Bicycling safety in Oakland County: It’s not about the money

In a prior post, we noted that many road agencies and municipalities in Metro Detroit are the major roadblock to getting safe bicycling facilities.

For example, the Road Commission of Oakland County refuses to acknowledge much less use best practices for bicycling facilities. They ignore the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) guidelines for bicycling facilities. They ignore Federal Highway Administration guidance. They ignore bicycling safety studies that show their policies have been consistently found to be unsafe.

We appreciate the fact that Craig Bryson, Public Information Officer for the Road Commission for Oakland County responded:

The Road Commission for Oakland County has no objection to bikers. We simply have no money available to make costly improvements to roads to allow bikers. We cannot afford to simply maintain smooth pavement on the roads or even begin to address the massive congestion that clogs our roads everyday. It would be very difficult to justify spending scarce resources on bike facilities when we can’t maintain the existing roads. If you are proposing additional funding just for bike facilities, we’re more than willing to listen.

However, Craig isn’t correct. It’s not about the road money.

The primary roadblock to safe biking in Oakland County is the Road Commission’s policy of not supporting safe, AASHTO on-road bicycle facilities. Instead, Road Commission policy only supports bicycle facilities on wide sidewalks (so called “safety” paths) which are not recommended by AASHTO, MDOT, and others. They are not recommended for one main reason: studies find them much less safe for cyclists than on-road facilities like bike lanes.

It should be noted that we have twice asked the Road Commission for their documentation and justification for this policy. Their sole response was “[we] have not been able to find it yet.” According to that same official, this policy was set 19 years ago by a risk management committee. That tells us the policy was based on limiting the Road Commission’s perceived liability. [Note that MDOT and the Michigan Attorney General’s office has weighed in on this issue recently. We’ll cover it in a future news entry.]

Even if one believes that money is the issue, there are significant sources of funding available specifically for bicycling facilities, including but not limited to Transportation Enhancements, CMAQ, private grant sources (e.g. Bikes Belong), and Act 51 funds.

And speaking of Act 51, it requires Road Commissions to spend not less than 1% of their road funding on non-motorized facilities. In the past, the Road Commission for Oakland County used a loophole in the state law to count the paving of gravel roads as a bicycle facility. Bicycling advocates have since changed state law and removed that loophole, so that should free up Act 51 monies to pay for legitimate bicycle facilities.

But perhaps what we find offensive about the money excuse is it puts the safety of bicyclists below other road users. Does the Road Commission for Oakland County ignore nearly all safety issues for motorists due to a lack of money? Of course not.

Besides, how can the money excuse have any justification given the Road Commission’s goal “Quality Life through Good Roads — ‘We Care’”? When I’m riding on an Oakland County road with no safe accommodation for cycling, “We Care” is not what pops into my head.

For cyclists, their mission statement is even more egregious:

What will it take to get the Road Commission for Oakland County to live up to their mission, become a leader in bike safety, and start using existing funding to support safe bicycling on the many roads they manage?

Footnotes:

1. The Road Commission uses the term Good Roads in their goal — a term that was coined and promoted by cyclists in the late 1800s.
2. In 1893, bicyclists led by Edward Hines created and helped pass the state law that allowed county road commissions in Michigan.