Lane game
May 15th, 2007 by max linsky in News
We got a bike a few months ago. We are out of shape, and we sweat too much, so we haven’t been riding it to work, but we use it around the neighborhood — it makes us feel like a kid again. (And yes, we’re taking a spin with the Royal We.)
So we feel some affinity for the fine folks over at A.R.T., who got some great press today about their campaign to stop the city’s plan to remove the bike lanes between Fruitville 41 and 301. A.R.T. Prez Andrew Nouné can give you a more complete argument, but here’s the deal, as we understand it:
Under the Masterplan, they want to “beautify” the street and boost property values by putting in all kindsa landscaping and expanding the sidewalks. Becuase, you know, there’s so much pedestrian traffic on Fruitville. To do so, they’re gonna take out the bike lanes, forcing bikers to either ride on the sidewalk (three of the four bike crashes on this stretch in the last few years involved bikers on the sidewalk, in the other one the biker was going against traffic), or cruise down 6th Street.
There are safety issues and traffic issues, but the best point Nouné makes is about the city’s priorities and consistency of message:
It is immensely important that Sarasota not curtail choice of transportation on a major road in our city. Just last month the city entered into and endorsed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which calls for an “expanded bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,” a “sustained, targeted campaign that promotes reduced driving,” “improved transportation choices,” and directly resolves to “promote transportation options such as bicycle trails.” Simultaneously encouraging bicycle use while removing an integral bicycle corridor sends a dangerous and contradictory message to cyclists.
There’s a reason people use Fruitville — it’s fast and it’s central. That goes for bikes as well. If we want to be green, we need to make it as easy as possible for folks to make that switch. Does taking the bike lanes off Fruitville mean people won’t bike to work? Who knows. But does it encourage people to bike to work? Definitely not.
Plus, when they make decisions that will help a few property owners over the community at large, city officials are forced into awkward moments like this one:
Traffic studies found no cyclists used those bike lanes, and there is only so much room to build the road, said Dale Haas, Public Works technical services manager.
“We’re in a very tight situation,” Haas said. “We’re designing it for everyone, including the bicyclists, but they refuse to see that.”
Uh huh. Sure. That makes total sense.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Dale Haas has obviously been talking to the Downtown Partnership way too much. His claim that no one bikes Fruitville is absurd and he is continually misrepresenting the 6th Street “Bike Boulevard” (the road is too narrow for true bike lanes).
May 15th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
You say the city’s plan to widen sidewalks doesn’t make sense because, “you know, there’s so much pedestrian traffic on Fruitville.”
But that’s the point of narrowing the roads and widening the sidewalks — to INCREASE pedestrian traffic — the traffic that you’re right, rarely exists there.
They want to make Fruitville less of a barrier for people who would like to walk from Rosemary to downtown. The city says it IS being more green by doing this to Fruitville.
Fruitville between 41 and 301 is not pedestrian friendly, that’s why no one walks along it. They’re trying to make it more ped-friendly, and thus the city more walkable.
They’ve said (and in all fairness, their word is NOT their bond) that they will compensate for lost bicycle routes on Fruitville by creating other routes on less-traffic heavy streets.
It’s not about evil property values vs. angelic bicyclists rights — it’s about two groups who want the same outcome, but see different ways of accomplishing it.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
First of all, I walk from the Rosemary to downtown all the time, and that involves walking across Fruitville, not along it. The new crosswalks included in the plan with timers are great, and I’m all for them, but increasing traffic on Fruitville is not about getting folks from the Rosemary to walk down it. They walk across it. And even as it stands now, it’s much more annoying to do so by car than by foot.
The traffic they’re hoping for would be from new ventures on Fruitville, condos+retail in the now-vacant lots. Yes, Fruitville is not ped-friendly, but part of the reason nobody walks there is because there’s little on Fruitville that people want to drive to, let alone walk to. Hopefully that will change, and that’s what the plan is banking on.
I’m not saying that raised property values are inherently evil, or that bicyclists are inherently angelic (nothing about latex is angelic), but it does feel to me that cyclists are getting screwed out of a major thoroughfare to make way for the change, of which increased property values are a huge part.
But being a bike-friendly city — not, you know, the fifth-most dangerous in the state — is a worthy goal. A green goal.
From what I understand — and admittedly, I’m not as familiar with Masterplan as I could be — the hope is that Fruitville will be a welcoming street, an entrance to downtown.
If that’s the goal, why not make the stretch between 41 and 301 two lanes? Everyone would be happy — big sidewalks, big bike lanes, all the trees and streetlights we could ever want. But even the bike advocates at last week’s A.R.T. meeting laughed that option off as an impossibility.
Why? Because Fruitville, even close to downtown, is a thoroughfare, one motorists aren’t going to be willing to give up. So why should bikers — especially in a city that wants to encourage green living?
May 15th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
this should not be an either/or scenario. the goal of a pedestrian sleeve is to provide safe and comfortable access across Fruitville. putting these pedestrian sleeves on Fruitville is totally possible without ripping out bike lanes to do so.
to me, it seems that the aesthetic enhancements are where we find these goals in misalignment. simply putting in the pedestrian sleeves (perhaps with a few less bollards here and there) does not necessitate the removal of the bike lanes. the aesthetic enhancements (a couple extra bollards) are the linchpin to negating the bike lanes. as a result, we will undermine the potential harmony mentioned in the guest editorial: motorists have their two lanes, bicyclists their one, and pedestrians the sidewalk to themselves and safe, beautiful intersections to cross at.
and i’m not sure i buy the argument that these enhancements will miraculously make Fruitville a pedestrian haven. Fruitville will still be approximately the same size, with the same speed limit, and with the same number (19,000) of car trips per day to keep it rather unpleasant in terms of walkability. and on top of that, you’ll have bicyclists sharing the sidewalk with you!
and again, i must stress, especially because i am a bike commuter who uses this stretch of Fruitville to get to and from work every day, that, as currently formulated, this project will not provide compensatory bike routes in place of these bike lanes. the Fruitville bike lanes provide a signalized intersection for me to cross US 301, with the right of way and without the fear of having to beat a line of cars heading right for me.
in summary, a pedestrian friendly Fruitville is certainly possible while simultaneously maintaining the bike lanes. we can do it, and i bet it would be a lot cheaper too.