RECORD
OF MEETING
BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN ISSUES TASK FORCE
DATE/TIME/PLACE:
Thursday, April 27, 1995, 5:30 - 7:30 PM, Colonie Community Center
IN ATTENDANCE:
Brad Birge (CDRPC), Emily H. Goodman (New York Bicycling Coalition), Bob
Kirker (Town of Wilton Highway Committee), Katrina Neugebauer (Troy
Architectural Program), Don Odell (Albany County Planning Department), Ivan
Vamos (Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council), Steve Allocco (CDTC)
DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Note: Any handouts referenced in the summary are
attached for those who did not attend the meeting.
Current
Bicycle/Pedestrian Travel and their Benefits: Beyond
Census journey-to-work information, there is little hard data available on
bicycle and pedestrian travel in the Capital District. The CDTC staff used the findings of its Household
Travel Survey along with the 1990 Census results and the CDTC regional
traffic model to generate estimates of bicycle/pedestrian tripmaking and the
public benefits they produce (in terms of the negative impacts of motor vehicle
travel avoided). The first
handout (entitled "Estimates of Bicycle and Pedestrian...")
summarizes the results of this investigation.
It should be noted that the estimates are for travel by persons 16 years
or older, between discrete origins and destinations -- it does not
include "children going to the schoolyard" or "pleasure
trips" starting and ending at one point.
Followup on
"Accessibility" Evaluations: At the February
Task Force meeting, there was a discussion of the concept of accessibility
-- the competitiveness of cycling or walking with driving for a given
trip. A trip was considered
"accessible" to cyclists or walkers if it could be made within 20
minutes of the time it would take via car.
At the April meeting, there was a revision to the figures presented and
a qualification to the definition of accessibility.
Revision
The original analysis of
accessibility did not adequately reflect the out-of-car time associated with
car trips -- walking between wherever the vehicle was parked and the origin or
destination of the trip. To reflect this
additional time, five minutes were added to either end of each car trip. The "Updated Figures..." handout
presents the resulting findings on accessibility.
Qualification
The initial evaluation
of "accessibility" was strictly based on travel time -- particularly
for cyclists, it implicitly assumed a willingness to use any legally accessible
roadway regardless of motor vehicle traffic characteristics. By this measure, to take one example, a trip
from Albany Airport to Northway Mall (via Albany Shaker and Wolf Roads) is
"accessible." The second page
of the "Updated Figures..." handout lists some sample
"accessible trip" volumes on roadways not commonly considered
"accessible" to the average rider.
The argument can be made
that the initial "accessibility" evaluation only applies to
"Group A" cyclists -- experienced, highly skilled riders. As the Bicycle Federation of America
estimates that less than 5 percent of the 100 million people in the U.S. who
own bicycles would be considered Group A cyclists, the initial investigation
only applied to a small proportion of the general population. Thus, a "Group B" accessibility
determination was pursued to better reflect accessibility to average adult
riders.
While the initial
"Group A" analysis only shut down limited access highways and those
facilities where bicycle and pedestrian travel are prohibited, the "Group
B" analysis makes roads progressively less attractive as we move up in
their hierarchy. For example, a
subdivision street would be very attractive; the collector road it feeds into
is less attractive; the minor arterial the collector feeds into is still less
attractive; and so on. The "Interim
Estimates..." handout shows the results of this approach. Perhaps the most surprising finding of this
investigation is that 2/3 of all trips 5 miles or less in length are still
accessible to Group B cyclists; as the side-by-side graphics entitled
"GROUP A" and "GROUP B" (on the sheet following the
"Interim Estimates..." handout; also enclosed for those in attendance
4/27) show, the difference lies in Group B cyclists' making greater use of
lower-order streets to complete these trips.
(The arrows give a sense of the shifts away from the arterials; these
graphics are not meant to show where people currently make cycling trips, nor
do they reflect the potential benefits of the Priority Bicycle Network.)
