Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutemail Gould Levy on agenda for complete streetsPage 1 of 3 Malone, Walter From: Ken Gould [ksgould@ualr.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:16 AM To: elevy@cromwell.com Cc: Day, Bryan; Glasgow, Melinda; Stodola, Mark; claibanne@sbcglobal.net; coreen frasier; dhwilliams@garverusa.com; Donald. Richardson@lrsd.org; French Hill; Gene Pfeifer; hkelley@flake-kelley.com; jaskew@williamsanderson.com; Jim Dailey; Kim.Sanders@arkansashighways.com; Mason Ellis; Hastings, Terry; Malone, Walter; explorelr@bobbysbikehike.com Subject: From Ken Gould - Comments on BFCC Agenda & Suggested Additions Attachments: COMPLETE STREETS ORD Draft-4.pdf; Sharrows Concerns.pdf Ed, In response to your requests re the agenda, following are: I. Comments on the tentative agenda; and II. Proposed additional agenda items I. Comments on the tentative a enda - (1) Attached to this e-mail is an initial proposed Complete Streets (CS) resolution to be presented to the City Board. You will recall that sometime ago the BFCC passed a CS resolution. On October 19 of last year the BFCC met with city staff to consider how to present the committee's resolution for the greatest prospect of adoption. The decision was to proceed in two steps: (1) Present a proposal to the City Board for adoption of the concept of CS that would include a direction to city staff to incorporate CS principles into the Master Street Plan & the Boundary Street ordinance; and, assuming the initial proposal is adopted, (2) Present to the Board the draft CS policy after city staff have incorporated the Complete Streets principles into the other city documents. (2) In connection with the Sharrows agenda item: (a) I request that the attached materials titled '"Sharrows Concerns for the BFCC to Consider""' be sent to BFCC committee members & be distributed at the meeting. Among other matters, those materials reference a study that indicates sharrows don't work well to provide protection for bicyclists. As indicated in the attachment, that study concluded that, "Sharrows on Major Streets were more than twice (2X) as risky as bike lanes;" and (b) How are the streets designated for sharrows treated in the Little Rock Bike Plan? - Are they Class 1, 2, or 3 streets; other streets? (3) The agenda item in regard to the "'East End/Airport Route" has been on the BFCC agendas for over six months after being referred to city staff for action with no action taken to date & no report as to the present status of this project (continuing access for bicyclists east on the Arkansas River Trail past the east side of the Clinton Center on to 2nd Street by removal of the horizontal pole that runs across the trail or creation of a space for bicyclists to pass on the side of the pole). I assume I am shown as the person responsible for the agenda item because I first raised the issue many months ago. The city staff person assigned to complete the task should be the person named in the agenda to report. (4) How does the "City-wide Bicycle Connectivity Assessment" agenda item differ from the extensive & exhaustive process that lead to the revision of the Little Rock Bike Plan? If they are different, how are they different? If they overlap or are inconsistent, would adoption of the results of the Connectivity Assessment require revision of the Bike Plan? 1/24/2013 Page 2 of 3 (5) Tim McKuin is designated to report on agenda items "Central High Connector to Rivertrail" and "BACA work with the city near DAMS." These reports may be assigned to Tim McKuin based on his position as president of BACA. However, he is no longer president of BACA. The acting BACA president, Judy Lansky (vice-president), has no knowledge of the status of those agenda items. II. Proposed additional agenda items - 1. A proposed resolution requesting that the city report on plans to repair the sink hole on the road leading to the Two Rivers Park Bridge. News reports are that repair will require 8 - 10 weeks. As part of the report, the city should explain why repairs will take 8 - 10 weeks and whether a temporary route can be constructed around and just to the south of the sink hole area where bikers & walkers have created an informal path that now requires wading through a huge mud puddle. 2. A proposed resolution that the city ask all persons with concerns about matters related to bicycling to first present those concerns for consideration to Bicycle Advocacy of Central Arkansas, the organization that represents all bicyclists in the area, before presenting the concerns to the city. 3. A proposed resolution requesting that bike lanes be added to the 9th Street widening project (to be widened to 4 lanes). The 9th Street bike lanes could be part of east -west route with the western end beginning at John Barrow Road following the route of the existing bike trail along Interstate 430 to; 7th Street to 10th Street to the new road & trails in MacArthur Park to 9th Street to Bond Street along the west side of the airport to Frazier Pike to Terry Lock & Dam, etc. 4. A proposed resolution requesting that the city place signs at the intersection of Cross Street & LaHarpe Blvd. (Cantrell) (going west) & at the intersection of Gill Street & the unnamed street under the overpass (going east) just after the Titus Trail that state: "Temporary End of Bike Trail - Ride at Your Own Risk." Ken Gould On 1/21/2013 7:41 AM, eIM cromwell.com wrote: Team BFCC, Attached is a draft agenda for your review for our meeting on Feb 6. Please let me know if you would like to make any changes, additions, etc. I have attached the by-laws in case you wish to refer to them regarding voting and membership. See you next Wednesday. Ed edwin cromwell levy, aia, Teed ap director, architectural ele yy@a.cromwe l l . co m 501.372.2900 w 501.960.6145 c 101 south spring street little rock, ar 72201 1/24/2013 Page 3 of 3 Ken Gould I Professor of Law University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law 0 - 501.324.9952 1 H - 501.225.5343 1 ksgould@)uair.edu I www.law.ualr.edu 1/24/2013 [PAGE 10F 3] RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY; TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE STEPS TO REVISE THE MASTER STREET PLAN AND THE BOUNDARY STREET ORDINANCE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock, by increasing the opportunity for cycling and pedestrian travel through better integration of land use and transportation, reduces reliance on fossil fuels and places Little Rock in a position to more effectively reduce greenhouse emissions and road congestion due to vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock, in 2009, adopted a Master Street Plan (Ordinance NO. 20,117) with the intent to maximize the efficient, safe, and orderly flow of traffic through and within the city; to produce an efficient, safe, orderly, and economical road system for the citizens of Little Rock, Pulaski County, and the State of Arkansas so that traffic and circulation of people and goods may be convenient, that safety from traffic hazards may be secured, and that congestion in the public streets may be lessened or avoided; and WHEREAS, recent data on obesity and public health identifies a relationship between land use, automobile dependency, and poor health, which can and has been improved for communities exercising the principles of complete streets; and WHEREAS, the principles of a complete streets policy are in accord with various national movements that promote a return to a more balanced urban environment and streetscape, using terms such as "livable communities", "new urbanism", "smart growth", and "healthy communities," strategies, which reduce congestion, increase the overall capacity of the transportation network, decrease consumer transportation costs, improve air quality, support economic growth and tourism, increase community stability by providing accessible and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation, and retail destinations by improving land use and transportation connections; and WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock desires to apply to the League of American Bicyclists for recognition as a Bicycle Friendly Community; and WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock received a respectable mention recognition from the League of American Bicyclists in response to its previous application to be recognized as a Bicycle Friendly Community, but was advised by the League that achieving the highly coveted bronze or higher recognition received by a number of leading cities around the country, including four cities in Arkansas, would require adoption of an effective Complete Streets policy by the City of Little Rock. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: Section 1. The Board of Directors desires to adopt a Complete Streets policy for all transportation improvement projects within the City, including the construction and reconstruction of public roadways, whether publicly or privately funded, to accommodate all anticipated users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, persons with disabilities, freight haulers, and motorists. Section 2. The City Manager is directed to draft revisions to the Master Street Plan and the Boundary Street Ordinance that will incorporate a Complete Streets policy into those ordinances and to present his proposed revisions to the Board of Directors within six months from the adoption of this resolution. Section 3. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this resolution is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the resolution which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional were not originally a part of the resolution. Section 4. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same, that are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution, are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. ADOPTED: ATTEST: APPROVED: Susan Langley, City Clerk Mark Stodola, Mayor APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney H H H H H H H H H H H Sharrows Concerns for the BFCC to Consider Ken Gould I am concerned that advocating for sharrows will relieve the city of the obligation to consider alternatives. Under the Complete Streets policy adopted by the Bicycle Friendly Community Committee and which city staff has committed to presenting to the City Board of Directors, the city is to consider all alternatives for accommodating bicyclists in all street projects. This would require consideration of bike lanes as well as sharrows. We should not forego the possibility of bike lanes without the city undertaking the process of determining whether bike lanes are feasible on the streets under consideration. That determination requires a focused study. Once sharrows are in place, that solution is almost certain to be permanent. My impression is that some people view sharrows an easy and cheap solution to bikeability issues on nearly all streets. At least one study has indicated that sharrows don't work well to provide protection for bicyclists. As indicated below, that study concluded that, "`Sharrows on Major Streets" were more than twice (2X) as risky as bike lanes." Earlier this year there was an exchange of messages on a discussion list I receive that cited the study. I have not reviewed the study in detail but below cut and paste the e-mail exchanges on the subject for consideration of anyone who might be interested in pursuing the question. Also posted in connection with the exchange is anecdotal evidence indicating that motorists don't understand what the sharrow markings mean. By posting these items, I am suggesting that thoughtful consideration should be given before the BFCC takes a position on the use of sharrows. The exchange began with the posting of the following question - "Are there any studies I can quote that have shown reductions in crashes, or reductions in behaviors that lead to crashes (such as wrong -way riding)?" The response - "We are interested in that as well, especially in light of this recent study <http://cyclingincities-spph.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2012/06/TeschkeVeloCity20l2.pdf> from the University of British Columbia and the University of Toronto, which concluded that "Sharrows on Major Streets" were more than twice (2X) as risky as bike lanes and more than forty (40X) times as risky as cycle tracks (see pages 19, 20, 29). It's not completely clear from this document, but relative risk appears to be defined in terms of the ratio of injuries or fatalities per km traveled as compared to when no infrastructure is present. The UBC/UT study is the only study we're aware of which has attempted to calculate the relative risk of sharrows. Previous studies summarized by the FHWA <http://www. fhwa.dot. gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/ 10041 / 10041.pdf> have looked at many other metrics (percentage of motorists passing, percentage of motorists changing lanes when passing, percentage of bicyclists taking the lane, percentage of "avoidance maneuvers" in given time periods, etc. etc. etc.) But all those other metrics are irrelevant if it turns out that the UBC/UT study is accurate. We would very much like to know if it is. James" The Anecdotal Evidence from the discussion list - "I know this sounds very basic, and you are probably going to do it anyway, but a story from last year drove home to me how important this basic information is (names have been changed because the people involved are fairly well known people, especially in academic circles): After sharrows were painted on one of our neighborhood streets - an arterial with a 25 mph speed limit and already a ton of bike traffic, but certain sections did not have space for bike lanes - a friend told me that the City of Madison [Wisconsin] really needed to do an education campaign about sharrows. Betsy knew what they were, because she and I had been in various meetings where they were brought up. But Betsy told me that her husband Ned was confused by them. Ned wasn't sure what they meant for bicyclists or drivers with regard to lane positioning, or even that they were to indicate lane position. Did they mean this was a "bike route?" Was this instead of a bike lane or were drivers not supposed to pass? Did the marking lead somewhere? Were they temporary? (They were installed right after reconstruction of a street.) Both Betsy and Ned are dedicated, confident, year-round bicyclists, and both are very, very well informed and well read. Ned is a famous academic at University of Wisconsin, and Madison is really an exceptional place to bike. Betsy said, "If my brilliant husband, who is pretty in -the -loop and a dedicated bicyclist, doesn't know what those lane marking are, you can bet there are lots of other people who are confused as well." To me sharrows are pretty intuitive, but obviously, I'm not a typical member of the public. Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst State Smart Transportation Initiative www.ssti.us 608-263-9984 (o) 608-225-0002 (c) Robbie@RobbieWebber. org"