My Bucket List for Biking and Walking in Cupertino

Posted on July 26, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Here are the things I how to see, do, and experience in Cupertino:

  • Convince the City that Bicycles are a major part of the solution of traffic mitigation and for Sustainable Growth for the City.  This is the center theme of this blog;
  • Convince the City that Smart Growth processes must be employed in the planning for future growth in our City;
  • Convince the City that bicycles on streets have as much importance and priority in city planning as cars.
  • Convince the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission that SAFETY should be their prime directive for Bicycle and Pedestrian pathways and that their Mission should be “To Enable every residents of All Ages to Ride Their Bikes and Walk our streets SAFELY and Conveniently throughout the city as a means of mitigating traffic congestion.“;
  • See the City consider bicycles with the same priority in road planning as cars;
  • Be able to ride Class 4 separated bike lanes throughout our city;
  • Ride the Stevens Creek Trail connected from Cupertino all the way to the Shoreline in Mountain View;
  • Ride a safe and paved Southern Pacific Trail along the Southern Pacific railroad track through its length in Cupertino;
  • See and bicycle far more new bicycle/walking trails away from traffic;
  • See far safer and protected bicycle lanes around schools to increase bike safety and encourage far more students to safely bicycle to school thus reducing traffic;
  • See some closed off street to cars that people can bike and walk in to shop and eat;
  • Signal lights for bicycle traffic;
  • Synchronized signal lights for bicycles;
  • See sidewalk repairs and construction along East side of Bubb Rd. between Rainbow Rd. and Kennedy Middle School making it safe for students to walk to school.
Posted in Article, Considerations, Ideas | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Joys of Bike Riding

Posted on July 25, 2015 by Frank Geefay

This post is primarily for those who seldom or never ride bikes.  Bike rides are one of the best means of bringing one close to nature.  Unlike cars which are designed to isolate one’s senses from nature and the out of doors, bicycles by virtue of their design expose you to nature and ones surroundings.  For those like me who don’t ride for the physical challenge, it can be an exhilarating experience as long as there are no challenging hills.  On level ground one can leisurely bike 20-30 miles with hardly breaking a sweat.

Bike riding is far more enjoyable than walking because you can cover a lot more ground without tiring.  100% of your energy is used for mobility whereas in walking much of your energy is used to support your weight on your feet.  Yet your senses are only inches higher off the ground than walking.  If you want to stop and explorer it is a simple matter with a bike.  You have a lot of reserve energy not expended on carrying your considerable weight.  You can easily travel five times faster than walking and see, smell, hear, and feel your surroundings as intimately as walking without tiring.

It is this intimacy that makes biking such a joy and pleasure.  Even on cold days riding generates enough warmth to feel comfortable.  When in the company of others it is as easy to chat as it is when walking.  So not only do bikes bring one closer to nature they bring people closer to others riding along side or passing by.  Try doing that in a car.  They also allow one to say hi to walkers they pass.  And after a pleasant bike ride people feel more invigorated, energized, and fulfilled.  You cannot gain such fulfillment and engagement in a car.

I have a mountain bike which I used to ride in  ‘The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park‘ when I lived nearby a couple of years ago.  Much of the trail is fairly level but there are some challenging hills as well.  There is a Stevens Creek Trail running from Sunnyvale to Mountain View that I heard offers a very pleasant bicycle ride mostly away from traffic along Stevens Creek which I plan to use soon.  The best places to ride are bicycle trails away from traffic where you do not have to worry about being hit by a car.

There is a Stevens Creek Trail Joint Cities Feasibility Study being done between Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino that will  interconnect various segments of the Stevens Creek Trail along Stevens Creek so you can ride your bike from Cupertino all the way to the Shoreline in Mountain View.  This would be a fantastic ride that I hope one day to be able to make.  Unfortunately there are some Cupertino residents who object to the trail running in front of their houses since property lines are too close to the creek for a trail to be built.

There is also an unofficial trail along the Southern Pacific railroad track between Stelling Rd. and Bubb Rd. that could be developed into a bike trail (see Union Pacific Railroad Trail for Bicycling and Walking) as well as other areas in Cupertino that could be developed for safe bicycle and pedestrian use for all ages away from cars traffic with a little imagination if only the citizens of Cupertino would give their City Council, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and Park and Recreation Commission some suggestions, encouragement, and support.  Other cities such as Mountain View and Sunnyvale are making more nice bicycles and pedestrians trails away from traffic.  So can we.

Posted in Article, Considerations, Ideas | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Bicycle Express Lanes on Highway 85

Posted on July 11, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Highway 85 extends from Highway 101 North near Mountain View at its northern extremity to Highway 101 South in San Jose at its southern extreme.  There is Light Rail located on a section of Hwy 85 in San Jose near Hwy 101 South.  This corridor is about 24 miles long and carries the bulk of traffic along the western part of the South Bay from San Jose to Mountain View.  Long ago there was a plan to eventually bring Light Rail further north along Hwy 85 so there is space between the north and south bound lanes for an extra lane in both directions or so for some sort of transit system.

Currently VTA (Valley Transit Authority) lacks the funds for a Light Rail system along Hwy 85 so they are planning to build an extra toll/carpool lane running on each side of he freeway divide to help alleviate traffic and bring in some revenues.  But they admit this will only provide temporary relief to traffic congestion on this heavily used freeway during morning and evening commutes.  It is likely that all lanes will be again congested 8 years later if not sooner.

My thought is to place two bicycle lanes in each direction in the middle of the freeway so that people will have the option of riding their bikes along the freeway.  Concrete barriers could separate car traffic from the bicycle lanes.  Bicycle bridges over the freeway with bicycle elevators to carry bicycles and riders from the bike lane up to the bridges could be constructed every couple of mile or so for convenient exit to local streets.  These bicycle bridges would strictly be used for bicycles and bring communities on both sides of the freeway closer together.  The bike lanes themselves would be 2/3 the width of a car lane and made much thinner with much less reinforcement that car lanes making them very inexpensive.  The overall cost would be equal or less than VTA’s current toll/carpool lane proposal and many times lower than mass transit along 85.  This lane would encourage people to use bicycles to commute to and from work and elsewhere.

This would be an ideal bicycle route for people who enjoy bicycle riding because it would be much safer than on streets and quite long (20 miles), uninterrupted, and free of traffic.  It would start at the Light Rail station in south San Jose, and run near Caltran to the north as well as pass through the cities of San Jose, Los Gatos, Campbell, Saratoga, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Mountain View making all these communities accessible by a single safe bicycle lane.  Bicycle lane bridge exits would be unobtrusive and could enter many nearby residential neighborhoods not possible with cars making it very convenient for cyclists.

