Make Grand Grand

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Maybe I missed it but can someone explain why one would put a bike lane between parked cars and the curb. To me it sounds like a very stupid idea. True it separates bikes from traffic but it creates a whole new set of problems that I think would be greater than the problems it solves.

[KCthomas]

NACTO provides a good summary of the concept. http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/des ... le-tracks/

The argument for a separated bike lane or cycle track is pretty simple:

1) It is actually safer: “Compared with bicycling on a reference street…these cycle tracks had a 28% lower injury rate.” It also "reduces risk of ‘dooring’ compared to a bike lane and eliminates the risk of a doored bicyclist being run over by a motor vehicle."
2) It feels safer: “Cyclists feel most secure on roads with cycle tracks and most at risk on roads with mixed traffic.”
3) As a result, more people bike with these facilities: “Overall, 2.5 times as many cyclists used the cycle tracks compared with the reference streets.”

The final concept with a raised bike lane above the curb has additional benefits. It keeps motorists from easily entering the cycle track, it encourages bicyclists to ride in the bikeway rather than on the sidewalk, and it can visually reduce the width of the street when provided adjacent to a travel lane.

http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/des ... le-tracks/

I would also recommend a couple short but great videos that show some of the success of this concept elsewhere:

http://www.streetfilms.org/kinzie-stree ... r-chicago/
http://www.streetfilms.org/why-do-we-ne ... heres-why/
http://www.streetfilms.org/the-green-be ... more-57518 (
http://www.streetfilms.org/complete-str ... ike-lanes/ (More summary, but includes some interviews about protected bike lanes in particular)

[kboish]

NACTO provides a good summary of the concept. http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/des ... le-tracks/

The argument for a separated bike lane or cycle track is pretty simple:

1) It is actually safer: “Compared with bicycling on a reference street…these cycle tracks had a 28% lower injury rate.” It also "reduces risk of ‘dooring’ compared to a bike lane and eliminates the risk of a doored bicyclist being run over by a motor vehicle."
2) It feels safer: “Cyclists feel most secure on roads with cycle tracks and most at risk on roads with mixed traffic.”
3) As a result, more people bike with these facilities: “Overall, 2.5 times as many cyclists used the cycle tracks compared with the reference streets.”

The final concept with a raised bike lane above the curb has additional benefits. It keeps motorists from easily entering the cycle track, it encourages bicyclists to ride in the bikeway rather than on the sidewalk, and it can visually reduce the width of the street when provided adjacent to a travel lane.

http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/des ... le-tracks/

I would also recommend a couple short but great videos that show some of the success of this concept elsewhere:

http://www.streetfilms.org/kinzie-stree ... r-chicago/
http://www.streetfilms.org/why-do-we-ne ... heres-why/
http://www.streetfilms.org/the-green-be ... more-57518 (
http://www.streetfilms.org/complete-str ... ike-lanes/ (More summary, but includes some interviews about protected bike lanes in particular)

Those videos are great at explaining the hows and whys of protected bike lanes. Thanks.

[DaveKCMO]

Maybe I missed it but can someone explain why one would put a bike lane between parked cars and the curb. To me it sounds like a very stupid idea. True it separates bikes from traffic but it creates a whole new set of problems that I think would be greater than the problems it solves.

this is what city hall sounds like.

[chaglang]

Maybe I missed it but can someone explain why one would put a bike lane between parked cars and the curb. To me it sounds like a very stupid idea. True it separates bikes from traffic but it creates a whole new set of problems that I think would be greater than the problems it solves.

Because as a cyclist I would rather not be the squishy filling in a car sandwich. Pretty simple, really.

[pash]

.

[chaglang]

It's not a panacea, and I don't think anyone said it was. It's just the solution that keeps cyclists away from speeding chunks of metal. That is a good thing.

[Eon Blue]

And the motorists in the center travel lanes are more likely to be prudent while driving to avoid side-swiping another car than they would be to avoid side-swiping a cyclist.

[pash]

.

[zachbot]

From my perspective, the most important thing is to design bicycle infrastructure that will make the highest number of people feel comfortable getting out there on a bike. We should be designing for the person who is currently afraid to ride their bike in the street. The best thing we can do to increase the safety of all cyclists in the city is to increase the number of cyclists. It's called safety in numbers. http://grist.org/article/2010-10-11-the ... -cyclists/.

To that end, I think the protected bike lane is the best facility to increase cyclists on Grand. This kind of infrastructure mints cyclists and has the power to transform the culture around biking in this city. http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/06/ ... ng/371958/

The curb cuts are a real problem, for the reasons pointed out (a. the parked cars hinder visibility & b. there are so many curb cuts on Grand, street parking would decrease substantially with the required site triangles.) I think the visibility issue is more of a problem if you are zipping down the bike lane at 18mph and less of a problem if you are going 9.6mph (the average biking speed in Copenhagen.) Additionally, I do think most motorists will show caution when crossing the bike lane because it will read as being part of the public realm, just like the sidewalk does. I'm also hopeful that the City will be able to work with property owners to remove some of the curb cuts and use the alleys and adjacent streets for access to parking lots instead.

