Home › News ›

Bike-Friendly Intersection Bad For Cars

Posted by: jongalloway

19 September 2007 - 12:00pm

A Missouri developer claims that intersection upgrades that make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists are hostile to cars.

"A plan to make intersections safer and more convenient for pedestrians and cyclists has business owners worried it will have the opposite effect on drivers."

"Upon seeing plans for a project at Forum and Stadium boulevards, Forum Development Group Executive Vice President Jay Lindner contacted the city to voice concerns that the changes would delay traffic, cause backups and create unsafe conditions for drivers."

"David Nichols, the city’s chief engineer, said this configuration allows drivers to see pedestrians in front of them and also allows them to judge oncoming traffic more easily."

"'It’s a fairly predominant movement to these kinds of intersections, and it’s something we have found to be desirable in other locations in town,' Nichols said."

Full Story: Bike-friendly plan seen as hostile to drivers
Source: Columbia Tribune, September 17, 2007
»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bike-friendly intersection bad for cars

Submitted by gmhendo on Thu, 09/20/2007 - 12:56.

UUmmm have we forgotten that cities exist for PEOPLE, not for cars?. Perhaps if more developers understood social exchange then they would design their projects a little differently. There are grounds to argue for fewer cars... pollution, physical health, noise to name a few; contrast the social benefits that flow from people actually meeting and talking as you can on a bike.
Cities are for people to mingle, exchange stories, goods and services, companionship and way more. Cars are a 'creature' we have allowed to dominate our cities and lives,while doing little to foster social (neighborhood) exchange, and certainly come at a massive environmental price. Come on Mr Developer, as we say in Oz, 'get on your bike' and ride.

Bicycle Friendly???

Submitted by Charles Siegel on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 13:45.

In addition, the new "bicycle-friendly" design is really not very bicycle friendly. It is still a typical auto-oriented suburban intersection, but with turning radii that are a bit tighter. It should be called "less bicycle-unfriendly."

Charles Siegel

Bike Friendly ???, indeed

Submitted by petemorris on Thu, 09/20/2007 - 10:41.

I've never been to Columbia, MO, but based on both the article and some playing around with Google Maps, I'd have to agree with Charles that the proposed design doesn't serve bicyclists well. Indeed, I'd argue that the status quo is actually better, as the proposed right-of-way crossing involving the new bike lane along Stadium with the new right-turn on-ramp (er, "lane") looks VERY dangerous.

Based on my view from afar, my first choice as a regular cyclist (both recreational/racer and commuter) would be to avoid this intersection altogether and use an alternative route. My second choice would be to NOT use the new bike lane but instead share the regular right-turn lane with cars.

--
Pete Morris
Geography and Urban Studies
Santa Monica College

Safety vs. Convenience

Submitted by dhofmann on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 13:41.

So safety at the cost of convenience is now suddenly a bad thing?

road speed vs convenience.

Submitted by Dano on Thu, 09/20/2007 - 03:41.

I'm not sure that the business owners along this strip are all for 50 mph conveyance speeds. Slower speeds mean motorists can read their signs and see their wares. I'd like to hear what they say after someone points this out to them.

And I agree with Charles - I'd be extra wary at this intersection if I was on my bike.

Best,

D

What's bad for cars is good for people

Submitted by Patrick on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 11:42.

Studies done in both Europe and Asia have shown that making it harder to drive by removing signs and markings increases pedestrian safety, as motorists are forced to slow down and pay attention to what is going on around them. Anything done to make it easier to drive winds up increasing a pedestrian's chance of being injured. The developer in the article complains that right-angle turns force the motorist to slow down too much, and will create more congestion. Someone else in the article says that autombiles will be the dominant form of transportation. Given the realities of peak oil and global waming, does it make sense to continue to accommodate cars at the expense of less energy-intensive methods of travel such as walking, cycling, and transit?

sustainablecity.blogspot.com

Bookmark and Share
“
No matter how one wanted to organize the ideal city, housing security would be part of it. No community can function effectively if large numbers of its residents are regularly displaced or perpetually at risk of being displaced.
”