Dan Jatres wrote asking for an old copy (Issue #47) of Bicycle Forum, which I edited for many years:

The Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide mentions that this issue had information about city’s experiences with reducing travel lanes to 10 feet; to allow the addition of bike lanes I will be meeting with the Sr. Traffic Engineer for the City of New Orleans in hopes of getting his buy-in on 10-foot lanes and any concrete evidence I can cite would be helpful

Dan Jatres
Regional Planning Commission
Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs
I told Dan I’d try to hunt up a copy of the back-issue, and also included a message I’d seen on the APBP listserve from Michael Ronkin, former bicycle/pedestrian coordinator for the Oregon Dept. of Transportation:

I think you’ll find unanimous support from APBP for the 10′ travel lane  configuration. Peter Furth made a compelling case. He also referred to a study;  I can pass it on to those who write me off-line (though I’ll be gone for all of next week).  It drives a nail in the coffin of ìwider is  saferî for travel lane widths in suburban and urban contexts. The author does  not claim speed reduction is the reason though. I saw him present the paper at  TRB, and his conclusion was wonderful; he essentially said “Why use wider lanes  if narrower lanes are as safe or safer?  With the space youíve saved you can  provide really useful features such as median islands or bike lanes.”

Michael Ronkin

Q. We are looking for a copy of the following report that was published in the mid-80s.

English, J.W. (1986). Liability Aspects of Bikeway Designation.
Washington, DC: Bicycle Federation of America.

Terrance K. Manion | Director of  IT, Instructor of Law, Librarian | Georgia State University
College of Law

 
A. This report is available in Word format at the National Center for Bicycling & Walking web site. Look in the NCBW Publications section of the site library: www.bikewalk.org/ncbw_pubs.php .

Regards,

Gary MacFadden

Brad wrote with this question about getting helmets for distribution in the province of British Columbia.

Good afternoon and greetings from Prince George,
British Columbia, Canada.   Our community
requires that helmets be warn at all times when
biking however many riders do not do so. We are
learning that many don’t wear these simply
because they are without the financial means to
purchase one.  Are you aware of any North
American funding programs that might provide
assistance to obtain helmets for such individuals?

Thank you very much.

 

Brad Beckett
Community Services Supervisor
City of Prince George
Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
250-561-7654

Brad –

I’m cc’ing this message to John Luton of the
Greater Victoria Bicycle Coalition, in case he
has some suggestions for you.

In many communities, the local hospitals help
provide helmets at low — or no — cost. Also,
the ICBC may have some sort of program, although
I couldn’t find it on their website. They do have
a lot of bicycle safety stuff, however. Here are
some of their products.
http://www.icbc.com/youth/youth_new_educators.asp

You should also take a look at the Bicycle Helmet
Safety Institute’s website. This page has
resources, including links to companies that
provide inexpensive helmets.
http://www.helmets.org/toolkit.htm

Hope this helps!
John W.

Q. Hey John,

Bob Shanteau forwarded your web address and the 12 Hazards Color
Drawing to the APBP list-serv. I identified 10 with no hesitation -  the
other 2 escape me . . .

I looked around your web info and the hazards page and I can’t find
anywhere that lists what the 12 are? Where can I find this info?

Thanks,
Debb

A. Hi Debb–

The 12 hazards are (starting at the top):
1. wrong way bicyclist
2. drain grate
3. driver backing out of driveway
4. diagonal railroad tracks
5. train
6. pedestrian
7. dog
8. open car door
9. passing car cutting right
10. crack in road parallel to parked car
11. leaves
12. pothole

I’m surprised I remembered them!

Cheers!
J

Sam Kaufman wrote, asking for pointers on putting in bike lanes around the city of Pittsburgh.

I’m aiming mostly at having the city put in bicycle/walking lanes along all of our trolley lines. Pittsburgh is a very hilly town that dissuades many people from riding a bicycle to work. None of the trolley lines go over a 2.5% grade. I am requesting any guidance on and resources that might be critical to my research. The office of city planning in Pittsburgh does have a master plan written but never has put into effect. What should I do? I was thinking about writing a petition to be put in all local bike shops having people sign it in demand of bicycle lanes and bicycle lanes along the trolley lines as a start. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

 I cc’d several other Pittsburgh advocates that Sam might work with.

The main suggestion I had for Sam is to build a constituency. Agency staff and elected officials tend to see one advocate as either a crank or…well, a crank. Rather than posting a petition, you might consider posting an announcement for an organizational meeting for a bike advocacy group (assuming there isn’t one already). It could say something like “Want Bike Lanes in Pittsburgh? Join our new group!” You
really want folks to help make things happen, not just sign a petition.

As for the master plan, keep this process in mind: in places like Pittsburgh, a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) handles the major transportation planning efforts, in partnership with local (e.g., city) agencies. They create the long-range transportation plan, which usually has a time-frame of 20 or 30 years.

