RECORD
OF MEETING
BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN ISSUES TASK FORCE
DATE/TIME/PLACE:
Wednesday, February 22, 1995, 5:30 - 7:30 PM, Colonie Community Center
IN ATTENDANCE:
Brad Birge (CDRPC), Emily H. Goodman (citizen member), Bob Kirker (Town
of Wilton Highway Committee), Don Odell (Albany County Planning Department),
Don Robertson (NYSDOT - Region 1), 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.
Vision Statement:
The Task Force indicated it was comfortable with the wording of the
Vision Statement as presented in the record of the December 28 meeting.
Proposed Additional
Priority Network Mileage: The Task Force concurred with
the idea of adding Priority Network mileage in Schenectady and Rotterdam as
proposed in the February 6 update on staff work. One question raised regarding the Priority
Network was that of whether Kings Road would be preferable to Albany Street as
a priority facility, as the former includes a long stretch which is relatively
straight and flat between Old State Road and the Schenectady County line. It was decided that Albany Street would be
acceptable if Kings Road was part of the larger Regional Bicycle Network; a
subsequent check of that network confirmed that it does include the subject
segment of Kings Road.
Notes on
"Working Environment": The Task Force was
briefly updated on several developments which took place since the last meeting
in December.
1. Federal, State
Fiscal Situations: At the federal level, the possible
consolidation of USDOT and its funding programs is being explored. Still, CDTC's New Visions effort will continue
on the assumption that a given amount of money above and beyond basic needs
will be available; the functional difference is that it may be distributed over
a longer period of time (e.g., $600 million over the next 25 years instead of
over the next 20 years). Thus, as the
Task Forces go about their work, there should be no real effect on how they
identify their sets of desirable actions.
(One example of
how the extended timetable for funding could affect Task Force work was
illustrated in the Expressway Management Task Force's development of a
"staging plan" for one part of its recommendation set. The Task Force considered the idea of accelerating
development of some components of its Intelligent Transportation System,
but decided that the current Federal and State fiscal climates made a slower
pace ambitious enough.)
Not much hard
information is available yet on future State investments in
transportation. The working assumption
could be that a "do more with less" or "do more with what's
already allocated" philosophy would come about; as some larger capital
projects are already being scaled back or called into question completely
(e.g., Northway Interchange 3 construction, rehabilitation of Northway bridges
between Interchanges 2 and 8), it should not be expected that high-cost capital
projects to enhance the bicycle/pedestrian environment (e.g., the I-787
ped/bike bridge) would be pursued at as large a scale as when originally
conceived, if at all.
2. Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) Status: The next planned
update of the TIP was the 1995-2000 update; fiscal circumstances have put this
update on hold. As this "hold"
status is a change from the previous expectation, which was "no new
projects," there is no effective difference with regard to opportunities
to pursue bicycle/pedestrian-related improvements.
The earlier
"no new projects" expectation was rooted in the realization that
available funds which could have gone to a TIP update this year had already
been substantially allocated, and what little remained available could likely
have been used up by cost overruns on major projects already on the TIP.
The current
expectation is for there to be funding available for a number of new projects
added to the TIP when the 1996-2001 update takes place.
3. New Visions
Schedule: A current schedule for the New Visions effort
was distributed. The effort will
continue at its own pace, in spite of the USDOT reorganization and fiscal
considerations noted earlier.
4. ANCA Report:
The Adirondack North Country Association released its Bicycle Master
Plan for the Adirondack North Country Region of New York State, which sets
forth analyses and recommendations for enhancing the cycling environment in
that 14-county region (which includes Saratoga County). It was noted that the Task Force's Make
Your Community More Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly brochure was liberally
excerpted in the report, indicating the value of this concise summary of steps
to enhance the cycling and walking environments. (Update on Task Force Brochure: some possible paper stocks for printing have
been identified; the goal is to have a quantity produced such that members can
take a handful with them after the April meeting.)
