Suggestions for Brighton Avenue interface to Westbrook

[John Brooking]

Hi, PBPAC,

I have talked further with two advocacy groups in Westbrook (the Discover Downtown Westbrook [DDW] Design Committee, and the Westbrook Safe Mobility and Access Committee [WSMAC]), and have drafted a presentation and accompanying letter providing concrete suggestions (no pun intended, actually just paint and signs) for how to improve support for bicyclists approaching and within Westbrook from Riverside Street to Larrabee Road.

The proposals are mostly for the City of Westbrook, but I also stress the need to reconfigure the bike lane striping around Riverside Street westbound so that it does not lead bicyclists into the 4' paved shoulder in Westbrook, as it currently does. As this would be up to Portland, I'm hoping that PBPAC can consider signing on as well, so that citizen groups from both Westbrook and Portland can present a united proposal for a better integration of the plans of both cities in that area.

(As a separate issue for Portland, I am still concerned about the downhill section of bike lane eastbound past Pine Tree, but didn't want to muddy this proposal with that. But I would still like to follow up with Portland on that. I would not use a bike lane there, as my speed can easily exceed 20 MPH.)

- John

[John Brooking]

Hi, everyone,

I'm re-forwarding this message at the request of the people at the meeting tonight, with the text of the letter I linked to, as well as the images of the presentation, in this email body. There are also some comments directly on the Google doc which I'm not including here, but you can follow the link in the original message if you are interested in reading them. The major comment is the need for an introductory paragraph, with which I agree, but whose exact text will depend partially on how the PBPAC feels about joining the request.

We did not have a quorum at the meeting, but after review, if someone would like to make a motion about it, we think we can vote on the motion over email. I actually cannot make the motion, since I am a Westbrook resident. Note that I already have sign-on with the Westbrook Safe Mobility & Access Committee (WSMAC) to submit this to the Westbrook personnel, so PBPAC would be co-signing with them for the Portland recipients (to be determined). The Discover Downtown Westbrook Design Committee has provided positive feedback, but might not officially sign on since this area is outside the downtown zone.

---- Proposed letter with embedded illustrations ---

May 2021

To: <various Portland/Westbrook Planner(s)/Engineer(s)>

<introductory paragraph concerning the signers>

We are proposing the following changes and additions to the current bicycle infrastructure for Route 25B, Brighton Avenue in Portland/Main Street in Westbrook. Current plans prompted by Portland’s project to add bike lanes to Brighton Avenue, as well as the ongoing Rock Row project in Westbrook, have led to many changes already in the infrastructure around that area. We feel that more could be done within the physical and financial constraints of the project to provide guidance that is consistent with best practice for bicycling around traffic using the rules of the road, as taught by both major national bicycle safety curricula (League of American Cyclists and CyclingSavvy[1]). In the case of striping at Riverside Street  (see next paragraph), the current implementation is actually in conflict with best practice cycling. Our proposed changes utilize standard striping, markings, and signage consistent with the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities.

You may view our proposed changes in a Google Presentation document at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sL-ETOlW6yNYgmttdhrklvPUEBQn6T7JP0nngkTC0Wo/edit?usp=sharing.

1

2

3

4

The first set of proposed changes (slide #4) concerns striping and signage westbound at Riverside Street, a change that would need to be done by the City of Portland. As the slide explains, the current striping actually guides cyclists into the paved 4’ shoulder (NOT a bike lane) in Westbrook, a space which is too narrow for bicycling given the presence of a curb (according to AASHTO guidance), of drain grates, and of wide vehicles such as transit buses in the narrow adjacent travel lane.

The remaining slides pertain to signage and markings within the City of Westbrook. In this area, because width considerations preclude the use of bicycle lanes, it is important to establish that bicyclists have the right to use a full travel lane  here. (Frequency of intersections would make bike lanes problematic anyway, even if there was adequate width.) This is especially crucial westbound, when the bike lanes in Portland have created the expectation that bicyclists not be in the travel lane. Many motorists will look at the 4’ paved shoulder in Westbrook and think that it is a bike lane that bicyclists should be using.

