Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Define "infrastructure"

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Define "infrastructure"

Old 05-11-23, 10:44 AM
  #1  
base2 
I am potato.
Thread Starter
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,074

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1764 Post(s)
Liked 1,578 Times in 910 Posts
Define "infrastructure"

It should go with out saying that infrastructure is a fitment in or on a landscape for the support of an activity. That's all fine and well and good.

My observation: When it comes to A&S, it seems to me that bike lanes, cycle paths, regional trails are the only type of infrastructure within the scope of discussion. John Forrester's opinion that dedicated separated facilities are all hogwash so misses the point that his credibility is strained. His opinion, summarized (by me) is: "The best bicycle infrastructure is no bicycle infrastructure." His so called "solution" that the answer is to adequately educate the cyclist, is about the most anti bicycle advocacy thing imaginable. From what perspective does that come from? One where the motorist is excused in their obligation to operate their vehicle with all the same care and education about the consequences?

Obviously the fallacy is obvious. If the John Forrester VC cyclist is cycling on the street, then the street is cycle infrastructure. The question then becomes how to change the street design such that the drivers, driving vehicles on cycle infrastructure can do so safely with regard to all other users.

Continuous sidewalks are one such real world example. Phased crossings and demand sensitive signaling. The elimination of right turns on red. Narrow automobile lanes. Lowering the traffic lights so drivers are not staring at the sky. Bulb-outs & medians. Elimination of slip-lanes, etc...You guys are all smart enough to grasp what I mean, here. If it exists on the street environment, and bicycles are in that street environment, then are the features found there not cycle infrastructure?

Calling a thing a "2 way cycle path" or a "bike lane" is nice. It may even be a cycle path or a bike lane. But, it invokes a sense of loss to the driver. It becomes an infringement upon their perceived right to own the entire right-of-way. Knee-jerk hostility, ill-regard, and opposition in city-planning meetings against this road feature is the result. The term: "Street design" side-steps the whole mess of us/them mentality. Importantly, it deprioritizes automobile speed & severity of conflict/consequences in certain contexts where where those elements are inappropriate for that streets use.

So, going forward: How do we define "bicycle infrastructure?" Is it even a useful term in the general sense? I like the nuance afforded by: "street design." Certainly, "street design" incorporates all users given equal weight & priority. Sure, a given streets design can include dedicated bicycle facilities, sidewalks, bus stops, and various other bits of infrastructure as appropriate. But by switching terms and taking a systemic view, the umbrella of those served is made much larger. "Street design" increases road users freedom in a way that "bike lane" does not.

Discuss.

Last edited by base2; 05-11-23 at 11:52 AM.
base2 is offline  
Old 05-11-23, 11:37 AM
  #2  
RCMoeur 
Cantilever believer
 
RCMoeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,475
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 491 Post(s)
Liked 1,667 Times in 761 Posts
I will have to say that the OP's characterization of viewpoints they disagree with is... not all that charitable.
__________________
Richard C. Moeur, PE - Phoenix AZ, USA
https://www.richardcmoeur.com/bikestuf.html
RCMoeur is offline  
Old 05-11-23, 11:49 AM
  #3  
base2 
I am potato.
Thread Starter
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,074

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1764 Post(s)
Liked 1,578 Times in 910 Posts
Originally Posted by RCMoeur
I will have to say that the OP's characterization of viewpoints they disagree with is... not all that charitable.
Well when you have to explain to your cities chief engineer that crosswalks are "people space" and he says they are "shared space" we have a problem. If drivers actually shared the so-called shared space there would not be a conflict. Their failure to do so is a failure of design.

He referred me to another engineer on staff. This one in charge of the re-design of his failure. That meeting was productive & there have been several emails exchanged with specific infrastructure features now incorporated.

I don't know that demanding equal priority and consideration to the public space is really that radical.
__________________
I shouldn't have to "make myself more visible;" Drivers should just stop running people over.

Car dependency is a tax.
base2 is offline  
Old 05-11-23, 12:46 PM
  #4  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,970
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2475 Post(s)
Liked 722 Times in 513 Posts
Where we have a problem is imagining that there is enough physical space to create a practical network of protected bicycle infrastructure running parallel with the pre-existing one. Lowering traffic lights? Continuous sidewalks? When these are the ideas being presented to city engineers I can imagine things don't go well. It is not a problem of infrastructure. It is a problem of cars that are piloted by angry, depressed, distracted, and a lot of other negative emotions and characteristics and levels of skill and judgement.

You have only to look at the vehicle statistics to see that despite the incredible over engineering of automobile chassis' and the sophisticated braking and traction control systems and and and ... drivers outwit them all and continue to increase the number of dead and maimed of their own ranks daily. Pedestrians, cyclists, animals large and small, are just more collateral damage. Until we can let go of the paradigm of cars everywhere and anywhere we will not have peace. Drivers cannot be educated. Cars cannot be made any safer. Lanes cannot be made any narrower. Speed limits cannot be lowered any further. Cars must be removed with exceptions (only) for essential (medical, fire, commercial) vehicles in urban centers.
Leisesturm is online now  
Old 05-11-23, 01:22 PM
  #5  
Troul 
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,291

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,910 Times in 1,884 Posts
I'd call it something like "ada handicap pedestrian commuting infrastructure" or close to it.

just have sidewalks continue along the same side of the road without needing to jump a curb, go in the street, cross the busy 40MPH+ roadway would be a dream. I know I couldn't safely as a ped go 15 miles in one direction without having to experience dropped off pedestrian paved surfaces. I'll at some point in those miles need to go on grass that is plagued with sharp objects, or go in the street with vehicles not paying much attention.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
Troul is offline  
Old 05-11-23, 01:46 PM
  #6  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
You have only to look at the vehicle statistics to see that despite the incredible over engineering of automobile chassis' and the sophisticated braking and traction control systems and and and ... drivers outwit them all and continue to increase the number of dead and maimed of their own ranks daily. .
That's incorrect:



Vehicle improvements have steadily reduced the death rates of drivers and other vehicle occupants. What hasn't decreased is their harm to the people who aren't in motor vehicles. Vehicle design matters, but we haven't gotten to the point where crash avoidance technology appears to be protecting cyclists and pedestrians.

I think when you give up on everything other than removing cars from cities, you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I doubt we'll see anything that drastic occur in our lifetimes.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 05-11-23, 01:55 PM
  #7  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Where we have a problem is imagining that there is enough physical space to create a practical network of protected bicycle infrastructure running parallel with the pre-existing one. Lowering traffic lights? Continuous sidewalks? When these are the ideas being presented to city engineers I can imagine things don't go well.
...
[Your recommendation]...Cars must be removed with exceptions (only) for essential (medical, fire, commercial) vehicles in urban centers.
I doubt that presenting your "idea" to city engineers or almost any other adult group outside of a fringe group of emotional activists will go much better.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
Old 05-17-23, 01:47 PM
  #8  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Throughout the west in a van, on my bike, and in the forest
Posts: 3,305

Bikes: Long Haul Trucker with BRIFTERS!

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked 45 Times in 39 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
I doubt that presenting your "idea" to city engineers or almost any other adult group outside of a fringe group of emotional activists will go much better.
Correct. A far more productive and realistic approach is to make sure that cars in the cities pay their fair share of commuting costs. We are starting to see this with "high density", "peak volume," and "inner ring" fees. While these are not perfect either, they help make sure that the 'marginal revenue' generated by automobiles helps offset their "marginal costs."

I've never lived in a big city for any great length of time (I was in London for six months) but the thought of having a car under those circumstances never entered my mind. And in small college towns where I usually live, I can walk everywhere anyway. I primarily use my van as a summer home, and a way to shop.
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 05-17-23, 01:56 PM
  #9  
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Throughout the west in a van, on my bike, and in the forest
Posts: 3,305

Bikes: Long Haul Trucker with BRIFTERS!

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked 45 Times in 39 Posts
Originally Posted by base2
Well when you have to explain to your cities chief engineer that crosswalks are "people space" and he says they are "shared space" we have a problem. If drivers actually shared the so-called shared space there would not be a conflict. Their failure to do so is a failure of design.

He referred me to another engineer on staff. This one in charge of the re-design of his failure. That meeting was productive & there have been several emails exchanged with specific infrastructure features now incorporated.

I don't know that demanding equal priority and consideration to the public space is really that radical.
I'm lost on this. Of course they are shared space. When the light is green use of the crosswalk by pedestrians is not allowed, and when the signal changes, occupation of the crosswalk by autos, cars, trucks and buses is not allowed. What else can SHARING mean?
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 05-17-23, 02:19 PM
  #10  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 4,489 Times in 3,338 Posts
There are a few "modern" changes that impact bikes.

Older US cities and neighborhoods were built on a grid pattern.

Newer cities like haphazard street layouts, and arterial streets.

In many senses this isolates neighborhoods and is good for drivers. But it is bad for cyclists that get thrown onto far too busy of streets.

I've lamented that in one place to cross the Willamette river, I have to go 2 miles south, cross the river, and 2 miles back north, when there is a perfectly good, albeit treacherous car bridge. Even driving, that bridge is a bottleneck, and it is not infrequent for me (when driving) to take the last onramp onto the freeway, then the first exit off of the freeway, just to cross the river.

Anyway, one design method to improve cycling safety is to get them onto neighborhood streets, without also attracting thousand of cars taking shortcuts onto those same streets.

Signs and sharrows on bike friendly low traffic through neighborhood streets.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 05-17-23, 04:22 PM
  #11  
base2 
I am potato.
Thread Starter
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,074

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1764 Post(s)
Liked 1,578 Times in 910 Posts
Originally Posted by Roughstuff
I'm lost on this. Of course they are shared space. When the light is green use of the crosswalk by pedestrians is not allowed, and when the signal changes, occupation of the crosswalk by autos, cars, trucks and buses is not allowed. What else can SHARING mean?
The conflict arises because drivers do not share the space. They blast right up through and past the stop bar & park in the crosswalk while they eye traffic to take a "free" right & often do so with out stopping to ensure they can safely enter the traffic flow.
They do not stop before the stop bar. Check for pedestrian or other users in the pedestrian thoroughfare, then proceed to the next thoroughfare, stop there to check for that thoroughfares users, as required.

You are supposed to stop before the sidewalk when leaving a business or residence driveway entrance to ensure the sidewalk is clear on your way towards turning on to a road, too. But nobody does that either. It's cultural, set forth from wrong design priorities.

The problem is the pedestrian right of way in these areas is sacrosanct as a matter of law. Pedestrians have the right of way. Car drivers are licensed to operate safely. Hence the million dollar insurance payments to victims of driver impatience or inattention. Car drivers doing the above behavior (disregarding ground paint or illegal actions) are set up for failure by inadequate infrastructure design that should encourage correct lawful vehicular operation.

The driver is crossing "people space" & there is no substantive infrastructure to inform/enforce driver behavior. Thus the bad driver behavior, disregard over other road users, the unnecessary conflict & my discussion with the cities engineer.

Last edited by base2; 05-17-23 at 11:10 PM.
base2 is offline  
Likes For base2:
Old 05-17-23, 09:11 PM
  #12  
Troul 
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,291

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,910 Times in 1,884 Posts
completed sidewalks with double width that are for the most part already along the "main" streets might be the easiest solution in many large populated states. there will be sections where the land is po & they will only sell for an obscene amount of cash... just build around those DB.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
Troul is offline  
Old 05-18-23, 09:07 AM
  #13  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by Roughstuff
I'm lost on this. Of course they are shared space. When the light is green use of the crosswalk by pedestrians is not allowed, and when the signal changes, occupation of the crosswalk by autos, cars, trucks and buses is not allowed. What else can SHARING mean?

I'm not sure what percentage of crosswalks don't have signal lights, but I'm pretty sure around where I live, that it's most of them. So the rule at these otherwise uncontrolled intersections is that the pedestrian always has the right of way if they are in the crosswalk. If your definition of sharing is the only one, the concept is completely meaningless at these crosswalks.
livedarklions is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.