Jan, as I promised I've gone over the draft plan in detail, commenting
on the things I really like and spending more time explaining another
view for the things I don't like.  I went into a lot of details, so
an "executive summary" of my major disagreements would read like this:
- Distinguish at every step between pedestrian and cycling modes.
- Peds need a sidewalk/crosswalk network; cyclists already
  have the road network but need education.
- Keep all 4 Es involved, especially education. Don't use
  facilities to substitute for awareness and education.
- Don't buy the BFA/NHTSA 95% B/C stuff.  Give everyone who wants
to get where they're going on a bike the opportunity to become
competent.
- The best travel facility for a competent cyclist is a Wide Curb Lane.

I think Utah is well positioned to lead instead of follow in this area
of public programs and policy.   We don't have a big commitment to the
infrastructure and efforts that haven't borne fruit in other parts of
the country.  We can learn from them and not make the same mistakes.  
We can make designs that will appear in future AASHTO manuals.  We
can build programs that BFA will adopt and promote.

Here are my detailed comments.  Section titles from the plan are
included in square brackets.  Thanks for reading and considering all of
this.

[TITLE]
- pedestrian before bicycles in title - right

[INTRODUCTION]
State tsp plan shall contain..."a plan for bicycle
transportation, pedestrian walkways and trails which is appropriately
connected with other modes."  Good- this identifies bike transportation
separately from pedestrian walkways, as it should.  But two paragraphs
later it begins to refer to "bicycle and pedestrian facilities" which
leaves open the interpretation that a typical facility intends to serve
both modes.  I don't believe the plan should allow this general
interpretation. Fourth paragraph makes a good reference to the
combination of "accepted standards and practices" and "innovative ways
to address hazards." Unfortunately, it then suggests that "facilities"
will help users "know what to expect" and "how to function in relation
to each other", neglecting consideration of the importance of Education
and Encouragement to help meet those ends.  All "4-E's" are mentioned
later on but the introduction places the responsibility for education on
the "proactive" user.  UDOT may only have direct responsibility for the
Engineering "E", but the introduction to the statewide plan needs to
reach out beyond the scope of UDOT (as it does elsewhere in the text)
to acknowledge all state and local agencies' role in all four Es.

[PART ONE]
[I. Purpose of the Plan]

This section very generously allows recreation facilities that can
possibly have a transportation function to be included under the plan.
This leave me concerned that limited funds for transportation
alternatives may get siphoned off for largely recreational facilities
that do not give good transportation value for the dollar (although it
is certainly conceivable that they might give more than zero value). 
Transportation facilities that give _access_ to recreation facilities
certainly qualify to compete for transportation funds.

[II Goals of the Plan]

Again, "pedestrian and bicycle facilities" might be replaced with
"pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities" to clarify the
distinction between the modes and the separate facilities that they
generally require.

As the 4 Es apply to peds and bikes, their order of importance
is different.  Peds need facility improvements; while bikers need 
education improvements (both for themselves and for motorists).
I don't know how, or if, this distinction should be included in
the goals.

I'm glad to see, and be participating in, the goal for public
involvement in the planning process.

"*To identify facilities and programs needed to encourage walking and
bicycling..." is a good reference to both Engineering _and_ Education.

"*To provide guidance to UDOT planning....facilities" - good.  I'll
have more guidance ideas below.

I'm glad to see legislative changes as a goal of the plan.  I will have
a few suggestions of my own.  This goal should be moved down so that the
separate goals of providing facilities guidance is followed by the goal
of establishing a framework for educational assistance.  I just want to
keep "education" tagging along close to "engineering".  

[III Need and Basis for the Plan]

Without the context of total participation (time or miles walked
or cycled) these grim statistics tend to make walking and cycling
look like dangerous choices for transportation.  

Is the "need" for this plan really the 44 peds and 9 cyclists killed in
1995? or the 798 peds and 969 bikes "involved" with MV crashes? 

