikes have a little headstart so cars have no choice but to wait for them. (this seems to be done correctly here)
- Giving cars enough space to line up past their green light but just before the bicycle crossing, and a few seconds extra before the next phase starts, so they can clear out of the intersection if passing bicycles take up the entire phase.
- And, perhaps most importantly: drivers knowing that this is a common setup and that these are the rules.

Because of that last point I don't think this is such a good idea to build just the one intersection like this in Canada.

Oh yeah pretty sure that turn happens as part of phase c not b. It's basically the parallel of the other turn. As I said, I'm going by memory - it's been a little while since I biked that way.

And it would be great if our local traffic engineers (and legislators) would follow the Dutch example. Most intersections there's no accommodation at all other than some green paint.

Lobsterpillar
Feb 4, 2014


Carbon dioxide posted:

Sounds like b gives a conflict here?



That doesn't HAVE to be a problem.This happens a lot on quieter intersections in the Netherlands. But in those cases this is resolved by
- Clear signage
- Giving bikes priority
- Putting the bike stop line far enough forward so that drivers coming from the east see directly if any bikes are waiting to cross, and so that bikes have a little headstart so cars have no choice but to wait for them. (this seems to be done correctly here)
- Giving cars enough space to line up past their green light but just before the bicycle crossing, and a few seconds extra before the next phase starts, so they can clear out of the intersection if passing bicycles take up the entire phase.
- And, perhaps most importantly: drivers knowing that this is a common setup and that these are the rules.

Because of that last point I don't think this is such a good idea to build just the one intersection like this in Canada.

The Aus/NZ solution would be all of the above, but give cars a red arrow whenever the ped/cycle phase is triggered.


Re: green paint: sometimes it's not paint (sometimes it is), but sometimes it's a coloured surface that has done thickness to it. This tends to last longer than paint, particularly at intersections if vehicles travel over it (like they may do for hook turn boxes). It's also a lot more expensive.

Greg12
Apr 22, 2020


I love living in a town with a separated bike lane and getting to see all the right-hookings that anyone who's actually been on a bicycle would expect

bicycle safety infrastructure should maybe be designed with people who ride bikes instead of by people who haven't since they were 10, but who took a trip to delft last summer

asur
Dec 28, 2012


Lobsterpillar posted:

The Aus/NZ solution would be all of the above, but give cars a red arrow whenever the ped/cycle phase is triggered.

San Francisco is doing a bunch of these now. Is there data that it actually improves safety in the US? As a cyclist, it seems worse because I'm suppose to be able to assume that cars won't turn right when I have a green light, but anecdotally the number of cars that illegally turn is very high. Previously the bike lane and right turn lane would switch positions and drivers seemed to have a better understanding how to navigate and yield to cyclists.

nm
Jan 28, 2008

"I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Greg12 posted:

I love living in a town with a separated bike lane and getting to see all the right-hookings that anyone who's actually been on a bicycle would expect

bicycle safety infrastructure should maybe be designed with people who ride bikes instead of by people who haven't since they were 10, but who took a trip to delft last summer

I was getting right hooked before. Protected bike lanes at least mean I also don't get doored or have to go into the lane of traffic for every loving double parker.

Lobsterpillar
Feb 4, 2014


asur posted:

San Francisco is doing a bunch of these now. Is there data that it actually improves safety in the US? As a cyclist, it seems worse because I'm suppose to be able to assume that cars won't turn right when I have a green light, but anecdotally the number of cars that illegally turn is very high. Previously the bike lane and right turn lane would switch positions and drivers seemed to have a better understanding how to navigate and yield to cyclists.

I mean it's reliant on drivers actually obeying the signals to be safe. Any signalised intersection is not entirely safe because people can potentially just ignore them. But it's hard to completely engineer away illegal driving.
It doesn't help that the US some places allow a right turn on a red light

Greg12
Apr 22, 2020


nm posted:

I was getting right hooked before. Protected bike lanes at least mean I also don't get doored or have to go into the lane of traffic for every loving double parker.

interesting

the separated bike lane opens the bicyclist up to a world of:
getting doored by the passenger-side doors and being unable to go wide to avoid them because the curb is right there
riding through broken glass, wet leaves, and other poo poo that will make you crash because the street sweeper can't fit between the curb and the parked cars, and there's no way around it because the cyclist is trapped between the curb and parked cars.
trash cans, because that's where they go, right?
people just standing in the gap between their car and the curb.
a whole lot more right hooking because the parked cars keep the driver from seeing the bicyclist in the bike lane, and the parked cars keep the bicyclist from taking the lane to protect themselves from right hooking.
dismounting to walk around cars that are parked in the protected lane (and trash cans, and leaf piles, and broken glass, and people...).
being unable to turn left.

