Logan 400 East Project Concerns - Sept. 20, 2002 I am concerned about the accommodations for cyclists presented in the various alternative plans for the 400 East Project. Transportation planners and engineers provide professional input via an understanding of traffic engineering principles, established design standards and empirical data. They are not, in general, swayed by popular notions which are at odds with those principles, standards and data. Widths, slopes and radii are drawn, speed limits are set, signs and signals are placed, all in accord with their rules and warrants, not in response to popular misinformation nor the preferences of individuals with an agenda, bias or misinformation. I am asking Logan's professional planners to defend those principles with regard to accommodation of bicyclists in the various alternative plans (Schimek 1996). Alternatives 1, 2 and 5 all show a disadvantage, listed under the heading "Cons", of "Requires bicyclists to use shoulders" while plans 3 and 4 claim an advantage of "Separates bicyclists from traffic." These represent popular misconceptions which Logan's design professionals should reject, using their expertise and standards, rather than promote on behalf of a misinformed portion of the public. Separation of cyclists from motor vehicle traffic would be safe enough if it could be complete. However these plans offer separation only along the block, but require cyclists to interact with other traffic at intersections. Traffic professionals know that most collisions occur at intersections. This is true for car-car collisions and car-bike collisions. Collisions along the block are relatively uncommon and are often "intersection-like" at driveways or involve a lane change. Collisions by motorists overtaking cyclists are very rare, with most occurring on rural roads or involving unlighted, unreflectorized cyclists at night. When a traffic-separated cyclist approaches an intersection in one of these plans, he has two choices both of which eliminate the safety of separation: 1) merge back into the regular traffic lane or 2) use the pedestrian crosswalk. Merging back into the traffic flow at this point actually increases the traffic pattern complexity on approach to the intersection, moving at the last minute into the proper position to travel straight through the intersection. The minor increase in safety provided along the midblock portion of travel is exchanged for increasing the intersection hazard. Additional delays result from attempts by knowledgeable cyclists to achieve an acceptable level of safety; novice cyclists just blunder into the unexpected hazards. Cycling through the pedestrian crosswalk provides its own hazards and delays. A cyclist approaching the right side crosswalk creates a traffic flow pattern of thru traffic (cyclist) to the right of right turning traffic (motorist), a situation that traffic engineers know to avoid. A cyclist approaching the left side crosswalk creates a traffic flow pattern of overtaking thru traffic (cyclist) to the left of left turning traffic, another situation otherwise avoided by traffic engineers. Oncoming turning traffic (motorist) is likewise surprised by the unexpectedly fast moving traffic "appearing from nowhere" in the crosswalk. The solution for the crosswalk-using cyclist is to slow down to pedestrian speeds, at the cost of a much greater delay and loss of momentum, than a cyclist safely using the roadway in proper lane position. This attempt at separation increases safety when the risk is already low in exchange for increasing the risk where the risk is already higher. Cyclists who recognize this added risk must suffer delay to manage that risk, while novice cyclists may be oblivious to the added risk, due to their exaggerated sense of risk in the low risk mid-block situation. Imagine a novice cyclist, surprised by a close call in one of these risky situations, who then concludes that riding a bike on a regular street must be even riskier than riding with the (false) protection of these special design features. That cyclist has been unfairly fooled into believing that cycling is just too risky. The stated requirement to use the shoulder, in plans 1,2 and 5, is just plain false. Cyclists are not required by the law to use a shoulder. Furthermore, bike safety programs such as the League of American Bicyclist's "Bike Ed", the Bicycle Transportation Institute's "Effective Cycling", the Boy Scout's "Cycling Merit Badge" and others do not recommend riding on the shoulder for any safety improvement. During my visit with consultants at one of the 400 East Project open houses, I was assured that there would be no pavement striping between the travel lane and the shoulder in the plan. This is good for cyclists for a variety of reasons. Without the stripe, we really have a "wide curb lane" instead of a travel lane and a shoulder. Without the stripe, motor vehicle traffic will