The case for Bikeability in Houston

[samagon]

Then that hypothetical cyclist is hypothetically retarded. They can drive a car, carpool, ride a bus, call a cab, walk, or engage in a combination of those options. Some of these options may take more time, but if the cyclist is so poor that he can't afford bus fare, then his time probably isn't worth very much either...and this is leaving aside the personal danger that cycling as a primary mode of transportation poses and that when he gets hit, injured, and hospitalized, the taxpayers will end up footing his bill.

When it comes down to it, I just think that priority should be given to productive members of society trying to go about their daily business in an efficient and safe manner...and desperately impoverished cyclists (living near Kirby!) don't merit much pity.

I really hope that you are saying this to elicit a healthy debate, if not that is very callous and not at all considerate of the choices that people are encouraged to make in our country. You would claim that a valid form of transportation doesn't come up to your muster because it inconveniences you, so therefor whoever is on that contrivance out of choice doesn't deserve to use your roads.

To say that a cyclist doesn't 'merit much pity' because they have other choices, wow. I'm as stunned as others who have already posted.

Not precisely, no, but that's the gist of it. It also means not having to pay Ben Taub to put your hypothetical cyclist's guts back inside him; it's cheaper to pay his bus fare.

If a car hits a cyclist, that driver must carry insurance, so his insurance would presumably pay for it.

If a driver runs from the scene, that isn't the cyclists fault, and if the driver doesn't carry insurance that isn't the cyclists fault.

But if they have the means to travel by safer and more efficient means and still choose the lesser option, then that's recreation. And recreational transportation tends to carry a fair bit of risk. I'm a kayaker, I know all about this and have even had a few close calls. But I don't expect for a port authority to slow down ship traffic because I'm crossing a channel. Smaller more vulnerable craft must yield for larger less vulnerable craft, and the rules make complete sense; IMO, the same should apply to most major thoroughfares except when provided dedicated lanes or crossings. Not all vehicles are created equal, nor should they be.

how about when a sail boat comes across a tug boat? that tug has to get out of the way of the sailboat. maritime law is riddled with all sorts of caveats, and not to mention we're talking about congested roadways vs a pretty large waterway that while being congested, does offer options to change your trajectory by a small amount to attain your goal without using more energy. where with a road that is congested, a cyclist that wants to alter his trajectory has to find another road, which trying to find around kirby and 59 is impossible for at least 3 blocks on both sides.

[TheNiche]

Thanks for the clarification. But if riders are in the streets, and car drivers don't like it... it's just as valid an option for drivers not to drive to avoid cyclists as it is for the cyclists to avoid the cars. Legally speaking, a car doesn't give someone specialized right to the road. Obviously, practicality is something different.

There are cases where car drivers don't have a right to the road, such as if there is construction work, an accident, or if their vehicle isn't street legal. Drivers also cannot drive recklessly or disobey posted street signs. Pedestrians also are permitted to utilize the road under certain circumstances and not under others...and sometimes it depends on what kind of road it is. I wouldn't claim that the laws are all perfect, but they exist to serve a practical function and generally are successful at that. And certainly there is adequate precedent to apply similar rules to cyclists.

So how would you write your proposed "ticketable offense" statute? What would your criteria for a thoroughfare where bikes would not be allowed be?

I'm not a lawyer or a traffic engineer, so going into minutia probably won't be very productive. But as indicated in my prior response, I'm OK with it if a cyclist takes dedicated bike paths, dedicated bike lanes, neighborhood streets, or even major thoroughfares that aren't prone to congestion, that have good sight lines, larger lanes, and/or lower speed limits. The availability of alternate routes should also be taken into consideration.

I think Kirby (particularly south of Westheimer and north of Brays Bayou) was the best example of a thoroughfare that would qualify. Westheimer, Washington Ave, Memorial Dr. east of Shepherd, and Shepherd between Allen Pkwy and US 59 also come to mind as places that neither cyclists or drivers should want cyclists to be.

Why don't these cars just ride on the sidewalks?

Why don't pedestrians just walk in the streets? It isn't practical.

Why don't airplanes just land on freeways? It isn't practical.

Why don't horseback riders use Westheimer? It isn't practical.

I really hope that you are saying this to elicit a healthy debate, if not that is very callous and not at all considerate of the choices that people are encouraged to make in our country. You would claim that a valid form of transportation doesn't come up to your muster because it inconveniences you, so therefor whoever is on that contrivance out of choice doesn't deserve to use your roads.

