Yo! Thanks so much for reporting on these issues. I couldn’t make it out last night because, unlike most of the BAC reps, my ass is poor and I had to hustle for cheese. 😉 So I very much appreciate getting the cliff notes from our very own bike reporter!! Much respect for that.

In any case, and just to clarify, there seems to be two camps on this issue, right? In one group, there are those who don’t like bike boulevards because money is already tight for the RTA and Tucsonans didn’t have a chance to vote for it in 2006, thus creating a potential illegality. And then in the other group, there are those who support bike boulevards because it’s more useful than an urban loop for commuters (supported by statistical evidence, apparently) and the RTA regularly takes action on behalf of the citizenry without voter approval anyway, so legal issues are relatively moot.

Is this a fair (albeit overly-simplistic) breakdown of the contention we’ve seen lately? Feel free to correct me where I’m wrong. Thanks.

Regards,

Ryn

Hey Mike,
Regarding Saguaro Nat’l Park and 14 serious bike issues, my impression was these were crashes, not collisions. In any case, an uptick of serious incidents – whatever they’re called – in SNP needs to be “looked” at.

Thanks for being at the meeting!

You hit the high points.

There are also camps that think the Urban Loop will be more useful and want to fund it at all costs.

And then another camp who doesn’t think it will benefit people outside of the city, so they don’t think it should be funded using regional money.

I think I ought to have you write some stories for me!

Many of the arguments are used by the same people, so they often don’t just fit into one team, but you have the main arguments that people have been using.

It was also mentioned at the meeting about those
who went on the ‘preview’ ride of boulevard routes
and had the revelation of, “Gee whiz. Riding on this
residential street isn’t so bad.”
People are just gonna have to square themselves around
to —riding—
Boulevards are not a door-to-door thing and riders will
find themselves having to use:
a greenway (if they’re lucky)
a connector (most in this town are actually great)
an arterial.
How attractive will a trip be if 25%-30% has to be done
on something other than a boulevard?

Yep, those residential streets are great to ride now until you have to cross a main road that has 8 lanes with cars going 40 mph. If your destination is less than a mile a way I guess that works, but if you are trying to go 3 miles or 5 miles, maybe a bike signal would help, no?

Yep, that’s the spot with the most crashes. Unfortunately for future crashers, it’s my understanding SNP cannot change/re-route/straighten/significantly modify Cactus Forest Loop because ? I forget how the road is protected – it’s on the Nat’l Register of historical roads? Something like that.

Scott, do you think people who were just starting riding or wanted to take up riding, but were afraid of traffic would be comfortable crossing them?

Yeah, eliminate one excuse only to be presented with the next excuse.

I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but I have three acquaintances whose riding is or was contingent on quality bike routes.

One used to live along Aviation, another along 3rd street, and they commuted by bike regularly. Both stopped riding when they moved away from those areas. The third friend moved to a house near Mountain and has been biking since.

It isn’t bike blvd vs Urban Loop, they are about as similar as apples and grapefruit. The idea of the loop is recreation. Bike blvds represent quiet ways in that commuters can get to work, or shopping. The blvds are in place without the calming, some routes have access to hawks and other ways to cross busy streets, but basically there is no reason that you use these routes now. If you are looking for a route it may take some trial and error, eventually you can find a route that meets your needs. Linda commutes 20 miles from northwest (La Canada and Magee) to south central (Drexel and Campbell). She has refined the route over the years and it now is quite functional. So get out and build your own route.
The loop is where you take your kids to build confidence in bike riding.
We need to think more in terms of education. There is something that everyone could learn from Bike Safety Classes. I know that encouragement and confidence can go a long way in getting from point A to point B.
Do something ,take action,the really cool thing about bike blvds is that they can be built with funding from many more sources that other road projects. Look at Dunbar Springs. they are going to have one way cool bike friendly neighborhood.

L,

Agree not exactly the same fruit but they are closely related. Both are ‘low-stress’ facilities where people can go considerable distances without having to deal with much traffic. The more low-stress bike facilities we build, the more we will minimize the excuses people have for not getting out onto bikes. Bike lanes on arterials are great for confident riders and are one of the keys to basic mobility by bicyclists but we can’t rely on them alone. Tucson has been at 2% bike ridership (census numbers for biking to work) for the last 10 years. During that time we’ve doubled our bike lane mileage getting it up to almost 700 miles in the region. In addition to that we’ve educated hundreds of people with the bike safety classes, and done numerous encouragement events.

Getting more people out onto bikes won’t be easy without some serious funds thrown at it. The Feds seem keen on funding bike/pedestrian improvements these days. With any luck, we’ll land some of that money to move the many projects identified in the Regional Bike Plan and in the 2040 Transportation Plan along. And if and when the second coming of the RTA is developed to replace the first plan, we’ll dedicate a lot more local money for bike/pedestrian improvements than the current plan.
Bike/Pedestrian improvements in the transportation world are basically a cheap date.

To put things in perspective, the entire bike boulevard network could be built for the same cost of widening one mile of roadway in the urban core.

Mr./Ms. Coghauler,

I’m a little confused by your reply. Are you suggesting that I’m somehow giving life to inanimate objects, like “bicycle facilities,” by “introducing socio-economic elements” into their “breakdown”? I’m not sure what you mean by “breakdown” in this context. Is that a catch-all term meaning “creation” or “development?” This sentence doesn’t make any sense, so I’m gonna take some liberties here and assume you meant introducing socio-economic elements into the “decision-making process” of how the BAC determines support for area bicycle facilities. Does that sound about right? I don’t want to put words in your mouth; I’m genuinely trying to understand your writing.

In any case, I don’t think analyzing differences in socio-economic privilege is in any way out-of-line when trying to understand why an organization like the BAC makes the recommendations that it does. Class matters. It’s foolish to pretend otherwise. We don’t live in a vacuum, and political decisions — like whether to encourage spending regional wealth on urban bike loops, bike boulevards or something else entirely — are inherently informed by the deciders’ socio-economic experiences. Your idealism around democratic process is a beautiful dream, of course, but not particularly realistic.

Also, I don’t remember mentioning the “Shoot-out” anywhere in my previous commentary, or implying that ALL members of the BAC were “elite.” But, for the record, I have attended a BAC meeting and, yes, there are definitely SOME members of the organization who would fall into the category of “elite cyclists.” This is not a moral judgment against any particular individual or group of people, it’s just demographics. Frankly, your overly-simplistic, black-n-white notion that, “There are people who ride and people who don’t” verges on the ridiculous. Some ride for fun and some ride to work, and still others ride for completely different reasons. I would imagine there are a million different motivations for why one would utilize a bicycle. To not acknowledge these differences, especially as they are influenced by economic status, is, well, rather naive. I don’t mean you any disrespect but I cannot possibly disagree with you more on this point.

Finally, I’m not sure, but I think you’re taking an unnecessary jab at me with the phrase “intended to bait theoretical arguments.” I assure you, Mr./Ms. Coghauler, I’m not trying to “bait” anything. I’m merely trying to understand what’s going on down and the BAC. In order to do this, I need to know the arguments as well as the circumstances around which folks have made those arguments. To me, then, it seems resoundingly obvious that we should contemplate socio-economic status when analyzing the formation of those arguments. As I stated earlier, economic class is inherently significant; it’s worth monitoring. I mean, a fish in water should be mindful of the water, no?

My guess (and this is pure, facetious speculation here)… you’re a “Team Urban Loop” guy.

Mr./Ms. Coghauler,

Thank you for this very thoughtful reply. The depth of your intellect is matched only by your verbose eloquence. I’m touched… really.