5

6

7

We feel that the striping changes westbound approaching Riverside Street, and the use of Bikes May Use Full Lane signs (MUTCD R4-11) throughout, are especially crucial for support of the safe operation of bicycles in this area of roadway. Additional Shared Lane pavement markings (MUTCD Figure 9C-9) are useful in that they support the same message as the BMUFL signs, while being more noticeable.

All of these changes are relatively inexpensive, but their value far outweighs their cost, in our opinion. We look forward to your response regarding when they may be completed.

Respectfully submitted by the

Westbrook Safe Mobility & Access Committee (WSMAC)  <contact information>

Portland Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (?) <contact information>

[1] https://cyclingsavvy.org/road-cycling/

[John Brooking]

Our next Westbrook committee meeting is this Wednesday, after which I’ll want to finalize the letter ASAP.

[John Brooking]

I had not gotten around to finishing the draft, which I intended to do before asking again, but now I'm considering it an emergency. The most egregious part of the infrastructure around Riverside, the portion of bike lane past Riverside leading into Westbrook, has now been reinforced with greet paint. This is EXACTLY the WRONG design, guiding bicyclists directly into the 4 foot shoulder. See photo.

I'm not going to reproduce the whole letter and presentation in the message body again, but it is largely unchanged from what you see further down in this thread. I added some more introductory text, and changed the "Current Conditions" slide to reflect the new green paint. Here are links to the current letter and presentation.

Can I get a motion to send this? WSMAC has already approved it. I figure we can decide exactly who to send it to, if and after we decide to send it. My intention is to send it to people in both cities. In Westbrook, that will be Director of Planning Jennie Franceschi and Director of Public Works Eric Dudley. In Portland, you all probably have a better idea than I do, but I expect it would be Jeremiah Bartlett and a few others, like the lead for this project.

Thanks.

- John

[Damon Yakovleff]

Thanks John, I saw this on my bicycle commute to Windham this morning and agree this creates a dangerous situation. The shoulder is too narrow and often full of debris, and sets up cyclists for a pretty significant right-hook hazard as they travel west down the slight hill toward Westbrook. I support PBPAC approving the joint letter with WSMAC that John has shared.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Portland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PBPAC+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2oxEnqZCe32oMdgKRT0%2BiauTo4Ko_btcTruihfKDLGonTA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Winston Lumpkins]

I second this motion, if someone who has yet to make a meeting has the right to second a motion.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CALqySn%3D4kVC5dYcYynrsGap8E_qGyZnY9yFPvK9T39hw9RbM3A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Tasse]

Just want to throw out here that this facility could be seen as anticipating bike lanes beyond the Westbrook line, which we are still working with MaineDOT on to create some corridor consistency.  

Note too that the line is dashed, so it is permissible to move left and take the lane as the bike lane ends.  It would be nice to see an SLM out there, and that is something that is being discussed, too.  But you don't have to use the shoulder if you don't want to. 

Note as well that 90% of the ridership that uses this corridor is nonetheless likely to use that sub-optimal 4 ft shoulder. This is not a context where a low-skilled rider is going to feel comfortable controlling the lane. 

Happy to discuss further.  

Director, Maine Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program

Past President, Greater Portland Chapter, New England Mountain Bike Association

Support better walking and biking in Maine, donate today!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CALqySn%3D4kVC5dYcYynrsGap8E_qGyZnY9yFPvK9T39hw9RbM3A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Zack Barowitz]

I’ll 2nd the 2nd and note Jim’s comments as discussion. 

Thanks 

Zack 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CA%2BZCBZOGXTs6J2Sz-yeG1DdDG40fTUiKrL0LN%2BDgNn1ODtuG9g%40mail.gmail.com.

--

zackforportland.org

https://www.facebook.com/zackforcharter

207-838-6120

917-696-5649
ZacharyBarowitz.com

ATTENTION:
The information in this electronic mail message is private and confidential,
and only intended for the addressee. Should you receive this message by
mistake, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction,
distribution or use of this message is strictly prohibited. Please inform
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
opening it.

[John Brooking]

Thanks for the second, Winston, and for the further comments.

This proposal includes suggestions for SLM's and BMUFL in Westbrook, as well as a BMUFL sign approaching Riverside. My hope is that this will encourage both cities to implement those facilities. Hopefully this is a point we can agree on, and this is what the bulk of my proposal consists of.

That said, I am inflexible in calling for the removal of the portion of bike lane between Riverside and the Westbrook line, the one I posted the picture of. Dashing is indeed supposed to indicate permissiveness to leave the bike lane, but the green paint, while supposed to mark a conflict zone, I suspect also constitutes stronger guidance for the bicyclist to use it than leaving it unpainted. (No, I know of no studies backing that up, it is just my intuition.)

It may be that 90% of bicyclists having used the bike lanes on Brighton will continue on in the 4' shoulder, but having a bike lane actually guide them there will certainly help make that a self-fulfulling prophecy. And just because 90% do it, is it the right thing? Jim, you are a bicycle educator, you know this. It reinforces the false notion among both the bicyclists and the motorists that that is the proper place.

Bicyclists do indeed have the right to use the travel lane, even if most won't. But if the infrastructure says nothing to suggest that, and in fact suggests exactly the opposite, then it continues to degrade the perceived right of cyclists to the travel lane, and miseducate casual cyclists and motorists alike concerning cyclist rights and best practice. I find that completely unacceptable.

From a selfish perspective, it will also increase harassment of cyclists choosing the travel lane. Indeed, I have already experienced that at least twice in the last month in that area, that I remember.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAE741VAX-c7z7-ajgTy0RvLoFVb4a%3DMk1HdhwQgDM5zaLh%2B3rA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hans Breaux]

Shocking to see these transitions still being created even though it’s well established how much conflict they create.

-Hans

Hans Breaux, RA, LEED, CPHC

Maine Licensed Architect

FAA Certified Remote Pilot

PROJECT CO+OP

passivhausMAINE
Parkside Neighborhood
1 (337) 280-2049
hbr...@me.com

he/him/his

<Bad Green Lane.jpeg>

On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 8:53 PM John Brooking <johnbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Our next Westbrook committee meeting is this Wednesday, after which I’ll want to finalize the letter ASAP.

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:23 PM John Brooking <johnbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, everyone,

I'm re-forwarding this message at the request of the people at the meeting tonight, with the text of the letter I linked to, as well as the images of the presentation, in this email body. There are also some comments directly on the Google doc which I'm not including here, but you can follow the link in the original message if you are interested in reading them. The major comment is the need for an introductory paragraph, with which I agree, but whose exact text will depend partially on how the PBPAC feels about joining the request.

We did not have a quorum at the meeting, but after review, if someone would like to make a motion about it, we think we can vote on the motion over email. I actually cannot make the motion, since I am a Westbrook resident. Note that I already have sign-on with the Westbrook Safe Mobility & Access Committee (WSMAC) to submit this to the Westbrook personnel, so PBPAC would be co-signing with them for the Portland recipients (to be determined). The Discover Downtown Westbrook Design Committee has provided positive feedback, but might not officially sign on since this area is outside the downtown zone.

---- Proposed letter with embedded illustrations ---

May 2021

To: <various Portland/Westbrook Planner(s)/Engineer(s)>

<introductory paragraph concerning the signers>

We are proposing the following changes and additions to the current bicycle infrastructure for Route 25B, Brighton Avenue in Portland/Main Street in Westbrook. Current plans prompted by Portland’s project to add bike lanes to Brighton Avenue, as well as the ongoing Rock Row project in Westbrook, have led to many changes already in the infrastructure around that area. We feel that more could be done within the physical and financial constraints of the project to provide guidance that is consistent with best practice for bicycling around traffic using the rules of the road, as taught by both major national bicycle safety curricula (League of American Cyclists and CyclingSavvy[1]). In the case of striping at Riverside Street  (see next paragraph), the current implementation is actually in conflict with best practice cycling. Our proposed changes utilize standard striping, markings, and signage consistent with the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities.

You may view our proposed changes in a Google Presentation document at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sL-ETOlW6yNYgmttdhrklvPUEBQn6T7JP0nngkTC0Wo/edit?usp=sharing.

1 <image.png>

2 <image.png>

3 <image.png>

4 <image.png>

The first set of proposed changes (slide #4) concerns striping and signage westbound at Riverside Street, a change that would need to be done by the City of Portland. As the slide explains, the current striping actually guides cyclists into the paved 4’ shoulder (NOT a bike lane) in Westbrook, a space which is too narrow for bicycling given the presence of a curb (according to AASHTO guidance), of drain grates, and of wide vehicles such as transit buses in the narrow adjacent travel lane.

The remaining slides pertain to signage and markings within the City of Westbrook. In this area, because width considerations preclude the use of bicycle lanes, it is important to establish that bicyclists have the right to use a full travel lane  here. (Frequency of intersections would make bike lanes problematic anyway, even if there was adequate width.) This is especially crucial westbound, when the bike lanes in Portland have created the expectation that bicyclists not be in the travel lane. Many motorists will look at the 4’ paved shoulder in Westbrook and think that it is a bike lane that bicyclists should be using.

5 <image.png>

6 <image.png>

7 <image.png>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2ozc6V7zkxji2vFE1304J2X1UNeBHyxmU6yOUEiTmdTYkg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Brooking]

I happened to drive up Riverside to Brighton in a car yesterday ~6:30 PM, and realized another consideration for this design, the use of freeway-style right turn "slip lanes" on both sides, from Brighton westbound onto Riverside, and from Riverside onto Brighton westbound. As I approached the right turn onto Brighton from Riverside, there actually was a "bicyclist" (powered by a DIY two-cycle engine) approaching from my left in the bike lane, whom I stopped to wait for, and it made me realize that the thought behind the green paint is probably at least partially for this reason. A bicyclist at the edge is harder to notice than one in the travel lane, and to be honest, the green paint did make me think more about the possibility of an edge bicyclist, so it's a conundrum. You do want to highlight the potential conflict with an edge riding cyclist, because there will be many, yet the highlighting itself also reinforces the undesirable edge riding.

The bicyclist I saw did continue in the shoulder in Westbrook (as well as through a few crosswalks against the light), and it was not a problem at the time because there was not much traffic, and no large vehicles. I did notice after I made my right turn and passed him that even I didn't think right away to move over to the other lane, because I subconsciously perceived him as "in his own lane". I did move over a bit after I thought of that (after confirming no traffic in the other lane), but his position against the curb didn't give me any obvious sense of need to do so. To me, that reinforces the need to publicize the possibility of full lane use through SLM's and BMUFL signs. I see the correct education as extremely important, regardless of how many cyclists eventually are willing to do it.

It's causing me to keep thinking about the tradeoff of the green paint between highlighting the conflict with the slip lanes versus reinforcing more dangerous intersection edge behavior. I hesitate to change my recommendations document at this late date, but would be interested in others' thoughts. I guess if I did change it, we could still pass the motion "as amended".

I would love to complete the final draft and send this stuff over this long weekend, so it will be in the recipients' inboxes when they return next week.

On a related note, I'll mention in Westbrook's defense, since they have been under so much criticism for not putting in bike lanes, that they did remove a similar right turn slip lane a few years ago from Larrabee Road approaching Brighton/Main Street next to the McDonald's. That was part of the redesign for Rock Row, for safety reasons (mentioned to me in passing by Eric Dudley), and I think they deserve credit for that. That's a solid safety improvement for bicyclists, with or without bike lanes. Riverside would be safer without slip lanes, lessening the potential conflict needing to be mitigated with green paint. But that's a physical redesign, out of scope for this year.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/E8446740-25AA-4A57-9BA7-9A89DDC6B7E9%40me.com.

[Jim Tasse]

I'm planning to ride the roadway segment later today and will provide additional comments after I do so.  

Director, Maine Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program

Past President, Greater Portland Chapter, New England Mountain Bike Association

Support better walking and biking in Maine, donate today!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2oyAWM2AH6yDf60%3DND8L5bjMLopvy9oJMvrjUxjHQgeCZA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaime Parker]

Just a reminder that there was an opportunity for Westbrook to include a full bike lane with buffer and they were not willing to do so. Part of this was because we did not present a unified message at the time. 

Not saying bike lanes are a panacea but it certainly would have avoided this incongruity that we have now.

I'm not sure why this is that different than the transition from a bike lane to bikes may use full Lane signage that was planned for main Street 

the green paint gets you there and then the bikes may use full Lane sign tells you what to do from that point on, correct?

[Jim Tasse]

Hi John et al: 

1. BCM agrees on the addition of BMUFL signs and SLMs on the Westbrook side of the line

2. BCM disagrees on the removal of the bike lane from Riverside to the Westbrook line, and BCM will offer comments to the City in support of this facility as it currently exists.

Angela King, Zack Barowitz and myself rode the length of Brighton Ave and then through the facility a couple of times in each direction this afternoon (5.27.21). We all used the bike lane and then the shoulder through this section of Rte 25-B as the most comfortable and lowest stress option on the road. The consensus was that the facility works well as currently painted. I personally feel it is a significant improvement on the previous condition of the road from Riverside to the Westbrook line. I suggest anyone who is wondering whether this facility is actually an improvement ride it--I'll be surprised if anyone opts to take the lane at the terminus of the green conflict painted lane.  

Taking the lane is a situational/tactical decision that a rider can make at any time, irrespective of what the pavement markings say, but it is a maneuver that is most commonly and safely accomplished by experienced and skilled riders. That said, I think even most "strong and fearless" riders (from the Geller typology) will opt to use the bike lane and the shoulder at this location. It is very unlikely that the classic "interested but concerned" rider would ever take the lane in this context.  

On the 1-4 Level of Stress scale, the participants in today's ride felt that most of Brighton Ave is a 3-4+, but that the area with the lanes/shoulders is more like a 2+.  All of us are highly experienced bicycle riders, and we had to control lanes for long stretches of Brighton where no bike lane or shoulder exists as we approached segment in question.  

3. Green conflict paint indicates that the bike lane crosses a spot that cars may also cross, nothing more. It greatly increases the conspicuity of the bicycle lane. 

4. I reviewed both NACTO and AASHTO bike lane guidance this morning, and as far as I could see, this facility terminating at a shoulder does not conflict with recommendations in those design guides. 

As an organization dedicated to increasing the ridership in Maine, the BCM generally supports facilities that encourage lower skilled riders to get out on their bicycles. We think that the bike lane striping between Riverside and the Westbrook line is absolutely a step in the right direction.  

With respect to advocacy on this corridor that goes beyond paint, we also all felt that the speed limit on Brighton should be reduced to 30mph, which will improve safety for motorists, pedestrians, and all levels of bicycle riders. We would be happy to discuss joint efforts with PBPAC on petitioning Portland and the MaineDOT to lower the speed limit on this important multimodal corridor.  

As always, happy to discuss further.  

Thanks, 

Jim 

Director, Maine Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program

Past President, Greater Portland Chapter, New England Mountain Bike Association

Support better walking and biking in Maine, donate today!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2ozc6V7zkxji2vFE1304J2X1UNeBHyxmU6yOUEiTmdTYkg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Winston Lumpkins]

That was very helpful Jim.  

I would strongly support any effort to reduce the speed limit to 30 mph in the proposed area.  That may actually reduce the frustration and congestion that cars experience in that area.  

I haven't ridden that stretch in quite some time...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CA%2BZCBZNq-NpsBNS%2B4qGDoKqDhOyMJWsK7hFrQxyKtmu%3D09n5ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Derek Pelletier]

I generally agree with Jim's summary of the situation. I rode through this same corridor twice yesterday as well and found the newly painted areas to be much more comfortable for riding than the areas on Brighton and Riverside that hadn't been touched. It's a big improvement from a truly awful baseline. And the lead-up along Brighton (outbound) is truly awful.

That said, I still feel like this corridor is a bit of a joke. I appreciate the efforts to add visibility for the bike infrastructure to increase motorists' awareness of cyclists. I still cannot imagine ever riding through this corridor with my kids on their bikes. It's still a terribly undemocratic area - the automobile is priority #s 1, 2, 3, and 4 in this area with other modes a distant 5th and 6th. In some areas, like Forest and I-295, I think that can be okay as long as there are parallel alternatives for cyclists and pedestrians. There are no alternatives for cyclists and pedestrians to be able to avoid this section of Brighton if they're going to Westbrook. If the Cities and State were truly serious about their climate goals, this corridor would need a much more substantial overhaul in terms of its allocation of space. I had hoped that the Rock Row development would be the opportunity for such an overhaul but, sadly, level of service seems to still rule the day.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CABaJc7wk1zmYXk2XHupBO1115bXcaY9u33Cih%3DJ4PqXwH2tCDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Tasse]

I agree with your comments re the rest of the corridor, Derek. We made some measurements and observations on our way to the new lanes that underscore the inconsistency and un-bike-friendliness of Brighton Ave. There are additional upgrades being planned for the corridor, but even then it will have a ways to go before it could be considered supportive of the lowest skill riders. I just focused my comments on the segment between Riverside and the Westbrook line that was raising concerns. 

Lowering the speed limit on the corridor would be a helpful first step both for slowing cars AND for putting the roadway into 30mph context. That would more easily permit the use of 10 foot travel lanes to create more space for bike/ped facilities. Under current rules, it is difficult to get permission to use 10 ft lanes in 35 mph zones. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAN3W0ry6CxecyzADVY_tTO%3DktG83Buhq9Q%2BKv1A%2BxXq4Eg_E_g%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sent from mobile device; please excuse any typos!

[John Brooking]

Thanks everyone for your involvement in the discussion. I'm coming around to the green paint as a conflict marker (conflict worsened by edge riding itself), so I think that makes it all the more important that SML's and signage (Bike Lane Ends, BMUFL) begin in the leadup to the traffic light at Riverside, not just after, alongside the dashed green lane. There will often not be an opportunity to merge after the light, if you have waited at the front and to the right of the car traffic at the red. So you have to set up at the light. I did not have time to update the letter and slides last night, nor will I have time today, but I'll certainly do that over the long weekend, so hopefully next week we can discuss and vote on the motion with amendments.

Just a note about comfort. I have no doubt that the 4 foot shoulder is comfortable for most people, and adequately safe, in most situations. My concern has always been the "edge case" (pun sort of intended) of being in the shoulder with both travel lanes occupied, and being passed by a large wide vehicle. That will be more likely in rush hours and perhaps Saturday afternoons. That situation will feel very tight, probably not provide the legal 3 foot passing distance, and scary to the inexperienced cyclist who is the intended audience of bicycle infrastructure. Of course the risk of right hooks, left crosses, and drive-outs is also increased by riding at the edge, exacerbated on a suburban road like this with 2 lanes of traffic each way, and frequent intersections and commercial driveways. Those situations combined with the incorrect expectation created by treating the shoulder as a bike lane, are the reasons I'm pushing these changes.

Have a great holiday weekend, all!

https://iamtraffic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/widthsx2_short_tentenfour.png

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16z0B_mvjZRyWn3QMs-zhn5BykVJgvkBjiaMoNOyESwE/edit?usp=sharing

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CA%2BZCBZO8841JtCvw5tgkpnWQMaMhqDf3EE%3DWeNRNVsESZXX7dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Zack Barowitz]

I thank everyone for their input on trying to find a workable solution to this less than ideal situation. It really shows the level of dedication to safe cycling as should be held as an example to the MDoT. 

I think the signs added to the existing infrastructure will help. It would be nice if someday that bicycle signage like Bike Lane Ends, BMUFL could be a little less traffic engineery and a little more accessible for cyclists to process. Maybe that’s just me. 

Thanks 

Zack 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2owmnHLoOJeUzF5kKdo3tQngtjjSjuye9CnSujy4SMffsw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Damon Yakovleff]

Thanks everyone for the work you've put into this! I ride it almost every day on my commute from Portland to South Windham, granted via ebike. Personally, I usually do control the lane coming down the hill from Riverside toward Westbrook because of right-hook risk as cars turn into the Shaws plaza.

I appreciate the priorities that seem to be bubbling to the top here, namely:

• Decreasing speed limits in the corridor
• Adding SLM on the Westbrook section between Larabee and Riverside
• Adding BMUFL signs on that section as well, including before the Riverside intersection for westbound traffic

John, nice of you to offer to work on this over the holiday weekend! It will be great to be able to put out something that incorporates a consensus of diverse cyclist's input.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAE741VD1vfnMYcBr0uFa0dCPJVhKkk1kdYP6Z3rOmZVAtsocjg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Brooking]

I realized that no one had answered Jamie's question, so I will, to the best of my knowledge:

I'm not sure why this is that different than the transition from a bike lane to bikes may use full Lane signage that was planned for main Street 

the green paint gets you there and then the bikes may use full Lane sign tells you what to do from that point on, correct?

I had an informal verbal promise from Eric Dudley a few months ago that he would install one BMUFL sign just after Riverside. I'm not aware of any more formal plans, and I don't know if anyone else has had that conversation with him. I always did intend to follow it up with something formal so it wouldn't slip his mind, so I'm taking this opportunity to both remind him of that, and also ask for more, to really drive the message home. I'm adding Shared Lane Markings because signage is so easy to miss and dismiss.

My problem with the green paint is that it may "get you there", but in the process guides you directly into the 4 foot paved shoulder at the end. My recent experience as a car driver turning right from Riverside, and Jim's comments, have convinced me that the green lane should remain as a conflict marking, but with much stronger guidance for full lane use to make up for it. That has been my thought with the latest revision which I'm just about to send out.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CALT9reDgEBeuGs5ZoDqwbAD8f%3DyooZ29YhgyaTymowGev%3D%2BFOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scsmedia]

My problem with green paint is the city has yet to repaint any green paint lanes previously installed.  It looks terrible and leaves users (biker, drivers, etc.) to question whether thy are intended to provide a message as to their purpose, etc.

Steven Scharf

207-415-4662

SCSM...@aol.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2oxQkBNfjgTyZjN%2BoiP3YiapPaF_AyvPQXi76vpPkjtUXw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Brooking]

I have revised the letter, and made a new version of the presentation. I've dropped the request to remove the green conflict paint, and added more on the approach to Riverside to make up for it.

I'm including the full text of the letter in the message body again below, for convenience, but when I tried to include the presentation screenshots, it said the message was too large, so you'll have to use the link to see that. Note that the presentation is a new link.

• Letter
• Presentation

I also added names of the likely recipients; suggestions welcome.

Jim, if the BCM wants to officially sign onto the letter as well, we'd be glad to have you! I added branding to the presentation to include BCM, in case you do.

----------

June 2021

To:

• Jennie Franceschi, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement, City of Westbrook

• Eric Dudley, P.E., Director of Engineering and Public Services, City of Westbrook

• Lauren Andersen, P.E., Senior Engineer, City of Portland

• Jeremiah J. Bartlett, P.E., PTOE, Transportation Systems Engineer, City of Portland

The Westbrook Safe Mobility & Access Committee (WSMAC), the Portland Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PBPAC), and the Bicycle Coalition of Maine (BCM) are writing to urge the Cities of Westbrook and Portland to implement suggested changes regarding current bicycle infrastructure on Route 25B, Brighton Avenue in Portland/Main Street in Westbrook. WSMAC and PBPAC are citizen advisory committees concerned with the safety of non-motorized road users in our respective cities. The BCM is Maine’s only statewide bicycle advocacy organization.

Current plans prompted by Portland’s project to add bike lanes to Brighton Avenue, as well as the ongoing Rock Row project in Westbrook, have led to many changes already in the infrastructure around that area. We feel that more could be done within the physical and financial constraints of the project to provide guidance that is consistent with best practice for bicycling around traffic using the rules of the road, as taught by both major national bicycle safety curricula, the League of American Cyclists and CyclingSavvy. Our proposed changes seek to improve the transitions between Portland to Westbrook, utilizing standard striping, markings, and signage consistent with the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

You may view our proposed changes in a Google Presentation document at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dnzFPLWtQ_ww0qjBGfCLvnJfDrfw4lCG3dTX2j1LOao/edit?usp=sharing. The first slide in the Proposals section is for additional signage and markings to be done by Portland in the westbound approach to Riverside. The second two proposal slides concern signage and markings in both directions between Riverside and Larrabee in Westbrook.

Because pedestrian safety considerations within existing road width in the Westbrook portion of this road precluded the addition of bike lanes, it is important to establish that bicyclists have the legal right to use the full travel lane. The 4 foot paved shoulders provided, though they will function as a bike lane for many casual cyclists, are actually too narrow to be considered as such due to the presence of a curb, per AASHTO guidance. Drain grates are present, debris builds up easily, and being passed by a large vehicle such as a transit bus, tractor trailer, or dump truck (all of which are common here) will be uncomfortable and potentially dangerous. A transit bus passing a bicyclist without moving outside its lane (perhaps due to traffic in the left lane) can leave at most 6” beyond the legally required 3 feet, if the cyclist also moves closer to the curb.

The westbound transition from bike lanes in Portland to no bike lanes in Westbrook make it especially important to indicate the option of travel lane use by cyclists in Westbrook. The vast majority of the public will see that 4 foot shoulder as a “bike lane”, and many bicyclists will still use it as such. Without a counter message, cyclists who choose the travel lane will receive harassment from the public for not being in “the bike lane”.

Lastly, we would urge both cities to consider lowering the posted speed to 30 MPH in this area, in both cities, to further increase safety for vulnerable users. We understand that resetting a speed limit is a very different effort from paving and marking, but we feel it is worth considering.

All of these signage and marking changes are relatively inexpensive, but their value far outweighs their cost, in our opinion. We look forward to your response regarding when they may be completed.

Sincerely,

• Westbrook Safe Mobility and Access Committee, Kimberly Tarbox, Chair

• Portland Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Zack Barowitz, Chair

• Bicycle Coalition of Maine, Jean Sideris, Executive Director

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CALqySn%3D2k%3Dd0FwicOJixiA06MEkX8qG6mxLE%3DvZdfbEnvPdOdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Damon Yakovleff]

Looks good to me, John, thanks! My only suggestion is to bold the suggested changes in the letter.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2oxZLBW%3DDe17pWjKEe2jP9zHAvMcGo6ycvg7sJeBowtGrw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Tasse]

Hi PBPAC folks: 

Thanks again for the thoughtful work around the bike infrastructure at the Portland/Westbrook line.  

The BCM would prefer NOT to be included on the letter coming from PBPAC and WSMAC. 

We'll send our own letter echoing the consensus points.  

Thanks for the invitation, though! 

Best, 

Jim 

Director, Maine Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program

Past President, Greater Portland Chapter, New England Mountain Bike Association

Support better walking and biking in Maine, donate today!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2oxZLBW%3DDe17pWjKEe2jP9zHAvMcGo6ycvg7sJeBowtGrw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Brooking]

Okay, I have removed all references to BCM from the letter and the presentation.

I initially didn't think you'd be interested, but when you got involved again, I figured it was worth a try! :-)

I'd be interested in seeing the letter you send as well.

Damon, I didn't track the changes because I thought it would be more readable to start over with a clean copy. But here is a list of what I changed in the letter:

• Changed date from May to June.
• Added specific proposed recipient list. (We can discuss this if people have other ideas. Should we add Bruce Hyman?)
• In the first paragraph, replaced "We" with the names of the organizations (WSMAC, PBPAC), and added one sentence describing the organizations.
• Removed text about striping at Riverside Street being in conflict with best cycling practice, since we are no longer calling for that removal. (IMO, it still is, but I've come around to the idea of needing to retain the green conflict paint, unfortunately, due to the slip lane.) Replaced that text with "Our proposed changes seek to improve the transition from Portland to Westbrook".
• Updated the presentation link.
• Changed description of the slides to match the new presentation.
• Reworked the paragraph about establishing the importance of communicating cyclist's rights to the travel lane. Focussed more on the problems of considering the 4 foot shoulder as the "place for bikes". This is now 2 paragraphs ("Because pedestrian safety considerations..." and "The westbound transition...")
• Added paragraph about considering lowering the posted speed to 30 MPH. (I don't think we can realistically bundle this with the other proposals, because it's a DOT controlled road, so it would require a speed study, and that just seems complicated enough to be better as a separate ask, IMO. I don't want that to hold these up.)

In the new presentation, I

• Redid the title screen to portray the proposals as coming from the 2 organizations, and moved my name to the last slide. (I feel it is important to assign accountability for who is "playing traffic engineer" and with what credentials.)
• Added subtitle slides to create explicit sections for "Current Conditions", "Proposals", and "Conclusions".
• Redid the Portland proposal to strike the call to remove the second green lane, and added Bike Lane Ends sign and Shared Lane Marking in the leadup to the signal. (The prior version already had a BMUFL sign.)
• On the Westbrook slide about SLMs, I changed the icon to be more representative, and placed them at about 250' intervals as recommended by the MUTCD.
• On all 3 proposal slides, put the name of the city in bold at the front of the title, to make it clear which city that slide's proposals were directed to.