Helmets!   I always wear one while cycling because I own one, but I'm
opposed to an educational preoccupation with them, and I recommend that
you not rely too heavily on the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
(manufacturers association) propaganda concerning their effectiveness. 
In particular, consider getting rid of the specific reference to "reduce
the risk of serious head injury by 85 to 88 percent (NHTSA, 1996)." 
That result was claimed by the Thompson, Rivera & Thompson study of
1989.  An interesting critique of their data analysis was presented in
the journal "Accident Analysis and Prevention", 28(4):463-475 (1996) by
D.L. Robinson.  Using the presented data and the techniques of T,R&T,
Robinson showed that the same reasoning lead to the conclusion that
helmets prevented 72% of _non_head_ injuries in the study group.

T,R&T's results may actually reflect an effect reported by Farris,
Spait, Chriss, Valenzuela and Meislin in the "Annals of Emergency
Medicine" 29(5):625-629 (May 1997) which was that _voluntary_ helmet
wearers were more compliant with the law than non-helmet wearers.

Finally, followup research from the Australian mandatory helmet law has
shown the remarkable result that significant changes in helmet use rates
as a consequence of the law yielded lower cycling, fewer cycle accidents
but a similar total occurrence of serious head injury.  This effect was
also reported by McDermott, Lane & Brazenor in "Journal of Trauma"
34(6):834-44 (June 1993).

Mandatory Helmet Law (MHL) proponents, to be consistent, would surely
want an MHL for equestrians, too.  An interesting discussion on the web
page http://www.horse-country.com/safety.html explains why bike helmets
are inadequate protection for equestrians.  A certified equestrian
helmet meets higher impact standards.  This suggests that riding a horse
bareheaded is more hazardous than riding a bike bareheaded.  In this
state, an equestrian MHL would be seen as a clear invasion of the
freedoms of the individual and an unwarranted intrusion of the
government.

Promotion of voluntary helmet wearing, integrated with education about
good cycling skills should yield good results, especially when the
health improvements of a growing population of regular cyclists is
measured against the infrequency of casualties.  While surveying for
helmet usage, also survey for compliance with rules like: ride-on-right,
proper yielding at intersections, proper lighting at night, good
mechanical condition of bicycle, etc.  An accident prevented is always
better than damage reduction.

Get rid of the reference to the bogus 85% "helmet effectiveness" rate.
In point of fact, I _did_ "intend to imply that helmet promotion should
take a low priority."

[Walking and Biking - Usage and Demand.]

Don't sell short the potential for local transportation in the winter
by biking or walking.  In Cache Valley, as well as the rest of the
Wasatch Front, we have storm events followed by lots of dry,
sunny days when these modes are fully useful if snow removal has been
performed to reasonable standards.  Urban areas in southern Utah have
even better winter weather for cycling and walking.

Encouragement for inter-business walkways and bikeways is good.  We have
too many strip developments that isolate each business from its adjacent
neighbor (competitor?).  Hook them together so we don't have to go out
to the roadway and back.

It is interesting that the WFRC study showed "no significant correlation
between the friendliness index and non-motorized trip ends."  Maybe
that's not because their study wasn't robust enough (as the text seems
to claim) but because most current non-mv transportation is need-based,
not friendliness-induced.

So we have no reliable data about how much a change in facilities and
programs would yield in terms of a change in demand (or participation)
in non-motorized travel.  I think this is all the more reason to focus
on the current facility features that enable current non-motorized users
and replicate those across the landscape: sidewalks, crosswalks and
"shortcuts" for peds, and wide curb lanes and parking facilities for
cyclists.

On page 10, the Bicycle Federation of America claims that fewer than 5%
of 100 million bike owners are "experienced or highly skilled
bicyclists".  This has been the basis for a federal policy of designing
bike facilities to meet the "needs" and fears of the unskilled 95% of
bike owners.  This approach seems faulty for two reasons: 1) A large
portion of the 95% do not use a bicycle for transportation AT ALL, and
many of those won't, even with the facilities that are claimed to
attract them. 2) Individuals who make a decision to become
transportation cyclists with any regularity can easily and quickly be
trained to join the ranks of sufficiently skilled cyclists who navigate
normal roads and traffic without undue risk, especially with the
presence of Wide Curb Lanes (WCL) and a LAB Effective Cyclist program in
the community.  If we're going to use the A versus B/C terminology,
let's think of "A" cyclists as "competent" rather than "experienced or
highly skilled".  It gives a better impression of the attainability of a
"road-worthy" status with a little education.  Even "C" (child) cyclists
have attained competent "A" status by the age of 8 to 10 with the LAB's
Effective Cyclist training program.

