Would anyone have suggestions, hints, etc. for effectively lobbying against a proposed shared bike/ped "multi-user path?" Basically, (for all you locals) there is a plan for building a 10 ft asphalt MUP on the north side of Washtenaw from Tuomy to Glenwood, parallel to the main road. The main road currently consists of 4 lanes of narrow travel, and is a busy artery. People have noted that there is significant pedestrian traffic in the grass and bushes, presumably from people catching busses to go downtown.
What makes this case interesting is that the proposed project is being funded primarily by state and federal funds, although the locals would have to chip in a bit. The grant had been submitted, and the money received. At a public hearing, the local cycling group did voice its concerns, but most of the objection came from owners of the properties that would be directly affected. City council is scheduled to vote on the project soon - a vote has been postponed once.
In addition to the undesirability of MUPs, it seems to me that alternatives haven't been explored sufficiently. There is the possibility of doing a 4-3 lane conversion, and adding BLs (already proposed in the city's master plan), and/or building a regular sidewalk for the peds. People have noted though that the road is a key artery, and might not be able to absorb a reduction in capacity w/o descending into total gridlock. OTOH, the geography and the presence of historic houses/old trees makes any road widening a difficult, if not impossible task.
Anyway, I've written city council with my concerns. Would it be wise to contact local media to see whether additional coverage on these issues is warranted? What about Congress (after all, it appears that Federal transportation money is being used, and in this proposal, it honestly seems to be wasted)?
Hartmann
02-01-06, 06:53 AM
They can't widen the road for bike lanes, the traffic volume can't handle a reduction in lanes, but you don't want a MUP, sounds like your best bet is to lobby for a sidewalk and you can continue to ride on the crowded 4 lane. Of course depending on the source of the federal and state funding a sidewalk may not be fundable or may need to come from a different program. The most effective lobbying is when you can present a viable alternative.
Bekologist
02-01-06, 07:10 AM
Maybe a MUP is a desirable option for this roadway stretch, Ng. I have no knowledge of this area. Sounds like its more of a pedestrian driven issue, so weight your decisions accordingly. I ride on "MUPs" that are designed primarily for pedestrian accomodation sometimes (around park and rides) and have no issues with them.
If no roadway accomodations are appropriate for the roadway, an off road path for benefit for both cyclists AND pedestrians makes sense.
Does Ann Arbor or Michigan have a mandatory use law that would require bicyclists to use a MUP? Would a cyclist still be free to ride in the 4 narrow lanes ajacant to a MUP?
Kayakado
02-01-06, 07:22 AM
They are probably creating a MUP in order to get federal MUP funds to build what is essentially a sidewalk.
The research says that MUP's are more dangerous than bike lanes. But the opposition, if they are on the ball, can say this is flawed research since MUP's attract those less experienced riders who are more likely to crash and the more experienced riders will opt to ride on bike lanes and are less likely to crash.
Here's a research paper. There is much more out there on the internet if you search for it.
Sounds like they need to build something there. Do you know if they get more money if they declare what they are building to be a MUP vs a sidewalk?
If the cyclists in your area are really against it, why not join forces with the property owners who are also against it?
genec
02-01-06, 08:55 AM
They are probably creating a MUP in order to get federal MUP funds to build what is essentially a sidewalk.
The research says that MUP's are more dangerous than bike lanes. But the opposition, if they are on the ball, can say this is flawed research since MUP's attract those less experienced riders who are more likely to crash and the more experienced riders will opt to ride on bike lanes and are less likely to crash.
Here's a research paper. There is much more out there on the internet if you search for it.
Research shows sidepaths, which are essentially sidewalks that still cross all the same intersections as a regular roadway, are more dangerous than using the roadway directly. But MUPs... not hardly. And the paper you cited... doesn't address this at all.
The bottom line is that the intersections created for sidepaths are the real problem as they are not true corners, but simply paths that suddenly open up onto roads with traffic... without any controls for these intersections.
DCCommuter
02-01-06, 09:04 AM
In situations like this it helps to think about what you really want. Why are you opposed to a MUP in this location? If they are properly engineered they can be good facilities.
AndrewP
02-01-06, 09:20 AM
Is there any chance of adjusting lane widths to allow bikes and motor traffic to share the outside lane. Then a sidewalk could be installed for pedestrians & pushed bikes. This would take up a lot less pace than a MUP.
ghettocruiser
02-01-06, 09:57 AM
Research shows sidepaths, which are essentially sidewalks that still cross all the same intersections as a regular roadway, are more dangerous than using the roadway directly. But MUPs... not hardly. And the paper you cited... doesn't address this at all.
I could be wrong, but I think what's being suggested is that a sidepath is being CALLED a MUP to try to sugar-coat it for funding. As in Figure 6 chapter 7 in the reference, they are muddying the two of them, maybe on purpose
Brian Ratliff
02-01-06, 10:04 AM
Would anyone have suggestions, hints, etc. for effectively lobbying against a proposed shared bike/ped "multi-user path?" Basically, (for all you locals) there is a plan for building a 10 ft asphalt MUP on the north side of Washtenaw from Tuomy to Glenwood, parallel to the main road. The main road currently consists of 4 lanes of narrow travel, and is a busy artery. People have noted that there is significant pedestrian traffic in the grass and bushes, presumably from people catching busses to go downtown.
What makes this case interesting is that the proposed project is being funded primarily by state and federal funds, although the locals would have to chip in a bit. The grant had been submitted, and the money received. At a public hearing, the local cycling group did voice its concerns, but most of the objection came from owners of the properties that would be directly affected. City council is scheduled to vote on the project soon - a vote has been postponed once.
In addition to the undesirability of MUPs, it seems to me that alternatives haven't been explored sufficiently. There is the possibility of doing a 4-3 lane conversion, and adding BLs (already proposed in the city's master plan), and/or building a regular sidewalk for the peds. People have noted though that the road is a key artery, and might not be able to absorb a reduction in capacity w/o descending into total gridlock. OTOH, the geography and the presence of historic houses/old trees makes any road widening a difficult, if not impossible task.
Anyway, I've written city council with my concerns. Would it be wise to contact local media to see whether additional coverage on these issues is warranted? What about Congress (after all, it appears that Federal transportation money is being used, and in this proposal, it honestly seems to be wasted)?
We have many 4-3 lane conversions here in Oregon; it works because the middle lane can be used for left turns, so people don't hold up traffic for a left turn and the people behind them don't have to change lanes to get around. If there are no left turns possible, then a 4-3 conversion is pointless, it will just bottleneck cars.
MUP's can be implimented successfully - the Burke-Gillman trail in Seattle is a good example. They should be away from the road a ways, and have as few intersections with roads as possible. Where they cross major roads, the crossing must be controlled using a crosswalk at an intersection, or using a mid-block light. At minor road crossings, a crosswalk and good sight lines (for both cars and path users) have to be used. Cyclists have to be encouraged to stop at all intersections with roads.
Intersections with roads need to be either midblock, and well away from any intersections, or at the intersection blending in with the pedestrian crossing.
As for lobbying against such a MUP, your best bet is to show that there are better alternatives which leaves everyone happier. The 4-3 conversion with bike lane (or wide outside lane) may be a good alternative, but you must show that traffic congestion will not be increased for its consideration to be taken seriously. I don't know the road, so I cannot say anything more detailed.
genec
02-01-06, 10:46 AM
I could be wrong, but I think what's being suggested is that a sidepath is being CALLED a MUP to try to sugar-coat it for funding. As in Figure 6 chapter 7 in the reference, they are muddying the two of them, maybe on purpose
Actually figure 6 used both a MUP and a sidepath to contrast the difference.
The upper image is a MUP, well separated from the roadway... and having "intersection danger" only at either end.
The lower image is a sidepath... and every crossing of a driveway or road is an intersection hazard.
That is the difference.
webist
02-01-06, 10:49 AM
As for lobbying against such a MUP, your best bet is to show that there are better alternatives which leaves everyone happier. The 4-3 conversion with bike lane (or wide outside lane) may be a good alternative, but you must show that traffic congestion will not be increased for its consideration to be taken seriously. I don't know the road, so I cannot say anything more detailed.
Better alternatives if just focusing on cycling perhaps. What of the joggers, walkers, equestrians and wheel chair operators, which form much of the rest of the MUP constituency? I would think cyclists would be seen in a more positive light were they to work for comprehensive solutions rather than arguing only for their specific best advantage. As long as the existence of the new MUP doesn't result in a ban on higher speed cyclists using the roadway, what's the diff? It seems to me the original poster was suggesting that the focus was on pedestrian issues.
timmhaan
02-01-06, 10:55 AM
Actually figure 6 used both a MUP and a sidepath to contrast the difference.
The upper image is a MUP, well separated from the roadway... and having "intersection danger" only at either end.
The lower image is a sidepath... and every crossing of a driveway or road is an intersection hazard.
That is the difference.
nice use of visuals. i like the duck pond and the scenic vista!
Brian Ratliff
02-01-06, 11:19 AM
Better alternatives if just focusing on cycling perhaps. What of the joggers, walkers, equestrians and wheel chair operators, which form much of the rest of the MUP constituency? I would think cyclists would be seen in a more positive light were they to work for comprehensive solutions rather than arguing only for their specific best advantage. As long as the existence of the new MUP doesn't result in a ban on higher speed cyclists using the roadway, what's the diff? It seems to me the original poster was suggesting that the focus was on pedestrian issues.
You are right, you have to show that an alternative is better for all involved: peds, cyclists, dogwalkers, joggers, wheelchair operators, skaters, and cars. I cannot be more specific because I don't know the specifics of the road.
The state of the art in Portland for arterial roads is a sidewalk + bike lane + travel lanes (one or more) + center turn lane. This seems to work pretty well for all the road users. A MUP is a secondary option, but may be the best in this case since the road cannot be widened. However a 4-3 lane conversion (single travel lane + center turn lane) might be able to still handle the traffic volume under certain conditions - depends on the major cause of the gridlock, i.e. lane changing, left or right turns, etc. This leaves room for a bike lane and a sidewalk. Another thing that can be done with a 4-3 conversion is to implement right turn lane breakouts at intersections. The ability to get left and right turning cars off the main travel lanes greatly increases the volume of traffic the roads can handle. Of course, none of this is relevent if there are no problems with left and right turning cars.
Brian Ratliff
02-01-06, 11:22 AM
Actually figure 6 used both a MUP and a sidepath to contrast the difference.
The upper image is a MUP, well separated from the roadway... and having "intersection danger" only at either end.
The lower image is a sidepath... and every crossing of a driveway or road is an intersection hazard.
That is the difference.
Yes, for a MUP to be safe, it either has to be part of the intersection (at the crosswalk - cyclists cross as pedestrians), or well away from intersections. There is a dead zone, probably extending up to 100 ft away from the intersection (depends on the speed limit of the side road) where a path absolutely must not intersect the road.
ghettocruiser
02-01-06, 11:32 AM
Actually figure 6 used both a MUP and a sidepath to contrast the difference.
The lower image is a sidepath... and every crossing of a driveway or road is an intersection hazard.
That is the difference.
Indeed. And the impression I got from the OP was that they want to build a sidepath, with it's inherent hazards, in his area, and CALL it an MUP. To make it sound nice. Maybe the OP can use that diagram as part of his opposition.
Edit: I guess I wasnt too clear in my first comment.