Proposed Change

to Draft Transportation Plan for North Logan

November, 19, 1998

The proposed wording (below) would replace 14.14 and 14.15 in the current draft and would also eliminate the need for the text concerning commuter trails in the Parks, Recreation and Trails draft plan under consideration.

The current draft's non-motorized transportation section emphasizes several points which I believe should be replaced:

"Joggers, bicyclists and other non-motorized traffic" is the targeted group of users. Jogging is a recreational activity, not a transportation activity, and should be addressed in the PRT plan.
Bicycling for transportation should not be accomplished on mixed use facilities with pedestrians. All major bicycle safety programs (League of American Bicyclists Effective Cycling, Canadian Can- Bike, San Francisco Street Smarts, And the Boy Scouts bicycling merit badge) recommend against mixing transportation cycling with pedestrians on walkway facilities.
"Separat[ion] from motor vehicles" is not a preferred goal for transportation cycling. USDOT, FHWA Bicycling and Walking Case Study # 24 says (p27) "studies have shown that the old bicycle planning philosophy of completely separating bicycles from motor vehicles has not solved safety problems. Bicycles and motorized traffic are compatible and often afford greater safety for the bicyclist. ... No facility at all is better than a facility that will encourage unsafe riding habits or promote violations of the law" such as wrong side riding, improper turns and darting out.
Recreational bicycling, jogging and walking along canal and foothill trails should be the subject of the PRT plan. Those facilities might, for some nearby residents, have some incidental transportation value.

My proposed wording emphasizes walking and cycling as valid forms of transportation, deserving municipal support. I emphasize the difference in facility requirements for walking and biking. I emphasize the adequacy of the fully developed street cross section for walking and biking, and propose an interim design element based on the commuter trail concept for pedestrian use of street segments fronting on undeveloped property. My proposal recognizes the actual hazards of transportation cycling over the presumed but unfounded hazards addressed by the separation concept.

Wachtel at al. (1994 ITE Journal) showed that sidewalk riding is about twice as risky as riding on the right side of the road in an urban environment. The explanation is that a midblock overtaking collision was quite rare while collisions at intersections, crosswalks and driveways were more common for sidewalk riders.

Non-motorized Transportation

14.14 The network of streets and roads are for the movement of people, goods and services. Throughout that network the right to mobility should not be dependent on use of a motor vehicle. Travel by foot or by bicycle should be expected, intended and accommodated by the design and development of facilities in the network right- of-way. Additional travel routes for the exclusive use of non- motorized users may be provided to improve access or decrease travel time or distance.

14.15 Travel by pedestrians shall be accommodated by roadside sidewalks and intersection crosswalks as well as by other advantageous routes away from the street network. Because the full design cross section (see standard cross section design plans in section 12D-816) of the right-of-way is often implemented at the time of development of adjacent property, sidewalks often lack continuity where development is patchy. Prior to such development, the city may provide an interim facility approximately along the eventual alignment of the sidewalk in the right-of-way. That facility would provide connectivity between developed segments or provide a separate pedestrian travel space along completely undeveloped roadway frontages. The interim surface material should depend on an engineering evaluation of the subsurface material and an estimate of the current or reasonably expected pedestrian traffic and the expected time before development of the fully engineered right-of-way cross section at that location.

14.16 Transportation cycling, performed in compliance with Utah Code 41-6-87, shall be accommodated on all roadways. Street cross section design provides sufficient roadway space for safe lane- sharing, sometimes depending on the typically low frequency of vehicles parked along the curb. In no case shall transportation cycling be encouraged or required on roadside paths (sidewalks). Cycling facilities away from the street network shall be considered and designed with caution and attention to the potential for conflicts with other non-motorized users and for conflicts with motorized traffic at street crossings.