These are bad things to build, built to appeal to people who think they might someday bike to get someplace but never actually will. They condemn bicyclists to toddle slowly in the gutter, taking responsibility for our safety from us and giving it to others.
In a normal bike lane, I can look over my left shoulder once in a while and stay four feet away from a parked car. I can merge into center lane position to prevent a right-hook crash.
In a protected lane, I just have to trust that some rear end in a top hat could see me through the lifted pickup and will come to a complete stop before turning through a green traffic light. Because they cannot see me, I have to come to a stop at a green traffic light to make sure nobody is coming behind me before proceeding. I can't maneuver, and I have to go slowly enough that I can stop within five feet because there's no other way to avoid a collision.

These things are hosed up.

In short, traffic engineers should take fewer vacations to the Netherlands and ride to work.

e: if you're scared of the bike lane, ride on the sidewalk. you have to ride just as slowly in the protected bike lane and dismount just as much.

Greg12 fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Apr 14, 2021

Kaal
May 22, 2002

JEREMY CORBYN BULLIED MY NAZI GRANDPA IN PRIMARY SCHOOL



Separated bike lanes should be the goal of every municipality. Bike Bros that want to fight trucks for their morning commute do not represent community interest.

Entropist
Dec 1, 2007
I'm very stupid.


Yeah, cycling in the Netherlands is such a hell with all those separated bike lanes. No wonder nobody does it there.

Oh wait, it's not, and people do. Maybe you need to take a trip to Delft yourself to see how it works before advocating this weird position.


We still have some of them, despite their obvious flaws, due to some unfortunate policies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-h7OdlviKo

Entropist fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Apr 14, 2021

Koesj
Aug 3, 2003


Greg12 posted:

interesting

the separated bike lane opens the bicyclist up to a world of:
getting doored by the passenger-side doors and being unable to go wide to avoid them because the curb is right there
riding through broken glass, wet leaves, and other poo poo that will make you crash because the street sweeper can't fit between the curb and the parked cars, and there's no way around it because the cyclist is trapped between the curb and parked cars.
trash cans, because that's where they go, right?
people just standing in the gap between their car and the curb.
a whole lot more right hooking because the parked cars keep the driver from seeing the bicyclist in the bike lane, and the parked cars keep the bicyclist from taking the lane to protect themselves from right hooking.
dismounting to walk around cars that are parked in the protected lane (and trash cans, and leaf piles, and broken glass, and people...).
being unable to turn left.

These are bad things to build, built to appeal to people who think they might someday bike to get someplace but never actually will. They condemn bicyclists to toddle slowly in the gutter, taking responsibility for our safety from us and giving it to others.
In a normal bike lane, I can look over my left shoulder once in a while and stay four feet away from a parked car. I can merge into center lane position to prevent a right-hook crash.
In a protected lane, I just have to trust that some rear end in a top hat could see me through the lifted pickup and will come to a complete stop before turning through a green traffic light. Because they cannot see me, I have to come to a stop at a green traffic light to make sure nobody is coming behind me before proceeding. I can't maneuver, and I have to go slowly enough that I can stop within five feet because there's no other way to avoid a collision.

These things are hosed up.

In short, traffic engineers should take fewer vacations to the Netherlands and ride to work.

e: if you're scared of the bike lane, ride on the sidewalk. you have to ride just as slowly in the protected bike lane and dismount just as much.

sir this is a wendy’s

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."



Kaal posted:

Separated bike lanes should be the goal of every municipality. Bike Bros that want to fight trucks for their morning commute do not represent community interest.

Yeah this. Vehicular cycling as a movement has done almost as much as the car lobby to prevent good bike infrastructure being built in North America.


And I'll take a well-designed parking-protected bike lane over some paint on the road squeezed between traffic and parked cars any day. I'd take a good, fully-separated bike lane over either.

Entropist
Dec 1, 2007
I'm very stupid.