The result is, we don't have to design facilities for a huge population
of B/C cyclists if we provide the little training that is needed to
convert an interested bicycle owner into a competent A cyclist.  I don't
believe that (bullet 3) the "stated policy goal" at the beginning of our
plan requires us to provide an abundance of facilities "to encourage
increased use by B/C riders".  We can provide facilities (WCLs) for
competent A riders, and provide an attractive program for B/C riders to
become competent As.  they will enjoy all the advantages, skills,
safety, and self-esteem associated with being competent, self-reliant
users of the public transportation network rather than unskilled users
who must trade delay for a sense of safety in an excessively complex
network of specialized facilities.

Of course, all that education and training won't be a function of UDOT
but of other agencies within the state and our local communities.

For contrast with the BFA position and the National Bicycling and
Walking Study #2, give some space in the plan to the Wide Curb Lane
(WCL) discussion in the Bicycling and Walking Study #4, pages 36-39. 
Note that most of the "advantages" listed for bike lanes are Engineering
strategies that try to take the place of the other three E's.

[Existing and Needed Facilities and Current Practices]

I think it's a mistake to try to use _facilities_ to "increase motorist
awareness" of cyclists.  Motorists are aware of cyclists when they see
cyclists, not when they see empty bike lanes, or bike crossing signs.
Back in the goals bullets, and again later on, the plan does acknowledge
the "motorist awareness" effect of increased cyclist frequency.  But in
Section Two, after "A. Pavement Resurfacing..." signs and pavement
markings are again cited for their motorist awareness value.

An education campaign needs to inform the public of cyclist rights and
duties.  Then both cyclists and motorists will know the same rules.
Page 14 says "bicycles[sic]" are permitted to operate on roadways with
"nearly the same rights and responsibilities as motorized
vehicles[sic]".  Of course, bikes and cars don't have rights; their
operators do.  And the Utah law doesn't say "nearly."

On page 15, it is claimed ("Efforts to provide better facilities...")
that "designated facilities can reduce common bicycling habits that
endanger riders and motorists..."  This is an instance of the
Engineering "E" trying to do something that would be better left to one
of the other "E"s.  An on-road designated facility can only mean a
marked bike lane.  I do not believe that a marked bike lane will prevent
any of the errors mentioned:
   1) wrong way riding - might be more attractive in a marked bike lane
because the wrong way rider would not expect any car conflicts there.
   2) weaving around hazards and parked cars - parking into the bike
lane is a common sight in SLC, also garbage cans sitting in the bike
lane where the garbage truck can reach them, etc.
   3) shifting to-from sidewalk can still occur because most riders
recognize that most conflicts with cars occur at intersections where the
bike lane has quit anyhow.
   4) passing right turning vehicles on the right - bike lanes often
don't approach intersections anyhow, and bike lanes could actually
_cause_ this error when the right turn is into a driveway where the
lane remains on the right.

Nope, a bike lane tells the B/C cyclist "you just stay here and the
little white line will protect you from those big, nasty cars."  But the
competent A cyclist (a quickly and easily attainable status with a
little educational support) knows that cars are driven by people who
just want to get where they are going without incident and they expect
their fellow travellers to follow the mutually agreed upon rules and be
visible, predictable and legal.

"Due to the nature of some State roads designed as high-volume and
high-speed corridors, limiting pedestrian and bicycle access may be
necessary to maintain level of service for congestion management and for
the safety of all highway users."  I will oppose any such attempts in my
community and support those who oppose it in other areas of Utah.  In
fact, I doubt such a restriction would be legal on any roadway that
provides the primary access to adjacent property.  This statement in the
draft Plan is at odds with the quoted AASHTO Bicycle Policy of 1991. 
Maybe the safety of all highway users would be best served by high
congestion, low level of service and the resulting low speeds; or by
limiting motor vehicle access since MVs actually create the dangers.

[Benefits of Good Walking and Biking Systems:]

* for the transportationally disadvantaged - Good.
* reduce short vehicle trips and destination parking - good.
* improved highways can increase safety - here the point is made that
  "increased bicycle traffic increases motorist perception" instead of
  increased _facilities_ increase motorist perception - good.
* making communities more livable - good.
* particulate and other runoff pollution from roadways - good point.
* encourages stewardship of the land - excellent, can you make the
  letters bigger!  ;-)
* CDC says overall health improvement - balance this against the reduced
  cycling that may result if an MHL is passed.
* increased property values - this is in ironic combination with open
  space (no place you need to go is close enough to walk) and low
  traffic (I want to drive there, but I don't want anyone else to drive
  past my house to get there).  Can you point out the conflicting
  desires here?

[IV. Statewide Planning Activities and Issues]

Map of bicycling suitability characteristics of state roads - Will this
be done indoors by engineers looking at maps and blueprints or will it
be done in consultation with people who actually ride their bikes on
these roads?

In preparation for increased Education, UDOT or some other state agency
could sponsor a LAB Effective Cyclist Instructor Workshop in the state.
The state could pay workshop fees (about $300 each) for about a dozen
ECI candidates in exchange for a promise to teach about a dozen EC
workshops each during the next couple of years.  Then we would be on the
way to building an Educational program that would convert B/Cs to As.
I expect to attend the ECI training workshop to be offered in Phoenix
this November.

The railroad's "no new crossing" policy does not interfere with the
establishment of Wide Curb Lanes on existing roads.  However, RR
crossings always represent a potential hazard to cyclists because of
pavement conditions, angle and surface treatment approaching and between
the rails.

[Safety and Liability Issues]

Concern about liability resulting from signage and "designated routes"
reminds me of the Oregon Bike Plan which has a section:
   B. Prior Planning Methods
in which they explain why they have abandoned attempts to designate
"Bike Routes" (also why they do not classify bike riders by type).

They have instead chosen the goal of designing to accommodate the
majority of actual bike/ped users of all routes. (Now, if they would
just be as progressive as we will be and make it a goal to _educate_
their cyclists to be competent...)

Our draft plan makes a good reference to "Section 500.507(c)(6)..."
with a planning program not involved with engineering but: awareness,
education, helmet use, legislative changes and special events. - all good.

[Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Statewide P/B Plan]

One evaluation tool could measure the miles of Wide Curb Lane as well
as those darn bike lanes.  Save the paint!   Make a WCL design standard
to use in place of, or at least in addition to, the bike lane design
standard.  Also count drain grates and RR crossings fixed; and bike
parking on public sites (like bus stops, govt buildings, etc).  For
peds, a sampling of sidewalk continuity between major origins and
destinations might be enlightening, too.

[V.Regional and Local Planning, Advocacy, and Transit]

bikes-on-busses - a great intermodal feature.  I can't wait for LTD to
get their bike racks here in Logan.

bus-stop/bicycle conflicts - I'm glad to say that the LTD bus drivers
are very easy for me to get along with here in Logan, but I can see
the potential for conflicts.  This issue has been discussed at length
recently on the LAB members mailing list on the Internet.

[VI. Recommendations: Needs Assessment, Planning, Implementation]

"for the purposes of funding, walking and biking facilities may be
grouped into two[sic] categories:  1... 2... 3..."

I'm not particularly supportive of funding alternative transportation
facilities from fuel tax AS A PUNISHMENT for motoring.  I also believe
that taxing the sale of bicycles nd accessories can only have an
inhibitory effect on the growth of cycling that is a stated goal of this
plan.  If cycling and walking have benefits for _everyone_ (participant
or not) then the costs should be borne from the general fund.  I am
opposed to registration of bicycles as an income generator for the same
reasons.  In my community, I do not need any public-funded,
special-design bicycle facilities to enable me to use my bike for
transportation.

[B. Pedestrian Inventory]

Sidewalk and crosswalk facilities should be inventoried to identify
locations where the pedestrian facility network has gaps.  It should
also be assessed for quality and maintenance requirements.  We need
some design standards so that we don't get any more residential sidewalks
that are like those in my area:  narrow, too close to the road
(especially after the road is plowed in winter) and curving around
intersections instead of connecting to (un)marked crosswalks.  Also
maintenance standards for snow removal and interference by trees and
shrubbery are needed, and enforcement should be strongly recommended.
In commercial areas and on arterials, pushbutton demand for pedestrian
phases ought to to meet the needs of real people.

[C. Bicycle Inventory]

Rural touring map - a good idea if it has input from local cyclists.

[D. Legislative Changes]

This is a much appreciated section!

1. Repeal of the sidepath law is much needed.  Otherwise, as cycling
increases in accord with the plan goals, there will be endless
disagreement between the growing number of competent A cyclists and
"authorities" about the definition of "usable".

2. clarification of the "roadway"/shoulder issue is good.

3. Please consider voluntary helmet promotion as a part of a fully
integrated education program.  MHLs deter growth of cycling and so are
contrary to a stated goal of the plan.  An excessive emphasis on
helmets leaves us with a lot of unskilled B/C cyclists with their heads
partially protected as they make their many mistakes on the public right
of way.

4. Liability insurance for cyclists?  Cyclists present a much smaller
hazard to other travellers, and to the property of others, that do
motorists.  Their liability situation should be the same as any other
citizen engaged in an activity that is not unusually hazardous to
others.  The administrative and enforcement requirements of such a
provision would be burdensome beyond its value.

Here are some other legislative issues that might be worth considering.
Bicycle-specific laws are found in the Utah Code beginning at Section
41-6-83.  I would suggest that the "as near as practicable to the right
hand edge" rule (Section 41-6-87) be omitted in deference to the general
"keep to the right" rule that applies to other vehicles.  At the very
least it needs rewording so that it is not interpreted to discourage
proper lane sharing in a Wide Curb Lane.  Instead of a "take as little
space as possible" approach, it needs a "clearly share or clearly take
the lane" theme.  In the current law, "substandard lane width" means
to me "everything but a Wide Curb Lane".

Section 41-6-83.3 deals with cycling on sidewalks.  I think that needs
to clarify the fact that one of the "duties applicable to a pedestrian"
is to move at pedestrian speeds when approaching a crosswalk.  One of
the biggest dangers of sidewalk cycling is collision at an intersection
after the motorist looked for pedestrian speed conflicts.  Wachtel and
Lewiston assessed the risk of sidewalk cycling in their report in the
Sept 1994 issue of the ITE Journal at 1.8 times greater than road
cycling.  The LAB Effective Cyclist course teaches its students to
never ride on roadside sidewalks.

Section 41-6-87.7 requires that turn signals be given during the last
100 feet, compared to the general requirement of 3 seconds elsewhere.
Probably everyone is better at estimating 3 seconds than estimating
100 feet.  This separate provision should be removed.  When turning,
a signal should be required but the educational emphasis should be on
proper yielding to conflicting traffic rather than clearing the way with 
the magic signal.

The general signalling rule at section 41-6-69 should permit cyclists
to use the right-hand right turn signal.  Also, promotional literature
should not depict that "signal thru the imaginary car window" arm
position for stop signal and left-hand right-turn signal.

Section 41-6-87.9 Bicycle Racing.  Some have said that this rule
prohibits all individual attempts to better your time along a specific
route, say, while commuting. The definition of "bicycle racing" should
be clarified as a sporting competition (official or otherwise), and not
merely an aerobic activity.

Section 41-6-90. Lights and Reflective Material.  Our education programs
need to emphasize that reflective material does not substitute for
lights.  The requirement for reflective material _or_ lighting visible
from the side should be changed, to require that the lighting be visible
from the side.  Reflective material only works when directly in the
beam of headlights and it doesn't work well for interaction with
pedestrians or cyclists with less-than-car lighting.

Idaho has an interesting law that allows cyclists to treat stop signs as
yield signs.  In the spirit of raising the Utah speed limits so fewer
people would break them, maybe we could adopt Idaho's "cyclists yield
at stop signs" law, too.

