Note: this alert is now old, please do not act.<\/b><\/big><\/p>\n
Bike Portland has some wonderful coverage<\/a> on this topic, with this update from Kit Keller, the Executive Director of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals:<\/p>\n \nPlease take action<\/a><\/p>\n Update: Please consider bicyclists on ALL road projects<\/b><\/p>\n Jim Titus just told me that he is having a constructive dialogue with SHA about MD-564 and that the email from SHA to Jim that I quoted (provided to me by someone else) was SHA\u2019s response to Jim\u2019s question about whether the final decision was made by officials in Baltimore or Greenbelt. Jim added: \u201cAlthough I objected to a particular re-routing of the through lane over what had been the shoulder, SHA has not slammed the door on the suggested mitigation, which would be to put sharrows along all of the conflict points between Lanham and Bowie. The problem now is that the road has a combination of a good shoulder most of the way, with occasional choke points that lack the striping and signs necessary to inform cyclists and drivers the appropriate route for bicycles using the full lane. MD-564 is a perfect example of why Maryland needs to adopt the use of R4-11 signs and start using sharrows.\u201d The R4-11 signs say \u201cBicycles May Use Full Lane\u201d. \u201cThe nearby Glenn Dale Citizens Association has also asked SHA to install sharrows and R4-11 signs in this area.\u201d<\/p>\n Glenn Dale Citizens Association Letter to SHA<\/a><\/p>\n \nBut theLeague of American Bicyclists Take Action<\/a> is still very much appropriate. Previous Alert:<\/b> Do I need to point out that the States designated bike routes came about by SHA trying to accommodate bicycles on ALL projects (the point of this alert) and the implication by SHA District 3 that our designated bike routes will not ever be expanded (because the road is not a designated bike route so therefore we will never consider bicyclists.) AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing highway and transportation departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It represents all five transportation modes: air, highways, public transportation, rail, and water.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \nNote the lack of mention of bicycling.<\/b> Further points that AASHTO tends to go off on the “more highways” deep end see: Promoting car centricity on Facebook – epic fail<\/a> and Commentary on AASHTO testimony before congress<\/a>.<\/p>\n In summary:<\/b> MDOT needs to RETURN to its policy that ALL projects accommodate bicyclists or get a waver AND ALL Federal funded projects accommodate bicyclists or get a waver. From FHWA Policy<\/a> Maintaining access to the transportation system for nonmotorized users is not an optional activity.<\/b> So copy and paste the following in front of LAB’s text in their alert<\/a>. (scroll down)<\/em><\/p>\n I am writing to request a correction to SHA District Three’s error in stating that MD 564 corridor projects do not need a waver in accommodating bicyclists and<\/b> from the League of American Bicyclists<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n[B’ Spokes: Let me highlight the importance of this alert by quoting a bit from a recent message from SHA [with clarifications in square brackets.] “The SHA’s District Three traffic engineering staff has completed its review, and would like to share the findings with you. The MD 564 corridor is not a designated bike route and as such, no waivers [or justification] were required for the [creating a barrier to bicycling] modifications which recently occurred at Louise Street [even though it is against State law \u00a7 2-602.]”<\/b><\/p>\n
\n
<\/em><\/big><\/p>\n\n
AASHTO Overview<\/a><\/h3>\n
\nOr use our letter after the fold<\/big>
\n<\/big><\/p>\n
\n