On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Gmeindl<
fgmeindl@verizon.net> wrote:
> Jake,
>
> Thanks for the reply. No, I did not mean to write "incorrect" in the
> sentence, "It is also least likely to discourage cyclists from selecting
> correct lane positioning when going straight through or making left turns."
> Perhaps I should have written, "It is also most likely to encourage cyclists
> to select the correct lane positioning when going straight or making left
> turns." but that would be incorrect because cyclists are most likely to
> choose the correct lane positioning when they're not in a bike lane in the
> first place.
>
> Thanks for your agreement with my recommendations.
>
> Please see my response to gunnar about cars parking on the bike lane. You
> know, by law in every of the 50 states, bicyclists have the same rights as
> drivers of vehicles. To me, that means that we have the right to drive our
> bikes on the roadway unless the roadway, such as the interstate highways,
> are explicitly signed to exclude bicycles. Therefore, bicyclists have the
> same right to be on the Mon Blvd roadway as cars. Putting a curb between
> the bike lane and the roadway makes it no longer a bike lane but a side path
> and effectively removes our right to be on that roadway. In addition, WV
> has an atavistic clause in the code that says that bicycles MUST use the
> side path and shall not use the roadway. Thus comes the occasionally heard
> epithet, "Get the #@&! of the road on the trail where you belong!"
>
> I believe "they", if you mean the WV DOH and the City of Morgantown, are
> planning on keeping bicycles off the roadways in this state and in this
> City. We, the Bicycle Board recommended that the bike lane only be put on
> the climbing side of Mon Blvd going towards Evansdale. Putting a bike lane
> on the other side of the Blvd is both unnecessary and dangerous. It is
> unnecessary because bicycles can descend the Blvd without falling below the
> minimum speed limit. It is dangerous because the shoulder ends abruptly at
> the bottom of the hill where the cyclist's speed could be maximum, the
> roadway lanes go from 2 to 1 making it more difficult for the cyclist to
> merge from the shoulder into the traffic lane and beyond that, the single
> lane further narrows and is bounded by a 6-inch high curb. Also, bike lanes
> are notorious for collecting debris, particularly glass because cars are not
> there to sweep it up but also mufflers, exhaust clamps, big chunks of wood,
> etc. Flatting or hitting one of those at 40 mph is unpleasant.
>
> Just FYI, speed limit on the Blvd is 40 mph and the traffic lanes on Mon
> Blvd are 12 feet wide. Most cars are 6-7 feet wide and the maximum
> allowable vehicle width in WV it 8.5 feet. That leaves a minimum of 3.5
> feet for the bicyclist within the lane: not enough for the MV and the
> bicyclist to travel side-by-side safely in the lane but there is the passing
> lane which the MV can use to pass the bicyclist.
>
> Thanks for your reply and the opportunity to rant:)
>
> Frank
> Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles -
> John Forester, Effective Cycling
>
>
> On 8/24/2009 8:41 AM,
FDJakeB@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ** "It is also least likely to discourage cyclists from selecting correct
> lane positioning when going straight through or making left turns. "
>
> Frank, did you mean to write "incorrect" here?
>
> I agree with your recommendations, and your letter looks great.
>
> Gunnar is right about the parking, but I don't know if there is much to be
> done to prevent that, other than a curbing divider, but that is too
> excessive I am sure. Bigger cars would probably drive over that anyways.
>
> Are they planning on putting a lane on both sides of Mon. Blvd. or just the
> uphill side going towards Evansdale?
>
> See you next week,
>
> Jake
>
> On Aug 23, 2009 11:22pm, Gunnar Shogren <
gshogren@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What happens when there are big events at the Coliseum?
>>
>> No parking on the bike lane? Yeah right.
>>
>> Up and down the Blvd.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your recommendations look nice and all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Parking, parking, parking. It's all about parking for the cars.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Frank
Gmeindlfgmeindl@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Bicycle Board Members,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Please review the Mon Blvd Bike Lane recommendations that I provided to
>> > Bill
>>
>> > Austin below and let me know if anything is wrong.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Frank
>>
>> > Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -------- Original Message --------
>>
>> > Subject: Re: WV DOH Response to Letter Concerning Closing of Rail Trail
>>
>> > Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:06:03 -0400
>>
>> > From: Frank Gmeindl
fgmeindl@verizon.net>
>>
>> > To: 'Bill Austin'
baustin@moncpc.org>
>>
>> > CC: Don Spencer
dspencer36@comcast.net>
>>
>> > References:
>>
>> >
moncpc.org>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Bill,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > It might help me to understand what we're trying to do if you shared
>> > with me
>>
>> > the WVDOH letter to which you and Don are referring. I was not aware of
>> > it
>>
>> > until I received Don's message below.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Does the MPO have a plan drawing of the existing Monongahela Blvd.
