Micah Posner: No surprise the 'status quo' opposes rail trail project

In some circumstances taking the lane is safer. It's certainly safer than passing right turning traffic on the right which what got that teacher killed on Mission Street a couple of years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with "taking the lane" on Mission Street is that it's not just a city road, it's Highway 1, a popular tourist route. Many people come through Santa Cruz who are not at all conversant with sharing the road, and they end up on Highway 1.
The way I see it, Micah Posner's advocacy of cyclists trying to own Mission Street is just asking for trouble. Sometimes I wonder how opportunistic Posner is; he's at the forefront blaming cars whenever there's a fatality on Mission.
[I don't have any problem with cyclists "taking the lane" - I'd prefer them to when it's a tight squeeze.(I do have problems with cyclists who think "share the road" means "move out of the way of bicyclists" and intentionally try to slow traffic or be in the way - like Critical Massholes).]

nocklebeast wrote:

The number of auto lanes stayed the same when the bike lanes were installed.
<quoted text>

Are you seriously saying that Soquel was always 2 lanes on those blocks? If that's what you're saying, you're wrong wrong wrong. Soquel was 4 lanes there.

It was 4 lanes and now it's two lanes with a center turn lane to make it easier for cars to make turns into local businesses? Do I have it right now?

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you seriously saying that Soquel was always 2 lanes on those blocks? If that's what you're saying, you're wrong wrong wrong. Soquel was 4 lanes there.

nocklebeast wrote:

It was 4 lanes and now it's two lanes with a center turn lane to make it easier for cars to make turns into local businesses? Do I have it right now?
<quoted text>

It's two lanes plus bike lanes now, thanks to the bike lobby. It prevents traffic flowing more having only 2 lanes than having 4 did without a center lane.

It's doing the job intended - cutting down to 2 lanes means less traffic. Like it or not, it also means that merchants get fewer customers.

I could never figure out why cyclists couldn't use Broadway or Water Street instead. I suppose it's for the same reason that they have to remove either traffic or parking from King Street, instead of using Escalona or California.

I don't get it. If you're not visiting the businesses on Soquel... just passing through... then why don't you use the freeway. There won't be any cyclists or bike lanes there to slow you down. The center lane makes it easier to get into and out of business parking lots on that busy street, if you're actually going to visit the businesses there.

The reason why there are bicycle lanes on Soquel now is actually very easy to understand. Soquel is one of the only roads where cyclists can cross Arana Gulch in each direction. That's why it was a long time goal for cyclists to get bike lanes on the full length of Soquel. Both Water and Broadway have bike lanes, but stop well short of Capitola Road coming from Santa Cruz towards Capitola. The other reason to use Broadway is that none of the existing businesses on Soquel are on Broadway.

I don't think King Street has anything Soquel but much to do with Mission Street. Still, I already prefer California over King as it is now...

Here's part of the deal with King Street: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nocklebeast/3252...

It is curious though how you're against the rail trail _and_ improvements to surface streets for cyclists. It was certainly cheaper and easier to put bike lanes on Soquel than buy and build a rail trail. I believe it's probably still easier to improve existing surface streets for cyclists than build a rail trail. I guess you're just anti-cyclist.

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
It's two lanes plus bike lanes now, thanks to the bike lobby. It prevents traffic flowing more having only 2 lanes than having 4 did without a center lane.
It's doing the job intended - cutting down to 2 lanes means less traffic. Like it or not, it also means that merchants get fewer customers.
I could never figure out why cyclists couldn't use Broadway or Water Street instead. I suppose it's for the same reason that they have to remove either traffic or parking from King Street, instead of using Escalona or California.

You don't think the traffic flows better now with a center turn lane? At least with a center turn lane, cars making left turns do not have cars stacked up behind them like they would for a 4 lane configuration.... That's the configuration that used to exist on some parts of Mission Street.... but the center turn lane was eliminated so that there could be 2 lanes in each direction instead of just one.

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
It's two lanes plus bike lanes now, thanks to the bike lobby. It prevents traffic flowing more having only 2 lanes than having 4 did without a center lane.

Posner apparently believes that everyone can get to anywhere they want to go via bike or skateboard. He thinks that the automobile (even hybrids) are the devil's wheels. The idea of widening Hy 1 puts him over the edge.

In his article he cites Mesiti Miller, a local structural engineering firm, as the source of his conclusions on the suitability of the 32-mile long UP railroad corridor for a rail-trail. Fact: Mesiti Miller is NOT an expert firm on rail-trail construction. Someone in that firm connected some maps and made a few measurements, and on the strength of that concluded that the majority of the right-of-way was trail-compatible. Baloney !! Show us the study if you are so proud of it. Even though money is budgeted by the RTC do do a valid feasibility study by a REAL rail-trail firm, they have not done it. Why? Afraid of the answer maybe? Or the cost? Where has objectivity gone?

A study was done recently for a rail-trail from Santa Cruz to Felton and the conclusion was that although feasible, the cost would be from $3 million to $5 million PER MILE. And that route did not have 37 bridsges and trestles to cross as does the UP corridor. Mr. Posner must believe in the rail-trail fairy who is going to leave over $100 million under his pillow. Or is he planning on building a cheap illegal gravel trail as was done a few years ago by a group of "guerrilla cyclists" right next to an active rail line. Has anyone been reading about the number of railroad deaths on the CalTrain tracks lately? Railroads are dangerous and to cram a trail alongside an active line is just plain crazy. And for many miles of the UP corridor "cram" is the operative word. On this stretch of rail line, freight trains and people are simply not compatible.

The purchase of the UP corridor is a bad idea. Some day when there is no longer any rail service the tracks can be pulled and a Rails TO Trails Project can commence (if that fairy comes through with the money). Until then let the UP run its money losing service and allow us to use our tens-of-millions of dollars for something that benefits us all every day .. like filling pot holes and fixing sidewalks.

I just discovered this OP ED DRivel by Micah Posner. He truly reflects the weakest thinking that I have seen in any of the collection of wishful thinking and pie in the sky vision of the rail trail advocates. If this boondoggle goes through it will be another banner example of a state/county government system run amok.