Traffic, Freeways and Road Construction

[monsoon]

I don't know if it's legal in Charlotte for bicycles to use the sidewalk (some cities have ordinances against it), but when I used a bike as a student, that's where I was. I just didn't trust motorists to look out properly.

It is illegal in NC. Bicycles on sidewalks are more dangerous than bikes on the roads.

[dubone]

People die all the time from bikes on the road, and I doubt very many people, if any, have died from a bike on the sidewalk. I don't doubt that it is dangerous as far as injuries are concerned.

Even though it is against the law, I think it is very rare to actually get ticketed for riding a bike on a sidewalk, especially in areas where there aren't any people on the sidewalks, and you're riding slowly.

I personally think the law should be based on speed. Segways, bicycles, golf carts, and even motorcycles, should be allowed to be on the sidewalk if going under 3 - 5 mph. It is the speed that is the problem. If they are going the same speed as a walking person, how can that be dangerous?

[orulz]

People die all the time from bikes on the road, and I doubt very many people, if any, have died from a bike on the sidewalk. I don't doubt that it is dangerous as far as injuries are concerned.

That's a misconception held by many people who don't have much experience with on-road cycling. An experienced or well-prepared cyclist on the road or in a bike lane is always safer than an inexperienced, ill-prepared cyclist on a sidewalk.

The problem is that sidewalks are designed for things that can stop and start on a dime like a pedestrian, not for things that have to roll to a stop and then accellerate. Crossing driveways and unsignalized intersections on a bicycle is much more dangerous when you're on a sidewalk than when you're on the street. Accidents where bikes get clipped by passing cars are very rare, except when there are visibility issues.

The real danger when you're on a bike comes not from cars passing you from behind, but from cars turning onto and off of the road at driveways and intersections. When you're on a sidewalk, or an off-street "multi-use" path, you're pretty much out of motorists' field of vision. Drivers either just don't remember to check the sidewalk for oncoming bicycles or pedestrians, or just assume (incorrectly) that they have the right-of-way as a car. When you're on the street, they see you.

Of course, if you're going 3-5mph, you can stop and start at every intersection to watch out for cars, but if you're just going 3-5 mph you might as well be walking (A brisk walk is about 3-4mph.) Figure on at least 10mph on a bike, and you can see where the conflict arises.

As an aside - I think rules about cycling on sidewalks are a matter of local ordinances rather than state law. I believe it's legal to cycle on a sidewalk in Cary, as long as you always yield to pedestrians.

[dubone]

I get your point, but I'm saying when you are on the road, you are subject to speeding busses and cars that can wipe out your life with a quarter turn of the steering wheel. I'm not saying bicycles should use the sidewalk, but a slow bike (going as fast as people walk), is very safe both for other pedestrians and for the bicyclist. They can also turn on a dime at that speed, too.

The underlying fact is that cyclists die all the time on the roads. I can think of 5 or 6 articles about cyclists being killed on Charlotte roads just in the last few months.

I think one of the best bicycle systems in the world is what the dutch have. They have bike paths separated from the street by a curb, and separated from the sidewalk by another curb. They have traffic signals at intersections specifically for the bikes, just as they do for pedestrians.

[orulz]

I get your point, but I'm saying when you are on the road, you are subject to speeding busses and cars that can wipe out your life with a quarter turn of the steering wheel.

It's true that you could get wiped out by a twitch of the steering wheel, and that makes inexperienced cyclists nervous - but the fact is that it's extremely rare when the cyclist is following the rules and is properly visible, because motorists are aware that you're there.

The real danger comes, as I say, at intersections, driveways, and crosswalks, where you're less likely to be seen by motorists. Intersections and driveways are the main factor in something like 75% of all auto/bicycle accidents. I don't know where they get their facts, but this page says that less than 1% of all serious bicycle injuries are due to the struck-from-behind accidents that you imply are the main danger. The actual number may be greater than that, but it's certainly far from a majority, and if you excercise proper caution, you can decrease the danger even further.

[orulz]

I think one of the best bicycle systems in the world is what the dutch have. They have bike paths separated from the street by a curb, and separated from the sidewalk by another curb. They have traffic signals at intersections specifically for the bikes, just as they do for pedestrians.

