What’s Good for Trek is Good for the Country?

There is a long history of “Astroturf” self-promotion campaigns by industry masquerading as grassroots popular movements.

In the title of this post, I paraphrase a line you may recall. Actually, what the president of General Motors said wasn’t quite “what’s good for GM is good for the country” — that is the improved popular version — but instead, that he couldn’t conceive that he had any conflict of interest,

“because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa.”

— said in a Congressional hearing reviewing his nomination as Secretary of Defense by President-elect Eisenhower. There was, to be sure, a question of GM’s big government contracts, but also, in the decades-long afterglow of the statement, the question of the nation’s transportation choices.

So, today, this message appears in my e-mail:

As you’re preparing for Interbike, I’m reaching out to let you know that Bikes Belong will be showcasing their unprecedented, nation-wide initiative, PeopleForBikes.org at this year’s event.

While millions of Americans ride bicycles and recognize the economic, social and physical benefits of riding, only a fraction have stood up to help improve bicycling in America. The goal of PeopleForBikes.org is to gather and unify one million voices in support to encourage government leaders to support legislation that improves bike paths, lanes, trails and other facilities from coast to coast.

Throughout the summer Bikes Belong has been working hard to build awareness for this initiative with a presence at bike festivals and events – including a partnership with New Belgium’s Tourr de Fat, social media efforts and support from more than 1,000 bicycle retailers across the country.

To date, almost 70,000 people have signed the pledge to improve the future of biking in this country for every type of rider.

If you’d like to learn more, Tim Blumenthal, president of the Bikes Belong Coalition and director of PeopleForBikes.org, will be on-hand at interbike and I’d be happy to coordinate a time for you to connect with him.

Please contact me with questions and interest.

Best,

Troy Tepley
For PeopleForBikes.org
612.305.6256
troy.tepley@exponentpr.com

Let’s be clear about this: Bikes Belong is a bicycle industry lobby. It is gathering signatures to support its agenda, which may not be your agenda. I’ve been receiving Bikes Belong e-mails for years now and mostly, they have announced seed-money grants for bicycle paths which, as hoped, will attract more people to purchase bicycles. Many of the paths have had very little relevance to transportation needs. As the e-mail says, “bike paths, lanes, trails and other facilities from coast to coast.” Education? Rights to the road? Traffic law improvements? All have been marginal to the efforts of Bikes Belong.

With its “PeopleForBikes” campaign — whose promotional materials and dot-org Web domain create the impression that its backers are ordinary people rather than corporations — Bikes Belong is now turning its sights toward urban cycling. Given Bike’s Belong’s track record of promotion of facilities over other aspects of bicycle programs, and its lack of discretion about the facilities it promotes, I am, let’s say, wary.

The PeoplefroBikes campaign has now gathered more than 3 times as many signatures as the League of American Bicyclists, the national bicycling advocacy organization, has members. Shows what a good publicity campaign with money behind it can achieve. Does not necessarily show that the people who signed on have a very clear idea of what they are signing onto.

Posted in Bicycling | 2 Comments

They come out of the woodwork

The summer heat has abated and the weather has been nice lately.

As I returned from a bike club ride on the Labor Day Monday holiday, the Minuteman Rail Trail was in heavy use. I rode slowly and cautiously, among the lots of families including little kids on their little bikes, who would dart out in front of another cyclist without a clue.

In Lexington, after riding around a group of ten-year-old boys who had parked their bicycles on the path, I moved over to Massachusetts Avenue. Ahead of me, a man was standing over his bike with one foot on the curb and the other on the left pedal. He was adjusting his trousers — maybe a trouser leg had become caught in the chain? That his shoelaces were untied should probably have warned me to give him more than four feet of clearance. He lurched out from the curb on his bicycle, like a zombie in the movie Night of the Living Dead. I yelled, and maybe that is why he weaved back toward the curb just in time for me to avoid crashing into him.

