Total waste. We live off of Ellicott and have to leave at least 10 - 15 mintues earlier every morning to get to work .. and if you get stopped behind a bus, you're screwed. Not ONE time have I seen someone using the "bike lane" either.
As if the timing on the lights throughout Batavia wasn't bad enough..... Well at least now we have a bike path for all that heavy bike traffic we have in the city.(Sarcastic)
If i lived on Ellicott St, which I don't, I'd be happy about anything that slows traffic down and provides a safe spot to make a left turn. The speed limit from Cedar St to Main is 30 mph, nobody did that, the 4 lanes were very narrow and it was pretty uncomfortable to be in the right hand lane with a tractor trailer doing 45 in the left, and making a left turn could be nerve wracking. Now everyone has to slow down. There is nowhere near that much traffic in Batavia ever to make much of a difference, for heaven's sake. The problem was speed.
Why would anyone that doesn't have to ,be riding a bike in this weather. I have seen the bike lane being used a couple of times a few weeks ago ans I plan on using it also . I personally don't like trhe setup but I do like the bike lane . One side should be for bikes and no turning lane , two lanes coming in to the city and one leaving . This way maybe we could lull the motorist into stopping and buying locally.
I lived on Oak Street years ago. It has always been a speedway. People come off the T-way, saw a 4 lane highway, right back up to speed. 2 lane pretty much took care of the speeding. (pretty much....)
Now I live just off of Ellicott street. Same issue...speed. 2 lane slows everything down. Looking forward to the bike lane in the spring.
And Mary, you may be using that bike lane if the gas keeps going the way it is!!!
The bike lane, while inconvenient for some, is much safer for everyone involved than the sidewalk.
There is nothing worse than having a grown adult riding the sidewalk where children are playing; parents wheeling a buggy or stroller; or people just out for a stroll.
The expectation that all of the above will make way for those riding bikes is unreasonable.
I'm sure, come spring, many will take advantage of the bike lane.
I personally think the entire project is a big waste of money! To slow traffic down the city police could have really made a presence and wrote a lot of tickets. This over time would have given Batavia and that area of the city a reputation to not speed when passing through. It also would have made money for the city. I really believe that speed wasn't the reason for wasting tax payers money. I believe that the state is losing money on the thruway. They see Batavia as one of the key shortcut intersections for truckers. They first took Oak st. (98) and turned the four lanes into two. Then the roundabout project with (33) and (98) and a incredible mess now. The last shortcut was (63). It's a key shortcut from (390) in Geneseo and cuts the entire route of going to the thruway then heading west. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you look at all three projects they have only made traffic in our small city more congested. I can't think of one good thing from any of these three projects. I don't know how long we had four lanes or an easy intersection before the roundabout, but for the last 30 years they seemed fine to me. Oh and now they have turned the lights on (63) on timers and at 5:45am with no traffic im stopping several times on my way into work. Even the one light in front of Chapins where thier is absolutely no traffic. Now were wasting gas because the city and state have made (63) into a joke! Waste! Waste and more Waste!!! I agree Peter, I will be using the sidewalk...I bet Howard will be doing a story of a person getting hit on a bike in the bike lane. Then what will the city and state think of next? I can only imagine!
" I believe that the state is losing money on the thruway. They see Batavia as one of the key shortcut intersections for truckers."
You give the State DOT far too much credit for actual thought process, Russ. A study was done that found there were too many accidents on that piece of road, so, they slow down traffic. It is a residential area and traffic needs to slow down. The entire Route 63 corridor from Groveland to Batavia is being studied and changes are made piecemeal. They are still considering an expressway from I390 at Groveland to the Thruway somewhere between Batavia and Pembroke as part of the NAFTA superhighway. Now that would be a waste of money.
Posted by Russ Salway on December 14, 2010 - 5:17pm
I bet Howard will be doing a story of a person getting hit on a bike in the bike lane. Then what will the city and state think of next? I can only imagine!
Russ, will you be just as anxious to see the story Howard does on a kid getting hit by a cyclist on the sidewalk? Perhaps a story of a baby buggy being hit?
I understand your concerns for your safety, but I've had adults (not kids) come up behind me on the sidewalk and just yell "coming through". They make no effort to go around, but expect you to be alert and ready to dodge them by going on a lawn or into the parkway.
Since when does someone on a bike have the right of way before pedestrians?
If you feel that you have the right to ride on the sidewalks for your safety, what are the options for those walking? Would you suggest that THEY walk on the bike path?
I'm sure you are a considerate cyclist. I'm not singling you, or anyone, out. Just asking.
The design is terrible. Any commute down Ellicot street takes twice as long as everyone is now stuck behind slow drivers.
Bea - Russ is right, a bike lane on Rt. 63, with all of those semis is a recipe for disaster. Truckers don't have the same view as drivers and are more likely to not see a cyclist and swipe them. Sometimes cyclists and pedestrians are going to have to share the sidewalk for safety's sake.
Dan,
The question is who has the right of way on the sidewalk?
The cyclist?
The parent with a stroller or buggy?
The children playing on the sidewalk?
The pedestrian who doesn't have a rear view mirror to see a cyclist coming at them from behind?
I'm all for people using their bikes.
I agree they should have a safe environment in which to enjoy their ride, but at who's expense?
A bicycle is a vehicle, it can travel much faster than an adult pedestrian and certainly much faster than a child. It gives it a big edge when it comes to "sharing" the sidewalk.
Many people walk for exercise and relaxation on summer evenings. Children have played sidewalk games for more years than you and I have been on this earth.
The experience of having someone yelling, "coming through", with no intention of going around people walking (or even slowing down)leads me to believe that there won't be much "sharing" by some.
I'm just presenting the other side of the issue.
Then pedestrians should move and cyclists should give a fair warning that they are coming. Or cyclists should make a very quick swerve into the road. I'm not saying that pedestrians shouldn't take precedent, but in some situations uncomfortable sharing will just have to be the norm. I would rather have the occasional scrape or bruise because a cyclist ran into a pedestrian than a death because a cyclist was hit by an 18-wheeler.
Case closed then, Dan.
Tell that to the mother who's baby might get those occasional scrapes and bruises because she couldn't move faster than the bike coming at her.
Tell that to the senior citizen who might end up with a broken hip or worse because that person couldn't move faster than the bike coming from behind.
"Uncomfortable" sharing?
The only person who's comfort and safety is insured is the cyclist.
Dan,
How in the world did we survive before the bike lane was put in? There is no bike lane on Main Street, how do we ever manage? Bikes will have to be outlawed.
I can't see bikes being outlawed. Nor would I want them to be.
Main St. IS a problem with people on bikes expecting to have the right of way.
I see no viable solution other than Dan's. Let the pedestrians be responsible. If they suffer a few bruises and scrapes then so be it.
On the other end of that, I think it is fair to give credit to those, who ride their bikes on Main St., who are very respectful when coming upon people walking. For every one of those "coming through" cyclists, there are people who have actually slowed down, got off their bikes and walked their bikes around people.
Here, at the Towers, we have a private sidewalk that goes in front of the building. I have seen adults swerve off the main sidewalk and speed through the private walk, barely missing people walking. This is the age of "only for me" and the hell with anyone else.
Yes, people have been on bikes for years, but it is only recently that I've witnessed careless disregard for others by those on bikes.
Dan; "The design is terrible. Any commute down Ellicot street takes twice as long as everyone is now stuck behind slow drivers."
According to mapquest, Main&Ellicott to Cedar&Ellicott is 1.71 miles at 30mph it takes about 4 minutes, allowing for traffic lights, 6 minutes. If it takes twice as long it's 12 minutes, 3 times as long, 18 minutes. A tractor trailer doing 30 mph behind a car where he can't pass has a pretty good chance of seeing a bicyclist, or he shouldn't be driving. Some idiot in a car will be watching the car in front so he doesn't rearend him instead of texting, calling someone on the phone, surfing porn, whatever and will be able to see a bicyclist. So if it takes even 3 times a longer to get down Ellicott Street, is losing 12 minutes of your day really going to hurt you? The bike lane will be safer because of the necessarily slower speeds and people on the sidewalk will be safer. Everyone just needs to slow down and understand that everyone pays the taxes that built the roads, bike lanes and sidewalks, so we should share safely .
I said twice as long as a figure of speech. My point is that everyone now is stuck behind slow drivers on Ellicot and that slows down the flow of traffic. Losing a few extra minutes of my day if I'm in a hurry can hurt me. I sometimes deliver subpoenas, often when I get one I have to serve it very quickly, the nice part about the old design of Ellicot is I could pass the person who needs to drive slow on my way. Now I spend an extra few minutes that I don't have behind some people who go slower than the speed limit.
As for an 18 Wheeler, a cyclist could be riding in the bike lane, an 18 wheeler slightly swerves to avoid something and then before you know it the cyclist gets caught in the 18 wheelers tires.
Ok, so maybe it really isn't twice as long then? My point is that people get themselves all wound up because someone else is in their way or a traffic light turned red, when it may not really be costing them much time. I drive a lot, trucks and cars all over NY and PA, I can't tell you how many times someone is behind me when I'm doing the speed limit somewhere, having a total freak-out trying to get around me, passing on solid lines etc only to be 2 cars ahead of me at the next light. It may not be slowing you down as much as you think. You may have to deliver something quickly, but you still can't break the speed limit without risking a fine, nor should you. Safety first. More people are killed in automobile accidents than anything else.
Dave - I understand and I make a conscious effort not to speed and I do not tailgate either. I was just pointing out that a two lanes is optimal so people who want to go slower than the speed limit can stay in the right lane.
Well...I live off Oak St. At first, I thought the redesign there was the dumbest thing ever. Now, after a year I can say that I really enjoy it. The amount of morons trying to break the land speed record has greatly deminished. Also it is a much safer transition for someone who lives on Oak St. trying to merge from their driveways.
As far as the circle goes, I can not understand for the life of me what everyone's deal is with that. It's an incredibly simple thing and they have them all over the world. I've navigated circles in NJ and in Europe without any incident. The people who have accidents in that thing don't know how to drive. They go into fast, they don't know how (or when) to signal, so you get needless incidents.
So Real Quick tutorial on Circles:
1. Person to left has right of way, to inclue those in and waiting to go enter.
2. You do not have to signal to enter a circle. (Everyone knows you're going in)
3. You do signal when you are exiting the circle. That way the person waiting to enter knows you're leaving and it's safe.
That's it.
Last, I don't see anything wrong with changes on Ellicot. The City speed limit is 30mph. If you're in a hurry find an alternative route, but don't go flying 40 - 50mph on the side streets. You will hurt someone.
Basically, Dan it's a state route through a residential area, slowing the traffic flow is necessary. Same with the roundabout. I'm not so sure the bike route is a great idea, but it's there now. Anyway, be safe out there, there's too many idiots on the roads.
Bea, In answer to your question regarding who has the right of way on sidewalks, cyclists or pedestrians, the City code makes it pretty clear:
§ 159-2 Vehicles on sidewalks.
A. No person shall ride a bicycle on a sidewalk except a bicycle having solid tires and designed for and used by preteenage children, or except to cross same.
Apparently, it is enforced as much as:
§ 159-3 Spitting on sidewalk.
No person shall expectorate upon any sidewalk or public place within the city.
§ 159-13 Penalties for offenses.
Each violation of any provision of this article shall constitute a violation pursuant to the Penal Law. However, in no case shall the fine imposed exceed $250.
Does everyone forget that the original plans called for parking on both sides and no bike lane? That part may have actually been useful.
The lights on Ellicott need to be switched to blinking yellows for Ellicott and red for side streets from 9pm-6:30 am. I get caught by 3 of them each time I drive to or from my house and thats is just plain ridiculous.
Its not a residential area the whole way down, most of it is commercial. But all city streets are 30mph.
Bea, the ruts and pushed up areas in the sidewalk are far more dangerous to the elderly than the bike riders.
Russ is exactly right that this is to control truck traffic and put it back on the thruway. But I haven't noticed any less of it. They still go by disturbing my movies and shows. I would say they are more disturbing since it takes them longer to go by since they are now single file.
I agree that the condition of many sidewalks are a peril to anyone walking, pushing a stroller/buggy, or using walking aides.
Peter, I am not addressing this issue to you. It is a pet peeve of mine since I was forced off the sidewalk a year ago by a very inconsiderate adult on a bike.
As I stated, this type of behavior is not what I have experienced in the past, but seems to be increasing.
I am sorry that the traffic on Ellicott St. is slower.
Will it deter the trucks from using a state designated truck route? I don't think so.
Until the state removes that designation, then those of us in Batavia, with the crossroads of 5, 63, 33, and 98 will suffer the noice, pollution, and traffic caused by these heavy vehicles.
We all complain about them, but where would we be without them? Look around your space, right now. Everything you see was delivered by truck.
There are some cities that ban big trucks. They have designated areas where they can unload to smaller delivery vehicles which then service the area.
There are others that only allow big trucks to enter during the night hours to make deliveries.
Both of these options work, but they don't work when you have a truck route going through the center of your city.
Bike lanes, in an area that has our weather was a waste. While there will always be somebody who will ride their bike in the cold and snow, most of us don't.
The parking on both sides that could be used 12 months of the year was a better idea.
As with the lane changes on 590, why is public opinion forthcoming after the project is complete? Did residents have an opportunity to air preferences during the planning phase?
Re: Bike Lanes- Bike Paths are exclusive; bike lanes only favor cyclists ("preferential"). Local law determines rules for bike lanes.
Peter, I question spending tax dollars to improve traffic, the net result: residents dissatisfied. In the case of the 590 modifications, DOT has to revisit the project because of public outcry. Apparently, the engineers don't listen. Who pays the second time around? Do local authorities review the plans before construction begins? Why would parking be eliminated on a commercial strip like Ellicott St.?
Well by looking at all the comments after what I wrote, I guess you could say I struck a nerve. I will try to keep this short, simple and to the point. Bea, I won't be anxious to see a story about anyone getting hit anywhere's. I was just stating that the bike lane isn't a good idea or safe as I see it. Peter pointed out that they were supposed to have parking, but for whatever reason that was lost. I do believe bike lanes are a great idea in the right areas. I think the state knew they had to put something there if they weren't going to put parking because there is a lot of wasted space there. As a matter of fact, I drove down 63 on my way home today just to see if I was missing something. I witnessed a tractor trailer using the bike lane for parking in front of the Sugar Creek on 63/Cedar st. (hey Peter someone got to park there) and I also witnessed one of Batavia's youth using the bike lane as a sidewalk. I witness this all the time around Batavia and can't really understand why people insist on walking in the road instead of the sidewalks. I do understand that some sidewalks have snow on them still, but only ankle deep. Anyways at least he was using the bike lane instead of the rest of the road. As far as its slowing down the traffic and making it a little more quiet, well thats just great. If thats all were getting out of this project I still think its a waste. Anyone who buys a house on a four lane state highway and thinks it will be quiet and just slow traffic needs to look at where they bought the house in the first place. Im all for projects that make sense. That fixes problems, but all I can see is a complete waste of money and no problems fixed, just a number of new ones created. So now we have to put all the lights on timers on 63 so the residence have at least a chance of backing out of their driveways safely. Funny, we didn't have to do that when we had four lanes. As far as driving around the roundabout, I have no problems doing this and I never said I did have a problem driving around them. What I was stating is that its a pain in the butt for 18 wheel trucks doing this without driving over part of it. Im sure I would have a problem with it too if I were driving a tractor trailer....lol...tried to keep this short. So much more to say, but I will just keep it to this. I shouldn't be suprised that our state messed up this project. Hey at least they didn't think of putting high speed rail there instead of the bike lane. I will give them that!
I find all this complaining about money wasted, increased travel time and traffic light timing rather absurd and exaggerated. There’s an elephant in the room and it looks like Dave is the only one that can see it. Over the past 25 years there’s been an average of over 40 accidents per year on Ellicott Street. About 14 of those 40+ accidents per year resulted in 1 or more injuries. Moreover, in the past 25 years there have been 3 fatalities. I’m sure if one of those injuries or fatalities happened to someone dear to you, your comments would be much different.
1,000 accidents over the past 25 years on Ellicott street? Where did you get this number from Mark? So now that it's two lanes it's more safe? I'm all for an increase in safety in any area, but I don't see what they did to make it more safe? I think it's a little more dangerous to anyone backing out of a driveway now then it was with four lanes. I don't see the bike lane being safe at all. I have driven for 25 years now without one car accident, speeding ticket or moving violation. I consider myself a safe driver. I don't feel anymore safe driving down Ellicott then I did the last 15 years on a daily basis. Injuries or fatalities to anyone close to me would definitley affect me, but I don't think I would feel any different about how our state chooses to waste money on a daily basis.
I live on it and the only
I live on it and the only improvement I have seen is its easier for a full size truck to back out other than that it was a waste.
Total waste. We live off of
Total waste. We live off of Ellicott and have to leave at least 10 - 15 mintues earlier every morning to get to work .. and if you get stopped behind a bus, you're screwed. Not ONE time have I seen someone using the "bike lane" either.
Does Garth live on Ellicott
Does Garth live on Ellicott St.?
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eoPiJOubR-4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eoPiJOubR-4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
As if the timing on the
As if the timing on the lights throughout Batavia wasn't bad enough..... Well at least now we have a bike path for all that heavy bike traffic we have in the city.(Sarcastic)
If i lived on Ellicott St,
If i lived on Ellicott St, which I don't, I'd be happy about anything that slows traffic down and provides a safe spot to make a left turn. The speed limit from Cedar St to Main is 30 mph, nobody did that, the 4 lanes were very narrow and it was pretty uncomfortable to be in the right hand lane with a tractor trailer doing 45 in the left, and making a left turn could be nerve wracking. Now everyone has to slow down. There is nowhere near that much traffic in Batavia ever to make much of a difference, for heaven's sake. The problem was speed.
Why would anyone that doesn't
Why would anyone that doesn't have to ,be riding a bike in this weather. I have seen the bike lane being used a couple of times a few weeks ago ans I plan on using it also . I personally don't like trhe setup but I do like the bike lane . One side should be for bikes and no turning lane , two lanes coming in to the city and one leaving . This way maybe we could lull the motorist into stopping and buying locally.
I feel like it has caused
I feel like it has caused some unsafe lane changes heading towards Main in front of St. Mary's Church and the city building.
If traffic is beginning to back up at the light with Main and you want to be in the right lane...you have to switch lanes mid-intersection.
i hate it the way it is,i
i hate it the way it is,i want it put back the way it was
I lived on Oak Street years
I lived on Oak Street years ago. It has always been a speedway. People come off the T-way, saw a 4 lane highway, right back up to speed. 2 lane pretty much took care of the speeding. (pretty much....)
Now I live just off of Ellicott street. Same issue...speed. 2 lane slows everything down. Looking forward to the bike lane in the spring.
And Mary, you may be using that bike lane if the gas keeps going the way it is!!!
Even with the bike lane I
Even with the bike lane I will use the sidewalk.
The bike lane, while
The bike lane, while inconvenient for some, is much safer for everyone involved than the sidewalk.
There is nothing worse than having a grown adult riding the sidewalk where children are playing; parents wheeling a buggy or stroller; or people just out for a stroll.
The expectation that all of the above will make way for those riding bikes is unreasonable.
I'm sure, come spring, many will take advantage of the bike lane.
There is nothing worse than
There is nothing worse than me, got it.
I personally think the entire
I personally think the entire project is a big waste of money! To slow traffic down the city police could have really made a presence and wrote a lot of tickets. This over time would have given Batavia and that area of the city a reputation to not speed when passing through. It also would have made money for the city. I really believe that speed wasn't the reason for wasting tax payers money. I believe that the state is losing money on the thruway. They see Batavia as one of the key shortcut intersections for truckers. They first took Oak st. (98) and turned the four lanes into two. Then the roundabout project with (33) and (98) and a incredible mess now. The last shortcut was (63). It's a key shortcut from (390) in Geneseo and cuts the entire route of going to the thruway then heading west. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you look at all three projects they have only made traffic in our small city more congested. I can't think of one good thing from any of these three projects. I don't know how long we had four lanes or an easy intersection before the roundabout, but for the last 30 years they seemed fine to me. Oh and now they have turned the lights on (63) on timers and at 5:45am with no traffic im stopping several times on my way into work. Even the one light in front of Chapins where thier is absolutely no traffic. Now were wasting gas because the city and state have made (63) into a joke! Waste! Waste and more Waste!!! I agree Peter, I will be using the sidewalk...I bet Howard will be doing a story of a person getting hit on a bike in the bike lane. Then what will the city and state think of next? I can only imagine!
" I believe that the state is
" I believe that the state is losing money on the thruway. They see Batavia as one of the key shortcut intersections for truckers."
You give the State DOT far too much credit for actual thought process, Russ. A study was done that found there were too many accidents on that piece of road, so, they slow down traffic. It is a residential area and traffic needs to slow down. The entire Route 63 corridor from Groveland to Batavia is being studied and changes are made piecemeal. They are still considering an expressway from I390 at Groveland to the Thruway somewhere between Batavia and Pembroke as part of the NAFTA superhighway. Now that would be a waste of money.
Posted by Russ Salway on
Posted by Russ Salway on December 14, 2010 - 5:17pm
I bet Howard will be doing a story of a person getting hit on a bike in the bike lane. Then what will the city and state think of next? I can only imagine!
Russ, will you be just as anxious to see the story Howard does on a kid getting hit by a cyclist on the sidewalk? Perhaps a story of a baby buggy being hit?
I understand your concerns for your safety, but I've had adults (not kids) come up behind me on the sidewalk and just yell "coming through". They make no effort to go around, but expect you to be alert and ready to dodge them by going on a lawn or into the parkway.
Since when does someone on a bike have the right of way before pedestrians?
If you feel that you have the right to ride on the sidewalks for your safety, what are the options for those walking? Would you suggest that THEY walk on the bike path?
I'm sure you are a considerate cyclist. I'm not singling you, or anyone, out. Just asking.
The design is terrible. Any
The design is terrible. Any commute down Ellicot street takes twice as long as everyone is now stuck behind slow drivers.
Bea - Russ is right, a bike lane on Rt. 63, with all of those semis is a recipe for disaster. Truckers don't have the same view as drivers and are more likely to not see a cyclist and swipe them. Sometimes cyclists and pedestrians are going to have to share the sidewalk for safety's sake.
Dan, The question is who has
Dan,
The question is who has the right of way on the sidewalk?
The cyclist?
The parent with a stroller or buggy?
The children playing on the sidewalk?
The pedestrian who doesn't have a rear view mirror to see a cyclist coming at them from behind?
I'm all for people using their bikes.
I agree they should have a safe environment in which to enjoy their ride, but at who's expense?
A bicycle is a vehicle, it can travel much faster than an adult pedestrian and certainly much faster than a child. It gives it a big edge when it comes to "sharing" the sidewalk.
Many people walk for exercise and relaxation on summer evenings. Children have played sidewalk games for more years than you and I have been on this earth.
The experience of having someone yelling, "coming through", with no intention of going around people walking (or even slowing down)leads me to believe that there won't be much "sharing" by some.
I'm just presenting the other side of the issue.
Then pedestrians should move
Then pedestrians should move and cyclists should give a fair warning that they are coming. Or cyclists should make a very quick swerve into the road. I'm not saying that pedestrians shouldn't take precedent, but in some situations uncomfortable sharing will just have to be the norm. I would rather have the occasional scrape or bruise because a cyclist ran into a pedestrian than a death because a cyclist was hit by an 18-wheeler.
Case closed then, Dan. Tell
Case closed then, Dan.
Tell that to the mother who's baby might get those occasional scrapes and bruises because she couldn't move faster than the bike coming at her.
Tell that to the senior citizen who might end up with a broken hip or worse because that person couldn't move faster than the bike coming from behind.
"Uncomfortable" sharing?
The only person who's comfort and safety is insured is the cyclist.
Dan, How in the world did we
Dan,
How in the world did we survive before the bike lane was put in? There is no bike lane on Main Street, how do we ever manage? Bikes will have to be outlawed.
I can't see bikes being
I can't see bikes being outlawed. Nor would I want them to be.
Main St. IS a problem with people on bikes expecting to have the right of way.
I see no viable solution other than Dan's. Let the pedestrians be responsible. If they suffer a few bruises and scrapes then so be it.
On the other end of that, I think it is fair to give credit to those, who ride their bikes on Main St., who are very respectful when coming upon people walking. For every one of those "coming through" cyclists, there are people who have actually slowed down, got off their bikes and walked their bikes around people.
Here, at the Towers, we have a private sidewalk that goes in front of the building. I have seen adults swerve off the main sidewalk and speed through the private walk, barely missing people walking. This is the age of "only for me" and the hell with anyone else.
Yes, people have been on bikes for years, but it is only recently that I've witnessed careless disregard for others by those on bikes.
Dan; "The design is terrible.
Dan; "The design is terrible. Any commute down Ellicot street takes twice as long as everyone is now stuck behind slow drivers."
According to mapquest, Main&Ellicott to Cedar&Ellicott is 1.71 miles at 30mph it takes about 4 minutes, allowing for traffic lights, 6 minutes. If it takes twice as long it's 12 minutes, 3 times as long, 18 minutes. A tractor trailer doing 30 mph behind a car where he can't pass has a pretty good chance of seeing a bicyclist, or he shouldn't be driving. Some idiot in a car will be watching the car in front so he doesn't rearend him instead of texting, calling someone on the phone, surfing porn, whatever and will be able to see a bicyclist. So if it takes even 3 times a longer to get down Ellicott Street, is losing 12 minutes of your day really going to hurt you? The bike lane will be safer because of the necessarily slower speeds and people on the sidewalk will be safer. Everyone just needs to slow down and understand that everyone pays the taxes that built the roads, bike lanes and sidewalks, so we should share safely .
I said twice as long as a
I said twice as long as a figure of speech. My point is that everyone now is stuck behind slow drivers on Ellicot and that slows down the flow of traffic. Losing a few extra minutes of my day if I'm in a hurry can hurt me. I sometimes deliver subpoenas, often when I get one I have to serve it very quickly, the nice part about the old design of Ellicot is I could pass the person who needs to drive slow on my way. Now I spend an extra few minutes that I don't have behind some people who go slower than the speed limit.
As for an 18 Wheeler, a cyclist could be riding in the bike lane, an 18 wheeler slightly swerves to avoid something and then before you know it the cyclist gets caught in the 18 wheelers tires.
Ok, so maybe it really isn't
Ok, so maybe it really isn't twice as long then? My point is that people get themselves all wound up because someone else is in their way or a traffic light turned red, when it may not really be costing them much time. I drive a lot, trucks and cars all over NY and PA, I can't tell you how many times someone is behind me when I'm doing the speed limit somewhere, having a total freak-out trying to get around me, passing on solid lines etc only to be 2 cars ahead of me at the next light. It may not be slowing you down as much as you think. You may have to deliver something quickly, but you still can't break the speed limit without risking a fine, nor should you. Safety first. More people are killed in automobile accidents than anything else.
Dave - I understand and I
Dave - I understand and I make a conscious effort not to speed and I do not tailgate either. I was just pointing out that a two lanes is optimal so people who want to go slower than the speed limit can stay in the right lane.
Well...I live off Oak St. At
Well...I live off Oak St. At first, I thought the redesign there was the dumbest thing ever. Now, after a year I can say that I really enjoy it. The amount of morons trying to break the land speed record has greatly deminished. Also it is a much safer transition for someone who lives on Oak St. trying to merge from their driveways.
As far as the circle goes, I can not understand for the life of me what everyone's deal is with that. It's an incredibly simple thing and they have them all over the world. I've navigated circles in NJ and in Europe without any incident. The people who have accidents in that thing don't know how to drive. They go into fast, they don't know how (or when) to signal, so you get needless incidents.
So Real Quick tutorial on Circles:
1. Person to left has right of way, to inclue those in and waiting to go enter.
2. You do not have to signal to enter a circle. (Everyone knows you're going in)
3. You do signal when you are exiting the circle. That way the person waiting to enter knows you're leaving and it's safe.
That's it.
Last, I don't see anything wrong with changes on Ellicot. The City speed limit is 30mph. If you're in a hurry find an alternative route, but don't go flying 40 - 50mph on the side streets. You will hurt someone.
Basically, Dan it's a state
Basically, Dan it's a state route through a residential area, slowing the traffic flow is necessary. Same with the roundabout. I'm not so sure the bike route is a great idea, but it's there now. Anyway, be safe out there, there's too many idiots on the roads.
Bea, In answer to your
Bea, In answer to your question regarding who has the right of way on sidewalks, cyclists or pedestrians, the City code makes it pretty clear:
§ 159-2 Vehicles on sidewalks.
A. No person shall ride a bicycle on a sidewalk except a bicycle having solid tires and designed for and used by preteenage children, or except to cross same.
Apparently, it is enforced as much as:
§ 159-3 Spitting on sidewalk.
No person shall expectorate upon any sidewalk or public place within the city.
§ 159-13 Penalties for offenses.
Each violation of any provision of this article shall constitute a violation pursuant to the Penal Law. However, in no case shall the fine imposed exceed $250.
Does everyone forget that the
Does everyone forget that the original plans called for parking on both sides and no bike lane? That part may have actually been useful.
The lights on Ellicott need to be switched to blinking yellows for Ellicott and red for side streets from 9pm-6:30 am. I get caught by 3 of them each time I drive to or from my house and thats is just plain ridiculous.
Its not a residential area the whole way down, most of it is commercial. But all city streets are 30mph.
Bea, the ruts and pushed up areas in the sidewalk are far more dangerous to the elderly than the bike riders.
Russ is exactly right that this is to control truck traffic and put it back on the thruway. But I haven't noticed any less of it. They still go by disturbing my movies and shows. I would say they are more disturbing since it takes them longer to go by since they are now single file.
I agree that the condition of
I agree that the condition of many sidewalks are a peril to anyone walking, pushing a stroller/buggy, or using walking aides.
Peter, I am not addressing this issue to you. It is a pet peeve of mine since I was forced off the sidewalk a year ago by a very inconsiderate adult on a bike.
As I stated, this type of behavior is not what I have experienced in the past, but seems to be increasing.
I am sorry that the traffic on Ellicott St. is slower.
Will it deter the trucks from using a state designated truck route? I don't think so.
Until the state removes that designation, then those of us in Batavia, with the crossroads of 5, 63, 33, and 98 will suffer the noice, pollution, and traffic caused by these heavy vehicles.
We all complain about them, but where would we be without them? Look around your space, right now. Everything you see was delivered by truck.
There are some cities that ban big trucks. They have designated areas where they can unload to smaller delivery vehicles which then service the area.
There are others that only allow big trucks to enter during the night hours to make deliveries.
Both of these options work, but they don't work when you have a truck route going through the center of your city.
I don't want them banned at
I don't want them banned at all I was just making the point that the state generated the exact opposite of its intent.
Bike lanes, in an area that
Bike lanes, in an area that has our weather was a waste. While there will always be somebody who will ride their bike in the cold and snow, most of us don't.
The parking on both sides that could be used 12 months of the year was a better idea.
As with the lane changes on
As with the lane changes on 590, why is public opinion forthcoming after the project is complete? Did residents have an opportunity to air preferences during the planning phase?
Re: Bike Lanes- Bike Paths are exclusive; bike lanes only favor cyclists ("preferential"). Local law determines rules for bike lanes.
C.M. We did, that is why
C.M. We did, that is why they sent the counters out there and so forth.
http://thebatavian.com/blogs/howard-owens/photo-counting-cars/14988
Read the comments there.
Peter, I question spending
Peter, I question spending tax dollars to improve traffic, the net result: residents dissatisfied. In the case of the 590 modifications, DOT has to revisit the project because of public outcry. Apparently, the engineers don't listen. Who pays the second time around? Do local authorities review the plans before construction begins? Why would parking be eliminated on a commercial strip like Ellicott St.?
https://www.nysdot.gov/region
https://www.nysdot.gov/regional-offices/region4/projects/route63-corrid…
Well by looking at all the
Well by looking at all the comments after what I wrote, I guess you could say I struck a nerve. I will try to keep this short, simple and to the point. Bea, I won't be anxious to see a story about anyone getting hit anywhere's. I was just stating that the bike lane isn't a good idea or safe as I see it. Peter pointed out that they were supposed to have parking, but for whatever reason that was lost. I do believe bike lanes are a great idea in the right areas. I think the state knew they had to put something there if they weren't going to put parking because there is a lot of wasted space there. As a matter of fact, I drove down 63 on my way home today just to see if I was missing something. I witnessed a tractor trailer using the bike lane for parking in front of the Sugar Creek on 63/Cedar st. (hey Peter someone got to park there) and I also witnessed one of Batavia's youth using the bike lane as a sidewalk. I witness this all the time around Batavia and can't really understand why people insist on walking in the road instead of the sidewalks. I do understand that some sidewalks have snow on them still, but only ankle deep. Anyways at least he was using the bike lane instead of the rest of the road. As far as its slowing down the traffic and making it a little more quiet, well thats just great. If thats all were getting out of this project I still think its a waste. Anyone who buys a house on a four lane state highway and thinks it will be quiet and just slow traffic needs to look at where they bought the house in the first place. Im all for projects that make sense. That fixes problems, but all I can see is a complete waste of money and no problems fixed, just a number of new ones created. So now we have to put all the lights on timers on 63 so the residence have at least a chance of backing out of their driveways safely. Funny, we didn't have to do that when we had four lanes. As far as driving around the roundabout, I have no problems doing this and I never said I did have a problem driving around them. What I was stating is that its a pain in the butt for 18 wheel trucks doing this without driving over part of it. Im sure I would have a problem with it too if I were driving a tractor trailer....lol...tried to keep this short. So much more to say, but I will just keep it to this. I shouldn't be suprised that our state messed up this project. Hey at least they didn't think of putting high speed rail there instead of the bike lane. I will give them that!
I find all this complaining
I find all this complaining about money wasted, increased travel time and traffic light timing rather absurd and exaggerated. There’s an elephant in the room and it looks like Dave is the only one that can see it. Over the past 25 years there’s been an average of over 40 accidents per year on Ellicott Street. About 14 of those 40+ accidents per year resulted in 1 or more injuries. Moreover, in the past 25 years there have been 3 fatalities. I’m sure if one of those injuries or fatalities happened to someone dear to you, your comments would be much different.
Oh no! Not 40 accidents!
Oh no! Not 40 accidents! That's absurd. Let's not blame the drivers involved, it got to be the 4 lane road that is to blame!
1,000 accidents over the past
1,000 accidents over the past 25 years on Ellicott street? Where did you get this number from Mark? So now that it's two lanes it's more safe? I'm all for an increase in safety in any area, but I don't see what they did to make it more safe? I think it's a little more dangerous to anyone backing out of a driveway now then it was with four lanes. I don't see the bike lane being safe at all. I have driven for 25 years now without one car accident, speeding ticket or moving violation. I consider myself a safe driver. I don't feel anymore safe driving down Ellicott then I did the last 15 years on a daily basis. Injuries or fatalities to anyone close to me would definitley affect me, but I don't think I would feel any different about how our state chooses to waste money on a daily basis.
@ Russ Salway: That info came
@ Russ Salway: That info came from the NYSDOT.
more info at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_diet