As some of you know I am a member of the Washoe Regional Transit Commission’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. And you also know that I ride 3+ times a week in all weather, traffic and road conditions. And you know that I’ve put a lot of thought into matters of bicycle commuting, traffic safety and the Reno bike community. Here are some of my thoughts:
The north/south Reno bicycle route thing is good and half done already in a number of ways. Forest St. is great to Lakeside and Lakeside is great to Moana Ln. and Plumas is great to McCarran. I don’t think we should expect a clear route with no turns.
Moana is a best case, but only from Neil to Longley, then it’s a deathtrap. (quite literally) And I see 5+ other cyclists on it every day.
The routes are there. We just need to connect them. And Meadowood mall should be deemphasized as a transit hub. It’s already the bus hub making bus trips beyond it impractical. Not to mention the fact that Meadowood is dangerous to approach from the south on a bike.
Even where there are great bike lanes cars still cross over. We need rumble strips between traffic and bikes.
And we consistently get bewildered looks from motorists who can’t adapt to the presence of a cyclist and drive and dial the cellphone at the same time, leading one to believe that driver education and law enforcement are lacking.
And on and on. The map thing isn’t a waste. [RTC BPAC has been assigned to revise, update and ground-truth the Truckee Meadows Bike Map] At it’s best, as Carson City, Tahoe and Truckee show, it is a marketing effort that benefits residents as much as visitors by raising awareness. If we need to ground truth it we should do it. We should design and market the map as the foundation for our assertion that 1) Reno is a great place to be a cyclist, 2) a lot of Reno residents ride bikes a lot, and 3) more needs to be done to insure the safe access to streets for those residents.
I’m going to take photos of every spot on my section and document it on Flickr with descriptions and tags and then we can add those images to a google map.
In the end I think the issue is simple. The streets are designed for CARS because most people drive cars. We just need to show that enough bikes are using the streets that it warrants spending money to better optimize streets for cars + bikes. As more citizens begin to ride bikes then the city and RTC and fed will be failing a larger percentage of the population, and support will grow. We should figure out how best to use and mobilize those numbers. I think RTC understands that, and that’s why we are here; to help as Reno transitions into the best cycling city in the west!
-M
This post is tagged bicycle, commuter, reno, RTS, safety, transit, washoe
The most important thing in bicycle safety is knowledge of road positions. Cycling along the wrong side is the foremost reason for bicycle-car crashes. A good bicycle helmet can provide fine protection for every bicyclist. It reduces the possibility of head injury by up to 85 percent at the time of collision.
The map is much more than an area marketing tool. The map will ultimately go into the RTC 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as the planning document for future expansion of the bike network. In the past, whenever I’ve asked for a bike lane or path, the answer was, “Is it in the long range plan?”. The current version of the RTP bike map unrealistically assumes a bike lane or path on every regional road and there is no timetable or prioritization for their construction. The role of the BPAC will be to identify what routes should be a priority and identify and prioritize what’s needed to complete them.
Forest Street is one way southbound. How do you feel about riding a bicycle northbound on it? Is it safe? I’m concerned with the hazards of riding against traffic.
True, one way…
Watt and Lander are good options too, none are marked, but I see a lot of people going down plumas which is probably the worst choice.
I like the idea of using the map to identify priorities. The thing that confuses me is that we can’t map it from existing data w/o going out. But the google map is the way to go. We need to get the whole community involved in that. Sure you might get some wrong info, but the crowdsource model will generate interest in the community and Q/C the info.
-M
I commute via bike daily from Sparks the university, using several different routes. I’d be willing to help with routes, photos, etc.
I suggest we put them on Flickr and tag them “renobikeroutes”
that way we can view the feed and gallery…
-M
Wolfy,
Lander actually is marked as a “Bike Route,” green sign and all. I ride it to work to avoid Arlington and Plumas. The only problem on Lander is that you have a stop sign every block (doesn’t flow well) and it really needs to be resurfaced. But that’s a small price to pay for staying alive!
I still want to see Arlington a 2 lane road with bike lanes and a single turning lane in the middle - sort of Wells style.
-SAS
“I still want to see Arlington a 2 lane road with bike lanes and a single turning lane in the middle - sort of Wells style.”
AfreakingMEN to that sister!
Sit on my porch for an hour some time and see the dozens of cyclists that go by. It would be cool.
-M
Arlington was used as an example at the 2040 RTP Steering Committee meeting last night (6/19/08). We were discussing the adoption of a policy to consider bike lanes for every regional road when it is constructed, widened or reconditioned. The issue was whether we could require the elimination of parking to be able to install bike lanes. RTC said that if we put that into the plan, the RTC Commissioners would reject it. Apparently, residents and business owners cherish their on-street parking and having a policy to automatically remove it would be political suicide.
Do you think the majority of Arlington St residents would support replacing parking with bike lanes?
An excellent Question Terry.
I think it would have to be a matter of presentation. If you say, hay we’re taking your parking, no.
If you say, Arlington avenue is a traffic problem and an unsafe place for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. We propose to convert the street into a wide, low traffic avenue with gardens and artistic elements that would foster non-motorized traffic and easy resident and visitor access. Parking will be limited and protected from traffic with curb bump-outs, and only on a per-residence permit or time-limit for businesses.”
Then explain what that would mean for property values, and QOL for residents and I think it would have a chance.
I can tell you that living on Arlington Ave is great and I can easily see how much nicer it would be with that change. I can only imagine the increase in property value…
-M
Is it possible to make that bike map available on the internet as a PDF download?
Much better way to sell taking away parking, Wolfy. Here’s the other thing though. Would it be necessary to take away parking? Currently, Arlington is essentially 6 lanes wide. There are 4 lanes of traffic and each side of the street has street side parking - 6 lanes.
You could keep street side parking, with your bump out idea which looks nice and gives people a visual context of the parking space (i.e. don’t park way out in the street and don’t drive in the parking lane). Then you could have the bike lanes next to those, and finish up with the traffic lanes and center turning lane. I’m not thrilled with bikes between parked cars and moving cars, but if you slow everything down and design it right, it can work and be pretty safe.
In this example your 6 lane width becomes 3 lanes of traffic, 2 lanes of parking, and 1 lane of bike lanes running north/south. If you ditch the parking, you’ve got all kinds of space.
-SAS
Elaine,
I’m sure that there is an electronic copy of that map somewhere. I’ll push for a pdf.
SAS,
That is probably the first step. When we moved in on Arlington AVE the neighbors told us not to park on the street because of the traffic. And before we moved in someone drove up on the lawn and took out the fence. Street Parking is a crappy solution.
Improving the street this way would be nice for the people who have driveways that end on Arlington too.
I said it @ the last 24-40 committee meeting and I’ll say it again. “I own a house on Arlington Ave and if you want my parking you can have it.”
-M
I brought up Arlington Ave because it was used as an example at the 2040 RTP Steering Committee. Actually, what is being talked about for Arlington is one traffic and one bike lane going each way, parking on both sides and a turn line in the middle. That would be much more palatible for the residents, I’m sure. We should schedule a meeting with that Neighborhood Advisory Board and seek their advise. I imagine we first should talk with a traffic engineer to see if it’s even physically possible before we see if it’s politically possible.
Exactly, and a picture with happy little trees and toddlers on bikes would be nice too!
-M
[...] Washoe RTC Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee - An interesting discussion on some issues faced by the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. [...]
The bike map, such as it is, is on the RTC website as part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Element of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. You can download it from there. It’s pretty useless because when RTC asked the jurisdictions where they wanted bike lanes, they said, “Everywhere”. So there is a bike lane on the map on every regional road. Unfortunately, that’s the functional equivalent of a non-response.
This is the way things should be, get off what we are on now