To:  CMPO Executive Council                                          July 26, 1999
          From:     Bob Bayn, PBAC chair
     Re:  Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan

I encourage the adoption of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan being submitted by Fehr & Peers at the
August 2, 1999 Council meeting.  That document is the result of a nine-month process of
converging the expertise of the consultants with input from CMPO staff, PBAC members and an
exceptional public involvement at open houses and during comment periods.

The plan provides to the CMPO towns a reference and guide for coordinated development of
pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services, integrated into the motorized and
transit planning already in progress.

It acknowledges the potential for development of these non-motorized modes to the advantage of
the character of our community.  It points out the deficiencies of our current facilities, primarily in
the pedestrian environment,  and of our current level of education, primarily in the bicycling
environment.

The Plan recognizes the funding opportunities for recreational facilities that are a part of TEA-21
Enhancement programs.  To the extent that individual towns and the community as a whole wish
to develop river trails, canal bank trails and a Bonneville Shoreline trail, the Plan will support the
application for funds.

The Plan supports my personal belief that every street and road should be designed and developed
for use by all legal modes of travel, motorized or not.  Indeed, the collector and arterial cross
sections already in the Transportation Plan provide the necessary space and facilities for walking
and biking.  It is my hope and intent that the Plan will support the complete implementation of the
space and facilities in those cross sections in every road project sponsored through CMPO and by
individual towns.

All of this is not to say that I believe the Plan is perfect.  We gave top billing to pedestrians in the
title of the plan and of the advisory committee.  This follows the lead of the State
Pedestrian/Bicycle plan currently in draft.  The reason is that essentially everyone is a pedestrian
for some large or small part of most every trip, but bicycling is a mode used by relatively few. 
However the Plan attracted greater interest from bicyclists than from pedestrian advocates and its
content reflects that.  Someday we may see local pedestrian advocacy calling for more
sophisticated planning for the needs of that potentially ubiquitous mode.

Geographic representation on the PBAC became somewhat lopsided, leaving the specific interests
of the south part of the CMPO under-represented.  The major result is probably less consideration
given to the bike route designations in that area.  The bike route map should probably be taken as
an example which prompts a lot of town-by-town input in its revision in the near future.  Towns
should consider carefully what it means to designate a roadway as a bike route.  Will it represent a
higher commitment to maintenance, greater width, priority at intersections, access to popular
destinations, better signal timing, better signal actuators, fewer pavement hazards?

Finally, while the plan presents information about a wide variety of on-road facilities for bicycles. 
I believe it fails to present all of the cautions and concerns associated with each choice.  I am
specifically concerned about the discussion of bike lanes.  While the Plan does take a broader
approach to the topic of "bikeway facilities" than FHWA design guides by including a discussion
of "wide curb lanes" it fails to present the pros and cons even to the extent of FHWA Bicycling
and Walking Case Study #4 (see especially pp 35-38).  I only hope that the realization of the
education and marketing sections of the Plan succeed in overcoming the unwarranted "perception
of safety" aspect of bike lanes.

Let me take this opportunity to complain about three very specific deficiencies that I see in our
current built environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.  First, while the sidewalk/crosswalk
network for pedestrians is plagued by gaps, there is also a general maintenance problem
throughout our community.  Municipalities accept the responsibility to clear the roadways in the
winter but leave that same duty to adjacent property owners for the sidewalks.  Additionally, in
areas where the parkway is narrow (are you listening, North Logan?) there is a winter long battle
between the snow plows and the homeowner to keep the sidewalks clear.  Many homeowners
give up sooner or later in the winter, to the disadvantage of neighborhood pedestrian travel.
Crosswalks are also plagued with a windrow of snow adding a distraction to the pedestrian who
must also be on the lookout for approaching motor traffic.  In the commercial areas, parking lot
plowing takes precedence over sidewalk clearing and crosswalks are even more troublesome.

Second, as we get more demand actuated traffic signals, it is imperative (are you listening,
Logan?) that the induction coil in the pavement be configured so that it senses bicycle traffic as
well as motor vehicle traffic.  There are excellent engineering options for doing this in a way that
does not result in false triggers from traffic in adjacent lanes.  The "sweet spot" for bicycles
should also be marked with a pavement symbol.  This will have two beneficial effects, in addition
to the convenience for bicyclists: 1) it will direct bicyclists into the correct lane position at these
intersections (i.e. no through cyclists in the right turn lane) and 2) it will encourage compliance
with the signal instead of bicyclists running an unresponsive red light.  It has been suggested that
bicyclists could use the pedestrian button in these situations.  That would put bicycle through
traffic in the wrong (right-turning) position but might be a tolerable solution if it were also the
only option for motorists seeking to trigger a signal change.

Third, our generally wide curb lanes on collectors and arterials are often narrowed at intersections
by either or both of two factors.  Right turn pockets convert a wide lane plus parking into two
narrow lanes.  The lane-sharing position for cyclists becomes a right turn only lane with little
room or opportunity for straight through cyclists to merge left.  With or without a right turn
pocket, the intersection often has a triangular pile of debris in the bicyclist's lane sharing position. 
More street sweeping, with attention to this feature, would be helpful.

I look forward to the continued participation of the PBAC in the implementation of this Plan.  I
hope to see additional geographic representation in the PBAC as well as more interest in
pedestrian advocacy issues in the community.