Omaha's Active Transportation Discussion

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:07 pm

While I see the attraction of fixed-gear cycles, I still find it rather amusing that the typical rider is the iPhone gadget-type. It strikes me as a paradox between denial of technology in one device and an absolute embrace of it in another.

As for me, I see no reason not to embrace technology. Besides, you might even call derailleurs old-fashioned at this point in time. The only thing that's bothersome is chain maintenance, and that's no different on a fixed-gear. When I can justify spending some coin on a new bike, I plan on checking out some of the new belt-drive systems out there. As long as the parasitic loss isn't terrible, it seems like a pretty clean (pun intended) concept when paired with an internal-gear hub.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:47 pm

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:What does? Riding a fixie in Omaha? Well you're right. That's why not too many people do.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. For the life of me I couldn't imagine having to go through all that |expletive| just to ride a bike somewhere.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:57 pm

Right. As I said, that's exactly why not many people ride fixies in hilly areas.

Seth, while I'm much more into vintage bikes, I'm definitely very interested in some of the new belt-driven models. I wonder how complicated it would be to retrofit an older bike...

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:26 pm

StreetsOfOmaha wrote: Seth, while I'm much more into vintage bikes, I'm definitely very interested in some of the new belt-driven models. I wonder how complicated it would be to retrofit an older bike...

The frame for a belt-drive must have a break in it somewhere to allow the belt to be installed since, unlike a chain, the belt can't be split to go through the lower stay. This makes a simple retrofit unlikely, as the frame would need to be cut and welded (or brazed if you're really old-school) to add some mechanism to split the frame.

Trek sells one now that looks decent: http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/urban/soho/soho/. I could do without the cheesy coffee mug though!

Wow, we're really getting off-topic here!

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:48 pm

Not at all! This is all on topic since this is also the active transportation discussion thread!

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:57 pm

From Transportation for America:

Did you know that 76,000 Americans have been hit by cars while walking or biking in their communities in the last 15 years?

Most of America's roads are designed for cars – and for cars only. That doesn't make any sense in a country where one in three people doesn't have access to a car, and where half of all trips could be accomplished with a 20-minute bike ride.

A new bill was just introduced in Congress would jumpstart the process of transforming our transportation infrastructure to make it friendlier to bikers and walkers – the Active Community Transportation Act (H.R. 4722). It would create a federal grant program to fund local projects aimed at improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

Will you join me in asking our representatives in Congress to co-sponsor this bill? I just sent a letter to mine, and it just takes a second:

http://action.smartgrowthamerica.org/t/ ... n_KEY=2431

Thanks so much for your help!

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:04 pm

Has my birthday come early?!

Big news!

From http://www.masstransitmag.com

DOT Puts Bike, Pedestrian Projects on Par with Roads, Transit
http://www.masstransitmag.com/online/ar ... &pageNum=1

The Obama administration officially announced a "complete streets" policy today that puts bicycle and pedestrian projects on equal footing with road and transit work.

LaHood hailed today's announcement as a major policy shift that marks "the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized."

"We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians," LaHood said in a statement. "And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities."

Specifically, the policy statement recommends that states: collect data on walking and biking trips to set mode-share targets and to optimize future investment decisions, find ways to make improvements to bike paths and sidewalks during road resurfacing projects and other traditional maintenance projects, remove snow from sidewalks and shared-use paths in the same manner as roads and bridges, and to ensure children and the elderly have adequate transportation choices.

It's like a breath of fresh air to finally have an administration in Washington that "gets it," and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is proving himself to be an amazing and long overdue advocate for active transportation, "livable communities", de-emphasizing motorized transportation, and for leveling the playing field when it comes to transportation alternatives!

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:45 pm

This is great news. It's good to see public policy at least acknowledge pedestrian and cycle transit. Hopefully we'll continue to see things shift from the dark ages of the postwar years where many subdivision were built without any sidewalks. Here in Champaign-Urbana, they've instituted an initiative to construct sidewalks in those neighborhoods, starting with the most oft-used routes to elementary schools. Of course, we're more progressive in a lot of ways due to influence from the university (for instance Urbana has had curbside recycling for over 20 years and our bus system is well-funded and provides excellent service).

