PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
This review will be more easily understood as annotated comments on problem areas in the 2030 RTP.* The 2030 RTP was considered from the point of view of public comment
during 2001 and 2002, particularly the comment found in
Changing Direction: Transportation Choices for 2030.**
Thematic issues that impact this section include:
* Available at
http://www.sp2030.com/CommentSite/index.html
.
**Available at
http://www.cnt.org/tsp/trans/ctaqc/cc/theplan.htm
The chart below offers specific page references and quotes from the Regional Transportation Plan and commentary on why each quote is relevant or problematic
Page Quote
Comment
38
Most transportation facilities are constructed to last 20-50
years.
There is no discussion of differing maintenance and reconstruction
schedules for various types of facilities. The average life of a
sidewalk is different than the average life of a highway.
85
Community Interfaces: Major highway reconstruction
provides an opportunity to improve the appearance and
character as well as mitigate any negative externalities of
a facility from the perspective of the community through
which it passes.
The damage done to walkability, bikeability near expressway
ramps should be systemically remedied, rather than occasionally,
in the course of major reconstruction.
88
With regard to highway vehicle safety, most operational
improvements to major highways and arterials are
intended to increase the ability to operate a vehicle safely.
The improved flow of traffic and the removal of possible
conflict points, common in many projects, are principally
intended to reduce the possibility of crashes.
The safety section has been diluted from the first draft, where there
was a primary emphasis on vulnerable travelers. Now vehicular
safety has precedence; dollars are allocated on the basis of
priorities set by the plan. Pedestrian/cyclist safety has to be a
primary objective. The plan is unrealistic in expecting investment in
free-flowing auto travel to "trickle down" as a safety benefit to
vulnerable travelers.
89
Safety issues are also considered at a local level. In most
cases, these local solutions focus on specific problems
and are typically not indicative of any system-wide or
long-term safety deficiency.
Wider, faster arterials, with fewer traffic signals are promoted as a
systemic regional goal. Responsibility to reduce traffic deaths and
injuries can not be delegated to local officials.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
89
Many projects intended to increase capacity, reduce
congestion or provide alternative travel choices have
safety benefits that cannot easily be isolated from the total
project cost and benefit.
Agencies spending public funds need to be transparent and
accountable about how and where the funds are spent. The public
can not be expected to accept on faith that investments to facilitate
more free-flowing auto travel will increase pedestrian safety.
90
Safety for seniors and persons with disabilities
The 2020 RTP spoke of "Universal Design" which implies that
many or most of us will benefit at one time or another from safety
and infrastructure design that accommodates wheelchairs,
strollers, children on bikes, people using crutches or shopping
carts. Marginalizing smaller populations of "seniors and persons
with disabilities" implies a reduced urgency to invest in the
necessary alteration of sidewalks, crossings, etc.
90
The RTP recognizes that these types of management and
operations approaches are most effective when combined
with enforcement, encouragement and education, and
dedicated funding.
We are in agreement, but wonder why the RTP fails to dedicate
funding to protect the most vulnerable travelers.
92
Roadway improvement funds should be devoted to
improving pedestrian safety where necessary. In addition,
discretionary transportation funds should be directed
toward providing a variety of safe and convenient
pedestrian options.
The general statement is admirable, but without dedicated funds,
pedestrians will continue to be shortchanged by the emphasis on
more and wider roads and faster speeds.
99
Shared Path 2030 avoided making modal distinctions up
to a point in consideration of a unified multi-modal
approach. The RTP's major capital project recommen-
dations, while mode-specific, include specific strategy
discussions intended to provide implementation guidance
to promote choice between and among travel modes.
The refusal to prioritize or adequately addresss walkability and
bikeability heightens concern that continued heavy roadway
investment is the intention.
101
Even at compact urban land densities, attention to
accommodating all modes in a facility's design can meet
this expectation.
Accommodation of all modes is easiest, most likely and most
appropriate in more dense communities.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
101
Limit introduction of new traffic signals.
This bullet point in a section on arterial improvements is in
opposition to safe, multi-modal use of all local roads.
101
Limit introduction of new traffic signals.
Restatement of this principle encourages the perception that
speedy, rather than safe, travel is the highest priority.
106
These (SRA) studies provided valuable guidance for
improving the individual facilities themselves, but also
created a large local literature of arterial concepts that can
now be transferred to other appropriate arterial settings.
The studies should be reviewed for their applicability to today's
standards. They were done before Context Sensitive Design,
shared use and multi-modal became the standard for road
construction.
110
Pedestrian and Bicycle
This section heading was originally "Strategic Pedestrian and
Bicycle System."
111
The RTP recommends that project implementers should
consider a facility's potential use by bicycle and
pedestrian travelers and make appropriate design
accommodations. While motor vehicle-oriented design
guidelines at times conflict with the needs of pedestrians
and bicyclists, traditional design standards do not always
indicate the required practice. Rather, they serve as a
guide to solving traffic problems unique to the case at
hand.
This statement is confusing, weak, or both.
216
Footnote 140: This would most often take the form of a
"shared-use" arterial proposal that incorporated strategies
for each system. It was estimated that designing a four
lane full "shared-use" arterial might cost as much as $8.5
Million per centerline mile (pcm) to develop. This includes
$1.8M pcm for fixed pavement elements such as r.o.w.
preparation, excavation, substrate, pavement, curb and
gutter, etc., $500K for signals, $141K pcm for additional
truck-bearing construction, $761K for urban drainage,
$2.5M pcm for transit elements such as BRT stations,
This estimate requires a great deal more analysis. The baseline of
$1.8 million per mile for roadway pavement and $1.6 million per
mile for pedestrian and bicycle elements is immediate cause for
skepticism. The estimates included amenities typically associated
with most roadways (street lighting, trees and sodded parkways ) as
exclusively pedestrian and bicycle expenses. All elements to
protect pedestrians from auto traffic were considered "pedestrian
treatments." They could as easily be considered safety treatments
in the roadway section, since it is the autos, not the pedestrians
that create the hazards. The actual cost per mile cited in
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
$1.6M pcm for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations
such as bike lanes, sidewalks, refuges and signals, $1.2M
pcm for arterial ITS such as signal interconnects and
"smart corridor" elements. A six-lane arterial designed to
the same level is estimated at approximately $9.4M pcm.
Providing additional bus service was estimated to cost
approximately $300K per bus. Cost economies can be
achieved by combining some or of these modal
improvements into a single shared-use design. All
accommodations may not be appropriate in all cases and
the necessity of providing grade separations for any mode
(including bicycle and pedestrian) dramatically increases
the cost. Overall, it was estimated that $5B would cover
upgrading approximately 250 centerline miles of arterials
to a full shared use design and implement significant
portions of CTA neighborhood express and Pace Vision
2020 bus service proposals.
documentation for this footnote for bicycle lanes (two directions) is
$161,000 and for sidewalks (two directions), $290,400.