|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Welcome to Montgomery Bicycle Advocates!
Advocacy - Design - Education
...To advocate for the creation of a robust network of bike-friendly streets and hiker/biker trails across Montgomery County, and to raise public awareness of bicycling as transportation.
Many cyclists biked out to our Bikeout/Cookout, our first annual bike advocacy picnic on September 13th. The cookout was sponsored by us (Montgomery Bicycle Advocates) and co-sponsored by WABA (the Washington Area Bicyclist Association). MoBike and WABA speak out for bikes to the County Council, town governments, state legislators, the Planning Board, DOT and the public. We focus on many projects and policies including as new trails, safe on-road conditions and better road design standards.
To find out more about MoBike, you're at the right place, www.mobike.org. You can join MoBike's online discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MontgomeryBike. For more information on WABA, please visit www.waba.org.
See our new prototype map tool at www.bikezip.com !
The project destription is at www.BikeMapProject.org .
If you have a bike concern, let your elected representatives know about it! Don't be afraid to
write, email, fax or call County Council members, the County Executive, your state representatives or the governor.
Tell them you're a cyclist and what your needs and concerns are, whether it's
a gap in an important bike route or a deteriorating bike path or missing bike racks.
Please see our Directory Page for contact information for your state and county elected officials.
MoBike is embarking on a new effort to identify important bike routes as well as problem streets and missing bikeways in Montgomery County. Near term, this will help us make recommendations for the county's 09-14 capital budget. Ultimately it will also help us update the MCBAG Top 10 List and make more informed requests to state, county and municipal governments.
We've started by creating a map of bike-friendly routes and not-so-friendly gaps. Routes are in green, gaps in magenta. The map is depicted below (click to enlarge).
 |
We were able to analyze the map of routes and gaps to identify high priority gaps around the county. The following lists identify the most critical gaps that the county has jurisdiction over (no state or city roads). Input is needed. This is just a first cut. Projects solidly "in the works" are not listed.
These may be suitable for the county's small scale Annual Bikeways Program
Send your comments and input to:
.
At the same time, we're trying to identify "spine" routes, important countywide routes that will (if developed) provide fast access to every part of the county, like major arterials in the road network. Not all these routes are bike-friendly or even built yet, but most are at least planned as bike routes. This exercise is highly useful because it prioritizes corridors, highlights gaps in these corridors, and gives routes an identity that supports wayfaring, signing and naming/numbering. It will also help us improve the MCBAG Top 10 (or 20) list. By listing all the problems within a corridor as one item on the Top 10 List, we can save room on the list and emphasize context.
Of course these aren't the only important routes, just those that qualify as spine routes.
A tentative list of spine routes is depicted in the map below (click to enlarge).
 |
(Some of these may not be ideal spine routes due to location or their hilly and windy character, but they are nevertheless long and useful and many are already built. A bird in the hand...)
That's it! Please send your comments and input to:.
The county's Road Code Stakeholder Work Group, on which I (Jack Cochrane) served, has completed it's work. The group came up with a series of road design standards which the County Executive (essentially DOT) has just submitted to the County Council for approval. These are much better from a cyclist's perspective than the original draft standards proposed in 2007 county legislation.
But wait! The County Council is demanding revisions to the Executive's (and work group's) standards. The Planning Board first came up with these revisions and the Council is now insisting the Executive resubmit its standards with these revisions incorporated, or presumably the Council will not approve what the Executive submitted. But the Executive is refusing to make the Council's (Planning Board's) revisions. So a battle is likely.
While the work group's standards are not too bad from a cyclists perspective, the Council's revisions do include some things that MoBike requested during the work group deliberations, namely slower target speeds in urban areas and narrower inside lanes (to leave room for more width to the outside). The Council's revisions also include some changes which may not be welcome (see below) such as precluding bike lanes on slower streets unless specifically called for in the county master plan. Master plans (and sector plans, etc.) are not fluid - they may be decided well in advance of actual road construction, and don't always take cyclists into full account.
The Council's (and Planning Board's) changes are here:
Here are the main points:
Differences on target speeds by roadway type:
Urban Suburban
Major Highway (exec) 30-40 30-50
Major Highway (PB) 25-40 30-40
Arterial (exec) 30-35 30-40
Arterial (PB) 25-35 30-35
Minor Arterial (exec) 25-35 30-35
Minor Arterial (PB) same as exec same as exec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Differences on lane width by roadway type:
For each roadway type, the standards usually specify a case with bike lanes and one without bike lanes. Below are dimensions for roads WITHOUT bike lanes. For roads with bike lanes, outside lane width is generally reduced to 10' and bike lane width is usually 5.5'.
Whether bike lanes are used for a given roadway depends on various criteria which are left vague in the Exec's proposal and are more tightly outlined in the PB proposal (see above).
Urban Suburban
Major Highway (exec) 14' + 11' + 12.5' No case w/o bike lanes
Major Highway (PB) 14' + 10.5' + 11.5' No case w/o bike lanes
Maj. Hwy Bike Lane (exec) 6' 6'
Maj. Hwy Bike Lane (PB) 5.5' 6'
Arterial 4 lane (exec) 14' + 11' 14' + 11'
Arterial 4 lane (PB) 14' + 10' same as exec
Minor Art. 2 lane (exec) 11'+ 11'
Minor Art. 2 lane (PB) 10'+ same as exec
Primary (exec) N/A 11'-13'
Primary (PB) N/A same as exec
Bus. Dist. St. (exec) 11' each lane N/A
Bus. Dist. St. (PB) 10' ecah lane N/A
Primary streets typically have just 2 lanes. Business district streets are the urban equivalent of a primary street, and typically have 2 or 4 lanes.
Most bike lane widths are the same in both proposals, except for urban major highways where the executive is calling for 6' and the PB 5.5'.
The original 2007 draft standards were unfriendly to bicyclists in many ways, as follows:
Whatever standards are adopted, they will impact new road construction, road improvements, intersection improvements and potentially even striping of existing roads. Allowing narrower lanes may help on roads where the inner lanes could be narrowed to allow wider outside lanes or shoulders. But requiring narrower lanes could force all lanes to be narrowed and lead to many new or rebuilt roads you wouldn't want to take a bike on.
Again, here are the originally proposed (but rejected) standards per the original road code bill:
| Classification | Target Speed | Road/Lane Width | Curbside Width (6) | Bike Lane Width (2) | Sidewalk Width (8) |
| Freeway | 55-65 mph | 12' lanes | variable | none | none |
| Controlled Major Highway (1) | 50 mph | 12' lanes | variable | 5' | 5' |
| Parkway (1) | Urban: 25 mph
Suburban: 40 mph | 11' lanes | 25' | none | none |
| Major Highway (1,3) | Urban: 25 mph
Suburban: 35-40 mph Rural:45 mph (7) | urban: 10'5' lanes
suburban: 11' lanes rural: 12' lanes | urban: 20' min.
elsewhere: 15' | 5' | urban: 15' min.
elsewhere: 5' |
| Country Arterial (not County Arterial as erroneously stated earlier) (4) | Suburban: 40 mph
Rural: 40-45 mph (7) | 11' lanes | 4' | suburban: 5'
rural: none | |
| Arterial (1,4) | Urban: 25 mph
Suburban: 35 mph Rural: 40 mph (7) | urban: 10' lanes
suburban: 11' lanes rural: 12' lanes | urban: 15' min.
elsewhere: 15' | urban: 4'
suburban: 4' rural: 5' | urban: 10' min.
elsewhere: 5' |
| Minor Arterial (1,4) | Urban: 25 mph
Suburban: 30 mph Rural: 35 mph (7) | urban: 10' lanes
suburban: 10.5' lanes rural: 11' lanes | urban: 15' min.
elsewhere: 15' | 4' | 5' |
| Business District Street (1) | 25' mph | urban: 10' lanes
elsewhere: 11' lanes | urban: 15' min.
elsewhere: 15' | none | 10' |
| Industrial Street (1) | 25 mph | urban: 10' lanes
elsewhere: 11' lanes | urban: 15' min.
elsewhere: 15' | none | 5' |
| Country Road | 25 mph | 20' road | none | suburban: 5'
rural: none | |
| Primary and Principal Secondary Residential Streets
(no curbs or parking) (w/curbs, no parking) (5) (w/curbs, 1-side parking) (5) (w/curbs, 2-side parking) (5) | 25 mph | 20' road
22' road 28' road 34' road | 15' | 3' | 5' |
| Secondary Residential Street
(no curbs, no parking) (w/curbs, no parking) (w/curbs, 1-side parking) (w/curbs, 2-side parking) | 20 mph | 20' road
20' road 20' road 24' road | 15' | none | 4' |
| Tertiary Residential Street | 20 mph | 20' road | 12' | none | 4' |
| Alley | 15 mph | urban (2-way): 20' road
urban (1-way): 16' road suburban: 16' road | none | none | none |
Notes: (per numbers above... this is part of the bill too)
(1) Add 1 foot of width to each lane abutting an outside curb. Except in urban areas, add another 2 feet of width to each lane abutting an outside curb if a shared-use roadway is consistent with the Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan or the applicable area master or sector plan.
(2) Bike lanes must be included when a road is constructed or reconstructed if bike lanes are consistent with the Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan or the applicable area master or sector plan. This bike lane width replaces the added width under note (1).
(3) For an open-section Controlled Major Highway, Major Highway or County Arterial add 5 feet of width on each road edge for a paved shoulder. A bike lane replaces this additional width.
(4) For an open-section Arterial or Minor Arterial add 4 feet of width beyond the edge of the outside lane for a paved shoulder. If a bike lane is provided on a road edge, the bike lane replaces this additional width.
(5) For a Primary or Principal Secondary Residential Street, the total curb-to-curb width must be the sum of the road width and any master-planned bike lane widths.
(6) Curbside width is the area beyond each curb necessary for sidewalks, shared use paths, street trees and other landscaping, streetlights, utilities, and other elements. For an open section road or street, the area beyond the shoulder is shown in the design standards adopted under Chapter 49.
(7) Target speed for these classifications in suburban and rural commercial zones is 30 mph.
(8) Sidewalks are required on both sides of any road or street, as indicated on this table, except Secondary and Tertiary Residential Streets, where the Planning Board may require a sidewalk on either or both sides of a street, depending on the area's housing density and the potential users of the sidewalks. An alley must not have any sidewalks.
(9) Trees may be planted in a median if the design speed of the road does not exceed 40 miles per hour. The median must be at least:
(1) 8 feet wide to accommodate trees that will grow to no more than a 4-inch diameter at maturity; and
(2) 12 feet wide to accommodate any tree that will grow larger than a 4-inch diameter at maturity.
(10) A landscape panel abutting a closed-section road must extend at least 5 feet from the curb and be at least 8 feet long. Trees planted in landscape panels along 'urban' roads must be at least 30 feet apart unless the tree spacing is interrupted by a public street or driveway.
(11) Each newly built or reconstructed street must retain or filter the following amounts of stormwater on-site during a 24-hour period: ˝-1" in an 'urban' area; at least 2" in a 'suburban' area; and at least 3" in a 'rural' area.
MoBike and other bike groups submitted a series of budget requests to the County Executive to be included in the Montgomery County 2009-2014 Capital Budget. The letter outlining these requests is here. This was a joint effort with WABA, the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail and the Potomac Pedalers Touring Club.
As a result of our efforts this year, we were able to increase the size of the Annual Bikeways Program! But much more work is needed if we're to make much progress in meeting county master plans that call for new bikeways and trails. We are continuing to meet with elected officials, who are starting to see the light as gas prices continue to rise.
See our new pilot map project at www.bikezip.com!
The county's Functional Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways was approved in February 2005.
Also see Montgomery County's own Bike Map Viewer which is a great resource. You can zoom in to see aerial photography and top info for the entire county.
Other good aerial photo resources include Google Maps and TerraServer.
Want to download a good Montgomery County roadmap into your Palm Pilot or other PDA? Check out Mapopolis for good inexpensive downloadable PDA maps (thanks Bill M.).
Jack Cochrane, MoBike Chair:
Phone: 301-767-5998
7121 Thomas Branch Dr.
Bethesda, Md. 20817
|
|