Northeast - Is This Poor Community Planning?

A major roadway in my community is slated for a restoration and upgrade that includes widening, straightening, etc. This is a road used constantly by pedestrians and cyclists making their way to the train station in the center of town. Unfortunately, much of the sidewalk along this road has crumbled into the road shoulder adjacent to it, making both walking and riding along this road very dangerous.

During the preliminary and final stages of planning for the revamped roadway, I presented proposals for both an on-road bike lane and a separate mixed-use path to replace the sidewalk on one side of the street. The community and the DOT engineers received these proposals very positively; the county complimented my plan and thanked me for my concern, but advised that, if they were to include accommodations for bicycles into this project, they would have to consider doing the same for ALL new road projects.

The people running this show - including the involved elected officials - are all bright, intelligent people who care enormously about our community. That's what makes it even more frustrating to me that, in the midst of a serious energy crisis - and with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do the right thing with this road - we are shirking our responsibility to future generations by pouring millions of dollars into pavement for automobiles and zero into alternative transportation.

In case you're thinking I'm missing something - perhaps the results of a feasibility study or an explanation from a traffic engineer - I can tell you that top DOT people have reviewed the plan and found it unquestionably feasible. In addition, I've seen this done successfully on similar roads across the country. In some cities and towns, they invest in attractive, scenic paths that carry bicyclists and pedestrians from one place to another. In others, they open a can of paint and stripe a line down the shoulder of a major road. In every case, a significant number of people get out of their cars and onto their bicycles AT LEAST a few times a week.

So how, in this day and age, can such an environmentally and economically responsible proposal be so easily dismissed?

This would be like going to a restaurant and saying "Waiter there is a fly in my soup." And the Waiter responds "There may very well be a fly in your soup but there may be a fly in other peoples soup as well and we don't have the resources to replace everyone's soup, so enjoy what you have."
(From Garrison Keillor)

The fact is there is not enough money to do all project for any travel mode some get done and some don't that's life but still that is no excuse for no accommodations on a well traveled route or highly desirable route. Not all roads need to be bike/ped friendly but there is a high need for bike friendly routes and on those routes plans should include bike/ped accommodations.

>>>Not all roads need to be bike/ped friendly but there is a high need for bike friendly routes and on those routes plans should include bike/ped accommodations. <<<<

I absolutely agree, and perhaps I could have been clearer. This is THE main road through our hamlet. It's got two narrow lanes in each direction, one of which is constantly blocked by a car (or cars) making a turn. During peak commuter hours, the road is like a parking lot, with hundreds of autos trying to get to or from the railroad station. People have tried to bicycle or walk to the station but give up after one or two attempts. Having ridden community bike paths all over the USA and Canada, I can tell you confidently that I really believe this road is an ideal candidate for either a striped bike lane or a parallel mixed-use path. It's a no-brainer, as one DOT engineer told me.

That said, I understand that there is not enough money for every project someone proposes. But they found the money for the road repair project, so how much more can it cost to stripe a line down the pavement or build a glorified sidewalk (mixed-use path) along one side?

Perhaps I was not clear but I am fully empathetic to your situation. In Maryland we have a major highway project that goes through Bel Air South but unlike many locations that have secondary streets that cross the highway and allow for safe travel by bicyclists and pedestrians this major highway is the only option here. Not only that our Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designated this highway as part of the regions bicycle network. (Note: all MPO's are required by Federal law to plan a bicycle network.) We have had some success in making sure that road improvements on this bicycle network include bicycle considerations. The State is sort of dragging its feet in some areas but in other areas some progress is being made.

Also note that if your State is using Federal funds for this project they are required to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians up to 20% of the project cost. Find out who is overseeing this project on the Federal Highway Administration side and file a complaint.

As a side note if any one knows of any lawyers that can handle a lawsuit of this nature in Maryland PM me.

Let me guess - Hempstead Turnpike?

While I agree that this is a little bit short-sighted, I suspect their offered explanation may not be quite what's going on.

Far more likely is that the decision-makers do not perceive cyclists as a big or influential enough constituency to warrant the additional costs. You may want to start getting people involved, get a petition together, and so forth.

I also believe that you will have more success if you stay positive. I would avoid public expressions of critical sentiments, especially this early in the process.

>>>Also note that if your State is using Federal funds for this project they are required to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians up to 20% of the project cost. <<<<

Do you know where I can find that in writing? I've always kind of thrown that tidbit of information around without really knowing if I was talking crap or not. I would really like to see where that is written into law.

>>>You may want to start getting people involved, get a petition together, and so forth.<<<<

Those days are over for me. I pick my battles a lot more selectively now and I know which ones are going to be able to win support and keep it. I resumed stirring the pot on this when gas shot up to over $4 a gallon and I was receiving about 15 or 20 supportive e-mails each day. Then it dropped below $2.50 and nobody seemed interested anymore.

As an experienced rider who has lived in the same neighborhood for forty-six years, I can find alternate bike routes through town and let other people worry about this stuff. I just get bummed when planners don't instinctively do the right thing.

Hey Tom,

The Nassau County (NY) DoT (or whatever they call themselves) have historically been dead set against any on-street bike lanes. They stated this to the NY State DoT, when the route of the Bethpage Bike Path extension was being planned. At a public hearing out in Hauppauge a few years back, I vividly recall hearing a state planner inform us of this issue when they (the State folks) attempted to use certain county owned roads for the route.

Note that the extension, as part of ISTEA Fed funding, needed to route itself to a site of mass transit, thus the Syosset LIRR station was chosen as the northern terminus. Not all the so-called path is a path in the woods. From the LIE north, it's all on local streets. Getting it to Syosset required routing onto either ToBay roads or State roads, as Nassau said no to bike lanes.

One would have thought that under the Suozzi administration, the attitudes would have changed, but I suspect it's been under the radar.

Steve B.

>>>>Let me guess - Hempstead Turnpike?<<<<<

Nope. Jackson Avenue in Syosset.

>>>The Nassau County (NY) DoT (or whatever they call themselves) have historically been dead set against any on-street bike lanes. They stated this to the NY State DoT, when the route of the Bethpage Bike Path extension was being planned. At a public hearing out in Hauppauge a few years back, I vividly recall hearing a state planner inform us of this issue when they (the State folks) attempted to use certain county owned roads for the route.<<<<<

I was at that meeting. I don't remember anybody saying that, but I'll take your word for it! (cont'd)

>>>>Note that the extension, as part of ISTEA Fed funding, needed to route itself to a site of mass transit, thus the Syosset LIRR station was chosen as the northern terminus. Not all the so-called path is a path in the woods. From the LIE north, it's all on local streets. Getting it to Syosset required routing onto either ToBay roads or State roads, as Nassau said no to bike lanes.<<<<<<

This is not part of that project. The Jackson Avenue face-lift is a Nassau County project, although there has been some discussion about Jackson Avenue being transferred from Nassau County to The Town of Oyster Bay, which might make a whole bunch of things easier for everyone.

Look...it won't be the end of the world if the new Jackson Avenue doesn't have a bike lane on it. But how many major roadways get redesigned and rebuilt this way in a lifetime? It just doesn't make sense not to explore the options available for alternative transportation along this route. I think we owe it to the next generation. Hell, we're sure leaving a whole lot of other things in a big mess for them.

>>>Also note that if your State is using Federal funds for this project they are required to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians up to 20% of the project cost. <<<<

Do you know where I can find that in writing? I've always kind of thrown that tidbit of information around without really knowing if I was talking crap or not. I would really like to see where that is written into law.

The 20% was policy not law but I can't find that wording on line anymore (policy change in new administration?) Here is what I could find:

Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic

The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action that will result in the severance of an existing major route, or have an adverse impact on the safety of nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route already exists.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp-broch.htm

(g) PLANNING AND DESIGN- --

(1) IN GENERAL- Bicyclists and pedestrians shall be given due consideration in the comprehensive transportation plans developed by each metropolitan planning organization and State in accordance with sections 134 and 135, respectively. Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted.

(2) SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS- Transportation plans and projects shall provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. Safety considerations shall include the installation, where appropriate, and maintenance of audible traffic signals and audible signs at street crossings.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&item=&&sid=cp107VbYhP&&refer=&&r_n=sr164.107&&dbname=cp107&&sid=cp107VbYhP&&sel=TOC_9070&

§ 652.11 Planning.

Federally aided bicycle and pedestrian projects implemented within urbanized areas must be included in the transportation improvement program/annual (or biennial) element unless excluded by agreement between the State and the metropolitan planning organization.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=23:1.0.1.7.30&idno=23#23:1.0.1.7.30.0.1.6

I hope this helps.