• Home
  • Biking in Maryland

Google

[Cycling] Group Again Seeks Support To Clean Up City Park’s Trails

BY JOANNE SHRINER, The Dispatch

SALISBURY – Local bicycle advocates pushed the Salisbury City Council this week to sanction a plan to rebuild the city park’s trails on the east side.
...

“This is just not an informal group of folks that are getting together and dreaming about stuff. These guys are actually doing it,” Drew said. “They are a very effective organization as they have proved they can work with public and private land owners to bring about trails to working communities.”
...

Council President Terry Cohen responded the council is waiting on liability information from the city attorney and when that information is received she will look to schedule a formal discussion with ESIMBA.

<a href="http://www.mdcoastdispatch.com/articles/2013/01/18/Top-Stories/Group-Again-Seeks-Support-To-Clean-Up-City-Parks-Trails">http://www.mdcoastdispatch.com/articles/2013/01/18/Top-Stories/Group-Again-Seeks-Support-To-Clean-Up-City-Parks-Trails</a>;
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Linus Bike Expresses the Cycling Benefits Maryland Will See During Their Efforts to Promote Biking

Jason Latty, Sales Manager for environmentally friendly bicycle company Linus Bike, believes in Maryland’s commitment. “They’re putting a lot of energy and effort into something that will truly make a difference for communities across the state,” said Latty. “By improving cycling opportunities, Maryland is improving the environment of their state. They’re improving the health of their people with each added bike lane. That kind of commitment to benefiting health and the environment should be wholly applauded.”

<a href="http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2013/1/prweb10303692.htm">http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2013/1/prweb10303692.htm</a>;
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Maryland State Senator Brian Frosh wants to stop red light ticket profits for camera vendors

B' Spokes: Discussions around red light cameras has always been &quot;interesting.&quot; Those who are against red light cameras claim they are just a revenue grabbing scam as if every thing the government does should lose money. But the problem in the referenced article is &quot;they simply could not afford the cameras if they had to pay rent or a flat fee.&quot;

Well here are a couple of my ideas:
1) Raise the fine.
2) Lower the tolerance from 12 mph over the speed limit to 7 mph or even 2 or 3 mph.

I'll note driving in Arizona I am amazed how many do exactly the speed limit even in 15 mph school zones. There is a culture of traffic law enforcement in Arizona that Maryland just does not have. Spotting a patrol car in Maryland was a lot less frequent then here in Arizona, not to mention a lot of automated enforcement in Arizona. It is also worth noting Arizona's percentage of traffic fatalities that are pedestrians is 14.1%, lower then Maryland's 20.8%.

Source article: <a href="http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01/maryland-state-senator-brian-frosh-wants-to-stop-red-light-ticket-profits-for-camera-vendors-83682.html">http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01/maryland-state-senator-brian-frosh-wants-to-stop-red-light-ticket-profits-for-camera-vendors-83682.html</a>;

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Obama Plans to Name Close Aide on National Security as Chief of Staff

B' Spokes: Now you might be wondering why I am sharing this, well...

He is also a relentless defender of Mr. Obama, as reporters on the receiving end of angry e-mails or phone calls from him can attest. His blasts have sometimes been delivered during his nightly bike ride home to Takoma Park, Md., where he lives with his wife and three children. (After scrapes with motorists, he now mostly drives.)

Now I have to ask if someone like this gets intimidated by Maryland's motorists what hope do women and kids have? This is one reason why I am involved in advocacy, enough with the mean motorists.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/politics/obama-plans-to-name-national-security-deputy-as-chief-of-staff.html
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

For many, biking is the sane way to get to inauguration

If you ever had any thoughts about being in DC for any major event, biking through DC while traffic is a near standstill is just awesome! Not to mention participating in the events themselves.

A bike route from Baltimore to DC: <a href="http://bikewashington.org/routes/dc2balt/index.htm">http://bikewashington.org/routes/dc2balt/index.htm</a>;

I'll note the above site has other &quot;invasion&quot; routes to DC if you happen to live somewhere else near DC.

The inauguration is Monday, January 21. <a href="http://dc.about.com/od/specialevents/a/Presidential-Inauguration-2013-Washington-Dc.htm">http://dc.about.com/od/specialevents/a/Presidential-Inauguration-2013-Washington-Dc.htm</a>;

The Washington Posts article about this: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/for-many-biking-is-the-sane-way-to-get-to-inauguration/2013/01/14/f247bc3c-5b6a-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/for-many-biking-is-the-sane-way-to-get-to-inauguration/2013/01/14/f247bc3c-5b6a-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html</a>;
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The State of Bicycling Advocacy in Maryland

Imagine for a second that the state legislature was considering a law that would effect cyclists and we did not find out about it till two months has passed after they voted on it, how would you feel?

Now let's say this is common practice and they mostly vote the way we want or at least what comes out is not that bad, does that make that practice better?

And for those involved with legislative issues you are familiar with the self appointed authority in the House subcommittee chair who feels that he knows best and added our notorious narrow highway exception to our three foot law.

Well this is the best &quot;standing on one foot&quot; summary of my issue with MBPAC. Now don't get me wrong, all appointed members are great people but they are acting as a substitute for public comment for cycling related issues and well... timely reporting of what was discussed as well as the subject of what is going to be discussed at the various meetings (both the main meeting and subcommittee meetings) would be highly desired. And to be quite frank, I have been fought at every turn trying to encourage this. Even my so called victory of the Open Meeting's Act violation has been willfully ignored. (Is that an overstatement? Maybe but things could be much, much better then what they are now. (I will note there has been some improvements since my action like the October minutes are available on-line unlike before where they could be six months behind. But we are in December now, not November as required by the Open Meetings Act.))

As far as the committee acting as a substitute for public comment, this can be a very good thing. My experience with working on the bicycle section of Maryland's Drivers' Handbook showed that cycling advocates working together to hammer out exact language we want worked out far better then thousand of individual comments that some unknown has to put together. In some cases some wanted X wording and others wanted Y wording, so we tried to accommodate both in new language and I think the resulting language worked out better then either X or Y wording. This is the power our cycling advocates have in committees.

But like our three foot law, we wanted just &quot;pass a cyclists with at least three feet&quot; type language but in order to appease that authority in the House subcommittee chair, things got all mucked up. There is a big problem when someone in authority holds outlying positions and asserts their authority to do so. Similarly we have a problem not too different then this in MBPAC.

In the article I just posted &quot;on Walkability and the One Mistake That Can Wreck a City&quot; <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121223103606875">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121223103606875</a>; Highlights the problem when the &quot;authority&quot; has their priorities too narrow or just wrong. Car Free Baltimore discusses something similar &quot;On Being a City Planner In a Room Full of Engineers&quot; <a href="http://carfreebaltimore.com/?p=2509">http://carfreebaltimore.com/?p=2509</a>; and you sort of see the problem of two different &quot;authorities&quot; that have an impact of bicycling, is one right and the other wrong? As you can see it's more complicated then that but in general it does seem that DOT centric engineers are a problem to what we want to accomplish.

Now I confess that I am acting on privileged information that I wish I can share, as you too would be outraged. But in lieu of that let me share an old alert that sort of gets to a problem: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20110415131723378">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20110415131723378</a>;

So one issue when we are talking about a (certain) state employee acting as our cycling &quot;authority&quot; and they seem to just defend current MDOT practices rather then being our advocate for change. (As if to say &quot;The state is allowed to do that, so what's the problem?&quot;)

Another problem with our &quot;authority&quot; in MBPAC is kind of like the conflict between AASHTO and NACTO, you can say nice things about both and you can say some negative things about both. As cycling advocates we try and glean the best of both but what would happen if our MBPAC authority is pro-AASHTO and anti-NACTO? (Keep in mind this is just for analogy purposes and not an accusation.)

What kind of things might come about by that stance?

1) Door zone bike lanes: ASSHTO supports them and NACTO has alternatives. One big problem for us in Maryland is we have a law that requires us to ride in bike lanes, so those of us who for our safety would like to ride outside the door zone and hence outside the bike lane have a huge up hill legal battle if we are in an accident or get ticketed. So advocates in Maryland are pushing for alternative treatments when a bike lane is in the door zone.

2) Cycle tracks: Not in AASHTO but they are in NACTO. So should cycle tracks be encouraged or discouraged?

My point here is even an &quot;authority&quot; or &quot;expert&quot; in bicycle accommodations can still fail to act appropriately by trying to standardize on door zone bike lanes and trying to nix cycle tracks in policy documents. Is there a educated framework that justifies that stance? Sure but one problem with that framework is it's decades old and is very slow to change.

I've ridden in NYC where a lot of NACTO comes from and it was amazing! Was everything perfect and acted flawlessly? No but even so I have a lot of good things to say about the creativity and effort in trying to make bicycling more accessible in NYC. So my big question is why don't we want that here?

Maybe that's an unfair question but my impression is our &quot;authority&quot; spends more time trying to reduce advice from cyclists to be acceptable to DOT over trying to get DOT to be more open to advice from cyclists. Granted that's a hard thing to quantify and the lack of transparency is not helping at all but it is something we need to have a conversation started about, which is why I wrote this post. I have been seeing too much DOT centric junk come from our &quot;authority&quot; then creative world transforming things.

Just as we have had some self appointed &quot;authority&quot; add the (one lane) narrow highway exception to our law I wounder what our &quot;authority&quot; in MDOT is saying about the recent summary of that law from MDOT is? (&quot;... The 3-foot law has an exemption for roads that are too nar­row to allow 3 feet of clear­ance safely. In this case, drivers are allowed to pass cyclists with less than 3 feet.&quot;) Is our &quot;authority&quot; just saying &quot;That's fine as that's what the law says&quot; while totally ignoring standards in giving safety advice in that need to to clarify the law and be applicable in rectifying a common problem(s).

As I said previously having a &quot;Don't drink and drive.&quot; safety campaign along with &quot;Having 4 drinks before driving is fine.&quot; is outrageous even though I can make a case that in some cases that's what the law says. So why is MDOT pushing a rare case (more rare then the % population that can have 4 drinks before driving) on our safety campaigns that does not solve a common problem?

I'm not sure what our &quot;authority&quot; in MDOT has or has not done on this issue but if he has done something it has not been very effective and if he has not done anything, well that's upsetting as well.

While I am on this subject you have an opportunity to correct our three foot law summary here: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121221120147945">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121221120147945</a>;

Hopefully I made some points that our &quot;authority&quot; needs to show results and not just show off their educated prowess. And if they do show off their educated prowess we would like to see that employed to improve MDOT in their accommodation of cyclists and not improving cyclists comments in accommodating MDOT.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Seven Jiu-Jitsu Moves for Advocates to Use MAP-21 to Their Own Advantage

B' Spokes: Currently Maryland is not too good at spending some pools of federal money, mostly these are the ones I would like to see go toward bike/ped issues. But currently that is not much of an issue since O'Malley created Cycle Maryland (<a href="http://www.cycle.maryland.gov/">www.cycle.maryland.gov/</a>; ) Even so I would like to see more spending on bike/ped educational issues (taking advantage of unspent federal money) and that issue seems to be taking a very long and circuitous route.

So here are some tips for those of you who would like to try and secure some federal funds for your bik/ped project:
<a href="http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/12/11/seven-jiu-jitsu-moves-for-advocates-to-use-map-21-to-their-own-advantage/">http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/12/11/seven-jiu-jitsu-moves-for-advocates-to-use-map-21-to-their-own-advantage/</a>;

The best of luck to you.
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Important Frederick Watershed Update!

From MORE

We want to keep everyone up to date on the latest information about the Watershed. Please see several important items below:

First: Be careful - we were just sent pictures of boards that were spiked with razor blades that were found on trails off of Fishing Creek Rd. Other trail sabotage has been found in the past included boards spike with nails and fishing line strung across the trail. If you find anything, DNR has asked for it to be left alone and reported it as follows: "When anyone finds something like razor blades in boards within the Watershed, please do not disturb this important piece of evidence and call the Frederick County Sheriff’s office at 911 as this appears to be a criminal act. If anyone encounters a hunting or natural resources violation, please call 410-260-8888 as this is the number to DNR’s central communication office who will relay any complaints to our NRP officers."

Second: Another logging operation is underway covering 41 acres. It is taking place east of Gambrill Park Rd and south of Hamburg Rd (see attached map. Note: the black dotted line is Stoner Road). This is impacting trails in the area. As we get more info we will post updates.

Finally: Last week Frederick Department of Public Works (DPW) called a meeting to discuss some watershed issues. DPW oversees the Watershed from the City side. The meeting was with DNR, City staff and representatives from MORE (Joe W. and Phil V.) and PATC (Clyde, owner of the Trail House and also an MTBer) were invited as well. DNR attendees included their Western Regional Manager, the DNR wildlife manager/land manager and 2 DNR Foresters. The City had the head of DPW, the Superintendent of Water Treatment and a transportation planner from the Mayor's bicycle advisory committee. DPW had two main topics on the agenda:
  • Rerouting an eroded section of the Catoctin Trail north of Delauter Rd
  • The "rogue" trails in the watershed

On the Catoctin trail reroute, the City has wanted us to do this for the past 2 years but DNR approval has been delayed. All is now approved and we are hoping to start corridor clearing in mid or late January. Stay tuned.

On the rogue trails:
  • The continued building of "rogue" trails is a hot issue with DNR and DPW (DNR and DPW define these as any trails built without permission). The DNR foresters who are out on the ground reported seeing changes and new trails cropping up from week to week. They have found and confiscated tool caches.
  • A DNR Forester suggested taking a complete trail inventory of the property so they know what they've got on the property and what is in areas that impact endangered or protected species, etc. They are going to look at the cost of hiring someone to do it and give a proposal to DPW. A trail inventory does not automatically "grandfather in" all the trails. It will be a starting point for drafting a recreational use plan.
  • The current Forest Management plan mentions MTB but the city suggested it needs a more comprehensive section on all recreation
  • DNR Forester suggested a committee should be formed to discuss this moving forward with all users groups and interested parties represented
  • DPW said there was a complaint this week from a local resident about mountain bikers shuttling/racing - most likely shuttling only, we guess the racing was just speculation but we are trying to get more information on the complaint. The city has received 3 mountain biking complaints from residents in the last few months. The mayor is personally receiving complaints, so they are on record with the city at a very high viability level.
  • Signage: DPW is going to install more signs with the rules of the watershed (like the new one at Sand Flats).
  • DNR land manager would like to see only the blue trail and a few spur trails off of it but also says the city needs to decide what it wants to do with things on the property
  • Phil/Clyde/Joe emphasized you cannot close down trails without offering better alternatives or trails will be opened back up. Having a single, linear trail (Catoctin) which is considered official is not going to work
  • DNR Regional Manager agrees a single linear trail is not a viable solution
  • All parties we met with agree that mountain biking and recreational uses have a place in the watershed but the hot-button issues need to be resolved or access is at risk.
  • The head of DPW asked us to communicate this message to the MTB community: rogue trail building needs to stop.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee October Meeting Minutes

B' Spokes: two things stand out to me in this report:

1) &quot;He [Jim] noted that many news articles in Prince George’s County complained about the lack of painted crosswalks across State highways. Jim notes that unmarked crosswalks have the same legal distinction as marked crosswalks and that police are empowered to enforce crosswalk regulations regardless of whether the crosswalks are marked or unmarked. He asked if whether an education campaign is needed to explain the duty to stop for pedestrians. &quot;

My sub points:
A) SHA roads are over represented in pedestrian fatalities.
Ref: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121219112028588">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121219112028588</a>;

B) My own observations even when SHA does paint crosswalks they do not (always) use the best engineering standards as required by by state law. (Too many transverse markings (two thin parallel lines) over continental markings (thick bars striping the crossing area.))
Ref: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20110514223328755">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20110514223328755</a>;


2) &quot;Greg said he attended the annual State Fair in Timonium and said that SHA had a booth there handing out materials including a card explaining the 3 foot passing law. This card originally drew objections from the bicycling community because it explained four exceptions to the 3 foot passing requirement. Bicyclists feared that readers would focus on the exceptions rather than the general requirement and still pass bicyclists too closely. In response the card was revised with the expectation that the original version would not be distributed or publicized. &quot;

Yet three months after this we have MDOT giving the following advice (published to a large audience by a state agency):
&quot;The 3-Foot Passing Law – Motorists are now required to give cyclists 3 feet of clear­ance when pass­ing. The 3-foot law has an exemption for roads that are too nar­row to allow 3 feet of clear­ance safely. In this case, drivers are allowed to pass cyclists with less than 3 feet.&quot;
Ref: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121215212451386">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121215212451386</a>;
And: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121216123520992">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20121216123520992</a>;

Additionally this is two YEARS after the first poor summary
Ref: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20101005122814769">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20101005122814769</a>;

One year after we tried to correct this &quot;Safety&quot; card.
Ref: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20111112163337508">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20111112163337508</a>;

Oh and the link to this card we are trying to correct is STILL valid.
Ref: <a href="http://www.marylandroads.com/MHSO/BikeSafety_LawCard.pdf">http://www.marylandroads.com/MHSO/BikeSafety_LawCard.pdf</a>;

This is so wrong! Have they no delete file capability?


If you are inclined write:
secretary@mdot.state.md.us &lt;secretary@mdot.state.md.us&gt;;
with a CC to:
governor@gov.state.md.us &lt;governor@gov.state.md.us&gt;;

(Please try to be positive, MDOT has been very supportive of trying to push our 3' law (a good thing) just the verbiage MDOT has chosen has not been well vetted.)

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)