Good morning, I wanted to share this message from Thunderhead with the bike board, because it deals with an issue that has already happened in most of West Virginia. The emphasis of separated bike paths and exclusion of bikes on roads (by intent or neglect - I've seen both). Although sidewalks, separated trails and shorter pedestrian crossing distances on roadways are important - the federal right of cyclists to share the roadway safely is being eroded - irrationally. The effective end result is that cycling - the most efficient and effective means of single rider transportation over short distances - is being pushed off the road by 70% empty, 90% inefficient motor vehicles. This isn't a good trend and we should take every opportunity to emphasize how cycling has a right and a reason to share the road. Rights are like muscles, if you don't give them attention and use them you lose them.
Nick
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Eric Gilliland" gill@waba.org Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:21:35 -0500
National bike groups and bike/ped professionals may not be aware of the disaster potentially poised to happen in Montgomery County, Maryland, a major suburban county located right next to Washington D.C. The county council there is considering a pair of bills that would overhaul the county's "road code" - those laws that define its roadway design standards. The new legislation would essentially mandate narrow lanes in most circumstances, virtually eliminating the concept of a "wide outside lane" or "shared lane" for bikes on new or rebuilt roads. The legislation does not give cyclists any consideration except on roads identified as bike routes in the county master plan. That contradicts established principles framed in AASHTO guidelines and elsewhere (include the ITE CSS guide), that cyclists should be routinely considered during the design of all roads, not just select roads. Moreover, for county roads that are master-planned as "signed shared roadway" bike routes, the legislation allows only one extra foot of lane width. Specifically the legislation calls for lanes to be fixed at 10.5', 11', or 12' wide depending on roadway type (12' for suburban arterials, for example), with an extra foot added for shared roadway bike routes (i.e. 11.5' to 13'). The bills do not define minimums or maximums but instead specify hard widths that would apply regardless of project-specific factors, public input, etc. Waivers may only be granted by the county council itself. The legislation allows shoulders only on limited types of curbless roads and stipulates that they be 2' wide (4' on highways). The bills do however require bike lanes where called for in the master plan, although these are not numerous. Shared use paths would also be built where called for in the master plan.
The legislation represents a fundamental paradigm shift that could have far-reaching implications if adopted by other counties and states. The bills were motivated by an admirable desire to reduce pedestrian crossing distances, calm traffic and eliminate impervious surface, and as such it has support from many usual cycling allies. But that makes it no less damaging. It appears to have been partly inspired, somewhat unfaithfully, by the ITE's new draft standard, "Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities". That document embraces bike lanes to the near exclusion of other on-road bikeway types. In any case, the Montgomery County legislation sets a dangerous precedent for design standards nationwide. It is all the scarier because it originates in a county that is uaually progressive on bike issues, from people who are usually supportive of cycling. Pedestrian safety is very important, but the proposed legislation seeks to make minor gains in pedestrian safety at an enormous cost to a complete other mode of transportation.
Eric Gilliland WABA
Jack Cochrane MoBike
_______________________________________________ Thunderhead mailing list http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/thunderhead Thunderhead Archive: http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/private/thunderhead