As drivers stuck in traffic see bicycles whiz by them at 10-20 mph during heavy commute hours they will be encouraged to take this very safe, fast, economical, no energy or pollution mode of travel to and from work.  People may also find this a very nice and popular way of getting around the Bay Area on bicycle.  I would expect that with time more and more people will use this bicycle lane to get around rather than drive their car removing more and more cars from Hwy 85 every year as communities grow.  More exits and bicycle bridges can be added later as biking becomes more popular in an area with some of the best weather in the world.  At a leisurely pace of 10 mph one could bike from one end of the bicycle lane in the south near Light Rail to the north end near Caltran in about 2 hours.

This will stimulate cities along this route to improve bicycle lane safety on their streets removing more and more cars off the roads as growth continues throughout this corridor leading to far more sustainable and green growth.  This actually is a long-term sustainable solution to traffic along Hwy 85 and adjoining cities.  If this is successful then this can be expanded to other freeways.

There are so many reasons why riding bicycles is better than driving cars.  It is good exercise, does not pollute the environment, costs almost nothing to do, occupies less than one tenth the space of a car, reduces traffic congestion, greatly reduces road maintenance, is far safer than driving a car, reduces parking space problems, get you to and from work faster than being stuck in car traffic, and is the most affordable mode of transportation.  And you always have the option to drive when you need.  If Light Rail should ever run through this area it will be a simple matter to remove the bike lanes and off ramps.  But I think everyone will see the advantages of this bicycle route and forget about Light Rail or any other transit system.  Biking is the most sustainable, efficient, affordable and flexible mode of transportation.  There are even electrical assist bikes to extend ones range.  I own one.

Postscript:

I think people are under the mistaken impression that we need to offload huge amounts of traffic to unplug Hwy 85 traffic congestion. Actually as little as a 5% reduction in car traffic will allow cars to go perhaps 20 mph during the worst of traffic and a 10% reduction can increase that speed to perhaps 30 mph. A 20% increase may get traffic up to 40-50 and a 30% reduction can possibly eliminate traffic congestion. So it doesn’t take that much to reduce traffic congestion. It isn’t an all or none. It is a gradual progression of reducing traffic.

Light rail can achieve this as well as a Bicycle Express Lane but the bicycle solution probably cost less than 20 time that of light rail to build and would take 3-4 times less time to accomplish with far less disruption to traffic on Hwy 85 during its briefer construction.  And the cost of ongoing operation and maintenance expenses of a bicycle express lane to residents may be a million times cheaper than light rail.  There are no charges to resident for biking the lane, there are few ongoing expenses except perhaps lights at night which would be run from solar cells, and resurfacing of the lane every 10 years or so.  There is really no comparison in terms of costs between the two.  It is also sustainable with growth.

There simply is no cheaper mode of commuting today than by bicycle.  One can afford to buy the best bike available and save far more than buying a cheap car.  No gas, registration fees, smog checks, oil changes, huge tire costs, engine maintenance, and insurance.  Even sidewalks are more expensive to make than asphalt bicycle lanes.  Why do Americans think cars are the only way to get around?  Because gas is so cheap?

Posted in Ideas | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Heated Conflict between City Government and Residents

Posted on May 17, 2015 by Frank Geefay

There have recently been a number of contentious and heated discussions between Cupertino residents and City Council involving proposed commercial developments in the General Plan Amendment.

The city is concerned that more than 30% of the its sales tax revenues come from a single source, Apple.  Apple is doing outstandingly well at present so tax revenues are coming in at a fairly high level.  But how long will it continue to maintain this level of economic success?  No one really knows so the city wants to plan for such an eventuality.  It want to diversify its portfolio of sales tax income base by establishing far more companies in Cupertino to reduce the risk of depending so much from a single company.  This involves building large amounts of office space to accommodate a greater diversity of business enterprises.  Of course if many of these companies are Apple vendors the risk will still largely exist.

Some citizens are concerned that such an large increase in more than 3,000,000 sq. ft. of concentrated office space will adding tens of thousands of cars to our roads create unimaginable traffic congestion at these locations impacting the quality of life of both citizens and commuters.  One such proposed location is next to the Wolf Road exit to HW280.  Apple is building a 14,000 employee campus near that exist.  And now a Vallco developer is proposing a 2,000,000 sq. ft. development at the same exist that may employ 13,000 employees.  This will Add more than 20,000 cars just to that street and exit alone in the next 5 years that will likely spill over into Stevens Creek Blvd. and other nearby streets and expressways.

I believe that both arguments have merit.  I also believe that both issues need to be discussed rationally and reasonable solutions and compromises found.  Both can have unintended consequences if not properly mitigated.  If creating more business and bringing in more employees from out of town creates traffic jams this will be problematic for employers as will as employees and residents.  However if business diversity is not implemented then if and when Apple fails to perform well the city may be short of revenues to run effectively.

I feel that there are solutions if we just sit down and think things through.  Our city is not the only city facing such dilemmas.  At one time Apple agreed to limit parking to 10,500 cars for its 13,000 employees and visitors and agreed to provide alternative transportation to 34% of its employees.  But as far as I know these agreements are not binding.

The reasons why many large cities have well developed public transportation systems is because of limited parking spaces, not so much because of traffic congestion or the lack of streets.  Perhaps limiting parking could be a way of incentivizing businesses to encourage employees to take alternative transportation.  Parking is something that the city has control over.  Perhaps the city could limit parking spaces for office developments based upon the ability of streets to handle potential traffic congestion.  Then it would be up to developers to mitigate these problems or limit the size of their developments.

In the case of Vallco the city can simply stipulate the number of parking spaces permitted this development based upon road and freeway exit capacity and let the developer determine the square feet of their development accordingly.  This would allow developers to build to the maximum size that they can determine for that number of parking spaces allowing the city to diversify their portfolio of tax revenues without creating insurmountable traffic congestion.  If they want more office space they must find ways that people can commute to work without needing more car parking.  It would also encourage everyone to take more public transportation or use other means of transportation such as bicycles or walking.

The city could hire mobility consultants to advise them on optimizing various elements of mobility throughout our city and spend money from taxes it now gets from Apple and other companies to make improvements to such infrastructures while we still have the income thus investing in the future now.  Or we can do as we are and simply wait until there is a crisis and pray for a solution.  Why not be more proactive?  Uncertainty simply sets us up for failure.

Reference post: A City without a Mission

Posted in Article, Considerations, Ideas | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A City without a Mission

Posted on May 15, 2015 by Frank Geefay

I feel that Cupertino is like a child trying by trial and error to finds its way.  It is a city without a Mission, Purpose or Vision.  There is no theme by which to guide the city towards the future.  It’s not just the City but its citizens.  So the citizens and City do what is expedient at the time to deal with any given situation.  That in part is why City Council frequently has discussions into the wee early morning.  The root cause of such lengthy meetings is because council members are confused and pulled from all directions without a clue what is best for the community because the community itself does not know what it wants.  If the city had a much clearer picture of the future for this community and a vision and principles by which to guidance city council, meetings would be much shorter and issues dealing with such things as Growth far less contentious.  But we are all on this small boat floundering around without sails or a rudder at the mercy of the waves and winds.

