Little Stimulus Money for Michigan State Parks

Despite the huge backlog in much-needed capital improvements, the Lansing State Journal is reporting that our state parks will not be receiving much economic stimulus funding.

Before all the details of the federal stimulus plan were known, the department put together a wish list of projects it could have ready to go in 90 days. The list included 586 proposals totaling $356.6 million, including more than $200 million and more than 300 projects involving park improvements. So far, only three DNR requests have got to the final round for consideration by federal officials.

Of course the stimulus money is going towards road projects. Our state parks have hundreds of miles of roads, many of which require repairs. However, the state considers these parks roads as “private” and not eligible for funding. These roads don’t even receive funding from the state fuel tax. This is just another fundamental reason why our state park operations are not sustainable.

Best Cars in a Crash (but not the safest)

Auto-centric viewpoints are common. Here’s one that’s often blindy repeated.

Forbes Magazine is reporting on the best cars in a crash and only considers safety from the viewpoint of those inside the car. A quarter of all road fatalities in Metro Detroit are pedestrians and cyclists. Which cars are safer for them? Large SUVs that take more lane width, have larger blind spots, have longer stopping distances, and are less manueverable?

Another problem with this type of article is it assumes a crash is inevitable. In a one-on-one situation, more manueverable, lighter vehicles are more likely to avoid a crash than their heavier counterparts.

This topic was well covered in an older New Yorker article. They review a study of fatalities per million cars which includes drivers, passengers, and the other crash victims. Mid-size cars were in found to cause the least number of fatalities.

Conservative Voice against Sprawl

We’ve spoken up against sprawl largely because it results in auto-centric communities that are often unsafe or impractical to bike or walk in.

Christopher Caldwell has this excellent op-ed in the Financial Times that points out the costly and inefficient economics behind sprawl:

In 1958, the great journalist William Whyte coined the term “sprawl”, in an article for Fortune. He noted with horror that, a mere two years after the Highway Act, already huge patches of once green countryside have been turned into vast, smog-filled deserts that are neither city, suburb, nor country. Developments were concentrated in random political no-man’s-lands near interchanges and exits. Road lobbyists and real estate developers colluded against meaningful regulation and planning, with the result, Whyte wrote, that “development is being left almost entirely in the hands of the speculative builder”.

Whyte warned that sprawl was not just bad aesthetics but bad economics. A subtler and more serious problem than blight was that, for local authorities, the cost of providing utilities and other services was exorbitant. “There is not only the cost of running sewers and water mains and storm drains out to Happy Acres,” Whyte wrote, “but much more road, per family served, has to be paved and maintained.” The infrastructure network that came out of the Highway Act had higher overheads than the one it replaced. It became a bottomless pit of spending.

Of course the Road Commission for Oakland County is paying the price for building a sprawled road network that it can no longer afford to maintain. They did no land use planning. And the Oakland County Commission has regularly selected road commissioners from the county’s sprawling communities, so this outcome is no surprise.

And the article even includes a nod to Detroit: “The encirclement of Detroit’s neighbourhoods by highways is often cited as a primary cause of its decline.”

The Road Commission for Oakland County is widening another road.  This time it’s Tienken between Livernois and Sheldon Roads.

If ever a county road needed bike lanes, this would be it. It would connect Livernois, the Paint Creek Trail, Stony Creek High School, and Sheldon Road (a main access point for the Stony Creek Metropark.)

We need cyclists to give their input to the Road Commission.

A public meeting is planned for January 21st from 4pm until 7pm in the auditorium at Rochester Hills City Hall, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive (south of Avon Road between Livernois and Old Perch roads).

According to the Road Commission, “Public input will help shape the ultimate project design.”

If you are unable to attend the meeting on the 21st, please submit your comments to:

The Road Commission for Oakland County
31001 Lahser Road
Beverly Hills, MI 48025
E-Mail: dcsmail@rcoc.org
Phone: 877-858-4804

If you can attend the meeting, the Road Commission will likely provide their normal technical brush offs.  Here are what you can expect:

Brush off: The Road Commission has a policy of not accomodating bikes on the road.

Answer: The Road Commission mission is “to provide the public with leadership in safe and convenient road.”  Bike lanes are the safest place a cyclist can bike.

Brush off: The Road Commission will build a safety path for bicycles.

Answer: Safety paths are wide sidewalks and are not safe nor satisfactory solutions for for bicyclists according to MDOT and AASHTO.

Brush off: On-road facilities aren’t safe.

Answer: Studies find that bike lanes are the safest place to ride a bike.  Wide sidewalks are the least safe.

Brush off: The Road Commission doesn’t have the money.

Answer: Ask them, “is there no money to make this road safe for cyclists?  Is there money to make this road safe for motorists?”  There is grant funding for non-motorized facilities. No less than one-percent of the Road Commission’s state road funding must be spent on non-motorized facilities such as bike lanes.

E.J. Levy recently sent me an article about Colorado State Highways and how many of them have paved shoulders 4 feet or wider — a great way to make roads safer for bicyclists.  Colorado has had a policy since 1999 to add these shoulders to their state highways.  Nine years later, 72% of their state highway roads have them.

I am not sure if this includes Interstates, where in Colorado they are sometimes open to biking (e.g. I-70, I-76.)

So what’s the story in Michigan? As of last year, 35.8% of MDOT trunklines had paved shoulders 4′ or greater.    That percentage does not include Interstates, which are not currently opening to Michigan bicyclists.

That’s 3,031 miles of state roads with wide paved shoulders.

According to Josh Debruyn, MDOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, “In the last two years, MDOT has added 365 miles of paved shoulder suitable for bicycling and the number continues to grow every year.”

We expect these to grow as well now that the Governor has directed MDOT to do more.

And don’t think paved shoulders are just for bicyclists.  They help roads last longer, provide a safe pull-off area for vehicles, and allow vehicles to pass bicyclists more safely.

Now if we could only get the Metro Detroit road agencies (e.g. Road Commission for Oakland County) to step up and make this same committment to bicyclist safety.

Bike lanes in Ferndale

here’s been much discussion on this web site concerning bike lanes.

In summary, bike lanes…

1. Have been found to be the safest place for bicyclists to ride.
2. Can be funded from a variety of sources dedicated to non-motorized transportation.
3. Are not a significant liability concern for road agencies according to the state attorney general’s office.

In addition, the Road Commission for Oakland County and Wayne County Road Division have undocumented policies that prohibit bikes lanes.

Now this Macomb Daily article notes that old school opposition to bike lanes is in Macomb County as well.

Robert Hoepfner, chief highway engineer for the road commission, has no complaint with bicyclists. But he is concerned about safety. Many county roads simply aren’t wide enough for the kind of designated lanes Forlini described, Hoepfner said.

If county residents want designated areas for bicyclists, “Then let’s build bike paths and make them safe,” he said.

Apparently Mr. Hoepfner has not done his homework. Bike side paths are significantly less safe than bike lanes. If he was truly concerned about bicycle safety, he’d be building bike lanes. And if a county road is not wide enough for bike lanes, widen it. There is non-motorized funding available for this.

There are no excuses for not providing safe cycling opportunities in Metro Detroit.

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.

(more…)