>> > between
>>
>> > Eighth Street and Patteson Drive? If so, could I get a copy and mark it
>> > up
>>
>> > to show the bike lane?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I would use the 1999 AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle
>> > Facilities (
>>
>> >
http://www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO_1999_BikeBook.pdf ) and the 2003
>> > Manual
>>
>> > of Uniform Guidelines for Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Part 9 Traffic
>>
>> > Controls for Bicycle Facilities (
>>
>> >
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003/part9/part9-toc.htm ) for guidance
>> > for
>>
>> > the markup.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Pages 22-32 of the AASHTO Guide deal with bike lanes.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Stripe width
>>
>> > Page 23 explains that a 6-inch solid stripe is common but some
>> > jurisdictions
>>
>> > have used an 8-inch stripe "for added distinction". I would recommend a
>>
>> > 6-inch stripe to minimize resistance from the WVDOH. All markings on
>> > the
>>
>> > bike lane should be white.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Lane width
>>
>> > Page 23 and Figure 6 on page 24 indicate that we should designate a
>> > 5-foot
>>
>> > wide bike lane since parking is prohibited and there is a gutter and
>> > curb.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Marking Symbols
>>
>> > Clearly marking the bike lane as one-way is imperative. Figure 13 on
>> > page
>>
>> > 31 provides templates for typical one-way arrows and bike lane symbols.
>> > The
>>
>> > arrow symbol and the bicycle symbol should be sufficient to communicate
>> > to
>>
>> > both motorists and cyclists that this is a bike lane and that bicycles
>> > are
>>
>> > to travel up it.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Symbol locations
>>
>> > Figure 14 on page 32 shows recommended locations for the symbols with
>>
>> > respect to intersections. The text on page 31 also says, "additional
>>
>> > stencils may be placed on long uninterrupted sections of roadway".
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I would recommend placing the bicycle symbol and arrow symbol as shown
>> > in
>>
>> > Figure 14 beginning 6-feet from the north end of the driveway north of
>>
>> > Advance Auto. Because of the traffic volume entering and exiting Advance
>>
>> > Auto and the Exxon station, starting the bike lane further south would
>>
>> > jeopardize cyclists' safety and may present liability to the state and
>> > those
>>
>> > businesses.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I would recommend repeating the bicycle symbol and arrow symbol every
>> > 250
>>
>> > feet after their initial location. 250 feet spacing is consistent with
>>
>> > MUTCD guidelines for other markings and signs and will provide a
>> > frequent
>>
>> > reminder to motorists that there's a bike lane to their right.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Where to end the bike lane
>>
>> > Figure 10 on page 28 depicts typical bicycle and auto movements at major
>>
>> > intersections. This figure clearly makes the points I was trying to
>> > make to
>>
>> > you and Don when we were discussing where the bike lane should end near
>>
>> > Evansdale Drive. Page 29 shows preferred treatments for the bike lane
>> > when
>>
>> > it comes to a right turn lane as at the intersection of Mon Blvd. and
>>
>> > Evansdale Drive. I believe the treatment that is most likely to get
>> > WVDOH
>>
>> > buy-in is represented in Figure 10-d. This treatment requires no
>> > changes to
>>
>> > the existing markings. It is also least likely to discourage cyclists
>> > from
>>
>> > selecting correct lane positioning when going straight through or making
>>
>> > left turns.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The AASHTO Guide provides limited guidance on where the bike lane should
>>
>> > end. Fortunately, the MUTCD provides some guidance.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The MUTCD Section 9C.04 Markings For Bicycle Lanes states, "When the
>> > right
>>
>> > through lane is dropped to become a right turn only lane, the bicycle
>> > lane
>>
>> > markings should stop at least 100 feet before the beginning of the right
>>
>> > turn lane." While in our case, the right through lane is not "dropped"
>> > to
>>
>> > become a right turn only lane, the intent of this guideline is to
>> > provide
>>
>> > sufficient distance, 100 feet, for the bicyclist to merge into the right
>>
>> > through lane before autos begin to turn right. Therefore, I would
>> > recommend
>>
>> > that bike lane end 100 feet before the beginning of the right turn lane
>> > from
>>
>> > Mon Blvd. onto Evansdale Drive.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Signage
>>
>> > The MUTCD Section 9B.04 Bicycle Lane Signs also provides valuable
>> > guidance
>>
>> > on signage. I would recommend placing the following signs at the
>> > following
>>
>> > locations (the letters and numbers in parentheses after the sign text
>>
>> > designate the specific sign number that can be found in the MUTCD):
>>
>> > 1. BIKE LANE (R3-17) AHEAD (R3-17aP) 6 feet after the intersection of
>>
>> > Eighth Street and Mon Blvd.;
>>
>> > 2. BIKE LANE (R3-17) at the beginning of the bike lane and every 1000
>> > feet
>>
>> > thereafter (the MUTCD requires BIKE LANE signs to accompany bike lane
>>
>> > markings but "the signs need not be adjacent to every symbol to avoid
>>
>> > overuse of the signs";
>>
>> > 3. BIKE LANE (R3-17) ENDS (R3-17bP) at the end of the bike lane;
>>
>> > 4. BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE, YIELD TO BIKES (R4-4) at the beginning of the
>>
>> > right turn lane;
>>
>> > 5. SHARE THE ROAD signs (SHARE THE ROAD (W16-1) plaque in conjunction
>> > with
>>
>> > the W11-1 (bicycle in diamond shaped sign) sign every 250 feet on both
>> > sides
>>
>> > along Don Knotts Blvd., Beechurst Av., the west side of Mon Blvd.
