MacArthur Boulevard Bikeway Hearing 9/11

So as not to bury the lead, here's the important thing to know

A public hearing will be conducted by the County Executive or his designee on the MacArthur Boulevard Bikeway Improvements 1-495 to Oberlin Avenue (CIP #500718) at 3:00 pm on September 11, 2008, in the first floor auditorium of the Executive Office Building at 101 Monroe Street in Rockville, MD 20850 to consider a proposal to construct and improve the 13,800 feet of bikeway along MacArthur Boulevard from I-495 to Oberlin Avenue The purpose of this hearing is solely to obtain public comments to assist the County Executive in determining whether or not to authorize this project.

If you can't make the hearing, do the next best thing and write to Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett.  Relate your personal experiences and insights on MacArthur Blvd. 

If you ride MacArthur Boulevard (or nor) and can go, I suggest you do. The plan does more than help cyclists and drivers. It improves bus stops, pedestrian facilities and the appearance of the road. And it would improve pocket parks along the route. It's not just a bikeway.

This is all timely as the Post recently ran it's semi-annual "why do cyclists bike MacArthur Boulevard" letter. (From last January). This one was by Tom Arundel who all too proud of himself

On a winding drive along MacArthur Boulevard toward Glen Echo each morning, I inevitably face the same questions:

Should I patiently drive 15 mph behind the cyclist in front of me? Should I risk lives and swerve around him? Or should I carefully pull alongside and remind him that there is a bike path in clear view, less than 15 yards to his left?

If you have to ask "should I risk killing a cyclist so that I can drive faster?" you need to rethink your priorities. He chose the third one - making the assumption that he knew what was best for the cyclists (and we're the ones labeled 'arrogant'?)

This particular stretch of road has several dangerous, blind curves. On many occasions, I've witnessed cars attempt to swerve around cyclists and encounter oncoming traffic, narrowly averting tragedy. And in every case the incident could have been prevented by the cyclist's[sic] simply deciding to use the bike path designed for him.

And in every case the incident could have been prevented by the driver simply deciding to drive safely and within the law. Is he saying that the cyclist left them no choice? He probably thinks attractively dressed women ask to have obscene come-ons yelled at them. I wrote a letter to the editor that was not published but another one -flipping the question around - by Kandee Hooten was.

What I'd like him to explain is why he and other drivers use roads widely known to be popular bicycling routes and then complain about having to share the road with bicyclists. If he and other drivers are swerving dangerously to avoid cyclists, that's not the cyclists' fault. That's just poor driving. I strongly suggest that Mr. Arundel take a refresher course in defensive driving skills

Steve Katz added

However, MacArthur Boulevard and other area roads, unless noted otherwise (such as main highways) are all to be shared by drivers and bicyclists.

That means recognizing that there are an increasing number of bicyclists who ride on the road because that is the nature of their sport or because they are riding to travel somewhere, and that drivers need to be more aware and more careful. If that involves momentarily slowing down, that is what "sharing the road" means.

Here is what I wrote:

Tom Arundel's recent letter asking why cyclists ride on narrow MacArthur Boulevard was wrong in many ways, but key among them was that it was written to the wrong people. Instead of writing an open letter to all cyclists, he should have written a letter to the Montgomery County Council. Montgomery County has been slow to implement the MacArthur Boulevard Bikeway Improvements it has been planning for over twenty years now. These improvements would widen the road for safer passing; and improve, widen and move the bike path to make it a safer option.

He should also write a letter to the Glen Echo Town Council, who voted to table a plan to convert the former Glen Echo trolley right-of-way to a shared use path between Glen Echo Park and the Capital Crescent Trail. This plan would have given cyclists yet another option. He could express displeasure with that same town council, who likes the moving speed bumps cyclists provide, for opposing the Improvements because they feel that "all it would do is speed up traffic"

I'm sure cyclists can count on Mr. Arundel's support of the Bikeway Improvement.

But of course, it didn't all end there, Anne Patterson wrote in with a patently false claim

Who does she think pays for the roads she and other bicyclists ride on? People who drive cars. We pay taxes on gasoline and taxes on car purchases to provide federal and state funds for new and existing roads. Maybe we should institute a road tax on bicycles. Maybe they should have to be licensed and registered.

Thankfully, Richard Layman did the research to refute this so I don't have to

While numbers do vary, the number that I use is that 50% of the cost of roads are paid for not by gasoline excise fees, tolls, and registration fees, but general funds.

My source is this paper: Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance. Other papers, including by the Texas State Department of Transportation state the percentage amount of subsidy, depending on the road, can be much higher. Recently I saw a paper (maybe cited in Washcycle) [WC:I'm not sure it was, but there is this] that stated that non-drivers, particularly bicyclists, actually provide a much greater subsidy to drivers than drivers provide to non-drivers, as far as road costs are concerned.

More recently I've seen the author, Martin Wachs, be less generous

Gas taxes are critical right now, reports Wachs, but in fact they're covering only 35 percent of our governments' cumulative spending on roadways, from big expressways to meandering country roads.

So, I share the annoyance that the Post would run a letter completely estranged from fact. Frequent washcycle commenter Nancy Taylor got in there and fixed it though.

It's true that in Maryland, gasoline taxes and car titling fees are big sources of revenue for the transportation trust fund, together providing more than 40 percent of the fund, which maintains state roads and bridges and pays for services such as those provided by the Motor Vehicle Administration.

However, last year the General Assembly decided to allocate a portion of sales tax revenue to the transportation trust fund, meaning that every person in Maryland who buys a bell, book or bicycle contributes to maintaining state roads, even if that person doesn't own a car.

Money to maintain county roads, such as MacArthur Boulevard, comes from a county's general fund, with property tax and local income tax being the biggest sources of revenue.

Everyone who owns property or pays local income tax contributes to the maintenance of county roads, whether that person drives or not.

Many bicyclists also own cars and pay the associated fees, thus contributing to the transportation trust fund, and many bicyclists also pay property and local income taxes

While we're at it Nancy wrote the Post's ombudsmen

I am writing specifically about a letter to the editor titled "Why Do Bicyclists Dice With Death?" published on August 15.  The author of this letter complains about bicyclists riding on MacArthur Blvd instead of on the [very terrible] side path.  In my opinion, the author is an ignorant bully, but his attitude is unfortunately all too common amongst DC area drivers.  However, my complaint tonight is not about this man's opinion so much as it is about the title given to his letter.  By asserting that cyclists are doing something risky [when they are not], the _Post_ gives undue weight to this man's view and essentially blames the victim.

Mr. Arundel seems to assert that cyclists _force_ him to drive in an unsafe manner, when the responsibility is Mr. Arundel's alone.  The inflammatory title to the letter endorses Mr. Arundel's absurd point of view.

Please try to tone down the anti-cyclist rhetoric.

Nancy Taylor

and got this response

Ms. Taylor, I drive daily on MacArthur Blvd. and it happens to me all the time.  I don't disagree with Mr. Arundel.

Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman

Surprise Surprise! Which brings us back to the hearing this week. Jack Cochrane writes

If I understand the process correctly, this is being heard by a hearing examiner on behalf of the County Executive, which is a serious thing.  At the last such Executive hearing I attended (about Norfolk Ave.) the examiner weighed all the evidence and testimony like a judge and made a ruling on behalf of the executive.  Insights and opinions were effective.  The surrounding communities may have requested the MacArthur hearing in order to oppose the project, so we need to have as many cyclists testify eloquently as they did on the ICC trail issue.  This is a VERY important project in case if you haven't noticed... and a testament to the dedication of advocates who've been asking for improvements for 20+ years.

The plan is budgeted for planning starting this year, but no work will start until 2010. Here's what the plan will do over a three mile length (possibly expanded)

1. Widen the existing road by 4 feet to provide 3 foot bike lanes in each direction. This is a downgrade from a previous design that widened the road by 10 feet and so the "bike lanes" won't be labeled as bike lanes because they'd be too narrow. Nonetheless, the plan is endorsed by WABA and MoBike.
2. Upgrade the existing sidepath to 8 feet and move it farther from the road with a 5 foot vegetative buffer between the two (should limit road debris)
3. Utilize the Glen Echo Trolley Bridge to pass through the Glen Echo Park.

Glen Echo does not support the plan

Kym Elder noted that Sean McCabe, NPS Park Ranger who is the boundary and lands  expert, mentioned that the Glen Echo Council attended the Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) on the MacArthur Boulevard Bikeway project on February 8. Mr. McCabe asked if the County has acquired the necessary land to build the new MacArthur Boulevard Bikeway; Ms. Esmaili said yes. Councilmember Arber disagreed. Councilmember Arber then inquired if Sean McCabe could be available to discuss the bikeway project with Council. Council members Arber and Macy feel that the project is much farther along that the 30% quoted at the February 8 meeting. Councilmember Long expressed concern that the County is only listening to the bike groups, not individuals and communities living along MacArthur Boulevard, noting that there seems a sense that the bikeway will facilitate commuter traffic. Cabin John is the only community that supports the bikeway.

Councilmember Long expressed concern over how the trees on the eastern palisades, including those that form an irreplaceable back-drop for Glen Echo Park, would be protected with construction of the new bike path. There are archaeological preservation and environmental studies that need to be done.

And if I may quote Nancy one last time

Reasons why the path is bad:
1. It is the sidewalk for the area, with child cyclists, dog walkers and other often unpredictable traffic. It is not suited for 20-mph biking.
2. Cars and trucks park on the path wherever they feel like it, disobeying the NO PARKING signs. [Particularly across from the Capt's Market and at canal access points, but landscaping businesses park their trailers and trucks on the path wherever their clients' houses are.]
3. Debris.
4. Blind curves.
5. It is dangerous [and illegal] to ride on the shoulder of a road in the direction against traffic. For one thing, if you are riding against traffic, motorists turning onto MacArthur from side streets or driveways might not see you.
6. There are bus stops located right on the path [that is, that's where the people have to stand to wait for the bus].

In fact I heard of a crash on 8/30/08 that occurred when a cyclist on the path moved out into the road to avoid debris.

If you have made it this far, you might as well read the three previous posts

MacArthur Boulevard Bikeway
MacArthur Blvd Project Mandatory Referral
MacArthur Boulevard Update

Comments

[Jon Q.]

This isn't surprising at all, at least on the part of the town of Glen Echo. I've interviewed Nancy Long as part of a project regarding the history of GEP and she made it clear to me that the town did and will continue to do everything in its power to minimize the usage of the park to outsiders. Apparently the town killed off an idea which would have connected the park directly with the CCT, since it would just encourage more traffic into the park.
Frankly, I'm under the impression that Ms. Long and other members of Glen Echo wish that they could have the park under NPS supervision without allowing anyone to use it. They're always complaining about the artists and classes being taught there (especially since the GEPPAC dares to try to make some money off of the efforts)

[Jack Cochrane]

Wow, what great reporting. You remember more of my quotes than I do. By the way, I wrote to the Post ombudsman to challenge her biased response to Nancy Taylor. I got a denial.

Your own letter was very good. Exactly the point I would make... look to the county or the villages along MacArthur if you're tired of waiting behind cyclists (or look into your own heart). Hey, maybe you can show up at the hearing and call yourself "Mr. Arundel" and support the project!

[Contrarian]

Wow, the Deborah Howell letter made my jaw drop. I also wrote the ombudsman, complaining about the selection of the letter, but along a different tack. I pointed out that the issue here is really transportation policy, and it's serious business, so why is the Post demeaning itself by printing laughably non-factual letters on such a serious topic?

I got a form letter response though.

I do think that despite Ms. Howell's bias, writing the ombudsman and challenging the Post's journalistic ethics is an effective tactic to get them to stop running the neanderthal letters. I like to believe that the early retirement a few years ago of the old Dr. Gridlock was helped along by the numerous letters from cyclists the ombudsman would get every time he tried to touch the issue.

[Contrarian]

Another point on the whole gas-tax thing: the vast majority of gas-tax money goes for interstates and expressways, roads which cyclists for the most part are prohibited from using. The local and county roads that cyclists typically use are normally not funded by gas taxes.

Okay- ...