This is a reasonably good article, with some gaps. The main gap is really surrounding the concept of Complete Streets, and I’m not strictly certain that’s on the author [...]]]>

Shouts out to @reubencollins on ze Twitter for tweeting this article about people looking to have the resurfacing project on Snelling Avenue in St. Paul include bike lanes.

This is a reasonably good article, with some gaps. The main gap is really surrounding the concept of Complete Streets, and I’m not strictly certain that’s on the author so much as the people he spoke to for the piece.

Would adding bike lane striping be cheapest during a resurfacing project? Certainly. Do cyclists lack reasonable North-South choices to get through the Saintly City? Ohmyyes. Is slapping some paint lines going to make most of Snelling Avenue a Complete Street? OhmyNO.

The article does mention a few reasons why — first, Snelling is a truck route. There is a limited ability to narrow the lanes and maintain the status of the road as a truck route. And, much as cyclists lack north-south options through the city, so do trucks. Snelling Avenue is a key arterial route for trucks, and connects to many local businesses that need trucks to be able to reach them. Most of the north-south streets aren’t truck routes, and have significant direct residential frontage — people who would oppose their north-south streets becoming truck routes, and people who have less need for trucks to be able to get into their neighborhood than many of the businesses with Snelling Avenue frontage.

There are also a large number of uncontrolled intersections. The merges off the Pierce Butler Route and Como Avenue come to mind, where cars have about 3 feet to merge and the curve is not entirely blind but certainly not unobstructed.

Another key consideration is the parking situation. Snelling has a lot of on-street parking, and a lot of driveways. If the on-street parking is maintained, parked cars + abundant driveways equals out to crummy visibility for cyclists coming through. Dropping some of the parking reduces this visibility issue, and makes room for bike lane striping. However, it almost ensures local businesses to mobilize heavily against such a plan. Much of the city is unlikely to get involved in a parking removal project right now, given the many challenges in the Central Corridor, parking included. (Check the closing quote in this article about Central Corridor parking. Oy vey.)

It’s nearly impossible to argue that Snelling doesn’t need traffic calming. It does. A lot of traffic calming, in fact. Bike lanes can be a part of a traffic calming strategy. But just slapping some bike lanes down does not equate to a Complete Street, or to making Snelling an attractive roadway on which to bike. For that matter, bike lanes won’t do much to promote pedestrian safety.

Doing this project correctly could be a very good thing. Just painting in some bike lanes is not a correct approach to the problem that is Snelling Avenue, and won’t do a lot to encourage alternative mode share through much of the corridor. I have high doubts that the public meetings will do much to really address the totality of the situation, because to actually address the real issues will be very expensive, and require a lot of people to cooperate. After all, this is St. Paul, where there are still fights about simple changes to Jefferson Avenue that are unlikely to impact most residents or users. To make Snelling safe for, well, anyone not in an armored tank will require changes that will impact everyone.

I’ve discussed the current situation with the Transportation Bill previously. In an issue that is at once completely separate but entirely interlinked with the Transportation Bill, the federal gas tax [...]]]>

I’ve been a little lax with updates recently. Part of it’s been being busy. Part of it is being depressed a little about the state of things.

I’ve discussed the current situation with the Transportation Bill previously. In an issue that is at once completely separate but entirely interlinked with the Transportation Bill, the federal gas tax is up for renewal at the end of September. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gas (24.4 cents for diesel). The tax has never been indexed to inflation and has not increased since 1994. Most economists feel that the gas tax is way too low, and as you consider its alleged role in funding infrastructure, the crumbling state of our roads and bridges suggests economists to have a pretty good point even if you think math is hard. Heck, some states are trying to tax electric and hybrid vehicles to make up for ‘lost’ gas taxes based on vehicle efficiency.

Without reapproval of the gas tax, 75% of those taxes would be uncollectable. And that’s what a number of people want, including Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. Many anti-tax folk are saying that the gas tax, and any highway/bridge/road funding to come from it, should be solely controlled at the state level.

This is, of course, ridiculous. Many states are also extremely anti-tax. There’s some extent to which interstate commerce relies some on centralized planning and funding — and not on pissing battles between neighboring states “ruled” by different parties.

With both the current state of the transportation bill, and this, many transportation advocates are claiming it’s an advocacy battle. We all must write our congressional delegation! We must get involved!

Which is fine. It’s what you’re supposed to say. But advocacy requires people who are willing to compromise and change their minds. Precedent suggests that the people who’ve signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge aren’t going to budge. Writing my congressperson is a complete and abject joke, especially where it involves taxes.

I suppose I’m more of a mope about it all thanks to the deadlock in Minnesota and the Minnesota shutdown, which apparently achieved jack+squat for either side. And that’s what I see happening federally. I suspect the federal gas tax will get renewed, at present rates or a possible cut (which is its own disaster, if you consider the reduced funding levels already looming in transportation). But it’s not going to be based on advocacy. It’s going to either be based on reality biting in the ass via another bridge going ka-pow or some rarely seen but much needed pragmatism from Congress. Me writing my congressperson (who will be anti-renewal, when not running for president) will do nothing. My senators will be pro-renewal, and any letter I write will just go into the “validation” file, and won’t make an impact. And everyone else knows I can’t vote for them.

In summary: I’m going to go continue to put my younger child in the bike trailer and get her rolling, because it’s something I can do, effectively.

While there are [...]]]>

Spring is here, and thus the season of Minnesota bicycle event rides begins. The traditional season-opener, the Minnesota Ironman, is coming up May 1, slightly later than usual this year due to the lateness of Easter. Thus, it’s an ideal time to review how not to be a jerk when riding at an event.

While there are events that really do tilt to the very experienced cyclist, like randonneur events, the bulk of big bike rallies are what many call t-shirt rides — they offer multiple distances, participants get t-shirts, there are rest stops, hooray. Depending on the event, the mileages can attract a very wide range of riders — Ironman gets many kids and novices for the 17- and 30-mile routes, but the metric and the century attract dedicated and experienced cyclists. Some metrics will also pull in the less experienced looking to make the leap, although Ironman hasn’t traditionally been a strong event for that due to the season.

Events tend to have a broad draw, though, so it’s important for newer cyclists to try to get the hang of things and not create problems for others, and for experienced cyclists to behave in a way to not make novice or less accomplished/ambitious cyclists think they are spandex-clad jerks. There are a lot of cyclists for whom the 25-mile supported ride is the apex of their ambition and ability, and that’s fine — these recreational cyclists can help advocate, can share the roads when they drive, and represent a bigger chunk of the population than the cycling fanatic.

Here are some tips for everyone so we can all just get along and get to the rest stops like civilized cyclists:

• If you’re a fast rider or doing a long distance, start early. Many events have a 2-4 hour registration and start cycle. Even if you are a fast rider who can do the century in 5 hours, it will benefit everyone if you start on the earlier edge of start times. That way you can get OUT of the registration zone without having to weave and be irritated by the slower/more novice/indecisive riders.
• If you need to adjust your bike, your layers, find a water bottle, scratch your ass, whatever, get off the road. Don’t care how experienced you are, the people who stop in traffic and stand around in the lane doing whatever it is they need to do are an irritant to all, and it’s often unsafe as well. Get out of traffic, including the traffic that is other nice bicyclists wanting to bicycle in the nice bicycle event.
• Allow room for other cyclists to pass. Even if you can really pound and hold a good pace, make sure there is passing room around you. The need to allow passing room increases as your speed decreases. If you are a family riding 8-10mph, do not ride four abreast, I beg of you. Be like the ants and march two by two (hurrah, hurrah).
• Allow room for motorists to pass. Pay attention to the course. A lot of people assume “This is a bike event! This is safe!” Not every road at every event is closed to traffic, and not every event has dense groups of cyclists and a lot of notice for people using the roads. Watch for cars and allow them passing room.
• Know your road closures. As stated above, not every road at every event is closed to traffic. I have seen people on roads open to traffic cross center yellow lines in areas with hills and blind curves, and it makes me very, very nervous, especially in rural areas. (Getting run over by a logging truck would ruin your day, and it’d ruin MY day to see it happen.) Even when roads are shut down for events, in many cases the closure is one way, and traffic is allowed in the opposite direction. Maps and signs from organizers should give you guidance. Take it.
• Don’t take piles of food at rest stops that you won’t eat. Seriously? Just rude. Many organizations, if they have leftover food, either carry it forward to other events if the food is suitable for such things, or they give the leftovers to battered women’s shelters and the like. Take what you personally will need.
• Don’t leave junk on the route. Carry your wrappers to the next proper trash container. Blow a tire? Bring the bad tube to a trash can if you aren’t going to patch it. Litter is a nuisance for residents near the routes and make them think worse of cyclists and the event. Litterbugs are a thorn in event organizers’ sides.
• Don’t be a snob. I’ve seen a bit of this from the more experienced cyclists on some of these rides. There’s some element of treating the novices like something nasty stuck to their cleats. Don’t. Really, please don’t. We were all newer at one time. You can either be nice, and maybe help people be better cyclists, or you can be a jerk and make them think everyone in spandex is a twit. The former is a lot better.

When everyone tries to share the road and the event, everyone has a better time. Give it a try.

Following the publication of a (flawed) study about cycletracks, many people are [...]]]>

I’ve previously written about the challenge of getting the 60% of would-be cyclists who are “Interested but Concerned” onto bicycles more frequently and as users of bicycles for transport. I’ve also written about the design issues associated with bicycle facilities and challenges of bike lanes.

Following the publication of a (flawed) study about cycletracks, many people are talking about the building of segregated bicycle facilities again. To recap the study, a limited study in Montreal found that cyclists using the city’s cycletracks experienced fewer accidents than those using nearby streets. The flaw in the study is that it fails to account for the “safety in numbers” effect, via which motorists are trained to look for cyclists by there being a greater number of them, or an expectation of where they will be.

The League of American Bicyclists often rewards communities who build special facilities, as it is nearly impossible to achieve a Bicycle Friendly Community status without such facilities. The facilities are rarely evaluated for their adherence to AASHTO design standards, however. This is actually somewhat in conflict with a published League position paper:

Special bicycle facilities have sometimes been viewed as the only way to provide improved access and mobility for bicycle traffic. These facilities have sometimes been developed in the absence of, or as a substitute for (1) programs for the development or improvement of the road network to accommodate bicycle traffic safely, and (2) efforts to educate the public about vehicular cycling.

In many instances, special bicycle facilities have been poorly designed, inadequately maintained or unnecessary. The problems posed by these facilities have been aggravated in many locations by laws which require the use of these facilities, however unsafe, when they are parallel to an existing road.

Since 1981, the bicycle facilities design standards of the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have been reasonably good, although not by themselves sufficient to guarantee a good facility. Some bicycle facilities built after that date have not met those standards.

It’s pretty hard to dispute that bicycle facilities help encourage the “Interested But Concerned” 60% to bicycle more. Unfortunately, many facilities actively guide those less experienced cyclists into danger. These dangers emerge due to poor intersection design, placement near parking zones, and sidepaths that have them ride counter to dominant traffic flow.

Getting these 60% out via these facilities also has another effect: These riders believe the facilities are where they “belong” as cyclists, and so also take that attitude into their own time in a car. Other motorists — the 32% who will not ride, regardless — also typically believe this. Thus, the facilities feed on themselves.

Some would argue that this is okay, because it gets butts in bikes, and embrace a vision of putting facilities everywhere to deal with the issue that existing facilities don’t go everywhere. On the other hand, it perpetuates poor design and bad practices, and is an expensive alternative to better cyclist and motorist education — the latter of which would reach a higher proportion of road users. Many studies have shown that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. The perception of many that cyclists should be using lanes and segregated facilities isn’t rooted in science, but in fear. European city models don’t necessarily translate well into the United States for many reasons relating to how urban areas were built (and rebuilt) and underlying cultural issues (as most of Europe has never had the “car culture” of the more sprawling US).

