Bikeboard January 2011

bikeboard@lists.bikelover.org

14 participants
40 discussions

Re: [Bikeboard] Survey
by Chip Wamsley 21 Jan '11

21 Jan '11

---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Frank Gmeindl <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:11:10 -0500 Frank er al, Here is a site that has some info on locker rates, even though it's from 2000. It looks like they are in the $75-85/year, not counting key deposit. Some other good info on city bike parking ordinances as well. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/parking.cfm Chip >Parking Committee Members, > >As we discussed at this morning's meeting, we are going to do a survey to determine who would use bike lockers, how much they would be willing to pay and where we should put them. If you have additional ideas on what we should try to learn with the survey or how we should construct the survey, please reply-all with them. > >Thanks to all of you that turned out in these challenging conditions! > >Frank >_______________________________________________ >Bikeboard mailing list >Bikeboard(a)cheat.org >http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >

4 4

Bike Lane grant application
by Frank Gmeindl 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

Bicycle Board Members, Attached is a rudimentary application for a grant to support the Mon Blvd. bicycle climbing lane. I could use some help determining how many cyclists currently ride that shoulder, estimating the impact of the bike lane and then how to measure it. See sections 2d and 3. If you have any ideas, I'd appreciate your sharing them with me. No hurry. The deadline for this isn't until April but hey, it's raining outside now but I plan to be riding then. Thanks! Frank

3 3

West Run Road
by Frank Gmeindl 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

Bill, Thanks for your phone call this morning setting a tentative February 1 date to meet with WVDOH and cruise the West Run corridor. Since I sent you my last message on this subject, I've received more input. I've revised the message below accordingly and would prefer you forward it, rather than my last message to WVDOH in preparation for our meeting. If we understand correctly, the proposed improvement involves upgrading West Run Road travel lanes to 11-feet and adding up to 2-foot wide paved shoulders. Also, the shoulders may be wider on climbing sections and inside curves and narrower on descending sections and on the outside of curves. The proposed 11-foot lane width plus 2-foot paved shoulder provides no special accommodation for bicyclists but accommodates bicyclists only as ordinary drivers of vehicles. At a minimum, West Run Road should have Share the Road signs (W11-1 sign and W16-1P placard) to alert motorists to bicyclists. Better would be shared lane markings (9C-9) and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs (R4-11). To accommodate novice bicyclists, the travel lanes should be 14-feet wide or the shoulders should be a minimum of 4-feet wide, preferably 5-feet. Otherwise, West Run Rd. can be expected to be limited to motor vehicles and only experienced vehicular cyclists. It is crucial that West Run improvements not force bicyclists to ride to the right of right turn lanes. The improvements should encourage bicyclists to employ best vehicular practices, especially at intersections. Bicycles should be treated as vehicles, not pedestrians. In most cases, 11-feet is not wide enough for a shared lane, i.e a lane in which a motor vehicle and bicycle can travel safely side-by-side. A 2-foot shoulder is simply not wide enough for bicycle operation. Normally, bicyclists require more than 3-feet of roadway space for operation. Normally, 3-feet or more is minimum safe passing distance. Normally, 8-feet is minimum travel width for motor vehicles. Sum = 14-feet. On 11-foot lanes with 2-foot paved shoulders, novice cyclists would probably try to ride on the shoulder, assuming that the shoulder would be maintained free of debris including glass, rocks, snow and ice and be free of surface defects. After a few experiences of getting passed too closely, novice cyclists would probably abandon West Run Road. Experienced cyclists will not use shoulders because shoulders usually have debris that can cause punctures and loss of control. Also, on the shoulder, cyclists are less visible than they are in the lane and especially at crossings, motorists merging onto the roadway may pull out in front of them, overtaking motorists may turn right into them or in front of them and on-coming motorists may turn left into them. Experienced cyclists, if they feel they are visible, will control the lane and prevent being passed. However, when they feel that overtaking vehicles are narrow enough, passing speeds are slow enough and they can see far enough ahead to ensure no on-coming traffic, they might move to the right and allow passing. AASHTO says 11-feet is not wide enough to share. The 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is somewhat ambivalent about shared lanes but indicates that 12-feet is a minimum. The 2009 DRAFT AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities is more definitive. It states: "Lane widths of 13 feet (4.0 m) or less require most motor vehicles to be driven at least part way into the next lane to pass a bicyclist with an adequate and comfortable clearance (usually 3 ft [0.9 m] or more depending on the speed of the passing vehicle). Lane widths of 14 feet (4.3 m) or greater enable motorists to pass bicycles without encroaching into the adjacent lane." The draft guide recognizes that a wider lane may be required on steep grades and says, "Roadways with shared lanes narrower than 14 feet (4.3 m) may still be designated for bicycles with bicycle guide signs and/or shared lane markings..." AASHTO says a 2-foot shoulder is not wide enough for safe bicycle operation. The 1999 AASHTO guide states that bicycles require a minimum of 40 inches (1.0 m) of lateral operating space. It says that paved shoulders should be at least 4-feet wide to accommodate bicycles. It suggests that 5-feet is preferred and wider may be required adjacent to high speed and high volume motor traffic. It does recognize that any shoulder is better than none at all. The West Run shoulder would have to be 4-feet or more to be useful. Most motorists will not run over a bicyclist if they can see the bicyclist and have sufficient time to react. The first priority for the DOH then, should be to ensure that bicyclists are visible in the West Run corridor. Signage will help alert motorists to bicyclist presence. DOH must ensure that sight lines are long enough and speeds are low enough to allow all motorists to see bicyclists or slow-moving vehicles or stopped vehicles, to have sufficient time to decide what to do and to take the correct action. Most motorists will pass the bicyclist if and when they can. Almost no motorists obey the law that prohibits crossing the center line in such cases. Many motorists will cross the center line even when there is on-coming traffic or when they cannot see far enough ahead to ensure that there is no on-coming traffic such as when approaching a blind curve or blind hill crest. If the lane is too narrow to share, cyclists riding in the lane rather than far to the right discourage motorists from trying to squeeze past when there isn't room. If the cyclist determines that moving to the right would provide sufficient space for the overtaking vehicle to pass him or her safely, the cyclist should move to the right. If the bicyclist judges that he or she cannot be passed safely, he or she must control the lane. How much space is sufficient depends on many factors. Some factors include lane width; whether the cyclist thinks the driver of an overtaking vehicle can see him or her; how fast the cyclist is going; how fast the overtaking vehicle is going; whether the cyclist is climbing, descending or riding on level road; how far ahead the cyclist can see; whether any traffic is coming; whether there's a paved shoulder; shoulder width; shoulder condition and what's adjacent to the roadway. If the cyclist determines that moving to the right will not provide sufficient space for the motorist to pass safely, the cyclist should take a position in the lane that prevents the motorist from passing. Finally, as you know, the West Run Planning District recently enacted a zoning ordinance. Article 2600. Roads and Rights-of-Way of the ordinance says that collectors that serve 40 or more residential dwelling units or lots must have 12-foot lanes, 2-foot shoulders and 50-feet right of way. Beyond improving West Run Rd., the Bicycle Board recommends that the MPO and WVDOH reconsider the West Run alternatives described in the current 2030 Transportation Plan. These include a separate bike path through the West Run valley, an extension of the Poultry Farm Road to West Run Rd. and other alternatives connecting to West Run. I look forward to the opportunity to cruise West Run with you and WVDOH staff so we can visualize and discuss these ideas on site. Frank D. Gmeindl Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board LCI #1703 491 WilsonAvenue Morgantown, WV 26501 304-376-0446 Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles

1 0

Inspiration from London
by director 20 Jan '11

20 Jan '11

Saw this today on Treehugger. I guess I can see an advantage to dedicated bike lanes if they get you past gridlocked traffic. Nick http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/success-for-london-bicycle-superhig… -- Nick Hein LCI# 1705 Director, Positive Spin 803 East Brockway Ave Morgantown, WV ph 304-276-0213 --

2 1

Meeting w/Terrence Moore
by Frank Gmeindl 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

Bicycle Board Members, Yesterday, gunnar and I met with Terrence Moore, Jeff Mikorski, Terry Hough and Damien Davis. Terrence assigned Damien to be liaison between the City Manager's office and the Bicycle Board. Terrence also expressed a strong desire, almost a mandate, I'd say, to win the LAB Bronze level Bicycle Friendly Community award. I passed out the attached summary of the draft comprehensive bicycle plan and explained that achieving the award involves participation from other city departments in addition to Engineering, namely the other E's: Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, Evaluation and Equity. I said that we need to get enforcement involved next. He said that he will require the new Chief of Police to support bicycling and walking. What would you think of inviting Damien to be an ex-officio member of the Bicycle Board? Frank

2 1

Re: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

I have been riding West Run for years now for a variety of reasons, even before it was over-developed. There is a posted speed limit of 25 miles an hour, but that is never enforced. In general, most speeding occurs when people are using the road as a short-cut during rush hour. However, the state should explore installing an automated camera to snap photos of license plates of speeders, probably could help offset the cost of making improvements. One of the most dangerous parts of the road between Van Voorhis and Stewartstown road is the intersection with Riddle. If you are going straight down West Run with your bicycle you definitely don't want to stay close to the curb, or you risk getting hooked by people waiting on Riddle to turn onto West Run. The visuals at the intersection are bad, and drivers misjudge bicyclists speed. I've enjoyed bicycling on this road. The worst thing I even witnessed was when a large truck had just passed me, and a motorcyclist had just stopped about 50 feet ahead to take a left turn into a new apartment complex, he didn't have a blinker and was using hand signals. Fortunately the truck driver braked fast; the motocyclist probably never realized that he had almost became road kill. It definitely needs sidewalks. I would rather see sidewalks built then have a special berm installed for cyclists. -Jonathan On 1/17/2011 12:21 PM, Don Spencer wrote: > > Frank -- From my perspective you and Chet are on target. A road > widening along West Run Road might suffice. It would seem that 11 feet > might suffice. I fear, however, that wide lanes without markings would > produce high rates of speed in places like West Run. If there could be > 13 foot motor vehicle lanes, then it might be safer to have bike lanes > (with intersection signage) to accommodate even lesser trained bicycle > riders. > > If the bicycle access can continue from West Run Road to the River, > part of the problems for bicycles on Van Voorhis can be avoided. To > travel from West Run Road, cyclists (and pedestrians) could have a > relatively flat trail access to and from the downtown and downtown > campuses and Star City streets via the rail trail. > > Don > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Frank Gmeindl [mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net] > *Sent:* Monday, January 17, 2011 11:50 AM > *To:* Chet Parsons > *Cc:* Don Spencer; Bicycle Board > *Subject:* Re: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run > > Thanks, Chet. I had already been there before I replied to Don. > Don's message seems to indicate that there's more detail than one > finds in the 2030 Transportation Plan to which you refer. Perhaps he > just meant that there are more options than we're considering. > > In the 2030 plan, a table of non-motorized projects, Table 30 begins > on page 111. One project there #8 is, "Include bike-ped facilities in > West Run road corridor". The descriptive text below the table says, > "This project will ensure that bicycles and pedestrians are > accommodated in the West Run Road transportation corridor and an > additional connection to the Mon River Trail is provided. As part of > the recommended roadway projects a bike trail is proposed along one > side of the road." Aside from the bike trail along one side of the > road, it doesn't say what those "facilities" might be. A map, Figure > 25 on page 98 shows West Run but adds no useful info. > > Three other projects that Don might be thinking of are #2, #3 and #4. > Project #2 is relevant because it connects the eastern terminus of > West Run Rd. near I-68 with the Decker Creek Trail through the Dug > Hill Rd. corridor. I raised that in the dialog below. The other > projects, as well as the remainder of #2 may be outside the scope of > the West Run project. The remainder of #2 goes out to Cheat Lake > along 857, #3 goes out Old Cheat Rd. and #4 connects Tyrone Rd. to the > Decker Creek Trail through Brookhaven Rd. and Dug Hill Rd. They all > involve adding a "bike lane/paved shoulder". Don are these what you > meant? > > Chet, thanks for prompting me to revisit the 2030 transportation plan. > I had forgot much of it. While looking for the pages you indicated, > I re-read the motorized plan for West Run. Page 109 contains a nice > arial view of the plan to widen West Run, add a 3rd lane from Riddle > to Van Voorhis and a description turn lanes to be added at Van Voohis, > Riddle, Stewartstown and 119. It will be interesting to compare what > DOH now has in mind with that which is currently in the 2030 plan. > > Also, I see that item 22 on page 101 is a 3-lane corridor from the > Research Park to West Run. That's a pretty big bike path:) > > I highly recommend that anyone who worked on the BB Bike Route map > study the map, Figure 25 on page 98 of section 9 of the 2030 plan, > http://www.plantogether.org/plan.html . It verifies what we did but > might give us some other ideas. > > Frank > > On Jan 17, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Chet Parsons wrote: > > > > I can jump in here - thanks for the idea Don. > > I think Don is referring to the nonmotorized segment of the 2030 Plan. > If you go to that location on the MPO website you can look at Chapter > Nine, the Recommended Plan (http://www.plantogether.org/plan.html). > If you go to Page 112 you'll see the nonmotorized Plan. Most of the > items referenced are footnoted with a number in a circle - these are > highway projects that have a nonmotorized component. You can look > back at Table 29 on page 101 for a listing of all the highway projects > and their associated costs. Note item 22 there. > > Table 30 shows the nonmotorized projects - of note are item 8 for West > Run Road (note this plan was done before all the stuff got developed > on West Run between Stewartstown and 119. > > Chet > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Frank Gmeindl > <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net <mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net>> wrote: > > Don, > > What is the MPO bicycle route plan? Can you point me to it? I did a > cursory search of the MPO website and didn't find it. I did find a > "screening addendum" (attached) that contains a map showing a couple > options around Dug Hill Rd. Is that it? > > Frank > > On Jan 16, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Don Spencer wrote: > > > > Frank -- On the West Run related issues, I urge you to take a look at > the MPO bicycle route plan. There is quite a few recommendations in > that plan for establishing a "ring route" from the rail trail in > Sabraton to Easton Hill and then down West Run to the River. The > information does not address the width issues per se, but I think that > referencing the Plan in our discussions with the MPO and DOH is to our > advantage. > > Don > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org > <mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org> > [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org > <mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gunnar Shogren > *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:47 PM > *To:* Frank Gmeindl > *Cc:* Bicycle Board > *Subject:* Re: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Frank Gmeindl > <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net <mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net>> wrote: > > I think we have two concepts. One, is to modify West Run Road to > make it more bike friendly and Two is a segregated path. > > > > Modify West Run Rd. > > For many years before the District, I rode West Run Rd. several > times/week around 5 pm., always from east to west. See map at > http://tinyurl.com/46ofgs3 It was fine except that occasionally, I'd > be head-on with some junior doctor zipping along in his BMW or S-2000 > and we'd both be eyeing the fence posts, mailboxes and culverts for > room to squeeze by. Improving sight-lines is imperative; widening > would be nice; shared lane markings and Bicycles May Use Full Lane > signs, or at least share the road signs would help. Moving, leveling > and realigning the intersection with 119 is also imperative. > > > > I used to ride the old bike route over White Avenue to Dug Hill Rd, > Pierpont Rd., across 857, down Old Cheat Rd. to Easton then along 119 > to West Run as shown on the map at http://tinyurl.com/46ofgs3. Except > for the little stretches of 857 and 119, there wasn't much traffic but > it's quite hilly and would probably discourage novices. However, once > West Run is improved, it would be a suitable extension of the bike > route with appropriate mapping to indicate the hills and to warn of > the high traffic zones on 857 and 119. > > > > Segregated Path > > The best segregated path option would be as I think Chet is > suggesting, basically between West Run Rd. and West Run creek. Heck, > let's propose to go all the way to the Mon River trail in the long run. > > > > Coming from the District out to Easton, you can cross Easton Hill Rd. > and continue out West Run Rd. where it dead-ends at I-68. Crossing > the intersection by Easton School will be a challenge. Before I-68, > West Run Rd. used to continue up the hill to Pierpont Rd. (Who hasn't > ridden through the West Run culverts under I-68? Perhaps you missed > the BB initiation ceremony;) > > > > Don Spencer has told me that there has been some discussion of > running a trail along the west side of I-68 over to Sabraton. We > should explore this. Then, we could connect with the Decker Creek > trail and have a bicycle beltway around the City:) My concern remains > that if we put all our energy into projects like this, it will > eventually become impossible to ride your bike from the trail to any > practical destination because we were diverted from reclaiming the > streets that were ours to being with. > > > > At Easton, going up Easton Hill and across the Mileground should be > an option that could be handled by a bicycle climbing lane. If they > can crane a shopping center and housing development on the side of > that hill and add a full-width travel lane and roundabouts to the > Mileground, they can add 8 feet to Easton Hill for a bicycle climbing > lane! I still occasionally ride up Easton Hill. It's not pleasant > and if you don't take the lane, you'll get squeezed into the guard > rail. It is nearly impossible to walk up or down there though because > there is absolutely no shoulder. > > Untrue! > We've seen our buddy NickH going up it a few times. Did not seem like > it would be a pleasant experience *at* *all*. But maybe Nick can > chime in here. > > > The hundreds of people living in that valley now would be stranded > and starve to death when the gasoline runs out. > > And this would be a bad thing? > > > > > Frank > > > > On Jan 13, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Gunnar Shogren wrote: > > > >> Wider road and signage. > >> I've biked on it off and on throughout the years, problem is that it > >> just doesn't lead anywhere easily, there's a big hill off it as soon > >> as you go toward town, or even go away from town. > >> Sure not many folks use it now, but perhaps they would if even to go > >> from Apt complex to complex, to play XBox or Magic: The Gathering. > >> Widen that puppy and put some signs up. Nice wide shoulder just to > >> ease the minds of less experienced cyclists as well. > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Chet Parsons <chetparsons(a)gmail.com > <mailto:chetparsons@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> I think Bill Austin already has this stuff in his head, but here's > my two > >>> cents. > >>> The section from Van Voorhis to Stewartstown can be used in > combination of > >>> on-street markings and using the floodplain owned by WVU (basically > from the > >>> dairy farm to Pineview). Once you get to Stewartstown, Ryan is right. > >>> You'll need to cut down behind Copper Beech and up between it and > the stuff > >>> up on the backside of the Mileground. Follow that route until you > get to > >>> Easton School, which will be closed soon anyway. Then tie in to > whatever > >>> new development is getting ready to go in along 857 out to I-68. > If you > >>> haven't noticed, the DOH has been clearing and widening 857 for about 4 > >>> months now and my bet is that there will be a new development with an > >>> additional access point by summer. > >>> Another option, but will probably be a more expensive easement, is > to create > >>> a couple switchbacks up the farm on the opposite side of the hill > as West > >>> Run Apartments and then run a path through the apartment complex > and out to > >>> 119/857. > >>> Chet > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Ryan Post <rpostwvu(a)gmail.com > <mailto:rpostwvu@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> West Run, from Stewartstown to 119 (where all the houses are), is > twisty, > >>>> narrow and hilly. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Given those conditions, it can never be bike friendly. Road needs > widened > >>>> and/or straightened significantly. Or create a separate bike/walk > path. I > >>>> doubt many would walk however, since there's very little within ½ > mile. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's a no-man's land of bad planning and shouldn't have been Zoned > on w/o > >>>> correcting the road first, IMO. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: bikeboard-bounces(a)cheat.org > <mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org> > [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On > >>>> Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:36 AM > >>>> To: Bicycle Board > >>>> Subject: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bicycle Board Members, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Heads up. What are your ideas for making West Run more bicycle > friendly? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't know what DOH is planning for West Run yet. I'll keep you > posted. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Frank > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>> > >>>> From: "Bill Austin" <baustin(a)moncpc.org <mailto:baustin@moncpc.org>> > >>>> > >>>> Date: January 11, 2011 4:30:44 PM EST > >>>> > >>>> To: "'Frank Gmeindl'" <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net > <mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net>> > >>>> > >>>> Subject: Work on West Run > >>>> > >>>> Frank, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> DOH has a project to improve West Run. They would like to work > with you > >>>> and the Board on the proper way to accommodate cyclists. I would > appreciate > >>>> discussing the matter with you prior to the CAC Meeting Thursday. > Also, they > >>>> let me know they identified five grates along Mon Boulevard that > they will > >>>> be replacing. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bill Austin, AICP > >>>> > >>>> Executive Director > >>>> > >>>> Morgantown Monongalia MPO > >>>> > >>>> 82 Hart Field Road Ste. 105 > >>>> > >>>> Morgantown, WVA 26505 > >>>> > >>>> 304-291-9571 > >>>> > >>>> 304-692-7225 Mobile > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "Nobody can go back and make a new beginning, but anyone can start > today > >>>> and make a new ending."-Maria Robinson > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Bikeboard mailing list > >>>> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > >>>> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Bikeboard mailing list > >>> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > >>> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bikeboard mailing list > >> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikeboard mailing list > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> > Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3375 - Release Date: 01/12/11 > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikeboard mailing list > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3386 - Release Date: 01/17/11 > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikeboard mailing list > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard

4 7

Re: [Bikeboard] Parking meeting
by Chip Wamsley 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Chip Wamsley" <chip(a)wamsleycycles.com> Reply-To: chip(a)wamsleycycles.com Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:35:33 -0500 Frank et al, Is everyone available this Wed at 8:30 AM to meet at Jay's Daily grind to work on the survey and see if we need to add anything to Don's proposal to do lockers in three garages at a total budget cost of $15,000. Respond or propose an alternative date. Chip >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >From: Frank Gmeindl <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net> >Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:11:10 -0500 > >Frank er al, > >Here is a site that has some info on locker rates, even though it's from 2000. It looks like they are in the $75-85/year, not counting key deposit. Some other good info on city bike parking ordinances as well. > >http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/parking.cfm > >Chip > >>Parking Committee Members, >> >>As we discussed at this morning's meeting, we are going to do a survey to determine who would use bike lockers, how much they would be willing to pay and where we should put them. If you have additional ideas on what we should try to learn with the survey or how we should construct the survey, please reply-all with them. >> >>Thanks to all of you that turned out in these challenging conditions! >> >>Frank >>_______________________________________________ >>Bikeboard mailing list >>Bikeboard(a)cheat.org >>http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >> > >_______________________________________________ >Bikeboard mailing list >Bikeboard(a)cheat.org >http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >

5 5

West Run Road
by Frank Gmeindl 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

Bill, Thank you for inviting the Morgantown Bicycle Board's input on the proposed West Run Road improvement. If we understand correctly, the proposed improvement involves upgrading West Run Road travel lanes to 11-feet and adding up to 2-foot wide paved shoulders. Also, the shoulders may be wider on climbing sections and inside curves and narrower on descending sections and on the outside of curves. The proposed 11-foot lane width plus 2-foot paved shoulder provides no special accommodation for bicyclists but accommodates bicyclists only as ordinary drivers of vehicles. At a minimum, West Run Road should have Share the Road signs (W11-1 sign and W16-1P placard) to alert motorists to bicyclists. Better would be shared lane markings (9C-9) and Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs (R4-11). To accommodate novice bicyclists, the travel lanes width should be 14-feet wide or the shoulders should be a minimum of 4-feet wide, preferably 5-feet. Otherwise, West Run Rd. can be expected to be limited to motor vehicles and only experienced vehicular cyclists. It is crucial that West Run improvements not force bicyclists to ride to the right of right turn lanes. The improvements should encourage bicyclists to employ best vehicular practices, especially at intersections. Bicycles should be treated as vehicles, not pedestrians. In most cases, 11-feet is not wide enough for a shared lane, i.e a lane in which a motor vehicle and bicycle can travel safely side-by-sdide. A 2-foot shoulder is simply not wide enough for bicycle operation. Normally, bicyclists require more than 3-feet of roadway space for operation. Normally, 3-feet or more is minimum safe passing distance. Normally, 8-feet is minimum travel width for motor vehicles. Sum = 14-feet. On 11-foot lanes with 2-foot paved shoulders, novice cyclists would probably try to ride on the shoulder, assuming that the shoulder would be maintained free of debris including glass, rocks, snow and ice and be free of surface defects. After a few experiences of getting passed too closely, novice cyclists would probably abandon West Run Road. Experienced cyclists, if they feel they were visible, will take the lane and prevent being passed. However, when they feel that overtaking vehicles are narrow enough, passing speeds are slow enough and they can see far enough ahead to ensure no on-coming traffic, they might move to the right and allow passing. AASHTO says 11-feet is not wide enough to share. The 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is somewhat ambivalent about shared lanes but indicates that 12-feet is a minimum. The 2009 DRAFT AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities is more definitive. It states: "Lane widths of 13 feet (4.0 m) or less require most motor vehicles to be driven at least part way into the next lane to pass a bicyclist with an adequate and comfortable clearance (usually 3 ft [0.9 m] or more depending on the speed of the passing vehicle). Lane widths of 14 feet (4.3 m) or greater enable motorists to pass bicycles without encroaching into the adjacent lane." The draft guide recognizes that a wider lane may be required on steep grades and says, "Roadways with shared lanes narrower than 14 feet (4.3 m) may still be designated for bicycles with bicycle guide signs and/or shared lane markings..." AASHTO says a 2-foot shoulder is not wide enough for safe bicycle operation. The 1999 AASHTO guide states that bicycles require a minimum of 40 inches (1.0 m) of lateral operating space. It says that paved shoulders should be at least 4-feet wide to accommodate bicycles. It suggests that 5-feet is preferred and wider may be required adjacent to high speed and high volume motor traffic. It does recognize that any shoulder is better than none at all. The West Run shoulder would have to be 4-feet or more to be useful. Most motorists will not run over a bicyclist if they can see the bicyclist and have sufficient time to react. The first priority for the DOH then, should be to ensure that bicyclists are visible in the West Run corridor. Signage will help alert motorists to bicyclist presence. DOH must ensure that sight lines are long enough and speeds are low enough to allow all motorists to see bicyclists or slow-moving vehicles or stopped vehicles, to have sufficient time to decide what to do and to take the correct action. Most motorists will pass the bicyclist if and when they can. Almost no motorists obey the law that prohibits crossing the center line in such cases. Many motorists will cross the center line even when there is on-coming traffic or when they cannot see far enough ahead to ensure that there is no on-coming traffic such as when approaching a blind curve or blind hill crest. If the cyclist determines that moving to the right would provide sufficient space for the overtaking vehicle to pass him or her safely, the cyclist should move to the right. If the bicyclist judges that he or she cannot be passed safely, he or she must control the lane. How much space is sufficient depends on many factors. Some factors include lane width; whether the cyclist thinks an overtaking vehicle can see him or her; how fast the cyclist is going; how fast the overtaking vehicle is going; whether the cyclist is climbing, descending or riding on level road; how far ahead the cyclist can see; whether any traffic is coming; whether there's a paved shoulder; shoulder width; shoulder condition; what's adjacent to the roadway. If the cyclist determines that moving to the right will not provide sufficient space for the motorist to pass safely, the cyclist should take a position in the lane that prevents the motorist from passing. Beyond improving West Run Rd., the Bicycle Board recommends that the MPO and WVDOH reconsider the West Run alternatives described in the current 2030 Transportation Plan. These include a separate bike path through the West Run valley, an extension of the Poultry Farm Road to West Run Rd. and other alternatives connecting to West Run. I look forward to the opportunity to cruise West Run with you and Perry Keller so we can visualize and discuss these ideas on site. Frank D. Gmeindl Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board LCI #1703 491 WilsonAvenue Morgantown, WV 26501 304-376-0446 Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles

1 0

Re: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 17 Jan '11

17 Jan '11

On 1/17/2011 5:21 PM, Ryan Post wrote: > > I considered the Van Voorhis to Rail Trail option, but that's a very > long and steep hill. Plus it's a long way around and isn't useful for > getting to HSC or Engineering campuses. > I was working with a group of people off the Bicycle Board (because this is in the County) about creating a connector from the bottom of Van Voorhis into Suncrest. This would cross a few private properties, but the vast percentage is owned by the District. This would be a fairly level route. The route up through the Research Park that Chet is talking about sounds good, too. -Jonathan > This is also approaching being able to have students from UHS be able > to ride, although Bakers Ridge road is still difficult with heavy > traffic during school in/out times. > > *From:*bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org > [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] *On Behalf Of *Don Spencer > *Sent:* Monday, January 17, 2011 12:22 PM > *To:* 'Frank Gmeindl'; 'Chet Parsons' > *Cc:* 'Bicycle Board' > *Subject:* Re: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run > > Frank -- From my perspective you and Chet are on target. A road > widening along West Run Road might suffice. It would seem that 11 feet > might suffice. I fear, however, that wide lanes without markings would > produce high rates of speed in places like West Run. If there could be > 13 foot motor vehicle lanes, then it might be safer to have bike lanes > (with intersection signage) to accommodate even lesser trained bicycle > riders. > > If the bicycle access can continue from West Run Road to the River, > part of the problems for bicycles on Van Voorhis can be avoided. To > travel from West Run Road, cyclists (and pedestrians) could have a > relatively flat trail access to and from the downtown and downtown > campuses and Star City streets via the rail trail. > > Don > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Frank Gmeindl [mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net] > *Sent:* Monday, January 17, 2011 11:50 AM > *To:* Chet Parsons > *Cc:* Don Spencer; Bicycle Board > *Subject:* Re: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run > > Thanks, Chet. I had already been there before I replied to Don. > Don's message seems to indicate that there's more detail than one > finds in the 2030 Transportation Plan to which you refer. Perhaps he > just meant that there are more options than we're considering. > > In the 2030 plan, a table of non-motorized projects, Table 30 begins > on page 111. One project there #8 is, "Include bike-ped facilities in > West Run road corridor". The descriptive text below the table says, > "This project will ensure that bicycles and pedestrians are > accommodated in the West Run Road transportation corridor and an > additional connection to the Mon River Trail is provided. As part of > the recommended roadway projects a bike trail is proposed along one > side of the road." Aside from the bike trail along one side of the > road, it doesn't say what those "facilities" might be. A map, Figure > 25 on page 98 shows West Run but adds no useful info. > > Three other projects that Don might be thinking of are #2, #3 and #4. > Project #2 is relevant because it connects the eastern terminus of > West Run Rd. near I-68 with the Decker Creek Trail through the Dug > Hill Rd. corridor. I raised that in the dialog below. The other > projects, as well as the remainder of #2 may be outside the scope of > the West Run project. The remainder of #2 goes out to Cheat Lake > along 857, #3 goes out Old Cheat Rd. and #4 connects Tyrone Rd. to the > Decker Creek Trail through Brookhaven Rd. and Dug Hill Rd. They all > involve adding a "bike lane/paved shoulder". Don are these what you > meant? > > Chet, thanks for prompting me to revisit the 2030 transportation plan. > I had forgot much of it. While looking for the pages you indicated, > I re-read the motorized plan for West Run. Page 109 contains a nice > arial view of the plan to widen West Run, add a 3rd lane from Riddle > to Van Voorhis and a description turn lanes to be added at Van Voohis, > Riddle, Stewartstown and 119. It will be interesting to compare what > DOH now has in mind with that which is currently in the 2030 plan. > > Also, I see that item 22 on page 101 is a 3-lane corridor from the > Research Park to West Run. That's a pretty big bike path:) > > I highly recommend that anyone who worked on the BB Bike Route map > study the map, Figure 25 on page 98 of section 9 of the 2030 plan, > http://www.plantogether.org/plan.html . It verifies what we did but > might give us some other ideas. > > Frank > > On Jan 17, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Chet Parsons wrote: > > I can jump in here - thanks for the idea Don. > > I think Don is referring to the nonmotorized segment of the 2030 Plan. > If you go to that location on the MPO website you can look at Chapter > Nine, the Recommended Plan (http://www.plantogether.org/plan.html). > If you go to Page 112 you'll see the nonmotorized Plan. Most of the > items referenced are footnoted with a number in a circle - these are > highway projects that have a nonmotorized component. You can look > back at Table 29 on page 101 for a listing of all the highway projects > and their associated costs. Note item 22 there. > > Table 30 shows the nonmotorized projects - of note are item 8 for West > Run Road (note this plan was done before all the stuff got developed > on West Run between Stewartstown and 119. > > Chet > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Frank Gmeindl > <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net <mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net>> wrote: > > Don, > > What is the MPO bicycle route plan? Can you point me to it? I did a > cursory search of the MPO website and didn't find it. I did find a > "screening addendum" (attached) that contains a map showing a couple > options around Dug Hill Rd. Is that it? > > Frank > > On Jan 16, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Don Spencer wrote: > > Frank -- On the West Run related issues, I urge you to take a look at > the MPO bicycle route plan. There is quite a few recommendations in > that plan for establishing a "ring route" from the rail trail in > Sabraton to Easton Hill and then down West Run to the River. The > information does not address the width issues per se, but I think that > referencing the Plan in our discussions with the MPO and DOH is to our > advantage. > > Don > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org > <mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org> > [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org > <mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gunnar Shogren > *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:47 PM > *To:* Frank Gmeindl > *Cc:* Bicycle Board > *Subject:* Re: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Frank Gmeindl > <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net <mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net>> wrote: > > I think we have two concepts. One, is to modify West Run Road to > make it more bike friendly and Two is a segregated path. > > > > Modify West Run Rd. > > For many years before the District, I rode West Run Rd. several > times/week around 5 pm., always from east to west. See map at > http://tinyurl.com/46ofgs3 It was fine except that occasionally, I'd > be head-on with some junior doctor zipping along in his BMW or S-2000 > and we'd both be eyeing the fence posts, mailboxes and culverts for > room to squeeze by. Improving sight-lines is imperative; widening > would be nice; shared lane markings and Bicycles May Use Full Lane > signs, or at least share the road signs would help. Moving, leveling > and realigning the intersection with 119 is also imperative. > > > > I used to ride the old bike route over White Avenue to Dug Hill Rd, > Pierpont Rd., across 857, down Old Cheat Rd. to Easton then along 119 > to West Run as shown on the map at http://tinyurl.com/46ofgs3. Except > for the little stretches of 857 and 119, there wasn't much traffic but > it's quite hilly and would probably discourage novices. However, once > West Run is improved, it would be a suitable extension of the bike > route with appropriate mapping to indicate the hills and to warn of > the high traffic zones on 857 and 119. > > > > Segregated Path > > The best segregated path option would be as I think Chet is > suggesting, basically between West Run Rd. and West Run creek. Heck, > let's propose to go all the way to the Mon River trail in the long run. > > > > Coming from the District out to Easton, you can cross Easton Hill Rd. > and continue out West Run Rd. where it dead-ends at I-68. Crossing > the intersection by Easton School will be a challenge. Before I-68, > West Run Rd. used to continue up the hill to Pierpont Rd. (Who hasn't > ridden through the West Run culverts under I-68? Perhaps you missed > the BB initiation ceremony;) > > > > Don Spencer has told me that there has been some discussion of > running a trail along the west side of I-68 over to Sabraton. We > should explore this. Then, we could connect with the Decker Creek > trail and have a bicycle beltway around the City:) My concern remains > that if we put all our energy into projects like this, it will > eventually become impossible to ride your bike from the trail to any > practical destination because we were diverted from reclaiming the > streets that were ours to being with. > > > > At Easton, going up Easton Hill and across the Mileground should be > an option that could be handled by a bicycle climbing lane. If they > can crane a shopping center and housing development on the side of > that hill and add a full-width travel lane and roundabouts to the > Mileground, they can add 8 feet to Easton Hill for a bicycle climbing > lane! I still occasionally ride up Easton Hill. It's not pleasant > and if you don't take the lane, you'll get squeezed into the guard > rail. It is nearly impossible to walk up or down there though because > there is absolutely no shoulder. > > Untrue! > We've seen our buddy NickH going up it a few times. Did not seem like > it would be a pleasant experience *at* *all*. But maybe Nick can > chime in here. > > > The hundreds of people living in that valley now would be stranded > and starve to death when the gasoline runs out. > > And this would be a bad thing? > > > > > Frank > > > > On Jan 13, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Gunnar Shogren wrote: > > > >> Wider road and signage. > >> I've biked on it off and on throughout the years, problem is that it > >> just doesn't lead anywhere easily, there's a big hill off it as soon > >> as you go toward town, or even go away from town. > >> Sure not many folks use it now, but perhaps they would if even to go > >> from Apt complex to complex, to play XBox or Magic: The Gathering. > >> Widen that puppy and put some signs up. Nice wide shoulder just to > >> ease the minds of less experienced cyclists as well. > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Chet Parsons <chetparsons(a)gmail.com > <mailto:chetparsons@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> I think Bill Austin already has this stuff in his head, but here's > my two > >>> cents. > >>> The section from Van Voorhis to Stewartstown can be used in > combination of > >>> on-street markings and using the floodplain owned by WVU (basically > from the > >>> dairy farm to Pineview). Once you get to Stewartstown, Ryan is right. > >>> You'll need to cut down behind Copper Beech and up between it and > the stuff > >>> up on the backside of the Mileground. Follow that route until you > get to > >>> Easton School, which will be closed soon anyway. Then tie in to > whatever > >>> new development is getting ready to go in along 857 out to I-68. > If you > >>> haven't noticed, the DOH has been clearing and widening 857 for about 4 > >>> months now and my bet is that there will be a new development with an > >>> additional access point by summer. > >>> Another option, but will probably be a more expensive easement, is > to create > >>> a couple switchbacks up the farm on the opposite side of the hill > as West > >>> Run Apartments and then run a path through the apartment complex > and out to > >>> 119/857. > >>> Chet > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Ryan Post <rpostwvu(a)gmail.com > <mailto:rpostwvu@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> West Run, from Stewartstown to 119 (where all the houses are), is > twisty, > >>>> narrow and hilly. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Given those conditions, it can never be bike friendly. Road needs > widened > >>>> and/or straightened significantly. Or create a separate bike/walk > path. I > >>>> doubt many would walk however, since there's very little within ½ > mile. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's a no-man's land of bad planning and shouldn't have been Zoned > on w/o > >>>> correcting the road first, IMO. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: bikeboard-bounces(a)cheat.org > <mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org> > [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On > >>>> Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:36 AM > >>>> To: Bicycle Board > >>>> Subject: [Bikeboard] Fwd: Work on West Run > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bicycle Board Members, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Heads up. What are your ideas for making West Run more bicycle > friendly? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't know what DOH is planning for West Run yet. I'll keep you > posted. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Frank > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>> > >>>> From: "Bill Austin" <baustin(a)moncpc.org <mailto:baustin@moncpc.org>> > >>>> > >>>> Date: January 11, 2011 4:30:44 PM EST > >>>> > >>>> To: "'Frank Gmeindl'" <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net > <mailto:frank.gmeindl@comcast.net>> > >>>> > >>>> Subject: Work on West Run > >>>> > >>>> Frank, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> DOH has a project to improve West Run. They would like to work > with you > >>>> and the Board on the proper way to accommodate cyclists. I would > appreciate > >>>> discussing the matter with you prior to the CAC Meeting Thursday. > Also, they > >>>> let me know they identified five grates along Mon Boulevard that > they will > >>>> be replacing. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bill Austin, AICP > >>>> > >>>> Executive Director > >>>> > >>>> Morgantown Monongalia MPO > >>>> > >>>> 82 Hart Field Road Ste. 105 > >>>> > >>>> Morgantown, WVA 26505 > >>>> > >>>> 304-291-9571 > >>>> > >>>> 304-692-7225 Mobile > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "Nobody can go back and make a new beginning, but anyone can start > today > >>>> and make a new ending."-Maria Robinson > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Bikeboard mailing list > >>>> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > >>>> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Bikeboard mailing list > >>> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > >>> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bikeboard mailing list > >> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikeboard mailing list > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> > Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3375 - Release Date: 01/12/11 > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikeboard mailing list > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3386 - Release Date: 01/17/11 > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikeboard mailing list > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard

1 0

Re: [Bikeboard] Parking Committee Meeting
by Chip Wamsley 17 Jan '11

17 Jan '11

---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Frank Gmeindl <frank.gmeindl(a)comcast.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:17:26 -0500 All, Here are some points for discussion, along with some locker comparisons--I'll have copies, so no need to print. Attachments in non docx below. Chip >I suppose you're talking about the 8:30 am meeting tomorrow, Wednesday at Zen Clay. > >I plan on being there after I shovel my and my neighbor's sidewalks. > >Zen Clay's great coffee should taste especially good then! They usually have those fresh-out-of-the-oven muffins that early as well. > >Ah, what's the agenda again? > >Frank > >On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Gunnar Shogren wrote: > >> Speak up now or forever hold your peace, >> >> On whether or not you think the meeting should go on, or enough of you >> won't be able to make it, in which case we'll postpone it. >> >> As of now, it is on, but Alice can't make it. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikeboard mailing list >> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > >_______________________________________________ >Bikeboard mailing list >Bikeboard(a)cheat.org >http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Bikeboard January 2011