To: Mayor Draxler, North Logan City Council & Engineering Dept.
Subject: Transportation Plan proposal
From: Bob Bayn, 1500 Highland Dr, NL

I will be proposing the following wording at the public hearing
this Thursday (Nov 19).  The wording 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.

=================================================================