Having a Vision and guiding principle by which to grow sustainable is the primary purpose of the blog.  It provides a path that serves to give the city a rudder by which to sail when the wind blow, a Vision of what the future might be like and principles to guide city council in making decisions.  This Vision might be right, partly right, or entirely wrong, but for lack of anything better I feel it is the best one, really the only one, currently available.  But a conversation needs to be started to see if there are any other viable ideas.  Smart Growth defines what a sustainable city should be.  This can be used as a basis for discussions.

As long as there is no long-term vision the city will continue to struggle with every short-term issue involving growth or city planning.  If the city makes a mistake there may be major consequences difficult to correct such as traffic congestion and the quality of life for its residents.  The city is facing such a decision now regarding a dramatic expansion of office space next to the new Apple 2 Campus.  If the city make the wrong decision the city may be stuck with unprecedented traffic congestion that may ultimately cause businesses to fail or move out.  Had the city had a long-term Vision and a set of principles by which to work with this decision would be much easier to resolve.

Related post:  Heated Conflict between City Government and Residents

Posted in Article, Considerations, Ideas | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Smart Growth and the Role of Bicycles

Posted on May 10, 2015 by Frank Geefay

I’ve been recently doing some internet research and giving much thought into SMART GROWTH. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_growth presents a great discussion about it. It is a sustainable solution to urban development that counters the negative impact of car-centric urban sprawl. It addresses all aspects of efficient and sustainable community living including housing, jobs, reduced reliance on cars, education, low income housing, the environment, etc. It proposes that sustainable growth consist of high density housing along major transportation corridors with convenient access to public transportation, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes close to work, shopping, schools, and recreation.

There are some who are against any further growth or NIMBY. This seems self-serving because at one time they moved or were born here contributing to growth and now they don’t want anyone else coming. Then there are those who want residential and commercial growth to keep pace with neighboring communities, but to what ends, without great consideration to traffic congestion, the environment, schools, etc. Smart Growth seems to take a sustainably holistic approach to growth. There are lots of websites, organizations, cities, and states where this philosophy is being promoted even abroad.

So how does this relate to bicycles and bicycle lanes?  A major emphasis of Smart Growth is the minimization and ultimately the elimination of car from cities.  Cars are what made possible urban sprawl.  Our almost total dependance upon cars has lead to major problems for city growth such as Cupertino is start to experience due to traffic congestion and parking problems.  Other than man himself cars have had the most negative impact upon our cities as they continue to grow and run out of space.  Bicycles as in integral part of Smart Growth allow people great latitude of mobility throughout communities without the need for cars.  Bicycles have none of the negative impacts upon cities that cars have.  They have some limitations so far as convenience, carrying load, and distance but for 85-95% of our mobility needs they are perfectly suitable.  There are solutions for some of their limitations in terms of covered and electrical tricycles capable of carrying a couple of hundred pounds of load and multiple people.

So bicycles play perfectly into the schemes of sustainability of Smart Growth.  They also enable existing urban sprawl to morph into Smart Growth communities as they become more overcrowded as described in earlier posts such as Cities where Cars are not Needed and Biking Cupertino.

Posted in Article, Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

What I Wished the City Would Do – Bicycle Paths

Posted on May 9, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Background:

Cupertino is a rather medium small city in the San Francisco Bay Area with a population of about 50,000.  It is the home to Apple the most profitable company in the world.  The city government has a healthy general fund.  Currently bicycle lanes are not designed for people of all ages and abilities to safely use.

Proposed Project:

An accelerated program of Class 4 protected bicycle lanes and class 1 bike lanes throughout all major roadways thoroughfares and routs to public schools throughout the City of Cupertino. Improved routs throughout the city for bicycles such as the SP Railroad track for students and cyclists. Drinking fountains along major bike lanes. Bicycle stands conveniently located along routs, shopping areas, and public transportation stops. Educational programs for students and citizens

Cost:

$100 million estimated from city in additional to other county, VTA, Caltrans, state, and federal program funds.

Time Frame:

2-6 years from time of approval.

Benefit for the City:

  1. Place Cupertino on the global map as one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the world, a legacy which will grow every year as more people use bicycles to commute throughout our city for every day commuting.
  2. Provide opportunity for the people who live and commute in the city of Cupertino to safely ride bicycle throughout the city for pleasure, schools, shopping, and take public transportation at transportation stops.
  3. 5-30X increase in bikers each year.
  4. Reduce traffic congestion throughout the city and around schools especially as the city grows (sustainable).
  5. Reduced need for parking spaces at shopping centers, offices, library, and schools allowing for further expansion of these facilities as the city grows.
  6. Lower road maintenance due to the reduction in car traffic on the roads.
  7. Serve as an example for other cities to use as an example that such things are possible in other areas other than Europe.
  8. Make Cupertino Green
  9. Good for the environment making the city far more green.
  10. Increase shopping within the city due to the convenience of bicycle routs to local shops and a change of a car-centric culture towards a cycling culture.

Benefits for citizens:

  1. Safer bicycle routes will encourage more people each year to ride their bikes safely on the shared streets of our city. Reduced traffics will also lower accidents in general in the city saving significant medical and insurance expenses for all people living in our city.
  2. Riding bikes will reduce the number of car trips people make daily further lowering insurance rates, and reducing money and time spent at the pump.
  3. Reduce the cost of car maintenance and making cars last longer with lower mileage.
  4. Lower obesity and diabetes and other health related issues due to the lack of exercise for both youth and adults of all ages.
  5. Reduce the hassle of looking for parking spaces at work and shopping areas in the city.
  6. Reduce traffic around schools and the time parents spend taking kids to school.
  7. Teach children starting at a young age that there are alternative to riding in a car.

Other Benefits:

  1. Reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution.
  2. Reduce reliance upon fossil fuels.
  3. Reduce landfills with cars and car parts.
  4. Reduce the need to use resources to build and maintain cars.
  5. What better can we spend $110 million on, a Stevens Creek Corridor or new Civic Center?
Posted in Article, Considerations, Ideas | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Perhaps it is Time for a Change

Posted on May 6, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Since its popularity when Henry Ford made the car affordable to most American the nation has rapidly grown and the vast migration to the West was made far easier as traveling long distances became dramatically easier.  Urbanization and owning a home became the American dream with large housing tracks sprang up where empty field and farmlands once existed.  No time did such growth happen more rapidly than after the end of WWII when solders returned to civilian life.

But as the industrial machine and technologies start to flourish many of these individual suburbs started to run into one another and run out of space.  When millions of people converged onto the streets and highways twice a day they became congested and gridlock with car going as walking speeds.  This could go on for several hours twice a day as everyone went to works in the morning and returned home in the evening about the same time.  The South Bay and Cupertino, the headquarters of Apple is a prime example of such a suburb which is turning into a metropolis as it merges into the cities of Sunnyvale, San Jose, Mountain View, and Saratoga.  One can only tell when one is leaving one city and entering another by the signs that are occasionally posted to indicate a boundary.  This situation is becoming more common with time where growth is becoming increasingly more difficult because municipalities are running out of space.

The design of urban developments typically consists of hundreds of acres of low density housing tracts with large centralized shopping centers some miles away from these large developments to provide goods and services.  Such a design was popular because cars could easily travel large distances and there was a lot of very cheap empty space.  Such developments were also easy and inexpensive for developers to build in large scale projects through the 1950s-1960s.  But as this urban sprawl consumed large tracks of real estate and these communities grew in population in the 1970s to the present such as in the San Francisco Bay Area land became more scarce and property values escalated.  As mentioned in the previous paragraphs urban sprawl has turned into high density housing.

As the population increased so did the traffic.  For a time roads could be widened and freeways built and expanded.  But after the 1980s there was no more room for this.  So we are now left with a street and highway infrastructure that can no longer keep pace with the increase in population.  Building are getting higher to accommodate a higher density of population but parking and roads for cars is reaching a critical saturation.  Eventually people are going to find it increasingly more difficult to find a parking space and avoid traffic congestion like exists in most major cities.  To combat these problems large cities throughout time have developed public transit systems to minimize the need for cars.  Perhaps these new metropolises of saturated growth will also have to develop such expensive strategies for dealing with traffic.

But there is an opportunity that is far cheaper than an extensive public transportation system, that is a very expensive but safe bicycle infrastructure that exists in parts of Northern Europe, such as many Scandinavian countries.  This will allow people to commute by bike to major public transportation hubs reducing the need for an extensive and expensive bus system that goes to individual neighborhoods.

So cars are gradually outliving their practical usefulness as communities continue to grow and cars simply create more problems than they serve their purpose.  Perhaps it is time for a change.  This is what this website blog is largely about.

Posted in Article, Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What are Class IV Cycle Tracks (protected bicycle lanes)?

Posted on May 1, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Until very recently a very important bicycle lane design, one specifically intended to make bicycling safe from cars, did not legally exists.  Some of the leaders in safe bicycle lane designs went ahead and copied designs from Europe and other cities who were progressive in promoting safe bicycling like San Francisco.  Some cities such as Cupertino were more cautious about being progressive due to the potential of lawsuits since such bicycle lane designs were not legally specified by any government standards or bill.

This has recently changed in California as the state passed AB 1193 and the governor signed it into law on September 20, 2014 which legally introduces a class of Protected Bike Lane otherwise called Class IV (4) Protected Cycletracks.  I have already had discussions about Protected Bike Lane designs.  The photos in the header of this website are examples of protected bike lanes.  In essence these are bicycle lanes where there is some kind of physical barrier such as a curb or planters or parked cars separating car traffic from bicycle traffic.  The law describes this concept as separated bikeways.  This new law legitimizes cities who have already installed such protected bicycle lanes.  All cities are now free to us best practice designs for their situations without fear of lawsuits unless grossly negligent.  All that is required is a public hearing to explain to the public the design and benefit of the cycletrack and get their buy-in.  This law allows a very broad scope of separated bikeways to be used which is great.  European countries who encourage bicycling as a primary means of transportation have over many decades designed very good and well tested separated bikeways for us to study and adopt.

On May 28, 2015 there will convene in Sacramento a group of people who will get together to propose various designs to be incorporated into the Caltrans specifications which can be used by municipalities as guidelines.  This allows cities to design cycletracks most relevant to their situation and removes bureaucratic rules that may not cover every situation.

This opens the prospect of physically protected bike lane which will make bicycling far safer for people of all ages and proficiencies in riding bikes.  As a senior I am loosing my dexterity and ability to skillfully ride my bike.  I can still ride my bike fairly well but when doing so in traffic I sometimes loose my confidence.  With such bicycle lanes I will be able o ride my bike safely much further than I do today.  This is not the reason I am proposing safe bicycle lanes.  I envision bicycles as a long-term solution to sustainable growth which is not possible with cars due to space, safety, and a drain on resources.  But if I could experience such improvements in my lifetime I would be pleased.

The City of Cupertino’s Bicycle Pedestrian Commission is now looking into implementing Class IV cycletracks along its major road corridors and near some schools where traffic congestion is most problematic and hiring a consultant to advise them.  This is a great step forward.  I hope that they can make this as a priority item rather than something that is going to take 10-20 years.  I’d personally like to travel on one of these Class IV cycletracks in our city while I am still alive.  Something to look forward to.

To learn more see: Q&A about Class IV Cycle Tracks

Posted in Article, Legislation | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Car-Centricity

Posted on April 30, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Away from the major cities where parking is problematic and into cities built around urbanized sprawl exists a car-centric culture where cars are considered the only meaningful way to commute.  When car-centric people are asked if they foresee a day when cars may no longer be a major mode of transportation 8 out of 10 will say no.  But if asked whether they foresee a day when cars will no longer exists 9.9 out of 10 will say never.  Yet only 100 years ago cars were still not in common use.  The first gasoline run car was invented by Karl Benz in 1886 just about 130 years ago.  Prior to that the horse and cart had been used for thousands of years.  So cars had a relatively recent beginning and they will have an end.  Nothing made by man lasts forever.

Unlike nature which evolves gradually over many eons allowing defects to be gradually pruned out over time man’s inventions have evolved over a very short time not allowing enough time to remove most of its defects and weakness making his concoctions relatively short lasting and short lived.  This is more so in the modern world of high technology than before the industrial revolution 200 years ago where ancient edifices and artifacts still exist thousands of years later.  Today the average life of many of our high tech devices has a life of three to four years.  So just as the car was invented about 130 years ago it will one day outlast its usefulness to man due to the enormous infrastructures and energy needed to manufacture, support, and sustain it.

I believe that the bicycle will eventually replace cars.  The bicycle was invented around 1817.  Why won’t the bicycle see a similar fate.  It probably will one day far into the future but because it is such an efficient source of transportation requiring only a small fraction the infrastructure and energy to manufacture and almost no energy or resources to sustain compared to a car its adverse impact upon society and the environment will be negligible.  The reason its popularity never rose as a major mode of transportation is because the car was invented before it could attain greater popularity.  Cars have other attractive features such as they can travel great distances and carry several people and quite heavy loads.  In fact there are many less affluent nations especially in Asia and Africa where the bike has been the most prolific form of transportation.

The advantages listed for bikes make it far more sustainable as a means of long-term short-range (10 miles) transportation making it more far suitable in the future in a world where shorter supply of resources and energy, and greater affects of climate change are of far more importance then they are today.  Cars take up almost 25-30% of a city’s real estate in terms of roads, alleys, road side parking, garages and driveways, and parking structures.  Bicycles require a fraction of the space to operate and park making more valuable real estate available for habitation, schools, businesses, etc.  Bicycles also cause far fewer serious injuries compared to cars.  I have a long list of advantages of bicycles over cars in my post Pros and Cons of Cars vs. Bikes and web page Benefits of Biking.

As smaller urbanized cities grow and become more crowded, parking will become increasingly difficult and traffic congestion and street safety more problematic.  Street will have nowhere to expand and gridlock, when everyone leave for work and return home, commonplace as they already are on many of our highways and freeways.  More time and energy will be spent commuting from one place to another until people start looking for alternatives such as public transportation and, yes, bicycles.

A major stumbling block for commuting by bicycle is safety.  Streets crowded with cars and impatient drivers are not a safe place to commute by bicycle.  So people take public transportation if available.  But if our car-centric culture could change and bicycle lanes given the same consideration as streets for cars, safe protected Class IV cycle tracks could be designed just as they are in much of Europe to physically isolate cyclists from cars.  This would encourage far more people to use their bicycles which are far cheaper to use than taking public transportation or driving one’s car and  could be faster safely getting around traffic jams.

So car-centricity will be a temporary thing.  Eventually cars will become more of a hindrance than a practical mode of transportation and will become increasingly less important as a major mode of transportation.  The purpose of this website/blog is to make people aware of this and start planning cities to be far safer places for one to ride ones bike so when traffic become impossible people will have a ready alternative to commute by.  Alternatively as people become less car-centric they will become more will to ride their bikes and take alternative forms of transportation, slowly transitioning out of a car-centric culture and avoid having to face traffic congestion.  The latter case is by far the most beneficial.  Building a bicycle infrastructure when roads are highly congested is problematic because road closures to build such infrastructure will make traffic turn from very bad to impossible.  It is far better to be proactive and do it now and gradually transition away from car-centricity.

Posted in Article, Considerations | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Pros and Cons of Cars vs. Bikes

Posted on April 17, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Cars:-

  • Pros:
    • Can travel long distances;
    • Requires little effort to drive;
    • Can be very comfortable to ride;
    • Control of environment for passengers – temperature, noise, smells, sunlight, sounds (music), lighting, shelter from precipitation and wind;
    • Can be used to carry typically 5 passengers;
    • Can carry moderate loads.
  • Cons:
    • Uses fuel to run;
    • Produces large amounts of heat;
    • Produces pollution and greenhouse gases if fueled by gasoline;
    • Very heavy requiring motor/engine to run and causing road wear;
    • Relatively large requiring wide roads and parking spaces;
    • Causes high number of serious injuries and fatalities and associated burden on society;
    • Limited view of surroundings;
    • Expensive to buy;
    • Expensive to run: fuel, maintenance, insurance, license and registration fees;
    • Requires the utilization of resources to build, fuel, and for road infrastructure;
    • Major source of traffic congestion;
    • Often difficult to find convenient nearby parking;
    • Overall economic impact in term of personal expenses, environmental impact, and taxes are considerable.

Bicycles (including 3 and 4 wheel cycles):-

  • Pros:
    • Require no fuel to run;
    • Produce no heat;
    • Produce no pollution or greenhouse gases;
    • Very light resulting in almost no road wear;
    • Small taking up almost no room for roads and very little parking space;
    • Cause few serious injuries and almost no fatalities;
    • Relatively inexpensive to buy even for a very high end bike;
    • Cost almost nothing to run and maintain;
    • Uses very little materials to build;
    • Excellent source of exercise helping to reduce obesity and diabetes;
    • Does not cause traffic congestion;
    • Brings the rider close to nature and ones surroundings;
    • Easy to find convenient nearby parking;
    • Overall economic impact in terms of personal expenses, environmental impact, and taxes are negligible.
  • Cons:
    • Limited range typically 10 miles (though much longer distances can be achieved);
    • Requires effort to run (but good exercise);
    • Less comfortable to ride than a car;
    • Little protection from the weather.  There are bikes with protective shells but they are still somewhat open to the environment at the bottom;
    • Typically limited to on person or 2 people.  Some bicycles with 3 wheels can carry 3-4 riders;
    • More limited carrying capacity.  With trailer attachments can carry light loads.  However there are special purpose cycles capable of carrying heavy and large loads including RV cycles.

The primary advantages of cars are range and comfort.  However bicycles utilize few resources, provide a good source of exercise, and are sustainable as a city grows into the distant future without creating traffic congestion and dangerous roads.

If I have missed anything significant please Comment about it.  Thank you.

Posted in Considerations | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

A Reader’s Concern about Bicycle Subway Safety and the Handicap

Posted on April 15, 2015 by Frank Geefay

In my last post Cities where Cars are not Needed I gave examples of some cities where cars did not play an essential role in the daily commuter lives of citizens.  In this article I briefly described the concept of the Bicycle Subway described in greater detail in a previous post Bicycle Subway of the Future.  The question was concerning the safety in such subways where women and others vulnerable people might become prey to the criminal elements.

In order to implement such a bicycle subway system concerns of crime need to be addressed before building such a system.  Here is my take on safety:  these subways will be well-lit all the time with no place for people to hide with cameras capable of viewing every inch of the tunnel.  It will be far safer at night than the streets above.  As such traffic might be heavier in these tunnels at night than the streets.  Remotely controlled gates will be located at strategic locations throughout the subway that can be closed to isolate any section of the tunnel in case of a crime is seen by cameras until police can be summoned.  Such subways will probably happen some time into the future where 3D very high-resolution severance systems will be available and perhaps something better than gates used for catching criminals.  Because of the confined nature of these subway tunnels criminals will be far less likely to commit crime there than elsewhere.

These tunnels will be for people who want to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible any time of the day all year around.  those who are biking to enjoy the out-of-doors will bike above ground.  These tunnels will be maintained at a constant temperature of about 68 degrees F.  They will connect directly to all major subway stops and many buildings, public schools, and shopping and eating areas.  As I mentioned in the article bicycles in the future might be free to the public so all one needs to do is take a bike from a nearby kiosk, ride it to ones destination and drop it off at another kiosk located throughout the bicycle subway.

The other question was about the adverse effects of reducing the number of subway stop upon the handicap.  I am a senior myself who is starting to experience mobility problems so I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the handicap and have given much thought to their issues.  The fact that I have mentioned the handicapped in the last article is indicative that I have given them consideration.  If free bicycle cabs which are equivalent to those taking the handicap around today seem inadequate I envision electrically operated wheel chairs that are controlled by Google-like controlled technology such as control Google cars today that will wheel the handicapped along these bicycle subways giving the handicap far greater free mobility than they have today including more distant subway stops.  Batteries in the future should be able to take them many miles on a single charge.  Perhaps there will be a special handicap lanes for them enforced by cameras and bicycle patrols.

One must keep in mind that technology is growing in leaps and bounds and will solve many of our security and mobility problems.  I can only guess about solutions based upon what I know today.  But if we are to get away from the use of car and transition into bicycles (or cycles since not all will have only two wheels), solutions will be found.  There are many European countries especially in Norther Europe where entire nations are trying to make such transitions happen.  Cars have been a major form of mobility for only about 100 years so what did mankind do before then?  Cars will not last forever as was the case for the horse and carriage.  I’m sure there were many then who thought it ridiculous that cars would ever replace the carriage.

