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 is sympathy for the results that are intended; an elimination or at least reduction of motorists blocking bike lanes by parking in them. In addition to this result it is my understanding that a side benefit is to increase additional respect for bicyclists by not encroaching on marked bike lanes by parked vehicles. There is no objection to these aims. The objection is with the strategy being proposed.

As I mentioned at the legislative discussion passing new legislation is a useful tool but is not always the most appropriate means of getting something accomplished. In this case the legislative proposal has the following disadvantages:

·         It is redundant as it adds a new law where the same result can be achieved better by using existing laws.

·         In the event this proposal  is enacted the average citizen is unlikely to be aware of such a law in the absence of signage, which you feel would be unneeded, let alone visitors from other jurisdictions driving within Maryland.

·         The concept as currently proposed would eliminate the possibility of part-time bike lanes, successfully used in other places, where bike lanes are in effective at certain times of day such as rush hours, but parking is allowed in other times of the day.

·         It takes time and effort away from the pursuit of other legislative proposals that are also being proposed.

Redundancy

Annotated Code of Maryland Transportation Volume, Section 21-1003 (j) already provides a remedy to parking in bike lanes. It reads, Places where stopping is prohibited by signs. – A person may not stop, stand, or park a vehicle at any place where stopping is prohibited by an official sign”. In response to your concern about people double parking and blocking bike lanes striped next to on-street parking State law already prohibits this practice.

Section 21-1003 (r) Standing or parking vehicles alongside of other stopped or parked vehicles- A person may not stand or park a vehicle on the roadway side of any other vehicle that is stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a highway”. Therefore the Baltimore Police Department has grounds to ticket double parked vehicles that block the Roland Avenue bike lanes.

Awareness

The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 edition, states in Section 5B.01 that “The purpose of a regulatory sign is to inform highway users of traffic laws or regulations, and to indicate the applicability of legal requirements that would not otherwise be apparent.” If the public is parking in bike lanes and desire exists for people not do that then signs placed where parking in bike lanes is a problem is the established and most cost effective manner to communicate that information not only to the public but also to law enforcement personnel charged with ticketing violators.  

Part Time Bike Lanes

It has been my experience in drawing up engineering plans for bike lanes that often there is a political conflict over parking removal. In some places where bike lanes are desirable there isn’t sufficient political support to overcome opposition to losing existing on-street parking where there isn’t room for both. However demand for parking varies depending on time of day and day of week. Examples include less demand during rush hours and more demand for parking during religious services at churches, temples, etc. Bike lanes/parking can be designated for certain hours. The proposal as written would eliminate that type of flexibility.

Dilution of 2011 Legislative Advocacy

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

The following is to reply to your other comments.

You said:

“But isn't the same argument valid for permitting parking in a bike lane? Shouldn't come down to what's the general accepted use and sign the alternate use as it would be cheaper? After all a bike lane is for exclusive or priority use by bicycles.”

A general principle of traffic law is everything is permitted unless it is prohibited. While there are exceptions, these exceptions simply prove the general principle. Legally speaking in Maryland a bike lane is defined as “any portion of a roadway or shoulder designated for single directional bicycle flow.” Even by your definition of bike lane priority use means that bike lanes are not always exclusively for bicyclists. This proposal goes against the general principle of traffic law and because there are existing ways of achieving the desired results, the proposal isn’t justifiable.

You said:

“The counter argument was but "No Parking" signs are cheap, something like $40 each (assuming we already have a pole to hang them on, otherwise it is more like $200 a piece including labor.) Well lets look at that. By my estimate Baltimore Metro (just a small part of the State) needs minimally about 300 miles of bike lanes to truly have a bicycles as transportation network just in the urban designated areas. So let's do the math: 2 signs per block * 2 sides of the road * 10 blocks per mile (in the city that's a higher number) * 300 miles * $40 a sign = $480,000. (Can I round that up to a half a million?) Not to mention under the State's current policies they will not allow Federal funding for signs. Even SHA gave up marking shoulders as bike lanes because of the expense of signs.”

My first response is that signing is the most cost effective manner of relaying parking prohibition information to citizens and law enforcement officers, as well as visitors from out of state. Signing is the status quo solution. The bicycling community and the legislature did not have a problem with SHA spending money urging motorists to give bicyclists a minimum of 3 feet when passing (see attachment).  This is less cost effective than signing but in the case of publicizing 3 foot passing minimums signing is not a reasonable strategy. The point is that less cost effective ways of promoting public bicycling awareness has been supported by the bicycling community. Therefore objecting to spending money on signs seems inconsistent with the consensus of the bike community to spend money on bicycling when needed.

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

Finally SHA’s rationale concluding that the costs of converting shoulders into bike lanes was financially infeasible was not supported by the requirements of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The costs they projected was unnecessary in my opinion. I had experience with such shoulder into bike lane conversions at reasonable costs versus the exorbitant cost projections SHA made, during my stint as the City of San Diego’s Bicycle Coordinator. Unfortunately SHA had not had similar experiences of bike lane installation at the time of this discussion.  

You stated:

“My argument I presented at the meeting was: what about bike lanes next to parking like in Roland Park (Starbucks), you can't sign "No Parking" there. I was countered with: but isn't double parking illegal? Which I countered with: but police need due cause to give tickets, if the cars are not blocking the car travel lane is there due cause to give a ticket without this law? “

Section 21-1003 (r) Standing or parking vehicles alongside of other stopped or parked vehicles- A person may not stand or park a vehicle on the roadway side of any other vehicle that is stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a highway”. Therefore the Baltimore Police Department has grounds to ticket double parked vehicles that block the Roland Avenue bike lanes.

You stated:

I feel very strongly that the facility that accommodates both cyclists and parking is a shoulder not a bike lane. Once it is designated a bike lane there should be no standing cars (unless to make a right turn.) That is best engineering practices IMHO and it would be very helpful if MBPAC would support this legislation.

I too,  prefer bike lanes next to parking to have solid striping on both sides of the bike lane for better designation. However bike lanes can be created with just striping on the moving motor vehicle side, despite your opinion.  I don’t think this proposal would outlaw bike lanes with striping just on one side and don’t think such a provision is needed given the existing dearth of such facilities.

Finally you said

So I am asking those that agree that parking should be prohibited in bike lanes to write to Michael Jackson mjackson3@mdot.state.md.us the State Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Jim Swift jks36@verizon.net the Chairman of the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (MBPAC) And please be polite! these folks are great supporters of our cause but all engineers are subject to "Oh, but I got an engineering fix for that problem." I have fallen victim to that kind of thinking myself from time to time. So please thank them for their support to date.

I want to thank you very much for this appeal for civility. It is greatly appreciated. In this case our opposition to this proposal is that a new legal solution isn’t needed when an existing legal solution already exists that will more effectively communicate to law enforcement and the public rules about not blocking bike lanes.

Thanks,

Michael