Note due to the size of this article it will be continued in comments.
Montgomery County Council recently introduced a sweeping change in its road code. While it had many good intentions it failed to meet those intentions. The following comments are a worthwhile read for any transportation planning as well as any environmentalist who would like to see the transportation network more environmentally friendly.
Comments from:
From Coalition for Smarter Growth:
RE: Bill 48-06, Streets and Roads – Comprehensive Revisions, and SRA
06-04, Streets and Roads – Design Standards
Dear President Praisner and Honorable Councilmembers:
Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter
Growth, a regional organization focused on ensuring transportation
and development decisions are made with genuine community involvement
and accommodate growth while revitalizing communities, providing more
housing and travel choices, and conserving our natural and historic
areas.
The Coalition for Smarter Growth supports the general intention of
these bills. We commend the Council for its consideration of
corrections that are needed for road design standards that originally
were written largely for the exclusive benefit of the flow of motor
vehicles – as if that should be an end in itself. We strongly concur
with the basic premise of the bills – streets are generally built too
wide, and this has many negative effects on safety, walkability, and
attractiveness of business districts and neighborhoods. These bills
embrace many of the changes emerging from professional transportation
planners’ thinking that recognize that most streets and public rights
of way are multi-modal and need to better accommodate non-motorized
users.
We have several major concerns about the proposed bills, however.
First, the bills fail to appropriately treat bicycling as an
important part of the transportation system. Second, the bills miss
opportunities to adopt more proactive and state-of-the-art stormwater
management practices. Third, we remain concerned that the drafting
of such regulations should be done with the extensive input from the
transportation professionals who are transforming outdated streets
standards throughout the country. We have provided a list of such
professionals as an attachment and strongly urge the Council to seek
and contract with experienced professionals who have successfully
transformed outdated road codes around the country. This contract
might best be managed in collaboration with the Department of
Transportation and Public Works, the Planning Board and Planning
Department in order to fully recognize the link between
transportation and land use.
Overall, we appreciate that the bills rightly propose narrowing
travel lanes for motor vehicles, tightening curb radii, shortening
block sizes, and other measures to better accommodate pedestrians and
support more walkable commercial districts. Many of these kinds of
measures will improve safety for pedestrians and increase the
vitality of business districts and the attractiveness of residential
neighborhoods. However, greater emphasis should be placed on posting
speed limits below 30 miles per hour in order to support comfortable
pedestrian and bicycle use. Also, extensive use of on-street parking
should be encouraged through the road code. On-street parking has
many advantages: it encourages slower and safer vehicle speeds;
provides a buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic; offers
valuable front-door parking to support businesses; and is the most
cost- and space-efficient way to provide parking.
Bicycling needs to be carefully accommodated
Regarding the accommodation of bicycling, it is first important to
recognize that bicycling is an essential part of the transportation
system. Bicycling can and must be successfully incorporated into
a “narrow streets” approach to creating slow speed residential and
business districts. While bicycling may only enjoy a small share of
overall trips today, the potential of bicycling to serve many of our
transportation needs is tremendous and almost entirely untapped. In
Northern Europe, bicycling represents a major share of all trips,
even among older age groups. This is not an accident or a cultural or
genetic pre-disposition; it is an intentional policy backed by
financial investment and allocation of street space and storage
facilities to make bicycling a safe and convenient mode of travel.
While we strongly urge the Council to contract with an experienced
transportation firm to provide detailed street design standards, we
propose the following recommendations in case this is not pursued.
The primary reason for narrow travel lanes in urban centers is to
create a pedestrian-friendly (and bus-user-friendly) environment by
reducing crossing distances at intersections and slow vehicle
speeds. For multilane arterials and collectors posted for 25 MPH
within urban centers, bicycles can be fully accommodated as vehicles
in the outer lane within narrow lanes as prescribed in the bills. The
prevailing travel speed in the curb lane is often significantly less,
especially with curbside parking, frequent right-turn opportunities,
and/or frequent bus service. We encourage the conversion of four
lane roadways to three motor vehicle travel lanes and bicycle lanes
in each direction.
On arterial roads posted for 45 MPH or above, space for bicycling to
the right of motor traffic should always be provided, as either
designated bike lanes, wide paved shoulders, or wide (14-ft minimum)
outside lanes. We prefer designated bicycle lanes wherever possible
to better indicate the roadway space that should be yielded to
bicyclists. Without such bicycling accommodations, such roads would
simply fail as “complete streets.”
On roads that will be posted for 30 or 35 MPH, a Context-Sensitive
Solutions (community involvement) approach should be used to balance
the inclusion of bicycle facilities with every other need for the
street, unless a bike lane is specified in an adopted plan [or it is
a two-lane road]. Traffic volumes, adjacent land uses, right-of-way
constraints, and the nature of the surrounding street grid should all
be considered in evaluating the need for on-road bicycle facilities
on these streets.
