BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
100

List of Roads that could easily accommodate a bike lane

Does BikePGH maintain a database of roads that are wide enough to accommodate a bike lane in one or both directions? Although this mayoral administration has not been bike unfriendly, the new one has been very public about a desire to rapidly expand bike infrastructure. If we could compile some sort of database of roads that could easily have a bike lane added, it could be very helpful towards seeing these projects put into place. I am thinking of places not necessarily where sharrows are insufficient (like on West Carson or Forbes between Schenley Park and where the bike lane ends at the cemetary), but places that adding a bike lane would displace no parking and require no street widening. I mean places along major bike routes where the cost would only be the paint and the labor. My first suggestion is Greenfield Ave between Saline St. in the run and Haldane St. headed uphill with sharrows headed downhill. The road is wide enough to add a lane going uphill. Schenley Drive is also wide enough to include lanes in both directions without interfering with any of the parking near Phipps. It would especially be nice if it were coupled with sharrows on Panther Hollow Road on the right-most lanes in either direction. It would be great if we could come up with a large list of places like this.
czarofpittsburgh
2013-07-09 10:00:08
Greenfield would be a great place for a bike lane, but I'm not sure there is enough space if you want to preserve parking, too. People park on the downhill side around 300 Greenfield and that probably takes enough space to make it not work. OTOH there's some empty space near there, near the billboard, so if a parking lot could be built there as a substitute, I'll bet it would work. And that would solve a big connection problem between the Eliza Furnace Trail and Squirrel Hill/Greenfield.
jonawebb
2013-07-09 10:17:06
A lane on Greenfield avenue wouldn't displace very much parking, but it would displace a little. I think it's been on the wish list here for a lot of people, it's certainly high on mine. One thing I wonder about, and I hate to make plans based off bad inertia, I have a lot of misgivings, but I feel I should ask... Given the lane being much wider on the downhill side and the newbie non-scary bike facility (the chute) running contraflow, what do people think of continuing on the same side and running the uphill lane counter to vehicle flow? For those going to squirrel hill you'd typically make a left-right-left across the Greenfield bridge at Winterburn->Alger->Bridge anyway. You couldn't stop at Haldane obviously, and the further toward Winterburn you could run it the better. Just saying though it would suck compared to a lane on the right side and create passing problems, it might serve a lot of folks and have the benefit of being decently doable in the here and now. Don't shoot me.
byogman
2013-07-09 10:37:26
yeah, we have a running list, but most of ours are on streets that are officially on the "bike network" aka on our bike map. There isn't much of this "low lying fruit" left, but we are working with the city on striping a few more this summer. Brereton and Braddock come to mind.
erok
2013-07-09 11:05:38
If Braddock gets a bike lane I will poop a rainbow.
roadkillen
2013-07-09 12:07:21
Get rid if car parking on most streets and they are wide enough for a bike lane. Problem solved. If only...
stefb
2013-07-09 12:42:24
stefb wrote:Get rid if car parking on most streets and they are wide enough for a bike lane. Problem solved. If only…
You can narrow that statement a lot and still do a ton for the bike-ability of the city. Concentrate solely on the uphill side above a certain maximum grade and below a certain existing parking density and gradually start working that maximum acceptable grade down and the minimum bike lane blocking car parking density up as biking mode share in that area increases.
byogman
2013-07-09 13:06:46
Is a lane, or even sharrows, necessarily the next thing to do on various streets? I like the ideas I'm seeing above about trying to resolve parking contention. And as I've been saying since dinosaurs roamed the earth, anything that gets people to use transit instead of cars for routine trips will eventually make it easier for us all to bike. One car per household instead of one car per person, would make life a lot more livable around here. We've gone from the former to the latter in only a bit over a generation.
stuinmccandless
2013-07-09 13:21:11
well stu, the original post was about just striping lines/sharrows on some of the wider streets. once you mess with parking, it opens up a whole nother beast where you need to get the neighborhood involved and be "OK" with parking removal/consolidation. Not saying it's not possible, just saying that as soon as you alter the existing plan so that it changes something that someone's been used to for years and years, it's wisest to get the people who live there involved. Even in a best case scenario, it takes time to get them to be on board (some neighborhood groups don't meet often), and then time to draw up the new engineering docs.
erok
2013-07-09 14:08:04
If nothing else, I think the idea of free parking that blocks a necessary bike lane is poison. Not that you can get away without talking to the folks in closest proximity, but their perspective is not all that matters, and basically if there's so little demand for parking there that nobody is willing to pay to there vs. a block or two away on a side street then OF COURSE it should be on the chopping block. I also think under-utilized very nearby paid parking is also a clear indicator that the on street parking that most would assume can't be sacrificed, indeed can be. With this in mind, I'm going add an unlikely sounding road to the list, Murray Avenue. I regularly ride Murray between Douglas and Beacon claiming the lane and with a trailer, but that's just me. Not an option that many cyclists would consider. For them, you need a lane. And it's quite doable. Just off Murray avenue there's the close to empty lot on Phillips, and on the other side of the road, the less empty but still mostly empty lot just behind Parkvale bank off Beacon. These are not out of the way places... another 50 or 60 yards of walking maybe. And having a more central connection between parts north and south in squirrel hill would be a big win in terms of connecting the large-ish community better. A man can dream I guess.
