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

RSS Feed

 
Following are comments on the evaluation process for CMAQ Bicycle/Pedestrian applications at http://www.marc.org/transportation/cmaq/overview.htm.


Explanation--Why the CMAQ Proposal Scoring System is Flawed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In separate messages I have criticized particular proposals submitted for CMAQ funding. But I think the following paragraph gets to heart of the problems I see with the type of proposals submitted and the criteria for evaluating them:

As I understand it, when projects are evaluated, about 70% of project score comes from a combination of emissions reductions and cost effectiveness. The projection of emission reductions are based on the idea that a percentage of the average daily trips (ADT) for automobiles of an adjacent road would be reduced by providing a facility on a road. There is no distinction as to type of facility (wide sidewalk, regular sidewalk, sidewalks on both side of road, bike lane & sidewalk, bike lane alone, etc.).

Here is the problem with this method of scoring: Since there is no distinction in the emissions reductions score of various facilities, and since wide sidewalk on one side of the road is the cheapest way to "accommodate" both cyclists and pedestrians, it is always going to win. A typical project priority listing under current scoring:

"best" 1. Wide sidewalks/"bike trail" on one side
2. Sidewalks on both sides
3. Good sidewalks on both sides
4. Bike lanes
"worst" 5. Sidewalks on both sides and bike lanes

Cities know this and thus they preferentially submit wide sidewalk/"bike trail" projects.

Where are the bike lane projects in the CMAQ proposals? The proposals for sidewalks on both sides of the roadway? Proposals for adding both bike lanes and sidewalks? Proposals for re-striping to create space for wide curb lanes or bike lanes?

The current scoring formula has the unintended consequence of putting all these types of proposals at a scoring disadvantage to wide sidewalks on one side of the street.

Yet all these other projects are likely to far better serve the needs of cyclists and/or pedestrians than are wide one-sided sidewalks.

The current scoring formula also has the unintended consequence of encouraging cities to slap down minimal-cost streets with no ped/bike facilities, then apply for federal funds to add on the most minimally acceptable ped/bike facility (wide sidewalk on one side), then advertise themselves as "Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly".

We can and should do better.

One reason Kansas City metro area streets are in such a mess is that the cheapest possible band-aid fix has been applied time and time again. The end result is far too many roads that do not meet the needs of motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians.

We can and should do better than choosing the cheapest possible facility that meets the letter of the law.


Suggestions for Improvement in Project Review Scoring Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest that the scoring procedure for CMAQ bicycle/pedestrian project review needs to become considerably more sophisticated and nuanced. At the very top of the list must be a consideration of how well the proposed facility meets the needs of the proposed users--pedestrians and/or bicyclists, as appropriate for the particular project.

Well-designed, comprehensive pedestrian/bicycle projects can have a positive impact on an entire community; we should strongly encourage such projects and strongly consider their total impact. More community impact means more effectiveness; more effectiveness means more walking and bicycling on this particular facility and throughout the entire community; more walking and bicycling means less emissions and less traffic congestion.

In my opinion, project scoring should include, as top priority, such items as:

* SAFETY. Safe facilities will be used more; total overall cost to government and society will be less if injuries are reduced. Safe design practices are well known. We absolutely should follow them and not fund substandard facilities.

* COMFORT/AESTHETICS/USABILITY. Well designed facilities will be used far more.

* INTERACTION WITH OTHER ROAD USERS. Is this project part of a re-thinking of the road system to make it friendlier for bicyclist and pedestrians? Or just a slapped-on afterthought? High vehicle speeds and careless driving are major impediments to walking and bicycling. How will these problems be addressed on the proposed facility and on nearby roadways?

* TOTAL DESIGN. How will users get to this facility and how will they get from the facility to destinations? If a sidewalk, how will users cross streets, intersections, driveways? If a bike facility, what about intersections, hazard removal, on-street parking, traffic signal adjustment, maintenance, etc.? How is this facility going to work in terms of a total bicycle/pedestrian transportation system?

* INTEGRATION INTO NEIGHBORHOOD-, CITY-, METRO-WIDE BICYCLE OR PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. How well does this individual piece fit into the big puzzle? Does it enhance the value of nearby/intersecting roads and streets to pedestrians and cyclists?

* BEST USE OF FUNDS. Is this an appropriate use of special federal funds, or a project that cities should be funding as a matter of course during routine road building and maintenance?

All-in-all I am asking you to consider bicycling and walking as real, serious transportation systems held to design standards as high as those to which we hold facilities for motor vehicles.

Typical project scoring under this proposed scoring system:

"best" 1. Traffic calming project with bike lanes, sidewalks
on both sides, frequent crosswalks, many ped/cycle-
friendly small features, follows well-known best practices
for bike/ped design
2. Simple bike lanes and sidewalks
3. Bike lanes or sidewalks alone
"worst" 4. Wide bike/ped sidepath on one side


Summary
-------
If we build real, serious, well-designed, well-thought-out, high quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities, bicycling and walking will increase in popularity and emissions and congestion will be reduced greatly.

If we build sub-standard bicycle and pedestrian facilities and continue to encourage motor vehicles to drive at high speeds with disregard for cyclists and pedestrians, bicycling and walking will increase little or not at all and impact on congestion and emissions will be negligible.

The most cost-effective project is not that which is cheapest but that which is best-designed.

Increasing bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the metro area is going to require far more than laying down a few facilities. It is going to require a sea-change in our total transportation design approach and philosophy. It will require us to seriously consider bicycle and pedestrian issues as a vital, integrated part of every street and road project. I feel that MARC and the CMAQ bicycle/pedestrian funding can be a vitally important catalyst in this change. I feel that MARC has being doing a better and better job of this over the years, but feel that MARC can do a better job yet!

Thank you for considering my comments and, again, thank you for your hard work in improving bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the area. I especially appreciate the openness and responsiveness of MARC to citizen response and input.

--Dr. Brent Hugh
Raytown, Missouri


posted by Brent Hugh at Saturday, October 19, 2002 | permanently archived here