Loading…
6
A city planner in Denver said 'paint is not infrastructure' and now I can't unhear it
I sat in on a public meeting last Tuesday about a proposed bike lane on 11th Ave in Denver and this one guy from the planning office stood up and said 'paint is not infrastructure.' He meant that a stripe of white paint between a cyclist and a 2 ton SUV is basically a suggestion, not protection. I ride about 40 miles a week on my e-bike and I've had two close calls on streets that had nothing but a painted line separating me from traffic. In one case a driver drifted into the bike lane while looking at her phone and I ended up on the sidewalk. It bugs me that cities keep doing this, slapping down paint and calling it a win because it's cheap and fast, maybe $50k a mile instead of $500k for a real barrier. The gap between a painted lane and a protected one is the difference between hoping a driver pays attention and knowing they physically can't hit you. Curious if anyone here has seen a city rip out a painted lane and actually replace it with something real, or if once the paint goes down it's locked in for 20 years.
1 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In1 Comment
hugo_coleman2821d ago
That line about hoping a driver pays attention vs knowing they physically can't hit you is exactly right, and it's wild that cities keep choosing hope because it's cheaper. Painted lanes feel like a way for officials to check a box without actually making anyone safer. Sorry you got pushed onto the sidewalk, that stuff stays with you every time you ride that street again.
1