byogman
2013-07-09 14:21:39
In "Straphanger" Grescoe talks about how they removed parking in Copenhagen. The trick is to do it gradually, so that businesses see increased customers from cyclists at the same time as reduced traffic from motorists. In residential areas of Pittsburgh, I think you'd need to provide substitute parking and not reduce overall spaces at all. E.g., the redesign of Louisa street replaces parallel on-street parking with angled on-street parking and moves things around some. If you don't provide parking equivalent to what is actually in use, residents will object, and then you're stuck, apparently. OTOH since this is based on what is actually in use if you do it gradually and provide superior transit options people will gradually change and auto parking spaces can gradually disappear.
jonawebb
2013-07-09 14:25:37
North Negley all the way to Friendship Ave. More than enough room here.
lou-m
2013-07-09 14:25:55
yeah, negley is something that needs to be explored, but again, it going to take more than just stripes. it's 4 lanes at times, and it will need a road diet, which i think is doable some day, especially if the city increases it's bike budget.
erok
2013-07-09 14:49:37
@jonawebb - is that angled on-street parking proposed on louisa pull in (front of vehicle to curb) or back in (front of vehicle to street)? I'm no fan of the pull in parking they have on bigelow blvd by the cathedral of learning, it's really hard for people trying to pull out of the spots to even see a car approaching, let alone a cyclist. Back in angle parking seems to be very bike friendly since it doesn't require blindly backing in to an active traffic lane.
benzo
2013-07-09 15:00:00
It is pull in. I'm not sure right now if backing out would interfere with bike traffic.
jonawebb
2013-07-09 15:02:53
How about Smallman from 36th to 21st. I don't know if there's actually parking along all of it (I don't see cars parked during my commute, but maybe they're there during the day), but the existing lanes seem really wide. And if you could get rid of the stop signs (while implement some other type of traffic calming) it could be a great bike boulevard-type street, and certainly would be safer than Penn.
willb
2013-07-09 15:09:25
*Irvine Street from the underpass to Hazelwood Ave. - plenty wide with practically no parking issues. http://goo.gl/maps/3oeQR *River road on nothside - leave the trail for newbs & walkers. http://goo.gl/maps/Sqiay *I also suggest putting sharrows on all downtown bridges. There are usually too many pedestrians on the sidewalks , and seeing sharrows will let cars & cyclists know that it's ok for bikes to use the roadway.
marko82
2013-07-09 15:09:55
Second ave, pretty much from 10th st bridge to greenfield ave. It's nebulous whether it's a 4 lane or a 2 lane in places. Same with Butler St from about the auto bathhouse (after 57th st) to one wild place. These are likely penndot controlled, which means they are likely more difficult to get changed. Hell, I don't even care if they put in bike lanes as much as I'd like them to mark the edges of the traffic lanes by painting some shoulders or something.
benzo
2013-07-09 15:23:48
I also think that some streets that are not wide enough for a formal bike lane could be drastically improved with a simple right lane stripe that would help keep cars away from the curb and would give us some space. This is basically what we have going up Shenley Drive through the golf course. http://goo.gl/maps/uL0On *Greenfield ave *18th street *one wild place *Perrysville ave
marko82
2013-07-09 15:24:29
@Benzo, we're on the same wavelength....
marko82
2013-07-09 15:25:55
Second ave, pretty much from 10th st bridge to greenfield ave. It’s nebulous whether it’s a 4 lane or a 2 lane in places. This comes up a lot, and i never really understand why, and goes to why we try concentrate on the roads on the bike map. is this something that we should put our limited bike money and resources to? probably not. I still can't come up with a good reason to ever ride this section of road, with the jail trail right there. i know it sounds like something someone on the PG comments section would say, but there's nothing to go to down there. if we have 5 apples per year to spend on bike infrastructure, i can't say that this should be 1-2 of them. but you're right, the road sucks.
erok
2013-07-09 16:10:31
is there any precedent for getting a bike lane put in on a one-way road that provides travel in the opposite direction? in my ideal world, we would have those on castleman st and westminster pl so you can get to walnut st and the rest of shadyside from cmu on nice quiet roads.
melange396
2013-07-09 16:22:02
in my ideal world, we would have those on castleman st and westminster pl so you can get to walnut st and the rest of shadyside from cmu on nice quiet roads. +1 on those roads, and/or Pembroke Place. These are frequently used unofficially anyway, and only one block long of one-way streets is probably easy to manage.
ieverhart
2013-07-09 16:39:55
< grouse > Wabash Tunnel < /grouse > (sorry, I'm in a mood right now...) But now that I think about it, Woodruff Street, all the way up.
stuinmccandless
2013-07-09 16:53:46
There's a block of Allegheny Avenue in Glassport that's one way for cars, two way for bikes. It's part of the Clairton Connector from the GAP to the Montour. There's no bike lane, but it's very quiet and doesn't really need one.
steven
2013-07-09 16:55:11
is there any precedent for getting a bike lane put in on a one-way road that provides travel in the opposite direction? Contra-flow bike lane. Not in the city. we've been pushing this for a few locations, but the engineer is really reluctant. It's something that "isn't reallyin the book" so it's been difficult. @steven thanks for sharing that glassport st, didn't know it existed
erok
2013-07-09 18:56:59
can't really see where it says bikes are allowed. is it marked anywhere?
erok
2013-07-09 19:01:55
2-way lanes on Castleman/Pembroke/Westminster would be cool, although that area is littered with rich people who have a way of preventing cool things from happening (like the Amberson busway station). I would love an uphill bike lane on Wilkins Ave, although that means getting rid of some parking. But, my best guess is most of the parking is not used by residents, I think it's mostly students, contractor trucks, people using it as a park and ride, etc.
salty
2013-07-09 19:20:37
All suggestions in this thread sound good. I would trust BikePgh to develop a systematic approach. But, hey, this is a public message board... I would repeat my own suggestion that all 4-lane roads at minimum get sharrows in the right lane. This sounds (relatively) low-cost and it would do a lot to improve the perceived balance between cars and bikes. (Bikes must have the right to be on this road! After all why would they paint those bike chevron thingies?) Drivers are reasonable; they will respond to signage. It doesn't solve the problem but it does set expectations. The whole issue could be approached empirically by simple doing a census on candidate roads and get started on fixing the ones with the most cyclists. (Yes, there are probably better criteria; the main thing is getting some hard data.) Finally, if I could sneak in one of my own pet peeves, I would love to see Melwood sharrowed between Herron and Baum. Especially that stretch in the middle, which tends to make me nervous (what with those occasional Walter Mitty race-car drivers).
ahlir
2013-07-09 19:35:41
erok wrote:Second ave, pretty much from 10th st bridge to greenfield ave. It’s nebulous whether it’s a 4 lane or a 2 lane in places. This comes up a lot, and i never really understand why...
Three reasons I can think of. Access to the 10th street bridge itself, the annoyance of the access to the EFT trailhead at the other end, and annoyance at riding the EFT itself (because of meandering joggers I'd guess mostly). For the first, I'm curious if maybe instead of worrying about the length of 2nd ave you can just concentrate on the tiny section between the parking lot (which you can use to connect to/from EFT) and the 10th street bridge. For the second, I think we all agree that the EFT trailhead access is, to avoid profanity, I'll just allude to it feeling like a dog thrown the least tasty leftover scraps from the table. I rather wish with the Swineburn bridge work being done this could be the time to cut this gordian knot, but I suspect there is no vision on the part of the people controlling the purse strings here. So this stays on the someday list. For the third, yeah, it's summer, it can be crowded sometimes. Not ideal by any means, but I agree, I don't see that it really amounts to enough to prioritize the length of it given all the other things that aren't moving this would divert resources from.
byogman
2013-07-09 19:38:42
Melwood should get retractable bollards to allow people who actually live on that road to drive through while forcing non-residents to use Bigelow. They should have those on a lot of residential streets that people "shortcut" through. I saw them all over the place in Amsterdam (as well as many "one way - except bikes" streets)
salty
2013-07-09 19:41:57
Bollards are great, especially the flexible ones stapled to the pavement (and therefore cheap to install). Here's an example from Montreal (per StreetView): I lived a couple of houses behind on the right! There are two sets of these on the block.
ahlir
2013-07-09 19:54:34
I meant like this:
salty
2013-07-09 20:13:00
Have you seen this in this country? You'd have to get the residents to pay for it. (And everyone on the street will need a gizmo to control the system.) Not to mention the maintenance. It makes it a gated community. Not urban. Yuck. The idea may work for commercial streets where delivery and refuse are really the only legitimate motorized traffic (and actually I vaguely recall the barriers being down early morning, just for that purpose). But Morewood is a real street. There's no real reason to prevent vehicular traffic. Though there is a strong incentive to make it less desirable. The flexible bollard seems like a nice, low cost solution. (Well, maybe rock-throwing locals would work as well.)
ahlir
2013-07-09 20:45:17
Ahlir wrote:The flexible bollard seems like a nice, low cost solution. (Well, maybe rock-throwing locals would work as well.)
Well-placed lawn chairs would work in Pittsburgh.
rustyred
2013-07-09 20:56:20
I was only being semi-serious, there are obviously practical issues with it - but it certainly wouldn't create a "gated community", it would just prevents cars from using that road as a "short cut". Of course, the truth is, it's not a "short cut" unless you speed, run the stop signs, don't yield to peds, etc. FWIW, blogski says it was closed to through traffic in the 80s: http://blogski.phcapgh.org/2012/06/therecent-accidents-highlight-the-problem-of-speeding-drivers-along-melwood-avenue-and-gold-way/ (bonus points for hit and run content?)
salty
2013-07-09 21:25:36
can’t really see where it says bikes are allowed. is it marked anywhere? I think there's a little "except bikes" sign now by the one way sign. Not sure though.
steven
2013-07-09 23:48:00
i ride melwood regularly, and it's sad and weird how many people just fly through there, especially with bigelow to one side and liberty to the other, both of which have been dedicated more to automobile traffic than human traffic for as long as i can remember. i get passed while stopping at the stop sign on melwood at finland about once a week. and it (melwood, not morewood) isn't exactly "a real street" in my mind. most of it is either quiet residential (or should be, without enough room for two way traffic) or alleyway. i'm pretty sure the folks who speed through to avoid rush hour traffic on bigelow and liberty aren't saving any time, but are harrying the residents.
hiddenvariable
2013-07-09 23:57:16
also: my pie in the sky plans for pittsburgh are to reduce parking on ellsworth and put in bike lanes, and to close penn in the strip to automobile traffic, especially on weekends. ellsworth, between aiken and neville, has parking on both sides. underutilized parking, which could surely, i think, be consolidated to one side. it is already a wide street, and so by removing one parking lane, it should be easy to install (protected?) bike lanes on both sides. it's crazy how many people on bicycles i see through this stretch, and yet how unfriendly to bikes it remains. traffic is regularly traveling high speeds, and the intermittent parking forces bicyclists into and out of the automobile travel lane at irregular and dangerous intervals. with all the people wanting to use this road for bicycles, it should be made considerably friendlier, and i think can be, if there be a will for it. closing penn in the strip to automobile traffic just seems like a no-brainer to me. at least during the day time and especially on weekends. it already plays like a one-lane road, with folks double parking, and pedestrian traffic always taking up room in the outer lanes. we need a road that is pedestrian and bikes only; penn ave is screaming for it.
