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: !&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAuYcVxyjk9GhP69k7n4dyXCgAAAEAAAAPz1QKWjjAhOgGPhxq7u/noBAAAAAA==@moncpc.org 8A27568BD739443A9C65CB9FB9D21F9C@donhome
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
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: !&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAuYcVxyjk9GhP69k7n4dyXCgAAAEAAAAPz1QKWjjAhOgGPhxq7u/noBAAAAAA==@moncpc.org 8A27568BD739443A9C65CB9FB9D21F9C@donhome
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
** "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):
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) AHEAD (R3-17aP) 6 feet after the intersection of
Eighth Street and Mon Blvd.;
- 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";
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) ENDS (R3-17bP) at the end of the bike lane;
- BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE, YIELD TO BIKES (R4-4) at the beginning of the
right turn lane;
- 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
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
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):
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) AHEAD (R3-17aP) 6 feet after the intersection of
Eighth Street and Mon Blvd.;
- 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";
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) ENDS (R3-17bP) at the end of the bike lane;
- BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE, YIELD TO BIKES (R4-4) at the beginning
of the
right turn lane;
- 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
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
The other thing about going down the Blvd. is that the drains are really recessed now that it's been repaved a few times. Double the danger of hitting those. I ride down the Blvd. every so often and usually just ride on the white line. Have never had a problem w/ anybody or anything.
Going up there's no real way to make a wider road since the shoulder banks off so much and of course that's a concern for some cyclists riding there in the winter too, that cars will slide onto/into them.
Don't expect cars not to park on the blvd., just as you wouldn't expect Sunday morning Catholics to not park on University Ave downtown. Even though it is illegal. Such is life.
And just cause something is legal doesn't mean that in the current state of affairs it is wise.
One more consideration- For those that were at the last board meeting we had two guests. Concerned cyclists that wanted to see what was going on in Motown and if they could perhaps help in any way. When we asked them their route to their jobs and such, they told of going up University then up Overhill to Jones. Further more they added that at the light of University and Stewart, they would pull over, let the cars behind them and in that light cycle go around them and *then* would proceed up University to Overhill. The said they've never had problems going up University.
How many folks have heard others grumble about a cyclist or group going up a small hilly road and having a stack of cars behind them? Not pulling over, cause it's their "right".
Yes it is the cyclists right to ride in that road and given the nature of the road it is very difficult for motorists to properly pass them.
So which group is doing more for the good of cycling? Is this the same as not asserting your "rights"?
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Gmeindlfgmeindl@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
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
Frank,
You are right, I misread that sentence. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree that a curb, would not work and would change the subject from a lane to a path. I was just thinking of a possible way of addressing the parking issue. People will park there regardless. Then, like you said, it is a question of the law and if it needs to be enforced, etc. So, as mentioned before, in those instances cyclists will just need to take the roadway around.
I've always ridden the downhill side of Mon. Blvd. fine as well, you can move fast enough, and with the double lanes there, it is not really an issue. I just could not remember if a lane on that side was part of the scope.
Gunnar,
Not sure on how to answer your question there. Sometimes I will pull over too to let a group of cars go by. Am I doing less for the cause by making drivers think we/I SHOULD pull over, or am I making them see cyclists in a better light because I respected the cars...I don't know. That could lead to plenty discussion. Typing with one hand is slow and irritating. I'll think on it.
- Jake
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Gunnar Shogren gshogren@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about going down the Blvd. is that the drains are really recessed now that it's been repaved a few times. Double the danger of hitting those. I ride down the Blvd. every so often and usually just ride on the white line. Have never had a problem w/ anybody or anything.
Going up there's no real way to make a wider road since the shoulder banks off so much and of course that's a concern for some cyclists riding there in the winter too, that cars will slide onto/into them.
Don't expect cars not to park on the blvd., just as you wouldn't expect Sunday morning Catholics to not park on University Ave downtown. Even though it is illegal. Such is life.
And just cause something is legal doesn't mean that in the current state of affairs it is wise.
One more consideration- For those that were at the last board meeting we had two guests. Concerned cyclists that wanted to see what was going on in Motown and if they could perhaps help in any way. When we asked them their route to their jobs and such, they told of going up University then up Overhill to Jones. Further more they added that at the light of University and Stewart, they would pull over, let the cars behind them and in that light cycle go around them and *then* would proceed up University to Overhill. The said they've never had problems going up University.
How many folks have heard others grumble about a cyclist or group going up a small hilly road and having a stack of cars behind them? Not pulling over, cause it's their "right".
Yes it is the cyclists right to ride in that road and given the nature of the road it is very difficult for motorists to properly pass them.
So which group is doing more for the good of cycling? Is this the same as not asserting your "rights"?
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Gmeindlfgmeindl@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):
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) AHEAD (R3-17aP) 6 feet after the intersection of
Eighth Street and Mon Blvd.;
- 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";
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) ENDS (R3-17bP) at the end of the bike lane;
- BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE, YIELD TO BIKES (R4-4) at the beginning of
the
right turn lane;
- 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
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
Bicycle Board Members,
Remember the Shared Lane Markings or sharrows that we recommended to the Traffic Commission, that the Traffic Commission approved, that the WVDOH approved and then retracted their approval? And, now, we're facing the same stonewall on the bike lane. Thanks to LCI Karen Karabell in St. Louis for sending me the following excerpt from from Robert Hurst's "The Cyclist's Manifesto":
"Thankfully the 'bike lane controversy' is obsolete, because bike lanes are obsolete. The transportation planner who still thinks in terms of lines is a dinosaur. Wake up, fella. A new surface treatment is proliferating that carries most of the advantages of bike lanes without the controversial disadvantages. The sharrow. It sounds like something Bruce and Demi would name their kid. ...
"As with bike lanes, sharrows don't provide any physical protection against cars running you over. There's no force field there. But they do affect the riding environment in real, positive ways that are hard to explain. In sharp contrast to the bike lanes, I sensed an obvious and most welcome difference after the prominent new-generation sharrow markings were put down [in Denver]. The San Franscisco sharrow study showed that the markings affected motorists' position on the road, when passing bicyclists and even when no bicyclists were present; they altered their position by a foot or two, a significant amount in the eyes of a bicyclist on a typical city street, but there's something else going on with sharrows that's impossible to quantify. Imagine if the word SLOW were painted on the street. Just because a driver sees the word doesn't mean he'll slow down. But he's more likely to slow down, and even if he doesn't he'll likely be thinking about why the word is there--he'll be more aware. He may even be a little confused, and that's good. The same goes for the sharrow. The sharrow doesn't really tell the bicyclist or the driver to do anything specifically, and therein lies much of its beauty. It's art that conjures awareness, and that, as we've seen, is what traffic safety is all about. It makes people think. The sharrow serves the additional purpose of preemptively calming motorists who would otherwise be predisposed to becoming agitated at or aggressive toward any bicyclist they find in their way. The sharrows are undeniable in their message, even to people who can't read: The road doesn't belong just to cars. The bicyclist has a right to be there after all--if you run him down, you'll get in trouble. To some this comes as quite an eye-opener."
Why does our state strive to be last in everything good and first in everything bad?
Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
/ On 8/24/2009 12:55 PM, Jacob Brown wrote:
Frank,
You are right, I misread that sentence. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree that a curb, would not work and would change the subject from a lane to a path. I was just thinking of a possible way of addressing the parking issue. People will park there regardless. Then, like you said, it is a question of the law and if it needs to be enforced, etc. So, as mentioned before, in those instances cyclists will just need to take the roadway around.
I've always ridden the downhill side of Mon. Blvd. fine as well, you can move fast enough, and with the double lanes there, it is not really an issue. I just could not remember if a lane on that side was part of the scope.
Gunnar,
Not sure on how to answer your question there. Sometimes I will pull over too to let a group of cars go by. Am I doing less for the cause by making drivers think we/I SHOULD pull over, or am I making them see cyclists in a better light because I respected the cars...I don't know. That could lead to plenty discussion. Typing with one hand is slow and irritating. I'll think on it.
