B’ Spokes: My reactions to: Maryland Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Update
Better then what we currently have
Michael [Jackson Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access] stated that because MD Route 564 is a State highway SHA was not bound to accept M-NCPPC-PG’s designation [of MD Route 564 as a bikeway.]
Ref SHA not obligated to accommodate bicyclists per policy and wins an award from LAB for policy
Hmm, to make my point how would you feel if they said “The lack of bicycle facilities still a major concern.” without mentioning any detail? We need specifics to address motorists behavior like:
- The Street Smart program must be reviewed by the cycling community.
- Twice a year (around the beginning and end of the school) at least create a press realise reminding drivers of their duties around bicyclists and pedestrians. Again this should be reviewed by the cycling community before being published.
- Recommend that local police during this time period do crosswalk stings and plain clothes police bikes enforcing 3′ passing.
- At the end of the enforcement period release a summery of warnings and tickets issued.
https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/bikewalkplan
https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/Maryland_Transportation_Plan/Index.html
Nooooooo!
Seriously we had this junk since 2002 and it really is not working well for us.
1) 80% of state roads – What if I told you this 80% figure is so they can leave all urban state roads bike unfriendly, would you support that? Of course not, the need for bicycle accommodations is greater in the urban areas then the rural, we need something extra to get accommodations in the urban areas. This figure NEEDS to be 100%! Not that I am unsympathetic to the difficulties of comfortably accommodating bicyclists on all state roads but here is an idea, if they can’t accommodate us on a state road then an alternate parallel route shall be established, you know like what they showed in the first picture, this is a doable action. We have the concept of “Bicycle Priority Area” let’s use that to get these alternate bike routes in!
2) BLOC D – Another Nooooo! This should be BLOC C or better. BLOC D basically means it looks like there is enough room for cyclists to ride to the right to motorist but cyclists will get too many close passes or other unsafe motorists behavior so cyclists should take the lane under BLOC D conditions. In short it’s not clear where the safest place to ride is under these conditions. Seriously, give me BLOC C or BLOC F anything but making BLOC D a target goal for bicycle “friendless.”
3) SHA and bike lanes – SHA has been basically turning shoulders into bike lanes, not that this is a bad thing but it really does nothing of significance to improve biking conditions. That’s why BLOC is so important, if a decently engineered bike lane gets added to a roadway the BLOC will be C or better.
4) We had this junk since 2002 and basically no change in BLOC C or better roads, we need something better this time around!
5) Do I really need to go into debunking “this plan can only be about achievable goals”? That’s what the CTP is all about, this document is about guiding planners what to put into the CTP.
Goal #3: Balance User Needs
Planning will consider walking and biking in all projects
While this sounds nice, I’ve been given the impression that this does NOT include road resurfacing projects. That’s right, the method that the rest of the country uses to include bike facilities in the most economical way has been excluded by SHA. We need to make sure that we are included for consideration even on road resurfacing projects.