hiddenvariable
2013-07-10 00:08:46
erok wrote:This comes up a lot (2nd ave), and i never really understand why, and goes to why we try concentrate on the roads on the bike map. is this something that we should put our limited bike money and resources to?
it's not something I think we should be focusing resources for bike/ped funding in there due to EFT access close by. However, I think other road funds should. it's not that it needs bike / ped improvements alone, it needs general safety improvments for driver safety too. On roads like this that are too wide like this, traffic becomes a nebulous mix of people who think it's a 4 lane road and some who think it's a 2 lane road so in each direction there becomes a right most lane position, a leftmost lane position, and a middle lane position that takes up part of both the right and left lanes. I see this all the time here, on bayard st, and penn ave towards wilkinsburg. It's unsafe for all users.
benzo
2013-07-10 07:10:08
HiddenVariable wrote:closing penn in the strip to automobile traffic just seems like a no-brainer to me. at least during the day time and especially on weekends. it already plays like a one-lane road, with folks double parking, and pedestrian traffic always taking up room in the outer lanes. we need a road that is pedestrian and bikes only; penn ave is screaming for it.
I don't think we'll need this so much if we get that nice commuter bike path as part of the allegheney green boulevard project which would run along the railroad right of way between smallman and railroad st. However, I'm not sure the timeframe on that.
benzo
2013-07-10 07:19:28
Ahlir wrote:Melwood should get retractable bollards to allow people who actually live on that road to drive through while forcing non-residents to use Bigelow. They should have those on a lot of residential streets that people “shortcut” through. I saw them all over the place in Amsterdam (as well as many “one way – except bikes” streets)
have you seen the pedestrian crossing signs in pittsburgh that sit in the middle of the street. Many of them have been nearly destroyed to the point that they don't even bother putting them out anymore. See also, the thread about drivers hitting houses. Inept drivers would probably break this quickly, costing the city tens of thousands of dollars to initially install, then much more to repair.
benzo
2013-07-10 07:30:26
no doubt, just trying to figure out the bike angle. Second Ave, and these types of ambiguous roads, are particularly bad on a motorcycle because even though you are able to do the speed limit (or above), you don't take up very much physical space and people will try to pass you. if you try to ride in the middle of the lane, people may try to pass on both sides of you.
erok
2013-07-10 08:20:25
Ahlir wrote:Have you seen this in this country? You’d have to get the residents to pay for it. (And everyone on the street will need a gizmo to control the system.) Not to mention the maintenance. It makes it a gated community. Not urban. Yuck.
Stanford University (which, definitely not urban, but anyway) used to have a series of roads which were closed to most vehicles but not all. They used what were essentially cement blocks (similar to ones on the end of a parking space in a lot, but narrower and higher)---passenger cars couldn't get through, but high-bodied vehicles like their campus shuttles and service vehicles passed right over them. I'm not sure if they still have this or if they've been replaced, as I haven't really been there much in nearly 15 years. In other areas, particularly in some neighborhoods just off campus in Palo Alto, barriers have been placed across certain roads that used to be high-traffic cut-throughs. Cars can still get there, but you have to go around the block; pedestrians and bikes can pass straight through, functionally equivalent to the Louisa St staircase. Through traffic is thus passively shunted around the neighborhood, but local traffic is maintained. This would be the solution I'd suggest for Gold/Melwood--block it in the middle so that cars are forced to go around (as there are plenty of alternate routes) but leave it open for pedestrian and bike traffic (as those alternate routes aren't particularly viable for nonmotorized traffic). (btw, Pitt has those motorized bollards on the Fifth Avenue and loading dock entrances to the Cathedral; the Fifth Ave ones are transponder controlled, while a guard works the dock access for deliveries from non-campus vehicles. They seem to be either open or being worked on pretty frequently, however.)
epanastrophe
2013-07-10 10:21:20
Benzo wrote:I don’t think we’ll need this so much if we get that nice commuter bike path as part of the allegheney green boulevard project which would run along the railroad right of way between smallman and railroad st. However, I’m not sure the timeframe on that.
that's fine for those of us on bicyles that are passing through, but penn is often the destination. and with vendors covering the sidewalks year round, people routinely walk in the street already. wouldn't this be much more pleasant if the road itself was reclaimed for pedestrians, vendors, and maybe even bicycles?
hiddenvariable
2013-07-10 10:58:08
I see a lot of resistance if you try to reduce parking on Penn without showing some increased customer traffic from other transit modes. The reaction of any business would be, there go our customers. People buy large amounts of stuff in the Strip District and many people I would guess drive in from long distances away. Is it really realistic to think that they're going to get there another way if they can't park?
jonawebb
2013-07-10 11:03:24
There are huge parking lots in the Strip--nearly the entire area from Smallman to the river, from 21st all the way to 11th, is parking lot. There's a big parking lot under the Vets Bridge between Penn and Smallman, and several others besides. But, of course, they all cost money...
epanastrophe
2013-07-10 11:33:39
buffalo buffalo wrote:But, of course, they all cost money…
I thought that there is almost no free parking along Smallman during regular hours.
mikhail
2013-07-11 12:00:42
Mikhail wrote:I thought that there is almost no free parking along Smallman during regular hours.
