What were they thinking?!

Have you ever ridden your bicycle along a state road and wondered whether the highway officials who made the road what it is today realized that cyclists use this road?   What were they thinking?  Sometimes that’s a rhetorical question.  But in Maryland, that question also points to an important information gap:  We really do not know what the highway engineers are thinking, though we see the results.  And often they do not know what we think,[1] though they often know what we want.

Gregory Slater and Dustin Kuzan of the Maryland State Highway Administration are trying to change this situation by inviting cyclists to give their perspectives on how to best solve some of the most vexing problems of accommodating cyclists on state highways.  The original impetus was a set of emails concerning the gradual segmentation of the wide continuous shoulder along MD-564 between Lanham and Glenn Dale, which parallels the Amtrak railroad line from Lanham to Bowie.  Over the years, various parts of the shoulder have been overlaid with bypass lanes (and a close cousin:  the through lane that is routed onto what was previously the shoulder to allow for a new left turn lane on what had been the through lane).  Slater and Kuzan have reached out to cycling advocates to talk about the generic problem of gaps in shoulders, at a place and time convenient to advocates with day jobs and children (e.g., 5:00-6:30 PM).  That meeting will be in late July.  In the mean time, we set up another meeting.  I’m telling you about that now because you may have some additional questions that we would not have thought to ask.

This week, we will be talking about lane-sharing, an issue where most cyclists have opinions, but where our understanding of what key state officials think is poor.   We will provide our views when asked, but we are going to focus on learning what the officials think, because:

• Their thinking is often the foundation of what we have now and what we are likely to see going forward;
• To the extent that we have ideas for improvements, those ideas are more likely to be well-received if they are presented within the conceptual frame of reference under which officials are operating; and 
• The idea that they are working for us (the taxpayers) and must listen to us can only take us so far.  If we really want them to listen to us, we need to listen to them fully explain their perspectives.  

Perhaps the most fundamental question for this meeting is:  At what point is a lane too narrow to share side-by-side, and how is (or should) that be reflected in the roadway, signs, and pavement markings?   How does that critical width change depending on slope, traffic speed and volume, and on what lies to the right or left of the lane.  Regardless of what cyclists "should" do, what are they actually doing and how is (or should) that be reflected in the roadway, signs, and pavement markings?   How should an overtaking driver respond to a cyclist in the center of the lane, or riding as far to the right as practicable, or 7 feet to the right of the centerline (on a 2-lane road).  Regardless of what drivers should do, what are they doing in these situations?  And how is (or should) that be reflected in the roadway, signs, and pavement markings?

Most of SHA’s focus on how to accommodate cyclists has focused on additional capacity.  The $65 million bike trail along the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, the $30 million trail segments along the Intercounty Connector (as well as the $80 million segments not built), and extra width for bike lanes on many planned roads all got substantial scrutiny within SHA and many calls for public input.  But most roads[2] from the Capital Beltway to the District of Columbia may not be widened in our lifetimes.   Many other state roads are unlikely to be widened because there is a newer parallel state highway.  These essential bike routes are not always pleasant to bike; so we need to talk about how to make them better, even if such efforts will only provide marginal improvements.

Better sharing of the roads is one option.   Ensuring that drivers and cyclists have a better mutual understanding of what the other is likely to do—and respect it—can make a given road less hostile.  Last fall, for example, the Glenn Dale Citizens Association suggested that R4-11 signs (which say “Bicycles may use full lane”) would make roads in Glen Dale and MD-450 inside the beltway safer.  Some officials within SHA have been signaling for the last few months that they are uncomfortable with that message because they think it will lead inexperienced cyclists to use the full lane and be struck from behind by inattentive drivers; other state officials have championed the sign because they think that the sign will only be posted in locations where using the full lane is safer than not.  (Prince Georges County officials have indicated a willingness to use these signs along roads with two or more lanes in a given direction, but not on roads with only one lane each direction.)  Other than requests for the signs at specific locations, SHA has received relatively little public input on this issue to date.

Other ideas where we need to better understand official thinking include fog lines that carve out a constant lane width so that cyclists can immediately discern where the lane is wide enough to share, wider lanes up hill at the expense of narrower lanes downhill, sharrows, a revised share-the-road sign with a less ambiguous meaning, and legalizing the practice of crossing a double-yellow line to pass a bicyclist as long as passing vehicle is entirely within the oncoming lane, changing speed limits to accommodate cyclists, and a reconsideration of center-line rumble strips on roads used by cyclists.   What am I forgetting?

(Jim Titus is a cycling advocate from Prince Georges County.  The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official views of any organization with which he is affiliated.)

---

[1] Other than those who read this blog regularly.

[2] US-1 may be an exception.  



Comments

[twk]

I only ride the portion of MD-564 North of MD-193. However, on my bike commute to work I have to cross MD-564 to get to Greenbelt. I take advantage of the WB&A trail and MD-450 path to get me to the Sea Brook MARC station where there is a pedestrian underpass to cross the tracks. There is a marked crosswalk on MD-564 at the MARC station. Not too bad to cross in the morning.

In the evening it is a whole different ball game. I walk my bike across as a pedestrian. NO ONE stops to allow a pedestrian to cross. There are two sets of signs in either direction warning drivers of the crosswalk. Not even PG's finest bother to yield. Since the nearest traffic lights are so far away and you are near a strip mall, the flow of speeding car traffic is constant. It can take ten minutes to find a break in traffic to cross.

This is my biggest impediment to communing to work by bike. The thought of crossing that road due to its poor design makes me and my wife drive most of the time. Since I need to get across the tracks my options are very limited.

So while being able to travel down the road with nice shoulders is important, it is not the only consideration.

I would like to see a traffic light. But I think that is a dream. BTW, while waiting I often see kids running across that road like a game of frogger.

I would be glad to participate in a meeting to convey this aspect.

[Angelo]

"Prince Georges County officials have indicated a willingness to use these signs along roads with two or more lanes in a given direction, but not on roads with only one lane each direction."

Is the County position that bicyclists are never allowed to use the full lane on 2 lane roads (regardless of width)? Do they want to cite bicyclist on 2 lane roads, and hold them at fault in any collisions?

Is the SHA of the opinion that the signs (and bicyclists) should not be allowed on any roads too busy for grade school children?

(My experience with DE police is that rules enforced depend on the individual officer, e.g. restricted to 2 lane roads, bicyclists prohibited on all multilane roads, some want to require left turn from curb, others allow normal use of left turn lane).

Does SHA want bicycle requirement to vary by count or town (independent of state traffic law)?

[Contrarian]

Other ideas where we need to better understand official thinking include fog lines that carve out a constant lane width so that cyclists can immediately discern where the lane is wide enough to share, wider lanes up hill at the expense of narrower lanes downhill, sharrows, a revised share-the-road sign with a less ambiguous meaning, and legalizing the practice of crossing a double-yellow line to pass a bicyclist as long as passing vehicle is entirely within the oncoming lane, changing speed limits to accommodate cyclists, and a reconsideration of center-line rumble strips on roads used by cyclists. What am I forgetting?

A good list. I would add clarification of the rights and duties of cyclists in a crosswalk.

[twk]

I think recommendations for better sharing change to some degree if it is a rural state road or a busy artery (MD-564 or MD-193). The latter is a more aggressive environment.

I like that some accommodation is made for cyclists going straight around a right turn lane. Usually a narrow dashed lined "bike lane". However, this is a very narrow space to live in, and very unconformable being sandwiched between speeding traffic on both sides. This exists on MD-564 north of MD-193. Too often I see drivers use the right turn only lane to pass traffic as some of these are quite long. I am not sure what a better approach would be other than a sign to alert drivers that a cyclist may be using that little lane.

I find it easier to use state roads if there is a nice shoulder. If the shoulders are not likely to be widened, then the surface quality needs to be better. Like fixing raised manholes and the like.

In places where there are sharp turns or right hand ramps the shoulders need to be wide enough to provide a higher margin of space. Those are not good places to share the road. Right turn ramps are places where drivers are preparing for turning maneuvers and not looking out for anything other than cars. If widening is not a possibility, then perhaps signs. I hate to alway be relying on signs.

[Jim T]

@twk. Some of these issues you mention will probably come up in the July meeting on bypass lanes etc. Are you interested in coming to that one?

@Contrarian. As I am sure you realize, the Maryland Code is a mess on that one. The obvious question is whether we want SHA to lead, or should Delegate Carr (who introduced the previous clarification) be encouraged to submit a bill to clarify these grey areas. Who yields at a bypass lane is similarly confused. But more on that for the July meeting.

[twk]

@Jim T

Yes I would be interested. Do you know when and where? I will be out of town for part of July. After July 19 I should be available.

[Jim T]

@twk. Meeting just rescheduled to late August. I'm not sure if I have your contact info.