(Congrats to) Santa Fe, a Bronze level Bicycle Friendly Community

I was more than a little surprised to find out yesterday from State Bike/Ped Coordinator Tom Trowbridge that Santa Fe was going to be awarded the League of American Bicyclist's Bronze Level Bicycle-Friendly Community designation. That was made public today. Congrats, City Different!

I was a reviewer of The City Different's application almost exactly one year ago (I just checked) and in my final analysis, couldn't recommend anything higher than Honorable Mention to the League from an outsider's perspective. I was not told that a new application was being considered this fall (hmmm...conspiracy theorists can run with that one).

Tinfoil hats rule

Now seriously, folks. Last time around when providing my own evaluation, I spoke to several other in-state LCIs and the decision to recommend Honorable Mention was apparently not unique on my part. I'm not sure what has changed in the interim, but certainly don't begrudge Santa Fe its designation. I simply hope they live up to it. My concern is that LAB needs to keep its standards for BFC's very high and Santa Fe must live up to the award by continually improving, especially in its often dicey roadway connectivity.

As I reported to LAB last year (Sept. 2010) in my review of Santa Fe's application, and again mentioned yesterday to Andy Clarke of the League, many of Santa Fe's problems are not of its own making: the designs and changes implemented on Cerrillos Road, St. Francis Drive, and at the Railrunner crossing at the St. Francis and Cerrillos rail crossing are severe impediments to cycling which were provided by the NM Dept. of Transportation, which "owns" those State/Federal roads. That agency is infamous to NM cycling as neglecting or destroying bicycling-related infrastructure (partially paved roadway shoulders, intermittent bike lanes, etc).  Perhaps that consideration was taken into account by the Bikeleague, as well it should be. In its favor, Santa Fe has a very bicycling-friendly administration, a growing system of offroad trails and bikeways, and was one of the test cities for Sharrows. But that sharrow story has its own twist: when Santa Fe installed sharrows, the police were not briefed and had to be told after the fact what they were. Tim Rogers has also emphatically stressed to me the feverish work that is currently being done by the Santa Fe government and cycling community. Change is rapid.

For anyone thinking I'm dumping on Santa Fe and the LAB with such faint praise, rest assured, its a matter of disagreeing about details, not about principles. I've not pushed a BFC award application here in Bombtown (yet) as I thought we had too much work left to do before we were ready for prime time (added note: I've just requested that this be added to the T Board agenda). Indeed, the concept has been part of recent Transportation Board work plans (put there by a couple local LCIs who have served on the Board), which County Council, of course, has approved.  With Diamond Drive just about done, a very helpful and bike-friendly police force, and bicycling issues formally made part of any road design review by virtue of Council having approved our 2005 Bike Plan and our recently adopted formalized design guidance for streets and roads (see earlier posts and sidebar links) I think its about time we considered applying too. Now, if we can get LANL fully on board...

But let's give three cheers and lift a cold one to our cycling friends down the road in Santa Fe and to the League of American Bicyclists for recognizing Santa Fe's efforts. The City Different has definitely worked for this, even if much remains to be done. Besides, grumpy as I am as a hard grader (and I've always been a hard grader),  I'm not omniscient.

2005 Los Alamos County Bicycling Transportation System (aka "bike plan")

Thanks to many on the County Staff side, the 2005 Los Alamos County Bike Plan is now online. Text is below, the fancy maps can be downloaded with the pdf from the county link. Its on a "documents' page. I'll link directly to it on the sidebar "Useful Links"

================================================================

LOS ALAMOS COUNTY
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
(adopted unanimously by the Los Alamos County Council, May, 2005)

The Transportation Board recommends to Council that the following roads be adopted as
the Los Alamos County Bicycle Transportation System. Throughout this Bicycling
Transportation System, bicycling improvements (appropriate to each facility) should be
implemented when major maintenance, reconstruction, or construction is performed on
the roadway facilities included below.
Bicycling improvements should be appropriate to the type of roadway in question, such
as wider shoulders on highways or bike lanes on arterials (if possible); and should include
bicycle-friendly intersection improvements, uniform signing, and appropriate markings;
and should avoid the use of bicycle unfriendly infrastructure such as parallel gratings,
poorly placed rumble strips, or use of the gutter-pan as part of the travel lane. In addition
to improvements, appropriate preventative maintenance must continue to be performed
throughout the system such as routine sweeping, pothole patching, and snow removal.
Furthermore, the County should review the Bicycle Transportation System periodically to
ensure that any new developments are bicycle-friendly.
PRIORITY I
Arterials:
a. Diamond Drive from San Ildefonso Road to Omega Bridge.
b. Central Avenue from NM 502 to Rose Street.
c. Canyon Road from Rose Street to Diamond Drive.
d. Trinity Drive – East Road from Diamond Drive to Airport Road.
PRIORITY II
Major Collectors:
a. Arkansas Avenue and North Road.
b. Grand Canyon Drive.
c. Rover Boulevard and Meadow Lane.
d. San Ildefonso North from Diamond Drive to the end of Barranca Road.
e. San Ildefonso Road South from Diamond Drive to Sioux Street.
f. Thirty-eighth Street and Villa.
PRIORITY III
Minor Collectors:
a. Bryce Avenue.
b. Canyon Road from NM 502 to Central Avenue.
c. North Mesa Road.
d. Sherwood Boulevard.
e. Western Area Loop: Trinity Drive from Diamond Drive to 48th Street, 48th
Street to Sandia Drive, and Sandia Drive to Diamond Drive.
f. Urban from Diamond Drive to North Road.
Los Alamos County supports and promotes regional bicycle transportation and therefore,
encourages connectivity through adjoining jurisdictions. It is recognized that the County
does not own the following “Regional Connectors” listed below. That said, the County
should cooperate with neighboring government entities, to the extent possible, to develop
appropriate regional bicycling infrastructure.
REGIONAL CONNECTORS
Department of Transportation Roads:
a. NM State Road 4.
b. NM State Road 501.
c. NM State Road 502.
LANL Roads:
a. Pajarito Road.
b. East Jemez Road (Truck Route).
c. Diamond Drive from Omega Bridge to Pajarito Road.
d. Bikini Atoll Road from West Jemez Road to Mercury Road.
e. Mercury from Pajarito Road to Bikini Atoll Road.
f. West Road from Diamond Drive to NM 501.
Motion passed, 5-0.
(End of motion text)
Background
Several years ago, Los Alamos County tasked the Bicycle Subcommittee of the
Transportation Board to gauge citizen interest in bicycling and to recommend a bicycle
master plan to Council through the Transportation Board. As part of this task, the County
commissioned two polls to gauge interest in bicycling, especially as a form of
transportation, and to solicit input as to the kinds of bicycling improvements desired.
The results of these polls were encouraging. The 2002 Community Perception Study
(Research and Polling, Inc.) indicated that 10% of respondents rode to work or school
more than 50 times per year and another 9% rode between 6 and 50 times per year. This
number compares favorably with bicycling-friendly communities such as Gainesville,
Florida; Eugene, Oregon; Boulder, Colorado; and Madison, Wisconsin (FHWA-PD-92-
041).
A second survey “County-Wide Bike Survey Findings” was commissioned by the
County, sent by county mailing, and tabulated by the Bicycle Subcommittee. Drawing
from 1000 questionnaire responses from households representing all age and
neighborhood groups, the Bike Survey found that there is a strong desire for safe and
favorable bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure throughout Los Alamos County. Over
two-thirds of the respondents favor some combination of on-road and off-road bicycling
improvements. Safety concerns were by far the greatest response noted by both
recreational and commuter bikers with Diamond Drive, Trinity Drive, and Pajarito Road
being cited as particularly dangerous routes.
Drawing on these polls, numerous public meetings and internal deliberations regarding
the best match of Los Alamos’ infrastructure with our desire to provide safe and efficient
bicycling as transportation, the Bicycle Subcommittee submitted its recommendations,
unanimously, to the full Transportation Board for consideration at its April 2005 meeting.
The above motion is the Transportation Board’s motion regarding bicycle routings. Our
mission is simple: that our transportation system should connect cyclists from their
homes to their destinations (schools, downtown, place of employment) in a bicycling
friendly manner. Therefore, these routes were chosen to connect residential communities
to destinations. Particular attention was taken to improving collectors and arterials (and
to the extent possible, encourage regional connectivity on State and LANL routes) since
these often have high traffic flows and sometimes lack shoulders or bike lanes. Equally
important, we focused on roads surrounding our schools (approximately within a one
mile radius for non-bused children) in order to address “Safe Routes to School” concerns.

To the Monitor: That's not really what I said....

Sent to the Editor, Los Alamos Monitor

In your Thursday story "Trinity Drive Still Hot Topic", you greatly simplified my blog comments on the relative value of separated bicycle facilities vs. on-street bicycle facilities. There are no good "one size fits all" solutions and I would not suggest, without context specific information, what type of bicycle facility I would recommend to the County Council in my capacity as a Transportation Board member or for that matter, as a private citizen. Readers can refer to the blog for details (www.labikes.blogspot.com)

Cycling facilities, which are included in street design to improve both safety and efficiency, have to be designed within a context including the type of street and the kind of cyclist that is being considered. A heavily used arterial or high speed highway will likely have a different treatment than a collector or a quiet residential street. Some streets will likely require no modifications at all--the road is, after all, the "bikeway" as well as the "car-way". Specific considerations, too, are given to locations where we expect children, the elderly, or the inexperienced might be riding.  When we (the Bicycling Subcommittee of the Transportation Board and County Staff) wrote the county bike plan, passed by Council in 2005, we explicitly recognized differences among street types and also considered the needs of the Safe Routes to School program.

Cycling facilities also have the express purpose of encouraging those citizens who don't currently ride to do so. People don't ride for a variety of reasons, but the perception that it is unsafe to ride in traffic is usually at the top of the list. In work done elsewhere in the U.S. and elsewhere and noted by the League of American Bicyclists, much higher numbers of non-cyclists or occasional cyclists (tens of percent) can be attracted to cycling as a regular part of their transportation mix if provided their own separated right of way on major roads (such as arterials), while only a few percent are likely to be attracted to riding regularly if only provided with on-road facilities on these roads. Thus, the context of my comment in the Monitor is that if Los Alamos wants to provide a "bicyclist friendly" Trinity corridor that would appeal to more than a few percent of our residents and thus provide taxpayers the most bang for their bucks, it makes more sense to build a separated bikeway rather than include a set of on street bike lanes on what will be, under almost any set of design criteria, a heavily trafficked arterial.

None of the various A options proposed for Trinity would, in my estimation, make that road attractive to those who are not already experienced, confident cyclists, i.e., that few percent. The specific designs proposed by MIG would have new or inexperienced bicyclists having to merge in and out of arterial traffic at every roundabout or alternatively, dismount and tediously use sidepaths at every roundabout. Further, the specific designs shown the Transportation Board, in my estimation, could have encouraged cyclist and motorist error and thus discourage those new riders from using the facility once they had a bad experience.

As far as safety, I think I agree with Mr. Pickett. Single lane roundabouts are the least problematic for cyclists while multilane roundabouts carry higher risks due to their more complex traffic patterns. As far as riding in traffic, a cyclist who takes a riding safety course or otherwise develops reasonable riding skills is likely to be as safe in a single lane roundabout environment as that cyclist would be using the present design or any other one which meets the County's recently adopted set of street design criteria.

But bikeways are only part of the solution to a bike-friendly environment. Cyclists need to develop reasonable cycling skills if they are to be confident enough to ride in an urban environment, rather than depending on facility design alone. Hence the reason that the League of American Bicyclists works to promote both bicycle-friendly design criteria and formalized traffic skills instruction for cyclists.

Khal Spencer

Transportation Board member and League Cycling Instructor

Trinity Drive: What Now?

In traffic engineering, one needs flexibility 
since we can't depend on a crystal ball. No one
knows when the paradigm will shift again

I know some are disappointed that the T Board, with my concurrence, voted to shoot down the A options. This was after Ourston Roundabout Engineering, one of the preeminent roundabout engineering firms in the U.S., stated unequivocally that the design would not handle peak traffic flows with acceptable level of service. The position of the TB, as I understand it as a member (and I'm speaking for myself here), has always been that the design must not fail during peak commuter hours (i.e., must provide acceptable level of service) in order to move forward. Obviously, this position was not supported, either by Ourston or by our own citizens who modeled the data.

One could move forward in several ways.

1. Push on with the A options and let the road fail during rush hour, thus forcing drivers to adjust their travel or sit in traffic, polluting.  I don't think this was politically feasable and it certainly wouldn't make for a fun road for anyone wanting or needing to commute during peak traffic times. One could improve shuttle and transit services and give people the choice of using a transit system instead of their car, as commenter Jon suggests. One can either increase road space or decrease numbers of cars, after all. By simply trying to match road space with current demand, we are thinking inside the box and spending a lot of money maintaining a big road.

2. Work with LANL to have workers stagger their commuter hours, thus spreading out our huge traffic gluts that only last a couple hours a day, thus eliminating the need for more transient capacity. This would require cooperation between DOE, LANL, and LAC--and of course drivers.  This, in combination with encouraging alternatives to the single-occupant car/light truck, would be my first choice. Wide, multilane roads cost more money to build and maintain, are more difficult and hazardous to cross on foot, and encourage speeding when empty.

3. Demand that DOE improve the Truck Route as a true four lane bypass highway. This would get traffic off of an "A-option" Trinity, but may also get significant business out of Los Alamos County. Not necessarily good for the local economy, so flush that one.

4. Hold our noses and build a road that is obviously over-engineered for the rest of the day (eg, Diamond Drive) but will handle peak loads. Do this in a way that does not violate the County's "Policies for the Design of Streets and Rights of Way", since the County continues to move whole-hog into developing the south side of the street, thus requiring a compromise between pedestrian and vehicular mobility all along the increasingly developed corridor between the Los Alamos Medical Center and Tewa Loop.

This will, of course, require some sensitive engineering to avoid another Diamond Drive International Speedway. Pedestrian flyovers (overpasses or tunnels), narrowed traffic lanes with protected center refuges, Hawk system midblock crossings, and other treatments need to be included. These options will, of course, reduce level of service compared to a free-running four lane road, raise costs or both. No surprise, except to some who have not considered it. One person recent opined that since Central is walkable, why worry about Trinity?  I guess that person would also say that since we have an Interstate highway to Albuquerque, why would we need one to Denver?

In any of these cases, we need to stop thinking inside the box.  Those B and C bicyclists whom some in the community speak for could be ill served by some or all of these designs, and better served if we actually look elsewhere in the country (such as Portland, Oregon) and decide to whom we are designing and find out what works. League of American Bicyclists President Andy Clarke, in a letter to a county Councillor, reminded us that the Portland example shows (and this is a very rough paraphrase--I'll get the quote later) that:  Very few cyclists (me and Neale Pickett, as someone recently kidded at a council hearing) will ride anywhere and on anything. Only a few percent (less than 10%) of people will bicycle even on well designed and well connected on-street, non-separated bikeways. The majority of the population, roughly half, will consider bicycling only if they are provided their own protected right of way. Nearly half will not cycle at all. Based on past data here in Bombtown, I tend to think that works here.

In my earlier position (which I still hold), I hold that the A-3 option would likely be less appealing to most potential cyclists, i.e., those whom some want to "encourage", than the road as it sits today. If we really want to build a Trinity Corridor that appeals to "children, the elderly", etc., and those less-confident potential cyclists,  then I really do think we need to look at separated designs. That doesn't mean bollards running along Trinity traffic, either, as this would create a maze of turning and crossing conflicts in which the cyclist would lose.  I think perhaps a bicycle boulevard or some other exclusive right of way treatment that is truly its own place would better encourage the rest of the world, i.e., that elusive 50%.  I concur with former Councillor Robert Gibson in this regard.

We have to dispense with the notion that the Trinity corridor has one purpose alone: to get people into and out of Los Alamos as fast as possible. Such a notion ended when the County decided to develop mixed use (housing and commerce) on both sides of the street. So clinging to the notion of a Trinity Drive as a fast blast outa town does a disservice to all of the people along the corridor to whom the county has marketed Los Alamos as a nice place to live. There is nothing nice about diving out of the way of speeding cars as you try to get from Loma Vista to Smiths on foot or bike, walking down crumbling sidewalks inches from heavy traffic, and walking long distances between pedestrian crossings.

Communities need to increasingly balance our need for an actively physical civic lifestyle, carbon-lite transportation, planning and zoning that optimizes traffic flow and minimizes waste, and transportation systems that provide both intercity and intracity mobility. With all our Ph.D.s and engineers, we have no excuse to do a lousy job.

Stay tuned.

Lucky we don't live in Elizabethton, Tennesee

Arrested for Riding Bike to School?

Could you be arrested for allowing your 5'th grade child to ride her bike one mile to school?  That certainly seems crazy as we try to encourage active life styles for our kids.  That certainly seems crazy as we try to promote safe routes to school programs.  That certainly seems crazy as we talk of an obesity epidemic amongst our children.  But that is what police in Elizabethton Tennessee are threatening.


Wow. Small wonder some of the public says that government has gotten too big and arrogant. Here in Bombtown, our kids have Safe Routes to School.

It was considered perfectly normal for us kids to be out on the roads on our bikes at that age. I was riding three or four miles to the Millgrove Elementary School baseball fields during the summer when I was in 4th-6th grade. That included riding time on NY33 outside Buffalo, N.Y.  NY 33 in Alden was a 50 mph road with car and heavy truck traffic.

We did just fine. My neighbor had a close call one day. He was blown off his bike by the wind blast coming off the side of an eighteen wheeler and needed a few stitches in his forehead. When they took out the stitches, a couple small pebbles came out. From then on, Mark was known as the kid "with rocks in his head". We survived and prospered.

Andy Clarke of the League of American Bicyclists comments here.  For the most part, I agree with Andy when he says "...The basic principle that it really should be (and probably is in this case) perfectly reasonable for a capable 10-year old to ride her bike to school on local streets..." Furthermore, I wholeheartedly support the Safe Routes to School program. Having said that, I don't think the real problem here is with SRTS. If anything, having a SRTS program might imply to some people, such as the Elizabethton cops, that if you don't have a SRTS program in place then you better keep your damn kids off the road. That is just plain upside-down thinking. Law of Unintended Consequences, I guess.

If it is not safe for a competent ten year old to ride to school (and I'm assuming for the present that this young girl is competent to ride to school) then the job of the police is to MAKE IT SAFE. Not to have Child Protective Services take your kid away.

Professional peer review of the MIG design study for roundabouts on Trinity Drive

The Ourston Roundabout Engineering Peer Review Report has been received and is available to review on the County website. If you would like to review the report, please use the following address:

http://www.losalamosnm.us/projects/publicworks/Documents/Ourston%20Peer%20Review%208-30-11.pdf

Here are the findings and recommendations. Boldface is mine.


Findings and Recommendation

Our analysis shows that single lane roundabouts will not adequately handle the
existing or future traffic volumes for select approaches. The capacity predictions for
these critical entries are generally below the traffic volumes, resulting in V/C ratios
exceeding 0.85. It is not recommended that roundabouts be designed with V/C
ratios exceeding 0.85 as queuing and delay estimations are highly variable and
unpredictable.

The use of roundabouts to address the purpose and need of this corridor study is
applicable. Roundabouts can provide a safety improvement for all users, improve
the modes of travel, and support social and economic vitality. It is recommended
that roundabouts with an appropriate lane configuration to handle the projected
traffic volumes be considered. Even though right-of-way constraints are compact,
careful design of multi-lane roundabouts which only require minimal and strategic
right-of-way takes would make this alternative viable. An evaluation of a multi-lane
roundabout alternative against the conventional intersection alternatives may prove
to result in the same evaluation consensus where roundabouts are the preferred
alternative.

Yours truly,
OURSTON ROUDABOUT ENGINEERING
Troy Pankratz, P.E.
Project Manager
TP/