Frank –

 

I forwarded your E-mail to the Traffic Engineering Division.  This is their reply on your interpretation of the situation; they end on the possible options for the City at this point.

William C. Robinson

State Trail Coordinator

Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program

WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator

Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board

 

West Virginia Department of Transportation

Division of Highways

Program Planning and Administration Division

1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East

Building 5, Room 863

Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430

(304)558-9615 Fax – (304)558-3783

bill.c.robinson@wv.gov

 

"The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard,

often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in

order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is

marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F. Kennedy, 1962

 

 

Bill:

 

Based on our discussion, and the attached e-mails, I would like to provide some  clarifications.  The City’s position, expressed by Mr. Spencer, is that the sign and shared lane markings are approved traffic control devices.  This is not the case.   The MUTCD to which they are referring is the PROPOSESD 2009 Edition, which is currently the subject of a Notice of Proposed Amendment  published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on  January 2, 2008.

 

There were over 1400 comments, mostly multi-part comments, received on the Notice.  The FHWA is now faced with the task of reviewing and evaluating the comments before the new MUTCD can be adopted.  It will not be official until the FEDERAL REGISTER notice adopting it is published.  In the meantime, the States have asked that a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Amendment be published so that the many stakeholders in the  MUTCD can review and comment on a version with the comments addressed.

 

State Law requires that the Commissioner of Highways adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices consistent with “this chapter” [Chapter 17C] for use upon highways in this state.  Such uniform system shall correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system THEN CURRENT (my emphasis) as approved by the American Association of State Highway [and Transportation] Officials.  The current system is found in the 2003 MUTCD, which does not contain either the bicycle markings or the BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE sign.  Both State and Federal law and regulations require conformity with the current MUTCD.  WEST VIRGINIA CODE §17-3-3 makes the MUTCD applicable to municipal streets; WEST VIRGINIA CODE §17-3-2 prohibits the installation of traffic control devices on state highways without the approval of the Commissioner of Highways.

 

Chapter 17C-11 of the Code contains provisions which are incompatible with the use of the bicycle chevrons, such as the requirement that riders travel as far to the right as practicable; a provision that bicyclists may ride two abreast; and the provision that traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.  In regard to the last, The CODE prohibits, at §17C-6-3a(a), the operation of a vehicle in such a way that it impedes the normal and reasonable flow of traffic.  The artificial placement of bicyclists to the left will increase the difficulty for other vehicles to pass.

 

The UNIFORM VEHICLE CODE is not in play in the resolution of this issue.  The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes.  There is no requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it.  The WV Code language governs in all cases.  We were able for several years to have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed.

 

I told Mr. Spencer in a telephone conversation last Thursday that I would be willing to meet with a delegation from Morgantown at such time as they could present new  information.  From our perspective, the City presently has two alternatives open to them:

 

1)       Apply for a permit (where State-maintained streets are involved and install SHARE THE ROAD signs, which are an approved traffic control device; or

 

2)       File a request with  the FHWA for Permission to Experiment with either or both of these new traffic control devices;  the DOH would entertain a permit application for  any affected State facilities, once the City has this in hand.

 

e-Mail:  ray.C.lewis@wv.gov

 

FYI –

 

Response from Morgantown to my E-mail this morning…

 

Bill

 

 

Bill,

Check the code.  It says as far to the right as practicable, not possible. 

The Uniform Vehicle Code Section 11-1205 Position on a roadway, provides some clarification:
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including but not limited to: fixed or moving objects; parked or moving vehicles; bicycle; pedestrians; animals; surface hazards; or sub-standard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-had curb or edge.  For purposes of this section, a "sub-standard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

When the WV code says ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, it means to ride as near as can reasonably accomplished under the circumstances to the right.

Approximately 40 other state's codes have similar "far to the right" clauses.  I doubt the FHWA would publish a MUTCD that violates those state's laws.  The new MUTCD recognizes that cyclists and motorists might need some help understanding the intent of the code.  Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking states, "The Shared Lane Marking shown in Figure 9C-9 may be used to:
A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle,
B. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane,
C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way,
D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and
E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling."

We need that in Morgantown.

Concerning the Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs, Section 9B.06 Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign (R4-11) states, "The Bicycles May Use Full Lane (R4-11) sign may be used on roadways where no bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by bicyclists are present and where travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists and motor vehicles to operate side by side. The Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign may be used in locations where it is important to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane."

I understand that Don Spencer, Deputy Mayor has been trying to set up a meeting with Ray Lewis.  I hope that the meeting will be arranged so we will have the opportunity to reach a meeting of the minds.

Frank Gmeindl
Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board


Robinson, Bill C wrote:

Kim - 

I talked this morning to Cindy Cramer, who is the Acting Director for

Traffic Engineering Division.  She said that the people from Morgantown

needed to talk to Ray Lewis (558-9451) or Travis Miller (558-9455) about

the signage issue.

I had a copy of the October 30, 2008 letter, I just didn't realize it

was the one that everyone was talking about.  The bottom line is that

state code says that bikes have to ride as far to the right as possible.

The signage/markings being discussed either explicitly, or implicitly,

encouraged bicyclist to utilize the entire lane.  While the City could

decide to do whatever they want on the City maintained streets, the City

is justifiably concerned about liability about posting signs and

markings that seem to contradict State code.

If the City has issues with WVDOH's position, then they need to schedule

a meeting with either of the two Traffic Engineering personnel above.

If I were the City, I would explore marking the routes with

markings/signage presently being utilized that emphasized that the

bicyclists must keep to the right, but that is their call.  I

recommended the signage/markings to the Rahall Transportation Institute

(RTI) for a project they were doing in Huntington.  After discovering

the conflict with State Code, they are considering using conventional

signage markings and moving them to the right.  In fact, my contact at

RTI had recently viewed a similar signage/marking system in Louisville,

Ky.

While this may be a temporary setback, both the City and DOH had

concerns, it isn't that the WVDOH acted unilaterally or is discouraging

the overall idea of the bicycle routes.

Bill Robinson

WVDOH