- Jake
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Gunnar Shogren <gshogren@gmail.com mailto:gshogren@gmail.com> wrote:
The other thing about going down the Blvd. is that the drains are really recessed now that it's been repaved a few times. Double the danger of hitting those. I ride down the Blvd. every so often and usually just ride on the white line. Have never had a problem w/ anybody or anything. Going up there's no real way to make a wider road since the shoulder banks off so much and of course that's a concern for some cyclists riding there in the winter too, that cars will slide onto/into them. Don't expect cars not to park on the blvd., just as you wouldn't expect Sunday morning Catholics to not park on University Ave downtown. Even though it is illegal. Such is life. And just cause something is legal doesn't mean that in the current state of affairs it is wise. One more consideration- For those that were at the last board meeting we had two guests. Concerned cyclists that wanted to see what was going on in Motown and if they could perhaps help in any way. When we asked them their route to their jobs and such, they told of going up University then up Overhill to Jones. Further more they added that at the light of University and Stewart, they would pull over, let the cars behind them and in that light cycle go around them and *then* would proceed up University to Overhill. The said they've never had problems going up University. How many folks have heard others grumble about a cyclist or group going up a small hilly road and having a stack of cars behind them? Not pulling over, cause it's their "right". Yes it is the cyclists right to ride in that road and given the nature of the road it is very difficult for motorists to properly pass them. So which group is doing more for the good of cycling? Is this the same as not asserting your "rights"? On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Gmeindl<fgmeindl@verizon.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>> >> >> > To: 'Bill Austin' baustin@moncpc.org <mailto:baustin@moncpc.org>> >> >> > CC: Don Spencer dspencer36@comcast.net <mailto:dspencer36@comcast.net>> >> >> > References: >> >> > moncpc.org <http://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 <mailto:baustin@moncpc.org>] >> >> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 2:24 PM >> >> > To: 'Bill Austin'; dspencer36@comcast.net <mailto: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 <mailto:baustin@moncpc.org>] >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:52 AM >> >> > To: 'dspencer36@comcast.net <mailto: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 <mailto:baustin@moncpc.org>] >> >> > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:18 PM >> >> > To: 'Bellcom21@aol.com <mailto:Bellcom21@aol.com>'; 'David Bruffy'; 'dspencer36@comcast.net <mailto:dspencer36@comcast.net>'; >> >> > 'gvmayor@comcast.net <mailto:gvmayor@comcast.net>'; 'jlgoodwi@access.k12.wv.us <mailto:jlgoodwi@access.k12.wv.us>'; 'Joe Fisher'; >> >> > 'dulaneyoil@comcast.net <mailto:dulaneyoil@comcast.net>'; 'Keller, Perry J'; 'bill@byrnehedges.com <mailto:bill@byrnehedges.com>'; >> >> > 'scmayor@comcast.net <mailto:scmayor@comcast.net>'; 'Moncom@aol.com <mailto:Moncom@aol.com>'; 'djhstarcity@hotmail.com <mailto:djhstarcity@hotmail.com>'; >> >> > 'dulaneyoil@comcast.net <mailto:dulaneyoil@comcast.net>'; 'statler4board@hotmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> >> >> > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Bikeboard mailing list >> >> Bikeboard@cheat.org <mailto:Bikeboard@cheat.org> >> >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >>-- Jacob Brown 434.660.3173
Jake and all - I have found in the AASHTO and state bicycle plan literature that a placing a curb between bikes and traffic is a complete no-no for both the safety of cyclists and the safety for motorists.
I do believe that a bicycle lane can be/should be closed off due to specific events just as parking can be prohibited for special events such as parades, one way traffic can be created due to football games, lanes on bridges can be closed for marathons, turning lanes converted to through lanes - daily - due to traffic congestion, etc., etc. Whenever the greater good needs to be served in specific situations, "rights" can be adjusted and people's prerogatives may have to be met by the people taking detours.
If there is a saw horse and sign on the Boulevard shoulder bikeway at Eighth Street due to Pitt basketball parking, we may have to adjust by climbing Eighth Street instead.unless when we encounter cars parked for the event we prefer to take a position in a 12' traffic lane on the Boulevard itself!
Having the climbing bike lane available 95+% of the time is critical. That, I believe, is the goal that we are working for. We can adjust as necessary to make it work and help improve cycling in Motown!