Last Saturday, headed into downtown Waltham to the Farmer’s Market, I was crossing an intersection when a 30-ish man with Bart Simpson greasy spiked blond hair, a bright orange T shirt and paint-spattered trousers, on a bicycle, crossed some three feet in front of me. He had the stop sign. It’s good that I keep my bicycle’s brakes in top condition.

On another day, as I sat in a restaurant eating my lunch, I watched bicyclists ride every which way through a downtown intersection, on red lights and green lights, walk signals and don’t-walk signals.

Yesterday, I was running some errands that needed the car. I was waiting for a stop sign when a 12-year-old boy riding on a sidewalk zoomed out in front of me from behind a fence to my right. If I had pulled forward a second earlier, he would have launched himself over the hood of my car. There was no way either he or I would have seen the other in time to avoid the crash. Oh, yes, he was wearing a helmet. Good for him.

Am I supposed to like these people, to get that warm-hearted feeling, oh how nice it is that you ride a bike? When people like these come out of the woodwork on nice days, is that what is called safety in numbers?

Now, just to make a couple things clear: Please let’s not peg me as a bicyclist hater. I have cycled over 1800 miles so far this year myself, about half for transportation and half or recreation. On the other hand, neither am I a spandex-clad whirlwind. Yes, I wore spandex for the club ride. I wear street clothes for utility cycling. Whatever I am wearing, I am no speed demon. I’m 64 years old and my cruising speed on level streets is around 15 miles per hour when I’m feeling good.

I have had problems with a few spandex-clad whirlwinds myself, the ones who will buzz past with no verbal warning and one foot of lateral clearance on the big club rides. My theory is that they are aping racers they watch on TV in the Tour de France. Guess what? Riding in close quarters is by mutual agreement in mass-start road races. It is as inappropriate on a Sunday club ride as NASCAR tactics are when driving a car around town. This is not also to speak of the fitness-club crowd who burst out of their winter spin classes like moths from their cocoons, to ride up and down the paths, because they somehow think that it is safer than riding on the road to weave in and out at 25 miles per hour among the dog walkers and aforementioned kids on bikes.

Where’s the priority for cyclist educati

Posted in Bicycling | 2 Comments

Managing frontage-road conflicts

Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco was reconstructed with frontage roads in 2003, as described here. Construction of such boulevards has been very rare in the USA since the 1920s. The intent with Octavia Boulevard was to reclaim a neighborhood which had been blighted by an elevated freeway. The effort can be considered generally successful, but I have some concerns about the design, especially as it affects bicyclists.

The several blocks of Octavia Boulevard are shown in this Google Maps view. Note the shared-lane markings in the frontage roads and the lines for right turns from the inner lanes. Such right turns require a separate signal phase to avoid conflicts with through traffic in the frontage roads. A separate phase is not provided, but rather, the frontage roads have flashing red lights, as described on page 8 of a longer document describing the Octavia Boulevard project.. Quoting:

The side lanes ought to be controlled by stop signs and the central lanes by traffic signals. Concern over this unusual arrangement (which has been shown to work just fine on Chico’s Esplanade) prompted the installation of flashing red lights at the access road intersections, which drivers have difficulty interpreting.

I find that statement confusing. Maybe the flashing lights offend the author’s aesthetics? Flashing red lights convey exactly the same meaning as stop signs. They require traffic on the frontage roads to yield to cross traffic, and also to turning traffic from the center roadways, so that traffic does not back up and block through traffic. This arrangement is reasonable when the frontage roads serve only local traffic, but on Octavia Boulevard, they serve through bicycle traffic. Through-traveling bicyclists will either be delayed by motor traffic, or ignore the signals.

That the author of the report has little concern for bicyclist convenience also is indicated by the following statement (also on page 8):

Also, the surface of the local access roads was finished in asphalt, whereas it should be some material that marks them as part of a pedestrian realm, such as concrete like the sidewalks or cobbled pavers to match the medians. This was proposed during schematic design, but never made it into construction—and ought to be corrected.

This is one example among many of new-urbanist pedestrianism compromising the design of a bicycle facility. A lane used by through-traveling bicyclists and local motor-vehicle access is not pedestrian space, it is vehicular travel space. Pedestrians need to be — and are required by law to be — attentive and yield right of way, except at crosswalks. Cobbled pavers aren’t much fun to ride a bicycle on, either.

