If you haven’t yet checked out Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2010 Benchmarking Report, released January 28, 2010, what are you waiting for? The nearly 200-page report filled with data on bicycling and walking from 50 states and the 51 largest
Category: advocacy
$13 Million Transportation Enhancement Funds Available for AZ Road Projects
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has been notified by ADOT that $13 million of Transportation Enhancement funding will be made available for qualified programs statewide in 2010. Approximately $8 million could be made available for projects on local roads, and $5 million for enhancement projects on state roads.
The bicycling community needs to act quickly to get any new proposed projects in front of bike/pedestrian planners and transportation department engineers. The application deadline to MAG for
Key dates related to this funding in
- Monday, March 22, 2010 – 9:00 a.m.: TE Funds Workshop at MAG offices, 302 N.
- Friday, March 26, 2010: Applications will be available on the ADOT web site.
- Wednesday, April 21, 2010: 8 copies of completed enhancement funds application due to MAG (no e-mail or fax submissions accepted).
- Tuesday, May 4, 2010: Applicant Presentations to MAG Enhancement Peer Review Group.
- Tuesday, June 8, 2010: MAG EPRG ranks applications.
Subsequent to the above, MAG staff will further review applications, make site visits, give feedback to applicants, etc., in preparation for final application submittal and reviews and approval by the State Transportation Board in November of 2010.
letter: Support for adding six foot wide shoulders in City of Tucson
re: Support for adding six foot wide shoulders in City of Tucson Continue reading letter: Support for adding six foot wide shoulders in City of Tucson
Getting Arizona’s Fair Share – Federal Funds Available for Bicycle Advocacy Access
The League of American Bicyclists gave all of us in advocacy a “gift of knowledge”, and a de facto challenge, by outlining major federal funding sources for bicycle-related programs and infrastructure improvement in the September/October 2009 issue of American Bicyclist. Now, it is up to those of us in Arizona
As briefly and succinctly as I can, using the LAB-published article by Anna Kelso and Darren Flusche as my primary guide, here is an oversimplified summary description of federal programs from which we (
HSIP — The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a SAFETEA-LU program that has as its purpose to reduce the number of traffic fatalities and serious injuries through infrastructure-related improvements. In
Section 402 — The State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (aka Section 402) funds highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes, deaths and property damage. Safety programs may include data analyses, education and community safety campaigns, as well as some limited engineering projects. State Highway Safety Offices are recipients of funds from the federal government, and then are responsible for managing and allocation the spending within the state.
For more information on these programs, we may consult the League of American Bicyclists in addition to the federal and state program administrators. It is incumbent on all of us in advocacy leadership positions to become more educated and aware of available funds, and to make sure our constituents get our fair share put to work in our state.
Bob Beane
Unacceptable bicycle lanes
The following letter was sent by the Coalition to Wylie Bearup, Street Transportation Director for the City of Phoenix concerning the bike facilities between 7th and 24th Street and the LIght Rail:
Mr. Wylie Bearup, PE, PhD
Street Transportation Director
200 West Washington Street, 6th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
RE: Washington and Jefferson Street bicycle lanes and markings adjacent to Light-Rail
Dear Mr. Bearup,
The Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists (CAzBike) would like to register a formal complaint about the current design of bicycle facilities along Jefferson Street from 7th Street to 24th Street and along the same alignment of Washington Street. After serious consideration, it is our opinion that as long as this design exists there is extreme exposure to our fellow cyclists and the City of Phoenix to injuries or possibly death and resultant consequences.
We find the current design was made for the moderate to less-skilled cyclist that relies upon separation from traffic for their well being. Unfortunately, transitions from one side of the street to the other are in place without a clue as to how they could be used. This is a deterrent to these cyclists. More advanced or “vehicular” cyclists are likely to remain integrated with motorists, then find themselves embedded in high speed traffic in lanes that are too narrow to be side by side with motorists safely. Our recommendations follow. Some have been promised, but remain unfulfilled.
- Add instructive signage to alert the cyclist on how to safely use the lanes provided when transitioning from far-one side to far-other side at three locations. Example: On Jefferson Street at 7th and 24th Streets.
- Alter the paint markings at the intersection of 9th St & Jefferson, where the cyclist must transition from far-left to adjacent to the light-rail tracks, while crossing the path of motor vehicles. See appendix to this letter.
- Apply shared-lane paint “chevrons” to the right motor vehicle lanes between 9th and 24th Streets on both Jefferson and Washington Streets.
