University Bike/Ped study released; suggests improvements

totally agree @ the 4th ave/congress underpass- NOT a fan as a pedestrian, driver, or biker- i just plain avoid that intersection when at all possible...

Here's an idea. It has two parts. 1) UA/Board of Regents:  tear down all but three parking garages. 2) City of Tucson: aggressively enforce neighborhood parking restrictions (aggressively=boot the cars of violaters, don't just lazily ticket them). Prediction: within a few years there will be profound improvements in mass transpo and bike infrastructure both on campus and spanning out two miles.

I strongly urge that the area between the trolley tracks and road be filled to prevent wheels from entering and bikes going down.  I had an accident at 4th avenue and Congress.

Wow, that's really good there zz.  Smartest thing about bikes I've read in a really long time.  thanks

Here's a quote that I love.......... "My point  is that cyclists understand when anybody says we can be safe(r)  in areas consistanly being designed to accommodate more cars, they are lying." The quote is not referencing any previous comment, it's just that  there would have to be a great deemphasizing of cars if 5th/6th was to become a true corridor. No turn lane, 8-foot bike lane, 25 mph max speed and any other bicycle amenities you could think of. Then you would have a greatly lowered-stress,  multi-modal route that served downtown, 4th Ave., U of A, El Con, schools and churches on out east and equidistant from all businesses on Speedway and Broadway. Out of that huge residential area that it would serve, you would tempt some people to ride on it rather than drive on Broadway or Speedway. That's assuming you weren't going to spend a bazillion dollars widening Broadway to twelve lanes. There has to be a tangible advantage in choosing to bike that drivers can see from the seat of their car in order to lure them out.

Putting 6th on a road diet would a boon to bikes and pedestrians near campus and Fourth Avenue.  Something that might make this road diet possible is the completion of downtown links andf the direct driving connection of Aviation Highway to I-10 via 7th avenue and East 6th/west Saint Mary's.  Comepletion of this motor vehicle project will likely result in more traffic on Aviation and less on 6th street.  Agreed with others.  Narrow 5th/6th all the way to Wilmot.  A turn land an a travel lane in each direction.  This design would not result in much less traffic capacity than the current two lanes each direction and no turn lane.   My own experience driving on 5th 6th is that there is a fair number of folks turning and thus reducing traffic capacity as it is anyway.

My moniker is 3wheeler because my main ride now is a recumbent tricycle.  I ride pretty slow and I stick to residential streets.  I have also been a road bike riders for 33 years.  When I'm on the road bike, I fit in the "No Fear" category, I've ridden the shoulder of interstate highways and I'll put my travels up to 90% of the riders out there.  With my credentials stated, I agree that residential streets are going to be too slow for some people even after the stop signs are turned around.  It doesn't change my opinion that the huge amount of money that would go into 5th/6th would be better spent on residential streets.  I said in my previous note I want stop signs turned, in plain English that means you never stop at a stop sign on a bike route except at primary and secondary streets.  You get 1/2  mile sections to fly.   The study is about improving biking around & to the UofA, let me point out there is already a bus/bike lane on Speedway and on Broadway too.  The fearless folks who are in a hurry can still ride those. 

Of course I'd love it if 6th/5th St was 2 lane with bike path all the way out to Wilmot.  I'm not sure how that would work though.  Campbell to Stone is carrying what, 26,000 cars a day?   Went to the presentation at the Swede Johnson bldg last night,  4 actual bike parking spots with another 4 useable spots 100 yards to the west at another bldg.  That sure seems like a swing and a miss to me.  And while I'm on the subject why is it that so much bike parking is incorrectly installed and or poorly designed?  Nobody expects cars to park in a way that damages their paint.  Target El Con, the rack is against the wall so you can only lock to it longways.  Sunflower 1st Ave, the little red hoop racks which I like are installed in a way that most everyone uses them with their bikes perpendicular to the bldg. which means that the 2 bikes will end up touching each other.  Park parallel and there's enough space.   Cycle tracks through UA mall, I'm mixed.  I kind of like how it is now.  Chaos seems to be working.  I worry that if tracks were installed we'd end up with more restrictions and faster bicycle traffic.  I do not think faster would be better.  Too many texters to make that safe.   The proposed crossing enhancements along Euclid between 6th and Speedway, yeah sure but the best way to get east west in this area is University.  The current absolutely most useful bicycle route will now have a streetcar in the middle of it.  I'm not ready to cede that territory yet.  5th is problematic at least twice a day because of Roskruge/Tucson High bus and drop off traffic.  Has to be seen to be believed.   What I'd like to see fixed is that deathtrap of an underpass at the 4th Avenue tunnel.  That only one person has been killed there is a miracle.  The conflict between right turning cars and bicyclists is extreme. Nobody pays any attention to that bike box and the no right on red restriction.  The other thing about the no right on red restriction is if it applies to bicyclists which I think it does means that in off peak hours it makes absolutely no sense.  Do bikes even trigger that light?  I've sat waiting for a car to come and get me a green just to make a quick right to get to the Saturday Maynard's Market.   The presentation had a chart listing I think 4 kinds of cyclists from fearless to I won't ride near cars ever.  I guess I'd count myself amongst the fearless transportation riders and for me I don't see a whole heck of a lot in this plan that makes my life easier or better.  Of course I might not be the target audience for these proposed enhancements.  Oh well.

There was a conversation about the term "low-stress" and how and where it should be applied in regards to bike routes at last night's BAC meeting. Some liked to use it because it is a current term being used by planners and transportation types. You know, as far as communicating in their lingo.  Others thought it put out an incorrect implication. The professional folks may have a unified notion in their minds of what "low-stress" is,  but it is very undefined and subjective to the riding population...as we sense in the conversations above. The BAC actually voted on this and decided not to use the term in  the particular instance... by one vote. I think that was correct because it is way too nebulous a term for the audience they are communicating to. Rider skill level and the intention of the ride really determine the amount of stress someone might get from any street. Oh, and around here, the condition of the pavement and amount of debris along the side, ect. (tracks?) I'd agree that 5th/6th and maybe Country Club offer the best potential for multi-modal transportation corridors that riders of of the widest level could find useful. But as they are now, I don't ride them.

I like almost all the ideas propsed.  The exceptions are for riding in front of the student union and for bike lanes on 6th.  Bike lanes on heavily trafficed streets are stressful to cycle on.  Why would anyone want that experience when they can go a block or two over and ride in a residential area?  Let the cars have the big streets.  We will get a far more pleasant experience for less money if we develop bike routes along quiet streets by turning stop signs the other way at minor cross streets and providing shelter islands at arterials.

I've been saying there needs to be a road diet on sixth for years. I think it should be on the whole stretch though all the way to Wilmot. Same for Country Club...  A toucan at 5th would be great too. The other stuff is just kind of whatever.

There are so many signs on the U of A campus, so many signs in Tucson, signs are a waste of taxpayer money and the useless ones are ignored and defaced. Trees, that was done on Stone, the ones that aren't dead, aren't well maintained, here we go again. It's indicative that this meeting is at a building where the road is closed and it's a hassle to access. My prediction is that there will be lots of  tax dollars wasted, TREO style!   

Not so sure about the cycle track on the north side of the mall near the Student Union... that's a pretty busy ped area and having it off limits to bikes ( as it is now ), is probably a good call.   Those extra signs look to be a bit bothersome.   I really like the crossings on Euclid.  Right now, it's dicey to get across Euclid with the closure of University for construction.   I think you could do a lot with employee cycling if they had good places to store their bikes ( like in their offices ? )

I particularly like the proposal to make 6th St two lanes with dedicated bike lanes like Mountain.  

Back in my days as a UA campus employee, commuting to work by bike was really out there. As in, you were really WEIRD if you did something like that. Which is why I'm glad to see that commuting conditions are finally being addressed. But I'm disappointed to learn that 2/3 of UA employees still come to campus in their cars. By themselves. Which says to me that the bicycle wierdo factor still exists. Or something like that.

I was curious as to how much back and forth has been going on between different departments and agencies.  For example, the one project which stood out to me was the road diet of 6th Street.  I think this has been one of those projects that comes up every 10 years or so and then gets shot down each time by the community at large.  Is the City really willing to go ahead with something like this?  If so, that is a huge step forward.