There's no free parking on Penn, either--it's metered up to about 26th, I think, though I don't know how frequently they're checked, or if they're checked at all on Saturday. Most of the lots, including the giant expanse behind the Produce Terminal, are always paid parking, though, even on Sunday.
epanastrophe
2013-07-11 16:37:10
This seems like as good a place as any to ask: Is there a legal reason why bikes cannot use the bus lanes? I understand that it is not allowed, but why? I use parts of the Fifth Ave bus lane to get into Oakland where the sidewalk is blocked or trashed (always ready to hop onto the sidewalk if a bus comes), and it has occurred to me that it's really no different (from the bus perspective) than any of the other roads I ride on. When I ride on Brighton, the bus needs to wait until it's clear and cross the double yellow to pass me, so I can't see a reason why bus drivers on Fifth couldn't do the same. I would love to see "Do Not Enter, Except Busses and Bicycles" signs posted, and either sharrows or a dashed bike lane making it official. Is there something in the state traffic codes that prevents this, or would it be a local decision? If it is the latter, I think this should be a priority. It would finally give us a safe, usable route into Oakland from downtown, and it seems like it could be done more cheaply than just about anything else.
mattre
2013-07-11 18:02:00
@ mattre, The image I have for bikes in the bike lane being legal isthis: Some guy with three small kids going up 5th ave from the Birmingham Bridge at rush hour. At maybe 2 mph. With too much traffic coming down Fifth to for a bus to pass. And maybe 6 buses behind him. It would be nice, but I think it's a non-starter. That being said, until about 5 years ago, various police (usually the PAT "police" who do not seem to meet even the very low bar of serve-and-protect level as the Pgh police) would harass bikers for being in the bike lane. I mean, even when the bus lane was empty at 3 am. I haven't heard of that happening for a while.
mick
2013-07-11 19:09:56
irvine street! all the way to the trail. boundary street! glenwood bridge!
imakwik1
2013-07-11 21:54:45
Federal Street won't be high on anyone's list since it is so crazy steep -- 10 to 15% from Henderson to Lafayette -- but that partitioning of lane space above the lower Perrysville split is just weird. Uphill has about half the width of downhill. Possibly this is to allow for a parking lane on the downhill side. See for yourself. Can't they move that center line over just a couple of feet, even if they don't define a bike lane?
stuinmccandless
2013-07-12 02:14:18
All two lane 25 limit roads that are wider on the downhill side to accommodate free parking, when lane markings need to be re-painted, need to be repainted to be wider on the uphill side at least where there's any meaningful grade. Higher limit and wider roads also need to be considered w.r.t. uphill/downhill differences and true parking need, but at least 25 limit two lane roads, a possible need for pedestrians to cross shouldn't be a limiting factor. Further, no parking specific infrastructure or pavement markings after the switch please. If after several inspections that area is determined to be only lightly utilized for parking, those uphills need to be on the "can do" list for the city for bike lanes (assuming there is such a list, is there?). If there is demand for it as free parking but that demand is projected to evaporate if motorists would have to pay for it at all, and/or there's very nearby (200 yards sound good?) underutilized public parking, it needs to go on the "can probably do" list (assuming there is such a list, is there?). Then where the lanes are painted should depend on budget and level of public demand, and whether it prompts further digging to a "can probably do" zone. But in order for things to happen there needs to be a clear idea where, things need to be tee-ed up. By people outside our organization, so my statement of the way things ought to be basically amounts to a lot of nothing, but anyways, what are lunch breaks for?
byogman
2013-07-12 11:25:18
The ironic part of Federal, of course, is that there is no parking on the downhill side until you get at least 2/3 of the way up the hill--first there's a service road, then reforested hillside, and then abandoned houses. Even where you do get cars parked, they seem to be for the houses on the uphill side, most of which have driveways. Frankly, based on my experience both in Fineview and in Lawrenceville, I'm half surprised they bothered to paint a yellow line at all.
epanastrophe
2013-07-12 11:59:40
salty wrote:Of course, the truth is, it’s not a “short cut” unless you speed, run the stop signs, don’t yield to peds, etc.
A little bit of enforcement of Pittsburgh's traffic laws would go an awful long way.
mick
2013-07-12 12:16:19
What about Spring Way in the Strip? I rode up that way out of town the other day, and it seemed to work pretty well, It was certainly quiet. Yes, there are frequent cross streets, and yes, there is truck traffic there, but it appeared to me that there was enough space for a protected cycletrack, even allowing space for trucks.
jonawebb
2013-07-18 10:56:15
jonawebb wrote:it appeared to me that there was enough space for a protected cycletrack, even allowing space for trucks.
There isn't. I've been up that way when there were trucks using it, and there was barely room to squeeze past. Note that most of the storefronts that back up to it have no loading area--the trucks just park in the alley; sometimes they angle towards the door (which means they block Spring even more). There's no way you'd get any kind of protected facility in there.
epanastrophe
2013-07-18 11:02:49
I can sympathize with the reasons for wanting to close some of these neighborhood streets to car traffic, but I don't like the idea of limiting access. Everyone's taxes paid for all of our roads. Why should local residents on less busy residential streets get special privileges to turn them into extra quiet streets, basically a giant shared driveway, while those on busy streets may have to deal with increased traffic as a result? (This also applies to bikers on busier streets). When I think of "neighborhood traffic only" streets, I think of the Washington, DC suburbs where a disproportionate number of these streets happen to be in very rich neighborhoods. Their signs threaten multiple points on your license for a single trespassing offense. I don't want to make the state of our roads even more class-based than it is now.
ted
2013-07-18 13:50:33
To me, it's not so much about restricting all access, just restricting through access when there is a street designed for it nearby.
rsprake
2013-07-18 14:19:14
Ted wrote:Why should local residents on less busy residential streets get special privileges to turn them into extra quiet streets, basically a giant shared driveway, while those on busy streets may have to deal with increased traffic as a result?