5. SUNY Summer Course
in Urban Design -- Urban Bikeway Concept: This summer, the
Geography and Planning Department at SUNY/Albany will be offering a six-week
Urban Design course for which the subject will be the "downtown to SUNY
(and on to Crossgates Mall)" corridor concept plan on which Alicia
Fernandez gave a presentation at the October 1994 Task Force meeting. The aim is to develop the bikeway's design
specifications to the point that the City of Albany, the State Office of
General Services and State DOT would be able to submit it as a proposal for
funding or, alternatively, to pay for its development themselves. The class starts May 30; Thyag (who will be
teaching the course) plans to sit in on Task Force meetings when time permits
to keep the group posted on the progress of the design work.
Report
on Staff Technical Work
Since the last meeting
in December, CDTC staff has been performing the technical work necessary to
make the objective case for pursuing the Task Force's recommendations. Some early findings of this work were
presented as a way of illustrating how this case can be made. They are attached as an appendix.
Additional
Items
Additional Ideas for
Enhancing Cycling and Walking: With development of
its "required products" complete, the Task Force was invited to spend
a few minutes brainstorming possible additional recommendations to make in the
Phase Two report. Two types of ideas
came up in this exercise: identification
of possible actions or tools for decisionmakers to consider as they plan their
road improvement work, and guidance to "bear in mind" in the
transportation planning process. Some of
the ideas raised were as follow:
Actions/Tools
1. Shoulder
Provision: While crosswalk
markings, "share the road" signs and the like are desirable low-cost
means of raising motorist awareness of cyclists and pedestrians, the most
critical element of the road system for cyclists is the availability of
adequate travel pavement or shoulder width to use a given route. Providing for reasonable physical separation
from motor vehicles benefits cyclists of all ability levels; thus, it is
logically the first order of business not only to maintain existing cycling
levels but to encourage more shifts from driving to cycling.
2. Lane
Markings/Striping: Particularly
at those locations where current cycling/walking levels are not high,
clear lane/shoulder markings and crosswalk markings are important means of
raising and maintaining driver awareness of (a)the possible presence of cyclists or pedestrians in an area
and (b)where their vehicles should be as
they travel through the area. This can
make the travel environment more predictable to the cyclist or pedestrian. In addition, as not all cyclists or
pedestrians obey traffic laws, these markings give them guidance as to
where they should be on or along the roadway.
3. Pavement Reallocation: In managing our street system, the operating
assumption has always been that travel lane, shoulder and median widths should
be as great as possible to maximize roadway capacity. While this relationship does hold true --
reducing these widths does reduce capacity -- going by this assumption in
practice has resulted in a street system which largely discourages
cycling by minimizing the amount of space available for it. To remove the disincentives to cycling
presented by roadway profiles, we should consider reallocating total pavement
width -- through restriping and, in some cases, minor reconstruction such as
narrowing of a wide median -- to ensure the "reasonable separation"
of cyclists from motor vehicles cited above.
The Wolf Road "laboratory" concept to be discussed on Page 5
could provide a good example of how pavement reallocation can work.
4. Traffic
Calming: The discussion of
pavement reallocation flows into consideration of traffic calming, as many
applications of traffic calming are simply aggressive reallocation
efforts. While drastically narrowing
streets or closing them to motor vehicle traffic are the typically cited
examples of traffic calming, the comment raised in Task Force discussions was
that modest traffic calming at strategic locations can remove some major
barriers to safe bicycle and pedestrian travel.
An example cited was on bridges:
if it is not possible to widen the travel surface of the bridge to
provide a wide shoulder, bike lane or sidewalk, reducing the speed limit or
slightly narrowing the center-stripe-to-outside-stripe width of the
travel lane should enhance cyclist safety by reducing the likelihood that a
motorist will very suddenly encounter a cyclist in the travel lane.
5. Grates/Grate
Strips: When installing new
drain grates, the grate strips should run perpendicular to the travel
lane to eliminate the possibility of a cyclist catching a tire. Existing grates can be modified easily by
welding strips of steel across them; this would not be likely to have a
significant effect on the ability of water to pass through the grate.
An additional
note regarding storm drains was that they should be kept at the same level as
the pavement around them.
6. Bike Racks
on Buses/at Intermodal Facilities:
A truly intermodal transportation system should recognize the fact that
people might combine bike travel with bus, train or even plane travel to
complete a trip. In addition to
installing bike lockers and/or racks at the region's airports and train
stations, we should be examining the potential for bike racks to be installed
on buses and determine the key transit stops (e.g., along popular
routes, at park-and-ride lots, et cetera) at which locker/rack provision would
be most beneficial.
7. Travel Maps
Identifying Preferable Bicycle Routes:
When area residents decide to bike a little further than usual, tourists
decide to ride from some local point or longer-distance cyclists enter the
Capital District, a map or series of maps identifying the region's key cycling
routes would enable them to "better educate their guesses" on how to
travel through the area. The
Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail map is a popular guide to one particular facility
which is almost entirely Class 1 and thus understood to be safe; there might be
a way to produce a basic map which directs cyclists to those roads with the
best combinations of directness, coverage, available services and motor vehicle
traffic conditions for their purposes.
8. Signage: Motor vehicle travelers get considerable guidance
as to the best routes to take for their destinations; while signage need not be
as prevalent for cyclists as it currently is for cars, directional signs at
access points on the Bike-Hike Trail as well as signs indicating where roads
take cyclists when they leave the Trail are two examples of
informational signage which would particularly benefit two groups: occasional trail users who are not familiar
with where it goes, and the longer-distance cyclists noted above.
Other types of
signage which would be beneficial if supplied in greater number would be
"Pedestrian Crossing," "Bike Route," "Share the
Road" and similar signs. These
signs could produce two types of benefits:
* they could raise
and maintain motorist awareness of the possible presence of cyclists and/or
pedestrians, as would the lane markings and stripings noted earlier; in
addition,
* investing in these
signs could be a form of "validation" of these modes of travel in
motorists' minds; this could in turn translate to greater respect for and
consideration of cyclists and pedestrians on the roadways.
9. Accident
Information: The point was
raised that motor vehicle/bicycle and motor vehicle/pedestrian accident
information is sparse and difficult from which to draw conclusions, for two
reasons: many of these accidents are not
reported, and accident reports do not capture much detail about these
accidents such that the hazardous elements of a location can be
determined. One example of the latter
would be right turns on red (RTORs). The
basic problem with RTORs is that they tend to become "right turns after a
rolling stop" -- the driver is watching for an adequate gap in oncoming
traffic, and thus may not check thoroughly enough for pedestrians or cyclists in
the path of his/her turn.
The suggestion
was raised that additional information on the nature and possible cause of
accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians should be collected. It was noted that this might entail
modification of the standard traffic accident report form; this idea could be
included in the Task Force's report, with the understanding that any change to
the accident report form would probably best be lobbied for by advocacy groups
-- the New Visions effort is not aimed at developing recommendations for
changes to State agency procedures.
Points
of Guidance
1. Bridge/Structure
Concerns: There are only a few
bridges carrying streets over the Hudson or Mohawk Rivers; wherever possible,
these bridges should accommodate cyclist and pedestrian travel. ISTEA (Section 1033) requires that when the
deck of a bridge upon which bicycle travel is permitted is replaced or
rehabilitated with federal funds, the bridge should after this work is
completed accommodate bicycle travel.
"Accommodate" is a vague term, as simply having a
cross-section which allows for bicycle travel could be considered an
accommodation; the sentiment expressed in Task Force discussions was that
accommodation should produce a genuine improvement in how bikeable the
bridge is. This approach should
similarly hold true for pedestrians, as there are few facilities which are
legally usable by cyclists but not pedestrians.
"Providing
for genuine improvement in bikeability/walkability" could mean structural
work to widen the bridge structure or the pavement portion of the bridge deck;
alternatively, it might entail traffic calming as described earlier.
This philosophy
should also apply to elevated roadway structures not technically considered
'bridges' upon which cyclists and pedestrians may travel, with one example
being the segment of Henry Johnson Boulevard between Central and Sheridan
Avenues in Albany.
2. Target
Special Sites: Early in Phase
Two, the Task Force compiled a list of major destinations to serve as a
reference, highlighting the need to provide access to employment and
recreational sites, downtowns and more remote areas, local transit and
interregional travel facilities, and so on.
Discussions of the results of staff examinations of pavement conditions
on the Priority Bicycle Network (see Appendix) raised the reminder that
different types of destinations will require different accommodations. The example with regard to pavement condition
was school areas: with greater
likelihoods of students cycling on the roads, and with many of these students
being regular riders but still arguably not "expert" cyclists,
holding pavement conditions to a higher standard might be one way to enhance
safety in these areas. Simply put,
better pavement presents fewer obstacles and makes avoidance of other
obstacles (cars, dogs, et cetera) easier.
A few other general statements on destination types and the
accommodations they warrant could be included in the Phase Two report.
3. Wolf Road as
a "Laboratory" for Bicycle/Pedestrian Accommodation: It was noted that with two projects on the
current TIP and the potential for reallocation of pavement to provide bike
lanes, Wolf Road could be the target of an early effort at applying several of
the techniques for better bicycle and pedestrian accommodation identified by
the Task Force. These might include the
following:
* sidewalks and/or
connections of land uses along the road
* bike lanes
* separate stop
lines for left-turning cyclists
* pedestrian phases
at signals OR right turn on red prohibitions
Perhaps as a
conceptual illustration, these tools could be presented in a basic "Wolf
Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Circulation Plan" in the Phase Two report.
The Phase Two report
will provide additional detail on all of these concepts, along with any other
concepts the Task Force may deem worth highlighting. Ideally, it will serve both as a shopping
list of desirable treatments at particular locations and as a general primer on
how to enhance the bicycle- and pedestrian-friendliness of the Capital
District.
Benefits of
Accommodations: Ivan noted a recent Washington Post
article on the desirable elements of planned communities, as indicated by the
findings of a poll of a group of consumers who bought or shopped for homes in
such communities. Most noteworthy about
the article (attached) was the finding that the third most frequently indicated
desirable amenity (after low traffic/quiet and natural, open space) was
"walking and biking paths."
Coupled with other studies which have found that proximity to these
paths can in fact increase home values, the article is a good reminder of the
positive impacts on quality of life of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.
ACTION ITEMS
* CDTC to
continue evaluation of Task Force recommendations and work on preparation of
Phase Two report.
* Next Task
Force meeting: Thursday, April 27, 5:30
- 7:30 PM, Colonie Community Center, 1653 Central Avenue (across from Lake
Electronics). Meeting to concentrate
on continued discussion of evaluation findings, plus some discussion of any
additional items (along lines of those in "Additional Items" section,
pp. 2-5) the Task Force wishes to include in Phase Two report.
APPENDIX
STAFF TECHNICAL WORK
Note: by necessity, some technical background was
provided at the meeting (and appears here as well) to illustrate how the
numbers presented were derived; in the Phase Two reports, however, while there
will be more of this background, it will be relegated to the appropriate
supporting documents or technical appendices, and the basic "pitch"
presented in the main report will be more concise.
The basic findings of
technical work to date are shown here in large text and boxes; narrative explaining
methodologies or providing interpretation are not boxed.
Current
Cycling/Walking Conditions: The Priority Bicycle Network
was used as the basis for "in the field" evaluations of current
provisions for cyclists.
Currently Acceptable
Facilities
* 139 of 263 (or 53%) state-numbered roadway
miles on the Network are
already of adequate width for FHWA
Group A cyclists;
* 141 of 263 (also 53%) state-numbered
Network miles are adequate for
pedestrians (that is, they have
either sidewalks or shoulders 5' or more
in width).
It is recognized that
there are some problems with these measures which still need to be
resolved. For example, the "Group
A-adequate" evaluation still needs to determine how many of these miles
are continuous; there are cases where a road may be adequate for a mile,
but inadequate for some length between that adequate section and another
adequate network facility. As for
pedestrian adequacy, the shoulder allowance would suggest that Route 9 in
Halfmoon and Clifton Park, with 55+ MPH speeds, is adequate for pedestrian
travel. Efforts to refine these
evaluations are underway, as are evaluations of the non-state mileage.
Accessibility
One of the five
overriding considerations of the New Visions effort is social equity. The way in which the transportation system
functions can have a profound effect on opportunities for basic mobility. While enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian
travel environments could have an effect on trip mode decisions for people who
have a choice in the matter (in particular, those who own cars), the true
social benefit of these enhancements will come in making it easier for those
people who cannot drive and must walk, bike, use transit, or
employ some combination of these modes to get around.
"Accessibility"
is a measure of the competitiveness of cycling or walking with
driving. In essence, it considers the
question of whether, on travel time and comfort bases, cycling and walking are
viable alternatives to driving. To get a
measure of accessibility, the CDTC staff developed a procedure for using its
regional traffic model to compare the travel times associated with motor
vehicle use, cycling and walking. (As
will be discussed in the section on benefits, the procedure assumes that the
comfort and general desirability of cycling or walking can be reflected in
average speed.)
Using the afternoon rush
hour as the basis and trip length limits of 2 miles for pedestrians and 5 miles
for cyclists, the procedure assumes that a trip is bikeable or walkable within
20 minutes of the time a car trip would take.
As CDTC evaluations have found that average motor vehicle speeds
increase as trips get longer (because there is a greater likelihood that longer
trips will use higher-speed arterials and highways), this logic (coupled with
the two- and five-mile caps) limits "accessible" trips to those which
are realistically walkable or bikeable for the average person.
Looking at the year 2015
-- the New Visions effort's horizon year -- the accessibility findings are as
follow:
Walking: 15,000
of 46,700 PM peak hour trips of 2 miles or less would be
accessible via walking
Cycling: 91,000 of 115,000 PM
peak hour trips of 5 miles or less would be
accessible via
cycling. Recognizing that cyclists might
be more
willing to travel an
extended distance, it was also calculated that
about 116,000 of 175,000
trips of 10 miles or less would be
accessible.
The 1990 numbers are a little lower
than these -- 12,500 for walking and 88,000 for cycling. The 1990 Census found that in the Capital
District, about 19,000 people walk to work, and 700 bike. Thus, we can argue the following:
Comparison
of the Census results with the findings on accessibility suggests that bicycle
travel is vastly underutilized relative to the opportunities it
presents, while walking if anything is very well utilized, particularly in the
cities.
Priority Network
Costs, Benefits:
Costs
CDTC staff calculated
the estimated cost, section-by-section, of upgrading Priority Bicycle Network
roadways to FHWA Group A pavement widths.
The totals were as follow:
Estimated
Cost of Priority Network Upgrade to FHWA Group A pavement widths:
State Roads: $ 60 million
Non-State Roads: $ 12-19 million
TOTAL: $ 72-79 million
It was noted at the Task
Force meeting, however, that developing the Priority Network might not
"cost" this much as far as taking funds away from other items would
be concerned. The Infrastructure Task
Force has been examining the idea of improving all roads to AASHTO1 design
standards when they are ready to be rehabilitated, with the rationale being
that this would extend facility life and enhance safety. In a large number of cases, upgrades to
AASHTO standards would also result in FHWA Group A cross sections. Thus, one way to look at the dollar amounts
involved would be to consider only the cost of developing the Priority Network
on those facilities for which the AASHTO guidelines would not result in Group
A-width pavement. This issue will be
explored further as Phase Two winds down and as the various Task Forces'
recommendations are considered together during Phase Three.
Accessibility
Benefits
To estimate bicycle
accessibility benefits, the bicycle/pedestrian travel model was run with speeds
on Priority Network roads increased from 10 MPH to 13 MPH. This was based on three assumptions:
1. A roadway on which
cyclists enjoy adequate separation from motor vehicles allows for more maneuvering
room to avoid obstacles, increasing average speed.
2. Average speed is a
fair proxy for the "attractiveness" of a roadway, and can be used to
reflect the increased likelihood that someone will choose to use it if the
proper accommodations were in place.
3. 10 MPH is a
reasonable, leisurely cycling pace; a 30 percent increase in simulated speeds
to reflect improved safety and comfort still does not result in a difficult
pace.
Evaluations
of the Priority Network found that about 500 trips of 5 miles or less, and
about 13,500 trips of 10 miles or less, would become
"bike-accessible" with the Network improved to Group A standards.
A similar exercise was
undertaken for pedestrian travel, assuming that the greater physical separation
provided for by the Priority Bicycle Network would enhance pedestrian comfort
and willingness to walk as well. To
model this effect, pedestrian speeds on Network roads were increased from 2 to
3 MPH.
It
was found that improving the Network would increase by about 3,000 the number
of trips 2 miles or less which would be walk-accessible.
Enhancing pedestrian
access would also require consideration of intersection treatments and other
"non-linear" issues; the means and costs of these additional
treatments are still being evaluated.
Potential Use and
Aggregate Benefits
The main problem in
getting bicycle/pedestrian projects funded has historically been that they were
not expected to get many travelers to change from cycling to walking, and thus
in turn that they would not generate the magnitudes of benefits that
car-oriented projects tend to. CDTC's
analyses of the potential use of the Priority Network and the resulting
aggregate or "societal" benefits offers a counterargument: with growing congestion, which first and
foremost will result in the lowest average speeds for the shortest trips
(which are the best candidates for conversion to cycling or walking), getting a
relatively small number of drivers to shift from driving for these short
lengths to cycling or walking both (a)is not an unreasonable expectation and (b)could produce significant aggregate
benefits in terms of the value of travel time saved and pollution reductions.
Preliminary findings for
selected levels of traveler response to opportunities presented by the Priority
Network are as follow:
SHIFTS
TO CYCLING
% of Potential Annual "Justified" Investment
Switching Savings Investment ($M) /Yr x 15
0.6% (550) of trips <=5 Mi $31 M $39 M $2.6M
2.7% (2500) of trips <=5 Mi $145 M $128 M $8.5 M
0.6% (1050) of trips <=10 Mi $39 M $48 M $3.2
M
SHIFTS
TO WALKING
% of Potential Annual "Justified" Investment
Switching Savings Investment ($M) /Yr x 15
0.6% (275) of trips <=2 Mi $16 M $23 M $1.5
M
2.7% (1250) of trips <=2 Mi $55 M $68 M $4.5
M
0.6% (700) of trips <=5 Mi $31 M $40 M $2.7
M
NOTES: Shifts to
cycling produce greater benefit because on average, they remove longer motor
vehicle trips than do shifts to walking.
"Justified
Investment" is based on a standard employed by NYSDOT and CDTC in
determining whether a project would provide for a given minimum amount of
benefit per million dollars of project cost.
It is calculated here as $1 million of total project cost for every 25
"excess vehicle hours of delay" the project would remove.
Recognizing that Capital
District weather and the need to run errands from time to time could keep many
shifts to cycling or walking from being in effect five days a week, factoring
these numbers by 40 percent (to reflect cycling or walking two days a week)
would illustrate the benefits of encouraging even intermittent use of
cycling or walking: factoring the first
entries on each table, there would still be annual savings of over $12 million
attendant to shifting to cycling, and over $6 million annually for shifting to
walking. The respective "justified
investments per year" levels would be estimated at $1 million and $0.6
million.
As noted earlier, the
Priority Network could help facilitate these shifts by enhancing accessibility
for several thousand trips; it is important to note that any other
action which would encourage these levels of response would be expected to
produce comparable benefits. Thus, there
should be continued exploration of ways to encourage greater cycling and
walking, for the previous two tables illustrate the potential gains to be realized
in doing so.
Potential Effects of
Prohibiting Right Turns on Red (RTORs): In the section on
accident information, it was noted how RTORs tend to become rolling stops,
introducing hazards for cyclists and pedestrians. One idea discussed by the Task Force in past
meetings has been the restriction of rights on red at intersections
where this is a problem. CDTC staff
evaluated the potential effects of RTOR prohibition at a number of locations
where they are (a)presently permitted and (b)occurring in significant
numbers. The findings were that in
general, this restriction would not have significant effects on average
delays either for the intersection as a whole (with any signal timing changes
necessary to accommodate the right turners) or for the right-turning vehicles
which would now have to wait for a green light:
AFTERNOON
PEAK HOUR
Changes in average delay attendant to RTOR prohibition:
1-4 seconds per vehicle
Additional cost of delay (@$5.66/hour) attendant to RTOR prohibition:
$6-$300 per day
While these estimates
suggest that RTOR prohibition imposes a very small delay cost in exchange for
increased cyclist and pedestrian safety, the problem noted in reviewing CDTC's
inventory of 400 signalized intersections was that there are not very many signalized
intersections at which (a)there
are significant pedestrian traffic and (b)right turns on red are permitted.
(One example found was Madison Avenue/Eagle Street in Albany; right
turns are permitted on the Madison Avenue approaches.) The remaining question is thus as follows:
If
higher volumes of pedestrian traffic either are already accompanied by RTOR
prohibition or serve to prevent "rolling stops" by their sheer
number, is the real problem with RTORs at intersections with lower pedestrian
volumes but other design features or nearby elements? Can these features/elements be identified, to
give guidance on selective RTOR prohibition?
Pavement Condition on
the Priority Network: In past discussions, it has been noted that
adequate pavement or shoulder width alone is not sufficient to make a road
"acceptable" for bicycles. In
addition to being free of debris, pavement needs to be free of buckling, major
cracks, chipping or loose chunks to be reasonably safe for bicycle travel on
tires generally 2" wide or less.
Conventional roadway condition scoring would rate "good" (a
score of 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being new pavement) or
"fair" (score of 6) pavement which would present a number of these
obstacles. A further problem lies in the
tendency of the structural design of roadways to result in deterioration first
at the outer edges of the pavement, where cyclists will tend to ride. Thus, in addition to pavement width,
it is important to determine pavement condition to get a better sense of how much
of our street system is truly "accessible" to cyclists.
CDTC staff evaluated the
condition of pavements on the Priority Bicycle Network, based on fieldwork by
NYSDOT and CDTC staff using NYSDOT's Pavement Condition Rating Manual. By lane-mile, the totals were as follow:
priority bicycle network
Lane Miles by
Condition Score
. Score .
Ownership 8-10 7 1-6
STATE 230 197 271
LOCAL 33 82 45
TOTAL 263 279 316
(31%) (33%) (36%)
NOTES: 1-5 = Poor; 6 = Fair;
7-8 = Good; 9-10 = Excellent
A condition score of 8
is perhaps the minimum at which a pavement would be consistently comfortable
for the average cyclist. The table
indicates that about 70 percent of the Priority Network is presently below this
level. The question of whether to
propose a minimum pavement condition standard -- e.g., 7 as
"acceptable," 8 as "desirable" -- was raised, with the note
that it would cost an estimated $19 million to bring all of the network at
least up to "acceptable."
(Generally, roads deteriorate to a score of about 4 before they are
rehabilitated; this proposal accelerates the schedule considerably.) The Task Force decided instead to emphasize
the "adequate width" concerns as first priority. There is a reasonable logic to this decision,
as noted earlier: adequate physical separation
from motor vehicles does provide cyclists with room to maneuver around obstacles;
it is better to first ensure the availability of this maneuvering room. As noted in the section on targeting special
sites, the group did, however, suggest that roads near schools were an
example of where higher pavement condition standards might be particularly
beneficial from a safety standpoint.
TO: Members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues
Task Force
Other
Interested Parties
FROM: Steve
Allocco
DATE: March
9, 1995
RE: February 22 Meeting Summary; Details on Next
Meeting
Enclosed please find a summary of the February 22
meeting. Apologies for the delay in
getting it to you, but as those in attendance seemed to find the results of
recent staff bike/ped technical studies interesting, I decided to include a
fair amount of this material as an appendix.
Thus, if you're not interested in getting a number fix, simply disregard
the appendix; once reading the appendix, you can avoid the background narrative
by only reading the larger text in the boxes.
The next meeting of the Task Force will be held on Thursday,
April 27, 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 continue discussing
the results of staff evaluations of the Task Force's recommendations; also,
given the considerable response to the opportunity provided for "general
idea" brainstorming at the February 22 meeting, we can continue this
exercise to ensure that Phase Two report is as comprehensive a discussion of
your ideas as possible. In the meantime,
please feel free to call, fax or write if any questions or comments come up.
Enclosure