Overall, the road code should specify that every street construction
project shall improve the Bicycle Level of Comfort/Service.
Green Streets Standards
We concur with the bills that street design should be improved to
reduce stormwater runoff. We recommend incorporating green streets
standards as a part of this legislation. Green streets concepts
integrate a system of stormwater management within the public right
of way and reduce the amount of water that is piped directly to
streams and rivers. We recommend the City of Portland Oregon’s Green
Streets program and publications by Portland’s regional government
Metro, “Green Streets: Innovative solutions for stormwater and stream
crossings.” It is crucial to recognize the need to use green design
approaches that do not conflict with creating a good urban walking
environment. Portland provides many examples of achieving both goals –
reduced stormwater runoff through innovative design while offering
high quality built urban environments.
We also recommend that on-street parking be used as instead of off-
street parking. On-street parking consumes about half the space
needed for parking because the access to the parking is shared with
the through traffic function of the street. Reduction of off-street
parking lots would significantly contribute to overall reduced
imperviousness.
Conclusion
Overall, we greatly appreciate the Council’s leadership on the
necessary updating of our outmoded road code. Again, we reiterate our
belief that the details of such important changes to the road code
need the input of experienced experts. This can only be gained
through contracting them to work with the County to achieve its
goals. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Cort
Policy Director
From MCBAG Members:
The following is the testimony of John Fauerby and Lynne Rosenbusch regarding the oldId.2007012507012487
From: Montgomery County Planning Department
DISCUSSION: County Council Bills: Streets and Roads – Comprehensive
Revision Bill No. 48-06 (Chapter 49, Road Code) and Subdivision
Regulation Amendment No. 06-04 (Chapter 50, Subdivision Ordinance)
Staff must highlight that these Council bills were officially submitted on December 12,
2006 and that we have had only a very short time to review them. We have therefore not
done our normal level of coordination with others outside our Department. The
Department of Public Works and Transportation, the Department of Permitting Services,
the State Highway Administration and concerned citizens and developers may have very
different views of the positions we are recommending, and we are not unanimous among
our own staff on Jhe desirability of some of the details in the proposed Code changes.
This memorandum presents our thinking and best judgment ~t this time. We hope that the
Board’s work session, and the upcoming Council hearings and work sessions will provide
the opportunity for open dialogue and a discussion of the trade-offs involved. We request
the Board’ allow us to join the Chairman and any Board members in the Council work
sessions, to continue to refine these important Codes and Ordinances.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Board forward the following comments to the
County Council:
General Comments
We strongly support the Council’s efforts make the county’s roads more pedestrian-,
bicyclist-, and environmentally friendly and believe that the proposed changes to
Chapters 49 and 50 are a significant step in that direction. The public right-of-way needs
to accommodate various modes of transportation – cats, trucks, pedestrians, bicyclists,
buses – and the different requirements of these modes need to be recognized. In addition
to the need to provide for mobility, these facilities need to do so in a safe and
environmentally responsible way, preserving and enhancing the attractiveness of
Montgomery County as a place to live and work. A complex balance is needed to satisfy
all of these competing objectives.
We believe that the bills that have been submitted are an excellent vehicle to get all of the
necessary issues on the table for discussion, and we request that our staff be invited to
take part in the Council’s work sessions on the proposed Road Code changes. We believe
though that it would be advisable to take this process a bit slower, breaking it into three
phases rather than two.
The table proposed to be made part of the Road Code would set standards rather than
minimums for various roadway elements. These elements would then be reflected in a
revision of the County’s Roadway Standards. The bill proposes that DPWT submit
revised standards four months following the adoption of the text. Once the Roadway
Standards are revised to conform to the Code text, the resulting typical sections can be
more carefully considered, the necessary public rights-of-way determined, and any
changes to existing Master Plan rights-of-way identified. We believe it will become
apparent at this point that additional changes to the text of the Road Code will be needed
once the trade-offs involved in this complex balance are more clearly defined.
The text of the Road Code and the County Roadway Standards are correctly identified as
the two main documents for setting the County’s road policy, but there are two additional
documents that the Board believes need to be reviewed as well during the process of
overhauling the Road Code: DPWT’s road design policies and its traffic operations
policies. Certain elements of the DPWT’s current design policies would need to be
revised to comply with the proposed Road Code changes. The traffic operations policies
may not be in conflict with the text of the Road Code, but a public review could help
ensure that they are in line with the Council’s efforts.
Both of these policies need to take a comprehensive approach to design and operation,
ensuring that the needs of all users of the public right-of-way are considered and
accommodated when transportation projects are implemented. We recommend therefore
that these DPWT policies be submitted to the Council for review so that they can be
considered in concert with the proposed bills during the Councils’ work sessions.
Detailed Comments
1. Applicability of the proposed road standards: Section 49-32 references the
applicability of the proposed roadway design standard table to “Urban” and
“Other” areas. We recommend that an intermediate category of “Suburban” be
added and that the boundaries be concurrent with the county’s Priority Funding
Area (PFA), excepting those areas in the PFA with residential zoning denser than
R-40 and areas with commercial, industrial, or mixed-use zoning which should be
designated as Urban. Areas outside the PFA should be designated as Other.
2. Roadway design standard table: Section 49-32 should include a column
specifyinga minimumpedestrianzone – the distancebetween the curb and the
right-of-way line – since specifying only the sidewalk width could inadvertently
reduce the overall usable pedestrian area. This pedestrian zone should be a
minimum of 20 feet for Major Business District Streets and 15 feet for Business
District Streets, major Highways and Arterials.
Consider setting a standard ten-foot lane width for Business District Streets and
Major Business District Streets. The table should include a note stating that
auxiliary turn lanes may be narrower than the standard.
Consider including transitway right-of-way widths in the table – 50 feet wide
where integrated with the roadwayright-of-way, 70 feet wide where on an
independent alignment.
A standard width for shared use paths should be included in the table.
3. Roadway Classifications: In addition to the new classifications in the proposed
bill, we recommendan additionalclassification- MajorBusinessDistrict Streetto
replace those segments of Major Highways that pass through the areas
designated as Urban; such a classification would reflect the need to accommodate
both significant volumes of through-traffic and serve adjacent land uses. We also
believe that the reclassification of Arterials to Business District Streets should be
considered in these areas. The adoption of the proposed new classifications will
require an Amendment to the Master Plan of Highways.
4. Design speed: We recommend that the State statutory speed limits be adopted as
the County’s design speeds as follows:
Road Code Decision
In 1994 the state of Montana published, "A Guide For Erecting A Safe Mailbox" in which they state, "There are an estimated 200 fatalities and 9,000 injuries each year in the United States caused by collisions with mailboxes. The annual economic loss from these collisions with mailboxes is nearly 1 billion dollars. Sixty-nine percent of this loss is borne by the taxpayer."
It should be noted that most states had no mailbox support laws at all and only a couple actually maintained statistics. More states keep data today but I have noticed holes in the reporting.
I am writing this because I read, "We do not believe that mailbox posts are a problem." In proximity to the traveling vehicle there is no device that is as close as the mailbox, not even the good old stop sign. Most other signs, etc. are also at a height well above the windshield. Mailboxes are intentionally placed at the height of the weakest part of the vehicle – the windshield.
While we want everything else on the roadways to be safe, far too many of us are not willing to give up our personalized relics or creation turned into mailbox supports. It does not require speed, high speed or an excess of drugs or alcohol to be an errant driver. I cannot image anyone that, while not guilty of the above, has not drifted over the centerline and the shoulder line both; at least once in their life. That mailbox is right there!
There are so many dangerous mailbox supports out there. Concrete and brick fortresses that weigh as much as a car. Imagine striking a railroad tie or rail, cement filled cream can, water filled 50 gallon drum (400 pounds), wooden posts that fracture at the bumper height. Now put a family member or grandchild in that passenger side seat! A little drift of the car to the right and the passenger has a mailbox just clearing the hood.
Crash tests have been done and more continue all the time on newer designs. FWHA has testing criteria for this, NCHRP 350. A number of mailbox supports meet this break-away safety criteria. They are listed on their website as are other tested devices.
I know a bit about these as we manufacture a lightweight cantilever metal support that is breakaway and meets NCHRP 350. No! Not rich from it either. Safety is as much a political arena as it is anything else. I didn’t mention that for sales and will not mention our business name either. I write this because I know it is the right thing to do. Safety, like the chain, is no better than its weakest link.
I live in northern Minnesota. Roads get icy here for many months of the year and you can’t always tell that they are. When my vehicle starts to sliding, like everyone else, I go into recover mode but I also do something that most don’t even think of – I scan hard for mailboxes. I know what they can do!
Safety is not just accident prevention it is also liability prevention, pain and suffering prevention and more. Watch those mailboxes on your way to work and back home again, are there any mailboxes you would like to meet up with because of rain, snow, fog, a blown tire or just a bad moment?
Larry Friend
The Road Code has passed and the county Exec now has one year to purpose changes (which we are anticipating he will.)
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Apps/Council/PressRelease/PR_details.asp?PrID=3704