On a different note, but still related to cycling: where do unicycles fit into this? Are unicycles supposed to use bike lanes or sidewalks? I'm mostly joking here, but I do occasionally see eccentric characters using their unicycles for transportation around campus.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:51 pm

To the unicycle question, I guess I would just say, wherever they feel comfortable. Because of their slower speeds and their acute maneuvering capabilities (forward-backward), I would probably say they belong on the sidewalk.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:29 pm

Great news today:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100426/L ... -fast-lane

The city's first bike route map came out two years ago, but it has been updated, and the new version will be ready later this spring.

The biggest addition to the map is a 20-mile system of marked bike lanes and routes.

Like the old map, the new one color-codes streets based on their traffic levels, space for cyclists and other factors.

The City of Omaha plans to start marking the first lanes next month and finish most of the system by early fall. The rest will be finished next year.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:42 pm

Cool! I'll have to pick one up when we move out there.

They publish one here in Champaign-Urbana, IL, but I honestly don't use it all that often. It is helpful for planning routes outside of my usual cycling territory, though.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:32 pm

All Hail Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood!

Listen to the whole interview from NPR's All Things Considered.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =126263488

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently announced what he's calling a "sea change" in transportation policy: He wants to make biking as important as driving.

"We’re elevating it to the point where as we develop new road systems, as we develop communities where people can use light rail or street cars or buses, bike trails and walking paths will be equal partners, if you will, and equal components of those kinds of transportation opportunities in communities across America," LaHood tells NPR's Guy Raz.

"We’ve put almost all of our resources into roads," LaHood says. "If the commitment when President Eisenhower signed the interstate bill had been to high-speed inner-city rail, we'd be in the same position Europe and Asia are in today."

LaHood is also floating the idea of a nationwide interstate biking system — the two-wheel equivalent of Eisenhower’s highway system.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:18 pm

While I don't agree with everything the Obama administration stands for (and I didn't vote for him), I wholeheartedly support their focus on improving and broadening our transportation system.

In my mind, it's ridiculous that the focus for the last 50 years has been almost exclusively on single-occupancy automobile transport. I believe that part of it was a philosophy that personal transportation is the most democratic (drivers can pick when and where they want to go, for the most part), but also because none of the past administrations really had much of a long-term focus on our infrastructure. The part I find ironic, is that walking and cycling are far more democratic than driving, as neither require an expensive vehicle, insurance, or even an external energy source, yet most postwar housing developments weren't even built with sidewalks!

OmahaBen · Post by **OmahaBen** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:52 am

Seth wrote:While I don't agree with everything the Obama administration stands for (and I didn't vote for him), I wholeheartedly support their focus on improving and broadening our transportation system.

In my mind, it's ridiculous that the focus for the last 50 years has been almost exclusively on single-occupancy automobile transport. I believe that part of it was a philosophy that personal transportation is the most democratic (drivers can pick when and where they want to go, for the most part), but also because none of the past administrations really had much of a long-term focus on our infrastructure. The part I find ironic, is that walking and cycling are far more democratic than driving, as neither require an expensive vehicle, insurance, or even an external energy source, yet most postwar housing developments weren't even built with sidewalks!

You don't think the interstate highway system was built with the long-term focus of improving interstate commerce (which it surely has)? You don't think our society is more mobile today than it was in the 1950's?

Also, interstate biking? Really? How many people are going to use such a system. High-speed rail I'm all for. But who's going to spend the week or two biking from Denver to Omaha or Omaha to Chicago with any regularity for anything other than leisurely purposes? Unless he's talking simply about putting bike paths on major, but short, interstate commuter routes (NJ to NY, Gary IN to Chicago, etc.)...but that wouldn't be a system rivaling the interstate highway system.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:28 pm

OmahaBen wrote:Also, interstate biking? Really? How many people are going to use such a system.

A lot of people. No question about it. Myself for one.

I'm sure many people who have the time would make cross-country trips, but the majority of its use, I'm sure, would be for shorter town-to-town trips. This is the area with the most glaring lack of any transportation options other than automobile.

Seth wrote:The part I find ironic, is that walking and cycling are far more democratic than driving, as neither require an expensive vehicle, insurance, or even an external energy source

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!! :;):

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:16 pm

OmahaBen wrote:You don't think the interstate highway system was built with the long-term focus of improving interstate commerce (which it surely has)? You don't think our society is more mobile today than it was in the 1950's?

The interstate highway system is probably the only good example of long-term infrastructure planning we've done in the past half-century. The problem now would be continuing to rely on it for all of our future long-distance transportation needs. Aside from interstates, most of our road construction has been piecemeal expansion of locally-congested sections and an assumption that all it takes is more lanes.

It's really going to take a balanced intermodal approach to get optimize our transportation system. In terms of passenger transport: air for long distances, interstates and high-speed rail for intermediate distances, light rail for local commuting, and good streetcar and bus networks for city-level transport. Combine that with neighborhood-level pedestrian and cycling access and we could even have a better overall transportation system than Europe or Japan.

I think the real comparison will be to China for the next 50 years. They're already making us look bad with high-speed rail, not to mention they're building renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro and solar faster than we are. Of course, they're also building a lot of new coal-fired powerplants (but we're building new ones too), which further proves they're not doing it because a bunch of whiney liberals want them to.

OmahaBen wrote:Also, interstate biking? Really?

I agree that that is probably going to be limited to recreational use. I'd like to see it as part of a nationwide "rails-to-trails" effort, as it's an excellent way to mothball rail right-of-way. As almost every new rail project has shown, right-of-way is the most difficult and expensive part. It's the reason the Florida high-speed connection won't make it to downtown Orlando.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri May 07, 2010 1:02 pm

KETV did a nice piece last night about the new system being implemented this summer.

Here are a couple of highlights and the link to the full story.
http://www.ketv.com/news/23480788/detail.html#

"That's probably one of our pushes, to let people in the community know we have a right to be in the road," said Omaha Bikes president Bob Brindamour. "It's a safe place for us to be."

He said a bike lane in the street is a safer spot than the sidewalk.

"I know a lot of people think that's where we belong, but it's not," he said. "You've got to cross a lot of intersections and when you do it on a sidewalk, people won't be looking for you."

Now, the city is doing more to make sure it's easier for riders to commute safely, including adding more bike lanes and signs to let drivers know exactly where cyclists will be.

"They want to get from Point A to Point B, just like a car driver does," said traffic engineer Todd Pfitzer.

The city is incorporating the Bike Omaha Pilot Network, 20 miles of roadways that will either be shared by cars and riders or offer separate lanes for bicycles.

Pfitzer said people with cars should get ready for the changes.

"If our city is like some of these other cities, once this gets done, you're going to see a lot more bikes on the road," he said.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri May 07, 2010 3:50 pm

I've been encouraged by the Bike Omaha projects and I'm glad that piece gave the subject a balanced and fair view. I really hope they're able to expand the network, maybe in some utopian future, bike lanes will be as standard as traffic lanes and sidewalks.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Sun May 16, 2010 1:18 pm

Didn't know where this would fit best, but none the less, a video for Streets and Seth. I'm not sure why I dare even go here, but it is somewhat interesting to watch.

Rush Hour in the Netherlands

[youtube][/youtube]

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Sun May 16, 2010 1:34 pm

The most amazing part is I only caught one d-bag cutting in line by riding on the sidewalk.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Sun May 16, 2010 2:39 pm

Ha, yeah the guy in the white.

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Sun May 16, 2010 3:06 pm

i thought for sure i'd see someone get plowed by a bus.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sun May 16, 2010 3:22 pm

Thanks for posting that, S33. I posted a similar video of rush hour in Copenhagen a few pages back. Here it is again since we're on the subject.

