BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Dear SPC,

As the executive director of Bike Pittsburgh, a 1500-member-strong nonprofit bicycle advocacy organization whose mission is to make the Pittsburgh region more bicycle friendly, it is with pleasure that I submit my comments to SPC on your long range vision for the 10-county region. Most of my comments are specific and in the form of edits that should be made to the plan in order to make it more inclusive. Some comments are more general.

Section 1, Introduction/Executive Summary:

Section 1, pg 2, 8th paragraph - Current graph reads "Based on this input a new scenario combining the positive attributes of the Compact/Infill/Transit Oriented and Corridor/Cluster Scenarios was developed." Please edit to read: Based on this input a new scenario combining the positive attributes of the Compact/Infill/Walkable/Bikeable/Transit Oriented and Corridor/Cluster Scenarios was developed.

Section 1, pg 3, 2nd paragraph: Please edit to read: "There is a strong multimodal focus including transit, railways, bicycle and walking facilities, highways and waterways with an increasing emphasis on connecting the centers and clusters and promoting safe and attractive access to the urban core by all modes of transportation. This scenario promotes improved transportation options, operations and safety. This scenario emphasizes upgrading existing water and sewer, with limited expansion primarily to historically underserved communities.

Section 1, pgs 3-4, under "Regional Connections" - Currently there is mention of transit in its own bullet point. Bike Pittsburgh and our 1500 members who we represent would like a specific bullet point in this section:

The region will place greater emphasis on safely connecting people who walk and bike to residential areas, parks, businesses, arts and culture, as well as other destinations throughout the region.

Section 1, pg 4, under "Regional Activities" - Please edit the fourth (4th) bullet point to read: "The region will place a priority on programs and services to attract and retain a diverse population with a particular focus on young adults and immigrants, who are more inclined toward transit, walking and biking to get around."

Section 4, Transportation:

Section 4, pg 4: Please edit "Congestion Management and Air Quaility" ought to read "Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality"

Section 4, pg 17, 5th paragraph: Please add CMAQ and HSIP to the funding programs available to bike/ped. Pedestrian and bicycle transportation projects qualify for these funding streams. In fact CMAQ paid for much of the Port Authority's bike rack on buses program.

Section 4, pg 19, 5th paragraph: The figure listed for the TIGER II Planning Grant is incorrect. It's $1.5 Million. $825,000 is just DOT's slice.

Section 4, pg 22, under "Traffic Operations and Safety": Please edit Traffic Demand Management to read: "Travel Demand Management - Projects such as carpooling, vanpooling, bikepooling, emergency ride home programs, telecommuting, commuter benefit strategies, parking incentives, park-n-ride lots, job access reverse commute programs, secure bicycle storage, bike-sharing, and other non-traditional types of projects that work to affect the demand side of transportation systems.

Section 4, pg 22, under "Traffic Operations and Safety": Please edit Safety to read: "Safety - While virtually every transportation project improves safety by bringing the transportation network up to current design standards, these are stand-alone projects to address specific safety issues. This includes projects to slow down speeding cars, eliminate sight distance problems at intersections, projects that improve at-grade highway-rail crossings, projects to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and other projects that address areas with high accident rates or crash clusters.

Section 4, pg 22, under "Other modes": Pedestrian and Bicycle - Bicycle lanes, physically separated bike lanes, sidewalks, and shared use pathways that improve accessibility and mobility for bicycles and pedestrians. This includes rail-trails and other pathways that provide non-motorized links in the transportation network. It does not include trails and pathways that serve a purely recreational purpose, because federal transportation funds are not permitted to be spent on these types of projects.

Comment: What is "purely recreational?" Is a kid transporting herself on a bike to her recreational softball game along a trail transportation or recreation? Why is a mother dropping her son or daughter off in a minivan transportation, and a bike ride to the ball game recreation? Most trail facilities are never "purely recreational."

Section 4, pg 46, fifth bullet: "Intermodal Connectivity – Enhance intermodal integration;" please edit to read "Intermodal Connectivity – Enhance intermodal integration and safety;"

Section 4, pg 53, under "Pedestrian and Bicycle Network:" First paragraph should read "Southwestern Pennsylvania has an extensive network of signed pedestrian and bicycle routes, including sidewalks, rail trails and designated bike routes with little to no additional safety enhancements such as wider shoulders, bike lanes, or physical separation from cars."

Comment: nearly five paragraphs are spent talking about our absolutely wonderful trail system which, at present, has been designed primarily to function as a recreational trail and not a transportation trail. Granted, it is not "purely recreational." However, most of our trails are not maintained throughout the winter, are not lighted, and are not even officially open past dusk or in the dimly lit early morning hours (which are the peak commuting hours). BikePGH is supportive of investing in the trails mentioned to make them more feasible for transportation activities, but as it stands now, they can only function for transportation part of the year. Unless it is made clear how these trail amenities serve commuters and people trying to run errands and use them as transportation, there should be less focus on them in the Transportation section of SPC's 2040 LRP.

Section 4, pg 53, seventh, eighth, and ninth paragraphs: Please edit to read: "The City of Pittsburgh in partnership with Bike PIttsburgh has recently embarked on a program of bike infrastructure development along roadway corridors demonstrating high bicycle utilization, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in the miles of bike lanes or sharrows where streets are either too narrow or when there is a lack of will to implement a road diet or eliminate car parking.

"This Shared Lane marking program, or "Sharrow" program, results in the placement of bicycle markings on the roadway pavement, but does not create an exclusive lane for use by bicyclists. Recently added to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) the utilization of Sharrow markings in Pittsburgh has been considered “experimental” to date due to PennDOT having not yet adopted the 2009 uniform traffic control standards as their own.

The City of Butler also recently implemented a Shared Lane marking program for bicyclists in that community, also in partnership with a non-profit environmental organization, and not by the municipality. Other communities are also considering their use. Meanwhile bicycle advocates and planners in Pittsburgh are looking to best practices in cities such as New York, Chicago, DC, Austin, San Francisco, Portland, Chattanooga, Berkeley, Philadelphia, Seattle, Davis, Boston, Columbus, Baltimore and foreign cities for innovative infrastructure; some of which are included in the National Association of City Transportation Officials' (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. These innovations include bicycle boulevards, bike boxes, traffic-calming measures, green bike lanes, physically separated bike lanes, bike markings through intersections, peak-hour bike lanes (aka "floating bike lanes"), "one-way except bikes" designation, bike parking corrals, "complete streets" and bicycle signalization, shared bike/bus facilities, and even bike-sharing systems as cost-effective ways to improve safety for all users while coaxing the "interested but concerned" (the 1/3 of the population who wants to bike or walk but doesn't because it's perceived to be too dangerous) to get out of their cars and try these important non-motorized modes of transportation.

Comment: We have made progress with the trails and a handful of bike lanes/sharrows, but there is still so much to do. Let's reflect the vision of a safe, interconnected network of bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure in the 2040 LRP as critical to the region. It will alleviate congestion, reduce obesity, keep money in the local economy, and serve to boost tourism throughout the region.

____________

Respectfully submitted on 6/17/11 at 3:30pm

Scott Bricker

Bike Pittsburgh

**********************

Advocacy Organization of the Year

http://bike-pgh.org/membership

http://facebook.com/bikepgh

http://twitter.com/bikepgh

Sent! Made it with 12 minutes to spare!

This is more a philosophical rant than a blow-by-blow analysis, but IMHO is what needs to be said:

I think it is safe to say that if "peak oil" has not already happened -- and the experts say it HAS already happened -- then it certainly will by 2040. Combined with rapidly rising petroleum demand from China, India and other developing nations, chances are 100% that the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel will rise far beyond what it costs now, in that time, as measured in dollars constant to 2011. The actual pump price will be even higher, sooner, when fuel related costs in turn push up the cost of everything else.

In short, we are soon going to be at "peak car". The future is simple: fewer cars, less driving. If gas goes to $10 or $20 a gallon in 10 years, are we really going to be driving all that much? No, we're not. And yes, gas WILL cost that much by 2040.

With that as backdrop, I believe that any long range transportation plan has to reflect this simple mantra: Stop building roads, just fix what we have, and start making it easier to get around by anything other than an automobile. Bicycles, buses, pedestrians. There will be a lot more of that, and a lot less driving.

* Major new roads: Just stop. Nothing. No more. None.

* Additional lanes to existing roads: Precious few.

* Fix what's broken. The money will come from NOT building major new roads and additional lanes.

* Start thinking about FEWER driving lanes, more room for cyclists. I think the buzz word is "road diets".

* Sidewalks: Yes. Anything that gets built or fixed, needs a sidewalk, or at least a walkable shoulder (free of washouts, poison ivy, 2" deep mud, etc.)

* Pedestrian crossings at intersections: Yes. Lots of these.

Have you ever heard of "The Popsicle Index"? Think of yourself as a parent, allowing your 8-year-old child to walk to the store to buy a popsicle, and return, unassisted. What is your comfort level, as a percentage, that the kid will get there and back, safely? Aside from boogeymen jumping out from behind trees, the biggest fear is being hit by a car. That right there usually brings down The Popsicle Index in an area significantly, and that right there is squarely in the sights of long-range transportation planning. If we as a region cannot let our kids walk around without getting killed, then we as transportation planners are not doing our jobs.

I think I've said enough. Stop building roads! We need bicycle infrastructure, we need public transit infrastructure, we need to stop making it easy for cars to speed, and we need to be able to get around without needing a car in the first place.

OK, your move. Thank you for listening to my spiel.

Sincerely,

Stuart M. Strickland