John Allen: Right turn-only lane as dual-destination lane?

John Allen penned a wonderful piece back in 2013, explaining why the use of a right turn-only lane (RTOL) as a through lane for bicycles does not have to violate the rules of movement in most cases. Excerpts:

Installations formalizing this [shared RTOL] treatment have been made in a number of places in the USA. It is accepted under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices if shared-lane markings are used, though state laws generally still do not allow it…

Most importantly though, treating a right-turn lane as a dual-destination lane when it is empty, or lightly-used, or carrying slow traffic while the through lane is blocked, and riding at its center or left side does not violate the rule of destination positioning and does not lead the cyclist into a conflict. I yield when entering the lane (if there is any vehicle to yield to) and I never place myself to the right of right-turning traffic. I have never gotten into a hazardous situation by doing this. I must anticipate that a driver waiting in line in the through lane to the left may decide instead to turn right and enter the right-turn lane late. This is the same concern as when overtaking any line of stopped traffic, and the countermeasure is the same; stay far enough away from the stopped traffic to be able to avoid a merging vehicle.

In my opinion, the assertion that a cyclist should never ride centered or left in a right-turn lane when proceeding straight across an intersection is rigid, legalistic, and impractical. But on the other hand, it doesn’t make sense everywhere, either as an informal practice or a standard treatment. That is why, in my opinion, a standard is needed to establish where it may be formalized, and education is needed, as always, so cyclists will be able to judge when it is advisable or inadvisable.

Examples of shared right turn-only lanes being installed by DelDOT

This was the very platform that 1st State Bikes advocates used in convincing DelDOT that a shared RTOL/bike through lane treatment made sense. The project ran from 2011-2016 and has now resulted in a RTOL design that accommodates bicyclists and encourages safe positioning relative to turning traffic. And it comes at only the cost of a few extra man hours and a little added paint with each pave & rehab project. Delaware bicyclists are also covered under SB-120, a bill that was passed in 2012 to legalize the use of RTOLs in this manner. With everything in place, what we see now is continuous shoulders and/or bike lanes with "mixing zones" (a painted symbol and broken taper line) in advance of intersections. Depending on the conditions, the bicyclist can take the through lane, or legally choose to continue up the middle or left side of the RTOL to continue straight.

This design is becoming the new normal on Delaware's primary roads, so why are we posting this now? Nationally, John Allen is a renowned advocate for bicyclists’ rights as participants in vehicular traffic. He is looked to and admired by the "Bicycle Driving" movement and those who advocate alongside the American Bicyclist Education Association (ABEA). Yet, John is pragmatic when it comes to dedicated bicycling facilities, gauging their safety and his approval by whether or not they adhere to the laws of movement. The above mentioned DelDOT project and treatment does just that.

John adds (October 2017): A lane may serve more than one destination, while forbidding a destination to one or another category of vehicles. A lane where a truck route turns right, but other traffic may also proceed straight, is exactly the same in principle as a lane where all motor traffic must turn right but bicyclists may also proceed straight. Bicyclists must ride left or centered in the lane for this to work. A bicyclist who rides at the right side of the lane risks a right-hook collision – hence the shared-lane markings. And there must be a receiving lane at the far side of the intersection, so bicyclists do not merge inside the intersection.

A big tip of the helmet to John Allen for contributing to this article. We encourage you to visit John's website for a wealth of information on bicycling safety in the built environment!

DelDOT to install "Bicycles IN LANE" signs at key I95 crossings

Despite poor results with our petition drive, a new and unique bicycle warning sign is heading for approval. Working with 1st State BIKES advocates, Mark Luszcz (P.E, DelDOT) designed the sign that will give Delaware another 1st on the national stage, rolling out the words "IN LANE" in conjunction with the standard bicycle warning sign (bicycle symbol on yellow sign). Safe to say, this wouldn't be happening without a Chief Traffic Engineer who takes a pro-active approach toward bicycle and pedestrian safety.

According to the Federal Highway Administration and the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the bicycle warning sign by itself is used to indicate that bicycles are ahead, i.e. crossing or entering the roadway. But if you add a message in a sub-sign or "plaque", or in conjunction with the symbol on the sign itself, it then becomes useful for whatever the conditions dictate.

Few will argue that something more is needed on non-shouldered roads with sub-standard width lanes. Something like a warning sign, yet carries an educational message that bicyclists are legally entitled to ride in the lane of traffic. DelDOT had considered wider spread use of the "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" (BMUFL) regulatory sign, and tested it on Gills Neck - a 2 lane non-shouldered road in Sussex County. But it raised the ire of motorists and legislators, who claimed that bicyclists were abusing the privilege and deliberately impeding traffic. Under pressure, DelDOT removed the signs. Fortunately, a second location, at the bridge crossing the White Clay Creek on Papermill Road in Newark, is doing very well and will remain. Main Street in Newark is also working very well. Both are placed in conjunction with sharrows, of which have their own safety benefit. So it appears that DelDOT will limit use of the BMUFL sign to downtown environments and pinch points like the above.

It has not yet been determined when the first "IN LANE" warning signs will be installed, but it should be in time for Spring. For pinch points, the following four I95 crossings were selected: Chapman Road, Salem Church Road, Otts Chapel Road, and Welsh Tract Road. Each has limited shoulders or no shoulder space at all, yet draw regular bicycle traffic because they are direct spans with no I95 access.

Though Welsh Tract Road appears to have a narrow shoulder, it isn't usable. Occasional storm grates and debris collection, and a close proximity to the curb make it very dangerous to ride in. Safest position here is the traffic lane.

Pick your favorite candidates for "Bicycles In Lane" signs

Given our recent project to optimize and consolidate bicycle safety signage in Delaware, DelDOT will be accepting bicyclist's input to help them locate some of the first "Bicycles In Lane" signs. While not the celebrated "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" sign recently won in Maryland, it is an acceptable compromise nonetheless. It is a warning sign that now carries a brief, yet powerful educational message to drivers that bicyclists are legally entitled to ride in the lane of traffic.

The map below contains the input of a very few road safety advocates. You will need to zoom in for a closer look. If you know of a good candidate road, and it is not on the map with green highlight, just submit a comment below with your suggestion(s), or send it via email.

According to the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the bicycle warning sign by itself is used to indicate "bicycles ahead", i.e. crossing or entering the roadway. With the removal of "Share the Road" as a sub-sign, or "plaque", most of these signs are no longer effective when it comes to bicyclists using the roadway. Therefore, in order to move forward with DelDOT, and achieve effective and correctly placed signage, a more comprehensive and holistic approach is needed. This includes the removal or replacement of many - if not most of the existing signs, mainly, the W11-1 warning sign.

After folks are given a chance at input, we will then construct a roll out plan with DelDOT. Such a plan will start by paring down the above candidates to those most in need. In other words, the best roads to go after in terms of traffic volume, bicycle counts, incident likelihood, etc. From there, the remaining candidates - and continued requests - may be documented, and addressed over time.

We sincerely thank DelDOT for their willingness to engage in this project. It is a good compromise for both parties, that will not only increase safety, but will also help remove unnecessary sign clutter.

Sadly, bicyclist interest has been weak. For more info, visit the complete timeline on this project.

Petition: "Bicycles On Roadway" Warning Signs

Please click above to have a voice!

Delaware Department of Transportation: Install signs that serve a dual purpose of warning motorists that bicycles will be in the roadway and educating motorists that bicyclists have the right to ride in the lane, or the right to use the full lane if necessary.

As it stands now, DelDOT is generously installing generic bicycle warning signs (yellow diamond with a bicycle symbol) on a widespread basis, and we applaud their willingness to do so. The "Share the Road" sub-sign below it has been discontinued.

According to Federal Highway Administration and the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the bicycle warning sign by itself is used to indicate "bicycles ahead", i.e. crossing or entering the roadway. While no one is suggesting that DelDOT refrain from using the sign to raise awareness of bicyclists on the roadway, something more is needed on non-shouldered roads with sub-standard width lanes, something that is both a warning sign and that carries an educational message to drivers that bicyclists are legally entitled to ride in the lane of traffic.

DelDOT’s first attempt to use the standard "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" (BMUFL) sign on a 2 lane non-shouldered road in Sussex County - Gills Neck – raised the ire of motorists and legislators, and the signs were removed. A second sign, at a bridge crossing the White Clay Creek on Papermill Road in Newark, is still in place. These are black on a white background, and are intended to inform motorists about the law, but are not as visible as the larger and brighter yellow warning signs.

Given the issues surrounding BMUFL signs used for any distance along Delaware's non-shouldered roads, a sign that is a customized version of the bicycle warning sign and that includes the words “On Roadway” would make an excellent compromise, and should be installed on roads where substandard width lanes and higher speeds present a safety hazard. This sign would not be intended to replace the bicycle warning sign in widespread use. It would be used going forward, only in areas where substandard width lanes, aggressive driving, and/or higher speeds present a safety hazard.

Major justification for this initiative comes from Maryland's State Highway Administration. SHA combined the bicycle warning sign with the Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign, and are using it on 2 lane non-shouldered roads. This appears as a standard yellow diamond with a bicycle symbol, and the words "Bicycles May Use Full Lane". This is a custom design and not found in any of the national manuals, yet the signs are used with much success in Cecil County and will soon be installed on Route 896 just north of Newark. The story behind that advocacy effort can be viewed HERE.

Does this sign increase safety? If you think so, please sign our petition!

The Last Post (for now)

1st State BIKES was started by the need for on-road safety and advocacy in Delaware, and to support the Delaware Bicycle Council. In doing so, it filled an obvious void left by Bike Delaware, the State's League of American Bicyclists supported bicycling advocacy organization. In nearly two years, 400 articles were written or cross-posted, that run the gamut of bicycle advocacy as described in the LAB's 5 Es. These included Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation, mostly as they pertain to riding on our public roads. Missing from LAB's equation, however, is a 6th "E" that was somehow forgotten: Equality. As described by the American Bicyclist Education Association, it stands for the following:

Equal Level of Service is a critical part
of bicycle advocacy.

