rando

https://www.courier-journal.com/apps/...=2007703080445



Share the road
Louisville is considering the Complete Streets policy so vehicles, bicycles, wheelchairs and strollers can ...

By Marcus Green
magreen@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal



Hoping to correct a decades-old "urban planning mistake," city officials are moving to require that anyone building new streets or altering existing ones set aside space for bicyclists, wheelchairs and strollers.

"You have to think about that at the time of construction, so that folks who are going to live … close by have alternative means of getting where they want to go," said Charles Cash, director of Louisville Metro Planning & Design.



As part of the proposed Complete Streets policy to be introduced to a Louisville Metro Planning Commission panel today, new streets would have to have dedicated lanes or paths for bicyclists and sidewalks and curbs accessible to wheelchairs.

And when existing roads are repaved, they would have to include bike paths and sidewalks where possible.

Across the country, 22 cities have adopted "Complete Streets" design guidelines recognized by the Thunderhead Alliance, a national nonprofit organization made up of local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups.

Precious Johnson, who lives with her husband and two children in the Timberbend subdivision near Cooper Chapel Road in southeast Jefferson County, says the idea makes sense.

While lots of children ride bicycles near Cooper Chapel, Johnson said, the narrow road is too dangerous to accommodate cars and bike riders.

"They need to do something," she said, adding that she applauds plans to add sidewalks and bike lanes as part of a widening project from near Preston Highway to Smyrna Parkway.

Complete Streets is a 163-page manual of design guidelines drafted by a group representing public transit, people with disabilities and neighborhood activists among other groups.

The policy could be attached to the community's existing land development code, or it may require Metro Council approval, Cash said. The planning commission's planning committee will be briefed on it today, with a full presentation scheduled for April 12.

Mayor Jerry Abramson said the policy is necessary.

"For decades, we in Louisville -- and cities around the nation -- have built roads only for vehicles," Abramson said in a statement. "That was an urban planning mistake. The Complete Streets policy will help rectify that."

Complete Streets was among a series of goals set during a bicycle summit two years ago, with the aim of making the city more bike-friendly. Another goal is making River Road a top cycling corridor.

To that end, the city recently announced that $1 million in federal money will be used to start planning a 7-mile bikeway along River Road, from near Zorn Avenue to U.S. 42.

"Bike paths and bike lanes are good because they inform drivers that, yes, bicyclists are legitimate transportation users just like car drivers," said David Morse, a cycling advocate.

Complete Street policies already in place along the West Coast have been effective, said Morse, who lived in Los Angeles and the San Francisco bay area from 1995 to 2002.

"There's a bicycle commuter culture there, and there's so many people bicycling," he said.

While cycling is an emphasis of the Louisville policy, it also requires features that will make it easier for people with disabilities to access roads and sidewalks.

In many cases, said Tommy Clark, Metro government's disabilities coordinator, sidewalks are barriers to people who use wheelchairs.

"That's basically a useless sidewalk," Clark said. "With this manual it makes it a usable sidewalk for people with disabilities -- people in a wheelchair -- or a family that's pushing a baby stroller."

Officials aren't estimating how much it will cost to apply the policy's guidelines.

"In the bigger picture, it is a relatively minor addition in terms of the cost. It is also minor in terms of the addition of the right-of-way," which would be 5 percent to 15 percent wider, said Mohammad Nouri, the city's assistant transportation services director.

For existing streets, Nouri and Cash say, elements of Complete Streets would be done on a case-by-case basis. They acknowledge that it may be difficult to improve some streets but point to examples such as recent bike lanes added to Third Street downtown.

The policy was developed with broad input, but officials say there will be several public hearings before any action is taken to approve it.

"There will be plenty of time for public input," Cash said.

Daily Commute

There are some good ideas in Complete Streets, but its biggest problem is that it doesn't recognize that some streets are just fine for cyclists without special accomadations. For instance, under Complete Streets, it's better to have a door-zone bike lane than no bike lane at all. Complete Streets uses Chicago as an example, but Chicago embraces the door-zone bike lane. Yeah, that's good for cyclists.

I am against the wholesale adoption of a "Complete Streets" program because, it does not recognize that roads without official bicycle facilties can be perfectly fine for cyclists. As my Chicago example shows, cities can use "Complete Streets" to make cycling less safe by, for example, creating door-zone bike lanes. Also, narrow outside shared lanes make streets worse under the "Complete Streets" calculator.

Another problem is that it encourages residential streets to be wide, which encourages speeding. Stupid. Stupid. I'd much rather live on a narrow street where the car has to wait a little while to get around the cyclist. I'm glad that on most of my street, cars going in opposite directions have to find gaps in parked cars to get by each other. That's part of why I live where I do.

Complete Streets also labels narrow outside lanes as cyclist unfriendly, even on 25mph downtown streets with lots of intersections. Striped lanes make no sense in that situation. WOL's make little sense. But Complete Streets encourages both.

Last year, I spoke with someone on the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission. MORPC requires following "Complete Streets" when it doles out federal money. She talked about an 11' road, and repeatedly said t "there's not room for a bicycle" on that street. I repeatedly said that 11' was plenty of space for a cyclist. But she thought that a cyclists could only fit on the road if the cyclist and car could ride side-by-side for the entire length of the road. That's the Complete Streets mentality.

There are many good ideas in Complete Streets. Cities should look at it for ideas. They just shouldn't adopt it wholesale.

chipcom 

I added the bold text. There is no hard requirement for bike lanes on a complete street, I'd think that a community has flexibility in defining the characteristics of their complete streets, based on this definition.

Daily Commute

I didn't say that there was a prescription for a striped lane. But I stand by my personal experience with how urban planners apply Complete Streets--if a specific bike accomodation is not included, they don't approve finding. That's how both the planners and my local "bike advocacy group" interpret it. And I stand by the argument that Complete Streets encourages speeding in residential areas by encouraging wide streets.

Also, sidewalk bulb outs are especially dangerous for curb hugging cyclists. Those cyclists tend to ride in the parking lanes, and they constantly have to swerve in and out of traffic. The Complete Streets solution would be to put a bike lane in the door zone (which complies with ASHTO standards).

As I said, there are good ideas to take from Complete Streets. Planners should think about how cyclists will traverse any given road. But it is a bad idea to adopt "Complete Streets" wholesale.

Edited to correct typo.

rando

I can agree with that. I would hope that planners would be flexible and pragmatic in taking all road users into account in their plans... IMO Complete streets can be a winning concept for cyclists and peds and make communities more liveable, but there has to be discretion about which design elements to incude and which to leave out in any given location.

chipcom 

Despite what urban planners may recommend or want, any project usually requires public hearings and the governing body has the power to direct the planners to modify their designs if they determine concerns experessed by the public to be valid, doable and affordable. The only exception would be if the funding is coming from another source and that source puts specific requirements in place in order to obtain that funding. Do you have any examples of requirements for painted bike lanes being tied to state or federal funding for Complete Streets?

randya

Based on the above comments, I think this thread should be move to the VC subforum. Anyone want to dare me to report it to a moderator?

donnamb 

Not necessary. I think this thread is fine where it is - thus far.

bigpedaler

the 11' requirement seems a bit tight for me; the average car width is between 5 & 6'...the average bike/rider, reasonably, is about 2' (+-). allowing for the usually requisite 3' separation, and you have bike wheels at 1' from the right edge of the road, and the car no more than 1' from the lane line. i never drove that close to the line unless i HAD to.

The Human Car

Some thoughts on VC and Complete Streets; Complete Streets should include Sharows as part of their tool kit as well as Bicycle Level Of Service (BLOS) as that demonstrates the lack of need of separate bike facilities on low traffic, low speed roads.

Some of my pet peeves about Complete Streets is that it should include other issues besides street designs such as design for business developments to limit the number of driveway entrances that a group of business can have along a major route, preferably one “side road” that can access a number of business. On street parking should be reexamined as I think all storefront on street parking should all be marked for what it is … as handicapped only parking, people who can walk, should walk and those who have trouble walking really could use some more access. I also think the over use of right on red should be seriously curtailed as part of Complete Streets.

I will also note that AASHTO does not recommend door zone bike lanes but has an allowance for the reduction of the parking lane width in situations where there is sparse parking and low turn over parking. I mention this as I will strongly assert that door zone bike lanes in commercial districts are not in conformance with AASHTO. I will also mention that BLOS is negatively affected when the parking lane width is less then 10 feet and you are not accommodating the lower end cyclists with a BLOS grade below C (as some will try and assert with door zone bike lanes.)

PS. There is a VC subforum???

rando

Yep!

Daily Commute

Morse Road for a mile or 2 East of I71 in Columbus. Bike lanes from nowhere to nowhere, and it was because MORPC required "Complete Streets." Also, we are rebuilding a downtown bridge over the Olentangy River. It will be a 35 mph downtwon road. At a meeting I attended, a MORPC official said that the bride must have a specific "bike facility" if the city wanted federal funds (I think the city is doing it with local funds). A high MORPC official bragged that she will not approve any project unless the project has specific bicycle faciltities. She said that cyclists using the traffic lane does not count.

The people who approve the bike facilities under "Complete Streets" are not cyclists. They are bureaucrats. That top official I mentioned thinks an 11' lane does not provide "room for a bicycle."

Also as I've said above, I think "Complete Streets" provides some useful tools to planners, but given the realities of bureaucracies, I just think it's a bad idea to adopt it as law.

Page 24, AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilties (1999),* shows an 11' lane to be shared by parked cars and a bike lane. There is no way to build a 5' bike lane in such a situation without putting it in the door zone. Yes, they say that this is the "minimum" and that 13' is recommended where there is "substantial turnover," but:

• That means 11' is still recommended elsewhere;
• 11' is still allowed where there is substantial turnover;
• When you consider a 6' car parked 1' from the curb with 3.5' doors near your 2' wide handlebars (and 3' wide elbow to elbow profile), 13' is still creates a door-zone bike lane).

So I stand by my statement that AASHTO permits door zone bike lanes, and that since "Complete Streets" uses AASHTO, "Complete Streets" encourages cities to install door zone bike lanes.

When you are thinking about turning "Complete Streets" or the AASHTO guidelines into law, you shouldn't read them with your own biases (or even the biases of the authors). You have to read them with the mentality of a bureaucrat who is thinking, "what is the bare minimum I have to provide." Then you have to ask, is the bare minimum worst than nothing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't (door zone bike lanes). But that's the reality of traffic planning.

Imposing "Complete Streets" on reluctant traffic engineers from on high is problematic. Traffic engineers who do not already believe in the "Complete Streets" philosophy will treat it like a bureaucratic nuissance that they must satisfy, so they will do the bare minimum. So either:

• Your traffic engineers already believe in "Complete Streets" (in which case you don't need to enact it into law); or
• Your traffic engineers don't believe in "Complete Streets" (in which case they will do the bare minimum to satisfy its requirements).

One more time, "Complete Streets" provides some useful tools. But I think it should remain a reference for traffic planners. It should not be law.

*This AASHTO guidelines are copyrighted, and is not always available on the web. Sometimes a site will put it up, but it usually comes down after a little bit.

chipcom 

As I mentioned, public hearings are required for any project, at multiple levels. Bureaucracies make recommendations - elected politicians make laws and approve projects. If your politicians blindly accept MORPC's recommendations and guidelines, there is your problem, not the concept of Complete streets.

randya

Interesting comments. I will note that the City of Portland Traffic Engineer has resisted the use of Sharrows because they are not as of yet an AASHTO / MUTCD-approved traffic control device, yet seems perfectly OK with installing door zone bike lanes, and other unsafe bike lane designs, including a very hazardous door zone bike lane on SW Broadway which traverses a highly congested part of downtown and several hotel zones in which one fatality and numerous other injury accidents have occurred.

donnamb 

Randya, I don't think I saw you on the last Master Plan ride, but R.G. announced that committee recommended them for inclusion, and he seemed optimistic that would be good enough for them to begin using them outside the federally-approved test areas in NW.

I sincerely hope that SW Broadway is the first place they put Sharrows, and get that piece-of-you-know-what-bicyclist-killer bike lane out of there. I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn that was the general consensus when people on the ride heard the news.

Daily Commute

You are just wrong on the facts. MORPC is the filter for federal money in the Central Ohio area. If they don't approve, the money gets spent elsewhere.

chipcom 

The 'filter'? Tell me DC, who provides their funding support? Wait let me help you..."federal government, the state of Ohio, public utility companies and city, township and county governments as well as membership dues". If you have a problem with how MORPC's recommendations concerning how our public dollars are spent, AGAIN, perhaps the problem should be addressed to your elected representatives, who control their funding and the funding of any projects paid for by public dollars - and not blamed on the Complete Streets concept.

Daily Commute

They are not "recommendations." Part of the reason behind MORPC was to make try to make sure federal highway dollars get spent according to a coherent regional plan, not just according to the whim of whatever local official has pull. So one purpose of MORPC is to take power away from the elected officials we normally lobby. It works, for the most part, but MORPC's wholesale and unthinking adoption of a bureaucratic notion of "Complete Streets" a problem. And that's the topic of this thread.

As I have repeatedly said, "Complete Streets" has a lot of good ideas. The problem arises when a funding body turns a useful guide into the letter of the law, which is either irrelevant (because the bureaucracy is already cyclist-oriented) or counter-productive (because the bureaucracy will treat it as a nuissance technical requirement and do only the bare minimum).

chipcom 

Uhh, DC, who funds the plan AND the planning body? Also, MORPC can't turn anything into law. Dude, do I need to direct you to a basic civics lesson? Do you understand how government works, specifically in regards to any expenditures of public funds?

Daily Commute

When was the last time you were involved in traffic planning in Columbus?