{"id":184578761,"date":"2010-11-07T07:52:41","date_gmt":"2010-11-07T07:52:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/?p=184578761"},"modified":"2010-11-07T07:52:41","modified_gmt":"2010-11-07T07:52:41","slug":"summary-of-public-bike-comments-and-brtb-response-revised-plan-it-2035-goals-strategies-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/?p=184578761","title":{"rendered":"Summary of public (bike) comments and BRTB Response: Revised Plan It 2035 Goals & Strategies (October 2010)"},"content":{"rendered":"

4 Add a new strategy: \u201cDo not compromise pedestrian
\nand bicycle safety for the convenience of motorized
\nvehicles.\u201d
\n
\nResponse:<\/b> The intent of this strategy is addressed by two existing
\nproposed strategies: (1) \u201cInvest in cost-effective safety
\nimprovements to eliminate hazardous or substandard
\nconditions in high crash locations and corridors (all modes)\u201d
\nand (2) \u201cImprove conditions to enable pedestrians and
\nbicyclists to interact more safely with users of other
\ntransportation modes.\u201d
\n[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.]<\/em> <\/p>\n

5 Add text to this strategy: \u201cImprove conditions to enable
\npedestrians and bicyclists to interact more safely with
\nusers of other transportation modes. Provide specific
\naccommodation for bicycles and pedestrians on all
\nroad improvement projects.\u201d
\n
\nResponse:<\/b> The Federal Highway Administration has a policy
\nrecommending that all roadway projects routinely provide safe,
\naccessible accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. The
\nexceptions are interstate highways or other roadways where
\nspecific safety-related or topographic conditions preclude these
\naccommodations. All agencies and jurisdictions receiving
\nfederal funding for transportation projects adhere to this policy.
\nIn addition, the Maryland State Highway Administration has its
\nown policy addressing this issue.
\n[B’ Spokes response: Not all road projects are Federally funded so that bit lacks teeth. SHA’s policy<\/a> is no funding for on-road bike accommodations unless part of a trail. So again we have not all that it could be.]<\/em><\/p>\n

12 Add a strategy: \u201cCreate walkable environments.\u201d
\n
\nResponse:<\/b> This recommendation is consistent with several proposed
\nstrategies. For example, under the Safety goal: \u201cImprove
\nconditions to enable pedestrians and bicyclists to interact more
\nsafely with users of other transportation modes.\u201d Under
\nAccessibility: (1) \u201cIncrease transportation alternatives in all
\nmodes for all segments of the population,\u201d (2) \u201cProvide strong
\nfunding commitment for building both pedestrian and bicycle
\nfacilities that establish linkages among activity centers and
\nprovide access to public transit,\u201d and (3) \u201cImprove system
\nconnectivity and continuity among all modes. . . .\u201d Also, under
\nthe Environment goal: \u201cEnhance the quality of human health by
\nproviding multimodal transportation infrastructure and services
\nthat support active living and physical activity. . . .\u201d
\n[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<\/a> and they show a lack of a funding commitment. Again we have not all that it could be.]<\/em><\/p>\n

18 Add text to this strategy: \u201cSustain and balance capacity
\nin the highway, transit, and rail systems and pedestrian
\nand bicycle networks among urban, suburban, and
\nrural areas.
\n
\nResponse:<\/b> This strategy is intended to provide a balanced system with
\nrespect to capacity throughout the region to the greatest extent
\npossible. However, funding constraints and local preferences
\nmay preclude providing choices in all modes in all geographic
\nareas.
\n[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.” <\/p>\n

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?<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\nAction 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 \u2015prepare 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.
\n
…
\nIn addition to limited resources at the regional level, a lack of institutional support at the state level has hampered the Baltimore region\u2018s 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\u2018s 11.47%.), and modeling and air quality calculation tools that do not allow recognition of the benefits of non-motorized projects.
\n
…
\nPlanning 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.
\n
\nhttps:\/\/pubs.its.ucdavis.edu\/publication_detail.php?id=1304<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/a> We need something better then what BRTB has done to date.]
\n<\/em>
\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.baltometro.org\/downloadables\/PlanIt2035\/PlanIt2035_GoalsII_ResponseMatrix.pdf<\/a>oldId.20101106195241477<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

4 Add a new strategy: \u201cDo not compromise pedestrian and bicycle safety for the convenience of motorized vehicles.\u201d Response: The intent of this strategy is addressed by two existing proposed strategies: (1) \u201cInvest in cost-effective safety improvements to eliminate hazardous or substandard conditions in high crash locations and corridors (all modes)\u201d and (2) \u201cImprove conditions … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Summary of public (bike) comments and BRTB Response: Revised Plan It 2035 Goals & Strategies (October 2010)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"1","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184578761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-biking-in-the-metro-area"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184578761","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=184578761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184578761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=184578761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=184578761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=184578761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}