Outrageous No Bicycles sign on University Avenue over RR tracks and I-80 in Berkeley
Bob Shanteau
Bob Shanteau
Serge Issakov
Serge
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.
--
Bicyclists are drivers!
Bob Shanteau
> One block south of University is Addison. At the end of Addison is a
> T where bicyclists can take a right (north, then west, then south,
> then west) to cross I-80 via a bike bridge, so at least a reasonable
> alternative is provided, not that that answers the legal question. But
> I'm thinking I would use the bike bridge.
Yes, I saw the bike bridge today that did not exist when I was in
graduate school in the late 1970's. I'm not sure that I would call the
bridge a "reasonable alternative", since it requires two left turns
from/to University Ave.
Regardless, the bike bridge treats bicyclists as something other than
drivers. Although I presented a paper in 1974 where I introduced the
idea of "bicycle bottlenecks" (what Dan Smith subsequently and more
accurately called "barriers to bicycle travel") and the need to resolve
them, sometimes with paths or bridges, it bothers me when the
interchange of a conventional street like University Ave is considered a
barrier to bicycle travel, since the difficulty only arises if a
bicyclist is not considered a driver and there is a desire to get
bicyclists out of the way of motor vehicles.
Bob Shanteau
Daniel Gutierrez
.
The "question" should never be asked by local agencies. Local agency transportation professionals have developed a sickeningly paternal philosophy, a kind of "motorist's burden" of dealing with the "bicyclist question"; it's what I refer to as the "Designated Routes Mindset" (DRM), wherein they believe they have the right, as opposed to the legislature, to "designate" routes for bicyclists to use, which of course implies that a highway is only suitable for bicycling if they designate it as such, or have such future designation in their bicycle plans. Any other street that is not a "designated route"is fair game for either ignoring bicyclists as if they should not, and therefore will not be there, or for outright prohibiting bicycling whether or not an alternative is provided. This DRM is most evident on bridges, though it is becoming more of a problem as local agencies treat local arterials without access controls as if they were controlled access freeways; banning bicycling as if they were Caltrans and the arterial really was a controlled access freeway. It reminds me of the child putting his father's oversized shoes and barking out orders and imagining he really was an adult.
I object to this whole way of thinking because it inevitably leads to the "bicyclist question"; a question that should not be asked, and is often answered by sticking bicyclists in concentration lanes, (bike lanes or road prohibitions with paths as "alternatives" - which in effect serves as a local MSP law), or wishing them into the cornfield (bike bans without an alternative). At least they don't force us wear bicycle pins to identify us a bicyclists when we aren't on our bicycles.
I expect transportation professionals to serve the interests of all legally allowed users. Anything less is dangerous form of professional incompetence of the "Jim Crow" variety that invariably works to the overall detriment of bicycling. By analogy, could you imagine a local agency proposing a passenger car/light truck ban on an arterial so professional truck drivers will have a better truck route? Imagine if this were done on all the important bridges in the bay area or port areas of Los Angeles. This is no different than prohibiting bicyclists on these routes.
- Dan Gutierrez -
Long Beach, CA
(562) 244-4145 Cell
(310) 336-3075 Office
(800) 616-4714 Pager
Dan.Gu...@Charter.Net
Organizational Affiliations
Local:
Long Beach Cyclists, Technical Advisory Committee Chair
Aerospace Cycling Club, Founder and Current President
SouthBay Westside Transportation Mgmt. Assoc., Board Member
State:
CA Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations (CABO), District 7 Director
CABO Education Committee Co-Chair http://www.cabobike.org/
Caltrans District 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee, Policy Chair
National:
League of American Bicyclists (LAB), Certified Instructor, LCI #962
http://www.bikeleague.org/
Dual Chase Productions LLC, Co-Creator http://www.dualchase.com/
Dual Chase video hosting at Cyclist View http://www.cyclistview.com/
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax
| From: | Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> |
| To: | rms...@gmail.com |
| Cc: | Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com> |
| Date: | 02/12/2010 12:11 AM |
| Subject: | Re: [CABOforum] Outrageous No Bicycles sign on University Avenue over RR tracks and I-80 in Berkeley |
| Sent by: | cabo...@googlegroups.com |
John Forester
-- John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com www.johnforester.com
Pa...@enet.com
the tracks and I-80.
I've never bicycled over the University overpass, but I drive there fairly
frequently, since I'm a hard-core folkie and the best folk music venue in
the US (with the possible exception of the east coast) is in Berkeley on
Addison...Freight & Salvage Coffee House.
As a fairly hard-core vehicular cyclist, who regularly rides comfortably in
heavy traffic, I'd have to say that I'd be intimidated by riding westbound
University on the overpass (and I'm sure I'll get screamed at by Dan G for
being an Uncle Tom, or some such).
The overpass is fairly old...looks like something built in the 1940s, and
the lanes are very narrow. It crosses both the mainline RR tracks (4
tracks) and I-80. I'd have no problem using the bridge eastbound, where
one lane handles the northbound I-80 offramp, and the other southbound I-80
traffic and waterfront traffic. Though the bridge carries high-speed
traffic, going eastbound a bicyclist is at the top of the bridge and can go
fast when the lane from northbound I-80 joins.
It's westbound which I'd find intimidating, since this is a de facto
freeway onramp with two narrow and very high-speed lanes...and involves
climbing a moderately steep gradient.
I-80 is on the west side of the wide RR ROW, and both westbound lanes of
the bridge first climb over the tracks, then at the top of the overpass the
right lane has the opportunity to make a right onto northbound I-80, then a
short bit later a right onto the cloverleaf loop to southbound I-80.
Traffic on the bridge goes very fast, and the lanes are very narrow with no
shoulders whatsoever. The vast majority of the drivers are going
northbound or southbound on I-80 and have a freeway speed mentality.
While I don't like the principle of the bicycle prohibition, this is one
case where I'd be very happy to take the new multi-million dollar bridge to
get to the shoreline.
Paul Wendt
Bob Shanteau
<rms...@gmail.co
m> To
Sent by: Cabo Forum
caboforum@googleg <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
roups.com cc
Subject
02/12/2010 12:41 Re: [CABOforum] Outrageous No
AM Bicycles sign on University Avenue
over RR tracks and I-80 in
Berkeley
Please respond to
rms...@gmail.com
Daniel Gutierrez
University on the overpass (and I'm sure I'll get screamed at by Dan G for being an Uncle Tom, or some such).
.
Such insecurity. You are entitled to your beliefs and fears; far be it from me to tell you how to think, or where to ride, or what to think about when you ride; I leave that to the mandatory special facilities supporters/though police. What I do find extremely offensive is a preemptive comment that presupposes what my reaction will be (and is waaaaay off the mark), so please consider the following "ALL CAPS" to be me screaming at you at the top of my lungs: STOP IT!! WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE ANY RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR ME!!
.
Ah, that feels much better. Screaming can be so cathartic...
.
Please note that I only screamed at you because of that parenthetical remark, which in effect was a self-fulfilling prophecy!
.
Just so it is clear to you, a bicycling "Uncle Tom" is a bicyclist that supports mandatory segregation which takes away the rights of others, and gets upset at others who don't want the "benefits" of segregation forced upon them. Since you didn't make such a claim, and only talked about your own preferences, you shouldn't expect me to make such an "Uncle Tom" accusation or preemptively accuse me of making such an accusation. This tells me that you don't understand the analogy I've made and tells us more about your reading and comprehension skills than anything about me. So in the future, please make the attempt to understand the analogies I use or just keep your illogical mental chatter to yourself, because I have zero tolerance for those who seek to speak for me by making false accusations. I don't do that to you or anyone else; it's not respectful discourse. If you had asked, "Would Dan think I'm an Uncle Tom for liking the path bridge, would have been a respectful to find out what I think, but you had to turn it into a nasty accusation...
.
You've just lost nearly all of my respect, and if you want to earn it back you need to do two things:
1) Apologize on this list.
2) Stop making insecure misguided preemptive strikes against those who had no problem with what you wrote.
.
I probably shouldn't treat you this respectfully, but I have to ask (since you may in fact be a stealth "Uncle Tom" 8-):
1) Since you really like the path bridge, are you in favor of the road prohibition for ALL cyclists on this specific road?
2) In general, do you consider a road prohibition an acceptable price for ALL cyclists to pay in order for a path bridge to be built for those cyclists desiring the path bridge?
.
| From: | Pa...@enet.com |
| To: | |
| Cc: | Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com> |
| Date: | 02/12/2010 11:14 AM |
| Subject: | Re: [CABOforum] Outrageous No Bicycles sign on University Avenue over RR tracks and I-80 in Berkeley |
| Sent by: | cabo...@googlegroups.com |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
Peter Rathmann
Peter Rathmann
Bob Shanteau
I'd have no problem using the bridge eastbound, where one lane handles the northbound I-80 offramp, and the other southbound I-80 traffic and aterfront traffic. Though the bridge carries high-speed traffic, going eastbound a bicyclist is at the top of the bridge and can go fast when the lane from northbound I-80 joins.
This photo was taken from an eastbound moving car, so it's not very clear, but the sign says "Walk Bicycles on Sidewalk". It's non-compliant, of course. But it makes bicycling eastbound "unlawful".
Bob Shanteau
pete van nuys
and time. Judgments about how dangerous traffic is at any particular
time should be left to legal road user. Better that local agencies try
to "sell" the attractiveness of alternate routes than post bogus signs.
--
Regards,
Pete
949 492 5737
Serge Issakov
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.
--
Bicyclists are drivers!
Peter Rathmann
> "selling" can be problematic too.
> pavement, creates an expectation that that is where
> bicyclists belong (and not anywhere else), sometimes
> even having that effect on roads without bike lanes.
> alternate routes for cyclists. For example, a sign that
> says "BIKE ROUTE" and an arrow to the right could
> easily imply to many that bicyclists going straight are
> doing something wrong
pete van nuys
in mind when I said "selling." As part of a bicycle plan a barrier like
that overpass might be dealt with positively; it seems the trend these
days is toward more bike friendly circulation plans. IMHO, advocates
with problems like these have a better chance of getting solutions in an
overall plan than jousting at each windmill separately. Not that I would
discourage anyone from trying to get rid of an antique pain in the ass
like the one under discussion...
Serge Issakov
Serge
--
Bicyclists are drivers!
Bob Shanteau
I'm sorry, but I don't understand several points in your message:
What do you mean by "dealt with positively"?
What do you mean by "more bike friendly circulation plans"?
What do you mean by "jousting at each windmill separately"? By "overall
plan", do you mean seeking solutions at the statewide or national level
such as the change in highway design standards that I am working toward?
Bob Shanteau
pete van nuys
Nevermind. No offense.
You can pretty much ignore my comments, made from a rather low chair
here in conservative Orange County.
I think I'll just shut up and go back to lurking.
Bob Shanteau
Certainly "selling" alternates is better than bogusness, but "selling" can be problematic too.
The "selling" of bike lanes, with mere labels on signs and pavement, creates an expectation that that is where bicyclists belong (and not anywhere else), sometimes even having that effect on roads without bike lanes.
A similar expectation can be created by signs indicating alternate routes for cyclists. For example, a sign that says "BIKE ROUTE" and an arrow to the right could easily imply to many that bicyclists going straight are doing something wrong, just like that "bike route"/"use sidewalk" combo I posted yesterday implies to many that bicyclists on the road are doing something wrong.
There is precedent for creating these kinds of expectations with "truck route" signs. For example, this one in Carmel is used to indicate that trucks are supposed to turn right on 3rd Ave, implying they are not supposed to continue straight on Junipero St.:
2010 CA MUTCD
Section 2B.51 TRUCK ROUTE Sign (R14-1)
Guidance:
The TRUCK ROUTE (R14-1) sign (see Figure 2B-21) should be used to mark a route that has been designated to allow truck traffic.
Option:
On a numbered highway, the TRUCK auxiliary sign may be used (see Section 2D.20).
Support:
Refer to CVC 21101 through 21104 and 35701 through 35715.
Generally, the Department of Transportation is not unilaterally authorized to prohibit truck travel on State highways.
Various sections in the California Vehicle Code allow cities and counties to restrict, by ordinance, commercial vehicles subject to the specific conditions in those sections.
Standard:
Generally, no such local ordinance shall be effective with respect to any State highway until the ordinance has been approved by the Department of Transportation. This approval shall be made by the Director, Department of Transportation.
The proposed local ordinance shall designate an unrestricted alternate route, or routes, for use by the prohibited vehicles. Such proposed local ordinances shall not be approved unless the alternate route, or routes, are considered suitable by the Department of Transportation.
An investigation of designated alternate routes shall be made with special attention being given to the following features:
1. Geometrics.
2. Increase in distance of travel and comparisons in time of travel.
3. Railroad grade crossings.
4. Present traffic and practical capacity of proposed alternates.
5. Structural adequacy of pavement for heavy truck traffic.
6. Heavy grades.
7. Proximity to schools or school routes.
8. Developed residential areas.
So, a bike lane is a preferential use lane and not like a truck lane and a bike route is a preferred route and not like a truck route.
Bob Shanteau
Serge Issakov
Jason Meggs
I haven't had a chance to read this thread but I"m glad people are
discussing it.
Certainly the issue has been a longstanding one, and ther have been
efforts to challenge the prohibition here as well as in the Solano
tunnel. An interesting legal issue, besides the right to ban
bicycling, arises as the signs at the tunnel prohibit use on the
"roadway," which presumably excludes the gutter area which is wide
enough for some bicyclists to use. Proposals of placing a 'bicyclist
in tunnel' light have been floated in the past (Berkeley bike/ped
planning has been understaffed, sometimes without staff, over the
past decade).
We did spend 9 years correcting the problems witth the overpass by
creating the signature bridge to the Marina, touching down in Aquatic
park. Yes it is inconvenient, as one can travel a good bit out of the
way, in part due to ADA grade requirements. But it is a huge
improvement. As with most access issues, there is a need for the
strong transportation cyclist to be accommodated along with safe and
comfortable access for all nonmotorized travelers. Opening the
overpass is still needed (although Richmond Bridge access is a much
higher priority, along with Bay Bridge access, were one needing to
choose).
Jason
===
Jason N. Meggs, Mcp, Mph
+1 510 725-9991