Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Downtown 2010 Plan Idea #4 - Broad Street

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Downtown 2010 Plan Idea #4 – Broad Street

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 80 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #361740
    alove
    alove
    Participant

    YES YES YES! Separate bike lanes like in Amsterdam!!! We can do better than those NYC ones.
    Love it, love it, love it.

    #361741

    futureman
    Participant

    I’m very much for it as a cyclist. I typically will do 20-40 miles in a trip around town and I take broad street a lot to get to alum creek trail. If anything this could serve a connector between the olentangy and alum creek trails. I hate the I-670 trail with a **passion**, two flat tires, very loud and in general in just bad shape. It’s also the only East to West trail out there in Columbus.

    From a “trail” perspective I’m all for it, but as other pointed as a bike lane it could cause problems.

    Given my use of broad st – only really going east/west not really turning ever I’d get behind this idea. Cars do travel rather fast in addition you have to deal with COTA busses stopping all the time.

    #361742

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    futureman wrote >>
    I’m very much for it as a cyclist. I typically will do 20-40 miles in a trip around town and I take broad street a lot to get to alum creek trail. If anything this could serve a connector between the olentangy and alum creek trails. I hate the I-670 trail with a **passion**, two flat tires, very loud and in general in just bad shape. It’s also the only East to West trail out there in Columbus.
    From a “trail” perspective I’m all for it, but as other pointed as a bike lane it could cause problems.
    Given my use of broad st – only really going east/west not really turning ever I’d get behind this idea. Cars do travel rather fast in addition you have to deal with COTA busses stopping all the time.

    Have you tried Bryden/Oak? A boulevard or treatment as outlined in the BBP would provide the East-West connection with direct access to the trail head and would be suitable for all ranges of cyclists. It’s a great corridor to bike, even without the special treatments.

    #361743

    Columbusite
    Member

    Please, no cycle track. We don’t need to officiate improper, unsafe cycling practices. See this review on the one in St. Petersburg, FL[/url]. If sidewalk cyclists want to use it, that’s fine as long as they’re riding at speeds similar to pedestrians. Signage advising this should be done if this “pedestrian way” is going to cater to this niche of cyclists. Go any faster and they should be riding their vehicle on the road instead of endangering pedestrians and themselves.

    Separated facilities are a myth and in fact add dangers that don’t exist when riding properly whether it’s current day Broad St or the new version it makes no difference. I’ve ridden numerous times without incident mostly Downtown and sometimes E Broad to Bexley and W Broad to Franklinton. I’m never in the path of right-turning vehicles and I’m never worried about the door zone because I’m properly centered in my lane. Well-signed and sharrowed right-hand lanes for bikes and buses is all that’s needed for an optimal cycling environment which would instruct cyclists to use the entire right lane which prevents right-hook turns that have killed cyclists riding in bike lanes in other “progressive” cities and keeps them out of the door zone where poorly placed sharrows and bike lanes have resulted in more cyclist deaths. Basically, the treatment I’m suggesting is the same that Broad should already have. I see no need to remove parking in light of cyclists riding improperly in the door zone: there are plenty of extra lanes for motorists to choose from. Riding in the door zone is an education issue and perhaps the city could look into making a sign with two graphics to help: the left side showing an open car door and the cyclist riding safely in the neighboring traffic lane vs. the right side of the sign, a cyclist getting hit by a car door while riding in the door zone with a big red X on that graphic.

    As for BRT, I think E Broad would be a good place for this since there’s no urban business district that needs on-street parking. Most of it doesn’t allow it anyway except for OTE where it’s barely used and Downtown where it is used much more often. Regardless, the #10 route traverses E and W Broad and should have more shelters, maps, timetables and a raised curb at stops the main stops. Basically, make the stops real bus stops. The sheltered stop at W Broad & Civic Center has no map, timetables: nothing, not even a dispenser for paper maps/timetables for the routes that use this stop.

    #361744
    alove
    alove
    Participant

    Blah blah blah

    We want more transit options, right? What’s wrong with expert cyclists riding on the road with a choice of riding on a SAFE, AWAY FROM CARS path?

    I’m tired of hearing about the dangers of creating bike paths. We want our community to become more active, right? I doubt the way to get people to increase their bicycle use is to force them to ride down streets like High and Broad. I am scared shitless whenever I do so and I ride in the sidewalk when appropriate, and I am not ashamed either.

    We need to be taking cues from Europe.

    #361745

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    alove wrote >>
    Blah blah blah
    We want more transit options, right? What’s wrong with expert cyclists riding on the road with a choice of riding on a SAFE, AWAY FROM CARS path?
    I’m tired of hearing about the dangers of creating bike paths. We want our community to become more active, right? I doubt the way to get people to increase their bicycle use is to force them to ride down streets like High and Broad. I am scared shitless whenever I do so and I ride in the sidewalk when appropriate, and I am not ashamed either.
    We need to be taking cues from Europe.

    No, we need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of our transportation infrastructure and grid, our culture and our citizens. Trying to shoehorn in an idea based on how sexy and cool it looks, while ignoring available data, is reckless and completely ignorant.

    Now I would agree with you: forcing cyclists onto roads like Broad and High is not a good thing and won’t do much to encourage greater numbers. Which is exactly what projects like this are doing. They are ignoring the strengths of our current transportation infrastructure: a well connected gridded system with alternatives to those roads.

    A few simple changes, some marked signage (something as simple as changing the street signs from green to purple like Berkley did) and you can have a safe, well connected and non-threatening bike network at a much lower cost than uber-sexy Euro Broad St. This is a network that can easily tie into existing off road bike trails as well as projects like High Street Share the Road. It exists, it’s built…we just need to promote and utilize it.

    Alove, I’m curious: have you actually ridden in a city with an extensive and well developed separated bike path network? I used to ride like you when I first started riding again. To get to class from my first apartment I would cut through an alley, ride the sidewalk along High for a few blocks to a cross walk and get over to the side roads through OSU. I wasn’t confident to ride the roadways. You know what I did? I started to get involved with the cycling community. I met people with more experience than me, learned better alternatives to these roads and new route options, sought education from informal group rides and formal classes. I have no issue using Front for part of a commute or jogging down Summit if my route takes me that way.

    #361746

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    For the visual learners:

    #361747

    Columbusite
    Member

    No one is forcing anyone on major streets like High and Broad. If you’re “scared shitless” riding there it’s very likely because you’re not driving your bike properly. I suggest sticking to riding properly on side streets (this is how I eased myself from sidewalk cycling to proper vehicular cycling) and walking your bike where you’re uncomfortable if you don’t want to use the infrastructure already there for you on major urban roads. You can always look into buying a scooter/moped/motorcycle if you just can’t get over the fear of riding in traffic. I rode up High St from King today to the Cup O Joe in Clintonville and had no reason to feel scared. Up in Cville there was a van behind me for a couple of blocks, but so what? There’s another lane if they don’t want to be behind me and they didn’t honk or otherwise act aggressively towards me.

    Encouraging an increase in the number of cyclists should simply not be a goal in any plan related to cycling. It should instead highlight the current infrastructure for motorist and cyclist awareness about the presence of cyclists in the lane and safe, proper riding technique. Redesigning some streets for pedestrians alone by adding traffic signals (see the Short North for how essential this is for urban business districts) and curb bumpouts and medians to shorten distances also have a positive side-effect of working in the favor of cyclists by slowing traffic speeds. Making a street pedestrian-friendly by and large ends up with a street that is more attractive for cycling without needlessly compromising the safety of vehicular cyclists who are already using our roads correctly.

    #361748

    Columbusite
    Member

    I totally agree with the signed side streets for novices. It’s cheap, effective, and the streets are already great for beginners and experts alike. I’ve since changed my position on the bike boulevards planned for numerous streets. I’ve ridden them and they’re mostly empty and not at all intimidating, so why spend large chunks of cash for huge changes in infrastructure that really aren’t warranted when we can sign them all in one fell swoop? Save those for sprawling parts of the city where side streets are few and far between and where drivers are more likely to act aggressively because you’re biking on their one and only shortcut. Here there is also the possibility of creating a bike boulevard where the side roads just don’t exist.

    #361749

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    Columbusite wrote >>
    I totally agree with the signed side streets for novices. It’s cheap, effective, and the streets are already great for beginners and experts alike. I’ve since changed my position on the bike boulevards planned for numerous streets. I’ve ridden them and they’re mostly empty and not at all intimidating, so why spend large chunks of cash for huge changes in infrastructure that really aren’t warranted when we can sign them all in one fell swoop? Save those for sprawling parts of the city where side streets are few and far between and where drivers are more likely to act aggressively because you’re biking on their one and only shortcut. Here there is also the possibility of creating a bike boulevard where the side roads just don’t exist.

    I can get behind that. Basically:

    Sign and promote existing secondary roads that provide safe, accessible solutions for all.

    Sharrows and outreach on arterial roads.

    Bike Lanes and MUPs where they won’t affect commercial corridors and were they are the most effective at closing gaps in connectivity.

    Better transit options to assist in closing those gaps.

    Education and Safe Routes To Schools.

    That right there is an easy, doable cycling solution for the greater Columbus area. Some of it is already being done or exists and just needs the promotion, others need to be considered.

    #361750

    DianeHoenig
    Member

    Perfect… this is what we need to hear… everyone’s opinion and why.

    I personally take the streets. Utilitarian (can’t you tell from my avitar?). If it’s shorter, I take the path that’s the only time – I like being on the street with cota… this is my safety net. If I have a problem, I rack it on the bus. When I ride with my kids we mostly take the side walk if it’s a major road, if not, we’re on the street – they are learning to ride safe young.

    #361751

    Analogue Kid
    Participant

    alove wrote >>
    Blah blah blah
    We want more transit options, right? What’s wrong with expert cyclists riding on the road with a choice of riding on a SAFE, AWAY FROM CARS path?
    I’m tired of hearing about the dangers of creating bike paths. We want our community to become more active, right? I doubt the way to get people to increase their bicycle use is to force them to ride down streets like High and Broad. I am scared shitless whenever I do so and I ride in the sidewalk when appropriate, and I am not ashamed either.
    We need to be taking cues from Europe.

    I agree. As much as the hardcore cyclists here wax eloquent about the virtues of shared space, every non-avid bike rider I’ve ever met prefers to be separated from motor vehicle traffic. Most people (myself included) have no problem riding on side streets but that does not extend to any road with more than 5,000 cars per day.

    #361752

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    Analogue Kid wrote >>

    alove wrote >>
    Blah blah blah
    We want more transit options, right? What’s wrong with expert cyclists riding on the road with a choice of riding on a SAFE, AWAY FROM CARS path?
    I’m tired of hearing about the dangers of creating bike paths. We want our community to become more active, right? I doubt the way to get people to increase their bicycle use is to force them to ride down streets like High and Broad. I am scared shitless whenever I do so and I ride in the sidewalk when appropriate, and I am not ashamed either.
    We need to be taking cues from Europe.

    I agree. As much as the hardcore cyclists here wax eloquent about the virtues of shared space, every non-avid bike rider I’ve ever met prefers to be separated from motor vehicle traffic. Most people (myself included) have no problem riding on side streets but that does not extend to any road with more than 5,000 cars per day.

    Good thing you can get around most of Columbus using MUPs and side roads.

    I’m sorry but please tell me how you are served when that bike lane you love ends after 3 miles while the city waits for the next resurfacing project to complete the next 3 miles of bike lanes?

    #361753

    futureman
    Participant

    Anyone know what section of Broad they are talking about? Is this just downtown or extending to the east side to Bexley (as I was assuming)?

    Honestly I find riding my bike on Broad st to be arather pleasant experience. Due to the width, motorists have more than enough room to change lanes and zoom by me at 40+mph.

    (side point, I took last year off riding so I haven’t been on Broad for awhile. The amount of foreclosed former mansions is terrible :( Amazing what difference a year makes)

    @lifeontwowheels

    I appreciate the suggestion of taking Oak or Bryden, but I’m not all that comfortable doing that as it heads east towards franklin park/rail road lines.

    My preference is purely from recreational cycling perspective – I like dedicated trails. Now if I’m going from point A to B on a commuter bike I’m sure I’d have a very different opinion.

    #361754

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    Perfectly understandable.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 80 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE