Update on Roland Avenue

Baltimore City Department of Transportation has decided to move forward on a directive from an absentee mayor to tear out the Roland Avenue protected bike lane and revert it back to the original design. In the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Commission meeting today, we learned that this phase of removal will cost at least $140,000.00. Mayor Pugh’s directive also included the placement of green paint on an indefinite timeline that will extend down University Parkway, adding significantly to projected costs.

At today’s meeting, we publicly confirmed with Department of Transportation staff that traffic volumes and speeds on Roland Avenue require a separated facility based on DOT’s own adopted guidance and national best practice documents codified into city law under the Baltimore Complete Streets ordinance.

For four years, we have shown up to meetings. We helped organize neighbors who believe that people of all ages and abilities should be able to bike on that stretch of road. We have received verbal threats. It has put Bikemore in an impossible position of going head to head with some of the most influential residents in the city. It has misdirected City resources. It created a contentious divide among neighbors. This project has caused unnecessary harm.

It is a failure of leadership when something as relatively insignificant as paint on a street receives this amount of resources and exposure. There are challenges facing this city that eclipse the needs on this one mile stretch of road, and it is our opinion that it is time to move on. Everyone has had their say. The next step should be to implement change that creates the safest, most fiscally responsible option. Removing the bike lane is not that.

We take our responsibility to push for streets that are proven to increase safety seriously, and and we will continue to do so. And the people that bike in this city, including the people who bike on Roland Avenue, are committed to lifting up the causes and leaders who address the multitude of problems facing our city. Streets built for people who bike, walk, and take transit are part of that effort.

The love we have for Baltimore is fierce. How can it not be? We see the city up close every single day. We are your kids’ teachers, we are your doctors, we are the political organizers fighting for affordable housing, we are in City Hall, we are your pastors, we are kids popping wheelies, we are the racers doing laps around Lake Montebello — all adding to the things that make Baltimore unique and beautiful. We are among those building a city where people want to live. The way a handful of people, who in many other instances have proven to be incredibly altruistic, have other-ized their neighbors and people who bike is inexcusable.

We want to apologize on behalf of everyone that is part of this contentious situation. Bikemore is for everyone, and safe streets should be too.

And finally we want to apologize to Rachel and everyone that knew and loved Tom Palermo. This project, as small as it was, had the potential to demonstrate the City’s commitment to preventing a tragedy like that from happening again. It had the potential to build a safe place to do the thing Tom loved most—riding bikes.

We know there are some of you wondering if we are going to sue to halt the removal of the bike lane. It is certainly an arrow in our quiver and one we have demonstrated we are not afraid to use. It is also unsustainable, and is the express reason we championed the Complete Streets Bill. This is a bill the Mayor signed into law, the same Mayor who has given this directive. And this directive is being carried out by the same agency that stood beside us celebrating the law’s passage. What other laws has Mayor Pugh signed with no intention to follow?

It is a challenging time for the City, making it especially important to do the right thing. We ask that the City evaluate the costs of the redesign, the risk of making this arbitrary decision, and the clear compromise to safety this directive will cause, and immediately stop work. To do otherwise would continue to put us on this path of confusion, contention and wastefulness.

The City must take seriously its responsibility as outlined in the Complete Streets ordinance, including the stated directive to promote biking to “the greatest extent possible.” And we will continue to fight until they do.

Statement on Mayor Pugh's Decision to Remove Protected Bike Lanes on Roland Avenue

Today, Mayor Pugh announced the cancellation of the Roland Avenue lane elimination pilot. Instead, Baltimore City Department of Transportation will remove the all-ages protected bike lane on Roland Avenue, return parking to the curbside, and install a standard green painted bicycle lane next to two automobile travel lanes.

We are disappointed that voices behind closed doors were able to influence this decision, despite a PIA request from a Roland Park neighbor showing 62% support for the road diet plan.

We still believe the pilot project should move forward. Why wouldn’t we test a design that could possibly make the street safer for everyone, before committing to spending between $700,000 and $1.4 million to restore a design proven to be unsafe, a design that couldn’t prevent the death of Tom Palermo just a few blocks north?

The meeting to discuss the pilot was supposed to happen Monday night. Since our blog post yesterday, over 100 people have written to Council Vice President Middleton supporting the pilot project, saying that no matter what, separated bike lanes have to remain on Roland Avenue. We have also heard from dozens of Roland Park residents directly who feel the same way, residents excited about the pilot, residents who purchased homes in Roland Park because of the protected lanes, residents scared of what may happen next.

We haven’t determined our next steps. But our position is this:

Baltimore City Department of Transportation must maintain an all-ages, protected bike lane on Roland Avenue, as called for in the Separated Lane Network Plan, and as required by national separated bike lane guidance adopted in ordinance and in policy by the City of Baltimore.

ACTION ALERT: Support the Pilot on Roland Ave

A letter from Liz Cornish, Executive Director, Bikemore

Next Monday DOT will host a meeting to discuss whether or not to put down orange barrels for one mile on Roland Ave for four weeks. The idea is to determine if reducing that stretch of road to one lane is viable. If successful, it will demonstrate that it is possible to design a street that calms traffic, makes it safer get out of your car while parked in the street, and creates a wider, safer protected bike lane. Everyone has waited years for an improved design. We are ready to move forward.

Tell the City you support moving forward with the pilot. Tell the City that you support a protected bike lane on Roland Avenue.

Take action by sending an email to Councilwoman Sharon Green Middleton using this form:

Four years ago Tom Palermo, a beloved member of the bicycling community, and most importantly a husband and father, was killed on Roland Avenue using a bike lane on the outside of the curbside parking by Heather Cook. Cook was drunk, texting, and operating a vehicle without regard for human life. Bikemore existed before then, but there is no denying Tom’s death was a catalyzing moment for bike advocacy in Baltimore.

Shortly thereafter construction for a resurfacing and streetscaping project on Roland Avenue began, one planned long before Tom’s death. DOT moved forward with the existing design for three reasons: The Roland Park Civic League asked for a protected bike lane in their Master Plan, NACTO guidelines recommend it on streets where average vehicle speed and traffic volumes match that of Roland Avenue, and at the time it seemed unviable to garner public support for the removal of a traffic lane. There is also no doubt that Tom’s tragic death just mere blocks from the project also influenced their decision to build a protected bike lane.

Very few people are happy with the current configuration — including me. But over time a narrative emerged that people advocating for a bike lane were intruders. That only long standing residents should have a say. People with access to power typically have the upper hand. And so it was. Tensions ran high, public meetings were fraught, and the whole thing became absurd.

In this instance some people became blind with rage when their own extraneous interests weren’t given top priority. It also demonstrated that the City is still a long way from being able to respond to controversy fairly and with precision.

This is out of hand. The folks driving this controversy are no longer acting in good faith. People have been given four years to share their perspective. It’s time for a final decision to be made and move on.

I hope folks that attend the meeting take a step back and check the nastiness at the door. I hope everyone looks at the plans DOT drew up to put some barrels down on the street for four weeks and shrug their shoulders and say, ok.

There’s enough space on that street to make cars drive slower, to make it safer to exit your car when it’s parked on the street, and make a protected lane that people of all ages can safely and comfortably enjoy. Anyone that says different has decided to do so only to win a fight of their own making.

Making a public street that prioritizes the safety of all people over the convenience of cars is the best thing for everyone — even people who have made it clear that they disagree. Opponents have lots of tactics. They want more data — plenty exists. They want more time — they’ve had four years. They evoke concerns that stoke fear, like emergency response — that have no basis. They ask us to think of the children getting dropped off in cars — without regard to the kids who would like to bike but cannot do so safely. They say clearly that the road should be designed with only the people that use it the most in mind — rather than those most likely to be injured or killed. They say cyclists don’t deserve a bike lane since they already don’t follow the law — completely disregarding that in the case of people like Tom and too many others, it is the DRIVER WHO BROKE THE LAW AND KILLED SOMEONE.

I shake my head when people tell me I should stay away, not engage, not fan the flames. They forget this isn’t some pet cause or a hobby. This is advocacy for something that is proven to make people healthier and safer — something proven to save lives.

An Update on Roland Avenue

UPDATE to the Update: 

Last week, BCDOT presented options for revision of Roland Avenue. Their “preferred option” is a road diet that takes Roland Avenue down to one lane in each direction. This would slow traffic while allowing for a wider parking lane, reducing parking intrusion into the bike lane. This design would solve  It also is by far the most cost-effective and quickest to implement solution.

While several other designs presented would maintain an all-ages bike lane, they would cost in excess of a million dollars, money that can and should be spent building infrastructure in the rest of our city where it is desperately needed.

Two designs were presented that would remove protected, all-ages lanes entirely. Removing protected infrastructure on streets where our city-adopted plans require it is a dangerous and likely illegal move that we cannot support.

You can see the presentation and the options here.

Please use the below tool to send comments in support of the preferred option, #1:

---

In brief

On Thursday at 6:00pm at Roland Park Elementary School, Baltimore City Department of Transportation will be hosting yet another meeting on potential design revisions for Roland Avenue. It's likely that BCDOT will present at least one design option that is incompatible with adopted city guidance and removes parking protection and the all-ages classification of Roland Avenue. Please come out and show your support for a revised design that reduces a travel lane and keeps an all-ages, curbside protected bike lane on Roland Avenue.

Background: Roland Ave needs a road diet

Cars continue to speed on Roland Avenue, causing dangerous conditions for people walking, biking, or trying to enter and exit parked cars. This is not an issue with a bike lane, it's an issue with inconsiderate, speeding drivers. Luckily, it's solvable.

From day one, we have advocated for a road diet on Roland Avenue that would reduce the street to a single travel lane, a wider parking lane, and a wider curbside protected bike lane in each direction. This design is proven to slow vehicular travel speeds, by far the number one complaint about the current design on Roland Avenue. It is also the #1 design alternative listed in Roland Park Civic League's own commissioned Alta Planning report. 

Any new design for Roland Avenue must maintain an all-ages, physically separated bike facility. Baltimore City Department of Transportation's own guidance states this, as does our city-adopted Bike Master Plan and Separated Bike Network Addendum. 

Slide from the original BCDOT presentation on Roland Avenue, showing that traffic volumes and speeds on Roland Avenue require a physically separated bike facility.

Some say tear it out

Some neighbors in Roland Park continue to advocate for removal of the curbside bike lane and restoration of curbside parking.

Restoration of curbside parking would create a remaining area that is visually massive, contributing further to speeding cars along Roland Avenue. The Roland Park Civic League commissioned Alta Planning Report agrees with our assessment: "The travel lane may not seem narrower...and therefore will not calm traffic to the same degree as modification #1."

Returning parking curbside would require installation of a new median-side bike lane separated only by flex posts, or striping of a standard buffered bike lane, against BCDOT guidance. Either design would remove the all-ages, parking-separated nature of the original facility, a step backward in safety for people who bike.

Tearing it out has a cost

While additional striping for a road diet that keeps the bike lane curbside is cheap, returning parking curbside would require milling and resurfacing of Roland Avenue to install a significantly different striping pattern. This would cost upwards of $500,000 of local dollars.

For comparison, the local dollar contribution for BCDOT to build the entire separated bike network plan for West Baltimore is $464,848.

11.5 miles of separated and supporting facilities in West Baltimore could be built for the cost of returning parking curbside on Roland Avenue.

Enough is enough

Baltimore City Department of Transportation has now spent years meeting with a vocal minority of Roland Park residents. The only reasonable and safe solution to their complaints happens to be the cheapest solution: striping a road diet and keeping a protected bike lane curbside. 

Any more time or dollars spent on this project = time or dollars that could be spent on increasing access to opportunity to residents most in need of it.

If Baltimore City Department of Transportation dares spend $500,000 on resurfacing Roland Avenue to make the street less safe for people biking instead of investing that money into expanding bike access into West Baltimore per the city's own adopted Separated Bike Lane Network Plan, they will be exacerbating inequity and doubling down on our city's well documented history of structurally racist infrastructure spending.

#FightForBikes 2.0

Skip the background, what can I do right now?

Fill the Room. Show up and Speak out at the following meetings:

1. Covington Street Cycle Track | Wednesday, May 9 | 6:30-8:00pm

2. Downtown Bike Network | Monday, May 14 | 6:30-8:00pm

3. Downtown Bike Network | Tuesday, May 15 | 6:00-7:30pm

Background: Downtown Bike Network

Originally due to be installed in 2015-2016, the Downtown Bike Network included protected bike lanes on Centre Street, Madison Street, and Maryland Avenue, and standard bike lanes on Monument Street, Preston Street, and Biddle Street.

Maryland Avenue was installed, but the remainder of the network has been on a construction halt since Spring of last year due to complaints from the Baltimore City Fire Department, which is requesting 26 feet of clear street width on protected sections of the network. 

It is possible to re-design an east-west, fully-separated, all-ages facility within the Baltimore City Fire Department constraints, but it would likely remove parking.

The city has extended the construction halt as long as they can, and construction must continue this Spring or we risk losing the contract and spending significant additional resources.

As a result, we support the concept of a re-design to address Baltimore City Fire Department's unreasonable constraints, but believe whatever is installed must maintain a separated, all-ages design from project limit to project limit. 

Background: Maryland Avenue

Maryland Avenue looks finished. But technically, the job hasn't been closed out. There is still some paint to be laid. As a result, it is still in limbo. Baltimore City Fire Department claims it fails to meet their fire clearance requirements. On large portions of Maryland Avenue, protection would need to be removed to meet those requirements. 

We oppose making changes to Maryland Avenue because it is a NACTO compliant, nationally recognized bike lane and because other projects that were installed during the same time period are not being threatened in a similar way. 

Background: Roland Avenue

Bikemore has long advocated for a road diet on Roland Avenue, reducing the street to one travel lane in each direction. This would allow for a wide parking lane and a wide, all-ages bike lane that is protected from moving traffic by parked cars. Data shows a single lane of travel is enough to accommodate the volume of traffic Roland Avenue sees every day, and that this is the best opportunity to reduce the frequency of which cars dangerously speed along the corridor. 

Baltimore City Department of Transportation opted not to pursue a road diet in their original design of Roland Avenue. As a result, the bike lane is too narrow, parking is too narrow, and the remaining two travel lanes still encourage dangerous speeding. Neighbors rightly complain about these conditions.

For the past year, Bikemore has worked alongside Roland Park Civic League and stakeholders along the corridor to advocate for changes to make Roland Avenue safer for all road users. It's clear that the only design that could address speeding cars, narrow lanes, and maintain an all-ages bike lane is a road diet that keeps the bike lane against the curb.

This option was recently presented at meeting in Roland Park, but a vocal contingent of residents is demanding that instead of a road diet, Roland Avenue should simply be returned to the original condition of two travel lanes with parking against the curb. This would solve none of the safety complaints, because it would keep two wide travel lanes for speeding cars and remove protection for people on bikes, forcing them to ride next to or in traffic with those speeding cars. Kids would no longer have a safe way to bike to school. It would be a choice to value the convenience of parking 8 feet closer to the curb over the lives of neighbors.

We support a road diet that slows down cars, widens parking lanes, and keeps a protected curbside bike lane where people of all ages can safely ride a bike.

Background: Covington Street

Covington Street is another project that was beginning design when this drama began. It is still proceeding. The goal is to make a parallel all-ages biking connection to Key Highway, connecting from the soon-to-be expanded Jones Falls Trail at the Inner Harbor to Riverside Park. 

The current design is only protected adjacent to the American Visionary Art Museum. It changes to sharrows (painted bike symbols on the road) to the south. Sharrows are not bike infrastructure. They are for wayfinding. This fails the goal of an all-ages connection.

We support the extension of the protected facility or the installation of speed humps and other bicycle boulevard treatments to ensure the entire facility, especially the part in front of Digital Harbor High School, is all-ages.

Tell me about the Fire Access Issue.

When a vocal minority of neighbors began to look for ways to fight against the installation of Potomac Street, they engaged the Baltimore City Fire Department on a piece of city-adopted International Fire Code that requires 20 feet of clearance on Fire Apparatus Access Roads. 

This piece of adopted IFC had not previously been applied in street reconstruction. Other portions of city-adopted IFC require 26 feet of clearance on Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Roads (streets with buildings over 30 feet) and 26 feet of clearance on streets with fire hydrants. 

We've been assured that these rules are to be enforced on all street reconfiguration, not just street reconfigurations with bike lanes. However, we have yet to identify a piece of infrastructure without bike lanes that has been halted or threatened, and many non-compliant projects have proceeded including the Preston Gardens reconstruction that occurred over the past year which features just 12 feet of clearance adjacent to a several hundred foot tall building.

We demand that any resolution to the fire access issue be clear and fairly applied to all street reconstruction and retrofit and all new building construction and retrofit in Baltimore City per the requirements of the International Fire Code. Any resolution must encourage urban street design based on national best practices that reduce injury and death of vulnerable road users.