Posted in Considerations, Ideas | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Cities where Cars are not Needed

Posted on April 5, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Believe it or not there are a few cities in America where the majority of people do not routinely drive cars.  They are among the largest or most densely populated cities.  The problem people of these cities encounter is not traffic or driving conditions but finding parking spaces or affordable parking.  Since real estate is at such a premium and building underground parking so expensive densely populated cities have few parking spaces per capita.  Thus cities such as New York and San Francisco have fairly well-developed and utilized transit systems to mobilize their populations.

This is an example of how unsustainable cars are as population grows.  As rural communities such as Cupertino become more crowded and densely populated they will one day eventually merge into one high density populated metropolitan area where parking will become scarce.  As such communities grow cars will be driven less and alternative transportation become more developed.  Transit systems can be developed at great expense but this is an opportunity where far cheaper bicycle infrastructure can be developed along with transit systems thus reducing the need for making such transit systems so extensive and expensive.  If bicycle paths can be made safe and convenient fewer transit stop or transit routs would be needed.

If New York had no cars and instead narrower streets designed for bicycle traffic and parking then the city’s subway system could have far fewer stops and shorter trains and people could bicycle for up to 5 miles to destinations.  If bicycle paths could consist largely of small tunnel subways branching throughout the city including underground transit stops and the basements of companies and shops it would not be subject to winter weather conditions and could remain well-lit by LED lights all the time.  Free tricycle cabs could pick up the elderly and handicap.

If bicycles could be provided and maintained free by the city then one only needs to pick up a bike at a nearby kiosk and bike to the subway transit stop, leave the bike at a kiosk there and take the subway, pick up another bike to their destination.  When biking home one can keep the bike until the next day, then repeat the process.  Bikes are so cheap that such things are possible.  This would totally eliminate bicycle theft or problems of having to lock up and maintain bikes.  Free bicycle kiosks would be conveniently located every block or so.  Of course one can still own their own fancier or specialized bike.

If a bike has a mechanical problems one only needs to raise a small flag at the back of the bike, leave it where it is to be picked up by the city for repairs and go to a nearby kiosk to pick up another and continue on.  If one goes shopping and needs to carry a load they can buy a shopping cart such as a Travoy (I have one) to shop and later tow behind the bike.

Because bicycles and bicycle infrastructures are so cheap, compact, and the epitome of energy efficiency, building and maintaining bicycle subways instead of street level bicycle paths is both doable and economical.  This allows housing to be built where most streets and parking lots exist today without creating a financial encumbrance, environmental burden, or real estate demand upon our growing and increasingly crowded communities, something truly sustainable.  There is no reason why this couldn’t start today.  Driving is an established cultural issue, not an issue of necessity.

Reference:  A Reader’s Concern about Bicycle Subway Safety and the Handicap

Posted in Article, Considerations, Ideas | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Transform Petition for More Funding for Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure on El Camino Real

Posted on March 11, 2015 by Frank Geefay

The following was copied from the Petition by Transform:

Despite minimal state investments –less than 2% of the transportation budget–, nearly 1 in 5 trips in California are now on foot or by bike. The State has a tremendous opportunity to again double walking and bicycling trips by 2030 by making strategic investments to shift car trips that are less than one mile, which account for an additional one-fifth of all trips. This would reduce congestion, carbon emissions, and poor air quality in our neighborhoods, and ultimately contribute to achieving our state climate goals. Walking and bicycling improvements are the most cost-effective projects for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: shifting trips under one mile from driving to active transportation would avoid approximately 1.3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, increased active transportation investments help the state achieve AB 32 co-benefits by providing healthy, safe, and connected transportation choices for all Californians. Investing through the state Active Transportation Program would prioritize low-income communities and communities of color who disproportionately suffer from traffic violence, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of access to green or open space. Low-income communities of color in Los Angeles County, for example, lack safe sidewalks and bikeways and green space, with less than 2 acres of park land per 1000 residents.

Without this critical infrastructure, LA County residents experience a 39 percent rate of walking and bicycling roadway fatalities, and a high childhood obesity rate of 23 percent. By pairing green infrastructure with active transportation, the state can maximize its climate change investments: improving the quality of the community environment, improving public health through increased active transportation and recreation opportunities, and providing significant heat mitigation, air quality, and carbon sequestration benefits.

Despite the overwhelming opportunity presented by active transportation, the state Active Transportation Program (ATP) is critically underfunded and under-resourced, with nearly $800 million in shovel-ready walking, bicycling and Safe Routes to School projects and programs left unfunded in last year’s ATP Cycle.

The Solution

Creating healthy, connected communities with walking and bicycling opportunities will help achieve the ambitious climate goals set out in Governor Brown’s 2015 State-of-the-State Address and recent legislation introduced by Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León.

  1. Increase funding for the Active Transportation Program (ATP) by $100 million to reduce vehicle miles traveled and the household cost of transportation, while improving public health, air and water quality, economic development, and livability of communities.

  2. With increased ATP funding, integrate green infrastructure and access to parks and green space more fully into the goals and eligibility of the ATP to increase the greenhouse gas reduction potential and co-benefits of the program. Green infrastructure such as shade trees, vegetated planters or park strips between curb and sidewalk, bioswales and permeable paving increases street-level comfort and encourages walking and biking for both transportation and recreation, multiplying the climate emissions and mitigation benefit of active transportation projects.

  3. Ensure substantial ATP investments in projects that provide meaningful benefits to disadvantaged communities to uphold the goals of SB 99 (2013) and SB 535 (2012).

Also See:  Governor signs bill to create a new Active Transportation Program

Posted in Legislation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

California State Senate Bill No. 1183 – Vehicle registration fees: surcharge for bicycle infrastructure

Posted on March 9, 2015 by Frank Geefay

SB 1183, DeSaulnier. Vehicle registration fees: surcharge for bicycle infrastructure.

Existing law provides for the imposition of registration fees on motor vehicles, including additional, specified fees imposed by local agencies for transportation-related purposes.

This bill would authorize a city, county, or regional park district to impose and collect, as a special tax, a motor vehicle registration surcharge of not more than $5 for bicycle infrastructure purposes until January 1, 2025. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to administer the surcharge and to transmit the net revenues from the surcharge to the local agency. The bill would require the local agency to use these revenues for improvements to paved and natural surface trails and bikeways, including existing and new trails and bikeways and other bicycle facilities, and for associated maintenance purposes. The bill would limit to 5% the amount of net revenues that may be used by the local agency for its administrative expenses in implementing these provisions.

The bill would require a local agency that imposes the $5 surcharge to submit an annual fiscal yearend report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total net revenues received and expended during the previous fiscal year and a summary of the infrastructure and projects funded by the surcharge.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually on street and freeway infrastructures to make them carry more cars.  But our streets are getting more congested each year even as we expand their infrastructure.  Perhaps another approach is to reduce the number of cars on our roads.  What if more people rode their bikes?  Building more safe bicycle infrastructures will do exactly that.  Support SB 1183 to make this possible!

