Frank.
I apologize for not responding to your previous correspondence. I was out of town when I received it and it got lost in the shuffle when I got back.
In regard to your questions.
Feasibility refers to potential constructability. Are there potential physical, social, or economic impediments to implementing the project?
Mobility refers to the projects potential impact on the movement of people system wide. For example a proposed road if correctly constructed may facilitate, transit, automobile and bicycle transportation. If a proposed facility only addresses one mode it should be given a lower score. Similarly, upgrading an existing road from one that serves just automobiles to a facility that also serves bicycles and pedestrians (given that there is demonstrable demand for those other modes) should receive a high grade for mobility. Given that your focus is cycling it is understood that you will represent those concerns in the mobility score.
In regard to preference that is another opportunity for you to represent your interests.
In regard to the ratings provided by the MPO, MPO staff rated each movement in each intersection individually using the quick Reference Tables on pages 44 through 52 of the document you forwarded. We calculated the mean score from these ratings per the guidelines and our correspondence with Christiaan. We do not have a spreadsheet model to share with you. It should also be noted that your concern is in conflict with the ITE specifications for evaluating these issues. While your concern is valid, changing the values without acceptance by the DOH engineers reviewing the work may discredit the work in their eyes. It is safer to use the established criteria and to have raters modify their ratings based on their concerns.
I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of assistance.
Thank you,
Bill Austin, AICP
Executive Director
Morgantown Monongalia MPO
82 Hart Field Road Ste. 105
Morgantown, WVA 26505
304-291-9571
304-692-7225 Mobile
"Change does not change tradition. It strengthens it. Change is a challenge and an opportunity, not a threat."
- http://www.famousquotesandauthors.com/authors/prince_phillip_of_england_quo tes.html Prince Phillip of Englan
"Wherever we are, it is but a stage on the way to somewhere else, and whatever we do, however well we do it, it is only a preparation to do something else that shall be different."
- http://www.famousquotesandauthors.com/authors/robert_louis_stevenson_quotes .html Robert Louis Stevenson
"Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together." -Marilyn Monroe
From: Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 8:51 PM To: Bill Austin Cc: Jing Zhang; Christiaan Abildso; Bicycle Board Subject: Re: Reminder about Project Prioritization and Link to new MPO Online Traffic Count Map
Hi Bill,
Could you please send me operational definitions of Feasibility, Mobility and Preference? I understand Mobility to mean the ease with which any individual can move around given the prevailing physical and social circumstances. Being a representative of bicyclists, I would rate the Mobility of each project according to its effect on the ease it presents to cyclists needing to get to where they're going on their bicycles. I understand Preference to mean how much I personally think each project is worth. Again, representing cyclists, I would prefer those projects that will encourage cycling and make cycling safer. If the intended definitions are different from these, I need to know.
Also, if it's readily available, could you please send me the priority evaluation matrices (project rating sheets) in Excel format? I find PDF format good for reading but not so good for working with.
Also, I asked Jing to run the FHWA model by changing NOBL (No Bike Lane) from 1 to O. If he can't do that, I wonder if he could send me his model and data file and I'll make the changes and run it. In general, I think the models do not sufficiently recognize the risk to cyclists at unsignalized intersections with high cross traffic volume. The bicycle safety scores in the LRTP Project 38 Priority Evaluation report indicate that. If I could re-run the models, the results would probably give me the priorities that I would assign to the Project 38 intersections. To understand the models, please go to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/06130/06130.pdf http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/06130/index.cf m
For example, the model for cyclists going straight through an intersection (Bike ISI = 1.13 + 0.019MAINADT + 0.815MAINHISPD + 0.650TURNVEH + 0.470(RTLANES*BL) + 0.023(CROSSADT*NOBL) + 0.428(SIGNAL*NOBL) + 0.200PARKING) says that if there's a bike lane (NOBL=0), the traffic volume on the cross road (CROSSADT*NOBL) and the presence of a traffic signal (SIGNAL*NOBL) at the intersection is irrelevant to the cyclist's safety. I don't think so.
I recognize that I'm the small fry in this ocean. I'll give it my best shot if you don't want to do any of the above but I need to know that.
Frank
"Change is a challenge and an opportunity, not a threat."
On Jul 15, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Bill Austin wrote:
We will be providing you with PDF's of this information as part of the next Committee meeting agenda packet. Please feel free to let us know how we may improve the presentation of this material.