[BikeLongmont] Bicycle Longmont I25 EIS comments

[Nenad]

Hi Renee,

We chatted again about the I25 options and concerns during our meeting
Tuesday.

The members of our group ride both for recreation and commuting. This
mostly uses the same roads, but recreational riding tends to occur more
in off-peak traffic periods. Our points can be summarized as "Please
remember that bicycles will be using these roads. They should be able to
do so in a safe and efficient manner."

Some of the more detailed points we'd like to mention are as follows:

1. Bicycles will not be using I25 itself.

2. Shoulders. Roads need to have shoulders wide enough for safe riding.
While AASHTO recommends 4/5ft shoulders, keep in mind that these are
really for the city streets. Even the frontage roads (let alone US287)
will see traffic at high speeds, which need more separation to maintain
safety.

3. Shoulder rumble strips. If there are rumble strips on shoulders,
there should be sufficient width outside of the strips for safe riding.
Even if the rumble strips have shallow grooves, they are not ridable for
any distance. If the rumble strips are used to separate the traffic from
bikes, they would enhance safety.

4. Traffic signals. If a signal is traffic-driven, the detectors need to
recognize bikes (i.e., cameras are much better than ground loops).

5. Off-On ramps and merging traffic. We found that crossing off and
especially on ramps is really dangerous for bicyclists. The motorists
are concentrating on merging into traffic while accelerating to the
utmost. Recent solutions in Boulder County (e.g., Airport Rd/SH119
existing solution, proposed interchange on SH119 at IBM) detour bicycles
through short grade-separated paths. The paths are designed keeping in
mind bicycles may be traveling at 20 mph or more.

6. Right turn lanes. The usual practice of keeping bikes to the right
results in them having to cross the right-turn traffic at the
intersection itself. A better solution, slowly being adopted in this
area (such as 9th and Pace intersection in Longmont) has a marked bike
path left of the turn lane.

7. Bike/Transit interface. Bike racks at the transit stops, so people
can do bike-and-ride and lock their bikes safely. Facilities to load
bikes onto buses or trains, which is already a norm here.

8. "The ability to get places". Even if not every road has good bike
facilities, there has to be a capability to get around and get from
place to place in a safe manner.

9. Maps, plans and directions. As we worked with the City of Longmont,
we found that it was very useful to map out the routes where the bikes
would or should be used. This approach ensured the city has a network of
routes so every part of town is accessible, even though some roads are
not really suitable for bike traffic. One of the plan results should be
a bike route map, showing which routes and routes are more or less
suitable for bikes. When the project is complete, this can be used as a
basis for maps that can help the bicyclists navigate to where they need
to go in a safe manner.

These are our more general comments, in addition to the comments on
several particular roads and issues that you've read in our mailing list
archives.

I hope these are useful and contribute to the planning input and debate.
I'll cc the mailing list on this email, so you might check the archives
in a few days to see if there is any followup. I'd be also happy to
forward you any messages on the topic if that would be better.

Thank you for asking for our input.

Regards, Nenad