Articles pro and against:

SB 1183 Is No Longer a Bike Tax

CABO opposes SB 1183, tax/fees for bike sales for trails

Posted in Legislation | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Debate over California’s Proposed Mandatory Helmet Law

Posted on February 25, 2015 by Frank Geefay

“A bill introduced last week by state Sen. Carol Liu (D-La Cañada Flintridge) would extend California’s youth helmet requirement to adults, mandate reflective clothing while biking at night and fine cyclists $25 for not complying.” – Huff Post

The debate rages on whether to make it mandatory for adults to wear helmets.  California had 124 bicycle deaths in 2012, most from people not wearing helmets.  In Australia after mandatory helmet laws were implemented in 1990 bicycle deaths from accidents dropped by a quarter.  But bicycle ridership also dropped by a quarter.  So assuming a quarter drop in fatal bicycle accidents deaths in California fatalities would drop by 31 from 124 to 93.  But if we assume that there are 200,000 cyclists in California the drop in people riding their bikes could be 50,000 based upon Australia’s data.  More people are killed in car accidents in one week than are killed on bikes in one year.  Perhaps there should be a mandatory helmet law for people riding in cars.  That makes far more sense.

I feel that the 31 lives saved with a mandatory helmet law is far outweighed by the drop of 50,000 people riding their bikes today.  I have written many posts showing the importance of getting more people to ride their bikes instead of drive their cars.  Making bicycle lanes far safer will both reduce bicycle accidents between cars and increase the number of people bicycling our streets without a change in the helmet laws.

Last year we had one bicycle fatality but that teenager tragically killed was wearing a helmet.  It is common sense to wear a helmet as I always do but if fewer person ride their bike because of such a law I’d rather not have such a mandatory law.  The better overall good would be served for more people to ride their bikes than the very few who loose their lives because they did not exercise common sense.  And safer bicycle lanes using for example Protected Bicycle Lanes would go much further towards saving lives.  Adults must be responsible for exercising common sense since so few cyclists are killed annually.  We cannot legislate mandatory helmet laws for adult if it discourages them from riding their bikes.  It is my opinion that getting more cars off the road by making bicycle lanes safe is far more important.

Posted in Article, Considerations | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Political Realities Can Change

Posted on February 25, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Whenever Government is involved in deciding how to best spend tax dollars politics more often than not plays a huge and deciding role.  The needs of the citizens being served by elected officials are less served than the political interests of our elected officials or the financial needs of government.  This reality happens at every level of government including our city hall officials.

When the true reasons of spending is a pet project of an elected official they will rationalize all kinds of reasons to make it sound as if it is good for the entire community.  Unfortunately this is more the general rule than the exception.  If citizens attended more city council meetings and stayed for the entire session they would see such a pattern.  I have often been very critical of Cupertino City Council for wanting to build a new Community Center and parking structure for $57 million and a Stevens Creek Corridor for $55 million that will benefit only a small segment of our population.  Why not spend that money on a bicycle lane infrastructure for all citizens and solve some real issues such as traffic congestion and bicycle safety?

This is why many cities such as ours never develop into outstanding cities.  There are simply too many very expensive pet projects that serve few residents.  Without our two great school districts and Apple the city of Cupertino would have absolutely nothing to distinguish itself for.  All the amenities Cupertino now enjoys are due to the high property taxed of our very expensive houses and the sales tax revenues from Apple.  Without these two element which have little to do with our city government Cupertino would have little going for it.

But it does have world class schools and a class of its own company, namely Apple headquarters and does collect sizable taxes from both residents and companies.  Even during the 2008 crash Cupertino remained in the black and solvent while neighboring cities struggled with huge budget cuts which in some cases such as San Jose still persists.  So now that Cupertino has a surplus of more than $30 million this seems an opportunity for the city to do something really great, invest in a sustainable infrastructure involving bike lanes.

Why not make Cupertino truly unique by being the Bicycle Capital of America.  Why not use this surplus money together with grants from other agencies to build the best bike lane system on this continents?  Cupertino is small enough to make this possible and the money and resources to make it happen.  Instead of spending $112 million on a new civic center and Stevens Creek corridor how about spending it on bicycle infrastructure to make our streets safe to bike and convenient for shopping and commuting anywhere withing our city or even interconnect with other city bike paths?  By encouraging people to bicycle safely we will remove cars from the road thus reducing traffic and traffic congestion.  By making these bicycle routes attractive with landscaping and trees for shade and drinking fountains along the way we make these routes appealing attracting more bikers.  By providing short cuts through town we make biking faster.  By making biking trails along creeks and railroad routes we make bicycling adventurous.

If we build a world class bicycle city of people of all ages people around the world will hear about us and come here to see what we have and bike our streets.  We will steal shoppers from other communities to shop in our bicycle and shopping friendly city free of traffic congestion and parking problems.  What a great city to visit.  Wouldn’t you like to visit such a city?  It could be your city.  And we have such fantastic weather most of the year.

Since bikes cost virtually nothing to buy, ride, and maintain they will safe residents money to spend on other things.  They also consume no fuel and produce not pollutions and greenhouse gasses so are very environmentally friendly.  They are far safer than driving resulting  in far fewer serious or deadly accidents.  They are a great source of exercise for improving health and controlling weight.  And the list goes on.  But most importantly for the city is that it allows growth to become Sustainable.

So why can’t Cupertino become the Bicycle Capital of the Americas?  City Council lets us put Cupertino on the map as a truly unique city, a long lasting legacy that will outlive all of us.

Posted in Article, Considerations | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why are Citizens Against More Housing But Not Traffic Congestion?

Posted on February 23, 2015 by Frank Geefay

There is a very strong movement against Housing Growth and where to place mandated housing in Cupertino fueled in part because of traffic congestion around their neighborhoods and schools.  But few are addressing traffic directly which is the real problem.  People are also concerned about overcrowded schools but the two school district superintendents indicated at last year’s General Plan Amendment workshop that with the exception of a few schools there is room for growth using funds generated from Measures J & K.

So the real problem is traffic congestion which can be solved by means other than simply banning further housing growth or moving housing to or away from certain locations.  Stopping growth may stop the increase in traffic but will in itself not improve it where it is bad.  But due to RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) represented in the Bay Area by ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) every Bay Area city must take on its fair share of housing as the Bay Area grows.  So growth is inevitable.

