my reply to
                           Russel Goodwin's
                     Comments of May 15, 1999 on
                  the CMPO draft Long Range P/B Plan

I agree with lot of Russ's comments and disagree with a few.  I'll cite
my agreement briefly and my disagreement in detail.

I agree that the plan needs to be an affirmation that a motor vehicle
is not the price of admission to the public right of way.  In general,
any mode should be usable for travel between any two locations, by a
reasonable route.

I agree that pedestrian concerns have been given minimal attention.
I had hoped that making this a "pedestrian/bicycle" plan would give
the hint that pedestrian concerns should have primacy because "everyone"
walks while only a small minority of us pedal to get where we are going.

I agree that our roadway facilities need bike-friendly design including
things like bicycle-safe drain grates, utility covers, pavement seams,
railroad crossings, pavement patches, debris cleanup and snow removal.

I agree that we need more enforcement of laws that apply to, and
protect, pedestrians and cyclists.

I agree that the Bonneville Shoreline Trail would be a great
recreational enhancement for our community.  But if it were a great
transportation route, there would already be a road there.

I agree that USU needs a wakeup call about their regressive (to
bicycling) Walkway Policy.

I agree that I don't really like the bicycle route selection.  The route
selection is plagued, I think, with a lack of purpose.  What does bike
route designation gain us?  Does it have any value for anyone who isn't
new in town?   But I also don't like Russ's alternative.  So here is
where Russ and I go our separate ways.

Here's how Russ has described the motor vehicle traffic that he
encounters when he cycles (page 6):  "obnoxious drivers and foul
smelling vehicular traffic" ... "constantly on guard for crazy
motorists"...  "Automobile drivers seeming to derive a perverse joy in
threatening and challenging cyclists."  It leaves me wondering if Russ
and I pedal in the same community.  I would characterize the bulk of the
motorists I encounter as cautious to the point of being timid.  They
clearly don't want to have a collision, no matter whose fault it might
be.  They are uncertain of what to expect a bicyclist to do.  The rare
(and I do mean "rare") threatening actions seem to fall into two
categories:  1) clueless mistakes, usually due to poor judgement about
how fast a bicycle moves, and 2) occasional threats intended to
communicate an misinformed view about the rights of non-motorists to use
the roadway.  Those threats send a message about their misinformed state
but do not represent a real physical hazard.  I can't remember having to
take evasive action in response to such threats.  I wonder what is different
about the way Russ and I pedal, or the way motorists react to us, or the
way we each perceive their actions.

After wisely rejecting bike lanes because of their "false sense of
security", Russ proceeds to endorse the other dangerous bike facility,
the Class I "bike path".  And he incorporates the path into a scheme
for bike routes with a "prime directive" of "separation of user groups."
Separation is a nice strategy for safety and avoiding car/bike
conflicts.  However, bike paths fail to achieve separation precisely at
the points where collision incidence is highest: at intersections.

While correctly noting that in a bike/car collision the cyclist always
loses, the bike path achieves separation where the collision rate is
the lowest - along the uninterrupted roadway, but abandons separation
at path/street intersections, where you should expect an even higher
accident rate because the intersection doesn't look like an intersection
to the motorist.

This same mistake about what causes collisions guided the selection of
First East and First West as Bike Routes in preference to 200 East, 400
North, 2500 North, 1400 North and 800 East.  First East and West are
characterized as streets with a higher proportion of
"destination-oriented folks" and consequently slower traffic speeds. 
Destination-oriented means lots of traffic entering and leaving the road
at driveways and parking spaces.  Those actions create intersection-like
conflicts that tend to increase the collision rate.  Russ repeatedly
equates slower with safer.  But safety comes from visibility and
predictability, not from sudden changes of direction and sudden entry
into the roadway.

Slightly higher speed traffic along a wide laned road with few access
points and well controlled intersections, provides a route with few
hazards for cycling to distant destinations.

Russ wants a recreational network of low stress bike trails where
recreational riders can learn to enjoy their bikes, thereby getting the
idea that they can use their bike for transportation.  The Bonneville
Shoreline Trail and existing trails in the adjacent National Forest
certainly could serve that purpose.  But those aren't transportation
facilities and shouldn't be developed with funds that are budgeted to
meet our transportation needs.  Such a recreational network shouldn't be
superimposed over the top of our transportation network because of all
of the higher-risk intersection conflicts that would result.

Our public right-of-way should be designed and maintained for reasonable
use by bicyclists and pedestrians to get where they need to go.  Because
our road network already serves access to every destination, facilities
for pedestrians and bicyclist should make use of that same network.  No
doubt, because of scale of the facilities, there are some opportunities
to provide shortcut routes for non-motorized purposes where there isn't
enough space for a full roadway.  Those shortcuts should be developed as
much as possible to encourage non-motorized travel, but should be
designed with caution for the new intersection points that they may
create with the existing roadway network.