they are putting roadblocks on McMicken

cars can use Spring Grove Ave.

they are putting roadblocks on McMicken

cars can use Spring Grove Ave.

 

Good point.

 

Putting straight-up roadblocks in is somehow less controversial than a cycle track. :wtf:

A fairly quickly written editorial

How bikes and cars can share the road

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/05/03/editorial-bikes-cars-can-share-road/8658805/

Does anybody know more details on the bikes that'll be used by Cincy Bike Share? I saw a photo of the bright red bikes, but I'd love to get more specs and see how they compare to other bike shares. The bikes need to be extremely rugged, so I'm sure they're going to be heavy and clunky. I hope they include reliable components (like internal geared hubs). Also, have station locations been published yet?

Last I heard it was going to be B-Cycle who operates the system, but I'm not sure if that has changed since Cranley injected money into it.

 

I would imagine B-Cycle uses a standard bicycle in every city, but I could be wrong.

Not sure how to post the pic on mobile, but you can view the cycles here. Looks like it's still B-Cycle. (Hat tip to John Schneider.)

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/prostreetcar/status/465131488535908352

 

No real "news" here, but nice article in the NYT on lessons learned from Sweden in regards to building safer streets: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/nyregion/de-blasio-looks-toward-sweden-for-road-safety.html

 

I especially like this bit:

Street overhauls that provoked significant community turmoil under Mr. Bloomberg, like the expansion of bike lanes, appear less politically divisive when framed in the context of public safety.

 

Bike lane advocates here in Cincinnati should learn a lesson from this. It's very politically difficult to be opposed to "safety", so framing the road diets and bike lanes in terms of safety will make it more politically tenable than framing it as drivers-vs-bikers.

I used the B-Cycle in Kansas City, worked out really well. These bikes aren't going to be great on the hills, but they are three speeds with internal hubs.

Riding up Cincinnati's hills is never going to be mainstream, but one of the reasons I'm excited about the bike share is that I think it will make riding down the hills a bit more practical, since you could pick a bike up near UC, ride down the hill, dock the bike, and then take a bus/taxi/whatever home at the end of the evening.

 

But, the vast majority of the bikeshare usage will be within the downtown area and within the uptown area, not between the two. And I think that's fine! Getting around Uptown will be so much easier with the bike share. The not-fun-to-walk distances around Uptown (Ludlow to Calhoun to Short Vine to the Hospitals) are very easy on bike, especially if some of the roads (MLK-cough-MLK-cough) are reconfigured to slow traffic down a bit. If it's implemented well, I expect the bikeshare will persuade more Uptown employees to want to live in Uptown.

^ Whenever I think about this bikeshare, there is a broken record in my brain saying "NKY NKY NKY NKY NKY." Occasionally, a portion of that chant makes it into one of my posts on UO. Now is one of those times.

Yeah. I honestly think that a bikeshare station in Bellevue would do really well.

^And in that median in Saratoga Street in Newport between 3rd and 4th, right at the foot of PPB.  (I'd say anywhere on the southern approach to the PPB, but I don't know what parts are private property and what's public.)

Yeah. I honestly think that a bikeshare station in Bellevue would do really well.

 

Working on it.

^ Whenever I think about this bikeshare, there is a broken record in my brain saying "NKY NKY NKY NKY NKY." Occasionally, a portion of that chant makes it into one of my posts on UO. Now is one of those times.

 

I totally agree. I think there'd be a lot of usage between downtown and NKY (Covington, Newport, Bellevue).

^And in that median in Saratoga Street in Newport between 3rd and 4th, right at the foot of PPB.  (I'd say anywhere on the southern approach to the PPB, but I don't know what parts are private property and what's public.)

 

Newport had a plan at one point (possibly shelved) to add bike lanes on Saratoga from 3rd to 10th Street, where they would be relocating a small historic structure from 5th & York to serve as a waypoint and information stand for cyclists.  I haven't heard it mentioned in years, but it would be great if they could tie that old plan into the bike share somehow.