Now, let’s look at some different examples of boulevard design — first, a clever one in Taichung, Taiwan. A long segment of the Taichunggang (Taichung Harbor Road) with frontage roads (complained about the narrowness of bus lanes, and the ocmplaint is probably one reason the lanes were later widened.

Contrast this with the San Francisco document’s complaint that the frontage roads are too wide:

Most apparent is that the local access roads are too wide—for a through-lane next to a parking lane, they were made eighteen feet wide, rather than 16.5 feet. A narrower space would have contributed more to traffic calming.

Right, calm traffic by making the frontage road more dangerous and congested –essentially, slow traffic by making motorists wait for bicyclists and everyone wait for turning traffic. On Octavia Boulevard, the local access roads are already too narrow for side-by-side bicycle/motor vehicle lane sharing. If these lanes were to serve right-turning traffic in any large volume, they would have to be even wider.

The longer San Francisco document cites a book with an interesting title:

Allan Jacobs, Elizabeth Macdonald, and Yodan Rofé. The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multi-Way Boulevards (MIT Press, 2002).

I haven’t read it yet but I hope to — though, as one of its authors is the author of the San Francisco document, I’m concerned that it may similarly advocate placing bicyclists in the pedestrian realm.

Posted in Bicycling | Leave a comment

Bicycle touring and the unexpected

Bicycle touring is a great way to break out of daily routine, and beyond that, into the unexpected.  That’s one reason I like it.

My son Jacob, age 19, and I took on a little 2-day bicycle tour Thursday and Friday. It was his first bicycle tour ever.

Last Thursday morning, we drove to Falmouth on Cape Cod, parked at a friend’s house and rode the Shining Sea path to the Steamship Authority ferry terminal in Woods Hole — took the ferry to Martha’s Vineyard and stayed overnight at the HI-AYH hostel —  which is really nice these days. They even make pancakes for breakfast, included in the modest price (but do bring earplugs in case someone snores — dorm accommodations).

At the hostel, we encountered Francine, who had been a participant in a bicycle tour to the Cape that I led 25 years ago, and which had stayed at the same hostel. Jacob got to hear Francine’s angle on funny stories from that tour which I had just told him the same day. I spoke with a couple of German university students who confirmed that the German spelling reform has led to confusion, just as my Bicycling Street Smarts translator tells me.

Friday morning, after leaving the hostel, while riding on the path in the state park, we got stopped for two security checks, including baggage inspection. About a mile after the second security check, a group of about 30 cyclists approached. One face was instantly recognizable.

I raised my little digital camera and pressed the button, then lowered it.

“Good morning, Mr. President” I said.

“Good morning, he replied.

After the group had passed, I checked my camera. It had been in “review” mode. No picture.

Given the security issues, I decided it would be very much the best just to keep on riding rather than to turn around and chase after the crowd to get a picture.

Not bad though for Jacob’s first bicycle tour. Jacob wants to go touring again. We were well-matched for speed on this one, but if he rides enough, we’ll have to ride the tandem because I won’t be able to keep up with him otherwise!

Posted in Bicycling | 2 Comments

Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC: Incredible Shrinking Bike Lanes

A showcase example for  Federal promotion of special bicycle facilities in the USA has been laid down on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, with bike lanes extending between the Capitol and the White House.  It’s quite a show, but it didn’t turn out exactly as planned.

Well, on with the show. On June 7, 2010 — as described in a press release and videos[Revised version as of 2016 without photo but with link to photo gallery] [Article announcing the event] [Version of article as of August, 2016] [Press release] League of American Bicyclists President Andy Clarke, Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), NBA basketball star Caron Butler and the Crown Prince of Denmark were out on Pennsylvania Avenue expressing their enthusiasm for the bike lanes, riding bicycles supplied by Specialized, a major American bicycle supplier. Why the Crown Prince? American bicycle facilities advocates hold Denmark up as an example. Why industry involvement? Because the industry sees special facilities for urban cycling as the key element in propelling the next wave of bicycle sales. Why politicians? Because public funding would have to pay for the facilities. Why Caron Butler? I don’t know! [Update: the blog post and press release indicate that Butler funded a bicycle giveaway program for children.]

