Reminder, this thread started again because someone mentioned seeing near collision incidences on walnut in multiple occasions.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
If this project was so good, why are we hearing about this again?
Reminder, Joe Shami got hit and died as a result of bad design. I suppose there was no conflict with MUTCD or CVD him getting hit and die.
After any research or a project there are data surveillance gathering. Meaning our feedbacks.
Which it seems some people like to ignore in the name of research and MUTCD guidelines.
Initially “ sharrows” seemed to be a good divider solution. But now defending to have more sharrows just shows how some people are far off from reality.
We are not riding bicycle in library.
On Aug 13, 2021, at 3:09 AM, Daniel Karpelevitch <daniel@...
The green bollards are popular with everyone as far as I know.
As for a solution for avid cyclists on Walnut - it already exists: ride in the car lane like we do on every other road without a shoulder. I say this somewhat facetiously, but I've actually had people ride with me on the road while I'm on the path while we held a conversation. I can't say I recommend it.
Just like an otherwise safe highway isn't safe for a car going 150mph, the sharper turns on Walnut are designed for speeds slower than we might do otherwise. I think more can be done to slow cars down as they turn, either with signage or some traffic engineering magic like rumble strips or narrower lanes or something like that.
We already have a full-width trail on both sides of Walnut. But it’s split into a bike half and a ped half. It was a noble idea, but it doesn’t work as well as one wide path. (I’m guessing the existing trees were a constraint in some sections.)
Meanwhile, we still need a cheap/easy solution for restoring “avid” cycling to Walnut. I saw a vote against sharrows, so it sounds like converting the #2 lane into a traditional Class II bike lane would be preferred.
How do people feel about the green plastic bollards? Is that usable for faster cycling, or is that too constraining?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:07 PM Daniel Karpelevitch <daniel@...
Michael, you are totally right that just making a bunch of rules will not be effective in separating bikes and pedestrians. However, I think the only reason the Alameda Creek Trail works where it does is because there are no intersections with roads. An Alameda Creek–width trail on both sides of Walnut would be great, but likely unfeasible. If people are complaining about these new intersections now, just wait until there is a full-width trail that has on- and off-ramps at every intersection. At that point it would just be easier to close Walnut to cars altogether... but I digress.
Your sister sounds like the ideal customer for the new bikeways.
Rather than treating bike-ped mixing as a problem on the side paths, we should expect it and design for it. Adding more rules, and attempting to separate bikes and peds, is futile. Especially at the intersections.
Instead of two narrow adjacent crosswalks, make one big one. Instead of a narrow sidewalk + narrow side path, make one wide one. Instead of hoping for one-way bike traffic, assume two-way traffic.
In other words, make Walnut work more like the Alameda Creek Trail. One wide space (on each side of the road) that everybody negotiates with each other.
Oh, and can some of the trees be trimmed? I keep having to duck under the low hanging branches.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:08 PM Daniel Karpelevitch <daniel@...
Michael, you make great points.
My 13-year-old sister just started riding bikes and will be riding to high school in a few weeks. Our route is from Mission/Walnut all the way down Walnut to Fremont Blvd, then north on Fremont to Washington High School.
My sister averages around 8-10 mph. She absolutely does not feel safe riding on unprotected bike lanes. The only reason she will be riding to school this year is because of the new bike path on Walnut and the bollard-protected bike lanes everywhere else she is riding.
I know the club riders are much faster on average, but I think it is important to realize that that bike path and the new intersections weren't built for the "avid cyclist." If we want cycling to grow and make Fremont less car-centric, this is a sacrifice we must be willing to make. There are still plenty of alternate routes that do not have any of these new designs.
I agree that pedestrians on the bike path and in the intersections are a problem. I think more signage making clear where each should go would help, as well as some sort of separators (the small white flexible bollards come to mind).
What does confuse me is the new intersections design popping up without the accompanying bike paths around them, such as at Fremont/Stevenson and Fremont/Mowry. Hopefully the surrounding infrastructure will be built shortly after, otherwise I do not see the purpose.
The new side paths and intersections are designed for slower cycling, 10-12 mph max. If I rIde them at that speed, I can generally avoid right-hook and drive-out collisions with motorists, and conflicts with pedestrians.
Faster than that, we should use the roadway.
Another thing I've noticed on Walnut, and at the fancy new intersections, is that bikes and peds don't strictly follow the lines painted for them. Bikes and peds use each other's crosswalks, and travel in both directions on both the sidewalk and side path. If we're going to build more of these, we might as well accept that and make them Class I multi-use paths. The attempts at bike-ped separation don't work.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:25 AM Greg Vicksell <vicksell@...
I was really surprised when Fremont
made these changes. As already stated, you are not required to
take the path up onto the islands. You still have the right to
remain on the road like the motor vehicles. The other aspect of
this is if you come down the path on Walnut from Mission towards
Fremont you are going to be crossing a lot of driveways and cars
coming out of the parking lots probably aren't going to be looking
for you. I find it safer to stay on the road.
On 8/12/2021 11:06 AM, Andrew Sass via groups.io
Three more near misses that I
have seen (one being me, even with a bright rear light and
front light with side flashers). ï¿½I have also seen one with a
car leaving that apartment complex and pulling up to where
they can see oncoming traffic and almost hitting a bike, and a
car/bus near miss as the bus just stops in the street as there
is no pullout for the bus stop.
The problem is worst when the
light is green to begin with. ï¿½The cyclist pulls up onto the
sidewalk and the car does not expect them to pop out again
when the car turns. ï¿½It is safer for cyclists just to go
straight and take the lane when on Paseo. ï¿½At least they are
seen. ï¿½It would be much better if the curb was back 4 feet to
safely go straight
While I am venting, those
islands that are in the bike lane on Washington Blvd are also
an accident waiting to happen. ï¿½Cyclists, even novice ones
travel fast on the downhill and hitting those are certain
broken bones, or worse.
There should be a moratorium
on any more street changes until some statistics and feedback
On Thursday, August 12, 2021, 09:54:49 AM PDT, Vinnie
should send this to Hans Larsen at Fremontï¿½s DPW.
Hans is very good with bike issues but heï¿½s not
perfect. I was just commenting last night that I
donï¿½t like how bikes go up on the sidewalk on
big issue is the nice wide right turn lanes for
bikes look like they could be for cars. The initial
design at Civic Center / BART Way was like that, and
the City had to redo it. I saw the new configuration
at Mowry / Fremont and my first thought was those
right turn lanes would be too small for a lot of
vehicles, not even realizing they are not for
vehicles. Motorists will be confused too unless they
paint them bright green.
Please be careful
when crossing Walnut after going up the green
bike path on the sidewalk.ï¿½ On three occasions
now I have almost seen bike riders get hit
when they have the green light and they
advance just as a car sweeps aroundï¿½the wide
corner.ï¿½ I don't really blame the cars,
because it is just sooo weird, that theï¿½corner
jutsï¿½out so far.ï¿½ I just don't want anybody
getting hurt.ï¿½ So be careful and watchï¿½for the
cars coming around the corner.ï¿½