Category: advocacy

Shoulder access to South Mountain Freeway

R5-10a

ADOT recently completed and opened the South Mountain Freeway in late 2019; which was heralded — rightly so — as a great accomplishment that will provide a much needed connection between the communities of Ahwatukee and Laveen, or more broadly a direct connection between South East and West Valley, bringing for example enhanced employment opportunities. This publicly funded project (funded mostly from sales taxes [4] ), at present, and by default prohibits non-motorized users; this leaves members of the public who choose to or must travel by bicycle excluded.

The Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists (CAZBike) in September 2016 requested that ADOT evaluate access to a very small portion, between two adjacent traffic interchanges, pointing out lack of frontage roads or other suitable routes:

9/29/2016 “(CAZBike) formally request(s) a response from ADOT on allowing bicyclists to use paved shoulders to connect between the western end of the Ahwatukee Foothills and 51st Avenue [since that was written, the since-added Vee Quiva Way would now be the most appropriate western terminus, and 17th Avenue would be the logical eastern terminus because that would coincide with the western end of shared-use path ADOT has since constructed]

And partially reiterates 11/18/2016 “What is the status of my request … and my request that this be done formally with documented response? I want this to all be public record so I want to do it the right way”

We received the following response 4/20/2020 [1], this would be over three years after the request was made. Unfortunately, the response fails to take into account the policy referenced [2], no traffic study of alternate routes was mentioned, and the decision appears arbitrary. The referenced policy makes no mention of ‘metro’ (or ‘urban’,  or ‘rural)’. The reference to Table 1030-A as constituting documentation is specious — the route of the South Mountain Freeway portion of SR202 was not even sited for many years, possibly decades, after SR202 was added to that table. The policy demands a study, and that “Each case shall be judged on its own” yet it wasn’t.

We continue to request that ADOT prepare a traffic study of the area in question, and only then make a decision informed by those particular facts. Prohibiting bicyclists from using the shoulder may in fact be more dangerous; without an objective traffic study we cannot know. ADOT will need to assign the task to an engineer who is skilled in bicycle traffic; and should be familiar with the ADOT reference documentation[6], below.



In addition, it should be investigated how such matters get handled, as the process was frustrating, needlessly protracted, and at times even dishonest and non-professional. The personnel we were instructed to deal with which included at different times Mike Sanders (the bike/ped coordinator at the time the request was made), then on 6/8/2017 (per our meeting with Director Halikowski) Eric Gudino, and as of 12/6/2019 Mr. Gudino informed us our contact would be Donna Lewandowski (the current bike/ped coordinator). The few answers we received over the years were a mixture of: incomplete, lacking documentation, diversionary, falsehoods. See timeline[3]. It is quite clear after viewing some ADOT-internal emails dated 11/22 and 11/23/2020 at that time ADOT engineers were planning a traffic study, consistent with policy. Just after, all activity suddenly and secretly ceased; and we were never informed. We met in-person with numerous ADOT managers 6/8/2017, including Dallas Hammit, when the issue was raised by CAZBike, no one present had anything to say.

ADOT is a public agency and as such has a duty to operate openly and transparently.

Continue reading Shoulder access to South Mountain Freeway

Arizona to place restrictions on cell phone use while driving

After over a decade of waiting, Arizona will become one of the last US states to place general restrictions on handheld cell phone use. Yesterday the Arizona legislature passed HB2318 and Governor Ducey is expected to sign the bill which would require electronic gadgety to be operated hands-free only; with certain exceptions. Credit must be given to the victims and families of victims who have pursued these laws year-after-year; as well as to former state Senator Steve Farley, as well as Brendan Lyons, a victim and also founder of Look Save a Life , and anti-distraction advocacy organization.

Brendan Lyons (center) looks on as Gov. Ducey signs

The offense will be primary, and enforcement can commence immediately once signed (emergency status), there will be with a lengthy warning period until the beginning of 2021.

The death of Officer Townsend, killed at a traffic stop by a driver who said he was texting, earlier this year appears to be the straw that finally broke the camel’s back. [UPDATE June 2021 — although this remains true; all charges against that driver were dropped; follow the same link for explanation] The fact that as many as twenty seven localities in Arizona had one-by-one painstakingly instituted various ban beginning 12 years ago should cause Arizona legislators great shame in their failure to act sooner; allowing the problem to worsen, particularly after large upticks in fatal traffic crashes after 2012.

An additional bill that also narrowly passed the house yesterday, SB1141, which is a more general anti-distracted driving law. This bill, however, must go back to the Senate; so it’s fate is unclear.

Misleading sign on Ramsey Canyon Road has been corrected

[be sure to see update, below]
To: Cochise County Highway Department

Misleading sign

When riding Ramsey Canyon Road from Hwy 92 to the Nature Conservancy there is a sign 350 feet before the multi-use path from Stafford Ln to the multi-use path on the South side of Ramsey Canyon Road leading to the parking lot at Brown Canyon Ranch.