• Uniformity: Ensuring uniform laws throughout a state to protect against access, movement, and equipment ordinances that discriminate against cyclists.
• Access: Affirming the legal rights of bicyclists to use all highways, and all parts and features of those highways, particularly the roadway itself (i.e. the part designated for driving of vehicles, excluding shoulders, sidewalks, etc.), except possibly for controlled access freeways for which sound and reasonable alternatives are available.
• Movement: Affirming that the default behavior for motorists, lane control on laned roadways, is also the default behavior for bicyclists. This means no bicyclist (class) specific movement rules that prohibit lane control or restrict turning movements or the use of turn lanes. Also unacceptable are any laws that prevent cyclists from making the same movements as other drivers or subject them to more restrictive lane usage rules than other drivers. This equal legal roadway movement status does not prevent or inhibit bicyclists from using special facilities, which serve as options for bicycle travel.
• Equipment: Ensuring that minimum bike propulsion, fit, braking and lighting requirements are adequate for effective operation and precluding restrictions unrelated to safety or effective operation.

Due to our high percentage of arterial roads, however, equality is not always safe, easy, or desirable. Geographically, only a small percentage of Delaware is truly urbanized or early 20th century suburban where bicycle driving (aka "vehicular cycling") can be effective. For those wishing to ride away from the road for transportation, very few rail trail or other right of way (row) possibilities exist. As a result, shoulder and bike lane riding with high speed traffic is very common here compared to many other States. It is for this reason that we have advocated for well designed infrastructure treatments that define a bicyclist's safest position on the roadway, especially leading up to and through intersections. We also worked with DelDOT to improve our warning signs for bicyclists, and offered to help with the targeted removal of generic (symbol only) signs over time. Known in the manuals as the W11-1, this sign is no longer applicable in most locations, since Bike Delaware campaigned to eliminate "Share the Road" from DelDOT's manuals based on a technicality. Another notable success was bicycle-friendly rumble strips - not only in Delaware, but in Maryland as well (though in recent applications, some important specs have been ignored, hence the need for continued advocacy).

Jennifer Wallace stresses the importance of non-profit accountability
during the 2015 Delaware Environmental Summit in Dover. Transparency
is a foreign concept to some bicycling organizations in Delaware,
including co-ops.

With the LAB refusing to help our cause, having stated as much in writing, we have little choice but to accept the fact that separated infrastructure (sidepaths and off-alignment trails) is the first choice among Delaware's bicyclists. As a result, riding for transportation and recreation in the built environment - at least for those that appreciate leaving from home - will remain a huge uphill battle. Bicyclists are a virtual no-show for even the simplest of action items that could positively impact bicycle-friendliness in the 1st State. They seldom show up at DelDOT public workshops, or sign petitions regardless of how well publicized. Progress will be difficult, as long as Delaware's bicycling community - including its cooperatives and mountain bicyclists - refuse to unite in a single front that works together for its own common good.

There needs to be one large tent that all of us can work under, as seen in other bicycle-friendly States. The approach needs to be holistic, and all-inclusive. Unfortunately, even Delaware's most committed road bicyclists are content to follow the lead of an organization with a very small tent - akin to a Chinese cocktail umbrella - that lobbies exclusively for separated facilities. In doing so, they are undermining the efforts of those that do advocate for on-road safety and infrastructure. Further, the State's recreational clubs continue with monetary support of said organization, despite the lack of an annual report, and the lowest level of transparency and accountability for a non-profit. No one even questions the acceptance of charitable donations collected on behalf of the Phillip Bishop tragedy, and why at least some of it wasn't allocated for PSA campaigns like this one.

Here is a sampling of the issues, where said organization (Bike Delaware) has damaged the cause of road bicycling:

• Absent on anything to do with the Vulnerable Road Users Law. Never supported the Delaware Bicycle Council on matters of legislation, i.e. Refused to "babysit" the 3' passing law by attending its hearing, and only agreed with it in principle.
• Hijacked the LAB's Bicycle Friendly State's year to year rankings, providing instead what appeared a linear climb to the top for Delaware. Has everyone believing that our Top 5 ranking is based almost exclusively on pathway funding, when in fact it was also due to State legislation and policy changes/additions that address bicycle safety (the work of others).
• Undermined a bus PSA banner that read "Same Roads, Same Rules, Same Rights", to where DelDOT replaced it with "Safety Begins With Sharing".
• In a negative letter giving borderline support, the E.D. almost undermined AASHTO standard bike lanes on Rt.13 in Dover, which have since improved the safety of hundreds of commuters including migrant workers along the corridor.
• Did not support a joint survey with RideShare Delaware, aimed at the users of the Rt.13 bike lanes, to find out whether or not they felt safer as a result.
• Publicly stated that bike pocket lanes are "human meat grinders".
• Despite initial support, and DelDOT's requesting it, the E.D. steadfastly maintained that SB-120 (a law to provide legal protections for bicyclists using a dedicated right turn-only lane as a continuation of a bike lane) wasn't necessary.
• Pushed for the removal of our widespread (on most major roads) Share the Road signs, but did not support the efforts of others to redesign and replace them with something better (i.e. Bicycles "In Lane").
• Has never once supported the application of Complete Streets during a Pave & Rehab project. Unfortunately, most often, these are the only chance we have at improvements.
• Did not support an on-line petition for the enforcement of bicycle parking ordinances in New Castle County, given how often they are waived.
• Did not support an on-line petition for the creation of an on-road Wilmington to Newark marked route, one that DelDOT would watch for enhanced safety improvements.
• Never rallies attention to DelDOT public workshops unless it's for a separated facility or pathways project. It was the work of other advocates that drew attention to and won bicycle accommodations through Delaware's first "Diverging Diamond" Rt.1 overpass on Rt.72, coming next year.
• Does little to memorialize bicycling fatalities, unless it benefits their agenda or bottom line. Did nothing to rally bicyclists to attend the Eloy Sandoval and Phillip Bishop vehicular manslaughter hearings, despite the proven advantages of doing so. For the latter, a Bike Delaware board member did attend and actually said that "it could've been any one of us" when referring to the defendant's horrific crime.

As of April 1, 2015 1st State Bikes is discontinued. We urge those of you that are following us until now (if you support road bicycling safety) to rethink your membership with the League of American Bicyclists, and instead support the American Bicyclists Education Association. This is an organization that, much to the chagrin of the LAB, is trying to address the needs of today's bicyclists in the built environment (an environment that won't be changing much for most Americans, for many generations to come) in the form of education, enforcement, and correctly designed infrastructure. This blog, as you see it now, will remain on-line indefinitely as an archive for those who might stumble upon it for the first time, and wish to read about our former projects and/or progress.

Pedestrian Channelizing Islands, aka "Pork Chops", are an ongoing problem in Delaware. In 2009, DelDOT committed in writing to maintain 5 feet of offset for bike lanes through intersections and side streets. This requirement is also in their Bicycle Policy. In the May 2013 picture above, a bicyclist is unnecessarily forced out into the lane of high speed traffic to continue in a bike lane. Without continued oversight, guidelines such as these will continue to be ignored or forgotten.

The future? Delaware bicyclists show overwhelming support for facilities that remove them from public roads, and thus, sacrifices their legal rights as vehicles. As very few actually use these facilities, they fall into serious disrepair, and are left to abandonment by DelDOT or adjacent landowners who are supposedly responsible for their maintenance.

How effective is the NCC Unified Development Code for bicycles?

The New Castle County Unified Development Code, under Street Standards, provides that space for a bicycle lane "shall" be included in cases requiring a right turn-only lane. As follows, under section 40.21.130, the following is found:

"Where necessary, the developer shall provide acceleration/deceleration lanes along major roads, as determined by DelDOT, as well as right- and left-turn lanes and bypass lanes, depending on local conditions and the amount of traffic generated by the proposed development. Where such lanes are required, they shall be at the expense of the developer. Acceleration, deceleration, bypass, and right-turn lanes shall include space for bicycle lanes, as required by DelDOT."

Yet, it is not hard to find an example where this bicycle safety provision was lost or removed in newly drafted or updated redevelopment plans, even though the New Castle County Unified Development Code under Street Standards says it "shall" be included.

Below are 4 examples where I believe this requirement was disregarded because of a breakdown during the approval process, or, there were circumstances preventing its full or even partial implementation as required in the county code.

Above: Main entrance to the "Traditions at Chistiana" housing development off Chapman Road, Newark. According to an unnamed source at DelDOT, the need for a Right Turn-Only Lane (RTOL) became apparent after the first phase of the development was completed, and was later added by request of residents. Therefore, because the RTOL was not included in the original plans, the bike lane provision fell through the cracks.  

Above: Entrance to the Armed Forces Reserve Center on Rt.273 in Newark, a road designated on Delaware's Bicycle Map as a "regional bicycle route". New sidewalks, curbs, crosswalks, channelizing island, and "wave" style bike racks were installed. However, for reasons unknown, the bike lane provision was omitted. 

Above: Rt.4 entrance to the Delaware School for the Deaf, completed in 2011. This road has a 8' wide multi-use pathway that is also designated as the East Coast Greenway. The design and engineering that was chosen, however, render this as little more than a wide sidewalk that can have negative implications for bicyclists. Below: The condition of the asphalt is dismal at best, yet the fact that this facility exists was enough to forgo the bike lane requirement as part of DSD's final approval. Despite ample lane width on Rt.4 - a road determined to be an ideal bike lane candidate when it was reconstructed using ARRA funding in 2009 - the idea (brought forth by DelDOT Planning) fell on deaf ears.