That does sound great, but good luck getting NCDOT, or anyone in the US for that matter, to design a bike path that really and truly puts cyclists on a level playing field with motorists. Every bike path I've ever seen in NC, even 10+ million dollar paths with expensive bridges over freeways like the American Tobacco Trail or the Reedy Creek Greenwy in the Triangle put stop signs on the bike path at every intersection with even the smallest, most insignificant driveways. That's the reality here in the US.

By the way, I believe the Dutch have on-road bike lanes as well as on-road cycling in other places as well. It's neither feasible nor possible to build dedicated bike roads from everywhere to everywhere.

Back in the US, if you want to put bikes on sidewalks, we need to start building wider sidewalks than the 5-6 foot strips of concrete we're building these days. 8-10 feet should be the bare minimum if we're going to encourage cyclists to stick to the sidewalks.

All the rules and laws that try to "put cyclists in their place" or "protect cyclists from themselves" are, quite frankly, an insult, and they destroy bicycles' value as a legitimate mode of transportation. If you're made to stop every 100 feet, you really can't get anywhere! Ever tried it?

And the worst part is, there's an extreme reluctance to enforce any sort of penalties on at-fault motorists who are involved in accidents with cyclists. The argument "I wasn't expecting him to be there" should never be a legitimate defense. It's easy to get off scott-free if you say "I didn't see him" when the cyclist should have been visible had the motorist been looking.

[teshadoh]

Just my 2 cents - I admit I do ride both the street and the sidewalk. I'll acknowledge that I'm not the safest bicyclist, since I also don't wear a helment - but I also don't ride too fast. From my experience, it's not cars hitting me from behind, but cars from the side & cars that drive out of entrances. So - based on that, sidewalk bicycling is indeed riskier if you're riding at street speed - you have a lot of blind sides to worry about.

But I'm a casual bike rider, so though I do ride on the street, I usually ride on a parrallel street (staying in the part of town that has a street grid) or if it's a busy street I will peddle along the sidewalk. But you often have to ride on the street when the sidewalk is busy with pedestrians (unless you're an ass or on a sidewalk SUV - Segway) so ride on the street. But unless you're talking about a highway, you would be surprised how many are considerate of you - though they're not happy about it.

My rule of thumb - as long as the street is posted at 35 mph or lower, it's ridable.

[dubone]

I saw a Segway downtown last week. It was an older lady going to her car blocks away from where she worked. She was going walking speed on the sidewalk. I understand the cons a bit, but why on earth could does the law expect her to be on the street. It is akin to a wheelchair. Bikes going walking speed are also not any danger to anyone. That is my point. Higher speed belong on the road and slow speed vehicles that are the same width as people should be allowed on the sidewalk.

[fulcrumsf]

I wish they would start using Segways for the Uptown Police, I've seen Police in Chicago use them and it just looks so cool. I guess the city would have a problem justifing the cost compared to bikes. I do agree that Segways should be legal on sidewalks.

[teshadoh]

I don't have a problem with Segways themselves - but I do have my reservations. One thing is they hog up the sidewalk - especially in cases where the sidewalk is narrow or is crowded. The other issue is they can go relatively fast, about the rate of a jog. So imagine that monstrous thing roaring towards you in the middle of a sidewalk.

It isn't an epidemic, the two organizations that use them - Downtown Ambasador Force (kind of a permenant welcome wagon) & the police use them regularly but I still question their need. But riding them is fun - we have two Segways that we provide demonstrations & it is a bit of fun.

[monsoon]

The problem with bicycles on the street is not only the danger to the bicylists, but to the pedestrians. The reason is there are no traffic rules for anyone to follow on the sidewalks and one can pick up a great deal of speed on a bike. Sidewalks are meant for pedestrians and not designed for anything else.

The Segway was one of the most over hyped pieces of engineering that I have ever seen. They are interesting, but should not be allowed on a sidewalk either.

[tiblerbrit]

Whats the difference though between a 2mph person and a ~7mph segway, vs. a 10mph bike and a 40 mph car. We all know whats going to cause more problems. I've ridden my bike in Chapel Hill for 3 years now and I know the problem is intersections, not whether you are on a bike lane or sidewalk. If drivers stopped properly at intersections/stop signs like they should, then riding your bike on a sidewalk would not be an issue. Riding on the street is ALWAYS dangerous, even in Chapel Hill where there are many dedicated bike lanes.

[dubone]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/13893506.htm

Here is the Observer of what we talking about earlier. Charlotte needs $3.5B for streets, roads, and highways.

Many consider that the high numbers of miles driven to be a metric proving sprawl. I would say, though, that even people living within the city must drive farther because there are so many congested streets, and so many parts of the city have only a few streets that connect to other thoroughfares. Typically, people must drive way out of the way, since there isn't a direct connector. While it was mostly caused by the patterns of suburban sprawl between 1960 and 2000, now that those area are part of the city limits, something must be do to remediate and improve transportation infrastructure in those areas.

Since the nature of the state formula funds uses city growth to subsidize transportation infrastructure throughout the state, I am reaching the same conclusion that CDOT seems to have reached. We need a source of local funds to meet our local needs, just as cities in most states do.

I am strongly in favor of a road fund just like we have a transit fund. I think our underfunded roads cause people to blame transit, when really the city needs both. By having a sales tax on services, or one of the other local funding options, to fund our city streets.

Now that CDOT has policies in place that allow the road network to be supportive of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit users, road funding is now more supportive of urban development than it used to be. They also now have streetscape guidelines so that we avoid ugly roads like southern South Blvd and others. By having the funds to add bike lanes, sidewalks, improved intersections, and widened roads where necessary, the city will be able to support higher density land use. All of that helps to curb sprawl. Of course, the freeways and interstates will still be constrained by the underfunding state formula, but those support sprawl much more than city streets do.

[atlrvr]

I believe strongly in having a regional option gasoline tax. It would include Mecklenburg and surrounding counties, and the tax collected would be redistributed to municipalities based on population (this would eliminate the incentive for people living outside Meck but working in Meck from only buying there gas in their home county)

I believe a $0.03 cent tax per gallon would pay for almost half the budget needs.

Beyond that, I feel like a large portion of the items are not needed. The most pressing issues are roads promoting connectivity. Sidewalks are important, but I don't necessarily believe they need to be retro-added to one-side of every cul-de-sac in the city. Bike planes are also important, but I haven't seen an updated list of proposed additions to know how many are essential.

[ChiefJoJo]

When is the council expected to vote on the TAP? There are a lot of fairly agressive policies in the TAP, and I'd be surprised if there was not a lot of discussion about the merits and downsides of the plan. Don't get me wrong--I think it's sensible, from a planning perspective, but it could be politically controversial. $3.5B is a lot of money to generate--even over 25 years.

[dubone]

I don't think the $3.5B is fully funding all the policies in the TAP, though.

I agree that road connectivity is the highest priority, as it has the biggest impact on economic activity and pollution. However, I don't agree with atlrvr that sidewalks and bikelanes shouldn't be funding priorities, or should only be partially funded. Without a reliable network, the whole system isn't as useful. I think if there were a solid system of bike lanes and sidewalks are importing to supporting those uses. The bike lanes are only $50m over 25 years.

[atlrvr]

Well, my point with the sidewalks is that you don't need to put sidewalks down every cul-de-sac, which is a long-term goal.....the reason that people live on cul-de-sacs is because they don't want cut-through traffic anyway, so I see no sense is building sidewalks there at the expense of more pressing transportation needs.

As far as bike lanes, I believe that every throughfare under 20,000 ADV should have bike lanes, and collector streets over 2,5000 ADV. Other than that, A good connected street systems should spread out the vehicle traffic on local streets to minimize conflict with cyclists. I do like the idea of some bike freeways, which allow for dedicated commuting with minimal signals, and little to none interaction with either autos or pedestrians. Minneapolis has one that has been very successful.

I see no need to widen existing 2-lane roads beyond 2-lanes plus a center turn lane with pedestrian medians (a la East Blvd pedscape plan). No four lane road should be widened.

[dubone]

Does the $225m over 25 years include the cul-de-sac sidewalk plan? I agree with your position on that.

I think the $50m includes trails that are bike and pedestrian only (like Little Sugar Creek Greenway).

I agree with you that 4 lanes (2 through lanes/ direction) should be the maximum, and to build more redudancy or alternates. However, I do think some 4 lane roads need to be widened to either have a median, a bike lane or just wider lanes. Some streets like Graham north of uptown are just too skinny that it is unsafe with busses and bikes on the road.

I wish they would post the specific streets that rolled up into those numbers. They reference an attached chart in one of the documents, but it doesn't appear to be online. I think the bike lanes/trails are visible in a map in the main document.

[monsoon]

I think they just spent some of the budget on my street. I called the town council hall to get a pothole fixed in front of my mailbox. I was flabberghasted when a week later a batallion of road machinery and people showed up. They removed the entire street down at least a 1.25 ft deep, and replaced it with new asphalt. It took them 6 days to do it. We already have sidewalks and curbs so I guess this is where my share of the gas tax went.

I'm not sure I would have gotten the same quick and over the top service inside the Charlotte city limits. One of the places where I bought a house there about 20 years ago is still waiting on sidewalks.

[atlrvr]

True about widening some roads, but the roads that need it most (Graham included) are state roads, so it shouldn't be our responsibility (though the city has covered a lot of the state's shortcomings in the past).

[nyxmike]

The city wants to fix "the weave" in University City (85 ramp, 49, and 29). They are asking the state for permission to make changes to this portion of the road to make it safer (two at-grade intersections which will eliminate the weave). If the state allows the city to do so, it could be fixed within the next two years.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/14011756.htm

[dubone]

That is great news. University City is a mess of quasi-freeways, and very few collectors or connectivity. Conversion to more tradition thoroughfares will hopefully help bring this section of the city hopefully to better conditions in the future. That 'weave' really does give the impression that you are miles out side of the city limits.

[blburton]

This is so true... I was riding through Charlotte on I-77 at night recently. Had I not been familiar with the city, I wouldn't have known that I was anywhere important until I got to the area of 77 that overlooks downtown.

Speaking of street lighting I sent a long letter to our reprentatives in Raleigh yesterday. I have also contacted the Charlotte Observer. Hopefully my gripes will get some nod from someone. I am not going to let this issue go.

Here is a copy of my letter to the C/O:

Can someone please tell me who turned the lights off on every Major Interstate in Charlotte?

As a concerned tax-payer, I am appalled at how many lights are out on 77 North and I-85. I have noticed stretches going through the city that extend for more than a couple of miles at a time ! I mean NOT ONE BULB IS LIT !This is not only an inconvenience, but could be, quite deadly. I personally was almost side-swiped by a merging vehicle going north on I-77. I have to hesitate to find fault with the driver since the interchange (as well as the stretch of Interstate that he was merging onto was COMPLETELY dark. I fault the state. He and many other drivers have complained about this, but I have yet to see any steps taken in correcting this serious matter. Can we as tax-payers ever expect to see any relief?

We want to call ourselves a "world-class" city, but we can't even light up our roads.

I have seen a better job in lighting rural area roads, than lighting major thoroughfares in the middle of the LARGEST city in N.Carolina!

I am totally outraged at this since I have been to many cities across the US that do not have the same problem we do.

Many of the cities that I have been through have twice the lighting, but are two and three times smaller than Charlotte.

This is an outrage and needs to be addressed. I have contacted the state, but no response. This is OUR money that the state is spending, NOT theirs.

Is it possible to sue the state for negligence in the event another life is lost on our dark and treacherous roads ?

Concerned citizen and tax-payer

[Sabaidee]

Hmm, no one mentioned that Diane Whitacre retired and the Charlotte Observer has a new Dr. Traffic....

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/new...ic/14021670.htm

[dubone]

Richard Rubin seems to have been a transit rider, and has been a pedestrian commuter from South End, so hopefully his articles will be more consistently rational on those subjects. He also is the Observer reporter that seems most involved with government actions, so hopefully we'll get some solid reporting on what they are working on to fix our serious transportation issues.