United States Department of Transportation
Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation
Regulations and Recommendations
Signed on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010

Note: Also available on the United States Department of Transportation Website

Purpose

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is providing this Policy Statement to reflect the Department’s support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks. The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments. Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use. Legislation and regulations exist that require inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation plans and project development.

Accordingly, transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements to their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit. In addition, DOT encourages transportation agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context-sensitive facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate.

Transportation programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive.

Policy Statement

The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide — including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life — transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes.

Authority

This policy is based on various sections in the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in Title 23—Highways, Title 49—Transportation, and Title 42—The Public Health and Welfare. These sections, provided in the Appendix, describe how bicyclists and pedestrians of all abilities should be involved throughout the planning process, should not be adversely affected by other transportation projects, and should be able to track annual obligations and expenditures on nonmotorized transportation facilities.

Recommended Actions

The DOT encourages States, local governments, professional associations, community organizations, public transportation agencies, and other government agencies, to adopt similar policy statements on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation as an indication of their commitment to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the transportation system. In support of this commitment, transportation agencies and local communities should go beyond minimum design standards and requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible, and convenient bicycling and walking networks. Such actions should include:

• Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes: The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and efficiently move people and goods. Walking and bicycling are efficient transportation modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal systems exist, these nonmotorized trips can easily be linked with transit to significantly increase trip distance. Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes. Walking and bicycling should not be an afterthought in roadway design.
• Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities, especially children: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should meet accessibility requirements and provide safe, convenient, and interconnected transportation networks. For example, children should have safe and convenient options for walking or bicycling to school and parks. People who cannot or prefer not to drive should have safe and efficient transportation choices.
• Going beyond minimum design standards: Transportation agencies are encouraged, when possible, to avoid designing walking and bicycling facilities to the minimum standards. For example, shared-use paths that have been designed to minimum width requirements will need retrofits as more people use them. It is more effective to plan for increased usage than to retrofit an older facility.
• Planning projects for the long-term should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements.
• Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated, and limited-access bridges: DOT encourages bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on bridge projects including facilities on limited-access bridges with connections to streets or paths.
• Collecting data on walking and biking trips: The best way to improve transportation networks for any mode is to collect and analyze trip data to optimize investments. Walking and bicycling trip data for many communities are lacking. This data gap can be overcome by establishing routine collection of nonmotorized trip information. Communities that routinely collect walking and bicycling data are able to track trends and prioritize investments to ensure the success of new facilities. These data are also valuable in linking walking and bicycling with transit.
• Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time: A byproduct of improved data collection is that communities can establish targets for increasing the percentage of trips made by walking and bicycling.
• Removing snow from sidewalks and shared-use paths: Current maintenance provisions require pedestrian facilities built with Federal funds to be maintained in the same manner as other roadway assets. State Agencies have generally established levels of service on various routes especially as related to snow and ice events.
• Improving nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects: Many transportation agencies spend most of their transportation funding on maintenance rather than on constructing new facilities. Transportation agencies should find ways to make facility improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists during resurfacing and other maintenance projects.

Conclusion

Increased commitment to and investment in bicycle facilities and walking networks can help meet goals for cleaner, healthier air; less congested roadways; and more livable, safe, cost-efficient communities. Walking and bicycling provide low-cost mobility options that place fewer demands on local roads and highways. DOT recognizes that safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities may look different depending on the context — appropriate facilities in a rural community may be different from a dense, urban area. However, regardless of regional, climate, and population density differences, it is important that pedestrian and bicycle facilities be integrated into transportation systems. While DOT leads the effort to provide safe and convenient accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists, success will ultimately depend on transportation agencies across the country embracing and implementing this policy.

Ray LaHood, United States Secretary of Transportation

There has been are rash of injuries to peds and bikers, and even death, on the streets of Bloomington recently. I’ve been very concerned about this in that over the years many of my friends have been hurt, and at times I’ve come close. In every instance of person/car collisions, the car always wins. Many folks don’t understand they are driving a deadly weapon, and many peds and bikers don’t see the danger of a ton of steel moving at 30 mph, it’s just everyday life for most of us.

IDS Articles: Oct. 12 | Oct 13 | Oct 14

This week the IDS ran a three part series about pedestrian and bike safety on campus. The links are above, I was quoted in the second 2 articles. I’ve been communicating with officials at both the university and the city, and IMHO, up till now, there has been a failure to communicate.

The university has been defending a policy that discourages the use of painted crosswalks, I’ve been defending the opposite position. They claim that the IC (Indiana Code) is not sufficient to protect pedestrians, and to quote Larry MacIntyre in the IDS on Sept 11: “MacIntyre said, however, that under Indiana law, students do not have the right-of-way at crosswalks. He said cars only have to stop at crosswalks with flashing yellow lights.”

This was so egregous a claim that I wrote him a series of emails trying to point out the errors in his logic. He cited IUPD and John Applegate as the source for his interpretation of the laws,and it has been claimed that city police and Public Works were on board with this regressive interpretation. I’ve copied the relevant code below, what do you think? Do peds have right-of-way while in a marked (or unmarked) crosswalk?

IC 9-21-8-36 says it all, and few from IU have acknowledged its relevance, or that it even exists.

IC 9-21-8-36
Sec. 36. Except as provided in IC 9-21-17-8, when traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, a person who drives a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if necessary to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching closely from the opposite half of the roadway.
 As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.

This next one is written a bit backwards, It seems to be a simple anti-jaywalking provision, but it also implies that if you are in a crosswalk, you have right-of-way.

IC 9-21-17-7
Crossing roadway at point not marked as a crosswalk; yield of right-of-way to traffic
Sec. 7. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

Here is the one that IU used to justify its policy, claiming that peds don’t have rights in crosswalks unless signalized. This claim makes no sense at all to me. Can you make the words below say that peds don’t have right of way in crosswalks unless they are signalized? Here is exactly what I was told:

“IC 9-21-17-2 is interpreted to mean pedestrians do not have the right of way in crosswalks unless the crosswalk is signalized (usually at an intersection). This interpretation is shared by the Director of Public Works, the Chief of the Bloomington Police, and a member of the IUPD who are all on the task force.”

This is scary as it seems the police are interpreting the law to suit policy. They must not have not read the law, to offer the words below as proof that peds don’t have right-of-way when IC 9-21-8-36 is very clear they do.

IC 9-21-17-2
“Walk” and “don’t walk” signals
Sec. 2. Whenever special pedestrian control signals exhibiting the words “walk” or “don’t walk” are in place, the signals must indicate as follows:
(1) Flashing or steady “walk” means a pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal and a person who drives a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to the pedestrian.
(2) Flashing or steady “don’t walk” means a pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal. A pedestrian who has partially completed crossing on the “walk” signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island while the “don’t walk” signal is showing.

I’m waiting to hear back from a number of folks, no one from IU has yet acknowledged IC 9-21-8-36, or tried to explain it away, so it is up in the air for now. More to come!

MItch riding in Dunn Woods

I know I sound like Oscar the Grouch, but just today another pedestrian was killed while crossing the street, it was reported his shoes flew 40 feet. We just can’t keep giving cars the best parts of our lives, the streets should belong to the people, not the oil/gas/car/truck subculture.

From Chicago/Prairie Vacation '09

From Chicago/Prairie Vacation '09

From Chicago/Prairie Vacation '09

We rode west at Diversy, and toured the lagoon north of Lincoln Park zoo, then entered and bikes around the animal houses.

From Chicago/Prairie Vacation '09

We followed the zoo parking lot south, then walked over the ped bridge over Lakeshore Drive. It had no screens around it, and in fact there were flowers all the way across.

From Chicago/Prairie Vacation '09

We move back down the lake path to the Chicago River, then rode across the bridge, which is quite a scene, bikes, skaters, peds, and cars all sharing the space. We got back within our 2 hour rental time even though we goofed around a bunch at the lagoon and zoo.

From Chicago/Prairie Vacation '09

We stopped at the band-shell and listened to a rehearsal for a bit, then got on the train and headed back to Schaumburg and the prairie.

They took one parking space, and made room for 10 bikes to park. The business owners saw the mathematical logic in this trade-off. Most car trips carry 2 or less people. Ten minus two equals eight more people able to park close their businesses. This makes great sense for the downtown merchants, perhaps others will see the advantage of increased bike parking in the downtown area.

On-street bike parking in front of Soma

On-street bike parking in front of the Uptown

Here’s Boyce’s blog about the new spaces:

Shilo Rd. was repaved last year, and is still in great shape, a fine 3 mile ridgetop ride in the forest. We stopped for a break at Rust Rd., and has luck would have it Jason and Aaron Breeden came down the road, stopped and chatted for a few minutes. Jojo and I rode on to where Shilo ends on Anderson Rd., which we took over to Bean Blossom Rd. This road runs up the valley and then ascends nearly 300 feet over to the ridge which divides the White River from the Bean Blossom Valley.

From Flowers 2009

After climbing the first long incline, there is a level stretch of ridge that drop steeply on each side. Right where we found them 2 years ago were the same 2 clusters of the elusive Yellow Lady Slipper. I took some pictures, they are here. We climbed to the top, and headed west on Forest Road, and to our surprise we saw several other clusters of Lady Slipper on the north side of the road.

As we rolled along enjoying the crisp green, forest air, we came on a clear-cut right along the roadside, with a sign that just flabbergasted me, I can”t believe they are so ignorant!

We rode Old 37 back to town, coming in through Cascades Park, about a 30 mile loop, really satisfying with just 2 big climbs, Bean Blossom and Firehouse hills. The weather was perfect, and the ephemeral wildflowers were at their peak.

From Mitch's Bike Maps

As we approached the intersection of Handy Rd. I turned my head to ask Jojo which way to go, and bam, I was on the road in a pile of grit. I really did not see the 3 inch pile at the edge of the rode. After wiping the blood off, I took a picture from each direction, and as you can see, the pile is quite visible coming from Stipp Rd. but not going into it. Caveat veho!

Looking east, the road looks clear

Looking west, the danger is obvious

But recently I ran across this article from Wired, and it sure got me thinking that it would be cool to have one of these artbikes. It is all steel, and so pretty heavy with all the extra bling, but it sure would be cool to be stylin’ down Kirkwood on this puppy!

Greyhound Artbike

I’ve been using Google Earth for the last year to line out new rides, and by measuring the distance and elevations of the various hills, I’ve come up with Mitch’s Hill Toughness Quotient (MHTQ). The formula is simple, I divide the rise in elevation feet by the distance in miles, this is essentially a steepness quotient. The climbs I have here are all over .2 miles, and the rises from 138-318 ft. I’ve included both paved and gravel roads. Gravel is harder to climb, but I am not sure by what factor. For me, some are impossible, my back wheel starts to spin out, even with a bunch of weight in my pannier.

These numbers are a steepness quotient, and other factors must be considered in saying how hard a hill is to climb. Consider Brummett’s Creek Rd., which has a high number at 608 over 1/4 of mile, while everyone would agree that Bear Wallow Hill Rd. (424 MHTQ), which rises 324 feet in 3/4 mile really is a bear. More climbing, more distance, more work. So in some cases rising steeply for a short distance may be easier that a long climb.

I have been updating this list, and as of now Brummett’s Creek and Mt. Gilead (east) hills have risen to the top of the paved list (discounting Miller and Boltinghouse, which are still far and away the toughest paved hills).

THE TOP FIVE TOUGHEST HOOSIER HILLS

#1 McGOWEN ROAD

No way around it, this gravel hill leading to Gilmore Ridge is the toughest Hoosier Hill I’ve been on. Just southeast of Pine Grove on Lake Monroe, McGowen (aka Rogers) Road rises a whopping 250 feet over just .27 miles, giving it the top score of 926 MHTQ. I’ve since figured out that it is much easier to go up TC Steele Road and down McGowen Road rather than up!

605 to 855 feet
250 ft rise
.27 mile
250/.27=926 MHTQ

From Crooked Creek_McGowen Ride

Second and third place (by the numbers) go to Miller and Boltinghouse Roads. Boltinghouse has had the reputation as the toughest paved hill, but I have checked my numbers thrice, and Miller is the winner by a nose.

#2 Miller Road
616-820 feet
204 ft. rise
.27 mile
204/.27=775 MHTQ

#3 Boltinghouse Road
629 to 820 feet
191 foot rise
.25 mile
191/.25=764 MHTQ

Number four is Earl Young Rd, and being gravel, it may harder than either Miller or Boltinghouse. I haven’t put a number on gravel vs. paved, but my guess would be about 100 points. If you have experience on these roads what do you think? Is Earl Young tougher than Miller or Boltinghouse?

#4 Earl Young Rd
694 to 874, 180 ft rise
.27 mile
180/.27= 666 MHTQ

Number five is in Brown county, Indian Hill Road off of SR 45. This may also be tougher than Miller/Boltinghouse, as it is gravel, longer, and higher than the other top 5, and so although it is a few points lower than Brummett’s Creek, it rates #5.

#5 Indian Hill Rd.
640 to 876, 236 feet rise
.39 mi.
236/.39= 605 MHTQ

Below is a listing of some well know hills, I’ve climbed them all on my recumbent at one time or another, and wanted to know where they were in the scale. I placed them in order, with Brummett’s Creek at the top, and to my surprise, Firehouse Hill at the bottom. (It seems tougher than it is as it is so often the last big hill of the day.) If you have any hills that should be on this list, let me know.

Brummett’s Creek Rd.
770-630=140 ft rise
.23 miles
140/.23=608

Mt. Gilead Road (West)
836- 630=206 ft rise
.39 mi
206/.39=528.2

Schwartz Ridge Road
715-577=138
.25 mi.
138/.25=522

Bean Blossom Road (the first main climb)
630-820 190 feet
.39 mi.
190/.37=487

Mt. Gilead-(East)
803-660=143 ft rise
.29 miles
143/.29=493

Bear Creek Hill (Gravel)
738-907 169 rise
.35 mi
169/.35=483

TC Steele Road
560-860=200 feet
.42 mi.
200/.42= 472

Crooked Creek (Gravel)
595-860, 265 ft rise
.6 mi
265/.6=441

Bear Wallow Hill
692-1010, 318 ft rise
.75 mi
318/.75=424

Old Meyers Road
610-790, 180 ft
.46 mi
180/.46=391

SR 446 North of causeway
560 to 728, 168 rise
.44 mi.
168/.44=382

Lampkins Ridge
565 to 705, 150 foot rise
.4 mi.
150/.4=375

Paynetown Road
540 to 728, 188 ft rise
.52 mi
188/.52=361

SR 446 south of the causeway
560-750, 190 ft rise
.56 mi.
190/.56=340

Firehouse Hill
601 to 791, 190 ft rise
.65 miles
190/.65=262

Bean Blossom Hill (the full climb)
630 to 923=293 ft rise
1.29 miles
293/1.29=227 MHTQ

Jojo and I were starting late on Saturday, and wanted some good long miles in the country, and so took the Grimshaw Trail towards 446, and then sped down SR 46. Fortunately the highway has a couple of feet outside the lines, making the stretch less stressful than it could be. A bunch of jerks leaned out their window, honking and yelling at us, but that can happen anywhere. Some cars drivers appear to be antagonistic to bike riders, are they somehow threatened by the athletic prowess of 2 graybeards?

Kerr Creek was repaved last year and is now smooth and quick, the hill can be done with no brakes. It runs eastward to Getty’s Creek Rd. Getty’s Creek runs up over the shoulder of the ridge, offering a great view of the valley, before ending at SR 46. It is just a short hop on highway 46 to Birdie Galyon road.

Birdie Galyon rises steeply through a beautiful dark valley, and then connects to Fleener Rd and back down the hill, brakes are required as there is a steep curve at the bottom. Fleener Rd. tees onto Hash Rd., which then runs up to Brummett’s Creek.

From here Brummett’s runs through 3 miles of scenic farm country before climbing to the ridge for another mile and a half of ridgetop riding, till it ends at SR 45. Last year at this time, Lake Monroe was near capacity, and the valley was flooded and filled with herons and ducks, rather than corn and soybeans. We crossed the creek and found the Valley of the Bluebells, what an amazing sight/site! We found a colony of these last year along Woodland Road, this year’s find was massively larger.

Once we reached SR 45, we decided to take it all the way back to town, which can be harrowing at times. If you don’t mind adding half a mile, Mt. Gilead is much more pleasant to ride, but we were tired, and Mt. Gilead is a bear to climb

I’ve been plotting hill climbs via MHTQ (Mitch’s Hill Toughness Quotient), and Mt. Gilead is at 582 MHTQ, beating all the paved roads I’ve measured except the undisputed champions, Miller (775 MHTQ), Boltinghouse (764 MHTQ) Roads, and (in a different class) Brummett’s Creek (608 MHTQ), which we had just climbed.

All gravel McGowan Road is still the champion at 926 MHTQ. It only took one climb to make me realize it is considerably easier to go down McGowan than it is to go up!).

From Mitch's Bike Maps