On a personal note, I had written a blog post for Bike Delaware a couple of years ago on this same topic titled "Should Side Paths Trump Mandatory Bike Lane Requirements?" that was mysteriously deleted at some point after leaving my position on their board.

Above: The rebuilt entrance/exit to a newly renovated 4 Seasons Plaza in Glasgow, off of Rt.896, which will contain a Shop Rite Super Center. According to DelDOT, it is a pre-existing entrance, so the developer was not required to make any changes. However, it was requested that the pedestrian access facilities be brought up to standard, and the developer agreed to pay for it. While this is certainly welcome and likely spurred by concerns over the American Disabilities Act (ADA), it is with great shame that the "Street Standards" section under NCC code 40.21.130 is viewed as having little to no value, despite the fact that this area sees plenty of  bicyclists and pedestrians passing by or entering the shopping center. For those riding past the entrance, the risk of being "right hooked" is especially high.

Above: Kirkwood Highway at Harmony Road, the site of a new WaWa Super Store where NCC Code was met and bike lanes installed. However, as the cyclist in the distance is about to demonstrate, one is forced to move out into the high speed lane to avoid a traffic channelizing island (aka Pork Chop) before entering the properly designed bike lane. This came as quite a surprise, since DelDOT policy requires a 5' offset (4' in exceptional cases) between these islands and the white edge/shoulder line through intersections. DelDOT was notified via email on May 22, and agreed the island configuration is incorrect and will work on a mechanism to get it adjusted. However, no time frame was given.

Poster's Note: In summary, the above examples clearly illustrate that road advocacy must remain a top priority in our state. It is not my intention to blame DelDOT, New Castle Country, or anyone else involved in the development approval process that have led to these failures. But it is my opinion that road advocacy has taken a back seat to the interests surrounding Trails and Pathways, and the notion of reducing the amount of bicyclists on the roads. That said, I acknowledge that these agencies have performed some excellent work in other areas and projects. I appreciate their efforts, and I will continue to highlight these positive examples as well in the coming weeks and months.

MDOT to install "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" warning signs on Route 896

We are pleased to report some wonderful progress in neighboring Cecil County

Amy Wilburn, Chair of the Delaware Bicycle Council, followed our action alert by asking MDOT for Share the Road signs along MD 896. Michael Jackson, Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access, responded with the following:

Thanks for writing. Regarding MD Route 896, I have received the following word from the Maryland State Highway Administration [SHA] yesterday:

We have initiated a work order to install the W16-1(3) sign at each end of this section of MD 896. We determined that a warning sign to alert motorists that bikes may be in the lane would be of greater use. The  florescent yellow of the warning sign provides that little more punch through the shade that grabs the motorists attention. We expect the signs to be installed within the next 45 to 60 days, weather permitting. 

This is a warning sign with black letters on a yellow background alerting motorists that bicycles may be present in the travel lane.

A huge tip of the helmet to Michael Jackson, MDOT, and SHA for putting safety and common sense at the forefront. According to the Maryland's Bicycle Policy & Design Guidelines manual, this sign is used under the following circumstances:

W16-1(3) The BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE sign should be installed at locations where lane widths and/or other conditions create an extraordinary hazard for bicyclists sharing a lane with motorized vehicles on roadways where no specific bicycle facility such as bicycle lanes, shared lanes, or adjacent shoulders exist. This sign, as shown in Figure 3.6, shall be used only where "substandard width" lanes could make it particularly unsafe for a bicyclist to travel along the right curb or edge of the roadway.

What we have learned from this effort is that Maryland's State Highway Administration is less hard-line than DelDOT when it comes to custom bicycle signs. The above is not found in the National MUTCD. The closest was a similar sign used by the City of San Francisco, CA.

We think it is safe to say that, had this stretch of Route 896 been in Delaware, the best we could have hoped for would be the standard W11-1 Bicycle Warning Sign with no plaque of any kind. Unfortunately, most traffic engineers would agree that this sign by itself has little impact on motorist's behavior toward bicyclists in the roadway. In fact, its original intent was to warn drivers of bicyclists entering the roadway ahead, not riding on the roadway itself.

A more creative, and accurate use of the W11-1 sign would entail using the words "On Roadway" as depicted on the right. Don't expect this anytime soon, though.

The section in Delaware's MUTCD that specifies the bicycle warning sign is above. You can also access the manual on-line, and scroll down to page F.2.3. DelDOT's revised use of the sign - as campaigned for by Bike Delaware - does not currently match its intended use.

Without New Castle County, forget Walkable, Bikeable Delaware

The State of Delaware has made some strides when it comes to funding a few key, albeit isolated trails and pathways projects. And DelDOT is doing what they can within the framework of a totally car-centric system, to incorporate safety enhancements (crosswalks, bike lane/shared lane treatments, signage, etc) with reconstruction and pave & rehab projects.

Unfortunately, there are few such multi-modal considerations in New Castle County's Unified Development Code (UDC). And with a State level advocacy organization that won't place any emphasis on retrofitting the built environment, expect little in the way of reduced auto dependency. It's an easy conclusion to draw, not only based on the Code itself, but in dealing with the evidence time and time again when attempting to walk or bike.

Probably the most glaring UDC deficiency is found in the retrofitting or reconstruction of existing structures. Essentially, a building and its property is only bound by rules set forth on the day of its first recorded plan; more recent requirements can be disqualified, unless the project expands the building by least 1,000 square feet.

Examples of items added to the UDC over the years include the ADA (American Disabilities Act, 1990) and bicycle accommodations in the form of a parking rack and an entrance bike lane (1997). The fact that so many (if not most) projects are the reconstruction of older buildings seems to explain why these requirements are commonly waived.

In SECTION 40.08.130 we see the following:

Applicability:

The redevelopment of a site pursuant to Subsection B.6 permits the continuation of certain nonconforming situations, but prohibits the creation of any new nonconformity or the expansion of an existing nonconformity.

Design Element Improvements:

Improvements toward further code compliance shall be made to design elements such as, but not limited to, parking, buffers, landscaping, access, setbacks, storm water management, impervious cover, off-site transportation improvements/capacity, or mitigation of damage to or enhanced protection for existing natural/environmental resources.

The exploratory sketch plan shall identify and quantify all of the existing non-conformities on a property. The property owner must propose improvements in selected design elements listed [below], such that in totaling the individual design element improvements, the aggregate shall be equal to or greater than a four hundred (400) percent improvement.

So what we have in New Castle County is multi-modal (including handicapped) access and improvements put squarely in the hands of the business and/or property owner. They can omit these in favor of dozens of other choices, as long as it meets this "400% improvement" matrix, however that's determined. And the problem isn't just limited to reconstruction; missing code requirements are sometimes found on brand new buildings. Regardless, it is extremely difficult - if not impossible - to enforce the UDC after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Obviously, the better odds would come with missing ADA facilities, given the far greater profile of handicap access, as opposed to bike/ped access in general.

This new Dunkin Donuts in Glasgow is the retrofit of an older building, and thus exempt from critical multi-modal requirements. Among them is no bicycle parking, and high curbs (instead of ramps with truncated domes) to connect an adjacent bike path facility that parallels Route 896.

Another serious fault with NCC is their use of gates or hanging chains or cables across roads, driveways and trails to block cars. This often forces foot or bicycle traffic (legal in most cases) to circumvent over curbs or via ditches or culverts. They should be using bollards.

The required bike lane was waived for the newly reconstructed Shop Rite in Glasgow, despite other improvements that were called for en-route to the magic "400%" required in the UDC. These included new curbing, islands and crosswalk at the main entrance from 4-Seasons Parkway.

With regard to bicycle parking, a helpful NCC Dept of Land Use representative had this to offer:

"New bicycle parking usually accompanies new or expanded car parking, since existing parking areas were built from older plans. There has been some resistance to providing bicycle parking, perhaps based on an idea that it won’t be used. And sometimes existing bicycle parking goes unused, with bicycles instead locked to posts and trees."

"Enhancements of County Code may be possible, to more thoughtfully provide bicycle parking with subdivision and land development plans. For example, the current flat requirement for bicycle parking might be replaced with requirements for specific land uses such as non-automotive commercial, offices, and apartments. The Code might also suggest preferred types of bicycle parking, and require fastening them down so they don’t disappear."

It is a foregone conclusion that if folks are dissing bicycle parking in favor of trees or posts, then the rack is either unsafe to use, hidden from view, or inconveniently located. In any case, if the same thinking was applied to handicapped car parking spots -- that in many cases appear underutilized or never used -- they too would be poorly placed, reduced in size and potentially damaging to vehicles.

In conclusion, the need for multi-modal improvements at the county level is a very underrated and all but forgotten area of bicycling advocacy. If we are to have any chance at all of reducing auto dependency, we need code reforms that encourage alternate transportation modes at all levels of building and property development.

Sharrows arrive in time for Newark Bike to Work Day

By Heather Dunigan, Wilmapco -- Shared lane pavement markings (or “sharrows”) are bicycle symbols that are placed in the roadway lane indicating that motorists should expect to see and share the lane with bicycles. Unlike bicycle lanes, they do not dedicate a particular part of the roadway for the use of bicyclists. Instead, sharrows encourage safe positioning, which results in better respect and an increase in separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists. They encourage bicyclists to ride outside the door zone, and on the road instead of the sidewalk - both of which increase the likelihood of crashing. The concept of sharrows in the US dates back to the 1993 Denver Bicycle Master Plan. In 2004, the city of San Francisco began experimenting with the design of shared lane markings which gave birth to the bicycle symbol with two chevron markings above the bicycle.

When the 2002 Newark Bicycle Plan was developed, use of sharrows was still very experimental. Thus recommendations focused on planning for an alternative route parallel to Main Street. The 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) approved the use of  shared lane markings for general use.

Also in 2009, City of Newark, WILMAPCO and DelDOT began development of a Newark Transportation Plan that was approved in 2011. Under the guidance of the Newark Bicycle Committee, sharrows on Main Street were identified as the top priority short-term improvement. In 2012, the City of Newark submitted a request to DelDOT for implementation of sharrows on Main Street. DelDOT responded that they would install sharrows as part of the next resurfacing project, but could not afford to do it sooner.

In 2013, sharrows were recommended in the draft 2013 Newark Bicycle Plan. Newark submitted a funding application to WILMAPCO and DelDOT for funding through the Transportation Alternatives Program, however due to prior project commitments, this request could not be funded through the federal program. In March 2013, Newark began the process of purchasing sharrows through City funds and will complete installation by May 14, in time for their official Bike to Work Day celebration.

 

1st State BIKES 2014 Year In Review

2014 was the first full year of 1st State BIKES (formerly known as Delaware Bikes) existence. It was a year full of challenges, and hard earned successes. Much work remains to be done; 2015 promises at least as much, if not more action. Below we highlight the highs - and a few lows - of the past year in bicycle advocacy. Some are joint projects with the Delaware Bicycle Council and the White Clay Bicycle Club.

January-March:

• DelDOT Pave & Rehab Projects opened for comment
• Who is advocating for on-road safety in Delaware (series)
• Building the case for the Newark to Wilmington Bikeway Proposal

April:

• Bicycle-unfriendly rumble strips first brought to DelDOT's attention
• Bike Delaware hires attorney, demands Delaware Bikes forfeit name and domain
• SUCCESS: Promoted Cycle for Cecil for land conservation in neighboring Cecil County
• Building the case against bicycle-unfriendly rumble strips

May:

• Building the case for updating the penalty for failure to yield in a crosswalk
• SUCCESS: New crosswalk and bike lane added at key Ogletown intersection
• Petitioned DelDOT to Save Our Shoulders (cease adding rumble strips) 

July-August:

• Petitioned DelDOT to create a Newark to Wilmington on-road bikeway
• Building the case for updating the penalty for failure to yield in a crosswalk
• Survey: Is Route 13 in Dover safer with Bike Lanes?
• SUCCESS: DelDOT sweeping reform comes to fruition
• Building the case for complete crosswalks at Elkton Road/Christina Parkway

September:

• New DelDOT rumble strip design opened for comment  
• SUCCESS: First bicycle-friendly rumble strips installed south of Middletown
• Building the case for bollards instead of gates in New Castle County

October:

• Building the case for Share the Road signs on Route 896 in Cecil County
• EZ Roller Rides introduced
• SUCCESS: Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs to be installed on Route 896 in Cecil County

November:

• Petitioned DelDOT to upgrade bicycle warning sign to include "On Roadway"
• SUCCESS: Inaugural EZ Roller Ride
• Building the case for bike lanes with the next Elkton Road resurfacing project

December:

• Building the case for safe bicycle facilities with the Route 72 widening project
• FAIL: Too late to add 4th crosswalk at Elkton Rd/Christina Parkway 
• Building the case against bicycle parking waivers in New Castle County
• Petitioning New Castle County to enforce APBP compliant bicycle parking in the UDC
• SUCCESS: Test sites for bicycle warning signs, to include "In Lane" goes forward

Want to know more? 1st State BIKES is a committee made up of advocates from different organizations that believe in on-road infrastructure and safety. In the quest for a balanced network of bicycle facilities, our advocates also support the surveys, petitions, and projects from trails and pathways organizations such as Bike Delaware, Delaware Greenways, Trailspinners, etc. We also support education, including B.E.S.T. (Bringing Education and Safety Together).

"Retreat" housing fails Main Street, UD commuters

This article recently appeared in the Newark Post --

After several months of construction, hundreds of residents can finally call The Retreat home sweet home now that they officially moved their belongings in on Monday.

The complex, owned by Georgia-based Landmark Properties, which manages several student housing communities around the country, opened at Suburban Plaza off Elkton Road and flanks both sides of the shopping center with its 169 newly constructed units that include 39 two-story cottages and 130 lodge-style apartments for a total of 597 beds.

According to Retreat representatives, over 60 percent of the units are currently leased, with the one and two-bedroom units completely booked. [Full article ...]

Mark Morehead appears to be the only member of City Council who gets it. Yes, Suburban Plaza is immediately adjacent and (hopefully) most will walk or bike the hundred or so yards to shop and dine. But for commuting to Newark's downtown and University of Delaware campus, the "Retreat" is a casualty waiting to happen. No attempt was made to address the needs of bicycle commuters in planning and construction. Residents who still choose (or must) bike into town will need to pedal up a dangerous sidewalk on Elkton Road (technically illegal) to Casho Mill and cross to the frontage road on the opposite side. Those wishing to use the Christina Parkway bike path facility (or wishing to legally ride the shoulder on Elkton Road in the NE direction) will be crossing a very dangerous intersection with no crosswalks until Spring of 2015. And even then, only one is planned across Elkton Road on the NE side, which will tempt potential pathway users to cross on the non-crosswalk (SW) side rather than wait through 2 or 3 signal phase changes. Such poor planning sends a clear message to students and residents - 400+ of them - that they should take their cars to the downtown and campus, where parking and congestion is already intolerable.

It is an epic fail that Newark did not require the developer to provide safe bicycling connections to the Elkton Road bike lanes and the Christina Parkway bike path. This should have been developer funded with an implementation timeline to coincide with the completion of the project. Shame on the Newark Post, for not even mentioning bicycling as a viable means of transportation throughout the entire article above!

Even the bicycle racks shown here are out of compliance with Newark's parking code. "Wave" or "Ribbon" racks provide little frame support to locked bicycles, causing them to fall on to each other - sometimes in a pile. They were also phased out by the University of Delaware, and replaced with the more stable "Inverted U" design. So what are they doing here?

This is what students have to look forward to when leaving "The Retreat" on the road. A lone bike lane hugs the far right curb, to the right of the right turn-only lane - a huge no no in any bike lane design. There isn't even a break, or dashes in the white line to suggest that bicyclists can move out and take the appropriate lane. Also note the bicyclist in the distance, riding through the intersection on Elkton Road. The corridor is a high volume bicycle commuter route, and we are advocating that correctly designed bike lanes also be included with the next resurfacing (pave & rehab) project due in about a year.

In the map above, bicyclists wishing to exit "The Retreat" to the north and west of this intersection will find themselves dealing with an array of pedestrian facilities and a curb-hugging bike lane that does nothing to help them navigate through the intersection.. The 3 sides of crosswalk are not scheduled until Spring 2015 - well after Retreat residents are moved in. Legend: Orange: Sidewalks, which are technically illegal (and dangerous) to ride on . Green: Existing parallel bike path facilities. Red: non-crosswalk side and direct connection to Christina Parkway bike path.

The long abandoned Christina Parkway parallel bike path is an advertisement for abandoning Bike Delaware's bike path fetish, given zero funding for even basic cleanup and maintenance. Yet some folks can still be seen walking and biking on this facility. And this can be expected to increase substantially, with the completion of "The Retreat" and ongoing development of the STAR Campus - both of which are excellent connections to this path.

View Larger Map

Above:  Elkton Road, on the approach to the intersection of Christina Parkway from the SW. The curb cut marking the start of the bike path is seen on the right, well before the intersection. One block further back is the entrance to the Newark Charter School, all but ruling it out for kids riding their bikes to school. Bike lanes are desperately needed on Elkton Road now, especially through here, given the long timeline of the project extending to the Maryland line. Bike lane symbols used to exist on Elkton Road many years ago, but were largely left out during the last surface repaving.

Making the case for BMUFL signs on S. Chapel Road

A safe N-S route that crosses I95 has been an ongoing challenge for Delaware bicyclists. Among the few viable options, none have been as frustrating as Route 72 (S. Chapel Rd) south of Newark. It's often viewed as the "safest" choice for most trips, given its parallel multi-user pathway (MUP) and no interstate access ramps. However, as appealing as this may sound, the MUP is narrow, debris-filled, often times obstructed, and presents a bone-jarring ride between Route 4 and Old Baltimore Pike.

Advocates first started asking for its repair in 2004, hoping to attach it to a Pave & Rehab project for the four lanes of road (high speed, no shoulder) itself, but unfortunately, that was denied. Relatively high bike-ped usage isn't enough justification, apparently, as it continues to be neglected with conditions going from bad to deplorable since that time. It even shares a parking lot with an auto repair facility, where vehicles completely block the MUP just south of I95. This video is just one example of numerous occasions, and when confronted, the manager makes it clear that the parking lot extends to the curb and that "people walking or biking through there do so at their own risk".

With several appeals to DelDOT's bicycle coordinator, we are told to contact the Canal District, or the Roadside Control Hotline. Unfortunately, by the time they arrive, the problem is cleared. The blocking vehicles come and go throughout the day, and DelDOT will not accept photos or video as evidence of the problem.

If history is any measure, we cannot count on a new and safe bi-directional MUP along this section of Route 72 anytime soon. The video above makes that abundantly clear. DelDOT could help increase safety now for the many bicyclists using the Route 72 corridor by designating the right lane as shared use. "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" is the most appropriate signage, with at least two in each direction.

It is time to stop waiting and hoping this MUP will be rehabbed someday. Installing "Bicycles May Use Full Lane" will help increase the safety and comfort of those already riding in the right lane -- especially when it's crowded like the above. Any parallel path, regardless of its condition, makes motorists much less tolerant of bicycles being on the roadway and in the "car lane". Because we don't educate our drivers, most of them think bicyclists only belong on the sidewalk, in parks or on bike paths in any case.