Under most state laws, roads are bicycle facilities. We need to find ways to empower the 60% of reluctant cyclists to feel safe on these facilities, and we need to educate drivers not to be jerks. Additional segregated facilities need to be developed based on context — because, yeah, there are some routes on which they make lots of sense — and not based on a knee-jerk belief that they are “safer” or “better.” Segregating cyclists as a matter of policy doesn’t productively further a goal of having bicycling be considered a transport mode, and not a cute little way to get around for hipsters, hippies and people who just aren’t cool enough to have cars.

Photo by Richard Masoner, via Flickr/Creative Commons

On the plus side, Minnesota often will charge people under existing rules. Not as much in Alabama, where police officers cannot issue citations if they do not [...]]]>

One legislative priority for the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota this year is to increase penalties for injury accidents against cyclists and pedestrians. Proposed laws in Minnesota step up existing penalties.

On the plus side, Minnesota often will charge people under existing rules. Not as much in Alabama, where police officers cannot issue citations if they do not see what occurred, even if drivers are clearly negligent. In this op-ed from the Huntsville Times, Morgan Andriulli speaks out about this flaw, and how it makes the excuse “I didn’t see the cyclist” a free pass for negligent behavior.

I especially like this passage:

This is not a debate about who does or does not have the right to be on the road. Our streets and roads are a public-use facility and it is a privilege to use them that comes with responsibilities, drivers and cyclists alike. This is about protecting vulnerable users from others who have failed in their responsibility to not hit things or kill people. Your driver’s license charges you with that responsibility.

Many traffic calming strategies are aimed at protecting vulnerable users, and are frequently opposed on the basis that they “slow down” motorists. It’s important to remember that roads are public-use, and their use is a privilege. There is not necessarily a “right” to certain speeds or exclusivity.

Myth: Roads are paid for via user fees, so bicyclists are getting free rides on the streets paid for by motorists.

Fact: Not so much. Gas tax is paid on all [...]]]>

With new legislatures and a new Congress in session, it’s a fine season to review some of the myths and truths of transportation funding and bicycle advocacy.

Myth: Roads are paid for via user fees, so bicyclists are getting free rides on the streets paid for by motorists.

Fact: Not so much. Gas tax is paid on all sorts of vehicles NOT used on roads (ATVs, boats, lawnmowers). And roads actually aren’t paid for entirely from tolls, gas taxes, vehicle licensing, etc., anyway. A report released in January by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) demonstrates that gas taxes cover barely half the costs of building and maintaining roads. As well, gas taxes are often paid on fuel used to travel local roads, whereas the tax money is used to pay for state and federal projects.

Myth: Cyclists are determined to force everyone out of cars.

Fact: Okay, sure. There are some militant all-bike, all-the-time folks who only exist via bicycles. Most of them, however, will grant a place and a purpose for autos. Accusations that cyclists and policies facilitating cycling are an attempt to force motorists out of their cars – such as the statement made by Brooklyn (NYC) Borough President Marty Markowitz in his 2010 State of the Borough address that “They are trying to stigmatize car owners and get them to abandon their cars” is really not the case.

Many cyclists own cars. The purpose of creating Complete Streets and policies that encourage transportation alternatives such as transit, walking, and cycling options, are just that: To create options. In many places, current urban architecture is such as to limit options.

Myth: Cyclists don’t pay their share in taxes.

Fact: Per Bicycling Retailer figures, over 46% of cyclists belong to households with an income of over $75,000/year. Median household income in the US is significantly lower, at $50,233/year.

Myth: Bikes are for kids!

Fact: Bicycle mode-share for commuting is 8% in the Twin Cities. These aren’t just kids. These are degreed professionals. Nationally, walking and bicycling make up 10% of all trips, but only receive a tiny fraction of the money that goes to transportation projects.

Myth: Building transit, bikeways, and pedestrian access aids doesn’t create jobs.

Fact: While I have questioned using a single study that claims that such projects actually create MORE jobs than road construction as a universal truth, come ON. Do you think asphalt pours itself? Clearly, such projects do promote employment.

Got any other myths that tick you off? Comment below!

The League [...]]]>

Legislation often has weird clauses, but this one is super-weird. The most excellent StreetsBlog reports that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) inserted a stipulation in the federal aviation reauthorization (SB 223) that could bar airports from using passenger facility charges for bike parking facilities if it stays in the bill and the bill is passed.

The League of American Bicyclists calls this “a singularly mean-spirited and unnecessary thing to do.”

As Andy Clarke of the LAB points out, cycling to the airport may not be a huge thing in this country. However, part of that may be infrastructure-related. It’s certainly popular in other places. Schipol Airport in Amsterdam (AMS) has abundant bicycle parking, and bicycle routes into the airport. It’s a popular means for airport workers to arrive at work, and for others to connect to the airport transit hub. Portland Airport in Oregon offers employee bicycle parking (pictured).

The League is working to have the language removed from the authorization.

Subd. 4. Riding on roadway or shoulder. (a) Every person operating a [...]]]>

Per Minnesota Statute 169.222, “every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” Several exception cases are codified in the statute. As a unit, here is the entirety of Subd. 4:

Subd. 4. Riding on roadway or shoulder. (a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.

Part 3 alludes to the core of the fallacy. The key to the entire statute is the concept of practicable, and part 3 makes it clear that narrow-width lanes are among the reasons not to hug the curb.

Yet many cyclists persist in applying this statute not as practicable, but as possible. As a result, they cling to the curb, sometimes to a ridiculous extent, and actually make their journey less safe as a result.

There are a number of reasons why clinging to the curb is a really bad idea:

1. Visibility: The first rule of safe cycling is to be seen. When hugging the curb, your visibility to drivers actually goes down due to line-of-sight issues relative to vehicle placement in the lane. When a driver cannot see you, you are automatically less safe. The visibility rule applies equally in urban and rural environments.

2. Pavement issues: The join between most curbs or shoulders and the main roadway is not always smooth. As a result, there can be cracks, bumps, and other hazards that may result in a cyclist going down, and bouncing into the traffic lane.
3. Maneuverability: When you cling to the curb, beyond the basic pavement issues you have other maneuvering issues. In particular, you have limited mobility to dodge hazards in the lane, such as gravel, holes, glass, dead varmint, etc. Without a minimum 3-foot space between you and the curb, you must dodge hazards by dodging to the left – into the lane, and possibly right into traffic. Once again: Not safe, and arguably not a practicable approach. By holding to a best-practice three-foot gap to the curb, you have more room to react to roadway issues in a safe manner.
4. Lane choice issues: When you hug the curb, you may not be in the correct lane. Cyclists should ride to the right in the lane that most accurately points to their destination. A cyclist going straight shouldn’t be in the right-most lane if said lane is a right-turn-only (RTO). A cyclist going left shouldn’t do it from the curb lane. And a cyclist going straight puts him/herself in danger by hugging the curb in an option lane that offers a choice of going straight or right-turning.
5. Narrow lane issues: Some cyclists would argue that riding to the far right in a narrow lane is especially important. Actually, in such lanes, it’s probably more important – and safer! – NOT to do so. Under Minnesota law, motorists must at all times maintain a three-foot clearance when passing a bicycle. In a narrow lane, this will end up requiring a vehicle to move into the next lane over to pass a bicycle, even if the cyclist is hugging the curb. Depending on the road, this may either be into a lane further left, or crossing the center line for the pass. If a cyclist hugs the curb too closely, it encourages the motorist to pass too closely in order to stay within the lane.
6. Parked cars: When the curb lane is used for on-street parking, cyclists should maintain a three-foot clearance when passing parked cars to help avoid getting doored.

Sure, in many cases if a cyclist moves three feet out from the curb in a narrow lane it will slow motorized traffic. Often, a good path to choose in a narrow lane is the impression area typically created by the right-side tires of cars that have used the roads. The drivers who are most likely to be irritated by a cyclist riding in this lane position will be irritated by the presence of a cyclist in the road regardless of how close to the curb a cyclist rides.

A good cyclist cannot make their lane decisions based on the perceptions of people who will hate the cyclist no matter what. A good cyclist needs to ride according to best practices for safety, visibility and maneuverability. Riding to the right is about ‘practicability,’ which means that cyclists should make educated decisions about conditions and lane width in selecting their lane position.

Photo by Asbjørn Floden, via Flickr

Duluth’s Northland News Center, which is a site for Duluth’s CBS, NBC, CW and ‘MyNetwork’ affiliate television outlets, provokes today’s big headsmack with their article “BICYCLE RIDING DEATHS UP IN MN.”

While the article does include some fatality statistics [...]]]>

There’s nothing quite like headline writing expressly designed to freak people out, while not necessarily matching article content.

Duluth’s Northland News Center, which is a site for Duluth’s CBS, NBC, CW and ‘MyNetwork’ affiliate television outlets, provokes today’s big headsmack with their article “BICYCLE RIDING DEATHS UP IN MN.”

While the article does include some fatality statistics for the state, I’m relatively sure that the safety message being put out by Susan Koschak, the chair of the Statewide Non-Motorized Advisory Committee, didn’t include the OMG YOU WILL ALL DIE tilt. The DPS official quoted also is quoted on safety, although the fatality figure (average of 8 cyclist deaths/year) is a DPS number.

Just as a comparison, DPS reports 72 motorcyclist deaths in 2008, and 416 car accident deaths in 2009. Obviously, working towards 0 in all columns is important, but you rarely see the attachment of OMG DANGER! attached in the same way to these other modes of transport.

Northland News also inserts a “use bike paths!” comment, even though DPS and MNDOT share the 8 principles of the Share the Road Minnesota campaign, all of which focus on appropriate and legal use of roadways by cyclists.

I’m blaming this all on Northland, as the state agencies quoted are typically right on and supportive of the Share the Road principles and Minnesota statutes on bicyclists. Education of all roadway users – and not breathless sharing of noncontextual fatality statistics – is the key to cyclist safety on the roads. All a headline of this nature does is forward a not-especially-subtle bias against cyclists’ road rights.

Wired Magazine are ‘crowdsourcing’ reviews, asking people to try their route and see what comes out of the system. It’s a generally savvy crowd, so they [...]]]>

Now that it’s been live a full 6 days, reviews are coming in on Google Maps for Biking. As with everything involving bikes and media coverage, feedback is a bit mixed.

Wired Magazine are ‘crowdsourcing’ reviews, asking people to try their route and see what comes out of the system. It’s a generally savvy crowd, so they aren’t assaulting Google (or their data sources) for errors.

Meanwhile, others are claiming Google is providing hazardous directions. The notable in this category is the NY Post, who found that Google’s data on NYC bike routes is not accurate. Commenters on this article are embracing the general run of bike-hater joy, discussing running bikers off the roads, how this is all a liberal conspiracy, etc. You know, the usual.

As someone who works with Google services every day (for money!), I’ll say that I come closer to the opinions of the Wired folks. It’s a beta project. The pedestrian walking routes instructions have also been notably erratic (routing people onto highways, onramps, sidewalk-free zones). There are prominent buttons to provide feedback. Garmin and other GPS instructions haven’t been 100% either.

GPS services and Google Maps are always going to be limited by their data sets. I think anyone going somewhere unfamiliar, or coming in from out-of-town, needs to view Google Maps as a guide. Talking to a good local bicycle shop, or a local bicycle club, will ever be your best bet for getting the real (and most current) poop on local bike routes, including road construction, reality of what traffic levels are like, and even if they’re scenic or not. No online data set will ever match the know-how of the local cyclists!