To say that a cyclist doesn't 'merit much pity' because they have other choices, wow. I'm as stunned as others who have already posted.

You put forth a hypothetical scenario and I gave you an honest hypothetical response to it...however unlikely/uncommon it may be.

And your appeal to civil liberties or the intents of the founders amuses me.

If a car hits a cyclist, that driver must carry insurance, so his insurance would presumably pay for it.

If a driver runs from the scene, that isn't the cyclists fault, and if the driver doesn't carry insurance that isn't the cyclists fault.

Regardless of the individual picks up the tab, the injury still reflects an outlay that must be made by society at large to fix up (or dispose of) the cyclist. Let's also be considerate of damage to personal property, mental anguish caused to both the cyclist and the driver, and--going on your hit and run example--the (slight) possibility of having to put a productive member of society in prison.

Who cares which party is at fault if these kinds of accidents can be significantly curtailed by making high-risk thoroughfares off limits to cyclists?

how about when a sail boat comes across a tug boat? that tug has to get out of the way of the sailboat. maritime law is riddled with all sorts of caveats, and not to mention we're talking about congested roadways vs a pretty large waterway that while being congested, does offer options to change your trajectory by a small amount to attain your goal without using more energy.

True enough, and they are there for good reasons. A vessel that is under sail does not have guaranteed propulsion and doesn't even necessarily have an engine. A sudden gust of wind, a sudden calm, or a change in wind direction could create a situation where there isn't enough time for the sailing crew to react. And depending on the width/depth of the channel in question, the presence of oncoming traffic, and the draft that is drawn by the vessels...well it's very important that they don't collide and also important that they don't run aground, and there isn't necessarily that much room for error...so I'm sure you can see where I'm heading. The exact outcome of a scenario is dependent on many variables, and things usually turn out alright, however rules are there for practical reasons with the intent being that the unlikely circumstance of a collision or running aground is made even more unlikely. That's the idea that underlies most of our driving, cycling, walking, boating, and flying rules.

[Gooch]

I [...] was pretty intimidated at first riding on those streets. but cars cautiously passed me, and i didn't slow down the flow of traffic.

I noticed this in Austin. I both rode and drove some of the busiest streets in town. Strikingly cars don't backup behind cyclists on busy streets like they do here. Yet, at the same time, when riding I didn't get buzzed or feel as crowded on the street as I do here. There are obviously some improvements to driver habits acquired with increased bike traffic.

I'm not a lawyer or a traffic engineer, so going into minutia probably won't be very productive.

You proposed the idea of "ticketable offenses" for riding on certain roadways. Like you, I cannot think of a way to define a workable criteria to apply to streets that are OK/NOT OK for cyclists. Number of lanes doesn't work. Plenty of 4-lane roads are bikable, and many 2-lanes are not. Do it by car count? How does a cyclist on the road determine that? We could sign all roadways. Very expensive, and wasteful. Lane width? Cyclists would have to carry a tape measure and measure before riding on the roadway? The point is... it can't be subjective and must be obvious to riders and drivers. "The Niche believes bikes shouldn't be on XYZ street" won't suffice. (not to single you out)

Unless one can come up with a workable criteria... allowing bikes on roadways is an all or nothing deal. Banning bikes from all roads makes no sense. So, we have what we have- cyclist discretion.

I'm OK with it if a cyclist takes dedicated bike paths, dedicated bike lanes, neighborhood streets, or even major thoroughfares that aren't prone to congestion, that have good sight lines, larger lanes, and/or lower speed limits.

All rare commodities ITL. I get your point. But your options don't exist for large swaths of ITL Houston. Even where they exist...many designated bikeways and bike lanes are on very narrow, crowded and busy streets. Examples include Weslyan between Westpark and San Filipe (esp around 59), Washington Ave, and West Gray.

[TheNiche]

You proposed the idea of "ticketable offenses" for riding on certain roadways. Like you, I cannot think of a way to define a workable criteria to apply to streets that are OK/NOT OK for cyclists. Number of lanes doesn't work. Plenty of 4-lane roads are bikable, and many 2-lanes are not. Do it by car count? How does a cyclist on the road determine that? We could sign all roadways. Very expensive, and wasteful. Lane width? Cyclists would have to carry a tape measure and measure before riding on the roadway? The point is... it can't be subjective and must be obvious to riders and drivers. "The Niche believes bikes shouldn't be on XYZ street" won't suffice. (not to single you out)

Unless one can come up with a workable criteria... allowing bikes on roadways is an all or nothing deal. Banning bikes from all roads makes no sense. So, we have what we have- cyclist discretion.

What I'm trying to get across is that picking the thoroughfares that are off-limits can be accomplished by people that are qualified to develop appropriate technical criteria. And if specific exceptions have to be made, we can name them in the ordinance. It isn't as though we have to avoid language that would create de-facto zoning.

Enforcement would be as easy as posting signs and designating crossings. As long as the signage is intuitive, as most signage is, it shouldn't necessarily even matter whether a cyclist can read English to get the point across.

All rare commodities ITL. I get your point. But your options don't exist for large swaths of ITL Houston. Even where they exist...many designated bikeways and bike lanes are on very narrow, crowded and busy streets. Examples include Weslyan between Westpark and San Filipe (esp around 59), Washington Ave, and West Gray.

I agree. And as I pointed out before, I'm all in favor of developing new dedicated infrastructure for cyclists, and in the mean time, the availability of alternative routes also needs to be given consideration.

Just because I don't want you guys taking unnecessary risks or inducing congestion doesn't mean that I'm out to get you. I fully understand that some motorists are rude or don't know how to drive, but this persecution complex that cyclists seem to have is also frustrating and only serves to perpetuate tensions and create no-win scenarios.

[J008]

I am always amazed at how any discussion of bicycle transport almost always devolves into a car versus bike culture war.

I bike to work 90% of the time and would be AMAZED to see the most modest improvements in biking like 1. Don't allow parking on bike paths, 2. Maintain bike paths and 3. Finish bike paths that have been started.

While I firmly take the pro-bicycle almost contempt-toward-cars point of view the existing bike infrastructure is so deficient that I believe it is hard to talk about a cycling nirvana when there is still a Denali parked on the "bike" path. Seriously, a parked car has more clout than a cyclist!

[mfastx]

Not precisely, no, but that's the gist of it. It also means not having to pay Ben Taub to put your hypothetical cyclist's guts back inside him; it's cheaper to pay his bus fare.

Don't worry, under the new health care plan, this hypothetical cyclist will have to have his own insurance.

[N Judah]

I am always amazed at how any discussion of bicycle transport almost always devolves into a car versus bike culture war.

Agreed, and I think the problem is that almost all bicyclists are also drivers, but a very small number of drivers are also bicyclists. So the bicyclists are looking for workable solutions that benefit all, while the drivers' typical response to anything that threatens their entitlement complex is to more or less sit back and say something along the lines of "Well, no matter what happens, we've set it up so that we can just run you over and not face any consequences whatsoever, so you'd better be careful if you know what's good for you."

Demarcating bike lanes and designated areas might help the drivers but it won't help the cyclists -- crossings etc. certainly didn't work for LRT, and the typical response is to blame the design of the LRT rather than the stupidity of the drivers.

[porTENT]

I would like to see urban developments along bike infrastructure.

[TheNiche]

Agreed, and I think the problem is that almost all bicyclists are also drivers, but a very small number of drivers are also bicyclists. So the bicyclists are looking for workable solutions that benefit all, while the drivers' typical response to anything that threatens their entitlement complex is to more or less sit back and say something along the lines of "Well, no matter what happens, we've set it up so that we can just run you over and not face any consequences whatsoever, so you'd better be careful if you know what's good for you."

Demarcating bike lanes and designated areas might help the drivers but it won't help the cyclists -- crossings etc. certainly didn't work for LRT, and the typical response is to blame the design of the LRT rather than the stupidity of the drivers.

Personally, I think that the problem is that out of the population of drivers and cyclists, there are rude, careless, and inconsiderate people in each camp. These people are predispositioned to having accidents and generally being a burden to society. But they aren't the ones that bother to engage in discussions such as we're having here, and so responsible drivers and cyclists are associating the behaviors of irresponsible people with the people that are opposing them in the discussion.

Unfortunately, it's not PC to suggest that euthanizing these burdens to society should be considered an option, so the remaining alternatives are that we either pay for their ****-ups...or we idiot-proof our transportation systems the same way we idiot-proof our consumer goods.

[samagon]

Personally, I think that the problem is that out of the population of drivers and cyclists, there are rude, careless, and inconsiderate people in each camp. These people are predispositioned to having accidents and generally being a burden to society. But they aren't the ones that bother to engage in discussions such as we're having here, and so responsible drivers and cyclists are associating the behaviors of irresponsible people with the people that are opposing them in the discussion.

Unfortunately, it's not PC to suggest that euthanizing these burdens to society should be considered an option, so the remaining alternatives are that we either pay for their ****-ups...or we idiot-proof our transportation systems the same way we idiot-proof our consumer goods.

I will refrain from the silly response that the only perfect solution is grade separation for trains, buses, cars, bikes and pedestrians.

I do want to say that you are absolutely right, we are seeing people on the other side of the argument and giving them the worst label of the people that do those things. Each person on each side of the argument can relate a personal experience of militance they encountered.

[N Judah]

Well I wasn't just speaking generally -- I think this thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Sorry if I didn't clarify that.

[TheNiche]

I will refrain from the silly response that the only perfect solution is grade separation for trains, buses, cars, bikes and pedestrians.

I do want to say that you are absolutely right, we are seeing people on the other side of the argument and giving them the worst label of the people that do those things. Each person on each side of the argument can relate a personal experience of militance they encountered.

I'm happy to hear that. There's no such thing as a perfect solution, only an optimal medium. Which is to say, you can't take all the risk out of life or you sacrifice that which makes life worth living; excessive risk is also bad.

[samagon]

I'd say that in areas of town where there are lots of alternative streets within close distance, and easily navigable, these are very bike friendly areas.

I'd say that in areas of town where there are 3 or 4 main arteries that are developed with the specific purpose of moving cars, these are very not bike friendly areas.

In areas of town such as downtown, midtown, or older sections of town that were built before cars were the main mode of transportation, transportation on a bike or on foot becomes easier, but then as city planners and developers focused on making people take fewer, but larger streets in their cars, this kills the ability to bike safely, and there are cases where there aren't even sidewalks for pedestrians even in highly commercialized areas, making it unsafe for them as well.

There is no way to add flexibility to our roadways as they are currently to make a safe option for cyclists (peds are easy, fix sidewalks and put in crosswalks with countdowns like they have in downtown). Think of Kirby. How would you make a bike safe area, so cars and bikes can co-exist safely? Part of it may be easy, use some of the existing area between the street and private land to add 3 feet on each side that would be dedicated bike lanes. part of it would be hard. crossing 59. traffic turning to the right off of kirby, or onto kirby could be disastrous for a cyclist, since they have such a small profile. so do you build an overpass, or underpass, just for bikes? I'd like to see a safe option, and I don't even think that is a realistic option. So what do you do? And in reality, this is a big issue for any cross street. Do you install right lane turn signals so that no one turns right unless the bike lanes have a red light? why does this make a difference over peds in crosswalks? bikes move a lot faster than peds and can easily be lost, so it is a concern.

I don't know that there is even a solution that can be made in the newer parts of town that are developed specifically for cars that would reduce dangers to bikes and cars to an acceptable level.

[kylejack]

Critical Mass in 2 days!

[samagon]

Critical Mass in 2 days!

ha, that post I made at 9:02 where I had a bunch of words, what I really meant to say, was what you just said.

[kylejack]

ahahahahahaha

[TheNiche]

I'd say that in areas of town where there are lots of alternative streets within close distance, and easily navigable, these are very bike friendly areas.

I'd say that in areas of town where there are 3 or 4 main arteries that are developed with the specific purpose of moving cars, these are very not bike friendly areas.

In areas of town such as downtown, midtown, or older sections of town that were built before cars were the main mode of transportation, transportation on a bike or on foot becomes easier, but then as city planners and developers focused on making people take fewer, but larger streets in their cars, this kills the ability to bike safely, and there are cases where there aren't even sidewalks for pedestrians even in highly commercialized areas, making it unsafe for them as well.

There is no way to add flexibility to our roadways as they are currently to make a safe option for cyclists (peds are easy, fix sidewalks and put in crosswalks with countdowns like they have in downtown). Think of Kirby. How would you make a bike safe area, so cars and bikes can co-exist safely? Part of it may be easy, use some of the existing area between the street and private land to add 3 feet on each side that would be dedicated bike lanes. part of it would be hard. crossing 59. traffic turning to the right off of kirby, or onto kirby could be disastrous for a cyclist, since they have such a small profile. so do you build an overpass, or underpass, just for bikes? I'd like to see a safe option, and I don't even think that is a realistic option. So what do you do? And in reality, this is a big issue for any cross street. Do you install right lane turn signals so that no one turns right unless the bike lanes have a red light? why does this make a difference over peds in crosswalks? bikes move a lot faster than peds and can easily be lost, so it is a concern.

I don't know that there is even a solution that can be made in the newer parts of town that are developed specifically for cars that would reduce dangers to bikes and cars to an acceptable level.

A grid pattern definitely aids in walkability and bikeability. With the exception of perhaps a handful of master planned communities, there aren't many exceptions to that general rule. To that end, there are effective alternates to many otherwise-dangerous thoroughfares. Kirby has Morningside, et al.; Shepherd has Hazard St., et al; Washington has Center St., et al.; Memorial Dr. and Allen Pkwy. have the trails along Buffalo Bayou. True, there are choke points where few safe alternatives exist, but it's hard to get around that. Again, the idea is optimization...not perfection.

But actually, I'd tend to think that the most dangerous routes would be inner-city. Modern major thoroughfares and their intersections are planned by transportation engineers to have unobstructed views, wider and multiple lanes, gradual curves, shallower grades, good sight lines, and fewer intersections that are more frequently signalized. Modern roads also use better paving techniques, meaning that potholes and other flaws are less common.

[kylejack]

There is a difference in the driver, though. Drivers in suburban areas are much more hostile to bicycles if the honks are any indication. Also, bike lanes trickle out as you get further out.

[TheNiche]

There is a difference in the driver, though. Drivers in suburban areas are much more hostile to bicycles if the honks are any indication. Also, bike lanes trickle out as you get further out.

I suppose that the other side of the coin is that the modern thoroughfares typical of suburban areas were engineered to enhance safety and to allow somewhat higher speed limits. And the speed differential is a source of consternation for drivers, particularly if the road has a fair bit of traffic and only one lane in each direction. Still, it doesn't seem that you're the sort to be bothered much by hostility if you're the sort that buys into the political mission of Critical Mass. And I'd imagine that even if some folks are honking at you, you're still safer on the better-engineered suburban thoroughfares than you are in much of the urban core.

[kylejack]

Honks are more intimidating when you are riding alone.

[samagon]

A grid pattern definitely aids in walkability and bikeability. With the exception of perhaps a handful of master planned communities, there aren't many exceptions to that general rule. To that end, there are effective alternates to many otherwise-dangerous thoroughfares. Kirby has Morningside, et al.; Shepherd has Hazard St., et al; Washington has Center St., et al.; Memorial Dr. and Allen Pkwy. have the trails along Buffalo Bayou. True, there are choke points where few safe alternatives exist, but it's hard to get around that. Again, the idea is optimization...not perfection.

But actually, I'd tend to think that the most dangerous routes would be inner-city. Modern major thoroughfares and their intersections are planned by transportation engineers to have unobstructed views, wider and multiple lanes, gradual curves, shallower grades, good sight lines, and fewer intersections that are more frequently signalized. Modern roads also use better paving techniques, meaning that potholes and other flaws are less common.

Hazard is an excellent alternative to Shepherd, Center is an excellent alternative to Washington, the trails along buffalo bayou are great alternatives to the road. Kirby though, I prefer Kelvin, I think it is better paved and a closer option to Kirby. Either street, Morningside or Kelvin though, you get the choke point you're talking about, and between Bissonnet and Norfolk, as there aren't any other options. Lake street is a bad option as far as I'm concerned due to the quality of the street, last time I drove it in my car I was worried about potholes, my bike is set up to be really agile and twitchy, but I'd probably still taco a rim on that road.

Specifically speaking about downtown and midtown that is the easiest to navigate by bike, there are so many lanes and usually traffic is light enough that you can move out of a right hand lane, if you know traffic can/will be turning, and sight lines are usually really good. I feel very comfortable and at ease riding that area alone, even at night. Obviously, I still avoid highly used portions of the grid. Also, the speed limit in most of the area around DT and MT is 30 mph, while people still go between 30 and 40 mph, it's better than on streets marked at 35 mph where I see people traveling upwards of 45 mph.

[skwatra]

And I'd imagine that even if some folks are honking at you, you're still safer on the better-engineered suburban thoroughfares than you are in much of the urban core.

I agree that the infrastructure and line of site is better, but overall I still feel safer in the urban core. My experience comes from downtown/midtown compared to Clear Lake. I feel like more people are aware downtown of their surroundings, the locals (meaning locally driving in the urban core often) are used to dealing with bikes, buses, scooters, potholes, etc. The people coming in town for a specific event that don't regularly drive are less familiar, so they are cautious because they don't know the roads. I feel like in the burbs people don't deal with other vehicles (non cars), they know their roads and they're on autopilot. They take right turns without looking, get frustrated if they can't go 45 in a 35 because that's the normal flow. I only ride on the sidewalks in CL, but they are spacious and smooth and never abruptly end so it works out.

Tomorrow I'm heading down Montrose across 59. I usually ride on the sidewalk out of fear, but this thread has inspired me to take the road (defensively of course). Hope to still be posting on Friday...

[Hanuman]

I agree that the infrastructure and line of site is better, but overall I still feel safer in the urban core. My experience comes from downtown/midtown compared to Clear Lake. I feel like more people are aware downtown of their surroundings, the locals (meaning locally driving in the urban core often) are used to dealing with bikes, buses, scooters, potholes, etc. The people coming in town for a specific event that don't regularly drive are less familiar, so they are cautious because they don't know the roads. I feel like in the burbs people don't deal with other vehicles (non cars), they know their roads and they're on autopilot. They take right turns without looking, get frustrated if they can't go 45 in a 35 because that's the normal flow. I only ride on the sidewalks in CL, but they are spacious and smooth and never abruptly end so it works out.

Tomorrow I'm heading down Montrose across 59. I usually ride on the sidewalk out of fear, but this thread has inspired me to take the road (defensively of course). Hope to still be posting on Friday...

SPLAT!!! Ooops, sorry I didn't see you as I pulled around that SUV, and smacked you before I could hit the brake! Man, Dude! Stay on the sidewalk. I enjoy your posts, and the pleasure of your company here ... would like to keep reading them....

[skwatra]

SPLAT!!! Ooops, sorry I didn't see you as I pulled around that SUV, and smacked you before I could hit the brake! Man, Dude! Stay on the sidewalk. I enjoy your posts, and the pleasure of your company here ... would like to keep reading them....

well sometimes there isn't a sidewalk.

[Hanuman]

well sometimes there isn't a sidewalk.

skwatra... remember writing this..."Tomorrow I'm heading down Montrose across 59. I usually ride on the sidewalk out of fear, but this thread has inspired me to take the road (defensively of course). Hope to still be posting on Friday... "???? That's what I was specifically referring to. Sounds as if there IS a sidewalk, but you were going to stick it in the face of motorists... yeah?

I suggest you ride over to Pie In The Sky ( 19th Street ) and have a wonderful piece of the strawberry cream pie, and think about this. Hmmm??

[kylejack]

Riding on the sidewalk is dangerous. Motorists are not looking for vehicles to be coming off the sidewalks and you'll get nailed by a guy turning right. Riding on the street is usually safer. Riding on the sidewalk you have to stop at nearly every driveway and business entrance because people come zipping up to the edge of the road to check for traffic rather than checking the sidewalk.

[skwatra]

skwatra... remember writing this..."Tomorrow I'm heading down Montrose across 59. I usually ride on the sidewalk out of fear, but this thread has inspired me to take the road (defensively of course). Hope to still be posting on Friday... "???? That's what I was specifically referring to. Sounds as if there IS a sidewalk, but you were going to stick it in the face of motorists... yeah?

I suggest you ride over to Pie In The Sky ( 19th Street ) and have a wonderful piece of the strawberry cream pie, and think about this. Hmmm??

well i'm going south for a specific purpose, but maybe next time.

yes, i usually ride on the sidewalk, and stop at all the driveways, jump up and down curbs, and have to switch from northbound to southbound at places. i actually haven't done this ride before, i usually take Elgin over to UH (in my reference to 'usually'), this will be my first time going this far south on Montrose. so i'm not sure what i will come across.

i'm not trying to 'stick it to the face' to anyone. i'm trying to not get my face stuck on anything. i want to be able to ride my bike to my destination and safely get there without causing an issue to traffic. it can be done.

i love being able to park my car when i get home from work and not touching it again (even over a whole weekend) until i have to go back to work. i will continue to ride my bike as much as i can, especially during this beautiful weather.

[JamesL]

Montrose between 59 and Bissonett has some of the worst pavement in Houston. Sampson or York or whatever it is over in the East End there is the only place I can think of that comes close. That part of Montrose will rattle your brains something awful. I recommend Mandell.

Here's the bikeways map, btw:

http://documents.pub...map_network.pdf

[kylejack]

Montrose is fine there IMO. Commerce in the East End is pretty bad, until you get to the Harrisburg Sunset trail.

[skwatra]

thanks guys. i have a mountain bike so i don't mind a little bit of a rough road. i need to study the bikepath maps more, i'm used to just taking the trails along buffalo bayou.