RECORD
OF MEETING
BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN ISSUES TASK FORCE
DATE/TIME/PLACE:
Thursday, June 23, 1994, 5:30 - 7:30 PM, Colonie Community Center
IN ATTENDANCE:
Brad Birge (CDRPC), John DiMura (NYS Thruway Authority), Emily H.
Goodman (citizen member), Jerry Mueller (Green City Transportation Council),
Don Odell (Albany County Planning Department), Don Robertson (NYSDOT - Region
1), Zim Smith (Saratoga County Heritage Trail Committee), Ivan Vamos (Hudson
River Valley Greenway Communities Council), Russell Ziemba (Rensselaer County
Environmental Action), Steve Allocco (CDTC)
DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Note: All meeting handouts referred to in this
report are attached for those who did not attend.
Bike/Rail
Meeting: The minutes of the May 18 meeting between
bicycle advocates and railroad representatives were distributed. As summarized in the "Other Issues"
section of the May 17 Task Force meeting minutes, the purpose of the meeting
was to "clear the air" as to (a)the directions in which bicycle advocates may be looking with regard to
possible rail-to-trail conversions and (b)the rail industry's perspective on such conversions and on the notion of
shared rights-of-way (within which both rail and trail activity would take
place). See
handout for details.
Status of "Making Your
Community More Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly":
Brad has received some comments on the draft; there is a little more
time for input on additional changes, with the aim of group acceptance of the
document at the July meeting. The
document can be distributed by CDTC as an informational reference, with
"for more information, call Steve Allocco at CDTC" at the end to give
readers a place to turn for examples of where and how the ideas indicated have
already been pursued.
The document should be approved by
the CDTC Planning Committee before it gets mailed out as a "CDTC
document;" if the Task Force decides it is comfortable with the draft at
the July meeting, there is adequate time to mail it to Planning Committee
members for them to review prior to their August meeting.
Performance Measures:
A listing of possible additional performance measures was distributed
and discussed. Taking into consideration
the issues of both (a)whether some items are truly
measurable and (b)suitability for making the group's
case, the group decided that measures 3 through 7 on the handout should be
developed for use in its evaluations and, perhaps, for overall evaluation of
future regional transportation plans and the "state of the region"
regarding bicycle- and pedestrian-friendliness.
Discussions of the environmental, economic and social impacts of bicycle
and pedestrian travel noted that somewhere in the New Visions process, the
point should be raised that these modes of travel provide for a number of
benefits which while not easily quantified are both important and largely
unique to human-powered travel.
Planning and Investment Principles:
Part of what the New Visions process is requesting of the Task Forces is
that they articulate some basic principles for better incorporating
consideration of their subject areas into the transportation planning and
investment processes. CDTC staff
prepared a list of six principles for member discussion, drawing from past
meetings and the "Making Your Community More..." document, in an attempt
to capture the group's basic ideas. Task
Force discussion resulted in the revised list attached.
Designated Bicycle Network:
The Task Force began development of the Designated Bicycle Network (DBN)
by considering two handouts: one
entitled "Possible Significance/Benefits of Priority Bicycle Network
Status," which answers the question of why this network is being
developed; and one listing some "Suggested Destinations," which might
represent the "dots" to connect via the network. These and other items raised during this work
follow, grouped by issue.
1.
Why Prepare a DBN?
In short, the DBN is being developed
is to establish a long-term bicycle system goal, giving people involved in
various areas of transportation (general planning, infrastructure, traffic
safety, etc.) a sense of which streets are or can be (with proper
accommodations) key bicycle facilities and thus merit some special
consideration in their respective areas.
Holding these facilities to a higher standard of maintenance or overall
physical condition, for example, would reflect the fact that cyclists are more
sensitive to pavement condition than cars are; thus, encouraging people to use
their bicycles instead of their cars will require extra measures to ensure
their safety and comfort.
2.
Destinations
In reviewing the "Suggested
Destinations" listing, the group added a number of individual sites (e.g.,
Latham Circle Mall) and localities (e.g., Hoosick Falls) along with overall categories
of places to be considered (e.g, high schools).
Not all of these destinations would require that the group identify direct
accesses to them on the network; rather, for some, the goal would be simply
for the network to get bicycles reasonably close to them with levels of safety
and comfort exceeding current conditions.
The working list of destinations reflecting the group's discussions is
attached.
The group began marking the working
maps to reflect existing (complete), underway and proposed projects. Particular success was realized in proposing
projects for Saratoga County and the Hudson River corridor. It will be difficult to send out any sort of
interim map for member review; thus, it is advisable for members to concentrate
on developing their own lists or maps of facilities to include in the network. (See "Action Items" for likely
areas of emphasis.)
3.
"Designated Bicycle Network" versus "Regional Bicycle
Network"
In considering what to add to the
network, group members should bear in mind that proposals for the designated
bicycle network itself as defined here should be existing streets. The parties noted earlier (planning,
infrastructure, traffic safety) will be concerned with the identification of
streets as important bicycle facilities for the purposes of maintenance and
rehabilitation decisions. Off-street
facilities should also be indicated, but primarily for the purposes of defining
connections to the rest of the system.
They should not be expected to become "part of the roadway
system" or to receive any special attention beyond that given them by
whichever agency is ordinarily responsible for their maintenance. Perhaps a better way of defining what is on
the map is that the on-street facilities will be the designated bicycle
network, while the full set of on- and off-street facilities would constitute
the regional bicycle network.
4.
Consider More Stringent Treatments or Alternate Routes
Another consideration in continuing
development of the network is that in some cases, the route desired for
a particular travel path may involve streets upon which bicycle travel would be
uncomfortable due to high motor vehicle traffic volumes and/or speeds. A more accommodating standard for
improvement, such as FHWA's Group B/C Cyclist (less skilled adults, children),
might be in order. Alternatively, in the
denser urban/suburban areas the group should consider parallel routes carrying
less traffic. One example for the major
city in each county follows:
City(County) THIS instead of
THIS
Albany(Albany) New Scotland Ave Western Ave
Troy(Rensselaer) Peoples Ave Hoosick St
Saratoga Springs(Saratoga) Excelsior Ave Routes 9/50
Schenectady(Schenectady) Front St Erie Blvd
Some alternate routes may require
detours of a mile or more; thus, the notion of alternate routes should be
balanced with the need to avoid adding too much additional travel
distance.
5.
The "Minimum Coverage" Principle, and "Special Cases"
One additional point raised on
network development was that the group should work towards some "minimum
coverage" of the region. This would
be necessary because, for example, all the major destinations and popular travel
routes may be accounted for but there could still be several hamlets or even
fairly large rural areas with no coverage at all. One approach to take in providing for minimum
coverage might be to assume a need for a larger-scale "grid" pattern
of a few north-south and east-west routes covering an area such as, using the
attached map, the towns of Eastern-Southeastern Rensselaer County. As the map illustrates, identifying routes on
the basis of likely use or connection of major destinations alone (solid lines)
in the seven labelled towns would leave much of Grafton, Poestenkill, Berlin,
Nassau and Stephentown without any relatively "local" access. The dotted lines reflect an attempt to
provide some additional coverage of these towns; even on these facilities, poor
lines of sight, high speeds, poor (on some facilities) pavement conditions and
a general lack of motorist awareness of the possibility of cyclists on
the road suggest that using a traffic volume basis alone for design of bicycle
facilities would be woefully inadequate.
Some sort of "special case" designation may be in order for
such facilities, with design to a higher standard (e.g., bike lanes or
paved 5' shoulders as minimums).
ACTION ITEMS
* CDTC to
investigate possible means of getting additional public input on Designated
Bicycle Network.
* CDTC to
determine typical costs of some treatments included in "Making Your
Community More Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly" document.
* Task Force
members, if they desire, may forward additional comments/suggestions on
"Making Your Community More Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly" ASAP to
Brad Birge (v:393-1715; fx:393-6081).
* Task Force
members to continue consideration of possible additions to Designated Bicycle
Network. If you cannot attend the next
meeting (July 14; see below), please pass on ideas for additions to CDTC
(v:458-2161; fx:459-2155).
* Next Task
Force meeting: Thursday, July 14, 5:30 -
7:30 PM, Colonie Community Center, 1653 Central Avenue (across from Lake
Electronics). Room assignment to be
announced in future mailing.
Meeting
agenda to include:
* Continued
development of Designated Bicycle Network
* Initial
discussion of Pilot Project(s) (time permitting)
Abstract
Draft Planning and Investment Principles
Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues Task Force
One requirement of the
New Visions effort is that the Task Forces articulate some principles for
better incorporating their subject areas into the transportation planning and
investment processes. The following six principles
were culled from group discussions; the list would be sufficient to meet this
requirement if the group concurs with it:
1. Cycling and walking should be recognized as
equal partners with motor vehicles in the transportation system; project
development should facilitate expansion of cycling and walking in the system.
2. Better accommodation of cycling and walking
will enhance mobility for those Capital Region residents with the fewest travel
choices.
3. Better accommodation of cycling and walking can
enhance transit use by making it more accessible.
4. Possible bicycle/pedestrian-related
improvements should be considered from the perspective of developing a
system -- not just based on whether a particular facility is currently
used.
5. Barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel can often
be removed quickly and inexpensively.
6. Cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable to
travel surface conditions and motor vehicles; maintenance practices should
insulate them from danger.
The
overall theme of these principles is as follows:
Encouraging
bicycle and pedestrian travel is the most socially, economically and
environmentally responsible approach we can take to improving the performance
of our transportation system.
Capital
District revised
June 24, 1994
Transportation
Committee
DRAFT
PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PRINCIPLES
BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN ISSUES TASK FORCE
OVERALL
THEME: Encouraging bicycle and
pedestrian travel is the most socially, economically and environmentally
responsible approach we can take to improving the performance of our
transportation system.
1. Cycling and
walking should be recognized as equal partners with motor vehicles in the
transportation system; project development should facilitate expansion of
cycling and walking in the system.
In the Capital District, more people commute to work by bicycle or on
foot than by using transit. Aside from
sidewalks in the downtown areas and a small number of paths or bike lanes, this
is without any direct investment in bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure. Investments in new bicycle and pedestrian
facilities will tap the latent demand for travel via these modes,
encouraging people who would travel these ways "if it was safe" to do
so.
2. Better
accommodation of cycling and walking will enhance mobility for those Capital
Region residents with the fewest travel choices. Many Capital Region residents either choose
not to or cannot afford to own a car.
Not providing reasonable opportunities for bicycle or pedestrian travel
limits their mobility by making them dependent on transit schedules (and
coverage), taxis or friends. In
addition, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations can eliminate the dependence on
cars in suburban areas where subdivision designs and the local street networks
combine to effectively require car travel for all trip purposes.
3. Better
accommodation of cycling and walking can enhance transit use by making it more
accessible. People are willing
to travel on foot for a short distance to bus stops. However, this willingness is reduced when the
trip to or from the bus stop is uncomfortable.
Wide, paved shoulders and/or sidewalks connecting residential areas to
bus routes will make bus travel more attractive. Cyclists would be more inclined to bike to
bus stops if there were safe shoulders or bike lanes as well as (a)secure bike
storage facilities at the stops and/or (b)bike racks on the buses.
4. Possible
bicycle/pedestrian-related improvements should be considered from the
perspective of developing a system -- not just based on whether a
particular facility is currently used.
As was observed at the first New Visions conference, "bicyclists
(and pedestrians) are not stupid."
If they feel that a facility is not comfortable or safe, they will not
use it. Still, this facility might be
along a potentially well-used bicycle/pedestrian travel route. We should look to remedy the barriers
to bicycle and pedestrian use along facilities which would combine to form very
attractive routes for both local and regional travel.
5. Barriers to
bicycle and pedestrian travel can often be removed quickly and inexpensively. Whether by smoothing over a rough shoulder
with some blacktop or by retiming a traffic signal to allow pedestrians (and
wheelchairs) adequate time to cross a busy intersection, bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations are often low cost, particularly when compared to even the
simplest roadway project. Both as
"add-ons" to existing highway projects and as free-standing efforts,
we should be finding ways to quickly remove some of the main barriers to these
modes of travel.
6. Cyclists
and pedestrians are vulnerable to travel surface conditions and motor vehicles;
maintenance practices should insulate them from danger. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be
maintained to a higher standard than motor vehicle facilities typically
are. Broken glass, loose gravel, snow
and ice are common hazards; more frequent sweeping, plowing, rehabilitation
(repaving) and other practices should be the rule in maintaining the facilities
we have and any new facilities developed in the future.
Along with
proper maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, we need to heighten
motorist awareness of cyclists and pedestrians.
Crosswalks and bike lanes should be clearly signed and marked. Pedestrian phases at busy intersections (and
near transit stops) would provide additional protection. Separate bicycle stop lines at intersections
would increase visibility along with giving cyclists a chance to "pull
away" ahead of turning vehicles.
DESIGNATED
BICYCLE NETWORK
SOME
SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS FOR CONNECTION/ACCESS IMPROVEMENT
City Downtowns
Major Worksites
Corporate Woods
Corporations Park (Scotia)
Empire State Plaza
Executive Woods
G.E. - KAPL
G.E. - Main
Rensselaer Technology Park
State Farm
State Office Campus
Watervliet Arsenal
Major Shopping Areas
Clifton Country Mall
Colonie Center/Northway Mall
Crossgates Mall
Latham Circle Mall
Rotterdam Square Mall
Saratoga Mall/Wilton Mall
Wolf Road
Schools
Albany Law/Pharm/Med
High Schools
HVCC
RPI
Sage
SCCC
SUNY
Siena
Skidmore
Union
Major Recreational Sites
Cherry Plain State Park
Grafton Lakes State Park
Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail
Moreau State Park
Sacandaga Lake
Saratoga Battlefield Park
Saratoga Spa State Park
Thacher State Park
Urban Cultural Parks
Intermodal Facilities
Albany County Airport
Amtrak Stations (Rensselaer,
Saratoga Springs, Schenectady)
Greyhound/Trailways Stations
(Albany, Schenectady)
Regional Gateways/Trails
Bike Route 5
Hudson River Greenway routes to
south (NY 9J, NY 144)
Hudson River Route 4 (to Glens
Falls)
NY 9N to Luzerne/Adirondack Park
US 20 to west
US 9/NY 32 to Glens Falls
Major "Barrier" Spots
Airport area
Balltown Road, Route 7 to Glenridge
Road, Niskayuna
Fuller Road from Western Avenue to
Central Avenue, Albany/Colonie/Guilderland
Krumkill Road from Route 85 to the
Krum Kill, in the Russell Road area, and from Font Grove to Johnston Roads,
Albany/Bethlehem/New Scotland
Maple Avenue from Freeman's Bridge
to Glenridge Roads, Glenville
New Scotland Avenue from the Thruway
Bridge to the Normanskill, Albany
Non-limited access facilities where
bicycle/pedestrian use is prohibited OR where it is not prohibited but
officially discouraged
River crossings (Hudson & Mohawk)
Route 155 from Central Avenue to
Western Avenue, Albany/Colonie/Guilderland
Route 50 from Broadway across I-87,
Saratoga Springs
Route 7, Colonie/Niskayuna
Western Avenue (Route 20) from
Church Road to Fuller Road, Guilderland
Outlying Small Urban or Otherwise
Built-Up Areas (Rural "Hubs")
Averill Park/Sand Lake
Ballston Spa
Berlin
Castleton
Corinth
Delanson
Hoosick Falls
Nassau
Petersburgh
Ravena
Rensselaerville
Schagticoke/Valley Falls
Schuylerville/Victory Mills
South Glens Falls
Stillwater
Voorheesville