If you want to race, take it to the track. Letting people who race around on racing bikes set the norms for cycling infrastructure is detrimental to the safety of regular cyclists, and that's probably why you have so few even in cities that make some sort of effort. Imagine making racing around in 180mph Maseratis the norm on the roads, the place would be unliveable.

Greg12
Apr 22, 2020


lol "racing" at 12mph, using less effort than a moderate walk

Imagine being the kind of person who discounts actual bicyclists.

"I know better than you how to keep you safe. You're safer only relying on your brakes instead of being able to use brakes, turning, clear lines of sight, and situational awareness."

look at what is actually built in delft:



and think about what makes it different from this poo poo:



meditate on how that rendering doesn't show passengers flinging their doors all the way open in front of bicyclists, drivers right-hooking across the lane at full speed into every driveway and intersection, or mountains of slide-out-causing wet leaves and tire-bursting smashed glass

Stopping distance from 12mph is two car lengths. If you think that 12mph is unattainable outside the olympics oval, that the only people going faster than a swift walk are in lycra, that only lance turns left, I don't know what to tell you--except maybe try riding in your hometown.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

Greg12 posted:

lol "racing" at 12mph, using less effort than a moderate walk

Imagine being the kind of person who discounts actual bicyclists.

"I know better than you how to keep you safe. You're safer only relying on your brakes instead of being able to use brakes, turning, clear lines of sight, and situational awareness."

look at what is actually built in delft:



and think about what makes it different from this poo poo:



meditate on how that rendering doesn't show passengers flinging their doors all the way open in front of bicyclists, drivers right-hooking across the lane at full speed into every driveway and intersection, or mountains of slide-out-causing wet leaves and tire-bursting smashed glass

Stopping distance from 12mph is two car lengths. If you think that 12mph is unattainable outside the olympics oval, that the only people going faster than a swift walk are in lycra, that only lance turns left, I don't know what to tell you--except maybe try riding in your hometown.

We build those where we can, and there is enough potential bike traffic. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, but with budgets it's just not possible to build out best-practice bike facilities everywhere.

And sometimes you just don't have enough room, even in Delft

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0050256,4.3280732,3a,75y,158.44h,77.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQsUnB1sO85fAnSCQHEaMbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Every situation is different, and needs to take into account its surroundings

VictualSquid
Feb 29, 2012

Gently enveloping the target with indiscriminate love.


Who builds those setups? I mean cars|parked cars| bicycles | greenery | pedestrians.
Especially when despite the longs rants, the only picture seems to be a render.

Here there are only two variants:
The cheap/high speed: cars|bicycles|parked cars|greenery|pedestrians
And the more luxurious: cars|parked cars|greenery|bicycles|pedestrians.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

VictualSquid posted:

Who builds those setups? I mean cars|parked cars| bicycles | greenery | pedestrians.
Especially when despite the longs rants, the only picture seems to be a render.

Here there are only two variants:
The cheap/high speed: cars|bicycles|parked cars|greenery|pedestrians
And the more luxurious: cars|parked cars|greenery|bicycles|pedestrians.

Baltimore and Washington DC have done some of those.



We do some cheap high-speed which is pretty much only for confident cyclists

We sometimes do luxurious, if it's new construction or a complete roadway reconstruction

But often, the only improvements we can do involve not touching the curbs (or only touching the curbs near intersections) due to improvement budgets. So we end up with those half-assed things that at least let a 20-something commute to their office without feeling like they are going to die every time a car passes. Instead they just feel like they're going to die at each intersection, which is an improvement.

Happy Noodle Boy
Jul 3, 2002



Yeah separated bike/multi-use paths are basically only in play if you’re doing a full reconstruction and have the ability to essentially re-draw the right-of-way and even then it’s loving expensive. And that’s assuming you have the right-of-way to fit it in.

We have a bike facility plan for the city and generally now include bike lane with every road project. Wether it’s on the road or separate tends to be decided by available ROW or cost but we generally manage to add one somehow!

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



And that's how you do it. Since every road needs a full replacement every 2 decades or so no matter what, if you just include a bike path into every regular road project, within 20 year you have a full city-covering bike network, for no extra costs.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

Carbon dioxide posted:

And that's how you do it. Since every road needs a full replacement every 2 decades or so no matter what, if you just include a bike path into every regular road project, within 20 year you have a full city-covering bike network, for no extra costs.

Hahahahahaha

You can probably get shave & pave resurfacing on each road every 20 years, maybe some full-depth repairs in areas, but you are not doing full roadway reconstruction, which entails replacing pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm drain, and stormwater, on that schedule (which is the extent of the project required to retrofit a high-type facility)

We had a project that looked at doing 1 mile of high-type bike facility retrofit in a moderately-challenging area, including new curb and gutter where needed, rather than full roadway reconstruction, and it was about $10M for 1 mile.

Happy Noodle Boy
Jul 3, 2002



Full reconstruction of every street would be obscenely expensive and no municipality in this country would afford it. We have a street levy in place (renewed every 10 years) which we have used for road infrastructure. The stated goal of these funds is to rehabiliate every street in the city with at least a mill/fill. On worse roads or thoroughfares, we leverage the funds to apply and get state grants in order to do additional improvements. These is how we generally end up paying for bike facilities.

We’re also in that fun point of time where we have aging water lines AND gas lines that are also being constantly being replaced. It’s taken us a few years to line things up but now we have a good routine where gas is replaced a year ahead of our main projects then projects with waterline replacements get tied to full reconstructions since you’re already tearing half of the drat thing for the water in the first place.

It’s also helped that we’ve substantially updated out road standards so that roads built now actually last because holy poo poo some older roads (talking 60s / 70s) have like no actual structure and are just layers of patchwork’s and resurfacing and are just trash at this point.

Happy Noodle Boy fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 15, 2021

Haifisch
Nov 12, 2010

Objection! I object! That was... objectionable!



Taco Defender

Carbon dioxide posted:

And that's how you do it. Since every road needs a full replacement every 2 decades or so no matter what, if you just include a bike path into every regular road project, within 20 year you have a full city-covering bike network, for no extra costs.
This is a country where many roads, bridges, and other pieces of transport infrastructure are literally crumbling because nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. I'd be thrilled if everywhere actually managed simply repaving their roads routinely enough to avoid potholes everywhere.

Pryor on Fire
May 14, 2013


To add a bike lane to my street next time they resurface it you would need to demolish about 100 homes and maybe a dozen businesses. You'd also need to blast out several thousand tons of granite to carve out the mountain more.

I'd love a bike lane but it's not always that simple.

Chris Knight
Jun 5, 2002

And I'm only saying this because I care.

There are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.




Fun Shoe

Sharrows it is!

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."



VictualSquid posted:

Who builds those setups? I mean cars|parked cars| bicycles | greenery | pedestrians.
Especially when despite the longs rants, the only picture seems to be a render.

Here there are only two variants:
The cheap/high speed: cars|bicycles|parked cars|greenery|pedestrians
And the more luxurious: cars|parked cars|greenery|bicycles|pedestrians.

Vancouver has a bunch. I get the impression it might even be where they were pioneered. Here are some examples:

https://goo.gl/maps/piQVB1Z3kkoNuGzG8
https://goo.gl/maps/dMC3iarpZqygrQqe6

They're not the ideal solution, but in general that white painted area is enough to keep doors mostly out of the bike lane, and the City does sweep the things. And I'd take them over cars|bicycles|parked cars any day. Also, they tend to alternate between having greenery and having lines between the bike lane and cars.

But yeah, they need to be part of an integrated network. When I was in Guadalajara five years ago, the locals pointed out one block of one busy street that had a bike lane like this on it. Apparently the designers intentionally mimicked the Vancouver infrastructure. But before and after that block, it was just a four-lane busy street, so the bike lane was worse than useless. I'm almost convinced the local government built it as a way of pointing at some bike infrastructure and saying "look, it's a waste of money".

PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

Yes, it's like a lava lamp.



Pryor on Fire posted:

To add a bike lane to my street next time they resurface it you would need to demolish about 100 homes and maybe a dozen businesses. You'd also need to blast out several thousand tons of granite to carve out the mountain more.

I'd love a bike lane but it's not always that simple.

Sounds like it's time to get rid of a car lane.

Happy Noodle Boy
Jul 3, 2002



PittTheElder posted:

Sounds like it's time to get rid of a car lane.



Unsaid in all my bike lane posts is that they’re generally designed as part of road diets.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006



PittTheElder posted:

Sounds like it's time to get rid of a car lane.

Most cities would probably be better off if every other road was closed off to cars. 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th streets can handle cars, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th are for public transport, pedestrians, and bikes.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply