Our City Online

Messageboard - Transportation

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Columbus Bike Lanes — News, Updates & Discussion

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Columbus Bike Lanes — News, Updates & Discussion

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 276 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #478817
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    I’d propose that the best solution would not just take place within Downtown, nor seek to only connect destinations within Downtown. The Central Business District is an area that “breathes” commuters in and out (by car, bike, bus or on foot) to adjacent neighborhoods and beyond. A bike lane system intended for commuters would probably work best if modeled to do exactly that.

    If Downtown proper is defined by the “innerbelt” highways to the North, East and South and by the Scioto to the West, then we technically only have a very limited number of entry and exit points to the area. 23 currently (not including highway ramps), to be exact (with another proposed and another under construction):

    To the north:

    • Neil – to Victorian Village
    • Park – to Victorian Village
    • High – to Short North
    • Third – to Italian Village (one way into Downtown)
    • Fourth – to Italian Village (one way out of Downtown)
    • Cleveland – to Milo Grogan

    To the east:

    • Jack Gibbs – to Mt Vernon
    • Spring – to King Lincoln (one way into Downtown)
    • Long – to King Lincoln (one way out of Downtown)
    • Broad – to Olde Towne East
    • Oak – to Olde Towne East
    • Town/Bryden – to Olde Towne East
    • Main – to Olde Towne East

    To the south:

    • Grant – to German Village
    • Third – to German Village (one way out of Downtown)
    • Fourth – to German Village (one way into Downtown)
    • High – to German Village / Brewery District
    • Front – to Brewery District (one way into Downtown)
    • Short – to Brewery District

    To the west:

    • Main – to Franklinton
    • Broad – to Franklinton
    • Rich – to Franklinton (under construction)
    • (Proposed) North Bank Bridge for Bikes/Pedestrians – to Franklinton
    • Spring/33 – to Grandview Heights
    • Vine – to Grandview Heights

    North-South:

    Of the north-south routes, the only three that go all the way through Downtown uninterrupted are High, Third and Fourth. All three go pretty straight through the middle of the CBD as well. They connect relatively well established neighborhoods where biking is probably more likely to continue to be adopted. Third, Fourth and High also go on to connect much further north to the University District and Old North Columbus, though connectivity on the south side into German Village gets muddled with jogging brick streets.

    I’d propose that a north-south corridor run on Third and Fourth through Downtown. The lanes could continue north all the way to Glen Echo park. On the southern end, I’d like to see the lanes jog over to High street at the southern end of Downtown to continue south on High Street to the railroad aqueduct south of Hungarian Village. Long term, this jog to High could take place on a revamped Livingston Avenue since the highway feeders are being realigned to Mound/Fulton. But that might happen until 2112, or whatever ODOT recently said. These could easily be median-separated bike lanes (similar to what Lo2W posted above) on Third and Fourth by only giving up a lane in each direction. South High is also wider than North High and could more easily accomodate this type of infrastructure.

    East-West:

    Of the routes that go through Downtown uninterrupted, you have Broad, Spring/Long and Main. Naturally, I think Broad makes the most sense as it connects to many urban neighborhoods along the way in both directions (OTE, KLD, Bexley, Eastgate, Franklinton, Hilltop, Highland West, etc) and this road is incredibly wide, so infrastructure could come very easy to it. Not even sure where you’d have these lanes terminate in both directions. Could take them all the way to 270 if you really want to get crazy.

    I also kind of like the idea of a second bike lane headed west out of Downtown on Spring/Long/33 that help connect businesses and new development along 33 and connect into Grandview and Upper Arlington. I imagine those suburbs are ripe for bike commuting possibilities. I don’t think continuing that connection out of Downtown to the East makes much sense though as The KLD is much less populated at this point in time, and it would be somewhat redundant being so close to Broad.

    So there we go. Not really that sexy of an idea to propose Third/Fourth/High N-S and Broad E-W, but that’s my thought process behind all of it.

    Total Downtown milage:

    1.5 miles on Third headed South
    1.5 miles on Fourth headed North
    1.1 miles on Broad headed East
    1.1 miles on Broad headed West
    1.2 miles on Spring headed West
    1.3 miles on Long headed East
    ———-
    7.7 miles total. Short of the 12 mile goal, but I the real value is going to come from the extra 50 miles of bike lanes that go outside of Downtown and connect to these routes in every direction.

    Thoughts?

    #478818

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    ^ Although an entirely different topic, if we were to dramatically alter 3rd/4th with the removal/replacement of a car lane for bike lane, as I showed in the pictures above, it would be great to go a step further and create something similar to the Mobilien in Paris. Design a lane wide enough where BRT and bike could co-exist (basically leap frog each other with relative ease) through those corridors.

    #478819

    slevin203
    Member

    lifeontwowheels
    great idea dude

    #478820

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    slevin203 said:
    lifeontwowheels
    great idea dude

    Bikes, transit and ped-in addition to vehicle traffic-should co-exist and be planned together. O wait…did I just describe Complete Streets?

    When you stop and think about it there is somewhat of a once in a lifetime opportunity here. Downtown is still “empty” enough to make some of these radical changes, we know certain streets will be redesigned for the split fix, the campus area will very likely see some changes as the sophomore on campus policy is enacted. Unfortunately I think the bigger picture will be lost so we can stripe a few streets, check off a form and jump up 3 spaces on a list of top cycling cities.

    #478821

    Matthew
    Participant

    People with a stake in this need to stay informed and organized from the start. Consider Biking wants – Consider Biking gets. It took a whole neighborhood on the hilltop six months to get a minor design compromise in order to save on-street parking.

    #478822

    rory
    Participant

    As for N. 4th and Summit and 5th as I understand it and the Weinland Park Community Mobility Plan now says someday it will get the the first option that lifeontwowheels illustrated above although another part of the plan says that it will get a bike lane and buffer space. Whatever buffer space quantifies? The Weinland Park plan also says that sharrows aren’t Federally approved yet currently ruling that out for N. 4th and Summit.

    Weinland Park Community Mobility Plan

    From my experience in planning these things I wouldn’t hold my breathe about any of it. As soon as something starts to look promising or doable some city engineer, who you about have to waterboard to get any information, pulls one of the trump cards out marked “streetcar” or “ODOT study” and the whole process appears to start over.

    #478823

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    rory said:
    As for N. 4th and Summit and 5th as I understand it and the Weinland Park Community Mobility Plan now says someday it will get the the first option that lifeontwowheels illustrated above although another part of the plan says that it will get a bike lane and buffer space. Whatever buffer space quantifies? The Weinland Park plan also says that sharrows aren’t Federally approved yet currently ruling that out for N. 4th and Summit.

    Weinland Park Community Mobility Plan

    From my experience in planning these things I wouldn’t hold my breathe about any of it. As soon as something starts to look promising or doable some city engineer, who you about have to waterboard to get any information, pulls one of the trump cards out marked “streetcar” or “ODOT study” and the whole process appears to start over.

    ummm…

    Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking
    Option:
    01 The Shared Lane Marking shown in Figure 9C-9 may be used to:
    A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce
    the chance of a bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle,
    B. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to
    travel side by side within the same traffic lane,
    C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way,
    D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and
    E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.
    Guidance:
    02 The Shared Lane Marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph.
    Standard:
    03 Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes.
    Guidance:
    04 If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings should be placed so that the
    centers of the markings are at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there
    is no curb.
    05 If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the
    centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the
    pavement where there is no curb.
    06 If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals
    not greater than 250 feet thereafter.

    FMUTCD

    #478824

    rory
    Participant

    Thanks, I’ll take this up with the city engineers next time I see them because that’s not what the WPCMP plan, as posted above, says on p. 57. But to anticipate their response can you put a sharrow next to a streetcar line?

    #478825

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    I’m not even sure. That’s the Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which will have any and all answers. I believe that is the currently used copy and is what most (if not all) states use to develop their MUTCD.

    #478826

    rory
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels said:
    I’m not even sure. That’s the Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which will have any and all answers. I believe that is the currently used copy and is what most (if not all) states use to develop their MUTCD.

    Exactly! Because the only thing at the end of the bicycle lane rabbit hole are a bunch of city engineers from the Department of Public Service who are experts in bamboozling you until you go home in tears.

    #478827

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    rory said:
    Exactly! Because the only thing at the end of the bicycle lane rabbit hole are a bunch of city engineers from the Department of Public Service who are experts in bamboozling you until you go home in tears.

    The bigger question for me is why you couldn’t move forward with a BRT lane concept on 4th/3rd despite any hopes/plans for a future streetcar. I’m trying to remember the proposed construction process for the High St. line but IIRC it had no real impact on the current bus operations. So wouldn’t a BRT system running that route give you a great opportunity to come close to streetcar/light rail, collect real data and make a case one way or the other?

    Either way you would win out: BRT or Streetcar

    #478828

    rory
    Participant

    lifeontwowheels said:
    The bigger question for me is what you couldn’t move forward with a BRT lane concept on 4th/3rd despite any hopes/plans for a future streetcar. I’m trying to remember the proposed construction process for the High St. line but IIRC it had no real impact on the current bus operations. So wouldn’t a BRT system running that route give you a great opportunity to come close to streetcar/light rail, collect real data and make a case one way or the other?

    Either way you would win out: BRT or Streetcar

    That makes sense to me especially since the streetcar seems dead in the water. However, the real life answer to your idea has been ODOT is doing a study now and we’ll get back to you when it’s done. It’s fairly frustrating.

    #478829
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    A new study out by Alliance for Biking and Walking. It’s the most in-depth I’ve ever read. Check it out (if you have time to peruse 248 pages)

    http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/site/2012benchmarkingdownload/agree/

    #478830
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    jpizzow said:
    A new study out by Alliance for Biking and Walking. It’s the most in-depth I’ve ever read. Check it out (if you have time to peruse 248 pages)

    http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/site/2012benchmarkingdownload/agree/

    Welcome to the first post of this thread. ;)

    Report Says Columbus is Second Largest City with no Downtown Bike Lanes

    #478831
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    Shit! Sorry. I was paying attention, but wasn’t. That’s what happens when one is working, reading Planetizen and CU, all at the same time. Carry on.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 276 total)

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

Subscribe below: