HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/6/2018 Item 12, Rands
From:Barry Rands <bcrands@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday,
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Chris McBride; Susan McTaggart; Sutliff Dale
Subject:Anholm Bikeway Plan
Mayor and City Council,
Richard Schmidt wrote a very influential opinion piece that appeared in Wednesday's Tribune. It should be pointed out,
however, that though he presents himself as someone who is knowledgeable about bicycle infrastructure design and
safety standards, upon closer examination of the standards that he references, it is apparent that he either has
misunderstood those standards or has deliberately misrepresented them. I trust that staff will be able to set the record
straight during their presentation to council on Feb. 6. Here are just a few examples of his statements that are not
consistent with the standards that he references.
Schmidt: "Well-designed on-street tracks, in addition to being driveway-free, are buffered from vehicles by substantial
things like... a planter strip. SLO's will be immediately adjacent to moving traffic"
NACTO, one of the associations he references, publishes guidelines for the design of two-way cycle tracks . The guidelines do
say that driveways present challenges, but they have several recommendations for dealing with driveways that intersect the
cycle tracks. The preferred alternative implements those recommendations. "Driveway free" may well be the ideal, but there are
ways of dealing with driveways. The NACTO site also mentions that two-way cycle tracks are used in dozens of European cities
and at least 8 US cities.
The buffering recommended by the NACTO is in fact being implemented by the Bike Plan, namely "Tubular Markers may be
used to protect the cycle track from the adjacent travel". Planter strips are a longer term feature to be added at a later date. At
no point will cyclists in the cycle tracks be "immediately adjacent to moving traffic"
Schmidt: "The Federal Highway Administration lists them (two-way cycle tracks) among 'practices to be avoided' and
'dangerous""
The FHWA does NOT list protected two-way cycle tracks among their practices to be avoided, nor are they considered
dangerous. In fact, like NACTO, the FHWA provides guidelines for their proper design. According to FHWA, "This Separated
Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide outlines planning considerations for separated bike lanes (also sometimes
called "cycle tracks" or "protected bike lanes") and provides a menu of design options covering typical one and
two-way scenarios. Separated bike lanes are one of many bicycle facility types that can be used to create
connected bicycle networks. FHWA defines a network as "Interconnected pedestrian and/or bicycle
transportation facilities that allow people of all ages and abilities to safely and conveniently get where they want
to go."
The FHWA DOES list two-way bike lanes adjacent to traffic (without buffer) as a practice to be
avoided. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/univcourse/swless19.cfm (Section 19.5). But this is NOT what
is being proposed. Schmidt apparently misunderstands the difference between bike lanes and cycle tracks.
Schmidt: "On Broad, the bike buffer is a foot narrower than minimum standard"
The City calls for a 2' buffer for the 5' bike lane on Broad. Per NACTO, the minimum buffer width is 18". Schmidt
may be referring to the minimum required buffer for protected bike lanes. But the Broad Street element is NOT
a protected lane. It is a simple bike lane with a buffer zone. Requirements are different.
There are other misrepresentations of the proposal and the underlying standards. It is unfortunate that his
opinion piece, so full of inaccuracies, will be trusted by many to influence their decision on the project.
1
--
Barry Rands, PE
81 Encanto Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-704-1549 (cell)
805-783-2038 (home)
2