[youtube][/youtube]

thenewguy wrote:i thought for sure i'd see someone get plowed by a bus.

What, like in America? :;):

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Tue May 25, 2010 11:37 am

City crews have started installing bike racks around Downtown, and I can only assume elsewhere along the routes of the Bike Omaha network, as promised by ActivateOmaha.

I was at Patrick's yesterday and noticed that they had two new bike racks out front. I had been suggesting for months that they install bike racks in one of their parking spots (and think they still should!). However, the gal inside informed me that the City had sent people by who just asked if they wanted bike racks in front, and they said "yes."

The racks are black inverted "U"s and they have white lettering which reads, "Provided by the Eastern Nebraska Trails Association and the Corporate Bike Challenge" (or something close to that effect).

I'll be looking for these to be popping up all over!!!

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:06 pm

I've really been impressed with the bike racks at MTC. The circular design is artistic and functional, but best of all, they're stainless, so they won't look like |expletive| in 10 years or rust off at the base. I haven't used them, because there's hardy a point to riding when it's three blocks!

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:31 pm

I just got back from spending several days with family in Santa Fe, NM.

I was very pleased to see that that city's government has made a code requirement that all commercial buildings provide bike racks/bike parking. Pretty much every building I saw (at least new construction) had a bike rack near its entrance - from doctors' offices to strip malls.

SF's bike lane system was a disaster, though. They were on such busy streets, and the way they interacted with turn lanes was terrifying. I almost think they would be better off without them than in their current configuration. It's nice that the city is trying to be progressive, but it seems that they just threw down bike lanes on their streets without much regard for actual planning.

The Bike Omaha system seems much more intuitive and coherent comparatively.

Just thought I would share those tidbits from the trip.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:54 pm

City crews have started installing bike lanes and signage on the Benson (Red) route of the Bike Omaha system. Here is a video of "before" the system is installed. Omaha Bike's will create an "After" video when the segment is all done.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:12 am

Do you think the surface of these "bike lanes" will be conducive to my travels on my smurf trike? And what safety precautions should I take to prevent being run over by them inconsiderate a-holes on 2 wheels?

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:10 pm

S33 wrote:Do you think the surface of these "bike lanes" will be conducive to my travels on my smurf trike? And what safety precautions should I take to prevent being run over by them inconsiderate a-holes on 2 wheels?

hilarious avatar. I was just thinking of it the other day.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:52 am

thenewguy wrote:

hilarious avatar. I was just thinking of it the other day.

Lol thanks. It's still one of the creepiest videos I've seen to date.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:58 pm

I'm out of the loop on this video. What is it?

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:40 pm

From the weekly e-newsletter of www.publicbikes.com

Also, for some fun, check out this photo gallery of Copenhagen bike-commuters' shoes.

http://blog.publicbikes.com/2010/07/not ... dium=email

Quantifying Civilization

I took a break from the VELOCITY 2010 conference and rode to the Copenhagen street corner billed as the busiest intersection in the city. A meter there counts the number of bikes that pass by as they cross the bridge. 27 cyclists cruised by during one light change; 15,000 in all on that day; and 1,815,570 so far this year. Quite cool. The stream of cyclists felt like the very definition of freedom and self-reliance. And people looked happy and alive as they pedaled along on their way to work or school—it was a collective experience of a high order. I submit that this counter is as good a “civilization meter” as anything that history has provided.

Traditionally we have used other data to decide what makes a great civilization.

If cultural output is the yardstick, Egypt and Classical Greece are looking pretty good. But did enough of the community share in the greatness? If civilian enlightenment is the measure, China during the Sung dynasty (9th Century) comes out well: their civil servants had to pass tests that included writing poetry and painting landscapes. What about those who never took the test?

The US considers itself highly civilized based on education standards, citing statistics about how many people have college degrees. But Native Americans – who greatly value their connection to nature – might see things a bit differently.

Whichever aspect of civilization you value more, it seems fundamental that a truly civilized society has to be one in which the greatest number of people feel safe and secure as they move around and congregate in their public spaces. This is where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness take place, where they are visible. And you can judge the greatness of a city by the percentage of people using and enjoying the public spaces.

This brings us to bikes.

The Danes consider themselves as civilized as it gets. They take pride in their egalitarian and democratic principles, and they have become tireless advocates of rights for pedestrians and cyclists. More than one third of Danes ride a bike everyday to school or work. They have become synonymous with cycling (along with the Dutch). Over the last 50 years they have weaned themselves away from cars in urban areas, and they have increased the amount of public spaces devoted to pedestrians, cyclists, sidewalk cafes, etc. Denmark now leads the Livable Cities initiatives internationally. And they can quantify the advance of their civilization:

* 16% of all transportation trips taken in Denmark are by bike
* 45% of all kids ride a bike to school everyday
* 25% of all parents bike their toddlers around the cities
* 20% fewer bike injuries have occurred as cycling has increased 20% in recent years
* 9% of the population in Denmark suffers from obesity
* (30% of the US population suffers from obesity. We ‘lead’ the world in this metric)

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:19 am

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:I'm out of the loop on this video. What is it?

You'll love it. It's how I start all my mornings and often times I'll check it out to pump me up before a big meeting, or possibly even going to the gym. =)

[youtube][/youtube]

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:32 am

I might have loved it more if it were anything more than a half-second loop.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:45 am

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:I might have loved it more if it were anything more than a half-second loop.

Some people just can't be pleased.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:52 pm

Judging by this quote: "There's a major concern here because, well look around and you can see the amount of truck traffic coming through here," said Virgil Patlan of the homeowner's association. "This is a heavy industrial area."

The main concern seems to be the lack of safety. Not that they would rather have the truck traffic, who really enjoys truck traffic? Come on...

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:57 pm

S33 wrote:Judging by this quote: "There's a major concern here because, well look around and you can see the amount of truck traffic coming through here," said Virgil Patlan of the homeowner's association. "This is a heavy industrial area."

The main concern seems to be the lack of safety. Not that they would rather have the truck traffic, who really enjoys truck traffic? Come on...

The lack of safety for whom? Are the homeowners concerned they could be at risk for bicycle-equipped burglars? Surely they're not worried about the bicyclists who could be hit by the trucks. I've generally have semis give me more room than the typical road king in their SUV.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:00 pm

Seth wrote:
S33 wrote:Judging by this quote: "There's a major concern here because, well look around and you can see the amount of truck traffic coming through here," said Virgil Patlan of the homeowner's association. "This is a heavy industrial area."

The main concern seems to be the lack of safety. Not that they would rather have the truck traffic, who really enjoys truck traffic? Come on...
The lack of safety for whom? Are the homeowners concerned they could be at risk for bicycle-equipped burglars? Surely they're not worried about the bicyclists who could be hit by the trucks. I've generally have semis give me more room than the typical road king in their SUV.

Jesus Christ, I was simply saying that maybe the homeowners thought the trail was not in an ideal spot because of truck traffic, which would logically be a safety "thing".

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:58 pm

I don't think people are opposed to the trail so much as they are opposed to losing a sliver of their yard, for which I can't blame them. Of course, if it were me, I would gladly give up some yard to have trail access right in my front yard!

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:09 pm

Converting car parking to bike parking in Toronto.

http://spacingtoronto.ca/2010/07/13/bik ... ng-spaces/

16+ bikes can be parked in a space that was once filled by one car at a time.

This is something Omaha should really consider. How easy would it be to take one spot in the Old Market, one spot near 16th Street, one spot near the Holland Center, and one spot near the Qwest and turn them into bike parking.

In eliminating just 4 (FOUR) car parking spaces, 64 (SIXTY FOUR) bike spaces could be created, and at a cost of next to nothing. Maybe the Downtown BID could take this on, or a private company like UP could fund this with one bat of an eyelash.