San Jose Downtown Bicycle Project

Thanks for posting the memo, Corinne.

The Director of Transportation didn't comment on the merit of the proposals. He seemed to defer any evaluation to the Bicycle Master Plan update process.

Safety and Civil Liberties

<

p>
(I have previously presented this information to SVBC members and staff and board, and to City leadership and staff. Since this is a newly created public forum that will be monitored by staff (SVBC? SJ?), I'm providing it here again for completeness.)

I love the parking and bikeshare components. Bravo!

Please call it a "Shared-Use Path" per CA-MUTCD 9A.03(5), not a "physically separated bike lane". If the facility is labeled a "bike lane" cyclists will be required to use it per CVC 21208(a), despite the dangers and disadvantages it creates for cyclists. SVBC must be clear and consistent on this terminology in all our communications with the City, because muddy terminology goes hand-in-hand with muddy thinking.

Collisions happen where lines of travel cross. Most collisions, especially car-bike collisions, happen at intersections. By introducing additional complexity and line-of-travel crossings into the intersection design, a shared-use path near a roadway increases the probability of collisions. This can be partially mitigated by additional design treatments - adjusted signal light cycles, alert signs, paint on the pavement - but the complexity is the underlying problem. Also consider the dangers of bollards, door openings, contraflow riding (especially at intersections), etc.

Other disadvantages for cyclists include pedestrian incursions, maintenance difficulty (street sweeping, tree root heaves, etc.) and the reduced travel speed and increased attentiveness required to safely negotiate the hazards.

Cyclists who are aware of the problems of segregated and separated facilities prefer integration with the traffic flow. This improves safety and convenience for both cyclists and motorists, since everyone has more space and is operating by a common set of rules. Please see these presentations for an introduction to the topic from a cyclist's view, and from a planning and design viewpoint.

The important thing is to design inclusively - to accommodate all variety of lawful cycling behavior.

Yes, pedestrians will have the adjacent sidewalk, and they'll also have the path, whatever you call it. For terminology, please read the CA-MUTCD description, which accurately specifies the facility described in your press release and showcased in the video. My main concern is that cyclists should have the option to not use this facility. If you call it a "bike lane" (which it isn't, according to CA-MUTCD), we won't have that choice, because the CVC requires cyclists to ride in a bike lane if one is present. If you label it accurately as a shared-use path, cyclists will retain the freedom to choose not to use it.

Incidentally, I would anticipate increased harassment by motorists of cyclists who are not riding on the shared-use path, because motorists often fail to recognize and respect cyclists' lawful right to use the public roadway, particularly in the presence of a cycling-specific facility. Most cyclists have experienced this harassment when they're using travel lanes (exercising our rights under CVC 21200(a) as clarified by one of the exception clauses of CVC 21208(a)) on a street with bike lanes. With all the expense and disruption of building shared-use paths downtown, the harassment will be even worse.

For more information on sidepaths (especially the German experience), see the strong collection at LAB Board member John S Allen's site.

Regarding best practices, the AASHTO excerpts annotated at John S Allen's site describe why shared-use sidepaths were discredited and discarded in the USA 30 years ago.

For further detail on sidepath hazards (very analytical for those so inclined) see Wachtel's paper.

I would like to see a 4-3 road diet (plus bike lanes) on as much of Hedding as they can manage. We need a good cross-city connector; this is not currently bike-friendly.

In the San Jose Envision Task Force thread, Margaret Okuzumi describes how the Monday October 27th public discussion on the shared-use paths component was dominated by Lisa Jensen with her voice of ignorance, fear, and superstition. The voices of cyclists with expertise to share - Margaret, John Brazil, the materials presented before the meeting by Scott Atwood and myself and others - were ignored.

Does SVBC have a position on those particular facilities?

Were any issues affecting cyclists discussed at the Nov 24 and Dec 8 meetings? Has SVBC taken a position on the plans discussed thus far?

The City says "The next meeting of the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force will be on January 26, 2009 at 6:30 PM at City Hall at 200 East Santa Clara Street. The meeting will be held in Wing Rooms W118-W119 and W120." Also, there will be a meeting February 7 "to develop Land Use / Transportation scenarios".

Were any issues affecting cyclists discussed at the Feb 7 meeting?

In Corinne's note of September 2 2008, she said "Discussion in this forum on this topic will be monitored by staff and potentially integrated into SVBC's position on the SJ downtown bike project." Is staff monitoring this forum? Has SVBC taken a position on the plans discussed so far? What is that position? Has it been communicated yet to the City?

Specifically, has SVBC expressed opposition to the plan component that calls for the creation of urban shared-use paths?

I signed up on the SVBC website over 1 year ago to read about bike initiatives, bike policy and bike advocacy. I periodically check the forums and try to keep up with what is going on with SVBC. Never really had much to comment on until now, and other commitments have kept me from getting very involved in SVBC. I live in District 3 and support all elements of Councilman Liccardo's bike plan. I am a daily cyclist and I do support cyclists rights to travel with other vehicular traffic, but I do not see the planned bike paths as fundamentally an issue about cycling safety and would be deeply disappointed if SVBC takes a position opposing the shared-use bike paths.

Hi Corinne,

No updates and no publicity on this lately. Have you been successful in your efforts to remove the shared-use path component from the Downtown Bicycle Project plan?

SJ's draft plan is now public at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/TE/20091102/TE20091102_d2...

Also noted at http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/09/will-san-joses-new-bicycle-plan-mar...

Apparently we were unsuccessful at opposing the proposed sidepath connecting Diridon Station to downtown, and the proposed sidepath on 4th Street. Didn't any cyclists show up at any of those meetings? I was hoping SVBC might represent us there, but apparently they missed the meetings too.