[taxi]

I'm not very well versed in these matters, but I ride a lot. And I always take Walnut, since that is the lowest grade. Why wouldn't any cyclist do that, regardless of designated bike lanes?
I am also doubtful that prettier signage or designated lanes will get more people to bike. Removing the hills, maybe.

[flyingember]

I'm not very well versed in these matters, but I ride a lot. And I always take Walnut, since that is the lowest grade. Why wouldn't any cyclist do that, regardless of designated bike lanes?
I am also doubtful that prettier signage or designated lanes will get more people to bike. Removing the hills, maybe.

As an informal biker if I must deal with a grade, at least give me a dedicated path/land of my own to deal with it.

There's plenty of short urban short trips that don't make sense with a car. The effort of biking needs to be less than the cost of parking. Right now it's way easier to hop in a car and park at consentino's than to bike there from most of downtown. Bike lanes, more bike parking and such can change that.

[DaveKCMO]

I'm not very well versed in these matters, but I ride a lot. And I always take Walnut, since that is the lowest grade. Why wouldn't any cyclist do that, regardless of designated bike lanes?
I am also doubtful that prettier signage or designated lanes will get more people to bike. Removing the hills, maybe.

i take main because it's where i'm going, and i'm usually not going very far (and on b-cycle, to boot). going to grand or walnut from main -- just a block or two -- is a big challenge around 10th street on a heavy bike. i am actually using main during streetcar construction.

if i had my own bike, i might use a grand bike lane, but again it would be one block out of my way from work and three blocks out of my way from home on what's now just a 10-block commute (which i usually walk anyway).

[Eon Blue]

I ride both Walnut and Grand, depending on the day and traffic level. The grade on Grand isn't noticably harder coming from the south. Coming from the north it is definitely more significant south of Sixth Street, but as flyingember says a protected space for the climb makes all the difference. Given a choice between Grand with bike lanes and Walnut without, I'd take Grand every time.

[rxlexi]

While I appreciate any effort to beautify, road diet, or generally "make better" Grand Avenue, I would much prefer to see all available resources towards its betterment put in the service of creating financial and marketing packages to incentivize development and tenant recruitment on the street.

This is what it needs, more than anything else. Too many empty buildings, too many parking lots, too much loitering.

[flyingember]

While I appreciate any effort to beautify, road diet, or generally "make better" Grand Avenue, I would much prefer to see all available resources towards its betterment put in the service of creating financial and marketing packages to incentivize development and tenant recruitment on the street.

This is what it needs, more than anything else. Too many empty buildings, too many parking lots, too much loitering.

Incentivizing development also involves bringing people to a property. It's a chicken/egg problem.

Improving the pedestrian environment across all of downtown so people want to get out and walk by businesses is just as valuable as the alternative of giving incentives for one building

[DaveKCMO]

in case you didn't make it to last night's public meeting: http://transitkc.com/wp-content/uploads ... 112514.pdf

note that 18th street (main to prospect) will also be striped as part of the project. 20th street will happen as part of that project. southwest boulevard is "done" (haha sharrow).

coverage: http://kcur.org/post/kansas-city-unveil ... bike-lanes

[flyingember]

it's better than doing nothing but why does it take so long to change paint? we're looking ~12 months out for implementation.

the order should be
city council has pre-approved stanards for paint only road diets just like they have a pre-approved distance from parking spots to a fire hydrant so you don't put parking spots next to one. it's that easy. like there should be a formal standard for lane width on bus routes that is council approved. the council should set these standards, not approve every single plan that follows them. and the standards should be such that you don't do approve exceptions, exceptions are part of the standard.

concurrently a yearly bid process assigns that year's painting only contract at a known rate for work. the city doesn't bid just paint work out every time which saves time and money. for this company immediatelly getting the work and the stability the city gets a discounted rate and quick turnaround .

then under city standards a street is proven meets a thresshold for a paint only road diet. it's given an allocation of funds from somewhere
public works makes a plan that takes the standards and creates some options based on the various exceptions. by following city approved standards you limit "what about this change?"
neighborhood and businesses give their feedback and any allowed changes are made based on frequency and cost.
the final plan is publicized one last time for a couple weeks to locate any final major concerns.
it's implemented immediatelly. the painting company is called, the plan discussed and they schedule painting for the first date they can.

you could turn this around in 2 months tops.

and now you have people seeing how the results work that same year. so instead of a year to get feedback you know nearly immediatelly if you should do the same thing on another street. if we pay for it with a grant the city shows it can implement the project and benefit residents super quick which makes us look good for getting more grants. we don't fight over the perfect design for a year and finally do some painting only to repeat the fight all over.

and if it's proven that this gets interest in biking you have at least half a year of use to use at the next budget to get more money allocated for bike improvements. with this plan we're skipping a budget on the subject because it won't be in quick enough

[DaveKCMO]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... 76102.html

Grand would be the first major, undivided arterial in the city converted to three lanes.

“It blows my mind that there are not even crosswalks on that street now,” he said.

A committee headed by City Councilman Russ Johnson will consider a resolution next week ordering a citywide road-diet analysis. Its goal: to see how many undivided four-lane streets could be converted to three lanes.

that ordinance is here: http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/liveweb/Docum ... UpRTBUdaIG