When riding my bike up to the Nature Conservancy, many motor vehicle drivers will point to the multi-use path, indicating that I need to use the multi-use path. I have, also, talked to several residents whose only access to their homes is from Ramsey Canyon Road. They tell me this sign means that cyclist “must” use the multi-use path. I inform them about ARS 28-812 “Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders.” Furthermore, I know of no Arizona or County statute which makes this sign enforceable regarding a cyclist “must” use the multi-use path.

This sign is commonly misinterpreted and leads to irritation between cyclist and motor vehicle drivers.

The Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists have suggested the following recommendations. Reword the sign to include “MAY” that is, “MAY USE MULTI-USE PATH.” Or replace this sign with a sign specified by the MUTCD 9B.18 “Bicycle Warning and Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian Signs (W11-1 and W11-15).

We believe the justification for this change is that users of the path should be expected in the road crossing. Thus, the current sign should be replaced with W11-15 and W11-15P signs and keep the “350 feet” W16-2P sign.

Here’s what MUTCD says about that sign:

W11-15 sign

Section 9B.18 Bicycle Warning and Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian Signs (W11-1 and W11-15)

Support:

01 The Bicycle Warning (W11-1) sign (see Figure 9B-3) alerts the road user to unexpected entries into the roadway by bicyclists, and other crossing activities that might cause conflicts. These conflicts might be relatively confined or might occur randomly over a segment of roadway.

Option:

02 The combined Bicycle/Pedestrian (W11-15) sign (see Figure 9B-3) may be used where both bicyclists and pedestrians might be crossing the roadway, such as at an intersection with a shared-use path. A TRAIL X-ING (W11-15P) supplemental plaque (see Figure 9B-3) may be mounted below the W11-15 sign.

03 A supplemental plaque with the legend AHEAD or XX FEET may be used with the Bicycle Warning or combined Bicycle/Pedestrian sign.

Guidance:

04 If used in advance of a specific crossing point, the Bicycle Warning or combined Bicycle/Pedestrian sign should be placed at a distance in advance of the crossing location that conforms with the guidance given in Table 2C-4.

Standard:

05 Bicycle Warning and combined Bicycle/Pedestrian signs, when used at the location of the crossing, shall be supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque (see Figure 9B-3) to show the location of the crossing.

Option:

06 A fluorescent yellow-green background color with a black legend and border may be used for Bicycle Warning and combined Bicycle/Pedestrian signs and supplemental plaques.

Guidance:

07 When the fluorescent yellow-green background color is used, a systematic approach featuring one background color within a zone or area should be used. The mixing of standard yellow and fluorescent yellow-green backgrounds within a zone or area should be avoided.

Thank you for taking our concerns under consideration.

Thomas Armstrong
League of American Bicyclist
League Cycling Instructor #3337
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)
Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists Board Member

 

UPDATE December 2018:

The old sign (left) was replaced with a standard “Trail X-ing” warning sign (right) around December 2018. The old sign could be misconstrued to imply bicyclists aren’t permitted on the roadway; as this is not the case, the warning sign is more appropriate. Thank you Cochise County Highway Department!

Brush up on the Solomon Curve

Solomon U-shaped Curve

Normally cited by those wishing slow-moving vehicles should never use any roadway, even though it is perfectly legal, is the Solomon u-shaped curve, the claim is typically something to the effect of it’s safest when all traffic travels at the same speed; ergo a vehicle must never go slower than the “speed of traffic” and must not be on the roadway in the first place. A corollary to this line of thinking is the belief that posted speed limits are really minimum speed limits.

A USDOT paper, Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management 1998 has a good backgrounder on the theoretical basis of these ideas:

In a landmark study of speed and crashes involving 10,000 drivers on 600 miles (970 kilometers) of rural highways, Solomon (1964) found a relationship between vehicle speed and crash incidence that is illustrated by a U–shaped curve. Crash rates were lowest for travel speeds near the mean speed of traffic, and increased with greater deviations above and below the mean.

however:

Excluding these (vehicles entering or vehicles slowing to leave the roadway) crashes from the analysis greatly attenuated the factors that created the U–shaped curve characteristic of the earlier studies. Without vehicles slowing to turn, or turning across traffic, the investigators found the risk of traveling much slower than average was much less pronounced. Crash risk was greatest for vehicles traveling more than two standard deviation above the mean speed.

It’s also wasn’t clear to me how or if any of this has to do with urban or suburban streets — where by definition, traffic starts and stops for a variety of necessary reasons.

There was an article published Jan 2015 in fiverthirtyeightdiscussing these concepts as well as some background of NYC’s move to make the default city-wide speed limit 25mph, down from 30mph.

Traffic Safety and Human Behavior
There’s a updated 2017 edition of Traffic Safety and Human Behavior: Second Edition, edited by David Shinar where, of course, the Solomons’ curve issue is dealt with; from the chapter Speed and Safety:

… Solomon (1964) found that drivers who drove either significantly above or below the prevailing average traffic speed were more likely to have crashes than drivers who drove at speeds close to the average. However, most crash-involved slow drivers were turning at the time of the crash; and when turning vehicles were removed from the analysis only those driving at speeds significantly above the traffic speed remained over-invovled in crashes (Fildes and Lee, 1993)

He later goes into a finely detailed review of Solomon (rural only; data from the 1950’s, etc) as well as reviewing a plethora of research published in the decades since that attempts to correct Solomon’s short-comings.

Shintar also notes that speed, when self-reported by (presumably speeding) drivers involved in a crash tend to be below actual speeds because of “Stannard’s Law” which states “drivers tend to explain their traffic accidents by reporting circumstances of lowest culpability compatible with credibility (Aronoff, 1971)”

NTSB: Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles

In July 2017, the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) released a major study: SS1701 Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles. In discussing Solomon 1964, it echo’s Shintar “These studies generally provided consistent evidence that driving faster than the surrounding traffic increased crash involvement rates; the evidence was less conclusive with respect to driving slower than the surrounding traffic (Aarts and van Schagen 2006)”. The report goes on to question the concept of setting speed limits at the 85th percentile on roads that are not freeways.

Speed and Crash Risk

Speed and Crash Risk, irtad (part of OECD) issued a 2018 report on the issue echoing the same sentiments about mis-use of Solomon’s work.

National Motorist’s Association

The NMA, or those identifying with it, commonly spread propaganda based on mis-stating Solomon’s 1964 work; see e.g. links in this rebuttal The National Motorists Association’s drive toward alternative facts,

After 11 attempts, will Arizona ban texting while driving?

(spring 2018)
After 11 attempts, will Arizona ban texting while driving?

A bill to outlaw texting while driving passed the Senate Transportation Committee unanimously yesterday, signaling a possible shift. Similar bills have been introduced in the Arizona legislature, and died, for over a decade. Several possible explanatinos for the shift were explored by Arizona Republic  columnist Roberts: Is Arizona ready (finally) to ban texting while driving?

This is front-page news the morning after the unanimous committee vote, 2/7/2018:

Just before casting his vote, committee Chairman Rep. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa apologized to the public for taking so long to move the bill forward. “Sometimes it just seems like our political ideology gets in the way of common sense,” he said. — AZ Republic 2/7/2018

Here’s another news story from azcapitoltimes.com

 

Follow SB1261 texting while driving; prohibition on azleg.gov

Please see this article for general information about how to follow the legislative process.

 

Arizona Bicycling Summit to Unify Advocates

“The 2016 Arizona Bicycling Summit promises to be the premier bike advocacy event of the year, uniting the voices of bicyclists across Arizona…” — Mar-Apr2016 issue of TailWinds Magazine; read the article online.

For more information, or to register for the Summit visit www.cazbike.org/summit

.pdf version: marApr2016tailwinds

 

Arizona Legislation 2016

Arizona’s 52nd Legislature – 2nd Regular Session is now in full swing. Below is a brief guide to following legislation in Arizona… For the nuts-and-bolts of how a bill becomes law, the multiple “readings”, and the COW, and so forth, see e.g. this document from azleague.org Continue reading Arizona Legislation 2016

Sedona’s Red Rock Road — 10 years on

In late summer of 2010, the Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition celebrated the completion of the “Red Rock Road” project on Highway 179 between Sedona and the Village of Oak Creek. This was a monumental project, in that bicycling advocacy had secured bike lanes and other bicycle-friendly features on this route [editor’s note: the city of Sedona has recently been awarded LAB bicycle friendly silver status]. A small, but vocal and constructive, group of bicycling advocates made a huge impact on the outcome of this roadway re-design. Ian Wickson, Doug Copp, Randy Victory, Daniel Paduchowski, Thomas McGoldrick and a handful of other bicyclists/advocates were responsible for shaping this project in a way that has benefited thousands of bike riders in the years since this roadway was reconfigured and reconstructed.

The Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists was invited to participate in the celebration, and we subsequently co-wrote a cover article for the League of American Bicyclists’ magazine, highlighting this achievement for 30,000+ readers. Our former VP, Dennis Dempsey, captured some of the celebratory riding in a video that we are happy to share with you leading up to the 5th anniversary of the project’s completion…enjoy!!! And, please be an advocate for cycling and/or financially support those who are working on your behalf to make Arizona a more safe and enjoyable place to ride a bike. Every donation of time or financial assistance does matter.

Thank you!

Here’s the 2010 video made for the opening celebration: