Report an Issue!

I love your new renderings, Brian. It looks to me like you are proposing that, on Elm St at the bus station, the cycle track would go to the RIGHT of the buses, I think thats a great solution to the problem! I must say, that really seems like a realistic thing that can be done.

Well done. No comment on the streetcar, though :D

All alternatives are worth considering. Just for you, I have drawn up a “no build” alternative. See attached image, available for download here: http://www.box.net/shared/368344kfkz

The essential components of this alternative are:
— Downtown signals timed for 10–15 m.p.h.
— Sharrows painted in every lane 15' after every intersection and every 100' thereafter.

As a cyclist, I would rather see city resourses go towards our schools than towards expensive street plans hatched by out of towner undergrads. Learning to handle your bike in traffic costs the city nothing.

Here’s the video I meant to include with an earlier comment. It shows a cycle track in downtown Portland where Broadway passes through Portland State University. The main thing I wanted to show was that this is where I got the idea for the two-step left turn.

Finally, as long as I am proposing the complete reconstruction of Elm Street, I figured I may as well draw in that mid-block crosswalk between Porter Gate and Durfee’s.

Per Ben’s comment on the initial proposal, I have included a low-stress left turn option for College Street. This is based roughly on the left turn system used on Portland’s Broadway cycle track.

Some elements of my drawing visible within this rendering are not yet completed. Also note: the bicycle symbols within the green carpet paint are supposed to be white, but a glitch within the software prevented them from rendering correctly.

One element of my revised proposal is an emphasis on green infrastructure. Green infrastructure design elements such as biofiltration swales and street trees intercept rainwater, add to the urban tree canopy, and reduce pollutants that enter the West River, Mill River, and Long Island Sound either through combined sewage overflows or through (future) separated stormwater systems that dump untreated road runoff directly into our watersheds. Additionally, I hope that roadside bioswales will provide good habitat for grasses and other vegetation native to Connecticut’s estuaries (salt marshes) and riparian areas.

This image depicts a roadside biofiltration swale on Elm Street east of College Street. In the background, you may notice the proposed streetcar on College Street. The upper Green is to the left. Elm street is depicted as having two travel lanes and parallel parking on both sides of the street at this location. Some elements of my drawing visible within this rendering are not yet completed.

I’ve been working furiously on a revised conceptual plan. It would be significantly more expensive than my initial proposal and would probably take something on the order of 3–5 years to implement. Here is the first of a series of sneak previews. It’ll probably be another week until I have the drawings completed and can make another animated simulation to upload to YouTube.

This image depicts a sidewalk-level cycle track in between a bus stop and the sidewalk at the corner of Broadway and York Street in front of Tyco.

Please note that the proposed Whalley Ave cycle track can also be discussed on the issue entitled “Ideal location for a cycle track” located here:
http://seeclickfix.com/issues/9507

As for directing bicycle traffic onto lower traffic streets, I generally agree with that philosophy, as it can give you a much greater bang for your buck and can allow for the development of some really first-rate cycling facilities (e.g. “bike boulevards” in Portland and San Francisco). Specifically, I have in the past recommended Wall Street as an alternate route for Elm Street bike traffic in Downtown.

While Wall street is generally superior for bicycle travel within downtown, it is inferior to Elm Street in its connection to Grand Ave and it lacks any connection at all to bike routes west of downtown (Howe Street and Goffe Street). While Wall Street could affordably be made into an excellent bicycle facility serving traffic within downtown and connecting to bike routes to the northeast of downtown, Wall Street cannot adequately serve through bicycle traffic.

For this reason I have concluded that a cycle track is needed on Elm Street.

Whalley is a challenge, or worse. I too avoid it when possible and every morning come in by way of Edgewood. To reach the East Rock neighborhood, or even most of Yale north of Elm, I don't find any route as efficient as Elm, however. It too is quite busy in the mornings especially. Still I think it is a road to focus on when it comes to accommodating bikes as well as cars. In my opinion a confident and attentive cyclist who follows the rules can be safe particularly on a one-way street. I have reconsidered my personal feelings about bike lanes as I see more slow or less confident riders on the road in the spring weather. In other words, you might not see me using the bike lane -- my main concern about the curbing was my ability to get out of the bike lane when appropriate-- but we should be encouraging cyclists of all levels.

