Transportation officials cede to demands of Belinda Conaway and community group, still plan to remove the bike lane.
[B’ Spokes: So begins the piece in the Baltimore Brew by Fern Shen. We have a problem here folks! Why? Because what is being changed is not just one bike lane but procedures for accommodating cyclists so we will NO longer be treated as other modes of transportation.
For some background consider what if all highway projects only the immediate adjacent property owners could comment on the project. Well we would not get many freeways built, that’s for sure, So a responsible government solicits not only those who might be harmed by a project but also those who will benefit from a project and hopefully will arrive at a solution for the greater good. This is paramount for a responsible government.
On the other extreme if the city installs a sidewalk the adjacent property owner is now responsible for shoveling snow and financially responsible for repairs and maintenance, so it makes sense that adjacent property owners should be given preferential say when installing sidewalks.
Or does it? We can picture a quiet residential neighborhood where it might not make a difference if there are sidewalks or not but then on a major road can we really tolerate no sidewalks with fences or landscaping that force pedestrians into the street? Even when we can make the best case for ONLY adjacent property owners it still comes down to who will benefit and who will be harmed need to be heard for a responsible government.
I feel complied to point out that that those who do not bicycle do not understand what can be done by bicycle. Ignoring the fit bike club members (as if that is a life style to scorn :/ ) that do 20-60 miles on a bike, we will focus on “Joe Average” that can do 5-10 miles by bike. If 5 mile Joe Average was centrally located and if we provided comfortable bike routes, a 5 mile Joe Average could bike anywhere in the city, a 10 mile Joe average could live anywhere in the city and bike anywhere in the city, that is if we provided comfortable bicycling routes. A 2003 U.S. Department of Transportation survey of more than 9,600 adults, 73% of respondents would welcome new and/or improved bicycle facilities such as bike lanes and bike paths.
So I seriously have to ask how can anyone who understands bicycling make a case that bicycling accommodations should only be local (district) and not city wide? Sure we should work with the local community but “My community already voiced their concerns” should not be the rule.
The irony of “a community was not allowed to voice their concerns so that community will not allow other communities that would benefit to voice their concerns” is not lost on this author.
Safety concerns??? More irony after this article I posted a few days ago that shows how a similar treatment improved safety.
Legal concerns: The Cyclists’ Bill of Rights where Conaway was one of the City Council members that introduced the bill (even more irony), is she not familiar with the text?
8. Cyclists have the right to be actively engaged as a constituent group in the planning
and implementation of roadway and transit projects.
And that is just the most poignant point, I could pull in a lot more of the text. And there is Maryland law about § 2-602. Public policy that states in part:
The General Assembly finds that it is in the public interest for the State to include enhanced transportation facilities for pedestrians and bicycle riders as an essential component of the State’s transportation system.
So it comes down to this ask:
Write Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City <mail@stattorney.org>
Subj: Possible actus reus by Baltimore City Government
Copy and past this article or use your own words why you feel the City is not following it’s own laws (be sure to mention The Cyclists’ Bill of Rights )
[Don’t forget to sign your name, address and optional telephone number.]
Additionally email the Mayor <mayor@baltimorecity.gov> and if you live in the city email your City Council person https://cityservices.baltimorecity.gov/citycouncil/
Copy and past this article or use your own words why you feel the city’s actions are not right. (No discussions, no compromise offered.)
[Don’t forget to sign your name, address and optional telephone number.]
More highlights from the Baltimore Brew
Troutner said she thought there might be some compromise on the matter once she and other members of the Baltimore cycling community sat down with city officials and with the people who had complained about the lane – Franklin Lance, president of the Greater Mondawmin Coordinating Council (GMCC), and City Councilwoman Belinda Conaway (7th), who was intervening at Lance’s request.
B’ Spokes: We need someone to intervene on our behalf.
“The city was asked the purpose of the meeting and responded by saying to discuss the lane on Monroe Street. I responded by saying the Monroe Street lane was not for discussion. My community already voiced their concerns and DOT already agreed to remove the lane. I then said if the purpose would be to discuss other places in Greater Mondawmin for a bike lane I would attend.”
Troutner said the city’s decision to cancel the meeting was “really unfortunate” and a blow to city cyclists.
“We need to exchange our different points of view, Dr. Lance and I and the cyclists and the community,” she said. “The city really fell down on the job by not making that conversation happen today.
Additional reading: Can Baltimore become a truly bike-friendly city? Can it afford not to?
