McClintock Road resurfacing and left buffered bike lanes

McClintock Drive, Tempe. The left buffering necessitates a "criss cross" maneuver.
McClintock Drive, Tempe. The left buffering necessitates a “criss cross” maneuver.

[Mid-2018  southbound btw Southern and Baseline was restriped to add a 3rd southbound travel lane #restripe ]

[ONGOING still March 2017: There is a City of Tempe McClintock Project Page which is updated has has a long history section]

McClintock Drive resurfacing project, city of Tempe, AZ completed July 2015 — added left buffered Bike Lanes (LBBL) between Guadalupe and Broadway Roads, (the southbound side actually begins 1/2 mile north of Broadway at Apache) which incidentally crosses a major freeway interchange, US60. This is another in a series of “innovative” bicycle infrastructure projects recently completed in the City of Tempe.

The overriding goal of such projects is to make people who won’t now ride feel safer, then — the theory goes —  the increased ridership will eventually increase actual safety via the Safety in Numbers hypothesis. I have a lot of intellectual troubles with this; e.g. there’s never been a causal relationship established with SiN, and bike-MV overtaking type collisions are known to be rare in urban environments; the flip side being that angle-type collisions where any turning or roads cross are common (see Crash History, below)… a type of crash that, if anything, a buffered bike lane makes more likely.

“Candlesticks” were added in the buffer on McClintock Drive near US60 in December. See below.

In any event, all such projects meant to increase participation carries creates additional, um, additional challenges for lawful cyclists because of the conflicts manufactured at driveways and intersections.

Just to point out, there is no vertical element (at least not yet! But see below) between the right general-purpose travel lane and the newly created bike lane, so it does not fit the definition per FHWA guidance as a separated bike lane whose definition is:

A separated bike lane is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is located within or directly adjacent to the roadway and that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic with a vertical element. Separated bike lanes are differentiated from standard and buffered bike lanes by the vertical element. They are differentiated from shared use paths (and sidepaths) by their more proximate relationship to the adjacent roadway and the fact that they are bike-only facilities. Separated bike lanes are also sometimes called “cycle tracks” or “protected bike lanes.”

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition, offers these cautions on marked bike lane “buffers”:

Striped buffers may be used to provide increased separation between a bike lane and another adjacent lane that may present conflicts, such as a parking lane with high turnover or a higher speed travel lane. The benefits of additional lateral separation should be weighed against the disadvantages; a buffer between the bike lane and the adjacent lanes places bicyclists further from the normal sight lines of motorists, who are primarily looking for vehicles in the lanes intended for motor-vehicle travel, and buffers between the bike lane and an adjacent travel lane reduce the natural “sweeping” effect of passing motor vehicles, potentially requiring more frequent maintenance (p. 4-18).

Other random thoughts.

Here is a city PR release and a fact sheet that has quite a bit of detail on it like traffic volumes along all segments of Mcclintock comparing 2004 to 2014; There is a project page at the City’s website. “McClintock Drive between Broadway and Guadalupe roads has seen traffic volumes, on average, decrease by a total of 22 percent since 2004 (see Table A, of the fact sheet). This decrease is largely attributed to the completion of the urban freeway network and an increase in the number of commuters choosing alternative modes of travel”. And “The total project cost was $1,704,547” but no further details there, one wonders if this was TQ or CMAQ?

Like other arterial roads in Tempe, this road is very wide with a high speed limit (45mph throughout, I think)
The old configuration was sometimes 3 thru lanes in each direction, and other times 3X2; and formerly no BLs in this area. The volume on this arterial (like others in Tempe) has dropped markedly since the freeways have been completed and widened (SR101, and US60).
The road is sometimes exceedingly wide — at the intersection with Baseline Rd, there is now: two thru lanes in each direction, a double left turn only lane, a BL and buffer space in each direction, and a RTO lane. It’s about 100′ wide curb-to-curb. Phew.
From what I’ve gathered, the street engineers in Tempe are under some sort of speed illusion — claiming high speeds “helps traffic flow”; which is odd since above some speed (40mph?) road capacity decreases (because drivers will allow disproportinately more distance between vehicles as speed increases), and anyway, capacity is constrained by signalized intersections. The 35mph “at all times” speed limit adjacent to all schools along arterials was instituted years ago, and as things turn out, traffic has not gridlocked. [see for example Rural Road, a major N/S commuting corridor] between Ray and Warner Roads; Corona High School]

Just north of the project area (between Broadway and Apache) there is a particularly nasty bit of arterial where McClintock goes underneath RR tracks. CORRECTION: The southbound lane begins at Apache, not Broadway; but the northbound lane does end at Broadway. Interesting note: City of Tempe bans (banned?) sidewalk riding through the underpass; here is a shot of northbound looking north (sign: “Bicyclists on Sidewalk MUST dismount and Walk ENDS”) and northbound looking south, where there are standard bikes/wrong way. Ride with traffic signs.

