To: Logan City Parks & Rec Dept and K.W. Brown & Asso. January 12, 2000 Subj: 600 West Trail Comment for EA Preparation Logan's 600 West Trail Project should consider the documented risks and hazards of a roadside multiple use trail intended for bicycle riders. There is a growing body of literature that serves to warn against the placement of a multiple use trail within a highway right-of- way where intersecting roadways, driveways and railroad crossings are common. The risks of such facilities are greatest for faster moving bicycle riders. A multiple use trail along the side of a roadway is functionally the same as a roadside sidewalk. In fact, the newly completed trail segment south of the Train Depot looks exactly like a sidewalk, except for the bike stencils and signs. Warnings about sidewalk cycling are included in most every bicycle safety training program, including: Boy Scout Cycling Merit Badge, San Francisco "Street Smarts" training, the Pennsylvania Bicycle Drivers Manual, the Canadian "Can-Bike" program and the Effective Cycling program of the League of American Bicyclists. Wachtel and Lewiston (1994) consulted accident reports and made observations of traveling cyclists. They concluded that sidewalk cycling was nearly three times as risky as riding on the right side of the adjacent roadway and nearly four times as risky when cycling on the left side sidewalk. They examined the types of conflicts and determined that the primary risk is due to the fact that motorists crossing the sidewalk at intersections or driveways do not look out for sidewalk users traveling at faster-than-pedestrian speeds. A bicycle rider outside of the motorist's search area can get into the way very quickly and unexpectedly. This puts untrained bike riders at risk as well as causes delay to experienced riders. Paul Schimek's (1996) "Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning" should be read by everyone involved in planning, design and construction of bicycle facilities. Schimek summarized the sources of danger faced by cyclists compared to the fears of novice riders. Most novices are intent on avoiding the perceived hazard of the motor vehicle behind when most collisions occur with a motor vehicle in front. By riding on the wrong side, or on the sidewalk to avoid the motorist behind, they ride where the motorist in front is not looking out for them. Aultman-Hall (1997, 1998) surveyed about 3000 urban Canadian cyclists to analyze their collision history. The lowest rates of falls and injuries (per distance traveled) were on roads while the highest rates were on roadside sidewalks. Forester (1993) reviews the 1974 Cross study and the 1975 Kaplan study of bicycle accident causes and frequencies and concludes (p. 280) ". . . in nearly every situation the roadway is better and safer than the sidewalk [for cycling]." Pucher, Komanoff, and Schimek (1999) point out that "because of the potential for conflicts at intersections, the [AASHTO] guidelines discourage sidewalk bikeways and barrier- separated bikeways along roads (sidepaths)." Pucher, et al. provide an extensive summary of relevant literature as well as set of detailed "case studies" of cycling demographics in a variety of major North American cities. Because of the accumulation of research showing that riding a bicycle on the right side of the road is generally safer than riding on the sidewalk, the Uniform Vehicle Code no longer includes the requirement that bicycle riders use an adjacent path when one is provided. In the past decade over two-thirds of the states have removed that obsolete language from their motor vehicle codes. However, Utah has not yet made that change and there is, so far, no action to do so. So, any roadside trail for bicyclists in Utah creates a requirement for cyclists to use the less safe facility. As a result of these studies and safety programs, and Utah's obsolete and hazardous law, it is clear that we should exclude bicyclists as intended users of the proposed trail by omitting any bicycle signs and stencils and make spot improvements on the adjacent roadway to better accommodate bicyclists using the 600 West roadway route. The spot improvements that could be helpful for safe and legal cycling on this route include: * Pavement shoulder "bulb-outs" at the railroad crossing so that bicycle riders can cross the rails at more nearly a right angle without swerving out into overtaking traffic. * Repair wheel-deflecting defects in the roadway pavement, including sunken utility covers and uneven asphalt patches. * Insure that motorists at cross streets have good sight distances for oncoming cyclists on the roadway. * Provide a wide curb lane for car/bicycle "lane sharing" in compliance with Utah Code 41-6-87(1)(c). This pavement width already exists along much of the length of 600 West. Excluding bicyclists as intended users of this trail facility leads to a new consideration of the placement of the facility. The two city parks to be connected by the trail are both on the East side of 600 West. Much of 600 West separates a residential zone on the east from commercial, manufacturing and warehouse uses on the west. The residential zone will be the starting or ending point for much of the pedestrian use of the route, especially for the youngsters whose safety is a special concern. Placing the pedestrian route on the east side of 600 West will eliminate two crossings of the street for youngsters going to the parks from their homes. On the east side, the route will cross more intersecting streets, but those streets have stop signs at 600 West. The route would also provide access to the LTD bus stop at about 700 North. An all-eastside route will cross the railroad tracks more simply at about 800 North. With the savings of making a 5ft wide pedestrian sidewalk instead of an 8ft wide shared-use trail, the eastside route might be extended all the way back to about 250 South where the previously constructed roadside "trail" made a hazardous, and unnecessary, mid-block crossing at the curve on 600 West. This new eastside route would also bypass the current trail difficulty at the restored Train Depot. An eastside sidewalk plus wide curb lanes in both directions facilitates the primary purpose of the project to provide a safe, efficient "link" between the Willow Park Complex and the new 1300 North neighborhood park. It eliminates unnecessary pedestrian crossing and recrossing of 600 West; creating, instead, stop sign protected crossings of intersecting streets. It eliminates the legal/safety conflict created for bicyclists by Utah Code 41-6-87(3), while facilitating the stated secondary purpose of the trail to "provide an alternative transportation route for employees and students . . ." Finally, an eastside sidewalk passes the more aesthetically pleasing front yards of homes rather than being squeezed between the roadway and the active railroad tracks. Bob Bayn Cache MPO Pedestrian-Bicycle Advisory Committee, member Effective Cycling Instructor #685-C, League of American Bicyclists Literature Cited Wachtel, Alan and Diana Lewiston (1994) Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. ITE Journal Sept 1994: 30-35. Schimek, Paul (1996) The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning. Presentation to ACSP & AESOP Joint International Congress, July 27, 1996, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Available on the WWW at: http://www.danenet.wicip.org/bcp/dilemma.html/index.html Aultman-Hall, L. (1997) Issues concerning Sidewalk Bicycling, Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference, Toronto. Aultman-Hall, L. and M.F. Adams(1998) Sidewalk Bicycling Safety Issues, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 1998 Forester, J (1993) Effective Cycling. 6th Edition, MIT Press. Pucher, J., C Komanoff, and P Schimek (1999) Bicycling renaissance in North America? Recent trends and alternative policies to promote bicycling. Transportation Research (A), Vol 33, Nos 7/8, pp. 625-654.