Advocate for climbing bike lane on Fore Street. Planning board meeting 1/10/23

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Winston Lumpkins

unread,
Jan 9, 2023, 9:36:39 PM1/9/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
Hi Folks,
At the meeting tonight we voted to send this letter to the Portland Planning Board tomorrow morning: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p9hwKCdX33elDYqNOpmMIm7RqTnpOddP/view?usp=sharing

The letter requests that the Portland Company add a protected sidewalk level bike lane to the sidewalk along fore street from Munjoy South to Atlantic Street, on the Southern curb of Fore Street.  This would allow cyclists to climb Fore street, and access Munjoy hill, safely without worry for the cars hurriedly passing them on the way up, which will only get worse once the development is built.

If you agree with this, a short email sent tomorrow morning to the Planning Board might go a long way in showing the widespread support this would have.  They often put emails sent before Noon in the agenda packet for planning board members.

You can email planni...@portlandmaine.gov & plan...@portlandmaine.gov with your comment. 

You can also attend the meeting, which will have a short presentation about the last year at 4:30, and then the workshop on Fore Street at 5. 
You'll hopefully be able to find the planning board's agenda & zoom link at this page: https://www.portlandmaine.gov/602/Agendas-Minutes

Unfortunately, the City's agenda center is broken right now, so I can't give a direct link.
I'm sure it'll be fixed prior to the email tomorrow...

Goodnight everyone, and thanks to all who came out to the meeting tonight, and any folks who send emails to the planning board in the morning! 

~Winston

Winston Lumpkins IV (he/him/his)

Chair, Portland Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
https://www.portlandbikeped.org/

winston....@gmail.com
207-408-1508


Kellie Whiteston

unread,
Jan 10, 2023, 8:33:47 AM1/10/23
to Portland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Thank you, Winston. I was glad to hear about this proposal at the meeting last night. I have sent a letter this morning and spread the word to others to also send one in. Hopefully they will get a lot from us!

Michael Dixon

unread,
Jan 10, 2023, 1:36:49 PM1/10/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
FYI from the developer's own web site:

Reclaiming the streets—ours are not just for cars anymore. This creates a thriving pedestrian experience that enlivens the neighborhood and encourages people to explore beyond their routine to discover all the city has to offer. 



--
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/a16ca563-934f-44b5-9880-7c864f7fb2e2n%40googlegroups.com.

John Brooking

unread,
Jan 10, 2023, 9:15:13 PM1/10/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
I have a slight (okay, maybe more than slight) aversion to the implication that the street is not for bicyclists unless it has bicycle specific infrastructure. I know most people, even many riders, feel that why, but why reinforce such a disempowering idea? (I think the answer is because it's seen as a good way to advocate for bicycle specific infrastructure.)

That said, I'm generally fine with climbing bike lanes, especially in a case like this where there are minimal cross streets (or none?). No argument from me on this one. I hope we get it, although I'd be fine with just a paint-only bike lane too. I think the actual safety difference between paint-only and separated is not actually that great, although the comfort difference can be.

John Brooking
Cyclist, Cycling Educator, Technologist


Julia Brown

unread,
Jan 10, 2023, 9:33:08 PM1/10/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com

Zack Barowitz

unread,
Jan 10, 2023, 9:40:34 PM1/10/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
I think the important thing here is that, aside from the practical aspects of the bike lane, because it is tied into a shiny new development this project would really add a lot to the ethos and liveliness to the place. It sends a message that this is a special place which warranted a special bike lane. 
Thanks 
Zack 

--
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

unread,
Jan 10, 2023, 10:47:11 PM1/10/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
Yes, Julia, if there is parking and the painted bike lane puts you in the door zone, that bike lane is potentially unsafe by design. And if you ride near the left side of such a bike lane, or just outside it, then you do risk getting squeeze-passed, especially if the travel lane is narrow. It's just math and human nature. In those cases, it may actually be necessary to ride even further into the travel lane to prevent that, and actively communicate with those behind you (look behind, signal "stay back") to make sure they stay back until you get past the parked cars and can move over again. It's safer for the bicyclist to be active rather than passive in these situations, even if that means ignoring the bike lane. I do it all the time, and it works great. Unfortunately, how many people think that they should have to ignore the bike lane, which they are led to believe provides them a safe space? We can probably agree that door zone bike lanes are inadequate.

This free module in the CyclingSavvy online education curriculum demonstrates these considerations very well. (You will just need to register with your email to view it.)

In the case we are discussing here, we are calling for removal of the parking lane, so the need to avoid the door zone will not be an issue. That's why I don't think there's much actual difference between paint and physical separation, in this case. Or, if there's enough width, they could keep the parking and provide the separated bike path on the other side, since there are few or no intersections there, but maybe there is not the available width. Whatever. As long as it's not a door zone bike lane. (And even if it is, the slow uphill cycling speed mitigates even that danger, though I still wouldn't like to see it. Congress Street going up Munjoy Hill has a door zone bike lane that I believe is 6' wide, which helps, and I haven't heard of any doorings it has caused, though we don't track near misses or unreported minor doorings. OTOH, Brighton Avenue near USM also has a door zone bike lane, and I regularly move well into the travel lane to avoid parked cars there, then back into the bike lane to release cars where there are no parked cars.)

John Brooking
Cyclist, Cycling Educator, Technologist

Winston Lumpkins

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 11:20:08 AM1/11/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
The study that was shared above is saying the same thing.  Painted bike lanes are often not an improvement in terms of actual safety over none at all. 

I evaluate designs by asking myself, is it Safe, Intuitive and Comfortable?  I'm not going to stop till we get all 3.  If we wish to improve safety & comfort, indeed, we must do more than painted bike lanes.

Currently riding up Fore Street is both physically & mentally exhausting, as you have to stay out of the door zone, control a lane, and climb a steep hill.  I've been passed while attempting to control the lane there in really irresponsible ways.  If there are hundreds of people using the eastern prom/fore street to get back & forth to 295 from the new development, I don't think that experience will improve. 

 If it's where a curb separated bike lane level with the sidewalk this would reduce the amount of pavement that has to be replaced regularly, simplify winter maintenance, stop people from just parking in it anyway & improve both safety & comfort over the current status quo. Win win win.  I don't know that climbing a hill could ever be called relaxing, but, having 3 feet & a row of trees between you & traffic while you do will get pretty close. 

~Winston

Christian MilNeil

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 11:42:16 AM1/11/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
Thanks to those of you who weighed in at the workshop last night!

I wasn't able to devote my full attention to the board's discussion (because kids' bedtime) but here's the impression I took away from it...
  1. It sounds like the board plans at least 2 more workshops on this proposal, so there's time for the developers to make changes.
  2. One of those workshops will likely focus on transportation in particular. The board acknowledged that traffic impacts from the proposed large parking garage are likely to be significant.
    • We could make an argument that a protected bike lane could be a way for the city and the developers to mitigate traffic impacts by encouraging more trips on Fore Street by bike
  3. Board members sounded open to the idea of a protected bike lane on Fore Street but had questions about whether they had jurisdiction over the city's streets.
    • Getting support and vocal advocacy from city public works and planning staff is going to be important
    • It would also be helpful for the developers to embrace this idea and add it to their proposal
  4. The planned parking garage entrance off Fore Street and all the parking were previously entitled when the board approved the 2016 framework plan for this site. It's going to be a conflict for bike and pedestrian traffic on Fore Street, but the site plan review process should give us an opportunity to make sure that conflict point is designed to be as safe as possible.

Christian MilNeil
- - - - - - - - - - - - -


George Rheault

unread,
Jan 11, 2023, 12:12:39 PM1/11/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
This could happen in a few months - why wait for Portland Foreside (which is likely 3-5 years away from completion assuming that NIMBY lawsuits and economic recessions don't scuttle it completely)?

Fore Street/Eastern Promenade Sewer Separation Project | Portland, ME - Official Website (portlandmaine.gov)
"The contractor will return to the project site in April of 2023 to complete final roadway paving, striping and manhole adjustments."  

A protected bike lane could easily exist there by the springtime following the "light touch" used along Park Avenue (cheap bollards and paint).  Then it would make sense, if appropriate, for Portland Foreside to make a future contribution towards making the bike lane more substantial and permanent.  The bike lane frontage for the next phase of Portland Foreside is about 440 feet.  A big chunk up the hill, but nowhere near all of it, so very unfair to put the tab exclusively on the developer.

Honestly, if this idea is a legitimate priority it really should have been brought up during the massive BIG DIG involving Fore Street over the last two years.  Of course, the Jennings regime was allowed to keep much of the sewer reconstruction work (mostly CSO consent work compliance-driven) off the public's radar until the construction began which made it hard for the City Council and public to focus on opportunities and alternatives.

 



John Brooking

unread,
Jan 12, 2023, 8:28:15 AM1/12/23
to PB...@googlegroups.com
Winston, I agree with what you say. I guess what prompted my more general response was how the finding that paint-only bike lanes having some problems, which I agree with (and which "vehicular cyclists" have always pointed out), always leads everyone to jump to the oversimplified conclusion that separation will solve all the problems, which they won't at intersections. Although not a popular suggestion, and not as scalable as infrastructure, I wanted to point out the third alternative, sharing the travel lane, which even the study author points out may cause overtaking drivers to at least be more conscious of the bicyclist. I also find this to be true, especially if the bicyclist is aware of the situation and communicates with the drivers by lane position, looking back, and maybe even hand gestures. When I ride on 4 lane roads, I ride right in the middle of the lane I'm in, and I get much better passing with lane changes than I do in a bike lane, for example on the new bike lanes on outer Brighton near Westbrook. Just as the study found.

All that said, and as I said before, I'm fine with a climbing bike lane in this situation, because yes, it is uncomfortable and tiring controlling the lane uphill on a two-lane road (I have one on my morning commute, and I have to be very conscious about how I handle it), and motorists can make it dangerous. I would agree with the preference for a separated lane if the parking is not removed, also because there's little or no intersection problem. We can agree to disagree whether, in theory, separation makes a great deal of difference if parking is removed, but with no intersections, not much reason not to go separated. (Except would paint-only be easier for the city to maintain in winter? That could be a consideration.)

John Brooking
Cyclist, Cycling Educator, Technologist

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages