‘Bicycling’ Category

 

In Princeton, It’s Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

 

In Princeton, It’s Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: ‘Sharrow-ing’ A Vision for Complete Streets

by Cyndi Steiner and Aaron Hyndman

PRINCETON (Saturday, July 11, 2015) - A bike rider makes her way down a Hamilton Avenue free of parked cars

PRINCETON (Saturday, July 11, 2015) – A bike rider makes her way down a Hamilton Avenue free of parked cars

It was all so tantalizingly close. Back in January, Princeton’s bike advocacy groups had secured approval from the Town to install bike lanes on Hamilton Avenue, the Town Council voting 5-to-1 to embark on the beginning of what would hopefully be an extensive network of bike lanes throughout Princeton. But then came the complaints from Hamilton Avenue residents, voicing their opposition to a plan that would take away their ability to park cars on the street in front of their houses. It didn’t matter that the homes that lined Hamilton all included lengthy driveways with the capacity to park several cars off of the roadway. The residents had made their desires known, causing the Town Council to back away from the original plan. Princeton instead opted to not only keep the curbside parking on the south side of Hamilton Avenue, but also to paint sharrows on the north side instead of a bike lane. This sudden reversal was a devastating blow to Princeton’s bike advocates.

The inclusion of sharrows was intended by Princeton officials as a compromise, but to the town’s bicycling advocates, this compromise hardly seems like much of a concession to the cause of encouraging more bike riders to take to the roads. “We recommended bike lanes, to let ‘interested but concerned’ cyclists feel safer on the road,” said Sam Bunting, a citizen member of the Princeton Traffic and Transportation Committee, to NJBWC. “[Town] Council got half-way to approving those bike lanes, but ultimately opted for an unworkable compromise.”

To Steve Kruse, chairman of the Princeton Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee, the decision was a clear step in the wrong direction. “We are collectively going to nowhere, and short-changing our kids,” said Kruse in a statement to NJBWC.   The reality is that sharrows might seem to be a workable alternative, but as far as safety goes, they pale in comparison to the amenities provided by a bike lane, particularly for children who ride bicycles. Furthermore, the rider who is comfortable using a bike lane is not necessarily the same rider who will use sharrows. Therefore, this design leaves those riders with no way back.

Princeton Mayor Liz Lempert describes the currently agreed-upon situation as the best possible alternative. Detailing the town’s plans to NJBWC, Mayor Lempert explained, “I am hoping that in addition to sharrows we can stripe the 7′ parking lane and 3′ shoulder on the opposite side of the road. It’s obviously not the same as bike lanes, but it will define 10′ lanes which will help to slow traffic, and give bikers room in the 7′ space where there are often no cars parked.” Nonetheless, Mayor Lempert noted the frustration many have felt with the lack of progress on installing bike lanes in the town. “Our efforts in Princeton to slow cars and make our streets safer and more welcoming for walkers and bikers have felt at times like one step forward, two steps back,” said Mayor Lempert. “That said, I think we have been making progress in grappling with complete streets.”

While this compromise might seem to town officials like an adequate accommodation for bike riders, the fact of the matter is that it does very little to encourage biking along Hamilton Avenue. A guiding principle of bike infrastructure is that “if you build it, they will come.” Conversely, if you don’t build it, it’s highly unlikely that numbers of bike riders will build up to the critical mass that is needed to have an impact not only on traffic circulation, but also on bicyclist safety. And as Kruse further describes, that leaves the town in that vicious spiral of opponents who complain that traffic speeds need to be reduced, and therefore parking should be preserved to provide traffic calming, yet who also oppose the bike lanes that would provide the needed traffic calming and also provide an additional transportation option. It should also be noted that when no cars are parked on the road, which is regularly the case on a street such as Hamilton, there are no traffic calming effects. On the other hand, when bike lanes are installed, the traffic calming effect is ever-present.

Municipal policy needs to encourage riding, not serve as a barrier. When a town makes an obvious decision to favor the occasional demands of automobile parkers over the consistent needs for safe biking thoroughfares, it sends a terrible message. What people see is that bike riding is not an essential part of a community’s transportation policy, and that bike riders are second class citizens to car drivers.

Time and again, studies show that there is no better way to encourage biking than to build networks of safe bike lanes for riders to navigate through towns, cities and suburbs. The benefits are many. A decrease in traffic congestion, improved health outcomes, and a less-polluted environment are three of the major positives to having a thriving population of bike riders. But for this to happen, there needs to be a substantial population of bicyclists who ride not just for recreation, but as active transportation. Without an adequate network of bike lanes, this can’t be realized.

It’s time for municipalities to do more than just pay lip service to their complete streets policies. Sometimes, that means making tough choices. But when it all comes down to it, the benefits of the greater good have to outweigh the demands for luxuries such as excess curbside parking in addition to off-street parking that already satisfies an abundance of residents’ parking needs.

The roadway is a public good; its intended purpose is to provide a thoroughfare for traffic. Any other use, such as parking, needs to be viewed not as essential, but secondary. Public officials are recognizing the fact that bike lanes have a positive impact our communities. While it’s easy to express support for bicycling infrastructure in theory, in practice, implementing these good ideas takes a bit of fortitude. The time is now for local officials to step up to the plate and follow through on their good intentions, and put the promises to the pavement, giving our communities the bike lanes that are sorely needed. It’s a great first step that Princeton has made the commitment to develop a Bicycle Master Plan. But it can only go so far without the resolve to turn the plan into a reality.

 

Cyndi Steiner is the Executive Director of the New Jersey Bike & Walk Coalition.  Aaron Hyndman serves as the organization’s Communications Coordinator.

 

Safe Passing Laws Are Common Sense

 

 

Safe Passing Laws Are Common Sense

by Cyndi Steiner & Aaron Hyndman

 

A May 22, 2015 editorial by the Asbury Park Press called Assembly bill A1600/A1577, the Safe Passing Bill, a “wrongheaded proposal.”  Instead of passing a bill that would codify into law the mechanics of negotiating a safe pass, thus ensuring that a pedestrian or bicyclist is not hit by a car, the APP thinks drivers should simply be expected to use common sense.

What exactly does it mean for drivers to use common sense?  Here are some other examples: Stop for pedestrians in crosswalks;  stop at intersections where there are stop signs and traffic lights; use your directional signals when making a turn; yield when entering fast moving traffic. Certainly, these are simply rules of the road that shouldn’t need much explanation, and yet, the precedent has been set that these measures should be more than just common sense.  Instead of relying on “common sense,” they have been established as law by the State of New Jersey.

Why then would the Safe Passing Law not be similarly deserving of enactment?  Clearly Senator Nicholas Sacco, the legislator who is obstructing the bill by holding it up in committee, seems unable to grasp the mechanics of a safe pass, illogically deeming it unworkable in cities and towns with narrow streets.  But unfortunately, the lack of understanding of the dynamics of road sharing seems to also extend to the Asbury Park Press Editorial Board.  In their column, they write: “All too often, that 4 feet would force motorists in the wrong lane, facing oncoming traffic. How safe is that?”

The current state of vehicle traffic in New Jersey is such that most motorists are already accustomed to moving over as they pass bike riders and pedestrians in the roadway.  However, all it takes is one driver not to pass safely, and the results can be catastrophic. Given the condition of New Jersey roads, bike riders are forced to navigate and maneuver around life-threatening obstacles with alarming regularity.  As vulnerable users, bike riders and pedestrians deserve to be protected, and it’s entirely appropriate for such protection to be codified in state motor vehicle law.

It’s also not unreasonable to expect drivers to easily negotiate a brief maneuver into the opposing traffic lane.  This is something that is safely done with regularity, be it on rural roads when cars pass a slow-moving truck or farm vehicle, or in urban settings when a driver moves over to get around a double-parked car or a service vehicle.  Over 19,500 bicycle accidents occurred in New Jersey’s 13 northern counties between 2001 and 2011. Last year 170 pedestrians were killed on the state’s roadways, making NJ one of the worst states in the nation for pedestrian safety. Instances where vehicles collide as a result of passing a bicycle or pedestrian are extremely few and far between.   The editorial’s notion that the Safe Passing Law would cause a driver, obliged to follow the letter of the law, to suddenly abandon the use of a functioning brake pedal in favor of avoiding a vulnerable road user by blindly swerving into oncoming traffic is almost laughable.

Unfortunately though, the APP Editorial Board takes their ill-conceived notions regarding traffic flow a step further and suggest that “if there is no shoulder, or a narrow one that requires riding in a lane of traffic,” bike riders should “find another route,” and that “if there are no better options for getting from point A to point B, towns should create bike paths.”  Not only is this idea contrary to the law in all 50 states which declares that bicycles are deserving of the same rights to a roadway as motor vehicles, this line of thinking threatens to undo much of the progress made toward complete streets and safe roads for bike riders.  Ironically, the APP Editorial Board proposes complete streets plans as the solution in a scenario where there is no safe passing law, and on roads that do not provide accommodations for all users, with non-motorized users as second class citizens.  This is folly.  The editorial board remained silent on what pedestrians are supposed to do when there are no sidewalks or other road infrastructure that would enhance pedestrian safety. Are pedestrians supposed to walk somewhere else also?

The Editorial Board’s comments show a fundamental lack of understanding of who is riding bicycles and who is walking in the roadway. Bike riders, in addition to riding for recreation and exercise, also use bikes as transportation, and often these riders have no other choice, as car ownership and public transportation are out of their reach. These riders are to go ride somewhere else, instead of being able to safely pedal to their jobs, to run errands and otherwise use their bikes to provide for their families? Likewise with pedestrians using the roadways where there are no sidewalks; often this is not a matter of choice, but of necessity due to their economic circumstances. Again, they should go walk somewhere else, regardless of whether or not it gets them to their destination?

It’s a self-defeating argument for the APP to assert that an emphasis on complete streets policies should render a Safe Passing Law unnecessary. Casting aside the legal precedent that establishes bicycle riders as vehicles fully-deserving of necessary safety protections does no favors to complete streets advocates; it only makes it more difficult to convince policy makers that bikes belong on the road in the first place. And in an era of cash-strapped governments, with New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund rapidly running out of money, should we really expect that funding can be procured for the thousands of miles of off-road bike paths that the APP Editorial Board suggests as an alternative to safe and effective road sharing? Even if there were off-road bike paths, there is no law in the state that requires bike riders to use them instead of the roadway.

First and foremost, it should be stated that a Safe Passing Bill is not the be-all-and-the-end-all of ensuring the safety of riders and pedestrians who have to navigate roadways populated with automobiles.  But it is a start towards raising both the awareness among the general public of a bike rider’s legal right to use the roadway, and the likelihood that there will be bike riders and pedestrians in the roads.  NJBWC, along with partners Tri-State Transportation Campaign and AAA, have proposed amending the language of the Safe Passing Bill to clarify that a driver should, if necessary, slow down and overtake the bicyclist or pedestrian when it is safe to do so.  Slowing down, providing a safe passing distance, and moving over into the oncoming traffic lane is done now on roads throughout the state- urban, suburban and rural – under many different conditions: when a vehicle is double parked, when someone has opened their car door and is exiting, when emergency vehicles are stopped, and when mail trucks, delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, farm machinery and other service vehicles are performing their tasks and are stopped on the side of the road. If we can safely pass these vehicles in the roadway, we should be able to do that for people. Now that is common sense.

 

Cyndi Steiner is the Executive Director of the New Jersey Bike & Walk Coalition.  Aaron Hyndman serves as the organization’s Communications Coordinator.

 

When a "Share the Road" attitude prevails, a safe pass can be easily managed, even on a narrow rural road.

When a “Share the Road” attitude prevails, a safe pass can be easily managed, even on a narrow rural road.

 

Monmouth County Guts Its Complete Streets Policy

Moving in Reverse: Monmouth County Guts Its Complete Streets Policy

by Cyndi Steiner & Aaron Hyndman

 

Bike safety advocates present their case for complete streets to the Monmouth County Freeholders on April 23, 2015

Bike safety advocates present their case for complete streets to the Monmouth County Freeholders on April 23, 2015

In 2010, Monmouth County made a landmark commitment to safer roadways by being the first county in New Jersey to adopt a Complete Streets plan.  Sadly, the progress that was put in motion five years ago is in danger of grinding to a halt. Last month, Monmouth County established a set of Bicycle Facility Policy Guidelines that, instead of facilitating the installation of bicycling accommodations, will almost certainly be an impediment to the development of the network of safe bike lanes that the residents of Monmouth County were promised in 2010.

By law, the responsibility to fund the construction and maintenance of county roadways lies with the county government, not the municipalities.  However, Monmouth County’s new Bicycling Facility Policy and Guidelines, as stated in Resolution 2015-0352, change that dramatically.  According to the new Guidelines, all pavement markings and regulatory signs pertaining to bike lanes on county roadways are to be installed at the municipality’s expense. In addition, the Policy Guidelines also force municipalities to assume the costs of planning and design for bicycling facilities on county roads. These cities, boroughs and townships, already responsible for financing their own roads and streets, are now being unfairly forced to bear the burden of funding installations on county roadways that are not, and should not be, their responsibility.   Not only is such a policy unfair, it’s also unwieldy, as it unnecessarily compartmentalizes and complicates what should be a streamlined and centralized planning process under the guidance of the County Engineer.

Fair Haven Mayor Ben Lucarelli describes this action as putting a knife right through the 2010 Complete Streets Policy. Monmouth County’s Freeholders cannot be allowed to renege on their commitment to Complete Streets in such a manner that unfairly passes the buck, imposing financial and logistical obligations on municipalities that are already doing their fair share with regards to their own roads and streets.  To do so threatens future installation of the bicycling facilities Monmouth County residents have been promised.

Monmouth County’s 2010 Resolution states that where “practicable,” the Monmouth County Complete Streets Program “shall include all road, bridge, and building projects funded through Monmouth County’s Capital Program.”  The facts show that such inclusion is entirely feasible, despite County officials stating that the $15,000 per mile cost of bicycling facilities is an expense that exceeds the county’s financial limitations. Not only is $15,000 a mere fraction of the total per mile cost of repaving a roadway, but federal and state funding for bicycling facilities is also available to counties, thereby mitigating the cost of such installations.

What’s lacking is not the capital required to fund complete streets in Monmouth County.  All that is absent is the political will for Monmouth County officials to follow through with the promises they’ve made regarding safe streets for all residents who use them.  It’s time to hold the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders accountable, and ensure that they make good on their obligation to provide for their residents the safety of complete streets.

 

Cyndi Steiner is the Executive Director of the New Jersey Bike & Walk Coalition.  Aaron Hyndman serves as the organization’s Communications Coordinator.

 

[ed. note – A previous edition of this article indicated that the Bicycle Facility Policy Guidelines, passed on April 23, were voted on not during the open meeting, but in executive session.  NJBWC has verified that this was not the case, and has amended this post accordingly.]