الوصف
Please spruce up the wonderful bike lane barriers in the next couple of weeks . There are plenty to replace. It's going to be ongoing for a while to get this barrier to stick. Don't lose faith
سئل أيضا...
Q. What type of infrastructure are you requesting?
A. other
A. other
34 تعليقs
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
Fred (مستخدم مسجل)
تم إقراره DPW Pine Customer Service (تم التحقق رسميا)
Willard house (مستخدم مسجل)
Thanks everyone for commenting
I'm sure the planning process included a certain amount of replacement of the upright stands.
Once the snow is over in the next few weeks lets stay the course and do the replacements and repairs
Overall I remain pleased with this process and proud of the DPW team
Change is not always easy...the benefits still outweigh the downsides
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
Yes DPW states that they have all the replacement parts and the whole thing cost $29,000. The problem is the road isn't wide enough. I watched a large delivery truck hit every single pole and run over all bollards the other day.
This will need to be repaired indefinitely.
iceu (مستخدم مسجل)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
Aren't you supposed to give cyclists 3 ft of room when passing?
I agree. Why does the protected bike lane need to be 4 ft on a narrow road?
Toiletmanners (مستخدم مسجل)
"Aren't you supposed to give cyclists 3 ft of room when passing?"
Yeah, but did the plow driver give me 3 feet this morning? No. In fact, he tried to squeeze me off the road until I started hitting his door. Then he threatened to sick his dog on me.
So yeah, bike lanes are important, at least until we get the people off of the road who shouldn't be driving.
Toiletmanners (مستخدم مسجل)
"Not every road can sustain a bike lane."
Judging by the potholes throughout the city, the roads can't handle freeze/thaw and the weight of automobiles.
The city's roads were built for slower moving traffic. When automobiles first hit the streets, the speed limit was 15 mph. Cars weighed half as much as they do now.
"Why does the protected bike lane need to be 4 ft on a narrow road?"
Because you just said a delivery driver crowded the bike lane and damaged the infrastructure. Why would you want to shrink a protected bike lane when you provide evidence that there are dangerous drivers on this road?
Is Union really that narrow? A streetcar used to run down this street.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
"Judging by the potholes throughout the city, the roads can't handle freeze/thaw and the weight of automobiles."
- If the roads were built properly, not asphalt directly on top of dirt they'd last longer. But an irrelevant comment.
"Because you just said a delivery driver crowded the bike lane and damaged the infrastructure. Why would you want to shrink a protected bike lane when you provide evidence that there are dangerous drivers on this road?:"
Well John, one would think that if you narrow the bike lane from 4 ft to 3 ft then larger vehicles, like delivery trucks, Firetrucks, and Ambulances (vehicles you hate) could then drive down the road and not damage the barriers.
The barriers would then last longer, not look terrible, and be a better reason to keep the protected bike lane as operational costs would be decreased. But you have once again shown no desire to compromise.
Toiletmanners (مستخدم مسجل)
"like delivery trucks, Firetrucks, and Ambulances (vehicles you hate) could then drive down the road and not damage the barriers."
Once again, I don't hate these vehicles. I hate the entitlement that enables drivers to drive over whatever infrastructure they want without repercussions or accountability.
These vehicles, while larger, can fit down Union Street. I used to make deliveries in a box truck at my old job.
A full one-third of Union is devoted to tax subsidized free parking. In spite of this, I still occasionally find an entitled driver parked in the bike lane.
"The barriers would then last longer, not look terrible, and be a better reason to keep the protected bike lane as operational costs would be decreased. But you have once again shown no desire to compromise."
Compromise? Why should I compromise safety for someone's privilege? In any case, I'm sure you would agree that enforcing the traffic laws on these scofflaw drivers damaging city property would lessen the damage long-term.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
I dont like entitled cyclists. Burlington doesnt have the resources to enforce traffic laws on either vehicles or cyclists.
How is reducing the bike lane from 4 ft to 3 ft a safety compromise? How wide is your bike?
Toiletmanners (مستخدم مسجل)
"I dont like entitled cyclists. Burlington doesnt have the resources to enforce traffic laws on either vehicles or cyclists."
I'm not going to try to change your mind about this, mainly because it doesn't matter. But obviously a scofflaw bicyclist isn't the same potential risk to damage and bodily harm as a scofflaw driver.
And you're right; there doesn't appear to be enough resources to enforce traffic laws, and that's extremely irresponsible.
"How is reducing the bike lane from 4 ft to 3 ft a safety compromise? How wide is your bike?"
Remember how you correctly called out earlier that passing with 3 feet is safer? State law actually suggests 4 feet. My bike and my body is roughly two feet wide. If I'm riding in this lane a foot from the curb, that puts 3 feet right at the bollards (I'm guessing that this lane is actually six feet from curb to bollard).
Just for reference, see the photo in this link:
http://cdi.uvm.edu/image/uvmcdi-3838
Union street is actually pretty wide; about the same as North Street.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
Toiletmanners (مستخدم مسجل)
4 feet is the new standard safe distance. The law in Vermont reads "The operator of a motor vehicle approaching or passing a vulnerable user as defined in subdivision 4(81) of this title shall exercise due care, which includes increasing clearance to a recommended distance of at least four feet..."
So 4 feet is recommended to be safer, but you don't have to be.
Cyclists riding two abreast is legal in the state but not in Burlington. There are a few scenarios where side by side riding like this is a good idea for visibility (for example, being farther out in a curve makes you more likely to be seen by drivers).
Willard house (مستخدم مسجل)
DPW Planning NL (تم التحقق رسميا)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
It is recommended that you give a vulnerable user 4 ft. If the cyclist is not vulnerable is there a required distance?
I always saw the 3 ft rule as a requirement, not a recommendation. Is the user still vulnerable when in a protected bike lane? They are protected, so can one then default back to 3 ft?
So can the bike lane be reduced to 3 ft accommodating all road users? Accommodate 1 user while not negatively affecting others? And help maintain the barriers?
Toiletmanners (مستخدم مسجل)
"So it's recommended that you give 4 ft, you are not required. What if you cant?"
You shouldn't pass.
"I always saw the 3 ft rule as a requirement, not a recommendation. Is the user still vulnerable when in a protected bike lane? They are protected, so can one then default back to 3 ft?"
Three feet has never been a requirement in Vermont, although it is in other states and in Burlington. Check my math again; if the lane is 6 feet, a cyclist is 2 feet, and they aren't riding in the gutter (1 foot), you got 3 feet.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
4 ft is a recommendation, not a requirement.
Based on your quotation 4 ft is not a requirement. Verbiage matters.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
Rider is not vulnerable as they are protected. The recommendation does not apply.
5 ft lane - 2 ft for rider = 3 ft. Something that can work for everyone. Make Burlington work for EVERYONE.
Toiletmanners (مستخدم مسجل)
"4 ft is a recommendation, not a requirement."
Passing another vehicle or vulnerable user is an optional maneuver. If it cannot be done safely, then it shouldn't be done.
"5 ft lane - 2 ft for rider = 3 ft. Something that can work for everyone. Make Burlington work for EVERYONE."
Union Street is working for everyone. There is parking and two travel lanes. The road width is fine. Remove the scofflaws from the road and we will all have a better experience.
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
gil (مستخدم مسجل)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
Display Name Blocked (409268) (مستخدم مسجل)
Should be easy to pass a cyclist in a 5 ft protected bike lane without issue.
The barriers are not working for everyone. If it was working why would the barriers be beat to shi+
iceu (مستخدم مسجل)
That Guy (مستخدم مسجل)
DPW Planning NL (تم التحقق رسميا)
OldVtr (مستخدم مسجل)
That Guy (مستخدم مسجل)
"Repairs and replacement will follow right behind that work."
Restriping was done ages ago... there are still long segments of the protected bike lane with no flex posts, and missing tuff curbs. Will there be any repairs & replacements done this year before it snows again? Without flex posts, the low curbs are almost impossible to see in the snow.
cburch (مستخدم مسجل)
DPW Planning NL (تم التحقق رسميا)
This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 10646136.
If you are already receiving notifications regarding this issue,
you will now receive updates regarding issue 10646136.