McClintock Drive, Tempe.
McClintock Drive, Tempe.

This is in the area of Baseline Road. McClintock Drive is otherwise very straight but has a significant bend in it. I would have to double-check but I believe they maintain the high speed limit of 45mph used elsewhere on Tempe arterials (wrong: because in one of the pics shows 40mph).

Bicyclist Crash History

There were 66 reported Bike-MV crashes from 2009-2015. A couple occurred after the re-stripe, but neither was relevant to the BL

A few facts from the crash data there:

  • The single fatality, a bicyclist crossing McClintock at Alameda was killed by a driver who ran the red light.
  • The single incapacitating injury was to a wrong-way sidewalk cyclist struck in a crosswalk.
  • At least 48 (of the 66) involved a cyclist who was riding of the sidewalk (i.e. sidewalk, driveway, crosswalk. It’s probably higher, as not all are coded completely).
  • A bicyclist was found most at fault a whopping 80% of the time (53 of 66); usually due to wrong-way sidewalk riding.
  • 85% were in daylight (56/66).
  • none involved a cyclist riding in the road being hit from behind or sideswiped (as expected, perhaps, as presumably proportionately few cyclists ride in the road here). There is one sideswipe in the dataset, but it occurred on Guadalupe Rd.

The main claim for BL safety improvement would be to hopefully shift cyclists from the problematic position of sidewalk to the more-visible position of roadway. Whether this happens remains to be seen. Another claim for improvement is simply to be safety in numbers — a proven, but non-causal, effect.

See this comment, below, for details on how this dataset was extracted (it uses a rectangular lat/long), between just SW of Guadalupe and McClintock, and just NE of Broadway and McClintock. See this other comment for the quantity of all crashes: 66 / 28 / 1393 (bike-MV / ped-MV / MV). As is usual, the vast majority of crashes are MV-MV (or single MV only).

Wither South Tempe?

IMG_20141109_075251483McClintock Drive has had BLs forever south of Guadalupe Rd to the city boundary (with Chandler AZ, which for some odd reason doesn’t have BLs on any of their N/S arterials?). They have been there for so long, must be decades since the asphalt has been resurfaced and is in dire need of a full resurfacing.

There is also an ~500′ stretch of “fake bike lanes” on McClintock at Elliot put there to allow McClintock to unneccesarily have 3 through lanes in each direction — this should be fixed immediately. The volumes in no way support any need (if there ever was) for the extra lanes.  Referring to the fact sheet, above, the segments south of Guadalupe have seen a dramatic decline in 10 yr traffic volume, averaging 33% reduction in the Ray to Guadalupe segments — and are much lower than the more northerly segments.

And the horrendous situation at Warner and Kyrene, a couple of miles away in South Tempe, persists to this day.

Update: Tempe to add “candlesticks” to McClintock Drive as buffer between bikes and vehicles

Per City of Tempe announcement 10/12/2015. This would make these lane, then, “separated” per the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide‘s definitions (see above). Here is Tempe’s announcement, note it covers 2 miles (the two busiest) of the ~ 4 to 4.5 miles of project:

As part of Tempe’s commitment to providing travel options for all modes of transportation, the city will build on its recent reconfiguration of McClintock Drive by adding “candlesticks” between newly added bike lanes and vehicle travel lanes. The city plans to install candlesticks, vertical barriers, along McClintock Drive between Southern Avenue and Baseline Road to create more of a separation between bikes and vehicles.

Tempe is adding the candlesticks as a pilot program to address concerns that drivers are using the new bicycle lanes for vehicle travel…. Following installation of the candlesticks, the city will observe driver and bicyclist behavior and work with the bicycling community to determine their effectiveness.

The “candlesticks”/posts were added in early December, 2015, see pic above. Lots of comments in response to Kolby Granville’s Facebook page picture.  I have to assume, but don’t know, that City of Tempe is going to do traffic counts, and queue length, etc; but no idea when that data would come out. Again, may of the stories sound rather fantastic; “Now it takes me 1/2 hour to drive on McClintock” or whatever.

Before/After Traffic Studies

Are buried in a very long Trans Committee agenda packet from March 8, 2016; begins on  p. 57 of the packet, and is/was agenda item 4. Here’s a better .pdf with just the Traffic study materials but also includes citizen feedback (in case this pdf disappears, i saved it as mcClintockBikeLaneTrafficStudy.PDF)[To look up Transportation Committee packets, go here, and then by date, e.g. the 3/8/2016 packet is listed there. There will be a 10/11/2016 that’s not linked yet that has updated McClintock info. There is a city council work session and meeting scheduled 11/3/2016 that will re-visit the situation. There is a note below in Nov 2016 Updates about how to get the correct links to Tempe City documents]

McClintock Dr Before/After Travel Time Comparisons, University Dr to Baseline Rd (p. 77) showed an increase in MV average travel time during peak periods of between 0:14 (that’s zero minutes and 14 seconds (SB, AM peak) to the worst increase of 3:21 (SB, PM peak). So, overall, no it doesn’t look like this is causing anyone to spend an “extra hour every day” in their cars, or that there are “mile and a half backups” caused by the reconfiguration. There is also data comparing Rural to McClintock from Guadalupe to University (4 miles), that was gathered this February (i.e. not before/after). It shows Rural is, as would be expected, to be comparable to McClintock, about 10 to 13 minutes at peak times average depending on direction.

Complaints tend to be hyperbolic, here are some samples (my emphasis):

Resident states that the added bike lane has added 30 minutes to their morning commute. They also stated that they have never seen a bicyclist on Mcclintock…

…I have seen the traffic backed up all the way to Ray from the freeway [yikes; that’s 4.5 miles, and 3 of the 4.5 miles were two lanes before the project, and remain 2 lanes]

in the morning you can’t take a left off of Carson because traffic is so backed up… Baseline to the 60 is bumper to bumper in the morning

decreased the lanes of traffic on McClintock from 3 down to 2 thus creating massive traffic back‐ups during morning and afternoon rush hour.

One vehicle waits at Carson to enter McClintock. 8:14AM
One vehicle waits at Carson to enter McClintock. 8:14AM

added 30 minutes? Never seen a bicyclist? 4.5 mile backups? Also, regarding complaints of trouble turning onto  the area, this comments from before the project “Trying to exit from Carson Drive to head north on McClintock Drive in the morning is difficult due to the northbound McClintock Drive traffic stacking up in all lanes”, or “At the Fry’s at McClintock and Baseline it is nearly impossible to make a right turn out of Fry’s between 3 and 6 let alone a left hand turn”; “it is almost impossible to try to get out on McClintock from either Minton or Carson at the present time…” suggests perhaps there’s a different need/solution (additional signals?). There are a handful of other McClintock photos in the public album;  Near fire station AM Peak showing a virtually empty road, and near Carson AM Peak also showing virtually empty road.

ROAD TAX — There’s a whole strain of these misguided souls who cling to the believe that they, as drivers, are paying for roads:

My gas tax pays for rds. Will there be a bike tax?…

…Until bicyclists start paying a tax for bike lanes…

When I register my vehicle I pay a tax. Do bikers pay for the use of the road?

And then, there is the stupid… they say you can’t fix stupid, and they’re probably right. The stupid — it burns! :

It IS a well know fact that more accidents occur between cars and bicycles in bike paths along busy streets, instead of having those cyclists on the WIDE sidewalks, separated from car traffic!

A few rare admissions in some of the negative comments; Tempe is a cut-through (the first commenter also mentions that it takes him 20-25 minutes to drive the 4 miles to work, and he can’t bicycle because it would take longer):

…Along with Tempe residents affecting this flow, commuters must travel through Tempe to get to their work if they want an alternate route to the freeways here, which never move…

…McClintock is also a flow through road from the 202 heading south, because the 101 freeway jams all the time at rush hour

Here is one somewhat tangentially related nugget of information:

The city of Chandler informed Tempe staff that in response to numerous complaints about bike lanes in Tempe terminating at the Chandler border, the city of Chandler will be narrowing medians on McClintock Drive and on Kyrene Road in order to accommodate bike lanes from the Tempe border south to the Loop 202.