Lone bicyclist on Pennsylvania Avenue bike lane in early morning; buses queued in background

Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes, May 11, 2010

But, in its press release, the League of American Bicyclists borrowed a basketball expression, describing the Pennsylvania Avenue project as a “slam dunk.”

This wasn’t the first praise for the project. A month earlier, on May 12, the photo at the right appeared in a message sent to an e-mail list of the Alliance for Bicycling and Walking (a consortium of state and local advocacy groups) among other lists. The iconic bicyclist is riding off into the sunrise, toward the Capitol. In the background, tourist buses queue for their first run of the day. Accompanying text, by League of American Bicyclists board member Tim Young, reads:

I was just in Washington and rode the new Pennsylvania Ave Bike Lanes, so fun the paint was still drying. Awesome to ride from the White House on one end to Congress on the other, and have such huge dedicated space for bikes. You have to ride it!

Center lane was an unexpected design for me, but it works if you follow the signals and signs. Its casual riding, so much room and buffer, and the road is not that busy for its size, I understand about 30,000 ADT. You can see from this photo the massive bus use, so the curb lane is full of conflicts. The center rides fine. The only unhappy campers were taxi drivers wanting to make U turns mid block.

Photo: Mike Tongour, Bikes Belong lobbyist, rides towards Capital Hill.

(Bikes Belong is a bicycle industry lobbying organization which, among other efforts, lends substantial financial support to the League.)

Young may, however,  have spoken too soon about the ample width of the bike lanes. They had been installed over the weekend of May 1 and 2; promptly on Monday, May 3, the Mid-Atlantic Division of the American Automobile Association issued a press release  suggesting that they would worsen traffic congestion. (That press release is no longer available on the AAA Web site, but I have made it available.) It has in turn been widely criticized by bicycling advocates, for example here, and the criticism has been echoed in some media outlets, for example, here and here. The Washington Area Bicyclist Association, the local bicyclists’ advocacy group, asked its members to support the lanes, here.

Bicycling advocates pointed out that Pennsylvania Avenue was already relatively lightly traveled, as the blocks nearest the White House had been permanently closed to motor traffic following the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. An AAA poll, cited in the press release, indicated that only 20% of members would feel compelled to become bicycle commuters if traffic congestion worsened. The bicycling advocates turned this finding on its head: 20% is a higher bicycling mode share than in any US city. Copenhagen’s bicycle mode share is hardly any larger, though its bicycle-to-work/school mode share is around 37%.

On May 20, the Washington Post reported that changes in the lanes were in the works. A quote:

Gabe Klein, director of the Department of Transportation, called to clarify that the delay in the opening of the bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue might not result in the lanes growing tighter.

Klein disclaimed bowing to any pressure and said the lanes needed to be “redesigned” to enhance the safety of bicyclists.

The article also described a Bike to Work Day rally to be held the next morning in support of the lanes and to be addressed by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Portland, Oregon).

Two weeks later,  on June 7, Clarke, Oberstar, the Crown Prince and NBA basketball star Caron Butler were out in the bike lanes for their media event. Clarke returned to his office to describe the project as a “slam dunk.” In the light of the proposed changes, this event can be construed as support of the project in the face of a threat.

Slam dunk indeed. It turned out that bicyclists were slammed, and dunked.

On the next day, June 8, the Post published an article describing the planned modifications. Travel lanes that had been converted to bike lanes were to be restored, and the bike lanes moved to the median (growing tighter, in spite of what Mr. Klein had said). The article reports that the AAA applauded this change, while the Washington Area Bicyclist Association expressed concerns about conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians.

The changes were made. On June 22, the lanes officially opened. On July 3,  independent journalist Matt Johnson rode the lanes and took photos. He wrote an article and posted his photos on Flickr. He gave anyone permission to use them, with attribution. I thank him.

The title of Jphnson’s article, “Pennsylvania Avenue Bike Lanes Still have a Few Flaws“, suggests that the lanes had been improved. The contents of the article and the photos show quite the opposite.  The space for bicyclists had been significantly reduced, and bicyclists were thrown into conflict with pedestrians at intersections.

Here’s a photo of the bike lanes, looking west across 9th Street NW, taken in mid-May. The layout is already rather strange, with turning bicyclists — including right-turning bicyclists — directed to merge left. The right-turning bicyclists have to  re-cross the stream of through-traveling bicyclists to get to the crosswalk which they are supposed to use.

Bike lanes at 9th St. NW, mid-May, 2010

Bike lanes at 9th St. NW, mid-May, 2010

Below is another photo which Johnson took at the same location on July 3. (You may click on either photo for a larger view.)

Bike lanes at 9th St. NW, July 3, 2010

Bike lanes at 9th St. NW, July 3, 2010

The space between the two lanes of opposite-direction bicycle traffic is gone — the available width is indeed tight if the lanes are to carry any substantial volume of bicycle traffic. But the intersections are weirdest of all. Through-traveling bicyclists now ride up and over the median refuge where pedestrians wait. The bike lanes are now immediately adjacent to the black, handlebar-snagging bollards that protect the traffic-signal poles. Turning bicyclists have it stranger yet: they are aimed straight at the traffic signal at the center of the median.

The one change that anyone could contend is a safety feature is the row of flex posts between each bike lane and the adjacent travel lane, intended to keep motorists from encroaching into the bike lane. Safety feature? Well, maybe. A flex post is harmless to a car, but it can easily take down a bicyclist.

A search of the League’s e-mail blasts and blog turned up blog posts responding to the AAA press release [version as of August, 2016, without photo] and reporting on the opening celebration [version as of August, 2016 without embedded photo but with link to photo gallery] for the reconfigured bike lanes on June 22, as well as the “slam dunk” post and a couple of others featuring the Crown Prince, but no mention of the redesign. Comments on the redesign turn up several times in a record of a live online chat with Washington Area bicyclist Association Executive director Shane Farthing. (Search on “Pennsylvania” inside the post to find them.)

Enough for now. This article is intended as a brief history. I’ve addressed technical issues only to the extent necessary to move the history along. I’ll be addressing them in detail in another post.

[Update: I have posted a video of a ride on these bike lanes, with narrative description. It addresses technical issues.]

Also see Keri Caffrey’s videos of Washington, DC infrastructure.

Save

Save

Save

Posted in Bicycle facilities, Bicycling, Bike lanes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Travel time and lifetime

Though they are not first to do this, Dutch researchers have calculated the effects of different travel mode choices on life expectancy. The study is called Do the Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks? The researchers based their calculations on an examination of traffic accidents, exercise and air pollution.

Good enough, but  excuse me if I’m about to restate the obvious. There are also a quality-of-life issues, and they aren’t the same for everyone — far from it.

Time spent traveling and earning income to pay for the travel can add up to many years of a person’s life.  This time could be enjoyable, or  a dull chore, or a drudge. The cost may be trivial to one person, but a major burden to another.

The ability to work, read or converse is a time saver with public transportation or carpooling; less so for walking, even less for bicycling; not for driving alone unless perhaps listening to an audiobook or talking on a cell phone — well, let’s not go there. Aerobic exercise when bicycling or walking is a time saver for people who value the exercise, and it also increases life expectancy. Need I say, physical fitness also increases quality of life.

Time may be spent waiting for the bus or train to arrive, waiting in a traffic jam, waiting for traffic signals, hunting for a parking space, walking from and to that parking space.

Owning and operating a private car is expensive to the individual; public transportation, generally less so; bicycling, even less and walking only wears out shoes occasionally. However, the infrastructure costs of all of these modes of travel are largely subsidized from public funds.

At this point, we get into issues of the individual vs. society.  Examples: a private motor vehicle is a major time saver unless there are too many of them, causing traffic congestion, air pollution, global warning. Then the interests of society at large suggest investment in other modes, while the interest of individuals still favors the private car — for other reasons as well, particularly weather protection,  convenience in transporting passengers and cargo, and the low marginal cost of each mile of travel relative to the fixed cost of car ownership.

Which leaves us more or less the situation we are in now. Investment in public transportation as well as innovative solutions such as convenient car and bicycle rental can help shift the balance, but worldwide, the private car continues its upsurge,.

Posted in Bicycling | 1 Comment

Double Crossover Diamond Interchange

Double Crossover Diamond Interchange

Double Crossover Diamond Interchange

A document from the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center of the US Federal Highway Administration describes a new concept in freeway interchanges, the Double Crossover Diamond Interchange.

The novelty here is that the overpass operates with traffic on the left, in the USA, reducing the number of conflicts and signal phases.

Figure 1  (a photo) in the PDF document and Figure 3 (a diagram) show how pedestrian traffic might be accommodated, except that Figure 3 does not show the pedway in the median that is shown in Figure 1. Apparently, in Figure 3, there would be sidewalks along the outside instead.

Figure 2 shows no pedestrian accommodation, and there is an unsignalized two-lane on-ramp at the lower right.

The high barriers adjacent to the median in Figure 1 screen glare from the wrong side of headlamp beams.

The word “bicyclists” appears in the introduction, but the document does not address accommodation of bicyclists.

Figure 1 does not show shoulder/bike lane width to facilitate on-road bicycle movements. Bicyclists might merge left of the off ramp and enter a bikeway/pedway in the median immediately after the crossover, reducing width requirements for the overpass. But then they still must pass the traffic island and cross the on ramp after the freeway, or else enter the traffic island and use the set-back crosswalk on its far side — a circuitous route. Using the pedestrian route for the whole way is even more so.

As the crossovers have to be signalized anyway, signalization of the on ramps would also improve flow on the overpass. Alternatively, the on ramps might be placed at a sharp angle with a small-radius turn, to slow entering traffic. If the on ramps are treated in one of these ways, if there is sufficient width before and after the bridge, and if there is a central bikeway/pedway, bicycle travel could be quite convenient — though snow clearance issues in winter could require bicyclists to ride across the overpass in the roadway, and also make travel difficult for pedestrians.

Another possibility would be a bicycle/pedestrian underpass at each of the four ramp locations, with sidewalks along the outside of the overpass. As the ramps already must be elevated, adding these underpasses would not substantially increase the cost of the project.

An “upside-down” version of this intersection is also conceivable, with the freeway above the road that crosses it. Sight lines would not be as long; the crossing in an underpass would be noisy and relatively dark; bicycle/pedestrian grade separations, if used, would be overpasses instead, and more expensive.

Posted in Bicycling | 1 Comment

Recycling bicycle inner tubes, net benefit?

A correspondent on the Charles River Wheelmen bicycle club e-mail list reports that a company called Liberty Tire has started a program to recycle bicycle inner tubes. This is reported in the Journal Waste and Recycling News, but “[i]t doesn’t look like they have anything in Massachusetts.”

Bicycle shops must replace inner tubes, rather than patch them, in order to avoid potential liability risks. Recycling inner tubes will probably provide a net environmental benefit as it concerns repairs at shops.

The proposal could, however, encourage individual cyclists to replace their punctured inner tubes, rather than to patch them. The manufacture and transport of more inner tubes would probably increase the environmental impact vis a vis cyclists’ patching and re-using their tubes. Increased manufacture, transport and sale of inner tubes work to the benefit of Performance Bicycle and other suppliers, but are an environmental detriment.

It is often faster to replace a tube while out on a ride than to patch it (exception: on a wheel that is difficult to remove, such as one with a coaster brake), but a cyclist should always carry a patch kit anyway, in case of more than one flat. A punctured tube may be patched at leisure later, avoiding the need to buy a new one. A properly-patched tube is reliable.

Bicycle inner tubes in any case pose a much smaller recycling issue than motor vehicle tires.