In your area, the MPO is the “Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission” (http://www.spcregion.org/). They create the transportation plan and to find the plan (“2035 Transportation and Development Plan for
Southwestern Pennsylvania”), go to: http://www.spcregion.org/trans_lrp.shtml. The actual transportation plan is Section 6 but there are likely references to bicycling in other sections, as well.

The key point is this: the purpose of the plan is to identify the long-range goals and major projects. From this plan comes the actual project list — or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Projects in the TIP are supposed to be “consistent” with the plan but don’t necessarily have to be specifically be mentioned in the plan. SPC’s current TIP (2007-2010) is here: http://www.spcregion.org/trans_tip_report.shtml.

Scroll down to Pittsburgh and download the map and the list of projects. Identify projects that can either help or hurt efforts. Lobby to get bike-friendly things in and to modify things that aren’t.

One thing I noticed in the list of upcoming projects is that there are several bridge items listed. These are extremely important things because they (1) only come along once in a great while and (2) are critical links in the community. I’d get in touch with the SPC’s planners to find out if there are bike (and
pedestrian) provisions and if not, what needs to happen to get them in. I don’t know who on the staff would be good (probably someone identified as some sort of “transportation planner) but here’s a list:
http://www.spcregion.org/staff.shtml.

One last thing about bike lanes: the best time to paint stripes is right after a street has been paved or repaved. Check out all upcoming projects that involve construction or reconstruction, etc., because these may be good opportunities. They happen more often than new bridges but they don’t happen every year.

Cheers!
John W.

Ron Bishop, an architect in the Berkeley area, wrote looking for information on how to get motorists to change their driving habits when they transfer from the freeways to city streets.

How can engineer calming intersections at these locations? The same is true of the on ramps.  Motorists are speeding up prior to being on the ramp or freeway. There has not been a study done on this that I can find.  Can you point me to how we can curtail freeway speeds and behavior on local streets and at the on-off ramps?

I told Ron I’m not aware of any behavioral solutions for this problem — especially those involving
driver behavior near interchanges. In many cases, it’s more of a design issue. Too often, we see
rural-style freeway ramps, with large radius exits and entrances used in suburban areas. These
just about guarantee that drivers will be going faster on the surface street, whether s/he is
entering the freeway or leaving it.

I also attached a section of the Oregon Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan that deals with interchanges. and cc’d Michael Ronkin, the former Oregon DOT bike/pedestrian coordinator, who may have additional resources on the subject.

Here’s the url for downloading the whole plan and/or other sections.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml

John Williams

I receved a request from Paul, asking if I had any knowledge of a mid-1980s document called ” The State/Federal Highway Planning Survey.” I told Paul I didn’t recall the document, and a Google search
on the name didn’t bring up anything except for a few state documents that mention the survey. I suggested that it might be difficult to find because it may never have been digitized.

Then I mentioned that a while back, I used our local library to do an interlibrary search for a report on some bike safety workshops that I participated in for NHTSA in the ’70s. I was able to locate a copy at a college library in Idaho, and they sent it to our library. I took it to Kinkos and got it copied.

If you’re looking for a hard-to-find item, an interlibrary loan might be the answer.

John Williams

I received a question from the physical activing coordinator, Corey Wright, at the Oklahoma State Dept of Health.  Corey was consulting some partners on a Safe Routes to Schools/Community Walking Trail Project:

The community is building a 3 mile trail (4-sided rectangular). It’s an interior (never crosses a road) trail parallel to 3 roads and crossing through a pasture. The entire area inside the
trail is existing pasture with cattle and other livestock.

 They’ve planned for an 8-foot trail with a 10 to 12 foot buffer between the trail and the road, and an 8-foot buffer between is going to be removed in order to allow for this buffer space and will be replaced at the mentioned distance. The problem they’re having regards what type of fence to use.  They want to minimize the potential injury if a pedestrian/cyclist were to
contact the fence, but they also want to use something that will keep the cattle on the other side of the fence.  They are concerned not only for safety, but also for liability because some of the the trail is being constructed (with permission) on private land.  Some of the owners have expressed concern, and according to their agreement they will have a say in what type of fence material to use. Do you have any thoughts or recommendations?

 I responded that If there will be 8 feet between the fence and the edge of the trail, there shouldn’t be any problem. The design guidance available around the country varies somewhat, but those states without their own bikeway design guide use that of the American Assn. of State Hwy & Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). However, even those states with their own guides tend to agree with AASHTO’s guide for the most part.  Most guides suggest a 3 foot minimum between a path and any kind of obstruction.

With this amount of spacing, I don’t think it really matters what the fence is constructed of, although something other than barbed wire would be nice.

I also suggested widening the path itself  to 10 feet. These days, that’s considered the standard width;  8
feet is recommended in constrained circumstances. An example would be limited right-of-way, as you might see in an urban area. Even so, an 8 foot path wouldn’t be the preferred width.

John Williams

I’ve lived in Missoula, Montana, for two-and-a-half decades, so I take a big interest in what’s going on that can affect bicycling and walking in this community. I wrote the note below to Linda McCarthy, head of the Missoula Downtown Association, encouraging her group to get behind the notion of adding some back-in diagonal parking. Maybe you’ll find portions of this letter that you can take to your own community leaders and get them to consider this parking innovation:

Dear Ms. McCarthy:

During my 26 years in Missoula, I’ve considered the Downtown the city’s best place to shop, eat, and attend events. I also worked downtown for 20 years until health problems dictated my working at home. Even so, I drive downtown frequently and my wife works downtown. We often meet for lunch or I drop her off in the morning before going off on an errand.

 

As a result, I’ve found myself using the diagonal parking spaces frequently, especially those on Main and Spruce. And I hate them. Historically, I hadn’t had a big problem with diagonal parking. It gives merchants more on-street parking for customers and that’s vital to the Downtown’s survival. However, the problem I encounter more and more frequently is this:

 

I end up having to park on the downstream side of a large SUV or pickup. Or, I find a space with a shorter car upstream but that car leaves and is replaced by one of the behemoths. For this reason, backing out of a space is often like flying blind. Since I drive a modest sized Subaru wagon, my view typically consists of the passenger side door handle of an adjacent SUV.

 

I back out very very slowly, inching my way along until I can actually see oncoming traffic, at which time I stop and wait until it’s clear. I suppose I could ask a pedestrian to help me get out of a space but that’s just a burden on those of us who want to patronize Downtown — without buying and driving a big gas hog.

 

Oddly enough, many drivers seem oblivious to the potential danger of such a situation. They whiz past the rear end of my car at 25-30mph. Unfortunately, a backing-out motorist who collides with — or is hit by — an oncoming car is generally considered at fault.

 

Since many Missoulians and (lots of our town’s visitors) drive smaller cars, it behooves the City and the Downtown Association to do something about this. As it is, one could assume the City and Downtown Assn. give preference to people who arrive in 10-foot tall Gas Guzzlers.

 

What’s the solution? Well, walking and biking downtown is certainly a good option. I’ve often done that over the years. However, it doesn’t always work for me and there are folks who need to drive their smaller cars downtown.

 

One fairly simple solution would be to join the 21st Century and start putting in “back-in” diagonal parking. I know there are plenty of parochial folks in town who will say “You can’t do that! It’s <dangerous>!” Or maybe “That’s one of those kooky West Coast ideas.” Or something equally stupid. These comments are especially easy to make if someone has no direct experience with such parking. The bottom line is this: back-in spaces give the motorist — even one in a shorter car — a better view of what’s coming down the road than do traditional back-in spaces. And that’s good for everyone’s safety.

 

Having seen some of the early drawings of a Higgins Ave. improvement project, I was thrilled to see back-in diagonal parking spaces in the perspective illustrations. However, I have also been told that the City is backing away from this design because of potential controversy. I have one thing to say to that: Those involved in downtown projects like this need to stand up and do the safe thing for the community. Install back-in diagonal parking and give those of  us with short cars a break!

Sincerely,

John Williams

Below are links to two additional resources on back-in diagonal parking, the first done by John Nawn, P.E., PTOE as well as an item from Salt Lake City.

http://www.pspe.org/delco/nawn.pdf

http://www.slcgov.com/transportation/Parking/RAP.htm

JW

H.T. Siewers, the Greenways Coordinator for Bowling Green, Kentucky, wrote with a question
concerning shared-use path development:

We are developing a 5-mile shared-use path originating in downtown Bowling Green.  The shared-use path concept works well, mostly. Some of the route is over-land or in City parks, with very few vehicle conflict points.

However, we are unable to avoid a sidepath situation  in two 1/4 mile segments, where we plan to upgrade the existing sidewalk. We have encountered two pinch points where putting in an 8-10′ wide path is proving to be difficult.  Each of these segments is about 90′ long, and we no R/W beyond the existing 5′ sidewalk.  I cannot find any guidance in AASHTO to indicate whether such a narrowing would be acceptable. Do you have any advice on where I might seek clarification on this?

First, I questioned whther it was possible to acquire additional right-of-way, and noted that if possible it would be good to plan for such an addition so that folks don’t get the idea that the 5-ft width is permanent.

I also suggested using the League of Illinois Bicyclists’ sidepath tool, which can offer some useful guidance. It can help you determine how much a problem there will be AND what kinds of measures you can consider to reduce problems and eliminate hazards. Check it out: it’s at http://www.bikelib.org/roads/blos/sidepathform.htm

John Williams