Nov 2016 Updates

[11/3/2016 City council Meeting results: deferred action, look for compromise or whatever… announcement from city website, or here is an kjzz article]

There is a Tempe City Council work session & regular meeting scheduled for early November 3, 2016 where the removal of the present striping will be discussed — presumably to revert it back to the old plan that existing before the resurfacing. The easiest way to find the detailed (and excellent) city-staff prepared information which includes descriptions, traffic flows, volumes and speed, and a limited amount of safety data — Click on the Tempe City Clerks link for Council Meetings and agenda. And from there locate the agenda for the date of interest — in the agenda, find the item of interest which will be a link, e.g. McClintock Drive Street Configuration Impacts, and upon clicking a list of associated documents will appear in the right-pane. For reference, the prior meeting where this was discussed was 3/17. —  THE TRICK WITH THESE LINKS it to right click / copy link, and not follow the link from the city’s website because one the link is followed, it redirects to a cached copy of the document in the “SIRE” system, and those links go dead quickly  —

University to Baseline, per mile MV commute times
University to Baseline, per mile MV commute times

The summary city-staff prepared packet for the 11/3 work session has the “dirt”: the worst-case commute (e.g. a Chandler, or south Tempe resident who works in Tempe, and chooses to use McClintock Drive to commute instead of the 101) which is and was Southbound PM added about 1.5 minutes per mile, from 2:29 to 4:01. The 2nd worst case is Northbound AM, was slightly longer. The “reverse” commute (i.e. from Tempe towards Chandler)  was presumably unchanged, or nearly so. So the worst case motorist commuter who doesn’t want to use the freeway is seeing an average of, say, 6 minutes round trip added to their commute.

By the way, there’s no explanation of what Optimal means; but 1:32 converted is 39.1mph. So optimal must mean “speeding” to city staff, since the posted speed limit is between 35 and 45mph, and that would allow NO time to be stopped at signals, which is of course unrealistic.

By the way, Valley Metro buses average 15mph (4 minutes per mile) including stops and including stopping in any and all traffic conditions. Which is incidentally what most bicyclists manage.

Also in one of the many attachments is the details of a survey (it was attachment 8 and 9 of the 11/3 work study session) commissioned by the city conducted by Behavior Research Center to get citizen input on congestion. Interestingly/curiously, the Rural intersections were quoted as the worst, along with “have you been delayed by a bus”.

The ignorance (or duplicity) revolving around the idea that it’s safer for bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk is disheartening; virtually all of those who spoke in “against” the bike lanes brought this up. One gentleman even claimed (in paraphrase) “the entire length of McClintock… has wide/8′ sidewalks … and a dashed line should/could be painted dividing the sidewalk between pedestrian and bicyclist use” [the wide/8′ business is not true, by the way].

There was a reasonably balanced 11/17/2016 AZ Republic article about the meeting published a couple of weeks after, here’s a few snippets:

“We knew going into this there was going to be some increase in congestion. It would be naive for us as engineers not to believe that,” said Julian Dresang, city traffic engineer. “But we believed it wouldn’t be ridiculously large, and we’re seeing that, for the most part.”…
Tempe resident Shannon Jenkins said she bikes about 140 miles a week in the city delivering sandwiches.
“I will never bike on a sidewalk, it’s not safe. You can’t get in a left lane to turn. Cars pull up right in front of you,” she said. “I’m a 120-pound girl and I’ve been cursed, sworn and spit at … and I’m supposedly the danger?”


March 2017 Updates

I attended the first hour of a public meeting held 3/25 ; one of two to present material prepared by city staff (along with a consultant they hired, Dibble Engineering). The same material was presented at both. Eventually (april) this will make its way to city council. The material is all linked at the city’s McClintock Drive project page.

The direction given to city staff was broadly to

  • Restore travel lanes
  • Retain bike lanes (well, as much as possible?)

Tellingly, safety wasn’t a priority. I’m sure if you asked the councilpeople individually, they would insist that of course safety comes first. It doesn’t. “Improving flow” comes first. All else is secondary. Only reducing peak motorist speed is likely to improve traffic safety.

In any event, along most segments of the 3.5mile project area, adding lanes means widening; which means very costly. Staff prepared multiple options, often 3, for 5 segments and usually north and southbound could vary. That mean hundreds possible of combinations! Costs estimates range anywhere from $0 (leave as-is) to $5M.  It’s not just a money thing, the most invasive would, in addition to the usual construction headaches, leave the street an uglier place, with the loss of mature trees and landscaping space.

Even spending the $5M couldn’t entirely meet the goals at the two bridges because it’s assumed they cannot be changed, the most constrained is the RR underpass between Apache and Broadway, the the other is the bridge over US60.

Staff (Shelly S and Julian Dresange) did a good job, by the way, of explaining in a matter-of-fact way that bicyclists have a right to ride in the road; this came up in the context of possibly removing the existing buffered BL (southbound) under the RR bridge and adding a sharrowed third lane.

June 2017 Updates

The 6/13/2017 Transportation Committee Meeting packet (308 pages!) has a lot of info; including the mind-bendingly dizzying array of choices to amend/eliminate the buffered lanes along the corridor which was broken down into a number of segments with multiple alternatives for each segment with of course different impacts, both financial and aesthetic.

Much of it is re-runs, some updated with more current data. There is some more-current crash data.

I assume at the meeting the committee voted on a recommendation(?).

There will be a City Council Special Meeting at 4:00 pm on June 29, 2017

Sept 7, 2017 Updates

There was yet another council meeting, at this meeting, council voted to spend a several $3.6 million to add (or put back, as the case may be) a third general-purpose travel lane in the southbound direction so that there will be a continuous 3 three through travel lanes from Apache to Baseline.

The extra width will come from a combination of 1) removing the BL buffer area  2) or moving the west-side curb and in the case of the RR underpass, removing the southbound onstreet BL entirely Here’s a good summary from KJZZ:

  • Apache Boulevard to Broadway Road: Add a third southbound car (certainly, they mean general purpose) travel lane. Remove planter boxes along southbound Union Pacific Railroad underpass to widen sidewalk. Bicycles will share widened sidewalk. Add standard northbound bike lane by narrowing travel lanes. Cost: $831,000. (more about this later; this is potentially problematical)
  • Broadway Road to Southern Avenue. Widen west side of road and add a third southbound car (certainly, they mean general purpose) travel lane . Bikes will have a standard bike lane north and southbound. Cost: $2.2 million.
  • Southern Avenue to Baseline Road. Add a third southbound car (certainly, they mean general purpose) travel lane . Bikes will have buffered bike lanes north and southbound with the exception of a standard southbound bike lane at the U.S. 60. Cost: $529,000.
  • Baseline to Elliot roads will remain unchanged. (this is disappointing because there is a “fake” bike lane here ~ 700′ north of the intersection with Elliot and really should be fixed; this would be inexpensive, just needs to be properly striped)

I also heard somewhere the flexposts (there are a few dozen between Baseline and Southern) will be removed. I don’t understand the reasoning, but that seems minor. It seems to me the posts were decried by many of the anti-BL people, and seems to have become a touchstone for them. These people ominously referred to the posts as “dangerous” but I have no idea what they were going for. As far as i can tell there were zero injuries involving the posts.

Early-mid 2018: Third Southbound lane Re-stripe (#restripe)

Julian Dresange, Tempe City Engineer, invited cyclists to review these plans in early February 2018.

In spring-2018 southbound was restriped to include (“restore”) a 3rd southbound travel lane in the section where no construction would be needed  (roughly from a bit north of Southern Ave to a bit south of Baseline Rd, the space was taken away mostly from the buffer. This isn’t a particular problem except for the bridge and apron over US60. In order to accommodate 4 lanes (three thru; plus one dedicated left turn) and a BL; the BL ends up being shoehorned. The July 2018 google street view shows the new stripes and can readily see where the old stripes were. I had seen the plans; IIRC the BL is a mere 5 feet; which sounds ok but it’s sandwiched next to a vertical wall (not just a curb) to the right and a narrow (something like 11′, or maybe even 10.5′?) to the left. This scale illustration at 5 + 11 show the tightness involved, even a plain-old pickup truck overtaking in the adjacent lane is problematic; the present case is worse: the vertical wall means a bicyclist won’t be able to use the middle of the BL, and of course there are many buses and trucks that use this arterial road and they are highly likely to attempt to squeeze by.

illustration from interactive tool

There is excess width on the northbound side, but utilizing it would require the median be moved. Also see comments about ADOT immediately below. (the median splits the bridge, the northbound half has about 56′ of usable width, whereas the SB is only about 47′)


Apropos of nothing in particular, the interchange area with US60 is part of the state highway system and as such belongs to ADOT, so there must have been an “Intergovernmental Agreement”, a document which “define(s) funding and maintenance responsibilities with local governments for bicycle facilities within State highway right-of-way”, per ADOT’s MGT02-01 Bicycle Policy.

MapMyRide / Strava

I don’t really understand what I’m doing with Mapmyride… heretofore I’ve only ever used it to log/record my rides. The app refers to this as a “workouts” which of course follows a  “routes”. Any user can also create a “course”; when any user subsequently traverses the course with the app active, statistics are kept. I created two courses to cover the extent of the buffered bike lane. This is in no way a substitute for a bike count, but maybe this would be helpful to visualize who’s using it?

So the way these things work, see this helpful explanation, is anybody using the app who happens to traverse the course shows up; they don’t have to know about it, e.g. I’ve been unknowingly traversing the Warner: I-10 to McClintock course so often that I am a “guru” of the course!

On Strava, the same idea is called a “segment”:

There are also  Strava heatmaps with aggregated data from all their users; at the moment, these two links will zoom in directly to show the area involved. Orient by looking for US60 (going east and west) and SR101 (going north and south, 1 mile to the right of McClintock):


Don’t Ride in the Gutter

Apropos of nothing in particular, DON’T RIDE IN THE GUTTER next to a narrow travel lane; as this cyclist seen here in the Mar 2011 Street View… The gutter is where debris collects and where other hazards are (grates, broken pavement, etc) , and even if there is no debris or other surface problem, there’s not enough room for a vehicle to pass safely or legally without having to change lanes anyway, control the narrow lane by riding near the center.

7 thoughts on “McClintock Road resurfacing and left buffered bike lanes”

  1. I guess the news media needs to be controversial…

    “Reduction of lanes in Tempe was a terrible idea …Tempe is one giant traffic jam,” wrote Donna Aguilar. “It’s going to cost me more than an extra hour of my day, every work day. I’m a single mom, I don’t have extra time to sit in traffic jams.”

    An extra hour each workday? I find that not credible. I rode it a couple of times, once specifically the entire length (Apache to Guadalupe, about 3.5 miles) during morning rush hour. The trip took me about 15 minutes including waiting for lights. The motor traffic didn’t appear to be any more than a few cars queued at some of the major lights.

    The reported, Darren DaRonco, could have gone out there himself with a car and a watch and driven it a few times — but apparently he didn’t. The story, of course, says the city will be measuring traffic flow but of course we’ll have to wait on that.

  2. I got a ride (me and my bike) today from home to ASU during morning rush hour; left home 0707 and the the 12 mile trip took 34 minutes for 21.1mph average speed. On the previous trip, 10/8 the kids (K-12) were on fall break (but not ASU students) and the trip was faster averaging 25.6mph.

    Anyway, the goal was to experience the McClintock striping at rush hour; it might be a little late for the morning peak (~ 0750am)… in any event there was no MV queue at any of the lights in either direction except for northbound approaching Southern Ave. which had a one light cycle queue (in other words, drivers arriving at the end of the queue needed to wait for the next green to get accross Southern Ave.
    Google traffic now (?maybe for a long time?) has a “typical” traffic view that may come in handy; not sure how the figure typical, of course.

  3. Broadway and McClintock (northern end),-111.909101751776
    Baseline and McClintock:,-111.909250046126
    Guadalupe and McClintock (southern end of project; McC here is shifted west relative to the norther segment),-111.911232901573

    So, search for collisions within this bounding box:
    (NE corner),-111.9089
    (SW corner),-111.9113
    [I used this tool to find latitude and longitude with Google Maps]

    i.IncidentID, i.IncidentDateTime, i.IncidentYear, County, City, Oncic, Encic,
    i.OfficerId, i.OfficerNcic, i.ExtendedNcic,
    i.OnRoad, i.CrossingFeature,
    i.Latitude, i.Longitude,
    p_bike.UnitNumber b_UnitNumber,
    p_bike.eSex b_Sex,
    p_bike.Age b_Age, 
    p_bike.eViolation1 b_Violation1,
    p_bike.eSafetyDevice b_SafetyDevice,
    p_bike.ePersonType b_PersonType,
    u_bike.eLane b_Lane, 
    u_bike.eTravelDirection b_Direction, 
    u_bike.eUnitAction b_Action,
    p_car.UnitNumber c_UnitNumber,
    p_car.eSex c_Sex,
    p_car.Age c_Age,
    p_car.eViolation1 c_Violation1,
    u_car.eLane c_Lane, 
    u_car.eTravelDirection c_Direction, 
    u_car.eUnitAction c_Action
    FROM ((((
    2012_incident AS i JOIN 2012_person AS p_bike ON i.IncidentID = p_bike.IncidentID)
     JOIN 2012_unit AS u_bike ON p_bike.UnitID = u_bike.UnitID) 
     JOIN 2012_person AS p_car ON i.IncidentID = p_car.IncidentID)
     JOIN 2012_unit AS u_car ON p_car.UnitID = u_car.UnitID )
     LEFT OUTER JOIN LOVCounty ON i.CountyId =
     LEFT OUTER JOIN LOVCity ON i.CityId =
     LEFT OUTER JOIN LOVNcic AS OffNcic ON i.OfficerNcic =
     LEFT OUTER JOIN LOVNcic AS ExtNcic ON i.ExtendedNcic =
    WHERE p_bike.ePersonType = 'PEDALCYCLIST' AND p_car.ePersonType='DRIVER' AND 
    (Longitude < -111.9089 AND Longitude > -111.9113) AND 
    (Latitude > 33.3636 AND Latitude < 33.4077  ) AND
    (OnRoad LIKE "McClintock%" OR CrossingFeature LIKE "McClintock%") 
    ORDER BY i.IncidentID;
  4. A Colorado Springs, three mile stretch of Research Parkway, buffered bike lane project dropped one through lane, from 3 to 2, in each direction and “used up” the leftover space with a buffered bike lane. Bears a striking resemblance to McClintock Drive project.
    The CO project was just completed in Sept 2016
    And was announced the project would be reversed, prematurely (even before a scheduled overlay, later in 2017); in Dec 2016
    “The city released findings Thursday showing the lane did nothing to reduce traffic speeds or (a-word deleted). ”
    Regardless of the merits of the bike lane — There is no possible way to honestly make the claim this did or didn’t affect crashes or safety. It would take years to come up with an actual/reliable/statistically significant answer
    None of the news articles listed any facts or figures — volume, speeds, (expected?) crashes, etc.

    e.g. on McClintock with a multi 10s of thousands AADT, there were an average of 16 reported crashes / month (of all types); and under 1/month was a cyclist, for query see below.

    And just down the road (from Colorado Springs):
    City of Pueblo spending $30k on bike lane removal, Nov 2016 “Bike lanes that were put in over a year ago in Pueblo are being removed. . . . the city says there have been issues with drivers figuring out how to interact with the lanes” This appears to have been a two-way cycle-track (?) on a one-way street, probably best for it to go

    And just up the road in Boulder, CO: Boulder’s Protected Bike Lane Removal Would Be Just the 4th Nationwide

    select SUM(sF_Bicycle), SUM(sF_Pedestrian), SUM(sF_Motorist) from incident WHERE (Longitude < -111.9089 AND Longitude > -111.9113) AND (Latitude > 33.3636 AND Latitude < 33.4077 ) AND (OnRoad LIKE "McClintock%" OR CrossingFeature LIKE "McClintock%")

  5. Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:29 AM
    Subject: What to do?

    Once again, you are considering what to do about McClintock Drive; this is all well and good but I’m afraid you’re missing the forest for the trees. Specifically, you are doing a poor job of protecting public safety. Much has been said about bicyclist safety but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There have been 4 bicyclists killed on Tempe Streets over the five year period ending 2014; at the same time 13 pedestrians and 21 motorists have been killed (these figures exclude freeway deaths). And of course hundreds more have been seriously injured.

    You are doing something wrong.

    Your projects should consider safety first, and the only way I know how that happens (before autonomously-driven vehicles arrive) is to reduce peak motor vehicle speeds. Anything you do to try and “improve” congestion is likely to increase peak speeds and therefore cause drivers to kill and injure more people. Keep high speed motor traffic where it belongs — on the freeways — which are designed to handle such speeds.

    You should also recognize the latent demand problem, providing additional capacity simply causes drivers to take advantage of perceived better conditions due to, say, an extra lane, and shift their routes or drive-times accordingly generating more congestion.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *