4 Add a new strategy: “Do not compromise pedestrian
and bicycle safety for the convenience of motorized
vehicles.”
Response: The intent of this strategy is addressed by two existing
proposed strategies: (1) “Invest in cost-effective safety
improvements to eliminate hazardous or substandard
conditions in high crash locations and corridors (all modes)”
and (2) “Improve conditions to enable pedestrians and
bicyclists to interact more safely with users of other
transportation modes.”
[B’ Spokes response: State law basically says do no harm to existing bicycling conditions, that’s something that is not always done in the counties with road projects, so something is missing from the strategies.]
5 Add text to this strategy: “Improve conditions to enable
pedestrians and bicyclists to interact more safely with
users of other transportation modes. Provide specific
accommodation for bicycles and pedestrians on all
road improvement projects.”
Response: The Federal Highway Administration has a policy
recommending that all roadway projects routinely provide safe,
accessible accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. The
exceptions are interstate highways or other roadways where
specific safety-related or topographic conditions preclude these
accommodations. All agencies and jurisdictions receiving
federal funding for transportation projects adhere to this policy.
In addition, the Maryland State Highway Administration has its
own policy addressing this issue.
[B’ Spokes response: Not all road projects are Federally funded so that bit lacks teeth. SHA’s policy is no funding for on-road bike accommodations unless part of a trail. So again we have not all that it could be.]
12 Add a strategy: “Create walkable environments.”
Response: This recommendation is consistent with several proposed
strategies. For example, under the Safety goal: “Improve
conditions to enable pedestrians and bicyclists to interact more
safely with users of other transportation modes.” Under
Accessibility: (1) “Increase transportation alternatives in all
modes for all segments of the population,” (2) “Provide strong
funding commitment for building both pedestrian and bicycle
facilities that establish linkages among activity centers and
provide access to public transit,” and (3) “Improve system
connectivity and continuity among all modes. . . .” Also, under
the Environment goal: “Enhance the quality of human health by
providing multimodal transportation infrastructure and services
that support active living and physical activity. . . .”
[B’ Spokes response: Strong funding commitment??? [Cough, cough.] OK SHA has been demonstrating throwing money at bike/ped issues (while our pedestrian fatality ranking keeps getting worse and worse) but what about those non-numbered roads that belong to the counties? Someone really should do a study to find out what the problems are… oh wait, someone did, and not just anyone but a team of researchers from the University of California, Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies and they show a lack of a funding commitment. Again we have not all that it could be.]
18 Add text to this strategy: “Sustain and balance capacity
in the highway, transit, and rail systems and pedestrian
and bicycle networks among urban, suburban, and
rural areas.
Response: This strategy is intended to provide a balanced system with
respect to capacity throughout the region to the greatest extent
possible. However, funding constraints and local preferences
may preclude providing choices in all modes in all geographic
areas.
[B’ Spokes response: Funding constraints that have left over $30M unspent in TE funds alone. Seriously? I wish I had those kind of financial constraints. We have a big problem here that the lower levels of Government are afraid to request changes and the upper levels are like “Nobody is complaining so it must be working.”
I lost interest in being involved at this level because all that was done was to white wash the status quo. I don’t know about you but I think the status quo is not very bike/ped friendly, yes there have been exceptions, especially in Baltimore City but is the Metro area bike/ped funding result driven? Are there more roads with a BLOS C or better? (Metric for being bike friendly.) Have pedestrian fatalities been going down? How’s that Federally mandated bike network coming along? Oh, little to no change since 2001. Seriously, how do we get out of this same old, same old?
Action Plan 2001 defines the vision, goals, and milestones for bicycling and walking in the Baltimore region. The regional plan outlines ten milestones for which the BMC and the BRTB Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Group were to ―prepare a yearly report card or status report tracking the achievement of these milestones and performance measures.These performance measures have neither been implemented nor tracked.
…
In addition to limited resources at the regional level, a lack of institutional support at the state level has hampered the Baltimore region‘s ability to use federal dollars on bike/ped projects. The region is unable to overcome restrictive state requirements, including the high local match required for Transportation Enhancements projects, (50% compared to Sacramento‘s 11.47%.), and modeling and air quality calculation tools that do not allow recognition of the benefits of non-motorized projects.
…
Planning documents in Baltimore express ambitious bicycle and pedestrian goals, but funding programs have not been adjusted to reflect this. As a result, funding tends to flow to traditional highway projects in Baltimore.
https://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=1304
On one hand, BRTB hands are tied by State Policy but still I would like to see some effort to achieve the state of the art or at least come close to what other States are doing. If you want to see a change write Terry Freeland, tfreeland@baltometro.org and at least have BRTB make a request to MBPAC to follow recomned funding policies for bike/ped projects. We need something better then what BRTB has done to date.]
Continue reading “Summary of public (bike) comments and BRTB Response: Revised Plan It 2035 Goals & Strategies (October 2010)”