[PART TWO]
[VII. Policy Issues for Location and Classification...]

"...basis for policies within UDOT..." This introductory comment
suggests that the plan only applies to UDOT.  Broaden the scope again
here.

Item A.007 "sidewalks designed _primarily_ for pedestrians"?  Are there
some that are and some that aren't?

Item A.008 seems to suggest that the "pedestrian style" left hand turn
for cyclists involves use of the crosswalk rather than the roadway. 
That has not been my understanding of the description in Section
41-6-87.5(2).  This item does conclude with a good mention that cyclists
should move at pedestrian speeds in crosswalks.

B.001 - I hope WCLs turn out to be an often chosen facility to meet
bicycling needs.  Maybe they will be if they are included in the plan as
one of the "bicycle facility" options, and their merits are noted.

B.003 - Discourage Combined Ped/Bike Shared Use paths all you can.
Good warning about Design Exceptions.

B.005 - This is important.  Also, endpoints of separate paths should
be designed to discourage departing path users from continuing on the
wrong side of the roadway (as mentioned in B.006 and again in C.010).

B.007 - Great!  Get rid of the mandatory sidepath law (or don't make
sidepaths paralleling roadways).

B.008 - Bike sensitive loops!  Great requirement.  It's just about as
easy to make a sensor loop that works for bikes as it is to make one
that doesn't; but it's harder to change a bad one.  But, in most cases,
the dreaded bike lanes disappear on approach to intersections so that
bike sensitivity is needed in all of the rightmost right turn, straight
and left turn lanes.  With "sweet spot" pavement markings, too!

C.001 Good to see the problems of shared use paths recognized.  I'll
admit that it's probably not a good idea for the plan to ban them
outright but it can't hurt to emphasize that this design should be
employed only infrequently for highly unusual situations.

C.002 Remember, we're going to work hard to keep the B/C population
small with a high pass-thru rate from non-cyclist to B/C to A
(competent) cyclists via Education and Encouragement programs.

C.003 Cyclists on sidewalks are a hazard to pedestrians, so the
requirement for "speeds compatible with pedestrians" is important.  But
they are also a hazard to motorists at intersections (including
driveways) because they still may be moving much faster than the
pedestrians that a motorist expects and looks out for on a sidewalk or
crosswalk.  To guard against this hazard, cyclists on roadside sidewalks 
should be required to ride "at pedestrian speeds".  This greater
restriction will be additional incentive for the cyclist to ride instead
in the normally safer and more appropriate location on the roadway.

C.005 Why would you have a one-way path available to cyclists?

C.009 Good discouragement for contra-flow paths near roadways.

C.012 Good.  Too often a construction project (even a small one) results
in a significant out-of-direction detour for peds and bikes.

D. - Equestrian use, etc.  My understanding is that horses and bikes
don't "mix" too well.  Many horses are spooked by the sound of the
chain, sprockets and freewheel pawls.

E.001 Remember to involve local cyclists in evaluation of non-urban
highways.

E.002 - F.005 - Good design and maintenance considerations.

I.002 - Support services and destination facilities are important for
touring cyclists.

J - Snow removal is important for transportation!  We know it is for 
motor vehicle transportation.  The same applies to cycling and walking.
Our winter weather allows many good ped/bike travel days between storms
if snow removal works for ped/bike travellers and not just for MVs. 
Maybe sidewalk clearing should be a public function rather than a burden
for adjacent property owners.  Or maybe the adjacent property owner
should clear the sidewalk _and_ the road, and the govt could save all
that snowplow expense.  Fair is fair.  

Road plowing often blocks crosswalks, and covers sidewalks that have
been located too close to the curb.  A cycling hazard that is obvious to
me is the practice of salting intersections.  Traction is often
satisfactory in the salted intersection, and along most of the packed
roadway between intersections.  but right _after_ a salted intersection,
the motor traffic has pulled salty slush onto the packed snow creating a
very icy, slipper surface for a few dozen feet.  That interval is fairly
risky to negotiate.  But a few hours of sun on a well plowed road is
generally followed by several days of clear dry roadway (and sidewalk).

Separate paths and trails require separate snow removal to continue to
be useful in the winter.  If snow clearing is accomplished on low
priority, then the facility is not reliably and predictably useful. 
This could result in more decisions to use other forms of
transportation.  But the necessary trade-off may not be worthwhile.

J.005 Glad to see separation of motorized and non-motorized snow users.

K - In-line skaters.  I'm ambivalent on this whole category.  Good Luck.

[VII. Design Standards for Ped Facilities]

ADA considerations are important, although I can't judge the suitability
of the plan in this area.

[IX. Design Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities]

Is it significant the Ped facilities have design "standards" in this
plan while bike facilities have design "guidelines"?

Relying on the AASHTO Guide may draw the designer into choosing bike
lanes too often,  AASHTO doesn't give much space to WCLs because they
don't have too many design attributes, just lane width versus design
speed.  No paint marking standards, no signage standards, no separate
specifications for pavement and base.

[X. Construction, Paving and Structures]

2. rumble strip placement - good.

4. adequate width on structures - good

5. sidewalks both sides - good

8. tunnel visibility and lighting - good

[XI. Short Term Implementation]

I expect this section represents the greatest facility impact for
cyclists.  Most existing roadway will receive routine maintenance and
the details of that maintenance can have significant impact on the
suitability of the roadway for bicycle transportation use.

Pavement surface quality, edges, utility covers and drains are all
important considerations.  On multilane roadways, restriping can steal a
little space from inner lanes to make more curb lanes meet the WCL
standards for lane sharing.

Sweeping for debris is important.  Motor traffic provides some sweeping
action but it doesn't generally extend all the way to the curb.  As a
result, the right tire track is often the cleanest place to ride.  Of
course, a clearly marked bike lane tends to keep motor traffic farther
from the curb, resulting in an increased sweeping requirement for the
bike lane.  Sweeping is particularly important at intersections where a
triangle of debris often accumulates between straight through motor
traffic, cross traffic and right turning traffic.  That triangle of
debris is right where a straight through lane-sharing cyclist might want
to be.  The result, for me, is often the decision to "take the lane" in
anticipation of the debris hazard.  Street sweeping programs that are
not "bicycle aware" often leave that same triangular area unswept.

"Chip-Seal" maintenance of asphalt roadways creates a significant hazard
for cyclists as well as other road users.  Newly treated surfaces are
difficult to ride on and passing traffic throws a dangerous spray of
rocks.  These hazardous disadvantages of the procedure need increased
consideration by UDOT and local street departments.  Maybe changes in
the details of the process could make it more acceptable.  Or it might
just be too much of a deterrent to the P/B plan's walking and biking 
participation goals.  If we take the money that would have been spent on
bike lane paint, can we get something better than the current chip-seal
program?

Another debris hazard for cyclists occurs after a traffic accident. 
Broken glass and plastic often litters an intersection, and is ground
into bike-tire-piercing bits by subsequent motor traffic.  A protocol
should be established for cleanup after these accidents.  The cost of
the cleanup should be borne by the guilty party in the accident, either
through direct assessment or a charge built into the citation fine.

The plan notes that traffic calming measures should be examined
critically for their impacts on cycling and walking, or for the added
hazards that may result.  Curb bulbouts are employed to make the roadway
seem narrower and so slow motor traffic.  But those narrow sections of
road are hazardous for lane-sharing cyclists.  Speed bumps are also
hazardous to cyclists while "speed humps" may have calming effects
without the hazard.

[XII. Special Events]

In addition to special events _for_ cyclists and walkers, you might
address special events that hinder ped/bike traffic - usually parades.
A parade causes all regular travellers to wait or take an
out-of-direction detour.  That detour can be much more significant for a
cyclist or pedestrian with a schedule and a destination on the other
side of the parade.

[Definitions]

Wide Curb Lane - an unsigned, unmarked rightmost through travel lane that
is wide enough for a cyclist and motorist to safely travel side-by-side. 
The comfortable width for a competent A cyclist is a function of the
prevailing speed of passing traffic, and is typically 14 to 16 feet.

--
Bob Bayn    bob@cc.usu.edu
1500 Highland Drive
North Logan, UT 84341-2142