As with the previous BPAC meeting, NCTCOG offered a web seminar to interested parties prior to the general meeting. This month’s topic was “Safe Routes to School”. Due to work obligations, I was not able to make it to the seminar and can offer no summary. If the past is any indication, the accompanying documents will be available at the BPAC website in the next day or so.

The BPAC meeting began five minutes late and commenced with introductions. Though there was ample representation by the various municipalities, other governmental agencies and NGOs, the only group even remotely affiliated with bicycle advocacy in attendance was the Texas Trails Network. Though I was the only individual who identified themselves as cyclist, there were at least three others who simply gave their name and no affiliation. Both principals from Bowman-Melton Associates were in attendance as were representatives from TBG Partners and an ambiguous entity known as “SGK Associates”. There were also representatives from the Injury Prevention Center of Dallas and DART.

Topics discussed at this meeting were Safe Routes to School, the Cottonwood Trail and a Regional Veloweb update.

Safe Routes to School

The Safe Routes to School discussion began with an overview presentation by COG staff, followed by comments by TxDOT staff and a short Q&A session. Some highlights from my notes included comments by COG staff on the following subjects: pedestrian injuries third leading cause of death among children and mention that a large number of schools no longer “allow” children to bicycle to school; even going so far as to remove racks.

I challenged the comments by COG staff by posing a couple of questions. Though intended as rhetorical, they were couched in such a manner as to solicit a response to verify the obvious. Citing the statement pertaining to pedestrian injured being the third leading cause of death among children, I asked whether this statistic was specific to school zones or a general rate. Staff confirmed my suspicion that this was an overall rate and could not cite what proportion was specific to school zones. Since the discussion centered around the benefits of the Safe Routes to School program and its benefits, I offered that this would be the more pertinent statistic.

When asked to further explain the finding that many administrations no longer “allowed” students to bicycle to school and were actually removing racks, I posed it as a dichotomous inquiry: was the reasoning paternalistic oversight or a disuse/maintenance issue? The answer fit closer to the first. The justification cited dealt with the perception of liability on the part of the school district if a student were hit and injured while riding a bike on school property. I countered that the Safe Routes to School program deals primarily with providing enhancements to protect pedestrians and cyclists off-campus, en route to school. Implementing changes  on these fronts would do little to mitigate the potential for injury on school property.

During the course of the staff presentation, revenue generated by the sale of “God Bless Texas” and God Bless America” specialty plates was cited as a source for funding Safe Routes to School. Figures of $44 million dollars in infrastructure allocations and $2.4 million in non-infrastructure funding were mentioned. My final question was directed at the TxDOT staff.Citing SB161, I asked how non-infrastructure funding would be affected by the passage of this legislation given that the average annual distribution of funding for 2007 matched almost exactly the revenue cited during legislative testimony as being shifted from TxDOT to a “designated statewide nonprofit organization”. Admitting their ignorance of SB161 and after having explained its ramifications to them, the TxDOT staff indicated they had no knowledge of how the specialty plate revenue had been utilized in the past or how it would — being shifted, for all intents and purposes, to TBC — in the future. Don Koski, the committee chair, suggested this might better be answered by the statewide coordinator, who would be participating in a supplemental SRTS gathering at NCTCOG in September.

Cottonwood Trail

The Cottonwood Trail presentation offered little more information than is available through the coalition website (link above). A query from another attendee wondered about the meandering nature of the trail, if it is intended as a transportation facility. The presenter, Jonathan Toffer, acknowledged that issue, offered no real rationale, but cited other sections which were (or would be) more linear in nature.

Annie Melton rightfully criticized one section of the trail, running along Spring Valley and Coit, which is defined only by a seven foot sidewalk. Potential issues cited were concurrent use by cyclists and pedestrians. The only solution offered by the presenter was that cyclists could convert to pedestrians or make us of the roadway. Present company excepted, all involved in this aspect of the discussion seemed to think cyclist peril too great to consider the on-street option.

Regional Veloweb

The final segment of the meeting dealt with a summary and future survey of progress on the Regional Veloweb. Use of the phrase “transportation route” was repeated several times, as if the presenter was seeking to convince either themselves or others in attendance that this is the primary intent of the network.

During the Q&A period, I repeated my oft proposed suggestion that surveys be conducted to gauge the actual transportation sue of the Veloweb. Given that Federal air quality mitigation funds are being used in its construction as a alternative transportation network, it seems obvious that COG would have an interest in determining whether it is being used for its intended purpose. I cited The Katy Trail as an example of a failed implementation of this paradigm. This portion of the Regional Veloweb has been referred to as the “Central Expressway of bicycle commuting”. However, in truth, there are only a half dozen or so regular, documented transportation cyclists who make use of it in this manner. Furthermore, given the congestion created by pedestrians, travel upon The Katy Trail is rarely expedient — certainly approaching nowhere near the 25mph design speed. The millions of dollars in CMAQ funds spent to build this trail seems misplaced for the benefit of only a few cyclists. Those monies would have been better directed at education and training many more on vehicular cycling techniques.

Given the fact that bicycle advocacy groups have been disenfranchised from the BPAC process, it should be little surprise that so few representatives were in attendance. It is disappointing, nevertheless. Having been a decade+ member of its predecessor, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Task Force, I am disinclined to abandon the cause. I will continue to attend these gatherings, if only to hold the committee executives and COG staff accountable to the facts of the matters. As with today’s gathering, offering half-truths and engaging in disingenuous discourse — whether intentional or not — won’t escape unchallenged.

The author does and admirable and largely accurate job of defining hallmarks of the two sides. Vehicular cyclists do believe that the existing “road network [is sufficient to the task of accommodating competent, skilled cyclists] and [since] bicycles are already classified as vehicles, …all we need to do is maintain our rights as road users and educate [less experienced] bicyclists on the techniques of riding a bicycle as a vehicle.” This viewpoint has many decades of experience to back it. Knowing the law, knowing the rules of the road and applying both concepts to operation as a vehicle is a proven philosophy for competent vehicular cycling.

In the other camp are those who “[argue] that until we do more to separate bicyclists from motor vehicles we’ll never see the numbers of bicyclists in the U.S. that we see in some European countries.” This perception is accurate for the most part, but ignores the influence a lack of skill and timidity bring to the equation.

From this point forward, the argument begins to disintegrate. One cannot, in my opinion, have “thinking [which] falls somewhere in the middle between these two extremes.” Being fundamentally  incompatible, it is a sign of a conflicted mind to suggest that one can be an effective advocate with “one foot in each camp.” The very concept of conceding a need for separated facilities is incompatible with the tenets of vehicular operation. The misconception within the facilities community is that vehicular cycling is an inherent skill, learned primarily in one’s youth and which needs no specialized training to employ. Separated travel conduits — whether by grade or Magic Paint — serve only to protect the novice and timid, while providing a so-called “training ground” for future competence.

The truth is that these ideals are laced with irrational perceptions and goals. Few cyclists, once indoctrinated into the facilities paradigm, ever venture outside the perceived zone of protection and become fully fledged as competent vehicular cyclists. Instead, they become dependent upon the facilities crutch and demand ever more of these unsafe, segregated zones.

In the final two paragraphs of his discussion, the author reveals his true nature. By stating he, “fully agree[s] that the fear of auto traffic is one of the main obstacles we have to overcome before we’ll see a dramatic increase in bicycle use in the U.S.”, it is plain to see he is, in fact, not a competent or an experienced vehicular cyclist. Fear of motor vehicle traffic is irrational and reflects a lack of vehicular cycling skill. The idea that the US, with its penchant for urban sprawl and dependence on the motor vehicle will ever approach the adoption level of European cities is folly. The proponents of beliefs such as these are totally out of touch with reality.

The final paragraph is, perhaps the most salient.

Bicycling may be a relatively safe activity, but the perception that bicycling is dangerous is extremely pervasive in the U.S. and it’s unlikely we’ll change that perception through logical arguments or statistics.

As I cited and argued in a discussion on this issue elsewhere, stating that…

We must find a way to build more separated facilities to make bicycling less intimidating to beginners and non-enthusiasts. We also need more training in vehicular cycling techniques to build rider skill and confidence for dealing with the realities on the ground as we build those new facilities.

…is indicative of logical disconnect between reality and fantasy. Why does he feel facilities and education are equal imperatives? Likely because, deep down inside, despite his stated beliefs to the contrary, he is not particularly as competent or experienced as he believes  himself to be. Like many fearful cyclists, he cannot reconcile the psychological from the physical; discriminate the imagined from the real.

The realm of bicycle advocacy is plagued by those who have little or no credentials to support their work. They have been convinced by others that the issue is one of “butts on bikes” at any cost. That cost can be dear. As groups lobby legislators for special protections and facilities, they surrender — whether willingly or through ignorance — not only their rights, but those of others as well.

a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway…

By far the most important term in this passage is also the most misinterpreted. Almost without exception, the word practicable is misrepresented, in conversation and print, as meaning possible. This fact has always been puzzling. These terms are not synonymous.

Practicability is a concept permitting the consideration of safety and efficacy when determining alignment. It allows one to ride further to the left if there are any of a number of hazards or potential hazards which would present the potential for unpredictable, unsafe or erratic operation. Examples include collected debris, standing water, deterioration or erosion of the road surface, uneven pavement, et cetera.

The misinterpretation of practicable as meaning possible is, perhaps, the most egregious mistake made by cyclist and motorist alike. Law enforcement is guilty of the same. It is this very misunderstanding which leads annually to crashes like the one last week in Austin, another in early June in Dallas, and many others.

A serious mistake often exhibited when citing this passage of law is neglecting to consider the exceptions. The following exclusionary criteria exist in the Texas statute with respect to the FTR rule governing bicycle operation.

(1)  the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2)  the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3)  a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
(4)  the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A)  less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B)  too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

Many of these are obvious and, frankly, redundant. Compare exceptions one through three to section §545.051 of the transportation code covering general vehicular operation.

DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY.  (a)  An operator on a roadway of sufficient width shall drive on the right half of the roadway, unless:
(1)  the operator is passing another vehicle;
(2)  an obstruction necessitates moving the vehicle left of the center of the roadway and the operator yields the right-of-way to a vehicle that:
(A)  is moving in the proper direction on the unobstructed portion of the roadway; and
(B)  is an immediate hazard;
(3)  the operator is on a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic; or
(4)  the operator is on a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(b)  An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:
(1)  passing another vehicle; or
(2)  preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

The wording is almost identical: §551.103(a)(1) is nearly verbatim with §545.051(b)(1); likewise §551.103(a)(2) is quite similar to §545.051(b)(2); and §551.103(a)(3) is an aggregate of sorts for §545.051(a)(2). Revisiting the redundancy represented by SB488, these statements largely reiterate existing language applicable to general vehicle operation as it pertains specifically to bicycle operation. Given that a bicycle is a legally recognized vehicle in Texas, one is prompted to question why lawmakers felt the need to single out cyclists for specific reiteration. It constitutes a compelling reason for the Texas Bicycle Coalition to focus their efforts on repeal of the FTR rule during future legislative efforts, rather than their seemingly persistent endeavors to augment redundancy.

Unique to the statutes governing vehicular bicycle operation is 551.103(a)(4), “unless the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.” Understanding this language is critical to the discussion, because, by far, the majority of outside lanes in metropolitan settings are less than fourteen feet in width. This sub-section of the code specifically entitles a vehicular cyclist to claim full possession of the lane. So long as at least one additional inside lane exists — into which an overtaking motorist may safely move to pass — occupation of the entire lane does not constitute an impediment. Where only one lane exists in either direction and it is not wide enough to share, the cyclist — by virtue of physical and design limitations — effectively sets the prevailing speed. In circumstances such as the latter, it is at the discretion of the cyclist determine whether it is safe and efficacious to pull aside and allow motorists to pass. If more cyclists were able to comprehend these concepts and employ them on a regular basis, the entire argument pertaining to a perceived need for safe passing buffers would be moot.

As citizens, we are taught from a young age that ignorance of the law is no excuse. By the same token, ignorance of the meaning of the law is not an acceptable defense either. It behooves motorist and cyclist alike to become familiar with the terminology employed in legal discourse. It could save your life!

Be that as it may, the TBC was not totally unsuccessful during the 2009 session. They did manage to get two pieces of legislation signed into law. SB2041 adds language to sub-section 161 of Chapter 521 (“Drivers Licenses and Certificates”) of the Transportation Code mandating the inclusion of questions testing the “knowledge of motorist’s rights and responsibilities in relation to bicyclists” on the state driving test, while SB161 will amend sub-section 648 of Chapter 504 (“Specialty License Plates”) to, in their words, “provide funds through ‘God Bless Texas’ and ‘God Bless America’ special license plate sales to go to the BikeTexas Safe Routes to School program.”

SB2041 sounds, on initial consideration, to be a worthwhile accomplishment. The current version of the Texas Driver Handbook has an entire chapter devoted to “Bicycle Vehicle Law and Safety” – the whole of three pages. Under current statute, required elements of the license exam include a vision test, the ability to identify and understand highway signs in English, and knowledge of the state traffic laws. As of the first of September, added to this list of requirements will be “knowledge of motorist’s rights and responsibilities in relation to bicyclists.” Curious.

What rights do motorists have toward bicyclists? As a legally recognized vehicle, we are already afforded the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. Item three of the Texas Driver Handbook clearly states: “A bicycle is a vehicle and any person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle, unless it cannot, by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.” This being the case, what possible benefit will be realized by including specific exam questions related to cyclists? Following this logic there ought to be questions pertaining to motorists’ rights and responsibilities in relation to equestrians and the operators of farm implements.

SB161 is even more illogical. Instead of the more limited and focused beneficiary cited in the quote above, language in this statute actually reads,

the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the share the road account in the state treasury and may only be used by the Texas Education Agency to support  Program of a designated statewide nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is to promote bicyclist safety, education, and access through education and awareness programs and training, workshops, educational materials, and media events.

Hmmm, looks familiar, doesn’t it? It goes on to state,

Up to 25 percent of the amount in Subsection (b) may be used to support the activities of the nonprofit organization in marketing and promoting the Safe Routes to School Program.

The Legislature saw fit, in 2003, to create a specialty license plate modeled on the theme of “share the road” and featuring the likeness of Lance Armstrong in a “maillot jaune”. Proceeds from the sale of this plate were earmarked “to be used only by the Texas Education Agency to support the activities of a designated nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is to promote bicyclist safety, education, and access through education and awareness programs and training, workshops, educational materials, and media events.” It would appear TBC is to begin receiving funding for a program they no longer sponsor. How are these resources being allocated now within TxDOT? Why is it necessary to designate more monies be transferred to the TBC?

Is this really the type of organization we, as cyclists, want to have representing our interests to the legislators in Texas. They failed in their bid to get one specious and redundant law enacted which would have partially eviscerated our standing as a legally recognized vehicle, by equating us with various pedestrian classes; they succeeded in getting a specious and redundant law passed which mandates the inclusion of questions on the state licensing exam pertaining to one specific user class; and they are lying about the actual mechanics of the application of a third law they succeeded in getting passed.

If the Texas Bicycle Coalition really wants to be an advocate for vehicular cyclists, here are some legislative proposals which will go much further in promoting the safety and education of cyclists and motorists alike.

Remove the FTR rule

§551.103(a) is redundant. Since bicycles are legally recognized as legitimate vehicles, §545.05x covers all aspects of vehicular operation – including that of slow moving traffic.

Remove the MBL rule

Elimination of §551.103(a) will take care of this. However, in the event legislators cannot stomach the political fallout from removing this sub-section altogether, at the very least they can revert §551.103(a)(4)(A) to its original language. (The mandatory bike lane language was added as punishment for revising this subsection to define an unsharable lane.)

Define a “safe distance”

As explained in the SB844 summary, §545.053(a)(1) already stipulates that one vehicle overtaking another must do so “at a safe distance.” Apply the “Safe Passing” sentiment to the existing law by specifying buffer zones pertaining to all SMV classes.

These steps should define the primary mission of the TBC, if they truly wish to be seen as an advocate for the rights and safety of bicyclists in the State of Texas. Abandon the practice of pandering to novice and timid cyclists. Develop education programs to train inexperienced cyclists on proper vehicular cycling technique. Work with therapists to help treat those suffering from Cyclist Inferiority Complex to overcome their phobias and become competent cyclists. Protect the rights of experienced vehicular cyclists to operate on the roads in safety.

revision history
20090720: removed a paragraph regarding the distribution of SB161 funds due to a misread of the language. This subject is addressed in more detail elsewhere.

For the most part, The T has understood the potential of mass transit to serve as a supplemental mode to not only pedestrians, but cyclists as well for over a decade. They have provided bike racks on the front of their buses almost since their inception. Recently, DART has joined their neighbor to the west and now offers racks on most all of their buses, too.

Until December 2008, attempting to bring a bike on a bus was an unpredictable endeavor. A cyclist would have to survey the approaching bus for available space, ensure the operator saw they had a bike, enter through the rear doors, secure their bike, make their way forward to pay their fare and return to the rear of the bus. All the while, their ability to board was dictated by operator discretion – whether or not they felt there was enough room for accommodation.

This changed late last year of last year. It was then that the initial phase of installing front racks on all buses, except Shuttles and FLEX routes was initiated. By the end of January almost the entire fleet had been retrofitted. They are quite easy to utilize, too, and support up to two bikes. Should more cyclists be encountered on a given route, the operator has the discretion of allowing additional bike on-board according to the previous protocol.

Following the installation of racks on the majority of bus routes serving North Texans, there is little reason to use distance as an excuse. Whether one lives in a proximal suburb or a distant rural enclave, the ability to combine multiple modes has become much easier. No longer is it necessary to lug a vehicle up the steps of a bus and fight forward through the crowds to pay a fare. Through the simple task of compressing a handle and swinging an arm, a bike can be placed on the front of a bus and transported anywhere within the service area of either North Texas transit agency.

To facilitate use, DART provides detailed instructions on how to use the racks, and a helpful video.

Now that transit options for cyclists in Dallas has achieved parity with the successful program in Fort Worth, more versatility will allow a larger audience of users to consider combining mass transit and a bicycle for their daily commute. Now that another impediment has been removed and, hopefully, it is hoped more people will come to appreciate the benefits of multi-modal transportation options to improve their health, decrease stress and save money.

Michael Bluejay has compiled a competent summary of the pros and cons of bike lanes. Though it is, in my opinion, too heavily slanted toward advocacy, some valid points are made. On the other side of the fence are summaries by Fred Oswald and John Forester, which rely less on unscientific studies and more on logical analysis. No matter how you view the controversy, in the end, promotion of bike lanes is a means of shirking personal responsibility. Competency and skill are transferred from the vehicle operator to the government.

There have been no studies showing that those who are introduced to transport cycling through reliance on bike lanes to facilitate adoption ever graduate to become competent vehicular cyclists. Quite the contrary, several studies and media reports highlight the very real hazard that these infrastructure enhancements represent – particularly at intersections. The incidence of fatal right hooks increase as unskilled cyclists pass queued motorists and position themselves at the front of the line.

Other problems arise when cyclists need to make a left turn. Two options result: either the cyclist must make the counter-intuitive decision to cross the solid white line delineating the perceived safety of the bike lane and venture out into the proper traffic lanes or they must execute a pedestrian turn. Neither of these methods is intuitive and both lead to confusion and inconvenience.

We, as a society, do not provide special lanes for novice motorists, nor do we provide special facilities for motorcyclists taking to the roadway for the first time. Why is it that bicyclists are seen as needing special, designated lanes for travel from one point to another? The truth is, these facilities are not necessary.

Many municipalities already have a functional training grounds for novice and inexperienced cyclists. They are frequently referred to as bike routes. Often designed and implemented with input from experienced vehicular cyclists, these designated routes make use of relatively calm, quite side streets and residential roads to ease the inexperienced bicyclist from realm of the recreational to the world of the transportation cyclist. Because the roads chosen have relatively less traffic and, often, wide outside lanes, the cyclist is able to gain much needed confidence. As they gain experience, they can move on to busier and more efficient routes.

Competent, experienced vehicular cyclists are often chided for being closed minded and elitist when it comes to our abhorrence of bike lanes. These are interesting terms. It is more closed minded, in my opinion, to believe that special facilities are the only means of promoting transportation cycling. Proponents of these facilities seem to doubt their own ability to master proper vehicular technique, while at the same time projecting an irrational distrust of their motor propelled counterparts. They assume all cyclists must share this paranoia and consequently advocate for segregationist facilities and protective legislation.

Labeling vehicular cyclists as elitist is even more puzzling. To be among an elite is to be an exemplary representative of one’s group or class; to be superlative. That some fit that label, there is little doubt. Though the achievement has come with years of experience. Elitism is the act of promoting the best to the exclusion of the rest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competent, experienced vehicular cyclists seek only to protect our right to operate as a legally recognized vehicles and encourage others to adopt the same guiding principles in order to achieve the same level of ability. This is not accomplished by segregation within special facilities. It only comes as the result of application of proven technique and ability.

Designated bike routes facilitate the acquisition of knowledge and experience through operation on quieter, wider roads. As confidence builds, competence will follow. Many of the communities in North Texas have route systems which have either been fully implemented or are close to being so. Dallas leads the way with, perhaps, the oldest and most extensive route system. Fort Worth has a nascent system with additional enhancements on the drawing board. Garland, Richardson, Plano and others have signed, on-street routes to guide new cyclists. Unfortunately, few have published this information online. Careful study of the types of streets designated by Dallas or consulting with experienced commuters, however, will allow one to glean functional insight.

If cyclists are going to preserve their right to be recognized as vehicles and respected in that capacity by others, it is contingent upon them to ensure that privilege through action. Demanding special facilities or protective legislation serves only to jeopardize our standing in this regard. If we see ourselves a vulnerable and in need of special consideration, our peers and politicians will respond by removing us from the roadway for our own protection. Instead, we must acquire the knowledge and experience necessary to be competent self-propelled vehicle operators capable of claiming our right to the road and doing so safely, legally and effectively.

There are a wide variety of reasons people choose to locate their families far from their place of work. I am not passing judgment one way or another, as I, too, live in a suburb and work in the city. Criticism of those who use this as an excuse, however, is not off-limits. I don’t and regularly travel a distance of around 30km, each way. For adjacent communities, those which border on either Dallas or Fort Worth, distance is not an impediment to bicycle commuting. Even those who live further afield have options; solutions only require a bit of imagination.

An obvious choice is mass transit. Both DART and The T have policies and procedures for accommodating those interested in multi-modal conveyance by bike. Local busses have racks, suburban expresses have cargo compartments and trains have either designated areas for bicycles or allow them onboard with reason and courtesy as guidance.

Live even further out?

Bus and rail service is limited in its radius. Nevertheless, there are numerous Park & Ride locations throughout the Metroplex (Dallas, Fort Worth). By taking advantage of these resources, one can drive to one of these connection points and board a bus or train in order to get closer to a destination. This is an excellent resource not only for those who are new to bicycle commuting and unsure of ability, but can also serve as an alternative if mechanical or weather concerns thwart other options for local commuters. Many employers offer discount annual passes to their employees. For the cost of only a few weeks fare, one can ride almost anywhere in North Texas for a year.

Living more than a few miles from work is really not a valid excuse for failing to adopt the bicycle as a means of transportation. Whether one is riding to the bus stop and taking a bus or train to a destination; driving to a transit station, riding a bus or train closer to work and cycling the rest of the way; or employing any combination thereof – all can be combined to allow fulfillment of a goal to enjoy the freedom and pleasures of commuting by bike. Experimentation is the key; desire and imagination are the only limitations.

Many competent vehicular cyclists have been against the perceived need for special legislation specific to cyclists from the beginning. Those who favor Bills like this are almost without exception those who either lack the knowledge and experience to operate as competent vehicle operators on the road or represent organizations who, through their failure to convince the first group of the need for vehicular training, resort instead to placating the whims of the timid.

History

The first attempt to pass “Safe Passing” legislation in Texas took place in 2005. Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston.13) submitted SB-859, with Deuell and Shapleigh as co-authors. It constituted a revision to Chapter 545 wherein a new sub-section, 0535, would define the “safe distance” for passing a cyclist on the roadway and ascribing penalties for violation. It died in committee when, upon second reading, Ellis called to suspend regular order to consider the Bill. The motion failed the required two-thirds vote and was killed.

Another attempt to quantify a “Safe Passing” distance as applicable to cyclists, uniquely, took place two years later, in 2007. Again, it was Senator Ellis who submitted SB-248; he was joined as co-authors by Senators Carona, Lucio, Van de Putte and Watson, with Representative Linda Harper-Brown as House sponsor. Initially, the language was essentially identical to that of the attempt in 2005.

On the fifty-seventh day (20070508) of the session, upon second reading of the Bill, Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston.07) offered two ammendments. The first would have essentially limited the scope of the statute to highways by removing the word “street” (failed); the second would have mandated the use of a mirror by the bicyclist (failed). Upon failure of these proposals, Senator Kim Brimer (R-Fort Worth.10) proposed a third amendment which would have added the statement “or was operating on a public road that does not have a paved shoulder” to §551.104(b)(2) (passed), effectively strengthening the MBL/MSL rule.

The legislation returned for consideration and a third reading on the fifty-eighth day (20070509) of the session. Once again, Senator Patrick proposed an amendment. This one would have completely removed language in §551.104(b)(2)(A) allowing a red reflector visible to the rear of a bike to a distance of 50-300 feet and mandated the use of a red lamp visible to 500 feet. It passed overwhelmingly.

Ultimately, the proposed legislation died while awaiting placement on the General Calendar.

Present

Following that brief history, we arrive at the 81st Legislative Session (2009). The story begins in the House, this time. Representative Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving.105) filed the draft of HB-273 on 17 November 2008. It is somewhat interesting to note that a Republican lawmaker initiated the legislation this time. Her version contained almost identical language to that submitted in 2005 and 2007. It was read for the first time on 17 February 2009, where it was referred to the House Transportation Committee …never to be heard from again.

On the same day, in the Senate, Senators Ellis and John Carona (R-Dallas.16) were joint authors of a Bill, SB-488, which greatly expanded the scope of road users affected by the legislation and ascribed all beneficiaries the moniker “vulnerable road users”. In addition to cyclists essentially all Slow Moving Vehicles (SMV) recognized by the state, including farm implements, equestrian riders and vehicles pulled by equines, were included. Most amazingly was the practice of naming facultative pedestrian road users as legitimate design users. The latter to include “runner, physically disabled person, child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right of way” as well as a “stranded motorist or passenger.” Personal discussions with a member of DORBA who resides in District 105 and a member of the legal team of the Texas Bicycle Coalition revealed the reason behind the inclusion of these various personages was to garner sympathy from fence-sitting Legislators in order to push the Bill through the Legislature. Within days (20090223), Harper-Brown had resubmitted her Bill as HB-827 containing language identical to that of the Senate version. This time around, there were companion versions in both the House and the Senate.

The Senate version of the Bill made good progress through its Transportation Committee with few proposed amendments. As he had done in the past, Senator Patrick sought to change the language of the legislation. Most of the latter were minor clerical revisions except for the demand that dooring and harassment subsections be removed.

(h)  A person may not open the door on the side of a vehicle that is adjacent to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to open the door without interfering with the movement of traffic, including vulnerable road users. A person may not leave a door open on the side of a vehicle that is adjacent to moving traffic for a period longer than necessary to load or unload passengers or goods.
(i)  A person may not harass, taunt, or throw an object or liquid at or in the direction of any vulnerable road user.

Additional amendments were offered in the House Transportation Committee, which were more egregious. The first added several classes, “a tow truck operator and a person operating a handcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motor-assisted scooter” and removed the inclusion of motorcycles. Had this action prevailed “vulnerable road users” as a class would be limited to Slow Moving Vehicles, skaters and pedestrians. Perhaps more troubling was a proposal to require “a pedestrian or a person operating certain cycles, a moped, or a motor-assisted scooter, from operating more than three feet from the right edge line of pavement on a highway or street.”

Thankfully, save the inclusion of tow truck operators, none of these recommended changes survived the committee.

Final Language

Despite counsel by competent vehicular cyclists throughout the process, the the Legislators persevered with their efforts and the Bill eventually made it through both branches of the legislature. The following constitutes the final language of the proposed legislation.

AN ACT
relating to the operation of a motor vehicle in the vicinity of a
vulnerable road user; providing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1.  Subchapter I, Chapter 545, Transportation Code, is amended
by adding Section 545.428 to read as follows:
Sec. 545.428.  VULNERABLE ROAD USERS. (a)  In this section,
"vulnerable road user" means:
		  (1)  a pedestrian, including a runner, physically disabled person,
		  child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, tow truck
		  operator, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or
		  near the road or right-of-way, or stranded motorist or passenger;
		  (2)  a person on horseback;
		  (3)  a person operating equipment other than a motor vehicle,
		  including a bicycle, handcycle, horse-driven conveyance, or
		  unprotected farm equipment; or
		  (4)  a person operating a motorcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or
		  motor-assisted scooter.
	 (b)  An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user
	 operating on a highway or street shall:
		  (1)  vacate the lane in which the vulnerable road user is located if
		  the highway has two or more marked lanes running in the same
		  direction; or
		  (2)  pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.
	 (c)  For the purposes of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions
	 allow, safe distance is at least:
		  (1)  three feet if the operator's vehicle is a passenger car or light
		  truck; or
		  (2)  six feet if the operator's vehicle is a truck other than a light
		  truck or a commercial motor vehicle as defined by Section 522.003.
	 (d)  An operator of a motor vehicle that is making a left turn at an
	 intersection, including an intersection with an alley or private road
	 or driveway, shall yield the right-of-way to a vulnerable road user
	 who is approaching from the opposite direction and is in the
	 intersection or in such proximity to the intersection as to be an
	 immediate hazard.
	 (e)  An operator of a motor vehicle may not overtake a vulnerable road
	 user traveling in the same direction and subsequently make a
	 right-hand turn in front of the vulnerable road user unless the
	 operator is safely clear of the vulnerable road user, taking into
	 account the speed at which the vulnerable road user is traveling and
	 the braking requirements of the vehicle making the right-hand turn.
	 (f)  An operator of a motor vehicle may not maneuver the vehicle in a
	 manner that:
		  (1)  is intended to cause intimidation or harassment to a vulnerable
		  road user; or
		  (2)  threatens a vulnerable road user.
	 (g)  An operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid
	 colliding with any vulnerable road user on a roadway or in an
	 intersection of roadways.
	 (h)  A violation of this section is punishable under Section 542.401
	 except that:
		  (1)  if the violation results in property damage, the violation is a
		  misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not to exceed $500; or
		  (2)  if the violation results in bodily injury, the violation is a
		  Class B misdemeanor.
	 (i)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that at the
	 time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation
	 of the law.
	 (j)  If conduct constituting an offense under this section also
	 constitutes an offense under another section of this code or the Penal
	 Code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both
	 sections.
SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.

Details

The fact that almost all of the details of this legislation are repetitious seems not to have any bearing on the discussion. Proponents insist revision to the statute is a must in order to provide safety to cyclists. These individuals ignore the most important means of promoting vehicular cycling – education. Existing law is more than adequate to satisfy any perceived deficiencies the proposed legislation sought to fill.

In an earlier discussion, I shared the authority under which we, as cyclists, receive recognition as legitimate vehicles under the Texas Transportation Code. Section 545.051 defines the rule by which slower moving traffic is to stay right and §545.053 stipulates that overtaking vehicles are to do so on the left. Sub-section 545.053(a)(1) mentions only that the overtaking vehicle is to do so at “a safe distance”. Admittedly, this statement is ambiguous. Even so, the concept is unquestioned. Rather than create an entire statute defining a safe and acceptable distance applicable only to “vulnerable road users”, it would seem more logical to define this distance as applicable to all vehicles under the existing statute. After all bicycles are legitimate vehicles under state law.

While the details of the next concept will await a future dialogue, treatment of the real issue bears identification. Almost all road users and law enforcement officers have a disturbing misunderstanding of §551.103. They begin reading that section and see the phrase “a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway” and stop. Many confuse “practicable” with “practical” or, worse yet, “possible”. More germane to this discussion is their failure to appreciate an important disclaimer: “unless . . . the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is . . . less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane.”

Believe it or not, almost all outside lanes in North Texas are under fourteen feet in width, That being the case, on almost all roads a cyclist is within their rights to take control of the entire lane (i.e. to ride to the left of center). When this alignment is adopted, there is created a natural buffer zone of at least three feet between the cyclist and other vehicles overtaking and passing them on the left. Since the whole point of this legislation is to create a three foot zone of comfort, the tools and legal definitions providing that buffer already exist.

Reason

Though it seemed like folly to pursue, several of us contacted the Governor’s office imploring him to consider a veto of SB-488. It seemed like a long shot, but was worth the effort in the end. On the afternoon of 19 June, Twitter, the blog’sphere and eMail accounts were all a buzz. Word had been disseminated that the Governor was close to a veto of the proposed legislation. Final confirmation came late in the afternoon, when the following statement was released.

Gov. Perry Vetoes SB 488
June 19, 2009

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:

Pursuant to Article IV, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, do hereby disapprove of and veto Senate Bill No. 488 of the 81st Texas Legislature, Regular Session, due to the following objections:

Senate Bill No. 488 would create a new class of users of roadways, called “vulnerable road users,” which would require specific actions by operators of motor vehicles. These vulnerable road users would include pedestrians; highway construction and maintenance workers; tow truck operators; stranded motorists or passengers; people on horseback; bicyclists; motorcyclists; moped riders; and other similar road users.

Many road users placed into the category of vulnerable road users already have operation regulations and restrictions in statute. For example, a person operating a vehicle being drawn by an animal is subject to the same duties as a motor vehicle, and a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to a motor vehicle, unless he or she is at an intersection or crosswalk.

While I am in favor of measures that make our roads safer for everyone, this bill contradicts much of the current statute and places the liability and responsibility on the operator of a motor vehicle when encountering one of these vulnerable road users. In addition, an operator of a motor vehicle is already subject to penalties when he or she is at fault for causing a collision or operating recklessly, whether it is against a “vulnerable user” or not.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed my name officially and caused the Seal of the State to be affixed hereto at Austin, this the 19th day of June, 2009.

RICK PERRY
Governor of Texas

ATTESTED BY:
COBY SHORTER, III
Deputy Secretary of State

For a detailed view of this bill, visit http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=SB488.

Much of this language is akin to what many of us were trying to convey to the lawmakers in the House and Senate all along. It is somewhat gratifying to find one government official willing to consider reason. Almost immediately less competent cyclists began criticizing the Governor and others of us who have been heralding a call to reason from the beginning. One woman, in fact, has submitted a FOIA request for all correspondence Perry considered before arriving at his decision. It has been posited that the Austin Police Department is behind the decision. I have a feeling she and others will be surprised at the results.

Reality

This legislation was ridiculous from the beginning. In states like Florida and Oklahoma, where laws like this are already on the books, there have been absolutely no prosecutions. Colorado lawmakers passed a version earlier this year and the backlash was almost immediate.

As mentioned above, a competent, experienced vehicular cyclist creates their own rolling buffer zone as they travel down the roadway. Validity of this concept does not originate with me. It has been proven through application by many cyclists. Cycle*Dallas and CommuteOrlando have excellent commentary with robust threads discussing this topic. Groups who consider themselves advocates for transportation cyclisting betetr serve their constituents by directing their efforts, not at specious legislative measures, but toward education programs aimed at inexperienced bicycle commuters and utility cyclists. Most or the problem centers around the irrational fear that motorists are a danger to bicycle operators. In actuality, ignorant cyclists are their own worst enemy.

Prior to the beginning of the meeting proper, COG staff arranged for those interested to participate in a web-based seminar (note: I refuse to use the idiotic term webinar) on developing a Bicycle Master Plan. Initiation was delayed due to technical difficulties and, once resolved, we joined the session in progress.

The featured speaker was Peter Lagerwey, instructor with the National Center for Bicycling and Walking. Sponsored by the Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, “Bicycle Master Plans” provided an overview of what municipalities and transportation districts should consider when creating a BMP. Without going into to much detail, here are some interesting points to mention.

• Under the section entitled “Create a BAC” in part I, special note is made that any Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) should include a wide variety of cyclists with varying degrees of experience. Evidently, COG did not participate in this seminar prior to restructuring the BPTTF, as they have all but excluded the beneficiaries of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure from the BPAC (see below and earlier commentary.
• Under the section entitled “Objectives to support goals”, the presenter suggested the installation of at least twenty (20) miles of bike lanes, per year, for ten years will show the general public the project is progressing as desired.
• Under a section entitled “A Bicycle Facility Network for Everyone” and admittedly added in hindsight, the inclusiveness principle highlighted above was reiterated with a comment the audience should be identified and representatives included at all stages of the process.
• Toward the end of the presentation mention was made that “paint is your friend … put some of that down and there you go”; followed by “always be putting product on the ground …to show you are successful.” With comments like this, engineers will be laying something on the ground, alright.

A series of resources from this seminar is included with meeting documents at the NCTCOG website.

The BPAC meeting commenced pretty much on time, but immediately got off track when the agenda was modified. Introductions were initially scheduled to consume five minutes. However, the moderator, Karla Weaver, decided she wanted everyone in the room to introduce themselves and identify their affiliation. The additional seven to ten minutes lost were never recouped.

Attendance was among the most bountiful I have seen for a BPTTF/BPAC meeting in quite some time. While the room was not packed, it was more than three-fifths filled. There were a few familiar faces and a bevy of new ones. Notably missing were representatives from some regional advocacy groups. Present were two individuals from BikeDFW, one from DORBA, one from Lockheed Martin Recreation Association and one from Pegasus Flyers. Meanwhile, Greater Dallas Bicyclists, Friends of the Katy Trail, Bike Friendly Oak Cliff, Texas Trails Network and Texas Bicycle Coalition were all MIA.

A decent summary of meeting activity can be found in a post over at Cycle*Dallas. Thus I will not repeat that information here. Instead I will offer some comments and observations.

Several revisions to the committee composition have taken place since distribution of the last draft in January. The number of “potential members” has been shaved from 55 members to 49 members. That seems like a good change.  The seven “transportation providers” has been reduced to six; the thirty-six STTC Cities have been reduced to thirty-four (sorry Euless and North Richland Hills); and the number of STTC Counties remained unchanged at nine. Perhaps most notable was the fact the four Regional Focus Groups had been sliced from the committee structure altogether; removing any and all advocacy groups from official representation. They have now all been reclassified as “interested parties”. Don’t despair, though; “Interested Parties” are now “partners” and are “no less important”. Yeah, they just can’t vote and have no permanent seat at the table.

During the Regional Veloweb Update, the group was provided an update regarding progress of this recreational boondoggle. Following over a decade of work, only 200 of a planned 644 miles have been built or funded. The design speed is rated at 25mph. (I guess no one has ever attempted to use The Katy Trail as a commute route) Comments from earlier public meetings have been compiled and evaluated; additional public meetings for comments leading to final plan approval will take place this summer.

I will skip comment on the 2009 Sustainable Development Call For Projects (CFP), as this does not apply directly to bicycle transportation directly. The existing roadways are entirely sufficient for any support of vehicular cycling. Anything else is simply recreation or segregation.

The balance of the meeting was consumed with three show-and-tell presentations by the newly minted Chair and Vice-Chair.

Don Koski kicked things off with an overview of “Sidewalk Survey and ADA Pedestrian Curb Ramp Study”. Results indicated there is a need for 457 miles of sidewalks and 330 ADA ramp installations at estimated costs of $41,856,210 and $1,014,500, respectively. Despite Steve’s interpretation that “[Fort Worth] now considers 5 feet the minimum width for a sidewalk along an arterial/collector road”, that is only a recommendation and is unfunded according to the survey. Their “next steps” are to “develop a work plan” and “seek partnership and funding opportunities”. Basically, don’t look for anything anytime soon.

Koski next provided an overview of “A Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan [for the] City of Fort Worth”. Several photos throughout the presentation illustrated egregious examples of poorly implemented bike planning. One showed a door zone bike lane; another a cyclist riding between the fog line and the curb face. Actually, it could very well have been an eighteen inch bike lane. All but one or two appeared to be stock photos. One would think Fort Worth would make an effort to at least stage photos from around the city to promote their plan. Steve mentioned “the bullet about 295 miles of bike lanes by 2020 flashed out” at him. That did not strike me as jumping out so much as the notations that a) all of their funding is based upon 2008 dollars and b) maintenance costs are not included in the estimated financial burden. One final disappointment was Koski’s emphasis on the importance of “complete streets”.

It bears reiteration that all this talk of the Bike Fort Worth plan is both unfunded and unapproved. Many changes may exist down the road and there is no guarantee any of this will come to light – especially under the current economic climate. ‘Tis all much ado about nothing until approved  by the City Council and funded.

A comment from Paul Hakes (DORBA) after the presentation highlighted the propensity for bike lanes to become filled with debris and hazards. He then asked what would be done to ensure clear lanes. Koski simply stated his department had been conversing with Streets to ensure that would not be the case.

Another question came from Gordon Sander (Pegasus Flyers). He wanted to know how ordinances would be changed to legally accommodate inline skaters’ use of bike lanes, since they are now classified as toy vehicles. The response from the moderators was that this subject had never been considered. (This is actually a state issue. He will need to lobby the Legislature to revise the Transportation Code.)

Renée Burke-Jordan followed Koski and provided an overview of the “Plano Bicycle Transportation System”. Hers was at once slightly more encouraging and disappointing. Encouragement came from the standpoint that bike lanes were not mentioned at all. She illustrated plans to make use of sharrows to help guide cyclists with proper positioning on the roadway and educate motorists about the presence of these alternative vehicles.

The primary disappointment was the glacial pace at which Plano appears to be implementing its plan. Burke-Jordan showed three revisions through time. The first was dated 1985, another 2001 and the last 2009. I am not sure she intended this impression, but, in commenting on the final plan, she suggested there were still five revisions to the map in store. If it has taken twenty-four years to get through three revisions, one can only imagine how long the remaining five will take. She also mentioned that, of all the designated bike routes which exist on paper, only three of them have actually had signage installed. No explanation was offered as to why, but she indicated her group was working on resolving that deficit.

Overall, the presentations by the Chair and Vice-Chair left much to be desired. There was little in the way of inspiration conveyed to the audience. As Steve stated, it was pretty sterile and ho-hum. Status quo, unfortunately, in terms of BPTTF meetings of the past.

Following the presentations, Bill Hammond (BikeDFW) asked about resources the COG or BPAC might generate to help novice cyclists determine routes to commute between home and work. Furtive glances ensued among COG staff and the executive officers. Ultimately, no satisfactory response was forthcoming. Burke-Jordan quipped that following the five remaining revisions something would be available on the Plano website. Deborah Humphreys suggested using “BikeMap” (though there was no designation as to .org, .net or their own internal resource) to derive possible routes.

Of course the best resource for those residing in Dallas is the online version of the Dallas Bike Plan.

One Yahoo (whose name and affiliation I did not catch) wanted to know if ordinances would be changed to allow cyclists to perform rolling stops at traffic control devices so as to maintain momentum. The moderators responded, correctly, that all vehicles would be required to follow the rules of the road.

The final presentation ran right up to the designated 16:30 end of the meeting. Various individuals began leaving as soon as 16:25 and fully half had skipped out by 16:35. (This is a pet peeve of mine. It is especially aggravating at the opera and symphony. If you come, be prepared to stay until the end or do not come at all.) In keeping with past committee practice, the overpacked agenda left little time for questions or discussion; the belabored introductions did not help with this shortcoming. Karla Weaver mused with respect to the tight agenda, “maybe there will be a little more time on the agenda [in the future]; there was so much this time.”

Yeah, maybe.

The future of the BPAC is an open book. There was similar enthusiasm in the early years of the BPTTF. As time went on, meeting attendance diminished considerably. Unless COG staff can create a compelling agenda for each meeting and an overall, longterm plan of relevance, I see this group following the same path. Representatives will attend only when it serves their best interests to do so. Pedestrian and bicycle transportation issues are simply not a high priority for most governments in North Texas. They will certainly give it lip service, but little more.

Stay tuned for more information. Future meetings in 2009 have been slated for 14:00- 15:30 on 19 August and 21 October.

Is it too hot to ride a bike in Dallas?

No, not really. When one considers the average bicycle commute is five to seven miles, the relatively short duration of a trip at these distances – even at the height of summer heat – is not a terribly uncomfortable prospect. The key to success is proper dress and hydration. I do it on a daily basis during an average one-way trip distance of 30km. For most, this would be a potentially daunting prospect. Nevertheless, commitment and experience make it mostly pleasant and uneventful.

Many novice transportation cyclists disparage the use of cycling attire as being elitist. Assigning such derogatory terms as “lycra” and “spandex” to modern performance fabrics, some criticize the donning of clothing intended to shield skin, wick perspiration and prevent chafing as being uninviting. Of course, the use of these synthetics is not required. Smart wool is another good choice. If the detractors stick with bicycle commuting, in a few years they too will come to realize the benefits of wearing appropriate clothing – especially for long distance commutes.

Hydration is of paramount importance. The average person can lose up to two liters of water per hour during intense exercise. Whether one cycles vigorously or not, simply being out in the summer sun in Texas can be analogous to an intense workout. The consumption of at least 250mL/15 minutes of riding is a minimum maintenance volume requirement. A supplemental containing electrolytes is advisable, but can be replenished at the end of the trip as well.

Feedback

As one might imagine, the responses posted to the Transportation ‘blog run the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous. Most of the respondents ranged far afield from the question at hand and whined about the lack of bike lanes as being an impediment toward serious consideration of bicycle commuting. As experienced vehicular cyclists know, this is specious and little more than a convenient excuse. Every lane is a bike lane when occupied by a competent, experienced cyclist.

Of course, there were the ever present trolls as well. Those who are more that willing to share their thinly veiled, paternalistic derision of cyclists on the roadway. They feign altruistic concern by employing such platitudes as concern for the cyclist’s safety. In reality, their only care is removal from their path of any potential impediment to progress at (or above) the posted speed limit.

Spurious emissions

In addition to the community query, the author adding some unrelated commentary concerning the recently highlighted “Bike Fort Worth” plan. He began by citing Streetsblog Capitol Hill and its profile of today’s BFOC interview with Don Koski, a senior planner with Fort Worth. The Streetsblog piece focused primarily on the proposed “[h]undreds of miles of new bike lanes, ‘road diets’ and a proposed streetcar system.” Even BFOC was pushing the bike lane meme by lauding the “400+ miles of bike lanes, bus only lanes, streetcars, and ‘road diets’ … being planned throughout the city.” What Koski actually says, or rather doesn’t, is of more interest.

In response to the question, “Since the majority of residents are in cars, is there a concern that implementing bicycle infrastructure at the cost of losing lanes and/or parking will diminish the ability for people to gain access to these areas?”; he responds:

There often are trade-offs when right-of-way space is limited. We are addressing the decision-making process dealing with these concerns in the Bike Fort Worth plan. With new construction, it is relatively easy to make the provisions for all of the likely users of the street as long as it is planned for from the beginning. The most difficulty is when trying to retrofit bicycle facilities into existing streets. On streets in downtown and in other areas where traffic speeds and volumes are relatively low, dedicated cycling space isn’t a high priority as most cyclists feel comfortable sharing the travel lanes in that environment. Elsewhere, in some cases, we may need to identify a parallel street as the preferred cycling route, or we may need to just sign the street as a bike route and install shared lane marking symbols. However, there are a number of streets that are oversized for the level of vehicular traffic that they experience today or are likely to have in the future. In some of those cases, a “road diet” may be possible that could provide dedicated space for cyclists. We look at these on a case-by-case basis to determine how best to accommodate cyclists, based on the criteria established in the plan. Another related challenge is the trade-off between space for cyclists and space for pedestrians, especially along some of the busy arterial streets that pass through Fort Worth’s urban villages.

Note the phrase bike lane does not appear even once. It could be argued that reference to potential segregated facilities is implied in the phrase, “a ‘road diet’ may be possible that could provide dedicated space for cyclists.” That is not necessarily the case, however. This “dedicated space” could also take the form of wide outside lanes to allow for sharing or various traffic calming measures to slow the motorists to a more comfortable speed for novice cyclists.

It is obvious that Koski is approaching the Bike Fort Worth plan with more pragmatism and reason than the shrill voices of the facilities hounds are promoting. Of course, all of this is smoke and mirrors until the funding is acquired and the proposals begin to see the light of day. Many have been the bicycle transportation projects which have met with approval by city councils only to be scaled back or endlessly delayed due to funding issues and public outcry at the required sacrifices.

Only time will tell, but I am hopeful reason and common sense will prevail. Koski’s comments provide some solace in that regard. We shall see.