Does CNHBC Represent All Cyclists?
The Central New Hampshire Bicycle Coalition (CNHBC) has many dedicated members who have worked tirelessly to promote cycling in Concord. All cyclists can be thankful for the improvements they have championed.
Several cyclists are not represented well, if at all, by CNHBC. They are the novice, elderly and child cyclists in our community. City Engineering appears to be prepared to provide these novice cyclists, who may desire access to Main Street, a dangerous choice.
Front-in diagonal parking presents a danger to all cyclists who would share a traffic lane, and the space of motor vehicle parking movements. This is due to the lack of visibility a driver has, as they back out of parking into the shared travel lane. At the Main Street Design Review Meeting on 4/16/2013, the only question asked by a CNHBC representative was in regards to the effectiveness of the bicycle racks being considered.
TPAC and Diagonal Parking
Front-in diagonal parking has been identified by the TransportationPolicy Advisory Committee (TPAC) as inconsistent with Complete Streets Design. The TPAC report to the Committee on 10/25/2012 had the following to say (page 3):A Complete Street must accommodate all users of the roadway, including automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transportation, and it must also serve people of all ages and abilities. A complete streets tenet is the central feature of the City of Concord's Comprehensive Transportation Policy, adopted by Council in January 2011.
Yet, these movements remain in the plan. The lack of support from City Engineering, to object to the parking arrangement, seems politically untouchable, but may endanger public safety.The complete street aspect of the project is likely the single most important aspect that contributed to it being selected for funding from a list of hundreds of projects, so the "Complete Street" concept should not be taken lightly. Therefore, TPAC took the position that, if we weaken the transportation completeness of the project, we risk compromising the project and possibly jeopardizing TIGER funding.
Will the City Engineer Address All Users?
I am not aware of any City, or State statute which require City Engineering to provide novice, elderly or children cyclists safe access to Main Street. The City Comprehensive Transportation Policy is adopted as a report, and is not codified into municipal code. However, the TIGER Grant Application, which was approved for federal funding match, specifically proposed a Complete Streets Project.
The US Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, has clarified the safety of bicyclists:
“We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/03/my-view-from-atop-the-table-at-the-national-bike-summit.html#.UXFdXPGHFs1
The first TIGER Grant application was declined. The revised second TIGER application, a Complete Streets Proposal, was approved. Both of these applications stated the following:
Although designated as a State Bike Route, there are no specific bike lane shoulders or widened areas for bikes along Main Street. This issue was noted as a critical operational deficiency in the recently adopted Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed improvements will create bike lanes and improve sight lines along the shared modal corridor.
With on-street parking and limited overall travelway width, larger vehicles limit sight distance to back out of parking spaces and encroach upon the area typically used by bicycles. Bicyclists have noted their discomfort with Main Street conditions and often ride their bikes on the sidewalk.
The current plans will continue the dangerous movements for cyclists. For many experienced cyclists, sharing a lane with traffic and dealing with blindly backing cars is nothing new. The discomfort that novice, elderly and children cyclists encounter with vehicles blindly backing into and encroaching upon the lane will remain. I shepherd my daughter around town but I am unwilling to put her life at risk with drivers blindly backing into a lane we would travel in. Bottom line, the new design will not serve any more cyclists than it does now. The plan will do little or nothing to promote bicycle usage to reduce motor vehicle travel.Recently, Secretary LaHood had this to say:
"When I say that safety is this Department's number one priority, there's no exception for bikes. With more bicyclists on our streets, helping them ride safely is not a luxury; it's part of our obligation."http://fastlane.dot.gov/2013/04/bike-safety-summits-get-the-green-light.html
ParKING has been a perennial issue in Downtown since the late 1950s, which 1500 surface spaces, nor the four parking garages have been able to solve. This issue may never be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. However, the city is now asking for federal funding under the proviso that the street will be safe for all users of all ages and abilities.
City Council - It's Up To You, and The US DOT
If the community at large believes that novice, elderly and children bicyclists should not be on Main Street, it would be counter to the Comprehensive Transportation Policy of the city, but I could live with it. But if the city intends to take these federal dollars with the understanding they are building a Complete Streets project, then I expect the city leadership to recognize this and reject the current plan. To do otherwise may be politically achievable, but is indefensible to what is right for novice, elderly, and children bicyclists.
Back-in angle parking eliminates visibility issues associated with backing into traffic and allows for safe bicycle usage on Main Street.
 |
| Would back-in diagonal parking be so difficult for drivers that we would put novice cyclists in danger? From Dangerous by Design |
If the Council opts to retain angle parking on either or both sides of Main Street, TPAC recommends that back-in angled parking be considered rather than front-in angle parking. However, it is noted that back-in angle parking, while becoming more popular, has not been universally accepted by all drivers or merchants across the country. Design guidelines now recommend against placing bike lanes behind front-in angle parking but permit bike lanes in front of back-in angle parking.
[Compromise or Abdication?]
[It was suggested that CNHBC has achieved compromise in the design of Main Street, in part to build long-term alliances. The designs presented 4/16/2013 show little improvement over the existing condition for cyclists. The City Engineer indicated on 4/16/2013 that returning diagonal parking to both sides of the street (a desire of many) would risk removal of the double step curb on the the western side of the street. In other words, the introduction of parallel parking allows for the proper grading of the street.Cyclists will face the dangerous front-in diagonal parking on much of Main Street, much as it is Today. Northbound cyclists will face a danger similar to what exists, with moderate increased access Southbound where parallel parking is planned. This does not represent compromise, but abdication of the promise of Complete Streets to the desires of automobile parking. Compromise would be to incorporate minimal safe parking movements, which back-in diagonal parking could provide on Main Street. 4/26/13 RB]
CNHBC, please represent the needs of novice, elderly, and children bicyclists by advocating for safe access on Main Street for all cyclists. To the City Engineer, please bring a revised plan so as to provide safe access for all users and abilities. To City Council, please do what is right and appropriate, by rejecting any plan which does not accomplish the promise of Complete Streets, to safely accommodate all modes for all users and abilities.
This decision is too important to the future livability of Concord to abdicate this to a 17 member committee which is per-biased to focus on parking. Constructing a street which endangers novice cyclists, with a dangerous choice to use Main Street, is not acceptable.