The article from Waste and Recycling News follows. I find one statement in it really odd. The $5 offered per used inner tube is about twice the cost of most new bicycle inner tubes. Can this be right? I’ll leave it to you to figure out the consequences if it is!

Liberty Tire, company to recycle used bike inner tubes

June 17 — Liberty Tire Recycling of Pittsburgh has partnered with Performance Bicycle to increase recycling of old bike inner tubes across the U.S.

“By collecting and recycling used inner tubes, Liberty Tire Recycling and Performance Bicycle are providing cyclists with an opportunity to prevent the tubes from ending up in a landfill,” said Jeff Kendall, CEO of Liberty Tire. “The tubes we collect and recycle will be transformed into innovative, eco-friendly products that make people’s lives better and safer — everything from rubberized asphalt for highways to rubber mulch for playgrounds and parks.”

Through the partnership, people who bring their old inner tubes to participating locations will receive a $5 for each tube returned.

For information about dates and locations, visit the Performance Bicycle Web site.

Contact Waste & Recycling News reporter Amanda Smith-Teutsch at 330-865-6166 or asmith-teutsch *at* crain.com.

Posted in Bicycling | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Massachusetts and the FHWA experimental process

A procedure exists through the Federal Highway Administration to encourage experimentation in transportation projects. This procedure defines new, nonstandard treatments as experimental, and requires that research data be collected, so that non-standard designs may serve to direct the standards-setting process, a very desirable outcome. In compensation for the burden of conducting research, this procedure exempts projects from liability risks.

But there may be a hitch at the Massachusetts level. Massachusetts General Statutes, Chapter 85, Section 2, does not appear to offer any exemption from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Project Development and Design Guide or the Department’s standard municipal traffic code and amendments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (open the PDF linked on the page: it contains both.).

Is there a procedure for experimentation? If so, how it is handled and by whom at MassDOT — and if not, how a procedure be established? I have not found a description of such a procedure anywhere.

The relevant wording in the statute is as follows. I have given some organization to the impenetrable block of text on the Commonwealth’s Web page. I have also added a few descriptive notes, which I have boldfaced.

Approval by DOT is not required if installation conforms to its manual.

…Except as hereinafter provided, any rule, regulation, order, ordinance or by-law of a city or town hereafter made or promulgated relative to or in connection with the erection or maintenance of signs, traffic control signals, traffic devices, school zones, parking meters or markings on any way within its control shall take effect without department approval provided such signs, traffic control signals, traffic devices, parking meters, school zones or markings are in conformance with the department’s current manual on uniform traffic control devices and the department’s sample regulation for a standard municipal traffic code; provided, however, that such rule, regulation, order, ordinance or by-law shall not take effect until approved in writing by the department, or be effective after such approval is revoked, if made or promulgated relative to or in connection with the following:

Exceptions, when approval by DOT is required

  • any way at its intersection or junction with a state highway;
  • any project which is or was federally aided, in whole or in part;
  • any traffic control signal or flasher in any city or town which does not employ a registered professional engineer in the commonwealth to design, redesign or change the timing and sequence of signal or flasher;
  • any sign excluding heavy commercial vehicles;
  • any school zone establishment or signing in relation to which the city or town intends to seek reimbursement from the commonwealth;
  • any one-way street sign not placed at an intersection of public ways;
  • any rule, regulation, order, ordinance or by-law of a city or town which when made or promulgated would exclude motor vehicle travel on any existing way which connects one city or town with another, unless such rule, regulation, order, ordinance or by-law was promulgated in compliance with the following:
    1. the rule-making body of the city or town initiating such rule, regulation, order, ordinance or by-law gives written notice of such action to the chief executive officer of the abutting city, town or county into which the said way extends, and
    2. a public hearing is held by the city, town or county initiating such alteration, relocation or discontinuance, public notice of which must be published for each of the two weeks preceding such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the abutting city, town or county into which the said way extends, and
    3. after concurrence in writing by the chief executive officer of the abutting city or town into which the said way extends or his designee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, speed control signs may be established only in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of chapter ninety.

Penalties

If any city or town installs and maintains any of the aforesaid traffic control devices without either requesting or obtaining the required approval or after being notified of such disapproval, or in noncompliance with said manual, the department shall withhold or withdraw the unexpended balance of any funds assigned to the said city or town under the provisions of section thirty-four of chapter ninety or sections twenty-five and twenty-six of chapter eighty-one.

Any traffic control device which has not been erected or maintained in accordance with the foregoing provisions may be removed by or under the direction of the department and be stored by the department until claimed by the owner or, if not claimed within sixty days after written notice to said owner, may be disposed of at the discretion of the department. Color and arrow indications of traffic control signals shall have the commands ascribed to them in said manual.

Flashing white walk signal is prohibited.

The use of the flashing white walk pedestrian signal indication, as defined in the official standards of the department, is prohibited. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce the provisions of this section and section one, and also sections one and four of chapter eighty-nine and any rule or regulation made thereunder or to enjoin the violation thereof.

Signs warning of children with disabilities are exempted.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to the installation by any city or town, on any way within its boundary, of signs warning motorists of the presence of blind, deaf or otherwise handicapped children in the vicinity.

Since 2002, I have been a member of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bicycle Technical Committee, which reviews projects that relate to bicycling. No requests to experiment have come to the Bicycle Technical Committee from Massachusetts, though there has been a fair number of projects which do not conform to standards.

The present situation on the one hand discourages experimentation, and on the other hand encourages installation of nonstandard treatments without the benefits of experimentation. Compounding this problem, the Commonwealth is not policing the work of cities and towns. It is not necessary to look far to find installations which fail to comply with statute. It causes real problems when, for example, signs are difficult to interpret, or unreadable at the distance from which drivers view them. Consider, for example, these examples of pedestrian signs.

Lax enforcement by the Commonwealth of design standards in local projects has allowed this situation to continue. Sovereign immunity laws in Massachusetts allowing limited recovery have prevented pressure to enforce the standards by way of civil actions.

Nonstandardization is an acute issue with all types of facilities, but it is particularly acute as it applies to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, where new treatments are frequently being suggested and implemented. We suffer at the same time from a lack of standardization, and from a lack of guidance in experimentation.

Posted in Bicycling | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

It isn’t about weight

“Your 25-pound bicycle is no match for a 10,000 pound truck.” You’ve probably heard that before.

So, if you collide with a 10,000 pound truck, the impact will be much, much worse than if you collide with a passenger car, or another bicyclist, or a pedestrian, because the truck weighs so many times more than your bicycle.

By the same reasoning, you should be much worse off yet if you simply fall and collide with the planet Earth. It is so much heavier than that truck…

Hmm, but we’ve all fallen off our bicycles a few times, mostly without serious injury.

I don’t want to collide with a truck — or a car, or another bicyclist, or the planet Earth. But let’s look at some basic physics.

First of all, the mass of the bicycle isn’t the issue. The rider accounts for most of the mass of the bicycle/rider system.

But also, the severity of a collision doesn’t increase directly with mass. It depends on the severity of the impact.

Consider two bicyclists, a perfect match for each other, riding toward each other at the same speed and colliding exactly head-on. They will both come to a complete stop. This impact would be the same if you put a brick wall, or a sheet of paper, between the two bicyclists.

Now, suppose that the truck is headed toward the bicyclist at the same speed as the other bicyclist. How much more severe is the impact?

Not hundreds of times, but four times. The energy dissipated in a head-on crash is as the square of the speed. The square of 2 is 4. The truck is so much more massive that the bicyclist is pushed back at almost the truck’s speed. It’s almost the same as riding into a brick wall at twice the bicyclist’s speed.

Severity of impact is much more about speed than about mass. The severity of a bicyclist’s collision with a motor vehicle is almost entirely in proportion to the square of closing speed, all other things being equal. The only exception is if you go underneath and get run over. Then, the vehicle’s mass does matter. Getting run over either by a car or a or by a truck is very likely deadly.

Posted in Bicycling, Crashes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments