Posts, email, and ideas related to bicycling and bicycle advocacy.

RSS Feed

 
I recently read the CMAQ Bicycle/Pedestrian applications at http://www.marc.org/transportation/cmaq/overview.htm.

I would like to offer my comments on the proposals that involve bicycle/pedestrian "sidepaths".


The number of proposed CMAQ projects involving "sidepaths" (designated bicycle/ped paths running parallel to a roadway, like a sidewalk but usually wider) is disturbing. This type of bicycle facility has been tried in other states over the previous decades and has been abandoned as dangerous. It is very unfortunate that we must make the same mistakes, and learn the same lessons, all over again.

Here are the reasons we should be building very, very few bicycle sidepaths:

A. AASHTO GUIDELINES. All proposals state that they adhere to AASHTO guidelines yet bicycle sidepath/sidewalk projects BP8, BP9, and BP17 quite clearly do not follow AASTHO guidelines, which severely denigrate designating sidepaths/sidewalks as bicycle facilities, only allowing them in specific situations which clearly do not apply to BP8, BP9, and BP17 (B5 also involves "wide sidewalks" which present the same problem). Detailed references to the AASHTO guidelines are provided at the end of this message.

B. KNOWN DANGER. Sidepaths are known to be dangerous bicycle facilities. Due to Kansas's mandatory sidepath law, cyclists are legally required to use sidepaths if they are provided. Since the proposed sidepaths are on one side of the road only, this forces bicyclists to ride against traffic. Riding the "wrong way" on the sidewalk is the most dangerous known type of urban bicycling, approximately 20 times more dangerous than cycling with traffic in a shared lane. The reason is that bicycle accidents most often happen where traffic paths cross. Bicycle traffic on the street, like all other traffic, is protected from traffic on sidestreets and driveways. Sidepath bicycle traffic has difficult conflict points at every driveway and sidestreet.

C. ENCOURAGE WRONG-WAY RIDING. Bicyclists riding against the flow on the sidepath will be encouraged to ride wrong-way on the street in order to enter the sidepath and after the sidepath ends. Wrong-way riding on the street is extraordinarily dangerous.

D. LIABILITY ISSUES. The known danger, mandatory sidepath law, and lack of safety review in MARC's approval process opens MARC, the city, and the state to serious liability issues. Facilities are created that are known to be dangerous (more dangerous, in fact, than existing facilities), cyclists are legally required to use them, and safety issues are not seriously considered in the funding process.

E. POOR PEDESTRIAN SERVICE. Particularly on busy streets with fast-moving traffic sidewalks must be provided on both sides of the roadway. Pedestrians should not be expected to cross 5 or 6 lanes of fast-moving traffic, walk two blocks to their destination, then re-cross the same 5 or 6 lanes again. 20 MPH bicycles and 3 MPH pedestrians are not a good mix. Sidewalks should be built in the regular course of road building; they should not be a specially funded federal project.


Suggestions:

A. Sidewalks/paths should be for pedestrians only.
B. Sidewalks/paths should be on both sides of the street. 5-foot
width on both sides of the street is far preferable to 10-foot width
on one side.
C. CMAQ money should be used for sidewalks/paths only in exceptional
circumstances.


Thank you for considering my opinions. Generally I feel that the environment for bicycle and pedestrian transportation is improving in the Kansas City area and I appreciate your hard work on this issue.

Relevant quotations from the AASHTO Guide are below.

--Dr. Brent Hugh
Raytown, Missouri

- - -
Relevant quotations from AASHTO Guidelines (from 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities). Please note that I am quoting the AASHTO Guide to give authority to the statements. But I have personally found these statements to be true in my own riding on such facilities. So these statements closely reflect my own personal feelings on the matter, as a Kansas City area citizen, pedestrian, and cyclist:


* Shared use paths should not be considered a substitute for [bicycle-related] street improvements even when the path is located adjacent to the highway (p. 33)

* Sidewalks generally are not acceptable for bicycling. However, in a few limited situations, such as on long and narrow bridges and where bicyclists are incidental or infrequent users, the sidewalk can serve as an alternate facility... (p. 8-9)

* In general, the designated use of sidewalks (as a signed shared facility) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory. (See Undesirability of Sidewalks as Shared Use Paths, page 58.) It is important to recognize that the development of extremely wide sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle travel, since wide sidewalks encourage higher speed bicycle use and increase potential for conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections, as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects.... (p. 20)

* Utilizing or providing a sidewalk as a shared use path is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. Sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian speeds and maneuverability and are not safe for higher speed bicycle use. Conflicts are common between pedestrians traveling at low speeds (exiting stores, parked cars, etc.) and bicyclists, as are conflicts with fixed objects (e.g., parking meters, utility poles, sign posts, bus benches, trees, fire hydrants, mail boxes, etc.) (p. 58)




posted by Brent Hugh at Wednesday, October 16, 2002 | permanently archived here