>> > between
>>
>> > Eighth St. and Evansdale Drive, both sides of Mon Blvd. between
>> > Evansdale
>>
>> > Dr. and the Edith Barrill (Star City) Bridge. (Please note that the
>> > Bicycle
>>
>> > Board recommended and the Traffic Commission approved these share the
>> > road
>>
>> > signs at the same time that the Bicycle Board recommended and the
>> > Traffic
>>
>> > Commission approved the Mon Blvd. bike lane.)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I'm sure I overlooked some things. I hope you've discovered and noted
>> > them
>>
>> > as you read the above.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I look forward to the next step.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Frank
>>
>> > Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > On 8/23/2009 1:48 AM, Don Spencer wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Bill – Sorry to be absent from my computer so much this week. I
>> > appreciate
>>
>> > your meeting with us last Monday to work on the bike lane. I promise to
>> > stay
>>
>> > out of your way on this issue - as far as the MPO structure is
>> > concerned.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > If a local drawing is needed, I would rather have the Bicycle Board
>> > create
>>
>> > the drawing first and then have it taken to the City Manager and
>> > Engineer
>>
>> > for their review and action. The Bicycle Board has more experience in
>>
>> > understanding cycling issues than do the Engineering personnel – even
>> > though
>>
>> > they have resources which they can use to check out and confirm
>> > standards.
>>
>> > The DOH will have their own opinion too, but it is important for us to
>> > say
>>
>> > what we proposed…first.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Frank Gmeindl needs to be the point person – in my opinion.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Don
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > ________________________________
>>
>> >
>>
>> > From: Bill Austin [mailto:
baustin@moncpc.org]
>>
>> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 2:24 PM
>>
>> > To: 'Bill Austin';
dspencer36@comcast.net
>>
>> > Subject: RE: WV DOH Response to Letter Concerning Closing of Rail Trail
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Don,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I wasn’t sure you got this the last time I sent it. One key question I
>> > have
>>
>> > is will the City be able to provide a drawing of the typical section we
>> > are
>>
>> > proposing? Do you need to have the City Manager request it from the City
>>
>> > Engineer? I will be happy to work with the appropriate person on the
>>
>> > specifications. Please let me know who that is.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Bill
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > From: Bill Austin [mailto:
baustin@moncpc.org]
>>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:52 AM
>>
>> > To: '
dspencer36@comcast.net'
>>
>> > Subject: FW: WV DOH Response to Letter Concerning Closing of Rail Trail
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Don,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Thanks for meeting with me yesterday. I was rereading the attached
>> > response
>>
>> > from DOH this morning and had several thoughts. Please take a look at
>> > the
>>
>> > next to last paragraph and the last paragraph on the first page. We need
>> > to
>>
>> > do several things, first we need to note the City Managers commitment to
>>
>> > placing the striping. Secondly, we need a drawing of THE typical
>>
>> > cross-section of the striping that needs to be installed. It should
>> > probably
>>
>> > be based on an ASHTO standard facility that has been constructed in West
>>
>> > Virginia. I am looking into that now. We will need a draft engineering
>> > level
>>
>> > product to share with the new technical committee by mid-September.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Please let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Bill
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > From: Bill Austin [mailto:
baustin@moncpc.org]
>>
>> > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:18 PM
>>
>> > To: '
Bellcom21@aol.com'; 'David Bruffy'; '
dspencer36@comcast.net';
>>
>> > '
gvmayor@comcast.net'; '
jlgoodwi@access.k12.wv.us'; 'Joe Fisher';
>>
>> > '
dulaneyoil@comcast.net'; 'Keller, Perry J'; '
bill@byrnehedges.com';
>>
>> > '
scmayor@comcast.net'; '
Moncom@aol.com'; '
djhstarcity@hotmail.com';
>>
>> > '
dulaneyoil@comcast.net'; '
statler4board@hotmail.com'
>>
>> > Cc: Mike Paugh
>>
>> > Subject: WV DOH Response to Letter Concerning Closing of Rail Trail
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Board Members,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Please find attached a letter from Robert Pennington of the West
>> > Virginia
>>
>> > Department of Highways responding to the MPO’s recent correspondence
>>
>> > concerning the closing of the Rail Trail. We will continue to work to
>>
>> > coordinate with DOH on this issue.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Regards,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Bill Austin, AICP
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Executive Director
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Morgantown Monongalia MPO
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 180 Hart Field Road
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Morgantown, WVA 26508
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 304-291-9571
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 304-692-7225 Mobile
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> > Bikeboard mailing list
>>
>> >
Bikeboard@cheat.org
>>
>> >
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Bikeboard mailing list
>>
>>
Bikeboard@cheat.org
>>
>>
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
>>