Yes, women and children don't flock to Whalley Ave. for an afternoon bike ride, but there are still plenty of us who do use it daily for transportation (i.e. commuting to work, school, meetings/gatherings). We are not intimidated here, otherwise why would so many of us use it. Although the traffic does flow a little faster on Whalley than on, say Edgewood Ave., it's much too practical and convenient to give up. If anything, the functional role of Whalley Ave. proves that it needs better bike infrastructure.

A cycle track or bike lane would not slow down traffic. On the contrary, it would eliminate a huge amount of short-trip drivers (0-5 miles) by making it safer and more attractive for them to use a bike on Whalley Ave. Simultaneously it would make them healthier and happier. Not such a bad thing.

...whalley avenue? Are you kidding? Theres a reason that bikers try to avoid the street (I for one NEVER ride my bike on there) and that's because it's not meant for bikes!! It's meant for heavy auto traffic. Putting a "cycle track" or even a bike lane at all would:

a. Increase the amount of deaths of cyclists
b. Jam up traffic even more on Whalley
c. Have no effect, as people driving on Whalley Avenue usually do not follow the laws of the road anyways.

The whole uptown to downtown bike route should not take place on Whalley at all. A good alternate road is Edgewood Avenue, which for sure (a) has the space for a "cycle track", and (b) does not have as much heavy traffic as Whalley does.

And as for Elm Street, you're talking about downtown, by Yale, right? It, too, has very heavy traffic (as it is Whalley Avenue, merged into Elm). I just don't know about putting a track there. It seems like a good idea, but I just don't know - I'm worried about the safety of both the cyclists and the drivers, here.

To generate the entire city bike route, we can't just pick out different roads which we think might look pretty, especially to Yale tourists. We need to seriously think about the route, the safety of both sides of the road, and what would work best. I've got to say Brian - you've got the right idea - but not on Elm/Whalley.

Hey everyone,

I've done nothing but work on a research paper about the lack of federal oversight of coal ash disposal for the past four days and I'm a little out of the loop on what all the comments are about.

Walt, plowing and sweeping is certainly a concern. My intention with the original design was that maybe we could work out a deal with Yale where they would sweep/plow it (they have sidewalk-sized snow removers and sweepers). Lately, I've been looking into the idea of putting the cycle track closer to the sidewalk level, which might reduce the need for sweeping. I'm not entirely sure how drainage is supposed to work with the raised tracks, but that is how they are done all across Europe, so it must work somehow. I haven't had much time to look into the issue lately.

Lastly, to the recent commenters, try to bear in mind that every post to this issue is emailed out to 70 other people. If any of them are like me and underwater in either schoolwork, professional work, or just life in general, I think a lot of people would appreciate it if you only comment if it is truly something helpful and relevant to the issue. You certainly have the right to say anything you like. It’s just a matter of courtesy, really.

Thanks!
Brian

(no need to reply. I could use some silence in my inbox right now.)

Sorry Ben

You are really the big honcho of See/Click/Fix , backing up my free speech, aren't you ?

I plead senior slowness.

Thanks again

Thank you Ben

I am really neither for or against the cycle track plan plan being proposed for trial on Whalley Ave.

Just against false or misleading statements,

I am for better enforcement of laws re bikists (as well as car folk) but that, as I see it.does not make my position "venomous" or "hostile" as it has been described, .

My question re sweeping or plowing was already answered by Brian Tang, I now see.

I might very well object to the added capital and operating expense required and propose that the bikists toss in a few bucks themselves ( maybe via bike registration or a toll path), although in the current situation, the feds may favor it as a true job producing deal and happily throw money at it.

Glad to see someone on the bikists' side who has no fear of dissent .

Hi walt,
we most definitely welcome desenting opinions. Also, feel free to start a no cycle track needed issue.

Question for Tang

If there is a place for your bike track idea to be tried, Whalley Ave,, seems to be a good choice,

Unless I misunderstand, a new curb would separate it from auto traffic.

In your plan how are such things as sweeping and plowing handled as current equipment would not fit bike tracks (I think)?

Thanks