Proposed Bikeshare map from Urbancincy.com

 

^Seems like they should put at least one in the West End.

^Seems like they should put at least one in the West End.

 

I was thinking at least two, and at least one in the housing cluster in Queensgate.

Should put stations at Ravine & Warner and at W. Clifton & Warner.  Many students will want to coast down the hill to their apartments. 

^Seems like they should put at least one in the West End.

I doubt the planners had 'those people' in mind...

Still, did these guys go out to the areas and ask if residents & businesses wanted them?

Yhey oughtta put a big station at the Mohawk building in Central Parkway....

I doubt the planners had 'those people' in mind...

 

Sadly, I think you're spot-on. This needs to be addressed ASAP.

 

Still, did these guys go out to the areas and ask if residents & businesses wanted them?

 

Good question.

Bank St in the West End recently (I'm not sure exactly when) underwent a road diet between Winchell and Linn, going down to just one lane of vehicular traffic and with dedicated bike lanes in each direction. So, at least somebody at DOTE has a vision for making the West End more conducive to biking and walking. Interestingly (though not surprising), the Bank St project had very little publicity or controversy surrounding it (compared to the overly publicized Central Parkway project). Hopefully, the Bank Street project indicates a willingness on the City's behalf to invest further in West End bike facilities, including bike share.

Bank Street is very low-hanging fruit.  It's enormously wide with virtually no traffic, so they could make all the car-appeasing moves like 24/7 parking on both sides and a full center turn lane.  I'm glad they got rid of the 1950s-esque slip ramps and islands at the intersection with Linn to make it a simple T-intersection, but they still made no attempt to integrate the bike lanes with that intersection.  They just funnel bikes into the traffic lanes, which is exactly where those who are wary of riding in the streets need them the most. 

Since you mention Bank Street, I have a question about these bike lanes.

 

Bank Street has two new bike lanes, one on each side of the street, marked with pavement markings. There are also parking lanes. The other day I was driving east on Bank Street, and passed a bicycle riding west, in the lane on the south side of Bank Street. To me, this seems dangerous for a bicycle to ride on the wrong side of the street, against trafiic, especially between a driving lane and a parking lane.  It brings to mind another time on another street where two bicycles passed each other in opposite directions in a bike lane.

 

So, what it the rule about direction of traffic? Ohio law says that bicycles are supposed to ride on the right side of the road, with traffic, and furthermore, are supposed to ride as far right as possible, to allow faster traffic to pass (although bicycles are permitted to take the center of the lane if they can maintain the same speed). Yet, the separate lane, marked for bicycles only, implies that it's for bicycles exclusivel

The bicycle lanes in Cincinnati that I am familiar with all have arrows indicating the flow with traffic.

The best thing about that proposed bikeshare map, is how it completely concedes the entire premise behind the Streetcar project.  It's even divided into two phases, the first focusing on downtown/OTR, and the second on the Clifton/Corryville area.

Eighth and State - what you saw on Bank St sounds dangerous and I assume is illegal. As a bicyclist, I would not be pleased to find another bicyclist riding the wrong direction in the bike lane.

jjakucyk - you're right about Bank St being low hanging fruit, and that explains why it was unpublicized and uncontroversial. But that is precisely the kind of project I'd like to see more of because it allows the bike lanes to get built more quickly, at lower expense, and with less political baggage. As more bike lanes get installed, opponents will begin to lose their ability to throw around cheap scare tactics ("it's going to kill my business!"). We need as many successful local projects as possible to point to as examples to disarm the doomsdayers. Of course there will always be stubborn opponents, but minds can be changed as the initial projects prove their success (see Pete Witte and his change of stance on the streetcar).

Editorial: Budget cuts on-street bike funding

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2014/05/16/budget-cuts-street-bike-funding/2176592/

 

good editorial by the Enquirer. It's truly crazy to invest in a bike share program while at the same time redefining the City's bike program to be exclusively about off-road trails.

good editorial by the Enquirer. It's truly crazy to invest in a bike share program while at the same time redefining the City's bike program to be exclusively about off-road trails.

 

I don't know if I completely agree with this sentiment. The first phase of the bike share is going to be entirely in the basin. It is pretty well accepted that bike lanes in the CBD and OTR are unnecessary. I recall an urbancincy podcast with Mel McVay where she stated that there were no plans to put in bike lanes in the CBD.

 

I have also read that biking in the street is technically safer than biking in a separate bike lane or a path. Lanes are way cheaper than paths so I would rather see the focus stay on them, but I find that they are often quite unsatisfactory - randomly ending, shooting you out into traffic when you have been lulled into a false sense of security. Here is a good blog post about this: http://www.labreform.org/blunders/b5.html

 

It is a tough issue, and certainly lanes and paths encourage new riders. I don't really know the solution. Sharrows? :whip:

I don't know what you mean by "it's pretty well accepted that bike lanes in the CBD and OTR are unnecessary." I understand the point in the link you share that on narrow streets, a poorly implemented bike lane can be dangerous (since it can force a bicyclist into the door zone). But Cincinnati's CBD and OTR have plenty of streets with excess width, where a proper bike lane with proper clearances could be painted. Are you aware of any cities with significant bike usage that don't have bike lanes in their downtown areas? Not every street should have a bike lane. But there certainly are streets in the CBD and OTR where a proper bike lane would be great, and could be painted with sufficient clearance for door zones (I would start with Liberty, Central Parkway, Elm, 3rd Street, 2nd Street).

Editorial: Budget cuts on-street bike funding

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2014/05/16/budget-cuts-street-bike-funding/2176592/

 

good editorial by the Enquirer. It's truly crazy to invest in a bike share program while at the same time redefining the City's bike program to be exclusively about off-road trails.

 

You have got to be kidding me!  Yes the bike paths are a good thing, but that doesn't warrant switching all of the funding.  Both types of bike infrastructure need to be prioritized, not one or the other. 

I don't know what you mean by "it's pretty well accepted that bike lanes in the CBD and OTR are unnecessary."

 

We have had previous discussions about it in this forum on one thread or another, and Mel McVay makes the point in this urbancincy podcast: http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/09/episode-8-bicycle-infrastructure/

 

I do agree that a bike lane on Liberty, as part of overall traffic-calming measures, would be a good thing. Central Parkway, obviously, seems like it is going to happen. However, it is really the section from Liberty to Northside that needs the lanes.

I agree with jwulsin, we should have bike lanes Downtown. At least on a couple N/S streets and a couple E/W streets. I'd like to see some contra-flow lanes, especially, because one-way restrictions suck extra for bikes.

 

The extra danger of separate lanes can be more than offset by safety in numbers. More bikes means more cars looking for bikes.

 

I remember listening to that podcast when it came out and totally disagreeing with what she said, though I take the point that the Mallory administration was not prioritizing bike lanes downtown, which makes Cranley's shift less relevant to the bikeshare. However, the bikeshare was not so inevitable and right on the horizon then, so things could have shifted.

This video is a good illustration of why bike lanes create a more chaotic bicycling environment in many cases.  I don't think the Central Parkway lane will do this because there isn't much vehicular traffic or many bicycles and there are several long stretches with few curb cut-ins. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlrqgC7j18

 

Again, for people that haven't ridden a bike on roads much, the fear seems to always be cars.  For me the fear is always other bicycles, who travel at different speeds and often swerve erratically.  Watch this video and you'll see how you always have a pretty good sense of what any vehicle is going to do but you have no clue what any of these people on bikes is going to do. 

I think you're confusing correlation with causation.  Where there's ample cycling infrastructure there's more cycling, so more chances for bike/bike conflicts.  Places like Denmark or The Netherlands that have huge cycling mode share would also appear to be very chaotic, but injuries are still pretty rare and serious injuries even more rare. 

 

The trouble is that a lot of people want to ride bikes to get places, but they simply will not ride in the streets with traffic because it's too frightening.  Even if vehicular cycling is statistically safer than on separate facilities, it may be because only the most fearless and/or experienced riders will do it.  That unfortunately is only 1-2% of the population at best. 

 

In a similar vein, the reason many European countries with high cycling mode share do not require helmets is because it would make people less likely to ride bikes.  For the same reason, even if one-way cycle tracks (which is the best-practice setup) lead to more crashes or other incidents, they get more people riding, whereas "just ride in the street" does not. 

The problem with the bike lanes is that it further reinforces the supposed danger of riding in the street.  Again, there's only so much a car can do.  A pedestrian or another person on a bike can move much, much more erratically.  You know how you'll be walking down the sidewalk in New York and somebody ahead of you will just stop and have a conversation with the person they're with, or stop walking to check their phone?  And everyone almost surges into them?  Cars don't do that but people on bikes do.  Cars have brake lights and turn signals, but bikes don't.  Sure, occasionally a car doesn't use a turn signal, but that's pretty easy to anticipate. 

 

 

 

the bigger & faster the vehicle, the more predictable. Semis on highways are about the most likely to go a straight line, peds & cyclists, especially the slow ones, are the most unpredictable & least likely to maintain a straight line.

Most people would probably think riding on a highway with a lot of trucks is the most frightening thing in the world but it's probably one of the safest places to ride.

OTOH, sidewalks.....

The problem with the bike lanes is that it further reinforces the supposed danger of riding in the street.

 

You're going to have to provide a source for that.

The problem with the bike lanes is that it further reinforces the supposed danger of riding in the street.

 

You're going to have to provide a source for that.

 

 

It's the same argument as the one against bike helmets.  When I was a kid nobody had even heard of a bike helmet, let alone seen one.  Then someone realized you could sell a lot of helmets if you scared all the moms. 

 

You can see that as recent as 2002 the Tour de France riders weren't wearing helmets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vP3EDOVdk0

 

We're seeing that when poorly implemented bike lanes are creating at least as many problems as they solve.  The tension between road bikes and commuter/bikeshare bikes when funneled into a bike lane is almost as harsh as that between bikes of all kinds vs. motor vehicles.  In the previous video from New York, we see how the issue of bicycles passing other bicycles in the bike lane is a recipe for disaster. 

 

Again the big problem with "bicycle safety" is that the enemy is framed over and over again as being cars.  It's long been my observation that other bicycles are the most serious vehicular threat to a bicycle rider.  Unleashed dogs in rural areas are another huge problem.  I have been chased many times but luckily have never been bitten. 

Again the big problem with "bicycle safety" is that the enemy is framed over and over again as being cars.  It's long been my observation that other bicycles are the most serious vehicular threat to a bicycle rider.

 

At least you stated that it's your observation.  That doesn't make it a fact though.  Even if you are 10x more likely to be involved in some sort of accident with another cyclist, those are rarely serious or fatal injuries, nor are other cyclists intentionally trying to harass or assault you.  As I said before, even if statistics say that you're safest riding on a road in front of a semi tractor trailer, would you actually WANT to do that?  When you're on a bike all motor vehicles are big scary noisy fast dangerous machines whose occupants are invincible compared to you.  That's why so few people ride in the streets. 

 

I know a lot of people support the notion of "shared space" as a street layout concept.  There's certainly advantages to it, but in places where it's been tried the statistics have shown that "vulnerable users" i.e. non-fearless "regular people" cyclists, pedestrians, the handicapped, children, etc. will only use the whole street if vehicle traffic is less than 100 vehicles per hour.  That sort of volume is only achievable on the quietest of residential side streets.  Otherwise the cars and trucks dominate the center and push everyone else to the sides.  It shows that people prefer to walk with other pedestrians, bike with other cyclists, and drive with other motor vehicles. 

 

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/the-delusion-of-shared-space-as-an-urban-transport-panacea/

 

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/lessons-from-exhibition-road/

bikes & trucks

Other than Central Parkway, Liberty Street, and Reading Road, the narrow low speed streets of the CBD and OTR are actually pretty nice for bicycling without lanes.  I've found when doing it on a little folding bicycle that I tend to keep pace with the rest of traffic on weekdays - the lights are so close to each other in downtown that a bicycle moves as fast as cars.

 

I'm all for lanes especially on liberty street as part of a road diet, I'm just waiting for Cranley to f-that one up - I do understand Jake's point as well.

The problem with the bike lanes is that it further reinforces the supposed danger of riding in the street.

 

You're going to have to provide a source for that.

 

 

It's the same argument as the one against bike helmets.  When I was a kid nobody had even heard of a bike helmet, let alone seen one.  Then someone realized you could sell a lot of helmets if you scared all the moms. 

 

You can see that as recent as 2002 the Tour de France riders weren't wearing helmets:

 

We're seeing that when poorly implemented bike lanes are creating at least as many problems as they solve.  The tension between road bikes and commuter/bikeshare bikes when funneled into a bike lane is almost as harsh as that between bikes of all kinds vs. motor vehicles.  In the previous video from New York, we see how the issue of bicycles passing other bicycles in the bike lane is a recipe for disaster. 

 

Again the big problem with "bicycle safety" is that the enemy is framed over and over again as being cars.  It's long been my observation that other bicycles are the most serious vehicular threat to a bicycle rider.  Unleashed dogs in rural areas are another huge problem.  I have been chased many times but luckily have never been bitten. 

 

Yet somehow cyclist crashes and injuries are not going up (on a miles traveled basis) in NYC -- quite the opposite. The truth of the matter is there is a sh!tton of experience in cities around the world which show what best practices are if you want to increase cycling modeshare and decrease dangers. And dedicated infrastructure is a key part of doing that. Your position is yet another "it won't work here, we're different" argument.

 

I get that you want more freedom of motion than mandated use of cycle lanes allows. But don't pretend you're advocating for safety or for cycling for the masses.

 

I'll see your sensationalist video and raise you some actual data:

via http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtml

"actual data" no doubt cooked up by the All Powerful Bike Lobby...

Good lord.

"actual data" no doubt cooked up by the All Powerful Bike Lobby...

Click the link, there are plenty of numbers to sift through. After spending a couple minutes, I noticed the number of cycling fatalities has remained mostly constant as cycling infrastructure has been built and more people are cycling.

This morning, I waited more than twenty minutes on Vine Street at the corner of McMillan before a bus came (either the 78 or MetroPlus) to downtown. Door-to-door, my trip from UC to downtown office was nearly 45 minutes. With bike share, I estimate it would have been less than 15 minutes door-to-door. I really can't wait for the bike share program to get up and running. 

This morning, I waited more than twenty minutes on Vine Street at the corner of McMillan before a bus came (either the 78 or MetroPlus) to downtown. Door-to-door, my trip from UC to downtown office was nearly 45 minutes. With bike share, I estimate it would have been less than 15 minutes door-to-door. I really can't wait for the bike share program to get up and running. 

 

That brings up a appoint I’ve been wondering about – Are we going to end up with all the bikes having to be trucked back up the hill to uptown all the time? I ride to and from Klotter to downtown frequently and hate having to ride back up at the end of the day, even though it’s only 2/3 of the way up the hill. Riding from uptown to downtown is the easy part, how many people will be willing to ride back up the hill?

This morning, I waited more than twenty minutes on Vine Street at the corner of McMillan before a bus came (either the 78 or MetroPlus) to downtown. Door-to-door, my trip from UC to downtown office was nearly 45 minutes. With bike share, I estimate it would have been less than 15 minutes door-to-door. I really can't wait for the bike share program to get up and running. 

 

What time were you there?  I wait at that stop all the time and never stand there for more than 10 minutes. 

 

Regarding bike share, I'm actually REALLY nervous about B-cycle bikes going down both Vine St and Clifton Ave Hills.  Those are heavy bikes with less than optimal brakes.  Cars tend to drive like they're on a freeway going up and down those hills. I'm an avid bicycle commuter that's ridden all over the city and even I usually put my Felt F95 speed bike on a bus rack to go down the hill.  Vine Street Hill is the worst for impatient drivers and short sight lines.