Anatomy of cyclist Susan Herzberg’s car-bike crash & other problems with MoDOT’s Route 100-Manchester Ave. restriping

 

Manchester Ave. (MO Route 100) & Kingshxghway intersection
showing the location of the car-bike crash early am on December 16, 2013.

Please mouse click any image below to enlarge it. Use the back arrow top left to return to this page.

Cyclist Susan Herzberg posted the following on her Facebook page on December 16 at 9:54 am after coming close to serious injury (or worse) in a car-bike crash on Manchester Ave, St Louis, at a corner BP gas station (since closed):

Susan Herzberg with daughter Gretchen

Just had a collision with a car this morning on Manchester. Was riding my bike in the new bike lane and someone cut right in front of me to get to the gas station @ Kingshighway and I couldn’t stop. Took out her sideview mirror with my arm. ouch. I’m fine, will be bruised tomorrow and bike is fine, rode in the rest of the way to work, but I sure miss having 2 regular traffic lanes both ways on Manchester. I had 2.5 years of safe riding without the bike lane. So…be careful cyclists, bike lanes are really a much more dangerous place to be than in with the flow of traffic.

Later, Susan added this by way of further explanation, mentioning her 8-year-old daughter:

Yes Gretchen was safely at school. I was westbound on Manchester just after crossing Kingshighway and she (the motorist) was turning right into the gas station. … I feel very lucky, it was a slow speed crash.

To help visualize this from a bicyclist’s perspective, below is a still image of Karen Karabell bicycling past the entrance to the BP gas station where Susan’s car-bike crash occurred roughly 4 months later.

Karen Karabell westbound on resurfaced Manchester Rd just after passing Kingshighway BP station where crash involving Susan Hertzberg occurred

Note: Please click the following live link for information on Karen Karabell and the CyclingSavvy St. Louis program she runs. CyclingSavvy is based in Orlando, FL.

Two screen shots of the intersection before restriping follow, taken from Google maps in 2011.

Image taken from Google maps looking west with BP gas station on the right. Image capture date: June 2011.

This shows the above intersection looking east.
The inside lane is a left-turn-only lane.

Above is the original lane striping at this intersection with two lanes westbound and three lanes eastbound, the furthest left being a left-turn-only lane.

The new MoDOT configuration, which shoehorned in a bike lane in each direction on Manchester Ave. on the west side of Kingshighway by taking out a travel lane, is reproduced again below (and can be enlarged by repeatedly mouse clicking on it):

The above diagram is from page 6 of MoDOT’s restriping plan for Manchester Ave. (MO Route 100) at the Kingshighway intersection. The BP station (since closed) was at 1187 S Kingshighway Blvd, Manchester Ave, St Louis, MO 63110. The bike lanes are nominally either 4 ft or 5 ft wide, depending on the amount of right-of-way available.

Taking out a traffic lane to accommodate a new bike lane in each direction leads to problems with traffic flow while also creating conditions for the kind of car-bike collision of which Susan Herzberg was a victim.

Other undesirable changes to the lane striping along this road are illustrated with photos below:

1. Door zone bike lanes.

Even with the addition of 2 ft. buffer lanes on either side of the bike lane this is a potentially dangerous situation for a cyclist.

Nick Kasoff, a seasoned cyclist, and I biked about 1-1/2 miles along Manchester/MO Route 100 on November 9, 2013, going eastbound from Maplewood city limits and turning around at Sulphur Ave. This followed its restriping by MoDOT between the St. Louis city limits at Maplewood, and ending at Vandeventer, a distance of about 3-1/2 miles.

Please note: The still photos below are taken from a helmet-mounted videocamera recording I made while bicycling ahead of Nick Kasoff.

Nick Kasoff cycling past a parked van in a 7 ft. wide parking lane. If the driver’s door had opened suddenly at this moment Nick would likely have been thrown into the adjoining traffic lane.

Nick Kasoff just after passing parked van. He is almost on the outer edge of the bike lane stripe. A novice cyclist would typically be unaware of the danger of being doored and would not ride this far out.

2. A lane-centered sharrow [Shared Lane Marking] in a single 1 mile long eastbound lane.

Below is reproduced part of MoDOT’s restriping plan from page 3 of 8, showing the start of the section where two eastbound lanes and a buffered bike lane narrow after Mitchell to a single eastbound lane. This lane has lane-centered sharrows from Dale almost to Macklind, a distance of about 1 mile. The problem is not the lane-centered sharrows but the removal of an adjoining lane in which motorists could previously readily pass.

By the time Nick and I had gone less than a half-mile after the road transitioned from a bike lane plus through lane to a single lane with sharrows at Dale, no less than 13 cars had piled up behind us. This was due to the motorist immediately behind us initially considering passing in the empty oncoming traffic lane but then pulling back behind us for a distance of almost half a mile. That led to other motorists queuing up behind him.

End of bike lane where it’s about to merge into a one-lane eastbound lane with Shared Lane Markings (“sharrows”).

Start of lane-centered sharrow. A motorist is approaching from behind.

The immediately following motorist moves left, preparing to pass, but is deterred by the solid yellow lane line from entering the oncoming left-turn-only lane, and changes his mind.

After going maybe an eighth of a mile there are already a significant number of motorists queuing behind us because of the first motorist’s reluctance to pass.

FINALLY the following motorist passes us to turn left onto a ramp leading to Hampton Ave. By this time we had covered nearly half a mile.

This portion of Manchester has now been restriped to one eastbound lane with lane-centered sharrows for a distance of about 1 mile.

2013-12-31 P-D OpEd “Complete Streets would be a complete catastrophe”

Complete Streets would be a complete catastrophe

Nick Kasoff

Martin Pion

By Nick Kasoff and Martin Pion
St. Louis Post-Dispatch on-line
December 31, 2013 9:00 am

St. Louis County is considering a Complete Streets ordinance which would radically change both the structure of our county roads, and the way our county makes decisions about those roads. Motorists, cyclists, taxpayers, and the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch, have opposed this bill, with good reason.

First is the fiscal issue. In the only cost figure advanced so far, a spokesman for the county Department of Highways and Traffic estimated that it would cost $300 million to install bike lanes along just 15 percent of county-maintained roadways. That comes to $2 billion to complete just the bike lane component of Complete Streets, a crippling burden. Yet the council has shown no inclination to investigate the cost, and in a recent council meeting, bill sponsor Pat Dolan declined councilwoman Hazel Erby’s request for a committee hearing to explore this issue. 

As cyclists, we support a road system which is safe and efficient for all users. But Dolan’s bill imposes a controversial strategy which many believe would fail to accomplish this. In fact, the cookie cutter approach which Complete Streets implements is dangerously inappropriate for the vast majority of county roads. 

A recent example is the newly resurfaced Manchester Rd. in St. Louis City, formerly two lanes in each direction at Kingshighway. In October, MoDOT restriped it westbound to one lane and a bike lane adjoining the curb. A month later, this resulted in a crash which could easily have been fatal. 

Susan Herzberg, a cyclist, and mother of an 8-year-old, described it on her Facebook page later that day: 

Was riding my bike in the new bike lane and someone cut right in front of me to get to the gas station @ Kingshighway and I couldn’t stop. Took out her sideview mirror with my arm. ouch. I’m fine, will be bruised tomorrow and bike is fine, rode in the rest of the way to work, but I sure miss having 2 regular traffic lanes both ways on Manchester. I had 2.5 years of safe riding without the bike lane.

The crash went unreported, as do many similar incidents involving cyclists in bike lanes, yet right-hook crashes like this are not uncommon. 

Best practice for cyclists on most urban multi-lane roads is to control the curb lane, thereby minimizing crashes due to motorist turning movements. It also keeps the cyclist out of the car door zone when parking is allowed. A properly trained cyclist on regular multi-lane roads causes minimal inconvenience to others while maximizing personal safety.

As motorists, we oppose a plan which intentionally creates traffic congestion on county arterial roads. It is irresponsible to take hundreds of millions of needed dollars away from road maintenance and improvement to build lightly used bike lanes. American motorists already spend countless hours in traffic jams, costing time and money. Complete Streets would exacerbate this problem for every St. Louis driver, and worsen the region’s serious air pollution problem.

Cyclists already have a comprehensive network of recreational facilities, such as Grant's Trail, which are being continually expanded. We use these trails ourselves. But the family cycling on Grant's Trail for recreation doesn’t prefer to be riding down Watson Road.

Most seriously, the proposed bill would place highway policy in the hands of a short list of special interest groups, many of whom are lobbying in support of the bill. Some of these groups receive considerable public funding, and stand to benefit in both revenue and influence should this bill pass. A handpicked selection of such groups should not be charged with voting on the design of public highway projects instead of highway engineers implementing best practices to advance the public interest. 

Finally, bill supporters point to the European example to illustrate the potential for success, ignoring the substantial differences between the structure of our roads, communities and travel patterns. While nearly nine in ten Americans commute by car, only 13% have a commute shorter than ten minutes.

So how should we proceed? The county already adds bike lanes where appropriate, and improves access for the disabled as required by federal law. By voting against this bill, the council ensures that this policy will continue, considering the needs of various users, the costs, and the engineering details of each road. 

That would be the best outcome for everyone who uses county roads.

Nick Kasoff is a freelance business consultant and avid cyclist living in Ferguson, who rides to clients as far as 30 miles from his home.

Martin Pion is a scientist and 43-year cycle commuter, and a certified League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor since 1997. For over 11 years, rain or shine, he cycled from his home in Ferguson to McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing Co., before retiring.

Karen Karabell westbound on resurfaced Manchester Rd just after passing Kingshighway BP station

Karen Karabell, a CyclingSavvy St. Louis Instructor, controls the curb lane while cycling westbound along Manchester Avenue past the entrance to the BP station at the Kingshighway intersection on Aug. 29. The road had been resurfaced by MoDOT but not yet restriped, so it was still a four-lane road. In mid-October the road was restriped to a bike lane and one lane westbound. On Dec. 16, Susan Herzberg was right-hooked by a motorist turning into this gas station as she was biking in the new westbound bike lane.

“Bike lanes make roads more dangerous for cyclists” – Part III

“Bike lanes make roads more dangerous for cyclists” – Part II

Part I focused on John S. Allen’s analysis of one of the major problems with bike lanes: the increased risk of a car-bike collision at every major intersection, especially road junctions. Allen analyzed a bike lane ending at a “bike box” ahead of the motor vehicle stop bar. This may mitigate car-bike turning collisions at major intersections when the traffic light is red, but doesn’t help otherwise.

This Part II highlights the work of Keri Caffrey.

Keri Caffrey

Keri Caffrey is co-founder (with Mike “Mighk” Wilson) of Cycling Savvy, the most important new bike education program to be introduced in the U.S. since the Effective Cycling program. She is also a competent and visionary on-road cyclist, and a gifted artist and animator, and these skills are apparent in her work. She has produced a convincing animation illustrating the ever-present danger to a cyclist in either a bike lane or riding near the road edge of being hit by a passing motorist turning right across their path, in this case at a traffic light.

Tractor-trailer and bicyclist positioning at major intersection

This still image by Keri Caffrey is based on her on-line animation at “Why Bike Boxes Don’t Prevent Right-hooks”

It illustrates clearly the danger of being to the right of a tractor-trailer at a major intersection at which the motorist may turn right across the cyclist’s path. The cyclist is in the motorist’s blind spot, in which he is unable to see external objects directly or in his right-hand mirror. The cyclist, meanwhile, has no inkling of the driver’s intention to turn right.

Keri Caffrey has also produced a great animation contrasting a bicyclist exercising lane control with edge riding (comparable to riding in a bike lane). It is posted at “Lane Control” from which the following still images have been captured for the edge riding cyclist.

Numerous potential hazards encountered by an edge (or bike lane) riding cyclist are shown in the first slide, including Close Passing, Pavement Hazard Area, Moving Screen as the passing car hides the cyclist from view, and Intersection Conflicts (which also applies to every driveway, especially commercial driveways).

Please mouse click on any of the following images to enlarge. Use the back button to return to this page.

General edge riding safety issues
Click to enlarge this or any following graphic. Use back button to return to this page.

Edge riding cyclist was hidden from oncoming left-turning motorist
by passing green car (at right and alongside in previous graphic).

Edge riding cyclist is prevented from avoiding road debris.

Motorist passes edge riding cyclist just before making a right turn.

Drive-out conflict due to screening by turning motorist and/or vegetation.

Part III, the last blog in this series, is a critique of a list posted on-line titled “21 Good Reasons to Mark Bike Lanes.”

“Bike lanes make roads more dangerous for cyclists” – Part I

Bike lanes are not new, and some bicycling advocacy organizations view them as a way to encourage on-road bicycling. Transportation engineers embrace bike lanes as a way to accommodate what many of them view as a transportation mode too different from motor vehicles to share the same lane. More recently, bike lanes have been complemented by “bike boxes” at signalized intersections, in some cases following cyclist fatalities at those locations resulting from turning motor vehicles crossing the bike lane at the junction.

While road improvements can sometimes make the road safer and more convenient for cyclists, bike lane striping typically makes it more dangerous, while providing the novice cyclist with a false sense of security. Some proponents may argue that they legitimize on-road bicycling but that is better achieved by repealing discriminatory laws, primarily the so-called “Far To the Right” (FTR) law, and erecting approved signage when and where appropriate, e.g. BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE (BMUFL) signs.

Novice cyclists already behave in ways that typically put them at risk from a car-bike collision, such as riding in or near the gutter where they are most vulnerable from either an overtaking motorist right-hook or an approaching motorist left-cross. A bike lane tells both motorists and cyclists that this is where cyclists are expected to ride, and make it harder for skilled and knowledgeable cyclists to exercise lane control, even though that is usually safer.

Paint cannot replace knowledge on the part of the cyclist, as illustrated in this series of three blogs devoted specifically to bike lanes. This first blog reproduces on-line material posted by John S. Allen illustrating important deficiencies with the bike lane approach towards accommodating cyclists on public roads. The following blog will feature some of the work of proficient cyclist and gifted artist and animator, Keri Caffrey.

John S. Allen

John S. Allen

John Allen has a long career as a transportational cyclist. He’s a former contributing editor to Bicycling magazine, wrote The Complete Book of Bicycle Commuting, published by Rodale Press in 1981, as well as the still-popular Bicycling Street Smarts, a booklet first published in 1988.

Allen also maintains a very comprehensive bicycling blog which includes a long article on bike boxes at A LOOK INTO THE “BIKE BOX”. Under a section titled “Safety considerations” is the following graphic “illustrating some of the safety issues inherent in an in-line bike box,” i.e. a box in which cyclists can wait ahead of motorists at a stop light, provided it hasn’t changed to green.

Potential motorist-cyclist collision situations:

Click to enlarge this graphic. Use back button to return to this page.

If the motorist in the right lane plans to turn right that can lead to a collision with the cyclist riding in the bike lane (or near the edge when the bike lane is absent). This is always a risk for cyclists using a bike lane or edge riding rather than controlling the curb lane, since motorists often underestimate the speed of a cyclist they have passed, or even sometimes mistakenly believe that, as a motorist, they have priority over a cyclist.

Cyclist “b” is also in danger of a collision with a motorist in the inside lane, to whom she is invisible, if she enters the bike box on the light change, as indicated here by the arrow in front of the blue car.

Not illustrated above is the potential for a collision between a left-turning motorist and an oncoming cyclist in the bike lane (e.g. cyclist “a”) who is obscured by a motor vehicle. This is illustrated in the following blog.

2013 Dec. P-D Letters: “Complete Streets” Pro & Con

There’s been a flurry of published Letters to the Editor on SB 1 for Bill. No. 235, aka “Complete Streets.” This followed the recent spate of articles about it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by reporters Margaret Gillerman and Steve Giegerich and the editorial “St. Louis County should drop the kickstand on ‘Complete Streets’ bill” opposing the bill. Below are Letters published to during December 2013, in chronological order, both pro and con.

I might mention that I know two of the letter writers favoring the bill and like and respect them. The first is Linda Goldstein, former mayor of Clayton, who was very health-conscious in that role and spearheaded progressive smoke-free air ordinances. The second is David Henry, who has over the years been actively promoting walking to school. It’s unfortunate having to disagree with either of them but I don’t perceive so-called Complete Streets legislation as necessary or desirable if it prevents trained traffic engineers from making informed and desirable decisions, and messes up the road for competent cyclists. Public input on decision making is desirable but not by fiat, as the proposed legislation would require.

I also perceive many of the supporters of this bill to be ill-informed, especially when it comes to on-road bike transportation and what makes it truly safe. Bike lanes don’t make it safer: they actually make a car-bike collision more likely at intersections or in the door zone of parked cars, while confining the cyclist to the area near the gutter, which is typically the worst part of the road. It’s also impossible to make a safe left turn in traffic from this position.

Please click any Letter to the Editor title to go to original web post.

Martin Pion

Nick Kasoff

Follow Ferguson’s lead to promote safe bicycling
Martin Pion • Ferguson
Nick Kasoff • Ferguson
December 03, 2013

Trailnet’s effort to enact “Complete Streets” legislation (Bill No. 238) in St. Louis County rests on misinformation and false premises. Trailnet claims Complete Streets leads to “increased property values, increased retail sales, and attraction of new business” in cities, including  Ferguson, where we live. We have seen no evidence of that.
         Trailnet claims Complete Streets encourages safe bicycling, achieved primarily by painting bike lanes along major roads. Relevant research shows bike lanes actually increase car-bike crashes, particularly at intersections. (Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections, Wachtel & Lewiston, 1994 ITE Journal.) 

Bike lanes also require cyclists to ride dangerously close to parked cars, another leading cause of bicyclist injury or death.
         The safest way to bicycle on any road is with techniques taught in classes such as Cycling Savvy (http://tinyurl.com/9ls8wor), and not by striping bike lanes.
         Last year, Ferguson approved a first-in-Missouri ordinance giving bicyclists the choice of controlling or sharing the curb lane, repealing its discriminatory “far to the right” ordinance based on Missouri law. This reflects the best practices taught in Cycling Savvy.
         Rather than Complete Streets-dictated bike lanes, our county and local governments would be wise to follow Ferguson’s lead, ensuring bicyclists equal use of traffic lanes.

Linda Goldstein

Complete Streets benefit many groups, including bicyclists
Linda Goldstein • Clayton
December 18, 2013

When the city of Clayton passed its Complete Streets ordinance in January 2012, we joined numerous other municipalities, counties, states and regional planning organizations across the country that are committed to providing safe, accessible and convenient modes of travel for all users through Complete Streets policies.
         The Post-Dispatch published an editorial (“Drop the kickstand,” Dec. 13) focused primarily on Complete Streets’ bicycle accessibility, but it’s important to consider other features of effective Complete Streets legislation as well. Through the planning, design, building and maintenance of streets, the goal is to provide safe access for all users: pedestrians of all ages and abilities, motorists, public transportation vehicles and their passengers, and, yes, bicyclists.
         What this means is that a Complete Street could provide people with physical disabilities better wheelchair accessibility, and those who are visually impaired could safely cross streets with the help of audible crosswalk signals and textured walkways. Seniors could benefit through more walkable communities and greater access to public transportation. And, children who want to bike to school could do so on dedicated bike paths.
         Complete Streets provide health and fitness, environmental, safety and quality of life benefits to a community and can be implemented in a systematic and fiscally responsible manner. I urge St. Louis County to continue its efforts to craft legislation that benefits our citizens and makes sense for our community.

People want more transportation options
David Henry • Webster Groves
December 19, 2013

The editorial “Drop the kickstand” (Dec. 13) opposes the proposed Complete Streets bill being considered by the St. Louis County Council because the bill “would give a small number of people a claim on a disproportionate share of public dollars.” I question how the editorial’s author can support that claim.
         Based on the results of the Future of Transportation National Survey from 2010, most people support improved options for walking, biking and transit. Here are a few relevant results from that survey:
(1) 55 percent of Americans would rather drive less and walk more;
(2) 73 percent said they have no choice but to drive;
(3) 66 percent want more transportation options so they have freedom to choose how to get where they need to go.
         Furthermore, about a third of the population cannot drive because they are underage, physically impaired, or because they cannot afford to drive.
         By denying accommodations for transportation other than automobiles, the St. Louis County Council would be advocating an automobile-only transportation policy. Such a policy would be clearly denying the needs of citizens.

Street plans should consider young folks and seniors who don’t drive
Laura Barrett • St. Louis
Director, Transportation Equity Network
December 20, 2013

The Post-Dispatch editorial “Drop the kickstand” (Dec. 13) about the pending Complete Streets policy was just plain wrong.
         These policies save money. Fewer cars on the highway mean less pollution, fewer pothole repairs and more people using transit — all of which save taxpayers money. But an even more glaring mistake in this editorial was its lack of concern for low-income people and people with disabilities.
         State and local officials have spent time and money creating access to bus shelters on South Lindbergh Avenue after a campaign by Metropolitan Congregations United. Among the issues: People with disabilities could not access a bus shelter with steps.
         Any parent whose child goes to Lindbergh High probably shares my feeling of fear every time I see the river of children walking to school each morning without the benefit of a sidewalk.
         All of these South County problems could have been prevented with better planning and policies. It just makes sense to plan for young folks who don’t drive, seniors who can’t drive and the thousands of transit riders who take Metrolink buses and light rail every day.

Nick Kasoff

Nick Kasoff posted this reply on-line:

Street plans already do consider those who don’t drive. And Complete Streets won’t mean fewer cars on the highway. Recreational riders will still be driving to work and on errands. But they’ll be doing so on more congested streets, as the Complete Streets conversions reduce the number of traffic lanes. That means MORE gas and pollution.
         I am all for good sidewalks and accessible bus shelters. And if you want to cycle for recreation and exercise, I applaud you. There are numerous bike trails throughout the county, and we build new ones every year. I am a daily transportation cyclist. I safely and comfortably use the existing roads, and do not want to be forced into the segregated bike lanes which Complete Streets prefers.
         If you’re a driver, and you want to spend more time sitting in traffic, and pay higher taxes for the privilege, then Complete Streets is something you’ll love. For the rest of us, it’s nothing but bad.

‘Complete Streets’ creates hazard on Chippewa
Raymond F. Buckley Jr. • St. Louis
December 20, 2013

I read your editorial “Drop the kickstand” (Dec. 13), and I wanted to point out that the reduction from four lanes to two lanes creates a hazard at the QuikTrip exit on Chippewa Street at the intersection with Gravois Avenue.
         Because there is now only one eastbound lane on Chippewa, cars frequently back up past the QuikTrip exit. If the cars create a break, vehicles exiting QT to the left — or west — on Chippewa often have impaired visibility and cannot see westbound cars. By the same token, cars traveling west on Chippewa often cannot see the vehicles turning left out of the QT parking lot, and must proceed with caution if there appears to be a gap in the line of cars backed up at the intersection. This is [a] particular problem at rush hour.

‘Complete Streets’ is an affordable evolution
S. Burns Kessler • Kirkwood
December 22, 2013

We have a “Complete Street” in front of our house in Kirkwood. At first I thought it was too dangerous for all concerned, as the street suddenly seemed too narrow. A parking lane, bike lane and road lane heading west, and a road lane and bike lane heading east. I was surprised to see that cars, bikes, joggers and pedestrians co-existed in the space. And while accidents can happen, to date I have not seen one on our street. But the greater surprise is that people slowed down, watched out for each other and shared the roadway.
         The negative editorial (“Drop the kickstand,” Dec. 13) on Complete Streets misses a very important reality: Cultures must evolve. And if a city and its community do not evolve, they decay. Complete Streets is an affordable evolution for our cities and our region.          It is a considered, humanistic approach to urban living. Streets teeming with life again are great to see. It brings all of us together in a common purpose to enjoy the outdoor world that is our home as well.
         I urge the council to vote for the future of our region and not just for Complete Streets, but vote for a new path into our future as it is also a vote for the people who have voted for you as well.

Building a biking infrastructure will attract riders
Chris Krusa • Glen Carbon
December 24, 2013

I am an officer of the Sierra Club in Illinois in the Metro East and have been strongly promoting improvements in bike and pedestrian access. Here we have great bike trails but limited access to markets and local services such as restaurants, movies, bookstores, etc. Implementing substantial access is a long-term deal and requires long-term planning.
         Your editorial on “Complete Streets” smacks of ostrich-like mentality (“Drop the kickstand,” Dec. 13). The biking success in Europe came with bike access and related infrastructure first; the bikers, including huge numbers commuting, came in time. Build it and they will come.

Need safe places for walking
Natasha Simms • St. Louis
December 24, 2013

The editorial “Drop the kickstand” (Dec. 13) in its zeal to condemn cyclists seems to have chosen to ignore that the “Complete Streets” program helps pedestrians, too. Much of the county and even parts of the city are completely unsafe to walk. There are few sidewalks and crosswalks even at residential streets. There may not be many people commuting on bikes, but there are plenty of people who use the buses and train.
         Safe walking should not stop in Maplewood like it does now. I should not need to get in a car to drive a few blocks to get from one business to another in the same area. I can understand traffic frustration because of bike lanes, but we need more safe ways for people to walk in the county.

Karen Karabell

Bike lanes are more dangerous than regular traffic lanes
Karen Karabell • St. Louis
December 27, 2013

As a cycling educator, I oppose the Complete Streets bill before the St. Louis County Council. What we’ve discovered about bicycling in traffic is that cyclists should be in the flow, rather than shunted off to one side of the road in a bike lane or cycle track. Why? Because cyclists who are “in the way” are seen. On straight roads, you can see cyclists from over a quarter-mile away. Motorists have plenty of time to prepare, either by slowing down or changing lanes to pass. This is safe. It also is counterintuitive — which is why we teach safe traffic cycling!
         Few realize that bike lanes are much more dangerous than regular traffic lanes. Because bicycling is very safe, accidents are rare, even in bike lanes. But when accidents do happen, they can be heartbreaking. Pay attention to news reports about cyclists hit by motorists: Where was the cyclist on the roadway? If the cyclist wasn’t breaking the law by riding against traffic, disobeying signals or riding at night without lights, he or she typically was in a bike lane or on the right edge of the road.
         We all want safe roads, but the county’s Complete Streets bill won’t accomplish this. A cultural shift will. People will choose bicycling when they discover how to control their own safety, and when they feel respected and expected as a normal part of traffic.

2013-12-19 P-D OpEd: “Make streets safe and appealing for everyone”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board’s recent thumbs down on St. Louis County’s proposed Complete Streets bill didn’t go unnoticed by Scott Ogilvie, 24th Ward alderman from the City of St. Louis.

Scott Ogilvie was the lone supporter of the bill during the Public Comments portion of Tuesday’s St. Louis County Council meeting. Below is his OpEd which appeared in Thursday’s newspaper.

As of Friday, December 20, 2013 @ 8:32 pm there are 9 Comments from readers, with a small majority favoring Complete Streets.

Scott Ogilvie

Make streets safe and appealing for everyone
Transportation • ‘Complete Streets’ legislation benefits all users, not just those driving a car.
Scott Ogilvie

         The Post-Dispatch editorial board took on a proposed “Complete Streets” policy in St. Louis County on Dec. 13 and concluded, “The council should park this idea.” While the advocates for Complete Streets might have some good ideas, the editorial board makes the claim that, “What they don’t have is numbers.” Unfortunately, it’s the editorial board’s numbers that are completely out of whack.
         The board notes that nationally only 0.2 percent of commuter miles are traveled by bike, and therefore, there’s no need to worry about other modes of transportation aside from the automobile. What do we make of this 0.2 percent number?
         To begin with, it’s a distraction. A more accurate number is 14.3 percent. That’s the number of people in the St. Louis region that already aren’t using a car to get to work. In other words, one out of seven people. Second, Complete Streets policies are explicitly not about “cars vs. bikes.” They’re about balancing transportation decisions so everyone has a choice of how to get around when they leave their house. And that 14.3 percent is already growing, as St. Louis County residents have driven fewer miles each year since 2007.
         Everyone: car driver, pedestrian, cyclist, bus rider, wheelchair user, has a right to safely use the public right of way. But since the 1950s, the enormous majority of transportation spending has been all about the car. The region has built more car infrastructure per person than almost any other region in the country. That can’t be the balance the editorial board claims to be seeking. It’s expensive, redundant and has long ago stopped enhancing quality of life.
         The reality is that we all use streets in different ways each day through our lives. The SUV driver is also a pedestrian. She also rides her bike on the weekend. Her kids might walk to school. Today’s runner may someday use a wheelchair. Today’s highway commuter may get a different job and take the bus next month. Even if you don’t walk much, you want to walk sometimes — or your dog does. And you want it to be safe. To say one person is a driver and another person is a cyclist completely misses how people actually behave. Certainly the car dominates the transportation scene in St. Louis, but there’s no Complete Streets policy in existence that ignores the car. Instead, they allow cars to operate in an environment that’s safer for everyone.
         Residents want a transportation policy that looks like Councilman Pat Dolan and Trailnet’s Complete Streets policy. Even MoDOT, an agency that both by state dictate and internal orientation has a history of focusing entirely on the car, has data that support this. In a huge local “On the Move” survey, MoDOT summarized St. Louis-area residents’ responses as, “Consider bike/pedestrian elements on all projects and integrate bike/pedestrian elements as much as possible.”
         But to make good on those desires, transportation agencies, like the St. Louis County Highway Department, need major changes in how they operate. They need the new direction a Complete Streets policy provides. I’ve had many conversations with the St. Louis County Highway Department and with other transportation engineers on projects I’m involved with. They frequently don’t have the language to talk about anything besides car infrastructure. You know what the most frequent design consideration is in street infrastructure? The turning radius of semi-truck. That’s no way to get to street design that everyone can safely use.
         The editorial board seems to think hitting some minimum Americans with Disabilities Act standards are enough. But the ADA is a minimum technical standard for pedestrian and wheelchair accessibility. While a critical component of transportation and building design, it’s easy to build an ADA-compliant intersection that is nonetheless dangerous and utterly unpleasant. A decent Complete Streets policy is also aspirational. It pushes us to design transportation solutions that don’t just meet some basic technical criteria, but are also safe, and dare I say even occasionally pleasant.
         It’s easy to find examples in St. Louis County where 60 years of designing only for the car has left almost shockingly unsafe results. Check out Manchester or St. Charles Rock Road, where bus stops are in drainage ditches and walking to the store means praying a car doesn’t run you over in the gutter. It’s not right, and it doesn’t have to be this way.
         Transportation decisions are long-term investments. If St. Louis County doesn’t changes course now with something like the proposed Complete Streets policy, we may have the same bus stops in the same drainage ditches 50 years from now. It’s time to do better. The payoff is more transportation choices and safer, more pleasant ways to get around.

Scott Ogilvie is 24th Ward alderman in St. Louis.

2013-12-17: Opponents of “Complete Streets” bill dominate; St. Louis Alderman only supporter

Today’s public testimony before St. Louis County Council against SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. 1 FOR BILL NO. 238 (aka “Complete Streets”) was almost unanimous, only Alderman Scott Ogilvie from St. Louis City speaking in favor. He’s worked in a bike shop and described helping numerous customers become comfortable riding on the road. And while he mentioned bike lanes there was never a whisper of bike education playing any kind of role.

The testimony I’d already prepared went out the window when I learned yesterday morning of a car-bike collision with a female cyclist riding in one of the newly-painted bike lanes on Manchester Rd. It was a classic right hook by the motorist, and could have cost the cyclist her life or led to serious injury. The news spread once the cyclist posted about her close encounter on Facebook, as follows:

Susan Herzberg with daughter Gretchen

Susan Petsche Herzberg
Monday, December 16, 2013 @ 9:54 am near St. Louis, MO

Just had a collision with a car this morning on Manchester. Was riding my bike in the new bike lane and someone cut right in front of me to get to the gas station @ Kingshighway and I couldn’t stop. Took out her sideview mirror with my arm. ouch. I’m fine, will be bruised tomorrow and bike is fine, rode in the rest of the way to work, but I sure miss having 2 regular traffic lanes both ways on Manchester. I had 2.5 years of safe riding without the bike lane. So…be careful cyclists, bike lanes are really a much more dangerous place to be than in with the flow of traffic.

Later Susan added:

Yes Gretchen was safely at school. I was westbound on Manchester just after crossing Kingshighway and she was turning right into the gas station. I feel very lucky, it was a slow speed crash and no, I didn’t get to keep the mirror.

Susan has actually done a nice job of summing up the problems with bike lanes: they may encourage more cyclists to ride, although the numbers may be exaggerated, but they also lure novice cyclists into dangers of which they are totally unaware. At the same time they create potentially serious problems for informed and skilled cyclists who know how to bicycle safely. Below are copies of the two currently available testimonies presented at the council meeting opposing this bill:

Martin Pion

Martin Pion, Ferguson

In past weeks, you’ve heard from cyclists who say bike lanes are dangerous. Trailnet says you should pass this bill because it makes cycling safer, and certainly some cyclist do believe so. Today, I was going to tell you about some bike lane crashes in other cities. As it turns out, I didn’t have to go so far away.
         In October, after MoDOT resurfaced Manchester Road/State Route 100 in St. Louis City they re-striped it to comply with the city’s Complete Streets ordinance. The previous four-lanes have now been reduced to three with the addition of bike lanes in some areas, These bike lanes are “by the book” – having an extra 2 ft buffer lane alongside parking lanes to mitigate a bike collision with an opened car door, and they are striped by today’s bike lane standards.
         A fellow cyclist, Susan Herzberg, uses this route every day, to commute from her home in south St. Louis to her work in Maplewood. She has done this for two and a half years, without incident.
         Yesterday, that long run of safe riding came to an end.
         Susan was riding westbound on Manchester Road, and had just entered the new bike lane after crossing Kingshighway. A woman entering the gas station turned directly in front of her. Because of the bike lane, Susan was in the driver’s blind spot. That is a problem with every bike lane, which can’t be avoided.
         Susan hit the car with such force that she tore off the righthand exterior mirror. Thankfully, Susan’s injuries were minor. She quite easily could have been dead.
         Accidents like this happen every day in bike lanes all over America. That’s why the way to make cyclists safe is to provide them with education in using the roads safely, and demand that they obey traffic laws just like other drivers.
         In their recent editorial opposing this bill, the Post-Dispatch said, “At the very least, the council should know whether the bill will kill people.” Given the time for research, I could provide numerous examples of cyclists who were killed, in bike lanes, by crashes just like this. That is why as a cyclist, with a concern for bike safety, I ask you to VOTE NO on this bill.

Below is a photo accompanying my printed testimony. A motorist is waiting to exit the entrance to the BP gas station where Susan was right hooked by the turning motorist just west of the intersection with Kingshighway. The photo shows Karen Karabell following me along Manchester Rd. before it was re-striped with bike lanes, so that we could readily control the lane when necessary for safety. At this location there is now a bike lane alongside the curb which prejudices such cyclist behavior. Susan estimated that Karen is about 10 ft beyond the point of impact.

Karen Karabell cycling along Manchester before restriping, just about 10 ft. beyond where Susan was right-hooked on Monday morning, December 16th, 2013

Note: Please click above photo to enlarge it. Use back arrow (top left of window) to return to this page.

Nick Kasoff

Nick Kasoff, Ferguson

Trailnet and other advocates for the Complete Streets bill have presented this as a popular measure that your constituents support. Would it make a difference to you if I showed you that they were lying? Well, see for yourself. On Trailnet’s website, they cite a 2010 MoDOT study showing 53% support such programs:
(Source: http://www.trailnet.org/advocacy/complete-streets)
The same claim appears on the website of the “Missouri Complete Streets Information Center”:
(Source: http://mobikefed.org/content/missouri-complete-streets-information- center)
         So it looks like a slim majority supports Complete Streets. But it just so happens that Trailnet is misleading the council in a very serious way.
         You see, this 2010 survey wasn’t just a one-time thing. MoDOT asked the same question every year since 2008, and 2010 was the only time it received majority support. I’ve provided the council with the relevant pages of the MoDOT surveys that Trailnet DIDN’T bother to tell you about.
         And if you look at them, you’ll find that in the latest survey, from 2012, Complete Streets received the lowest level of support ever: 63% of those surveyed were OPPOSED to diverting road funds for Complete Streets. In the St. Louis district, 60% were opposed to diverting road funds. And in a 2009 survey for St. Louis county, more than 80% opposed more spending on bike trails in every council district except Mr. Dolan’s. In Dolan’s district, only 60% were against it.
         Now, you might say that accusing Trailnet of lying to the council is an overstatement. Maybe they just haven’t updated that web page in a long time. Well, if only it were so. In fact, that very same page was updated with an alert asking members to come speak at the council meeting last week:

HOW YOU CAN HELP:

Attend the St. Louis County Council meeting on Tuesday, December 10th at 5:45pm and show your support. You are free to give testimony, or just observe the process. Every person counts! The meetings are generally 30-40 minutes long.

         So now you know. Complete Streets is opposed by a large majority of your constituents. And, the organization which is lobbying you to pass it has knowingly based that lobbying on a lie. That’s why in a recent editorial, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, “Complete Streets would give a small number of people a claim on a disproportionate share of public dollars that should benefit the greatest number of people.”
         I hope you’ll take these facts into consideration, support your constituents, and vote no on this bill.

Eli Karabell talking to Councilmember Hazel Erby after the council meeting on 2013-12-10

Eli Karabell gave impassioned extemporaneous testimony in opposition to this bill. Among his comments was this one:

         I feel 1,050 times safer when there are no bike lanes on the road!

Eli is the son of Karen Karabell who runs CyclingSavvy St. Louis. During both previous county council meetings Karen had also testified against this Complete Streets bill. After the meeting Eli was interviewed outside the council chamber by a reporter from St. Louis Public Radio and again expressed strong opposition to the bill. After we parted in the parking lot Eli cycled back to his Central West End home in St.Louis.

Eli Karabell was followed by Stephen Baker, Wildwood

Stephen Baker

Dear Council Members,

On its surface Complete Streets sounds like a wonderful idea. But there’s much more to it than safety and comfort for all users.
         Complete Streets creates division among road users, then attempts to mete out resources to accommodate the self-proclaimed entitlements for a minority. These entitlements come at the expense of everyone. Road easements will increase. Number and size of lanes will decrease. And conflicts will be created between classes of road users. The capacity of roads will be decreased.
         This can already be seen in how St. Louis City has already implemented Complete Streets on Manchester Road and on Chippewa Street. There are also studies that show that the number of accidents and deaths increases when traffic is segmented in that way that Complete Streets promotes.
         There is also a real cost to implementing Complete Streets. According to this bill, every update to a road, even private roads, will require design rework according to the Complete Streets Policy. This will in turn delay the maintenance of degrading roads and increase the costs to the state, county, cities, private road owners, and businesses.
         There are incomplete estimates from the county’s Highways, Traffic and Public Works division of the cost increases in implementing changes to a small portion of the county roads. The bill also requires county employees to attend national conferences, which by the way are put on by the same organizations that are promoting this bill. Doesn’t this sound self-serving?
         And, no estimates have been made for the costs to cities, school districts, and businesses for the changes that will be mandated by the Complete Streets Implementation Committee. The Complete Streets Implementation Committee will be overseen by the Complete Streets Peer Advisory Committee, a new committee that will by statute include members of the very organizations that are promoting this bill. Again, is this self-serving and self-promoting?
         Some of the organizations that are promoting this bill measure their success in number of lane-miles of bicycle lanes and cycle tracks without regard to safety or usability. This is not the type of leadership that I want to see directing how the roads that I use will be designed.
         This bill is a bad idea. There are better ways to spend public dollars to incorporate pedestrians, bicycle drivers, motor-vehicle drivers, and transportation drivers on the same roads.
         I am asking you to reject the Complete Streets Bill.

Thank you.

2013-12-13 P-D Editorial: “St. Louis County should drop the kickstand on ‘Complete Streets’ bill”

The editorial below in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch came out unequivocally against Substitute Bill 1 for Bill #238, the so-called “Complete Streets” bill.

That was something of a surprise, but a very welcome one.

Among other things, the editorial pointed to concerns that have been echoed about both cost, and how it takes traffic engineering decisions out of the hands of the very professionals hired by the county council to make them.

It also acknowledges that bike transportation advocates are not a monolithic group when it notes Some bicycle-safety experts think bike lanes actually make riding more dangerous. This was a reference to a recent letter from me and Nick Kasoff, which was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on December 3rd, the very day this bill was expected to be approved.

The editorial below concludes:

Complete Streets would give a small number of people a claim on a disproportionate share of public dollars that should benefit the greatest number of people. The council should park this idea.

Quite apart from any argument about cost is the question: Is it the right approach? To that my reply is a resounding “No!” at least on the subject of bike lanes and similar lane-painting exercises.

Bike lanes cannot replace knowledge of what makes on-road cycling safe and in fact compromises it.

Knowledge of safe cycling is available from numerous sources. There are books, such as John Forester’s well knownEffective Cycling (there’s also an Effective Cycling video from Seidler Productions), or the concise Street Smarts booklet by John Allen. There are some excellent videos on-line, such as Dan Gutierrez and Brian DeSousa’s concise The Rights and Duties of Cyclists on both their website and YouTube, and Chris Quint’s comprehensive Cyclist’s Eye View (originally on DVD and now on YouTube in three parts; this link is to part 1). (A video I shot in Ferguson in 2012 is also posted on-line: BICYCLING Made SIMPLE.)

Those are all things you can do during the winter months if you hibernate from bicycling. However, as soon as you get the chance attend one of the three-session 9-1/2 hour Cycling Savvy St. Louis courses offered in metro St. Louis. I did so a couple of years ago and despite being a very experienced and confident on-road cyclist, still found it worthwhile with some novel ideas.

An extremely complete street in Hamburg, N.Y.
(Photo by New York Department of Transportation)

Editorial: St. Louis County should drop the kickstand on ‘Complete Streets’ bill

To appreciate the complexities of, and the passions generated by, the “Complete Streets” bill awaiting action by the St. Louis County Council, it helps to drive (or ideally, when the weather warms up, bicycle) eastward into the city of St. Louis.

Last month the city Street Department and the Missouri Department of Transportation unveiled new lane configurations along a repaved 1.1-mile stretch of Chippewa Avenue (Missouri Highway 366) between Grand Boulevard on the east and Morganford Road on the west. Because the city already has the kind of “Complete Streets” program being considered by the county, some elaborate restriping was done after Chippewa was repaved.

Complete Streets policies have been adopted by hundreds of communities around the nation. The laws differ by jurisdiction, but in general, they require that when roads are rebuilt or repaved, planners must incorporate features for bicyclists, pedestrians and mass transit as well as cars and trucks.

So when MoDOT and the city repaved this section of Chippewa, they changed the lane configuration. The number of vehicle lanes shrank from four to two. White-striped bicycle lanes were added in both directions, along with a yellow-striped center turn lane. On the outside of the road in each direction are shoulder lanes, some of them for parking and some for pedestrians.

The overall effect is confusing. Cars and trucks now have one lane in each direction instead of two. When we drove it in the middle of a recent workday — a pleasant 50-degree day before the weather got cold — we had plenty of time to idle in traffic and observe that the number of cyclists using the new lanes was precisely zero.

Thanks to lobbying by Trailnet, a nonprofit group that promotes healthy lifestyles, County Councilman Pat Dolan’s, D-Richmond Heights, Complete Streets bill was zipping right along until late last month. Then the county’s highway engineers got into the act.

At the council’s Nov. 26 meeting, the bill was laid aside to gather input from the county’s Highways, Traffic and Public Works division. David Wrone, a spokesman for the division, told the Post-Dispatch’s Steve Giegerich that it would cost at least $300 million to install bicycle lanes along just 15 percent of county roadways. A little math tells us that to do it countywide would cost $1.7 billion.

That’s not what anyone is talking about. The Complete Streets bill doesn’t require the immediate installation of bike lanes. It says that “every transportation improvement project” should be seen as an “opportunity to create safe, more accessible streets for all users.”

In other words, if you’re going to build or fix it anyway, you must consider such Complete Streets features as “sidewalks, refuge islands, bulbouts, pedestrian and traffic signals, accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, bike lanes, cycle tracks, multi-use paths, traffic-calming devices, bicycle parking facilities, signage, street trees and landscaping and public transportation stops and facilities.”

This is a bit much. The bill would have county employees attending national bicycling conferences, “peer advisory committee” meetings and conducting “charettes” (brainstorming sessions) to gather “context-sensitive solutions.”

Their time and money would better be spent designing and fixing roads, with curb-cuts wherever possible and with bicycle lanes only where they are appropriate and won’t clog up vehicle traffic. Some bicycle-safety experts think bike lanes actually make riding more dangerous.

At the very least, the council should know whether the bill will kill people. [My emphasis]

Taxpayers across the region already support the Great Rivers Greenway trail system. There are bicycle paths in parks and neighborhoods to accommodate recreational cyclists. But bicycle advocates tend to be politically active and savvy; they want to see public dollars spent on commuter cycling, too.

They have good arguments on their side: health benefits, zero greenhouse gas emissions, low costs. They are happy to claim the environmental high ground.

What they don’t have is numbers. Nationally, bike riders account for a consistent 0.2 percent of commuter traffic miles. For every 500 commuter-miles by motorized vehicle, someone else is riding a bike 1 mile to work, usually someplace far less sprawling than St. Louis County.

Complete Streets would give a small number of people a claim on a disproportionate share of public dollars that should benefit the greatest number of people. The council should park this idea.

Copyright 2013 stltoday.com.

2013-12-10: Opponents outnumber supporters on “Complete Streets” bill

Last week, opponents of St. Louis County Council’s SB1 for Bill #238, the so-called “Complete Streets” bill, dominated the Public Forum, with no one speaking in favor. Before this week’s county council meeting, Trailnet alerted the troops, urging them to attend and speak in favor, so I for one expected scores of Complete Streets supporters lining up at the podium.

And some did attend, but those opposing more than held their own, as is clear from the relevant official meeting minutes, courtesy of the County Clerk’s office, and appended towards the end of this blog.

A total of 6 spoke against this “Complete Streets” bill versus only 5 in favor.

There was some surprising testimony from two cyclists among the five speaking in favor:

Chuck Avery of Clayton, describing himself as “biking for over 20 years” and racking up “thousands of miles a year,” stated “We’re all here advocating for what we think is the safest way to get people out riding bicycles”. (My emphasis.)

Mr. Avery should become “Cycling Savvy” by taking a CyclingSavvy course and learn what really makes on-road cycling safe.

Andy Heaslet of St. Louis, another cyclist, also spoke in favor of the bill. I applaud him for how he’s integrated bicycling into his business. For the past three years he said he’s been making his living as the owner of a bike-based restaurant delivery service. According to the minutes: Both Mr. Heaslet and his employees deliver food from restaurants to various customers throughout the region. He stated that he and his employees prefer riding on Complete Streets and those with protected bike lanes and facilities.

He’s relying on paint to think for him, which is dangerous, instead of knowledge of what makes on-road cycling safe. The antidote? He should attend a local CyclingSavvy course and encourage his employees to do the same!

There aren’t any on-road training sessions offered now but anyone can get a taste for what CyclingSavvy is all about by attending a 3 hour presentation in St. Charles in January. Please click the link St. Charles To Host CyclingSavvy In January

Note: Please click any photo below repeatedly to enlarge it. Use back arrow (top left of window) to return to this page.
Acknowledgement: Please note that the photos of Nick Kasoff and Karen Karabell were taken by Harold Karabell.

Nick Kasoff testifying against the bill with (from L to R) County Executive Charlie Dooley, council chairwoman Kathy Burkett, and councilmember Hazel Erby and bill sponsor Pat Dolan looking on

Testimony by Nick Kasoff, Ferguson, at St. Louis County Council meeting, December 10, 2013

The professionals of our highway department have an intimate knowledge of the transportation needs of our county. Complete Streets would take control of county roads out of their hands, and give that control to the small group of special interests who wrote this bill. That would be a complete catastrophe.
          Complete Streets will cost us a bundle. And a lot of that money will be spent on consultants and reports, on board meetings and staff time, to meet the complicated requirements of this law. We’ll also be spending it on lawyer’s fees, because Complete Streets creates a protected class of minority road users. If you don’t build a bike lane where I want it, I can sue you and claim you’re violating my rights. But it’s not just construction and planning. This bill requires equality in “operation and maintenance.” So now, instead of plowing streets to the side, you’ll have to plow the bike lanes and sidewalks as well, and find another place for all the snow. If you don’t, pedestrians and cyclists may sue you. How much is that going to cost?
          Complete Streets will also slam on the brakes for private development. That’s because the bill applies to private streets and parking lots as well as county roads. Forcing every development to comply with these complicated rules will drive up costs, and drive development out of the county.
          Supporters say that we don’t have to do every street right away. I guess they’re hoping you’ll pass the bill without finding out what’s in the bill. This bill requires that Complete Streets standards be met on every street when it is restriped or resurfaced. So we’ll get a big bill, and we’ll get it in a hurry.
          The bill also requires coordinating and receiving approval of all road plans from a bunch of entities. This includes municipalities, schools of all sorts, civic centers, Metro, unspecified “other high visitation facilities” … and of course, Great Rivers Greenway, one of the groups pushing this bill. How many county staff people will it take just to satisfy this one requirement?
          If you want to handcuff our county highway department and bankrupt our county government, this is a great bill. If not, you should vote NO. Passing Complete Streets would be a complete catastrophe for St. Louis county.

Martin Pion testified next.

Martin Pion testifying

Martin Pion, Ferguson

The November 19th Minutes recorded that Phil Valko, Director of Sustainability at Washington University St. Louis, spoke in favor of SB1 for Bill #238, which I oppose.
          I knew Phil when he was Trailnet’s Active Living Program Manager in Ferguson, and invited him home to lunch one time. I wanted to explore ways we might collaborate on bicycle transportation issues and the conversation went well until we started talking about North Elizabeth Avenue.
          Phil said he wouldn’t advocate anyone bicycling on that road because there was no room for bike lanes. That’s when I realized that Trailnet and I were poles apart.
          In fact, I routinely bike home along Elizabeth Avenue from downtown Ferguson. It’s a lovely country-like 25 mph road maintained by St. Louis County Highways and Traffic, tree-lined and mainly residential except for Paul’s Market. While it has narrow 11 ft. lanes and barely any shoulder, it’s generally no problem to bike along it.
          One rare exception for me was in 2004 when an aggressive SUV driver insisted on passing within inches in-lane, all the while blaring his horn. Fortuitously, I was wearing a helmet-mounted videocamera and caught him on tape, which allowed me to identify his license plate! I’ve posted a detailed review of the incident on-line, including a clip from the video [at http://cycling.mohiking.com/SUVhorn_movbig.html or tinyurl.com/o68ac6z].
          One of the lessons I learned from that unpleasant run-in was to bicycle further into the lane. Another was to control it when I judged it unsafe for a following motorist to pass, such as when approaching a blind bend, and then move right again once safe. This technique now has a name: “Control-and-release.”
          This past Spring, I bicycled up and down Elizabeth Ave. many times practicing control-and-release while seeking yard sign locations for my run for Ferguson City Council. Never once did I have an unpleasant encounter with a motorist.
          Trailnet’s focus on bike lane stripes both reduces road safety for competent cyclists like me, while giving novice cyclists a false sense of security. It’s the wrong approach and I urge you to oppose it.

Next was Robert Mick.

Robert Mick testifying against the bill without any notes or prepared testimony

Robert Mick, Ferguson

According to the official minutes, he “stated he drives a car but is a bicyclist and he walks and cycles to work constantly. However, Mr. Mick stated he does not see the advantage of bike lanes. He expressed his agreement with Mr. Pion’s opinion that bike lanes provide a false sense of security and are restrictive. He concluded that he “does not see the need for Complete Streets legislation.”

Next to speak was Karen Karabell, who runs CyclingSavvy St. Louis in her spare time.

Karen Karabell testifying

Karen Karabell, St. Louis

I’m Karen Karabell. As you know, I teach safe traffic cycling and stood before you last week. As you also know, I am opposed to your Complete Streets bill. Why did I come back?
         I want to offer some history about Trailnet, the organization that has been diligently working for your support on this bill. For years now, Trailnet has been vilifying the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic. They’ve even managed to cast national aspersion upon the department’s public information spokesman.
         Trailnet did this because Highways & Traffic refused to buy their mantra that “segregated” on-road facilities are the way to encourage people to choose bicycling.
         Years of experience have taught us that segregation does not work. That’s because “separate but equal” is always separate, but never equal—and even dangerous.
         Just two days ago in Los Angeles, early Sunday afternoon in broad daylight, a cyclist was killed by a motorist. The cyclist was a prominent 65-year-old attorney for the entertainment industry—and he was riding in a bike lane. The motorist was a sheriff’s deputy, driving on routine patrol at normal speed. Google it. This keeps happening. It’s incredible that people who should know better are still pushing bike lanes and cycletracks for bicycle transportation.
         Complete Streets is touted as a green initiative. It is not. It creates traffic jams, adds bureaucracy that cripples the effectiveness of your engineers, and increases costs—which results in fewer projects, more unmet needs, and more traffic jams. Green? No way!
         There is an easier way. We now know how to teach anyone how to ride anywhere safely, courteously and with ease. We teach these skills at a fraction of the cost of even the cheapest infrastructure “improvement.”
         Our amazing St. Louis-area team of six trained instructors has offered CyclingSavvy for two years now. I invite Trailnet to take advantage of CyclingSavvy training. I invite this council to do the same. Join us on your bicycles, have fun in our workshops, and experience the epiphany of safe traffic cycling.
         What is our vision—the vision of people who have discovered how to cycle safely anywhere? We believe that you will hop on your bicycles when you truly know how to be safe, when you feel welcome and respected on the road, and when you are not dependent on special infrastructure to go where you want to go.
         We all desire civility and safe passage on our roads. But your Complete Streets bill will not advance these ideals. Please: Don’t muck up St. Louis County roads with mandates.

Following are the testimonies of those speaking for and against the bill, as recorded in the Journal, with those testifying against identified as Con.

Journal of the County Council – December 10, 2013:

PUBLIC FORUM

Chairman Burkett called upon those persons who had signed cards to speak at the Public Forum.

Pro: Ms. Margaret Johnson, 7509 Gannon, University City, MO, 63130, addressed the County Council and stated her support for “Complete Streets” legislation (Relates to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, pending on tonight’s Final Passage Order of Business). Ms. Johnson shared her opinion and information regarding the societal changes regarding biking and walking to work and other destinations. She noted that some roads need to restrict non-vehicular traffic, “but it’s time to adjust our thinking and get on with changing our car culture to one that embraces pedestrians, bicyclists, parents pushing strollers and people in wheelchairs”. Ms. Johnson stated she personally walks and rides as much as possible, for pleasure, exercise and errands. She shared examples of how and where she rides her bike. Ms. Johnson stated her opinion as to why passage of this legislation would provide long-term benefits to St. Louis County and she encouraged St. Louis County to “change to fit the times”.

Con: Mr. Nick Kasoff, 125 Royal Avenue, Ferguson, MO, 63135, addressed the County Council with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and restated his opposition and opinions regarding the proposed Complete Streets legislation. He stated his observations and shared examples as to the possible financial impact this proposed legislation would have for St. Louis County in view of the regulations that would be put in place including slowing the process for private developments, the need to coordinate and receive approval of all road plans “from a bunch of entities” and the increase in County staff needed to meet the new requirements. Mr. Kasoff concluded by stating “passing Complete Streets would be a complete catastrophe for St. Louis County”.

Con: Mr. Gene Hutchin, 9447 Radio Dr., Affton, MO, addressed the County Council with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and restated his opposition to the “Complete Streets” policy for St. Louis County. Mr. Hutchin shared information concerning a recent incident where he nearly struck a bicyclist who was not wearing protective safety gear. Mr. Hutchin encouraged the Council to support the use of safety equipment requirements on bicycles. He further stated the idea of adding more bicyclists with the Complete Streets legislation is ridiculous and “you ought to be requiring these people who want to ride their bicycles like that to have safety equipment and they otherwise be certified like drivers of automobiles.” Mr. Hutchin further stated that he thinks this legislation is a waste of money, noting that you’re not going to replace the automobile and you won’t find thousands and thousands of people riding bicycles to work.

Con: Mr. Martin Pion, 6 Manor Ln., Ferguson, MO, 63135, addressed the County Council with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and restated his opposition to Complete Streets legislation. Mr. Pion shared information with regard to a conversation he had at some point with Mr. Phil Valko, Director of Sustainability, Washington University in St. Louis, and a former Trailnet’s Active Living Program Manager. Mr. Pion pointed out that recently Mr. Valko had spoken in support of Complete Streets legislation and he recalled that Mr. Valko was not supportive of “anyone” bicycling on North Elizabeth Avenue because there was no room for bike lanes. Mr. Pion further shared some of his experiences biking up and down Elizabeth Avenue and stated that “never once did I have an unpleasant encounter with a motorist”. Mr. Pion expressed his opinion that “Trailnet’s focus on bike lane stripes both reduces road safety for competent cyclists like me, while giving novice cyclists a false sense of security.” He stated that this is the wrong approach and he urged the Council Members to oppose Complete Streets legislation.

Con: Mr. Robert Mick, 36 Royal Ave., Ferguson, MO, addressed the County Council with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and stated he drives a car but is a bicyclist and he walks and cycles to work constantly. However, Mr. Mick stated he does not see the advantage of bike lanes. He expressed his agreement with Mr. Pion’s opinion that bike lanes provide a false sense of security and are restrictive. Mr. Mick related his experiences as a biker on today’s roadways and he stated he is as courteous as possible to motor vehicles when riding his bike because he drives also and he understands the situation from that perspective as well. He further stated he is hopeful that motorists will become more understanding and considerate of bicyclists but does not see the need for Complete Streets legislation.

Con: Ms. Karen Karabell, 4147 West Pine, St. Louis, MO, 63108, representing Cycling Savvy, addressed the County Council with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and stated she teaches safe cycling and restated her opposition to the Complete Streets legislation. She shared her observations and some “history” about Trailnet. Ms. Karabell pointed out that this organization has been working diligently for the Council’s support of the Complete Streets legislation. She shared information concerning Trailnet’s purported attempts to negatively portray the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic, stating Trailnet chose this approach because the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic refused to support their recommended provisions for bicyclists on County roadways. Ms. Karabell shared the circumstances surrounding the recent death of a bicyclist “in broad daylight” who was riding in a bike lane in Los Angeles, California, and was killed by a motorist. She proposed that Complete Streets legislation would create traffic jams, adds bureaucracy and increases costs. Ms. Karabell stated, “we now know how to teach anyone how to ride anywhere safely” and stated teaching these skills costs a fraction of even “the cheapest infrastructure improvement”. She invited Trailnet and the Council Members to take advantage of Cycling Savvy training and experience the “epiphany” of safe traffic cycling. Ms. Karabell stated we all desire civility and safe passage on our roads and further stated her opinion that the “Complete Streets bill will not advance these ideals. Please don’t muck up St. Louis County roads with mandates.”

Pro: Ms. Stefany Brot, 8145 Cornell Ct., University City, addressed the County Council with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and stated the University City Council just passed biking and pedestrian improvements to be included in its Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Brot further stated that she sees that the City of Clayton passed the Complete Streets Program and she plans to work to see the Complete Streets Program passed in University City. She shared her experiences while recently chairing a fundraiser, “Bike the Tree Walk”, and stated that they had 36 riders and had such a great time. Ms. Brot stated it was a very great day and she thinks it will be an even better day if the Council votes for Complete Streets in St. Louis County. Ms. Brot shared information concerning a trip to Vancouver, Canada, that she and her husband took with regard to the bikers that she observed using the designated bike paths on the major streets. She stated that she believes “we will be much better off when we have bicyclists, pedestrians and people riding MetroLink all over our County”.

Pro: Mr. Chuck Avery, 315 Kingsbury, Clayton, MO, 63105, addressed the County Council with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and stated he is a bicyclist and has been biking for over 20 years and generally is on his bike at least three or four days a week and that amounts to thousands of miles a year. Mr. Avery pointed out that he is retired and has been very fortunate to be able to travel to different cities around the Country and ride his bike in different cities that have bike infrastructure and bike lanes. He noted that it is really interesting to see how both the motorists and the bicyclists have learned to work with each other and respect their space. Mr. Avery further stated that he strongly believes bicycling is a good form of transportation and he thinks it would be nice if you decide to go somewhere in the County or the City to have bike routes with bike lanes or bike trails. Mr. Avery related that he is here tonight to encourage the Council to support Complete Streets. He stated it is a real concern how dangerous it can be to ride a bike. “We’re all here advocating for what we think is the safest way to get people out riding bicycles”. Mr. Avery noted that he advocates the use of trail systems and bike lanes and therefore, urged the Council Members to support the Complete Streets.

Pro: Mr. Charles G. Wilbur, 5211 Weber Rd., addressed the Council Members with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and stated he is here to advocate for Complete Streets. Mr. Wilbur shared that he has been a bike commuter for about two years and bikes from his home to his office near Lindbergh and Highway 270, with part of his commute on County roads, then Grants Trail and then back onto County roads. He shared he was happy to get off the roads and onto the trail and away from the cars and the crazy drivers. Mr. Wilbur pointed out that he took a safety class and that helped, but he still prefers a bike lane over taking the road to “be separated from the giant SUV than have him sitting behind me, misgauging how fast he’s going and bearing down on my back wheel”. He also shared his experience with walking outings and the choices he and his wife make in this regard.

Pro: Mr. Andy Heaslet, 3540 Juniata, St. Louis, MO, 63118, addressed the County Council with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and stated that he is a resident of the City of St. Louis. He shared his experience with making his living the past three years as the owner of a bike-based restaurant delivery service whereby Mr. Heaslet and his employees delivered food from restaurants to various customers throughout the region. Mr. Heaslet pointed out this delivery service was accomplished via bicycles in the City of St. Louis, and he stated that he and his employees prefer riding on Complete Streets and those with protected bike lanes and facilities. He urged the Council Members to support Complete Streets in St. Louis County.

Con: Ms. Lisa Pannett, 2915 Three Acres Ln., St. Louis, MO, 63125, addressed the County Council … and stated she disagreed with comments indicating everyone was for the Complete Streets plan with regard to Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill No. 238, 2013, and made reference to the “Sustainability Plan”. She further stated her opinion regarding the proposed plan, made suggestions in this regard and questioned if the Council Members had read the plan.