Don
_____
From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:43 AM To: FDJakeB@gmail.com Cc: Bicycle Board Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] [Fwd: Re: WV DOH Response to Letter Concerning Closing of Rail Trail]
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 mailto:gshogren@gmail.com 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):
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) AHEAD (R3-17aP) 6 feet after the intersection of
Eighth Street and Mon Blvd.;
- 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";
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) ENDS (R3-17bP) at the end of the bike lane;
- BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE, YIELD TO BIKES (R4-4) at the beginning of the
right turn lane;
- 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
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
Excellent points Don!
Jenny
Jenny Selin 1224 Fairlawns Morgantown, WV 26505 USA
Phone:(304-598-9650) jselin@hotmail.com
From: dspencer36@comcast.net To: fgmeindl@verizon.net; FDJakeB@gmail.com Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:11 -0400 CC: bikeboard@cheat.org Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] [Fwd: Re: WV DOH Response to Letter Concerning Closing of Rail Trail]
Jake and all – I have found in the AASHTO and state bicycle plan literature that a placing a curb between bikes and traffic is a complete no-no for both the safety of cyclists and the safety for motorists.
I do believe that a bicycle lane can be/should be closed off due to specific events just as parking can be prohibited for special events such as parades, one way traffic can be created due to football games, lanes on bridges can be closed for marathons, turning lanes converted to through lanes – daily - due to traffic congestion, etc., etc. Whenever the greater good needs to be served in specific situations, “rights” can be adjusted and people’s prerogatives may have to be met by the people taking detours.
If there is a saw horse and sign on the Boulevard shoulder bikeway at Eighth Street due to Pitt basketball parking, we may have to adjust by climbing Eighth Street instead…unless when we encounter cars parked for the event we prefer to take a position in a 12’ traffic lane on the Boulevard itself!
Having the climbing bike lane available 95+% of the time is critical. That, I believe, is the goal that we are working for. We can adjust as necessary to make it work and help improve cycling in Motown!
Don
From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:43 AM
To: FDJakeB@gmail.com
Cc: Bicycle Board
Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] [Fwd: Re: WV DOH Response to Letter Concerning Closing of Rail Trail]
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 (
) and the 2003 Manual
of Uniform Guidelines for Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Part 9
Traffic
Controls for Bicycle Facilities (
) 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):
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) AHEAD (R3-17aP) 6 feet after the intersection
of
Eighth Street
and Mon Blvd.;
- 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";
- BIKE LANE (R3-17) ENDS (R3-17bP) at the end of the
bike lane;
- BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE, YIELD TO BIKES (R4-4) at the
beginning of the
right turn lane;
- 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
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
_________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHY...
Gunnar,
I raised the parking issue when Don Spencer, Bill Austen, Chris Nicols (representing the MRTC) and I met and walked the Blvd to plan the bike lane. They thought parking wouldn't be an issue because people won't be riding their bikes up the Blvd after dark when most games occur. While I disagree with them, I did not voice my opinion because cyclists will probably still have the right to use the roadway.
Does anybody know if parking is legal on the shoulder on Mon Blvd? If it's illegal, the obvious next step would be to go through the proper channels to request the police to enforce the law. I don't know if enforcing the law on Mon Blvd is the state police or city police responsibility since it's a state highway. If parking on the shoulder is not already legal there's always the possibility that a resolution to make it legal could pass the state legislature. I would expect the "Mighty Mountaineers" to prevail in such a foray.
Does anybody know if WV Code says anything about parking on bike lanes? Same argument as above.
If we actually get the bike lane, I think the next challenge will be to get the state to keep it clean... not just of debris such a cars and car parts but also snow and ice.
Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/
On 8/23/2009 11:22 PM, Gunnar Shogren 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: !&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAuYcVxyjk9GhP69k7n4dyXCgAAAEAAAAPz1QKWjjAhOgGPhxq7u/noBAAAAAA==@moncpc.org 8A27568BD739443A9C65CB9FB9D21F9C@donhome
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):
- 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
-
Don Spencer -
FDJakeB＠gmail.com -
Frank Gmeindl -
Gunnar Shogren -
Jacob Brown
-
Jennifer Selin