sweep more of the lane clean. Without the stripe, novice bike riders will be less inclined to pass to the right of right turning traffic or make left turns from the right edge of the roadway. Without the stripe, there cannot be an expectation or requirement for cyclists to use the shoulder as advertised in three of the plans. Cyclists will be able to use the wide curb lane in conformance with UCA 14.6.87 and with the safe cycling principles advocated by the bike safety instruction already mentioned. Wide curb lanes are already common throughout Logan. I would like to encourage the professional planners and engineers to remember these facts, stay faithful to their professional design standards, and not give unwarranted credence to popular misconceptions about safety for cyclists. Do not support separation that cannot be maintained where the real hazards are - at intersections. Do not support shoulder restrictions that are neither safe nor legally required. Separation and channelization by vehicle type do not increase safety; cycling visibly, predictably and legally does. As it says in the Boy Scout Cycling merit badge handbook, "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as the operators of vehicles." I do not live on 400 East; I do not commute on 400 East. What does this matter to me? I am opposed to every instance in my community of transportation planning and design that is bad for cycling, especially when it is based on compliance with mistaken public perceptions rather than the good understanding represented by traffic engineering principles of the real risks of cycling for transportation and the real ways to minimize those risks. To that end, I am also concerned and cautious in my support of the trail plans for the dugway area of this project. Downhill cyclists can be a significant hazard to pedestrians on the trail. Entry and exit points on the trail can create unexpected traffic conflicts for cyclists moving between the trail and the roadway. Depending on design, cycling on the wrong side of the road could be a common result. If sections of the trail system become sidepaths along the road, it could result in all of the hazards that AASHTO (1999) warns about. In the whole project area, the presumption should be that the roadway is the safest place for a cyclist to ride. Exceptions to that presumption would require warrants before alternative designs are approved. As I have described, and as transportation engineering principles support, the risks are generally greater with incomplete separation and the warrants should rarely be satisfied. Sidewalks, sidepaths and crosswalks should be for pedestrians and wheelchairs. Youngsters may well ride their little bikes on these sidewalks. Any youngster who is not mature and experienced enough to ride in the road should not be encouraged by facilities that do not actually reduce the young bike rider's risk. I have cycled Logan's streets year round, day and night, for the past 30 years. I have never fallen victim to collision with overtaking traffic as I ride visibly, predictably and legally on roadways without special bicycle facilities. I have never had a "close call" with overtaking traffic. I do not want to risk that safety record, or the future safety of other cyclists, on roads that have bicycle facilities that actually increase that risk. I do not want facilities that fool novice cyclists into thinking their safety is assured when it is actually being sacrificed to common misconceptions. The resulting conflicts, scares and close calls would only lead the novice to conclude that regular roadways must be even more risky, when they are not. In the long run, cycling, as a transportation choice, could be discouraged rather than encouraged. Wide curb lanes, and refutation of myths about risk, along with promotion of cycling in compliance with law and safety programs, will maximize the availability of cycling as a transportation choice. Planners and engineers have nothing directly to do with cyclist training and law enforcement, but by being true to their professional standards and guidelines, planners and engineers can help to refute the myths by refusing to accommodate the myth-based requests and explain why they design wide curb lanes, just like they explain their standards-based decisions about slopes and turning radii, speed limits, stop signs, etc. Bob Bayn LAB Bike Ed Instructor #685C & Cache Valley Veloists Touring Club Safety Officer 1500 Highland Dr North Logan, UT 84341-2142 (435)752-8386 bob.bayn@usu.edu References: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) See especially p. 20 & pp.33-35. Cycling, Boy Scouts of America (2000) See especially pp. 54-61 "Rules of the Road" The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning (1996), Paul Schimek, USDOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Utah Code Annotated 41.6.87 Operation of bicycle on roadway -- Duties, prohibitions.