Pedestrian Treatments:
At its June 1994 meeting, the Task Force discussed and approved the idea
of developing and applying advisory sidewalk warrants to give some
directions as to "where to start" in providing better accommodation
of pedestrian travel. Three
"warrant" bases were investigated:
a "traffic volume/speed" basis which considers exposure to motor
vehicle traffic; a "potential for errands" basis which considers the
proximity of residential, office and retail activity; and a "recreational
walking" basis which considers residential density.
In attempting to develop
any of these three possible warrants, the same problem seems to come up: depending on where the "cutoffs"
are set, either almost none of the area's roadways or almost all
of them tend to have pedestrian treatments warranted. More troubling still, to date CDTC has not
found an objective warrant basis which flags the locations which have been the
most frequent subjects of complaint -- major travel corridors in the inner
suburbs, in particular.
The possible warrants
tested by CDTC to date have generally been more aggressive than the warrants
contained in NYSDOT's recently released Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility
Scoping Guide, excerpts of which were distributed at the meeting. As such, the NYSDOT document's warrants may
be as aggressive as the Task Force can hope to be at this time, unless
communities decide on their own to start accommodating pedestrians without a
standard suggesting that they do so.
In addition to the
NYSDOT guide, copies of a guide produced by the Florida Department of
Transportation's Pedestrian and Bicycle Program were also distributed. The "Walkable Communities" guide
provides some handy illustrations of how to go about making a community more
pedestrian-friendly. Given the way in
which this document presents pedestrian accommodation techniques in a clear,
approachable format, distributing this document to Capital District
municipalities would be an important step in educating decisionmakers on how to
enhance the liveability of their areas.
Discussion of the
difficulty in providing a targeted listing of locations at which pedestrian
accommodation should be made a priority did raise one idea which might
be a workable means of providing specific, localized guidance to municipalities
looking to become more pedestrian-friendly.
If maps of serviceable sidewalks could be secured from local public
works departments, strategic connections could be identified as ways to
create continuous pedestrian networks.
CDTC will investigate the availability of these maps.
Task Force Technical
Report: In the context of the New Visions effort, the
purpose of the Technical Report is to provide additional information (beyond
that presented in the 10-20 page New Visions-wide "Executive
Summary") to people wishing to invest some time in becoming familiar with
the Task Force's investigations and recommendations. As the introductory note to the draft Report
outline (mailed out on April 18) indicated, the Technical Report could also
serve as a stand-alone reference for use in developing plans for enhancing the
Capital District's bicycle and pedestrian travel environments. Given this larger potential function, the
group was asked for comments on the outline, particularly along the lines of
items to add in order to make the report as comprehensive and useful a
reference as possible. The following
ideas were raised; along with others raised at previous meetings, they could be
presented in an "additional steps which would enhance bicycle/pedestrian
planning at the municipal and regional levels" discussion.
0. Note: The draft outline included a section on
"existing conditions," but did not have a section on future
conditions. A section on projected
future conditions will be included.
1. Cycling-Specific
Pavement Photo Log: At the
February meeting, a copy of NYSDOT's Pavement Condition Rating Manual
was circulated during a discussion of pavement conditions and their effects on
cycling safety. The Manual is in
essence a photo log which guides the "scoring" of pavement condition
on a 1-10 scale. The idea was raised
that a photo log illustrating the dangers presented by pavement condition and
spot-level defects (e.g., raised drainage grates, road seams) could guide
smaller-scale maintenance and improvement programs.
2. Economic
Importance of Cycling and Walking:
The Task Force has concentrated on identifying the steps necessary to
make cycling and walking more viable forms of transportation. Still, because accommodation of cycling and
walking can yield significant benefits in the areas of recreation, tourism and
the general quality of life -- and because these benefits can in turn produce
very real economic benefits -- the "economic logic" of
investing in these modes of travel should be prominently noted.
As one
example of how bike-friendliness can be promoted, Ivan provided a copy of a
recent "in-flight magazine" article (copy enclosed) on bicycle
touring in Holland. The article presents
Holland as an attractive place for bicycle touring; in addition, by noting that
Northwest Airlines travelers can take a bike with them free as one of their two
checked pieces of luggage, Northwest presents itself as accommodating to
cyclists, who are often faced with charges of $50 to $90 or more to bring their
bikes with them when flying.
3. Additional
"Networks" (Section 3b):
Existing facilities, such as the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail, the
canal system, and Bike Routes 5 and 9 should be noted.
4. Regional
Bike Map: There should be a
way to draw on the popularity of the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail map as a
motivator for development of a regional bike map. (Note:
and of the facilities which would be indicated on such a map.)
It could be
argued that the Capital District's problem with regard to regional bike maps is
that there are not many existing bike facilities to put on such a
map. The Genesee Transportation Council
(the Rochester area MPO) got around this problem by putting out a bike map
showing the "rideability" of different streets based on field
observations (see October 1994 Task Force Status Report); development of such a
map for the Capital District might be an option.
5. Existing
Facilities: Section 2.b.i. will
note that one characteristic of the Capital District's bicycle/pedestrian
travel environment is "few dedicated facilities;" both dedicated and
otherwise, these facilities should be identified in the report.
6. Suggestions
for Additional Items under "Other Recommendations":
* continue efforts
at bringing advocacy groups into the planning process
* note and
incorporate other individual and group planning and advocacy efforts in the
region (the Saratoga County Heritage Trail Committee, NYBC, Capital Regional
Cycling, et cetera) -- this would be an important step in maintaining lines of
communication with the cycling/pedestrian community.
* hold a monthly
bicycle/pedestrian issues forum?
(Note: distribution of informally-written reports or
"hot sheets" on issues raised at these fora could be useful ways of
getting information out to the interested community and responsible public
agencies.)
* add a
bicycle/pedestrian advocate to the CDTC Planning and Policy Committees
(Note: this idea was raised with both "voting
member" and "non-voting member" variants. Early exploration by the CDTC staff of the
issues which would be raised by this idea -- ranging from the
"consensus" criterion applied to CDTC committee votes to the more
philosophical question of "what specifically would the group be looking to
change through membership, and could being a pest at regular meetings without
having membership accomplish the same thing? -- suggested that this sort of
recommendation will likely be a source of much contention as the New Visions
effort winds down and the Committees enter the "post-New Visions"
era.)
Miscellaneous Items1: To keep the
Task Force informed of current happenings in the field of cycling/walking as
transportation, articles from three recent issues of the Urban
Transportation Monitor were distributed.
Note with regard to the article on bicycle use of highway shoulders
(from the April 14 issue) that there was a major typo in the third column: the accident rate as shown under item 3 works
out to about 4.1 billion accidents per million miles of travel, or one accident
every 1.3 feet. Had the exponent been
properly printed as -6 instead of 6, the accident rate would have worked out to
.008 accidents per million miles of travel -- far closer to the definition of
"negligible."
ACTION ITEMS
* CDTC to
prepare draft technical report. Probably
on a "chapter by chapter" basis, rough draft to be mailed out by June
1.
* CDTC to
contact transportation and public works agencies for information on
availability of sidewalk maps or other sidewalk inventories.
* Next Task
Force meeting: Thursday, June 15, 5:30 -
7:30 PM, Colonie Community Center, 1653 Central Avenue (across from Lake
Electronics). Meeting to concentrate
on discussion of draft technical report.
TO: Members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues
Task Force
Other
Interested Parties
FROM: Steve
Allocco
DATE: May
11, 1995
RE: April 27 Meeting Summary; Details on Next
Meeting
Enclosed please find a summary of the April 27
meeting. The next meeting of the Task
Force will be held on Thursday, June 15, from 5:30 to 7:30 PM at the
Colonie Community Center, 1653 Central Avenue, Colonie (across from Lake
Electronics). At this meeting, we will
discuss the draft Technical Report, which should get out to you in rough form
by June 1. In the meantime, please feel
free to call, fax or write if any questions or comments come up.
Enclosure(s, for those not in attendance 4/27)
1Note: these
items were raised at the beginning of the meeting to provide some
"food for thought" when additional ideas for inclusion in the
technical report were considered later on.