SHA not obligated to accommodate bicyclists per policy and wins an award from LAB for policy
From 4/11 Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (MBPAC) minutes
Jim Titus expressed concerns regarding the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission –Prince George’s County’s designation of MD Route 564 as a bikeway was not recognized by the State Highway Administration. Michael [Jackson Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access] stated that because MD Route 564 is a State highway SHA was not bound to accept M-NCPPC-PG’s designation but recommended that Jim contact SHA staff about his concerns.
For a little background: SHA intermittently removed a bikeable shoulder for bypass lanes around left turns lanes on a designated bike route when for "the same money" they could have centered the striping on the roadway and have comfortable cycling conditions on both sides of the road (the road in question is along RR tracks so in this one direction there is only lefts and no right turns.). This should have been a no brainier on how to accommodate bicyclists but as it stands now it's forcing cyclists to weave in and out of fast traffic, not cool at all but per the Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access it is at least part of SHA policy. :(
Let's look at excerpts from our State's bike master plan:
S t r a t e g y 4 B :
Increase Communication with Stakeholders
...
Strong State coordination with local programs is also encouraged.
S t r a t e g y 5 B :
Initiate a Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Program (BPPP)
...
The BPPP will provide a much-needed framework for State/local partnerships focused on bicycling and walking. Bicycle and pedestrian travel is inherently a local activity, so it is essential that improvements on State facilities complement local networks.
While policy is legally non-binding you would think a more tactful and more helpful response would be more forth coming from our Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. But doesn't State law cover this as well?
§ 2-602. Public policy.
The General Assembly finds that it is in the public interest for the State to include enhanced transportation facilities for pedestrians and bicycle riders as an essential component of the State's transportation system, and declares that it is the policy of the State that:
(1) Access to and use of transportation facilities by pedestrians and bicycle riders shall be considered and best engineering practices regarding the needs of bicycle riders and pedestrians shall be employed in all phases of transportation planning, including highway design, construction, reconstruction, and repair as well as expansion and improvement of other transportation facilities;
(2) The modal administrations in the Department shall ensure that the State maintains an integrated transportation system by working cooperatively to remove barriers, including restrictions on bicycle access to mass transit, that impede the free movement of individuals from one mode of transportation to another;
(3) As to any new transportation project or improvement to an existing transportation facility, the Department shall work to ensure that transportation options for pedestrians and bicycle riders will be enhanced and that pedestrian and bicycle access to transportation facilities will not be negatively impacted by the project or improvement;
So somehow SHA has worked up a internal policy (not really subject to public preview) that they feel they CAN negatively impact bicyclists and the Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access can find no fault in that methodology. Tsk, tsk, that is just so wrong.
From MDOT's press release: [edited to be more to the point.]
HANOVER, MD – The League of American Bicyclists [LAB] named Maryland as an Honorable Mention in its Bicycle Friendly State program.
...
The League of American Bicyclists cited a number of specific efforts Maryland is making that made them stand out including [edited for emphasis]:
۰ coordination with other states; [but not with it's own localities.]
۰ creation of a Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access position at MDOT; [that stands up for SHA's "right" to ignore the 20-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan and to negatively impact bicyclists.]
۰ creation of popular Competence and Confidence adult bicycle safety video specific to Maryland; [OK that was fairly cool but that was made years ago] and
۰ establishment of a 20-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Master Plan that provides a detailed perspective from the State's vision of becoming the best State for bicycling by 2023 and the 66 action items needed to get there. [This plan is so ancient that we had to pass a law last year to get MDOT to update the darn thing just like other transportation plans. It should have been updated twice by now but MDOT has refused and it gets an award for a modest 3% improvement in roads over 20 years? And if LAB would take the time to actually read the reports it basically says that Maryland state roads are already as good as they need to be for the best State for bicycling, ya right, some "20 year" plan with goals so low they knocked them out in the first year and cyclists have been on the back burner ever since.]
Both Maryland and Delaware were given honorable mention awards...
So who can you complain too? Absolutely nobody.
Why? Because thanks to LAB in giving credit to a ancient, gathering dust, 10 year old bike master plan we have a great bicycling policy even though the policy that SHA actually uses is more like "When we put shoulders on a road make sure they are consistent so we can charge bicyclists for a break down lane." Well, that might be overly sarcastic (and don't get me wrong, I really do like shoulders and things in general that benefit a wide range of users) but still we have MD Route 564 where they did not "need" to think about bicyclists (so take their shoulder away) and there is Hammonds Ferry Road bridge where they did not "need" to think about bicyclists (so sever their route.) I could go on but these have been in recent months from SHA.
But wait there's more! LAB is not necessarily the bad guy here as the application for Bike Friendly States is filled in by... are you ready for this?... The Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access, that's right the same guy who says that SHA is under no obligation to work with local plans (and by inference, SHA can negatively impact existing bicycling conditions) says we have a great bicycling policy even though the "great" bicycling policy says no that's all wrong what SHA did and the policy in use by SHA says ... well something different.
All this is to give you some idea of the current double talk cycling advocates have to put up with and to stress the importance of getting a director of MDOT that is supportive of improving conditions for cyclists. More on this point when I get a chance. Meanwhile enjoy biking on state roads as they are "the best for bicycling" per MDOT and I guess LAB thinks that as well. Heavy sigh.
What's Related