Because that's the design. Smaller, quieter, residential streets feed into larger, noisier main thoroughfares. It's a problem when motorists, seeking to avoid backed up traffic on the main routes, start turning the side streets into substitutes, speeding down streets and using them more heavily than intended. It leads to public safety as well as road maintenance issues.
jonawebb
2013-07-18 14:34:53
jonawebb wrote: Because that’s the design. Smaller, quieter, residential streets feed into larger, noisier main thoroughfares. It’s a problem when motorists, seeking to avoid backed up traffic on the main routes, start turning the side streets into substitutes, speeding down streets and using them more heavily than intended. It leads to public safety as well as road maintenance issues.
Speeding is bad on any street, of course. It sounds like the real problem is that the main roads are congested. Given this, everyone can travel slowly on the main roads, or a few people can travel alternative routes on back roads, which ideally should shorten the travel times for both groups, a real advantage. The disadvantages seem less certain to me. How do we know that a given driver is more dangerous on a smaller road than a large one? And what makes the road maintenance more of a problem for a trip on a secondary road vs a primary road? (And I think the original "intention" of a street is much less important than a current appraisal of its utility. I don't think the original planners realized Ellsworth would be such a well-used bike throughway, but that's how it's been repurposed because it made sense. Can only bikes repurpose, or can cars do so as well?)
ted
2013-07-18 14:57:38
Ted wrote:It sounds like the real problem is that the main roads are congested.
Well, no, the real problem is too many people trying to drive. People will tolerate a certain amount of traffic, and generally in the US, traffic expands until that limit is reached. Adding residential streets into the mix just means that traffic expands to fill them, too, and degrades the quality of life of people living along them. I suggest you read up on urban design -- everybody here seems to like Jane Jacobs, but there are lots of resources out there. But in summary, the history of US cities in the last 60 years or so has been trying to keep auto traffic from destroying the structure and health of cities. Controlling auto traffic, limiting where it can go, is an important part of this.
jonawebb
2013-07-18 15:47:52
Ted wrote:And what makes the road maintenance more of a problem for a trip on a secondary road vs a primary road?
Secondary roads are not designed and are not constructed to hold a heavy traffic. Pavement is not as thick, usually there is no a big gravel "pillow" under pavements, asphalt is of a different quality. So secondary road could handle (just an example) total of 100,000 vehicles (cars and SUVs). If this is a quiet residential street with total population of 200 people then you would see about 500 cars per day (some other people would occasionally drive through). And the road could last 2000 days. Or between 5-6 years before it should be repaved. And the price per mile of this road is relatively cheap. Now, imagine that traffic starts to hit this street. You can get 2,000 per day. And road would need to be repaved in 1-1.5 year. so it brings it to the price of real heavy road designed to carry 5,000 cars per day. But still carrying less car.
mikhail
2013-07-18 16:08:11
jonawebb wrote:the real problem is too many people trying to drive.
+100500
mikhail
2013-07-18 16:09:44
The problem upstream of that is people not knowing that they have other options or not knowing how to use those other options. Mainly it is an information deficit -- dressing for the bike, knowing where the bus stops are and where and when the buses go, knowing how to mount a bike on a bus rack. But until and unless you conquer that, you are going to continue seeing increased pressure to improve traffic capacity. Beyond that, there are human issues (read: fear in various forms, and/or racism) that prevent people from wanting to consider non-driving options. But information delivery is a measurable and attainable goal. Go there first.
stuinmccandless
2013-07-19 08:26:43
StuInMcCandless wrote:knowing where the bus stops are and where and when the buses go, knowing how to mount a bike on a bus rack.
Stu, Two bicycles on a bus/LTR is not enough for even 10% commuting people. I understand that is still better than nothing. Which leads to some interesting problem that some people have in Europe. I believe I saw people riding to SHVG on a bike, locking bike, getting out on 1st, get another bike. And then in reverse. Which is cool but one space on bike corrals is permanently taken away. I was thinking to do the same.
mikhail
2013-07-19 10:07:28
Mikhail wrote:
StuInMcCandless wrote:knowing where the bus stops are and where and when the buses go, knowing how to mount a bike on a bus rack.
I believe I saw people riding to SHVG on a bike, locking bike, getting out on 1st, get another bike. And then in reverse. Which is cool but one space on bike corrals is permanently taken away. I was thinking to do the same.
Bike share should help with this... (btw, do the giant coaches PAT uses for the far-suburban flyer routes have bike racks, too? Or have they gotten rid of them entirely? I don't work Downtown, and don't recall having seen one in, well, years, now that I think about it.) (Also, has anyone talked to Westmoreland Transit or the other outstate operators about bus bike racks?)
epanastrophe
2013-07-19 10:14:40
All the 1900s have bike racks. They're three feet off the ground and devilishly difficult to use if you're, say, five-foot-two. For better or worse, many of those buses are going bye-bye very soon, replaced by standard-height articulateds.
stuinmccandless
2013-07-19 13:57:20
@Mikhail, that's very interesting! Where is a good place I can read more about that kind of thing? Do you think paving should dictate a road's use, or should the road's use dictate the paving getting used? I'm not sure that roads like Atwood, McKee, and Dawson in Oakland were designed as anything but low traffic neighborhood roads, but they are all fairly highly trafficed roads now. Is this bad? @jonawebb, thanks for the recommendation. I read the first half of "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" a little bit ago: I should really finish! Do you have any other recommendations for good resources to read? I feel like there are much better ways to get people out of their cars than restricting through-access to non-primary roads, but I'm willing to admit that I'm probably not as well read on this subject as some other posters.
ted
2013-07-20 10:12:31
"Straphanger" by Taras Grescoe is good. More modern, lots of examples. And an interesting read.
jonawebb
2013-07-20 10:31:31
smallman through the strip
imakwik1
2013-07-20 17:32:41
Two bicycles on a bus/LTR is not enough for even 10% commuting people. I understand that is still better than nothing. Which leads to some interesting problem I've ended up in three situations, so far, where there's three bikers and one rack. Once I stayed off and just rode home, other times others passed. On an easy day (like Sunday) why can't the bus driver let a bike on the bus? On weekdays they seem happy to to stuff more and more people on board... why are bikes all that different? For commuting days: couldn't we have park'n ride for bikes? You know, like for cars.
ahlir
2013-07-20 18:42:04
Don't we have park'n'ride for bikes already? There are bike racks at lots of busway and T stops now. I don't know how much use they get during the day, but in the evenings the ones I see are mostly empty. Bikes are often harder and slower to get aboard than wheelchairs (depending on the bus type), and take up more space. (I'd say a bike takes the same space as 5-10 tightly packed standees.) They're more likely to roll around and hit someone if the bus stops suddenly, and sometimes have sharp bits. But it would be good if you could take your bike on board when practical if the rack's full. PAAC has/had one three-bike bus rack for testing, so as Rack'n'Roll gets more popular, that's a possibility (assuming those racks worked OK). Down the line, PAAC is looking at stations and special buses for their rapid bus service with platforms level with the door, like a T car, so you could potentially roll a bike right on. Now add hooks for hanging bikes, and you've got a fairly quick option for dealing with lots more bikes (at least on those routes), simply by adding more hooks as needed.
steven
2013-07-20 22:56:29
I had a driver let me take my bike on the 54 once which was good since it was the last one and I was in no condition to ride home. So my memory is a bit fuzzy but it's not really practical unless the bus is really empty. No one is going to be able to get past your bike in the aisle (I sat by the back door so I could shove it in the stairwell if needed). Aside from the PITA factor it's probably a safety issue. And there's the possibility of the bike becoming a missile in a crash. Luckily I was holding onto my bike well (as the driver instructed when I got on) because the driver had to slam on the brakes to avoid a (drunk and/or stupid) driver that went up the wrong side of the divider at main and liberty and nearly hit the bus head on. Ironically my bike probably would have been smashed if it were on the rack. Some sort of hook arrangement might make it work a little better but you still have to maneuver the bike around people... It just doesn't seem very practical to me, unfortunately.
salty
2013-07-21 00:17:53
On many buses, the first 2 aisle facing seats nearest the driver flip up against the wall to accommodate a wheelchair, and there are strap hook tie downs to secure the chair, though no one ever does that. If for some reason a driver let you on the bus if a rack was broken or something, that would be the way to do it.
edmonds59
2013-07-21 07:16:23
PAT had a three-bike rack very early in the game, maybe 2001-2002. That bus has long been scrapped. I have no idea what happened to the rack.
stuinmccandless
2013-07-21 08:47:29
You can take your bike on the BART train in San Francisco. The trolley in Portland has hooks for bikes. However... One difference to keep in mind is that trains (and I guess trolleys) are wider than buses so managing bikes and such is just easier given the space. Excepting the most recent models Pittsburgh buses seem to be configured for long rides (in from the suburbs?) and have way more seats than seems reasonable for urban transit. You don't need a bike to see this: just try to move from the back of the bus to the front when it's crowded ("wait! wait! I'm getting off!" as the locals refer to it).
ahlir
2013-07-21 10:09:35
apparently, brereton/28th can easily accommodate a bike lane:
hiddenvariable
2013-07-30 09:30:55
And S Bouquet St in Oakland
erok
2013-07-30 14:37:54
Nice. Knew about the one in PH, but not the Oakland one. I'm curious, though: I can see they moved the centreline over--did they also get rid of the rarely-observed turning lanes on Bouquet? (Also, has anyone ever figured out why the stop sign and crosswalk on R.Clemente are so absurdly far back?)
epanastrophe
2013-07-30 14:45:44
buffalo buffalo wrote:I’m curious, though: I can see they moved the centreline over–did they also get rid of the rarely-observed turning lanes on Bouquet?
Answering my own question after passing through on the way back from lunch: yes, yes they did. One lane each way plus bike lane, Sennott to Joncaire.
epanastrophe
2013-07-31 14:33:01
Not a road in the city, but Freeport Road between Blawnox and Harmar is an example of a local road that should have bike lanes right now...or next week...or however long it takes to drive over there and make them. Every time I commute on that 4-lane superhighway portion of Freeport road, I wonder why it's there. What motivated the giant highway from the tiny, Hulton Bridge to the tiny burg of Blawnox? It's a dangerous road to ride on -- only because everyone is going 70 mph. These types of roads are all over the place. Out of place monster highway sections that are just not needed. I think these kinds of roads are low-hanging fruit for bike lane installation. edit -- I am talking about "real" bike lanes here. The kind where there's a barrier between you and the big steel things moving at high speed. These roads scream for barrier-ed bike lanes, IMHO.
rocco
2013-08-01 08:01:00
Just saw that sharrows popped up on sennot st, which connects to the new bike lanes on Bouquet.
benzo
2013-08-01 08:28:23
This one is going to require more than paint, but the road is in bad enough shape that when they do anything, they should consider bike lanes: East Street, at least between the Venture Street ramp and the bridge over I-279 by Allegheny General Hospital. The pavement is crap. It's concrete, and so pitted and cracked it's almost dangerous to ride. It's two lanes one way, one the other. Up at Venture, from there to that bridge over I-279, there is a very wide raised center median. What it has the effect of doing is narrowing the inbound lane to just wide enough to fit a truck, and precious little else. For bikes, it means take the sidewalk along there. The road itself, pavement aside, is a good way to get north without dealing with an enormous hill. It's a nice easy grade all the way out. But traffic speeds are high, mainly because it's two lanes across going outbound, and never enforced, just like West Carson. Unenforceable, really, for the same reasons as West Carson.
stuinmccandless
2013-08-01 15:52:26
erok wrote:can’t really see where it says bikes are allowed. is it marked anywhere?
Following up on this a month later -- yup, it's marked. This is Allegheny Avenue at Sixth Street in Glassport, looking south toward the old train station. I'm not sure it's quite up to MUTCD, but it's an official sign.
steven
2013-08-05 20:38:22
This was incredibly confusing when I went down for the Montour Trail Triphammer Road segment opening. Followed the Clairton connector from McKeesport, and the signs take you right to this 'do not enter' sign. I definitely didn't see the 'Except Bicycles' line--hell, I had to look twice to see it in the photo--though I kept going anyway. (of course, there happened to be a full-size van on the road at the time, but the road is wide enough that we just ignored each other.) Hopefully soon there can at least be a full-size 'except bikes' sign, if not also an additional Clairton connector sign to make it completely transparent that that's where bikes are supposed to go...
epanastrophe
2013-08-05 22:15:58
@Ross That would be awesome! Do you think it would create any problems downstream? Blawnox is congested.
ericf
2013-08-06 06:28:22
Talk about fine print! I didn't see the text until I read @buffalobuffalo's comment and went back to look for it.
stuinmccandless
2013-08-06 11:33:37
-add Kirkpatrick street in the Hill to the list. Plenty wide to put lanes in both directions except for the first hundred feet down by 5th ave.
marko82
2013-08-07 19:55:46
In another thread, someone mentioned Washington Boulevard. I don't know what to say here. It's one of those roads that's just so beyond the pale. So many deaths and wrecks here, traffic speeds just so out of line with regard to either the speed limit or common sense. Remember the guy who got killed standing in his own business's front yard, a couple summers back? Yeah, I'm for it. You want to see the world rant and scream about putting Washington Blvd on a road diet? Go for it. I'm serious.
stuinmccandless
2013-08-08 04:59:31
Is this just fantasy? Will any of this happen in our lifetime? Ever?
ericf
2013-08-08 05:38:01
Washington Blvd is a lost cause. But it might make sense to have a bike street next to it (and lane Negley Run). And biker-activated crossing lights at the Allegheny Blvd end.
ahlir
2013-08-08 16:22:47
ericf wrote:@Ross That would be awesome! Do you think it would create any problems downstream? Blawnox is congested.
I really don't think Blawnox would change a bit...when the congested 2-lane turns into the 4-lane superhighway, the traffic vanishes more because it's not going block-to-block with red lights. That road just screams for a bike lane.
rocco
2013-08-08 19:34:08
Chartiers Ave between the Corliss Tunnel and the bridge in Sheraden is plenty wide.
stuinmccandless
2013-08-10 12:12:12
10th Street Bridge is currently being rehabilitated and is limited to two lanes. In spite of this, it seems to handle the traffic just fine. Really this bridge isn't that busy and the only place where two lanes are needed is at the stoplights on either end so cars can queue up to turn or go straight. This bridge could easily be striped for one car lane + one bike lane each direction, with the bike lanes ending at either end as the stoplights are approaching to accommodate turn lanes. At this point you're going downhill anyway so bikes are going the same speed that cars are theoretically supposed to go (25 mph). Would also be nice if they made improved connections to the trails on either end too, especially the Elizah Furnace Trail. Riding on the south side streets to get to the trail isn't so bad but 2nd Avenue is dangerous. "Flyover ramps" would be great but I'd be happy with something cheaper but still functional. I believe this is a county project. It would be nice if bike lanes were added as part of the scope.
brent
2013-08-29 13:32:58
Almost off-topic, but @brent's post reminded me of an idea I had a while back: A ramp from the Birmingham Bridge to the Jail Trail. There is one spot where it would not be difficult at all to create an access point from the upstream side.
stuinmccandless
2013-08-29 18:10:33
Stu, I don't know if you've discussed it on this board or not, but I envision a separated bike/ped path along one side of the Birmingham Bridge (I am thinking the downstream side), buffered by a strip of vegetation/trees from traffic, and with easy connections (perhaps flyover ramps) to the trails on both sides of the rivers in addition to the existing connections to Fifth Ave., Forbes, and Carson Street. This would make it so it would actually be pleasant to cross the bridge. Cars accessing the bridge from the ramp leading from Forbes would have to make a sharp left turn just as the ramp reaches the bridge so that they are approximately at a ninety degree angle from the bridge traffic, and there would be a stop sign at this point. Just putting a stop sign with the existing configuration isn't enough because people wouldn't stop. This bridge is so vastly overdesigned that all this would be possible.
brent
2013-08-29 20:53:05
It's not in the city...and has been mentioned in other threads... Waterfront Drive! Bike lanes would make things easier and the road is certainly wide enough.
igo
2013-09-01 00:09:50