- Add traffic detectors in the pavement where business-access and bike lanes are adjacent such that cyclists will be detected when in their lane. We recognize that the default state of the lights at a number of these intersections mitigates the need of a bicycle detector. However there are automobile detectors in all cases, and cyclists have the same need.
We are very supportive of the professionals in the Phoenix Streets Department who do an amazing job with limited funding and minimal staff. Most notable are Mr. Kerry Wilcoxson, Mr. Mike Cyneki and Mr. Joseph Perez who have reached out to the bicycle community to provide valuable information and share insights. We look forward to continued communications with the Phoenix Streets Department.
Sincerely,
Gail Hildebrant, President, Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists
Appendix:
The paint markings should be altered at the intersection at 9th St & Jefferson, where the cyclist must transition from far-left to adjacent to the light-rail tracks. We recommend that the cyclist be able to make the transition anywhere after 9th St., but before the next intersection to the east. This could be done by using shared-lane “chevrons” on both the left and right of the business access lane. The danger now is that motor vehicles using their left lane may proceed straight or bear right at that intersection. The painted bike lanes now direct the cyclist to cross the path of the motor vehicle within the intersection, thus putting him/herself at risk.
Arizona receives ‘Bicycle Friendly State’ status
The League of American Bicyclists Announces Arizona
as a Spring 2009 Bicycle Friendly State
Washington, DC – The League of American Bicyclists is proud to announce Arizona as one of the League’s inaugural Bronze-level Bicycle Friendly States (BFS). “The League is delighted to recognize Arizona for its efforts to welcome bicyclists and make bicycling safer and more enjoyable. We applaud Arizona and our other BFS winners for their willingness to invest over the long-term in creating a better, more livable environment for their citizens,” said League President Andy Clarke.” Four states have been awarded the coveted designation and two states received an honorable mention – Washington (Silver), Wisconsin (Silver), Arizona (Bronze), Minnesota (Bronze), Delaware (Honorable Mention) and Maryland (Honorable Mention).
The BFS award recognizes Arizona’s commitment to improving conditions for bicycling and its practice of making focused investment in bicycling infrastructure and advocacy.
More info on the League’s Bicycle Friendly America pages.
2009 LAB/IMBA Bike Summit in Washington DC
Earlier this month, 580 enthusiastic cyclists plus manufacturers, municipal officials and lawmakers convened in Washington DC to promote our favorite sport and mode of transportation. The event was co-sponsored by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) and the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). Most attendees were from the United States, but Canada and two European countries were represented. Arizona was represented by Kathy Mills of the Coalition, Kristy Felts Moore of ABC, Lee Blackwell of Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists, Esther Corbett of Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Larry Robinson of GABA-Tucson, and myself (the only repeat). We did not meet Esther as her employment precluded any lobbying. Lee missed his first flight, but we gave him enough alternatives that he made it there. Larry was registered, but his name did not appear on the roster that was distributed to me as the Arizona Contact person. We met him at the AZ caucus Wednesday afternoon.
A summary of the event is at LAB’s website and includes links to more detailed information. Also, there are videos of the main speakers mentioned on LAB’s home webpage. I will outline our participation.
On Tuesday afternoon there was a “First Timers Orientation” that was well attended. That was followed by the “Opening Keynote Dinner”. The featured speakers were the Ambassador from Denmark, Copenhagen’s Bicycle Program Director Congressman Oberstar. We got a detailed look at how Copenhagen integrates cycling into their transportation systems.
Wednesday started a general session titled “New Congress, New Administration, New Transportation Bill”. Opening remarks were by none other than Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. It quickly became clear just how much more important and accepted our sport and form of transportation had become since January. Three Members of Congress and one Senator discussed Complete Streets, Energy and the Economy and how we can benefit.
Five breakout sessions began after the opening, and we disbursed to cover as much of the information as possible. I attended the session on the Economic Stimulus Package while others of our team attended others. Then, after a break, five more breakout sessions began. I attended the session on the new Transportation Bill. More on that later. We all attended the Keynote Luncheon with a talk by Larry Seltzer, President and DEO of The Conservation Fund, a nation-wide organization protecting America’s land and water legacy. Another 5-way breakout session occurred ater lunch. I attended “Becoming Best Friends with Transit” (you could have guessed that, right?). I contributed my mantra about the mutual benefit to cyclists and users of transit, then pitched how important our involvement is in all stages of a transit system. I cited a “disaster” with which I am familiar.
The afternoon concluded with two sessions, one called “Delivering Our Message”. It was demonstration of how to and how not to present ideas and requests to lawmakers and/or their staffs. The session was actually a parity of “American Idol” and was quite entertaining as well as informative. The final session was a split by state. This is when we met Larry for the first time. We coordinated the meetings I had scheduled with staff people in the offices of our Senators and Representatives for Arizona. Of course, a little adjustment occurred on Thursday as emails continued to arrive on my MDA (hand-help phone/computer). Esther was not there, but the rest of us were captured by a couple digital cameras.
Then it was off to a group dinner. My wife Carol was able to join us after a bus tour of Mt. Vernon!
Thursday morning we met in a conference room in the Rayburn House Office Building. Except for one attendee that didn’t get the memo, this was suits and ties for men and business dress for women. Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) gave us a pep talk and we were off to the offices of our Senators and Representatives. LAB had prepared four issues to promote, namely Complete Streets Act of 2009, the Transportation Bill (CLEAN-TEA), “Support America Bikes Agenda” and joining the Congressional Bike Caucus. We had some time to huddle and review our presentations.
The first meeting was with George Fleeson, the Transportation staff person for Sen. Jon Kyl. George specifically remembered me from last year (for which I gave my appreciation). Although we wound up meeting at a table in the building coffee shop, he was glad to talk to us and listened to each issue. He did point out that Sen Kyl, being Minority Whip, generally does not co-sponsor bills. He considers it a gimmick. I need to follow up with George on how much the “Cap and Trade” portion of CLEAN-TEA is an issue for Sen Kyl. A rousing start for the five of us.
Next was a meeting with Morgan MacDonald, the Transportation staffer for Sen. McCain. Morgan was very courteous and took detailed notes of our presentations. My impression is that our actual effectiveness was small.
Suddenly it was lunch time. I had been tipped that the lunchroom in the basement of the Longworth House Office Building was a good place to go. Apparently a lot of people had the same idea. We lost track of each other for a while, but there was a silver lining. Lee and Larry had petitions to deliver to Representative Grijalva’s office, so they made a quick trip there. They had a session with Rep. Grijalva directly!
We regrouped to meet with staffers on the house side. Meanwhile an email came to me asking to reschedule a meeting to a time when we already had a meeting. Oh, the wonders of Twitter.
Our first afternoon meeting was with Shurid Sen, the Transportation staffer for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for District AZ-8. Larry lives in her district and was our lead this time. Rep. Giffords is already a member of the Bike Caucus and is supportive of nearly everything environmental. Shurid took good notes of our issues and I left believing we had made a difference. Had the next day’s Bike Ride thru Washington DC not been on a work day, I’m sure he would have participated.
Next we met with Eve Young, the staff person for Rep. Ed Pastor. I live in this district (AZ-4). Space for office meetings is a rarity as we had a rousing discussion in the hallway just outside their office. I believe we made a connection with Eve and we can continue to promote cycling issues. Rep. Pastor is a ling-time member of the bike Caucus, but doesn’t bike himself. I have met him a few times locally at events in the Valley.
Matt Weisman was the next staff person we met with. He is in Rep. Mitchell’s office and Kathy lives in his district (AZ-5). I believe Matt too would have joined us the next day, had it been a Saturday. He was engaged in the issues we presented.
By this time, we were actually a few minutes ahead of schedule, and we just about made the (earlier) requested time to meet Sara Decker, the Transportation staff person for Rep. Shadegg. Kristi is a resident of this district (AZ-3). We were a tiny bit rushed, yet Sara showed understanding of our requests.
Finally, five very tired “lobbyists” and Carol rendezvoused in the Russell Senate Office Building for a reception and pats on the back. That room was also used for the Infamous Un-American Activities Committee meetings of the 1950’s and the Watergate investigation meetings of the 1970’s. Kinda awesome.
The capping event of the Summit was a 3-hour ride around Washington DC. We had rented a tandem so Carol got to experience peddling in snow flurries (actually a minuscule effect). Ah, the history of it all! This was a much better behaved group than I remember from last year (maybe not a fair comparison since that time, I kept running into one bad rider over and over again, and a small number of us got separated from the main group).
After the farewells, it was on to being tourists for Carol and I. That afternoon we got to the Zoo. Subsequent days, we visited the Archives; Congress; FDR, Viet Nam, Jefferson , WW-II, Iwo-Jima, Korean War & Lincoln Memorials; Arlington Cemetery; the hotel that has the lobby that coined the word “lobbyist”; the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum (including the “Wright Bicycle Co.” display, since it had to be cycling engineers that invented another “energy-challenged device” like an airplane). We saw a lot more from a tour bus, then took some good pix of the outside of the White House. One day we went to Baltimore to eat Crab Cakes and see the B&O Railroad Museum (birthplace of commercial steam rail for N. America). On the way to the airport we saw NASA Goddard visitor center, and the National Cryptography Museum at NSA headquarters in Langley. All of the touring was on our nickel. We do thank the Coalition for picking up my Summit registration fee.
The work continues. Thank yous were sent to the staffers we met, and issues will be discussed. Soon, it will be time for Bike Summit 2010! By then some of the stick-in-the-muds will realize what the voters said last November.
Cycling and Vehicle Doors / Trolley Tracks
The following information was prepared by Tucson attorney Eric Post:
In Arizona, anyone who opens the door to a vehicle has the duty to make sure it is safe to do so. This is by statute in the Arizona Revised Statutes as follows:
28-905. Opening vehicle door
A person shall not open a door on a motor vehicle unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic. A person shall not leave a door open on a side of a motor vehicle exposed to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload a passenger.
Unfortunately, there is a common perception that people on the roadway should watch out for parked vehicles and combined with the well known American love for our automobiles, this results often in motorists blaming the cyclist for hitting the door when the motorist opens it after parking.
The cyclist often does not have the ability to see if there is a driver or passenger in a parked car. Tinted glass, light reflections, and lighting conditions all work to obscure vision into the vehicle while riding. Further, the cyclist must look for road hazards including debris, glass, potholes, and whether or not the lane is free to move into for adequate clearance. As such, the law placing the duty on the door opening person is appropriate.
There are certain situations where a bike lane, or a route with striped shoulder will parallel an area of vehicles parked on the side of the road. This places the cyclist in a zone of danger. To be safe, the bike lane / route should be at least 3 feet from the parked vehicles.
In the common event that a cyclist must take evasive action to avoid a door swinging open, there has to be a good solid roadway to the cyclist’s left to allow the diversion.
In the situation of 6th Avenue in Tucson just South of Congress, the bike shoulder is in the zone of danger, however, there is a lane to the left that may be passable depending on traffic.
In the situation of the proposed trolley tracks on 4th Avenue just North of the downtown area, the bike route that is in the zone of danger is bordered on the left with trolly tracks and the cyclist cannot safely perform an evasive maneuver.
Bicycle wheels on trolley tracks require a near 90 degree crossing or the front tire may easily slide along the metal and cause a catastrophic loss of control.
Therefore, it is my opinion that cyclists should not be placed in a danger zone where they have the trolley and the tracks to the left and vehicle doors to the right. This is unsafe and similar to Russian Roulette in that sooner or later, an injury will occur.
I do not recommend banning cycling on such roadways. A cyclist is a legitimate road user with the same right to the road as the driver of a vehicle under A.R.S. 28-812.
The solutions would be to ban parking completely because parking vehicles do not necessarily have a right to the roadway. Also, post signs reminding drivers of their responsibilities (including rear seat passengers who have a door), or relocating the bike route, or relocating the trolley tracks. Regardless of what solution is chosen, it must be a good working solution.
In the future, it is important to design roadways in such a manner as to not create a hazard for cyclists and non-motorized traffic.
There is a Federal statute that requires the preservation of safety of non-motorized traffic on our roadways.
23 U.S.C. 109 (m) Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic. –The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists.
…
Bike Lanes and Light Rail 7th to 24th Streets along Washington & Jefferson Streets.
Many more photos here.
The following is an email thread of discussion of the work the City of Phoenix is doing for cyclists on the subject issues.
Bob & Bill:
Below is the response from Mike Cynecki, the City traffic Engineer doing the rework. As you can see, they are making it better, albeit slower than we want. Contrary to what I said is that the 9th St intersection is recognized to be fixed. Richard Moeur suggested a block of shared lane (both sides) along the business / bike roadway, to give a cyclist plenty of leeway as to when to try to move to the right. I like that more than another bike box that I suggested. Richard also suggested a good consultant.
What I’m saying is that the City is recognizing the problems and is helping. A total rebuild is not going to happen and antagonizing our friends is going to hurt us. We have a city budget crisis now and future light-rail expansions are coming. They are receptive now to our inputs. Keeping involved and offering reasonable suggestions are our best path.
A week ago, I was informed by a cyclist that there is another L-R vs. bike lane area that needs to be looked at. This is between Priest and theTempe Town Lake crossing. Haven’t had a chance to look there yet.
Gene
“Putting my muscles where my mouth is.” [tm]
Radar has written that bike lanes be eliminated and that shared lane markings be use in the right-most motor vehicle lane. I replied:
Use of shared lane markings, while established in some localities, have the same “unfamiliarity” factor as bike boxes in Arizona. Use of either will require education and compliance by cyclists and motorists alike. Trying shared lane markings in an area that was specifically designed for speedy high-volume motor traffic would harm more than help. Further, ARS 28-735 exempts motor vehicle drivers from the penalties when an injury occurs where there is a nearby bike lane. That would not be good. I don’t want the introduction of shared lanes to occur in such a motorist-favored area as Jefferson St. between 7th St. and 24th St. I believe we do not want to force good, but less trained cyclists to abandon a good place to ride, namely the business access/bike lanes on the left sides of the tracks. These people will be dis-enfranchised rather than ride in the “slot-car” lanes where the shared-lane markings would be.
Bob wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, the whole section of Washington/Jefferson from 7th Street to 24th Street, should have condemnation proceedings lodged against it and removed from any semblence of bikeability in the metro area. The whole section is an abortion in my opinion and should be ripped out and put together correctly (as if that would actually happen), and the all seeing, all knowing engineers that “engineered” this project should be reprimanded and sent for re-education as to what constitutes Bicycle Friendly facilities. I realize that there are some that did not approve of this finished project, but they are in the minority and constitute little political clout. In the meantime, I and many others will avoid the downtown area on our bikes until this exercise in stupidity is rectified! Bob.
— On Tue, 12/30/08, Mike Cynecki wrote:
> Subject: Re: 9th St & Jefferson St Bike Lane configuration.
> To: geneh@cazbike.org
> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 12:15 PM
> Gene – You make a good point and we have not forgotten about
> this issue .
> . . or the lack of bike detection along the frontage road at some of the
> signals. Richard Moeur had suggested we retain a good bike consultant to
> look at this issue and others along the LRT line and give
> us some recommendations. However, with our horrible budget
> situation, it takes away our ability to react quickly. One of the things we
> are working on is getting as-built paint plans to see exactly what was
> installed, and we will be seeking suggestions for alternate designs.
> Richard suggested that
> we designate a shared vehicle/bike frontage road for about 500 feet east
> of 9th St before designating the right side for bicyclists to allow for a
> larger merge area.
>
> I am a bit hesitant to install yet another bike box when we just asked the
> Feds permission (after the fact) to experiment with the three we already
> installed. However, it will still remain an option. Bike boxes are
> supposed to be at traffic signals. It may also be wise to extend the
> bike lane for a block and then (without a bike box) have the conversion
> over to the right side of the frontage road.
>
> Mike Cynecki
> Traffic Engineering Supervisor
> Street Transp. Dept.
>
> All:
>
> Since the Bike Lane issue vis-a`-vis Light Rail tracks and motor vehicle
> lanes has been an issue, one aspect has been lost. Lots has been said
> about the Bike Boxes now in place at 7th & 24th Streets at Washington &
> Jefferson Streets. This discussion has involved the proper use and
> designation of a bike box and the related knowledge and skills of
> motorists and cyclists alike, along with what education of each might
> actually occur. However, an actual safety issue exists at 9th St.
>
> Please see the attached diagram. A cyclist following the eastbound bike
> lane approaches this intersection on the far-left (north side of
> Jefferson). The bike lane continues beyond 9th St. adjacent to the
> light-rail tracks, as part of the business access / bike lanes.
> Unfortunately this involves another crossover of bicycle and motor vehicle
> paths. The crossover occurs within the intersection. Since a car
> approaching in the left m-v lane MAY proceed straight (and will not be
> signaling), the cyclist is risking a rear-end collision when attempting to
> cross to the continuing bike lane.
>
> During the on-site ride several weeks ago, traffic engineers that are also
> cyclists recognized that the decision time for a cyclist would actually
> occur before the car has visually indicated a turn or straight maneuver.
> Not a good situation should the cyclist guess wrong, even after using the
> skills we teach in our classes.
>
> Fortunately, I have a simple solution. That is, continue the bike lane on
> the far-left of the business access lane for another block to the east.
> Then provide a bike box for the cyclist to cross over when there is no
> ambiguity of what a motor vehicle would be doing.
>
> Gene
CAzBike 2008 Year in Review
For nearly twenty years CAzBike has been YOUR advocacy and education resource in Arizona. Made up of hundreds of individual and family members, as well as many supporting businesses and clubs, we have represented you across the state and nation.
Our advocates have represented Arizona Arizona at the Bike Education Conference in Austin Texas, The National Bike Summit in Washington DC, and The Pro Bike/Pro Walk symposium in Seattle Washington. Within Arizona our advocates have served….read the rest in .pdf