|
Feds caution against removing W. Alabama bike lanes |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Friday, 07 March 2003 |
The following letter from Ira Dember of WALQ to City of Houston Council Member Ada Edwards presents some important facts and nicely sums up the West Alabama bike lane removal issue.
Dear CM Edwards:
WALQ's primary focus is neighborhood protection. Bike lanes on West Alabama have become a neighborhood protection issue. Therefore WALQ is speaking out on that topic.
The attached documentation sheds light on why the State of Texas does *not* support removal of bike lanes from West Alabama -- and should cause the City to reconsider its own course of action.
The State of Texas singled out West Alabama bike lane removal for negative comment in its acceptance of the City's 2/14/03 mitigation plan. The attached letter, dated 9/4/02, explains why. Written by the Federal Highway Administration to Gary Trietsch of TxDOT, it states, in part:
". . .FHWA shall not approve any project that will. . .have a significant adverse impact on the safety for non-motorized transportation traffic, unless the project provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists.
Therefore, we urge the City of Houston to carefully weigh any decision to remove the existing bicycle lanes on West Alabama."
This two-page missive reiterates Congress' explicit and repeated support for bike and pedestrian facilities in the transportation mix, strongly implying that FHWA sees its federal duty as that of enforcing Congress' will.
It seems odd that the federal government would fire a shot across the bow to the City of Houston in a letter addressed to a State of Texas highway engineer rather than to the City itself. Yet the City apparently feels it has bulletproofed itself from federal liability by designating Fairview as a "bike route."
The State of Texas is fully aware of the Fairview substitution, but obviously believes it will not ensure Washington's blessing -- no surprise, in light of the 9/4/02 letter.
TxDOT obviously seeks to distance itself from any City move that could endanger federal funding of the Spur project. After all, if it were not for the ill-conceived, ill-timed Spur construction plan, the City would not be forced to mitigate by removing bike lanes which its own PWE professionals recommended and installed several years ago -- with federal assistance.
If removing these bike lanes and substituting a "bike route" is so innocuous, why must the State distance itself?
What if the City has misinterpreted Washington's readiness to accept the substitute, especially given the vigilance of Houston's grassroots bike advocates? If the State is backing off, why is the City so willing to rush in?
At the end of the day, the City's substitution of a Fairview "bike route" may not pass muster in Washington. The FWHA letter to Mr. Trietsch three times mentions safety as a concern -- "safety in equal measure for each mode of travel."
As PWE engineer T. Rebagay readily admitted to WALQ at the 2/28/03 Facilitation Team meeting, one tenet of traffic engineering is "mode separation" -- essentially keeping cars and bikes/pedestrians out of each other's way whenever possible. In fact, one could say that mode separation is, technically speaking, the reason bike lanes exist.
Yet the City's "mitigation" plan will remove mode-separating bike lanes on West Alabama and instead thrust bicyclists back into harm's way on Fairview, mixing motorists and cyclists on this relatively narrow road.
The real picture is even more dismal -- and hazardous. As you know, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) computer-modelled Spur traffic impacts *with* mitigation in the neighborhood. This study "shows there will still be large increases in traffic and congestion in all thoroughfares and many cut-through streets." (Source: Facilitation Team website.)
Add it up: The City of Houston is removing federally funded bike lanes, thereby eliminating mode separation, and instead sending bicyclists into vehicular traffic on a road that will be suffering large increases in traffic and congestion.
WALQ believes such a proposition may not be warmly received by FHWA, especially given the attached letter's cautionary tone.
It is time to throw down a red flag before the City incurs federal liabilities it could readily foresee -- given the explicit evidence at hand -- but steadfastly chooses to ignore.
WALQ believes City Council and the Mayor have a duty to protect our neighborhoods and, at the very least, seriously call into question a project fraught with federal regulatory compliance risks as well as physical risks to bicyclists and pedestrians in our neighborhood.
What about the plan for a reversible lane on West Alabama, which the City promised to the State?
The ill-advised reversible lane requires bike lane removal. Given the State's letter of non-support for removal, the City is clearly absolved of any obligation to implement the reversible lane.
Further, WALQ has presented City Council with strong statistical evidence from a published multi-state engineering study that removing West Alabama's bike lanes and center turn lane, and implementing a reversible lane, will increase the incidence and severity of collisions and injuries. Anecdotal evidence from West Alabama supports these empirical findings.
WALQ invites you and all City of Houston officials to head off West Alabama blunders that can have life-threatening consequences on that street and on Fairview, threaten federal funding, and permantly degrade the quality of life in some of our city's most appreciated neighborhoods. We urge you to call a halt to bike lane removal immediately.
Thank you.
Ira Dember
On behalf of WALQ / West Alabama Quality of Life Coalition
You may want to use some of these points in your own letter! |
|
|
