Those priorities, per the chief supporters, were highways. A provision revealed in markup yesterday showed that dedicated funding for transit would also disappear.

An amendment to restore enhancements and Safe Routes to Schools failed [...]]]>

Yesterday was the great debate and committee markup session for the House Transportation Bill. As expected, it was all about the posturing about priorities.

Those priorities, per the chief supporters, were highways. A provision revealed in markup yesterday showed that dedicated funding for transit would also disappear.

An amendment to restore enhancements and Safe Routes to Schools failed 27-29. Three Republicans voted for the amendment. More than 80 other amendments were discussed. The bill itself eventually cleared the Committee on a vote of 29-24.

Meanwhile, the House Ways & Means Committee, who can be summed up as “People who control a lot of how money is used,” announced their plan to forbid gas tax revenue from funding transit. Yes, indeed! Gas taxes are for cars and highways, silly humans! Gas taxes should be used to cater to the likes of this gentleman, who raves on about subsidy given to transit, without looking at the inherent subsidies given to single-user cars via highway funds and artificially low gas prices.

Here’s the thing, though. The House does not act alone. Bills require Senate approval. And that just will not happen. This is a bunch of political posturing. Panic may be an overwrought response by advocates, because the Senate drew a line in the sand yesterday as well. The Senate Banking Committee has passed a two year transit bill from committee with unanimous bipartisan support. Yes, unanimous. Yes, Republican and Democratic votes. Among other tidbits, the bill would allow federal funds to be used on transit operations — not just build-out or capital improvement.

The House Transportation bill will never clear the full Senate, which is still Democratic. It has not been written in good faith to pass both houses. It was written to serve as campaign fodder, particularly in rural districts with a lot of roads. That’s it.

Do we still need to widen the circle? Of course we do. But maybe we can all let our blood pressure go down a bit and look at productive ways to get advocacy out of panic mode and back into building a broad movement.

One key thing in their summary to consider is that the bill refers to projects like the  Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program as “not in the federal [...]]]>

Streetsblog reports that there is a rough summary of the proposed panic-worthy transportation bill being considered in committee. They do a rundown on it, and refer to it as “A March of Horribles.”

One key thing in their summary to consider is that the bill refers to projects like the  Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program as “not in the federal interest.” I’ve stated before that I believe that even reauthorized, it would be hard to imagine Minneapolis getting another core grant, versus giving that kind of money ($25 million) to another metro area to do fundamental start-up enhancements. Under the bill as we are currently aware of it, no city would be getting bupkus in that regard. (Per Streetsblog, cities get the short end of anything included in the bill, in general.)

The full bill is expected to hit the public on Tuesday, January 31. It’s pretty much a sure thing that even committee staffers won’t get a chance to really read the whole thing before the committee starts voting on it. Says something wonderful right there about the legislative process, doesn’t it?

Our pals at Twin Cities Streets for People recently highlighted the not-a-crosswalk-crosswalks now in existence along the Cedar Lake Trail. I’ve ranted some about this in the past.

Minnesota state law is pretty clear about how crosswalks work. The key pieces of law that define crosswalks, as well as regulate behavior of road users and [...]]]>

via http://www.tcstreetsforpeople.org

Our pals at Twin Cities Streets for People recently highlighted the not-a-crosswalk-crosswalks now in existence along the Cedar Lake Trail. I’ve ranted some about this in the past.

Minnesota state law is pretty clear about how crosswalks work. The key pieces of law that define crosswalks, as well as regulate behavior of road users and pedestrians as regard crosswalks, are found in Minnesota Statute 169.21. The highlights of that statute include:

• If there’s a traffic signal, obey it.
• If there is no signal and a marked crosswalk at an intersection (or anywhere else), drivers must stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway.
• If there is no marked crosswalk at an intersection without a traffic signal, drivers still must stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway.
• Pedestrians who cross between intersections must yield to vehicular traffic (and are taking their own lives in their hands).

Basically, the statute says that if there is an intersection, whether there’s paint or not, there is a crosswalk.

In the case of the Cedar Lake Trail, which now has signs declaring the at-grade street crossings NOT CROSSWALKS, past arguments for the not-a-crosswalk theory is that these aren’t intersections. If it’s not an intersection, what is it? At several crossings, an issue would be this latter section of 169.21:

Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

At several points, this would create an expectation that someone would right- or left-turn off the trail, go to the adjacent controlled intersection, cross, then return back to the trail. What?

Another argument is that cars needn’t stop for cyclists in crosswalks. I don’t know where that argument comes from. It certainly doesn’t come from Minnesota Statute 169.222, which says:

A person lawfully operating a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

Basically, what this says is that 169.21 applies to bicycles legally using crosswalks.

Meanwhile, as the final extension of the CLT was opened, it was proclaimed to be a “bicycle freeway.” Gosh, under law, that sure sounds like an intersection, then.

Beyond all this, the rule for vehicles is that they’re supposed to yield at this kind of crossing. Are there special signs on the roadway telling them to floor it on through? This doesn’t just represent an exception for the pedestrians and cyclists using the trail, it demands that motorists behave differently than the law would require in every other crossing situation. It adds a level of decision-making complexity for the operators of motor vehicles!

No one’s taken on the signs as yet. I don’t know of any opinion from MNDOT or an appropriate authority that says that a municipality can just declare a trail crossing not an intersection/crosswalk. At the same time, without some thwack from the long arm of the law, the signs are sure to stay up. While many of these at-grade crossings are poorly constructed, have questionable visibility, and rate as downright dangerous… declaring them ‘not crosswalks’ doesn’t seem to address any of the real issues.

The coverage is pretty reasonable (although they did spell my name wrong online, ooga booga). It hit two of the things I emphasized, although some of the quote was me, some from [...]]]>

Last night’s Good Question on WCCO was about bicycle law. I and a member of the Minneapolis Bicycle Ambassadors spoke to WCCO on the topic.

The coverage is pretty reasonable (although they did spell my name wrong online, ooga booga). It hit two of the things I emphasized, although some of the quote was me, some from the BA, and some from the reporter — bikes are legal on the roads, and the 3-foot-passing rule.

There is also good emphasis on the importance of riding/driving predictably, which is another thing I mentioned in my interview, although that footage was not used.

My classic post on the core Minnesota bicycle statute (169.222) remains accurate today for the legal responsibilities of cyclists. Several additional statutes also apply, but 169.222 hits most of the high points.

And for anyone interested in learning more road skills, the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota offers a variety of educational bicycle courses based on the League of American Bicyclists curriculum, and are a good resource to find other quality courses.

The League also releases a breakdown of where each state ranks in key categories used to evaluate and rank the states. Minnesota’s ranking overall is a B, with breakout categories ranked as follows:

Per the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, who has been tracking the progress of this bill, proposed amendments to the bill were inconsistent with the bill’s intent, so the author has pulled the bill.

Senate File 201 allowed for use of [...]]]>

The hearing on Senate File 201 at the Minnesota Capitol — scheduled for today — has been cancelled.

Per the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, who has been tracking the progress of this bill, proposed amendments to the bill were inconsistent with the bill’s intent, so the author has pulled the bill.

Senate File 201 allowed for use of the gross misdemeanor charge and associated penalties for careless driving resulting in death.

The House bill remains alive at this time, and it is expected a similar bill to SF 201 will be reintroduced later. Stay tuned.

A key piece of the 2011 Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota legislative agenda has been the support of bills to increase careless driving penalties. Cyclists have been encouraged to send messages of support to committee members and to their own legislators, preparing the latter to vote [...]]]>

EDIT: This has been rescheduled for Thursday, April 14, at 1:00 PM.

A key piece of the 2011 Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota legislative agenda has been the support of bills to increase careless driving penalties. Cyclists have been encouraged to send messages of support to committee members and to their own legislators, preparing the latter to vote in favor of these bills when they are available for floor votes. Unfortunately, these bills were tabled in March after several committee hearings.

The bills, however, remain alive at the Capitol. Another hearing — this time on SF 201, which would increase the penalty for causing a death while committing a careless or reckless driving offense to a gross misdemeanor and carry a fine of up to $3,000 and a jail sentence of up to 1 year — is scheduled for today, at 1 PM. The hearing is part of the agenda of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, and the meeting is scheduled to take place in Room 15 of the State Capitol.

It turns out that this bill has some heavy-hitting opposition — chiefly trucking organizations, and budget hawks who fear the expense of additional jail time for guilty individuals. It is important for cyclists and pedestrians to reach out to friends and family to ask them to join their voices to ours for support, and groups like the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota are reaching out to other vulnerable road users — motorcyclists and scooter operators — requesting their support.

Stay tuned. The Bicycle Alliance is on top of this issue, and will be releasing regular updates via their Facebook page — go be a fan.

Current status of the bills proposed are as follows: