{"id":190396693,"date":"2011-01-13T15:58:13","date_gmt":"2011-01-13T15:58:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/?p=190396693"},"modified":"2011-01-13T15:58:13","modified_gmt":"2011-01-13T15:58:13","slug":"re-not-blocking-or-parking-in-dedicated-bike-lanes-reply-still-not-supportive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/?p=190396693","title":{"rendered":"RE: Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes (reply) (Still not supportive)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Follow up to Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes<\/a><\/p>\n

By Michael Jackson
\n  <\/p>\n

Thanks for sharing your concerns with the intended
\nrecommendation to MBPAC not to support the proposal to prohibit parking in bike
\nlanes.  I have reviewed your concerns and offer the following responses. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

First, this is to say that there is sympathy for the results
\nthat are intended; an elimination or at least reduction of motorists blocking
\nbike lanes by parking in them. In addition to this result it is my
\nunderstanding that a side benefit is to increase additional respect for
\nbicyclists by not encroaching on marked bike lanes by parked vehicles. There is
\nno objection to these aims. The objection is with the strategy being proposed. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

As I mentioned at the legislative discussion passing new
\nlegislation is a useful tool but is not always the most appropriate means of
\ngetting something accomplished. In this case the legislative proposal has the
\nfollowing disadvantages:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00b7        
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>It is redundant as it adds a new law where the same result can
\nbe achieved better by using existing laws.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00b7        
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>In the event this proposal  is enacted the average citizen
\nis unlikely to be aware of such a law in the absence of signage, which you feel
\nwould be unneeded, let alone visitors from other jurisdictions driving within
\nMaryland.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00b7        
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>The concept as currently proposed would eliminate the
\npossibility of part-time bike lanes, successfully used in other places, where
\nbike lanes are in effective at certain times of day such as rush hours, but
\nparking is allowed in other times of the day. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00b7        
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>It takes time and effort away from the pursuit of other
\nlegislative proposals that are also being proposed. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Redundancy<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Annotated Code of Maryland Transportation Volume, Section
\n21-1003 (j) already provides a remedy to parking in bike lanes. It reads, Places
\nwhere stopping is prohibited by signs<\/i>. \u2013 A person may not stop,
\nstand, or park a vehicle at any place where stopping is prohibited by an
\nofficial sign\u201d. In response to your concern about people double parking
\nand blocking bike lanes striped next to on-street parking State law already
\nprohibits this practice. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Section 21-1003 (r) Standing or parking vehicles alongside of
\nother stopped or parked vehicles<\/i>– A person may not stand or park a vehicle
\non the roadway side of any other vehicle that is stopped or parked at the edge
\nor curb of a highway\u201d. Therefore the Baltimore Police Department has
\ngrounds to ticket double parked vehicles that block the Roland Avenue bike
\nlanes. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Awareness<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 edition,
\nstates in Section 5B.01 that \u201cThe purpose of a regulatory sign is to
\ninform highway users of traffic laws or regulations, and to indicate the applicability
\nof legal requirements that would not otherwise be apparent.\u201d<\/b> If the
\npublic is parking in bike lanes and desire exists for people not do that then
\nsigns placed where parking in bike lanes is a problem is the established and
\nmost cost effective manner to communicate that information not only to the
\npublic but also to law enforcement personnel charged with ticketing violators.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Part Time Bike Lanes<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It has been my experience in drawing up engineering plans for
\nbike lanes that often there is a political conflict over parking removal. In
\nsome places where bike lanes are desirable there isn\u2019t sufficient
\npolitical support to overcome opposition to losing existing on-street parking where
\nthere isn\u2019t room for both. However demand for parking varies depending on
\ntime of day and day of week. Examples include less demand during rush hours and
\nmore demand for parking during religious services at churches, temples, etc. Bike
\nlanes\/parking can be designated for certain hours. The proposal as written
\nwould eliminate that type of flexibility. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Dilution of 2011 Legislative Advocacy<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Jim Swift, Patrick Sheehan and I are unlikely to be the only
\nones to question the need for a statewide ban on parking in bike lanes
\nproposal. It is foreseeable that questions will be raised with all of the legislative
\nproposals being considered this year.  Based on the above discussion why
\ndevote time and effort trying to get this proposal passed when existing means
\nare available to achieve the desired outcomes. Efforts made in advocating this
\nproposal could, in my opinion, be better spent on other legislative proposals. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The following is to reply to your other comments.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

You said:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBut isn’t the same argument valid for permitting
\nparking in a bike lane? Shouldn’t come down to what’s the general accepted use
\nand sign the alternate use as it would be cheaper? After all a bike lane is for
\nexclusive or priority use by bicycles.\u201d<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

A general principle of traffic law is everything is permitted
\nunless it is prohibited. While there are exceptions, these exceptions simply
\nprove the general principle. Legally speaking in Maryland a bike lane is defined
\nas \u201cany portion of a roadway or shoulder designated for single
\ndirectional bicycle flow.\u201d Even by your definition of bike lane priority
\nuse means that bike lanes are not always exclusively for bicyclists. This
\nproposal goes against the general principle of traffic law and because there
\nare existing ways of achieving the desired results, the proposal isn\u2019t
\njustifiable. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

You said:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>The counter argument was but “No
\nParking” signs are cheap, something like $40 each (assuming we already
\nhave a pole to hang them on, otherwise it is more like $200 a piece including
\nlabor.) Well lets look at that. By my estimate Baltimore Metro (just a small
\npart of the State) needs minimally about 300 miles of bike lanes to truly have
\na bicycles as transportation network just in the urban designated areas. So
\nlet’s do the math: 2 signs per block * 2 sides of the road * 10 blocks per mile
\n(in the city that’s a higher number) * 300 miles * $40 a sign = $480,000. (Can
\nI round that up to a half a million?) Not to mention under the State’s current
\npolicies they will not allow Federal funding for signs. Even SHA gave up
\nmarking shoulders as bike lanes because of the expense of signs.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

My first response is that signing is the most cost effective
\nmanner of relaying parking prohibition information to citizens and law
\nenforcement officers, as well as visitors from out of state. Signing is the
\nstatus quo solution. The bicycling community and the legislature did not have a
\nproblem with SHA spending money urging motorists to give bicyclists a minimum
\nof 3 feet when passing (see attachment).  This is less cost effective than
\nsigning but in the case of publicizing 3 foot passing minimums signing is not a
\nreasonable strategy. The point is that less cost effective ways of promoting public
\nbicycling awareness has been supported by the bicycling community. Therefore
\nobjecting to spending money on signs seems inconsistent with the consensus of
\nthe bike community to spend money on bicycling when needed. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

My second response is that even accepting a need for 300 miles
\nof bike lanes in the Baltimore metropolitan area, this is not going to happen
\novernight. Therefore a half million dollar cost of signs would be spread out
\nover the many years that it would take to achieve the goal of 300 miles of bike
\nlanes throughout multiple jurisdictions, again making this affordable. Actually
\nsince bike lanes either have to marked by pavement markings or signs, pavement
\nmarkings are ultimately more expensive than signs because pavement markings
\nhave to be replaced sooner. If you are going to have bike lanes, bike lane
\nsigns are expected and where you need to install no parking signs the
\ncombination No parking\/bike lane sign kills two birds with one stone (see
\nattachment). <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally SHA\u2019s rationale concluding that the costs of
\nconverting shoulders into bike lanes was financially infeasible was not
\nsupported by the requirements of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
\nThe costs they projected was unnecessary in my opinion. I had experience with
\nsuch shoulder into bike lane conversions at reasonable costs versus the exorbitant
\ncost projections SHA made, during my stint as the City of San Diego\u2019s
\nBicycle Coordinator. Unfortunately SHA had not had similar experiences of bike
\nlane installation at the time of this discussion.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

You stated:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMy argument I presented at the meeting was: what
\nabout bike lanes next to parking like in Roland Park (Starbucks), you can’t
\nsign “No Parking” there. I was countered with: but isn’t double
\nparking illegal? Which I countered with: but police need due cause to give
\ntickets, if the cars are not blocking the car travel lane is there due cause to
\ngive a ticket without this law? \u201c<\/p>\n

<\/b><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Section 21-1003 (r) Standing or parking vehicles alongside of
\nother stopped or parked vehicles<\/i>– A person may not stand or park a vehicle
\non the roadway side of any other vehicle that is stopped or parked at the edge
\nor curb of a highway\u201d. Therefore the Baltimore Police Department has
\ngrounds to ticket double parked vehicles that block the Roland Avenue bike
\nlanes. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

You stated:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I feel very strongly that the facility that accommodates
\nboth cyclists and parking is a shoulder not a bike lane. Once it is designated
\na bike lane there should be no standing cars (unless to make a right turn.)
\nThat is best engineering practices IMHO and it would be very helpful if MBPAC
\nwould support this legislation.<\/b><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

I too,  prefer bike lanes next to parking to have solid
\nstriping on both sides of the bike lane for better designation. However bike
\nlanes can be created with just striping on the moving motor vehicle side,
\ndespite your opinion.  I don\u2019t think this proposal would outlaw bike
\nlanes with striping just on one side and don\u2019t think such a provision is
\nneeded given the existing dearth of such facilities. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally you said<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So I am asking those that agree that parking should be
\nprohibited in bike lanes to write to Michael Jackson mjackson3@mdot.state.md.us<\/em>
\nthe State Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Jim Swift jks36@verizon.net<\/em>
\nthe Chairman of the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (MBPAC)
\nAnd please be polite! these folks are great supporters of our cause but all
\nengineers are subject to “Oh, but I got an engineering fix for that
\nproblem.” I have fallen victim to that kind of thinking myself from time
\nto time. So please thank them for their support to date.<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I want to thank you very much for this appeal for civility. It
\nis greatly appreciated. In this case our opposition to this proposal is that a
\nnew legal solution isn\u2019t needed when an existing legal solution already
\nexists that will more effectively communicate to law enforcement and the public
\nrules about not blocking bike lanes. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Thanks,<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Michael <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Follow up to Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes By Michael Jackson   Thanks for sharing your concerns with the intended recommendation to MBPAC not to support the proposal to prohibit parking in bike lanes.  I have reviewed your concerns and offer the following responses.   First, this is to say that there … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “RE: Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes (reply) (Still not supportive)”<\/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":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190396693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bike-laws"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190396693","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=190396693"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190396693\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=190396693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=190396693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.baltimorespokes.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=190396693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}