The problem is the General Plan and its most recent amendment only deal with commercial and housing development.  It does not address traffic which gets worst with such developments.  As explained in the post Cupertino General Plan – There is no Mobility Element! there is a framework for a Mobility Element that directly addresses traffic but neither the City nor those up in arms against growth have addressed this directly as an issue on its own merits.  Instead everyone is fighting over where to place housing as part of the General Plan Amendment.  There is a battle whether to place more housing to the east or west of town

Why don’t people address the real problem, namely Traffic?  Wouldn’t the city be a nicer and safer place to live without having to worry about auto traffic?  Residents currently have to adjust their schedules to the ever increasing traffic patterns like we adjust our travel plans due to weather patterns.  However unlike weather, traffic can be fixed by reducing it.  For example if far more children rode their bikes to school traffic jams around schools would clear up making streets easier to drive and safer to bike.  But since streets are so crowded with cars and dangerous to bike parents will not allow their kids to bicycle to school and instead drive them causing the problem to worsen.  So if the city could make the streets safer for biking more parents would allow their children to bike breaking the cycle of increased car traffic.  The safer the street are made for bikes the more kids will bicycle to school further reducing traffic.  Schools could also get involved in encouraging more cycling supplemented with educational programs to foster safer bicycling habits.  The same applies for streets around town and residents riding their bikes.  It has been proven throughout the United States and around the world that safer bike routes encourage more people to cycle.

So the vicious cycle of more and more cars taking kids to school can be reversed by devising safer routes for biking to schools as well as around town.  This can only happen if citizens insist that this become a city priority by convincing City Council to have the Political Will to set this as a priority and that significant funds and resources are allocated towards this goal.  This can be effictively done if it is incorporated into the General Plan Amendment as a countermeasure to the consequences of growth.  So where is the public outcry making it clear to the city that it needs to make bicycle rouse part of the General Plan to make streets safe for students going to school and residents riding around town?  Painting bicycle lanes neon green and making more laws for drivers to follow isn’t going to make the streets any safer for kids as long as drivers can ignore the laws and painted bike lanes.  It takes a commitment by the city and some ideas such as expressed in the posts Protected Bike Lanes and Best Practices in Bicycle Lane Designs or illustrated in other Videos Clips of Bicycle Lane Designs.

But bicycles are not the only solution.  There are also Public Transportation alternatives offered by VTA and a shuttle bus that the City could run such as in Los Gatos and Palo Alto as well as school buses like in the good old days.  It will likely involve a combination of Mobility options to solve the problem in the long term but we must first realize that Traffic is far more of an issue than inevitable commercial/housing growth.

Posted in Considerations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Best Practices in Bicycle Lane Designs

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Frank Geefay

The emphasis of this article is on making bicycle lanes as safe as possible.  No single solution fits all circumstances.  Such considerations as driveways, intersections, cars making right terms, bikes making left terns, etc. must be considered for any given street.  The objective is to make biking as safe as possible for the lowest denominator, those who are not skilled at bicycling or those who are young and immature.  The experienced and advanced bicyclists can mix with car traffic as they are now if they please.

Protected Bike Lanes (Cycletracks):

Protected bike lanes have physical barriers between traffic and the bicycle lane typically Curbs, Posts, Planters, and Parked Cars, and Solid Concrete Barriers.  This makes is impossible for cars to drive into these bikes as was the case for buffered bike lanes.  Protected bike lane are safe from traffic where ever these barriers are present.  Bicyclists are still vulnerable at street intersections and driveways but they are significantly safer than most other forms of bike lanes.  It has been shown over and over again that protected bike lanes bring out more people to bicycle thus reducing the number of cars on he road.  The two videos below illustrate protected bike lanes

 

Protected Intersections:

A protected bike lane are safe until it comes to intersections where again bicycles are exposed to traffic.  Protected intersections were invented by the Dutch and are illustrated in the video below to make intersections safe for bicycles and pedestrians.

Median Bike Lanes:

I median bike lane is built at the center of the road.  This has the advantage of allowing cars to enter driveways without having to cross the bike lane.  This can also make a very pleasant bicycle expressway across town.

Raised Bike Lanes:

Raised bike lanes can take several forms.  What they have in common is that the bike lane is at a higher level than the street.  The purpose of raised bike lanes is to make it physically difficult for cars to drive on the bike lane and to discourage bicycle from going into the street lanes.  The earliest raided were simply extensions to the sidewalk with a marked bike lane.  This evolved into the two step configuration where the bike lane was between the street level and sidewalk level intended to protect pedestrians from bicycles (see below).

Half Step Raised Bike Lane (Cycletrack)

This later evolved into a sloped strip between the bike lane and the road to allow bikes to more easily go into the car lane when crossing the street.

The photo above show a gently sloping and wide transition but the sloped transition can be more narrow for narrow roads.  Texturing and coloring the transition as shown helps to announce its presence to both cars and bikes.

The greatest advantage of raised bike lanes is they can be implemented where the road it too narrow for a Protected Bike Lane.  They are also effective for garbage trucks which can climb the sloped transition to the bike lane to collect garbage at the curb.  Driveway only need an extra slope between the bike lane and the sidewalk.  This is still not as safe as a Protected Bike Lane but is far safer than a painted bike lane.  It is a good compromise where a Protected Bike Lane is not possible doe to space limitation or garbage truck pickups or driveways.

I will continue adding more examples as I come upon them to visit this post in the future to see new best bike lane practices.

Posted in Examples | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Protected Bike Lanes

Posted on February 17, 2015 by Frank Geefay

Protected Bike Lanes were first developed in Norther European countries to physically separate bicycles form cars to increase safety and to make bicycle lanes Appealing by incorporating landscaping and tree along the rout.  This also make it safe for people of all ages and riding abilities to safely ride their bikes.  It is this feature that make biking so popular year round in countries with a lot of rain and very cold and snowy weather.

This has a strategy communities serious about drawing more of their community to ride their bikes such as Portland Oregon and New York City.  There are many templates for such trail from Europe and U.S. cities (see Safe & Pleasant Bike Lane Designs for photos).  This design consideration fulfills two of my criterion for a successful bicycle: Safety and Appeal.

Safety – Safety from accidents with cars is so important in making bicycling popular.  If people do not feel bicycle paths safe, people who casually bicycle will not venture out to bicycle.  Most parents will not allow their young children to bicycle in street that they feel are unsafe which is most streets withing our city.  So in order to draw out more people to bicycle our roads we must build bicycle paths that have the appearance of being safe.  This can best be done by placing physical separation/barriers between cars traffic and bicycle paths.

Appeal – After designing safe bicycle paths with physical separation from cars they need to be landscaped with shrubs, green areas and shading trees to make them pleasant and appealing.  Drinking fountains should be placed periodically along such paths for bicyclists to conveniently quench their thirst for long rides.  There should be shaded rest areas with seats for people to take breaks or get out of the occasional rains.  The path should run along streets with shops and eateries for the convenience of bicyclists to take breaks and shop.

It is essential to build protected bicycle paths if a city is serious about drawing people our to bicycle instead of drive.  The more people ride their bikes instead of drive their cars thus reducing the number of cars on the road.  Reducing car traffic allows the city to sustainably grow.  It should be the most important thing the city can do.  Northern Europe has been working on this since 1970 and are half way to near totally bicycle nations.  We can learn from them and take far less time.

Posted in Considerations, Examples | Tagged , , | 4 Comments