City of Dallas 2006 STEP submittals

Chalk Hill Trail: $6,000,000

The Chalk Hill Trail will create a multiuse bicycle-pedestrian path from Chalk Hill Road at Pinnacle Park to the Westmoreland Avenue along the abandoned BN RR rail corridor. The proposed trail links Pinnacle Park, Calumet Community Center, two affordable single family home developments, the Texas National Golf Club, and Mountain View College to the Westmoreland DART Light Rail Station. Cost estimate includes purchase price of right of way.

EastDallas Veloway Phases III & IV: $5,000,000

Following the DART owned inactive Union Pacific rail corridor, Phases III and IV of the EastDallas Veloway will fill in two major gaps in this major spine trail system.

Veloway Phase III will begin at Lakewood Drive at the terminus of the Phase I and II trail (Tenison Trail and Santa Fe Trail from Fair Park to White Rock Lake Park) and will continue north to Mockingbird Lane where it will link to the Katy Trail connection to the White Rock DART Light Rail Station. Phase III will accomplish grade separated crossings of Mockingbird Lane and Northwest Highway (Loop 12).

Veloway Phase IV will continue north along the abandoned Union Pacific line to McShan elementary school. This phase will create grade separated crossings of Abrams Road and Skillman Avenue.

Elm Fork Trail: $5,000,000

The Elm Fork Floodplain Management Study identified this trail as a major natural interpretive opportunity linking proposed major recreational enhancements with in the Elm Fork Greenbelt. This first phase of trail would provide linkage to the City of Irving’s Campion Trail along Royal Lane and from California Crossing.

Five Mile Creek Greenbelt Trail: $3,000,000

The Five Mile Creek Greenbelt Trail will be the major east-west trail in southern Dallas, stretching approximately 15 miles from southwest Dallas to Southeast Dallas. This trail is a critical link in the NCTCOG’s Veloweb and the City of Dallas Trail Network Master Plan. The proposed project is approximately 2.5 miles and will link an existing portion of the trail at Glendale Park eastward through Arden Terrace Park, College Park and Paul Quinn College.

Trinity Forest Trail: $6,000,000

Identified as one of the major components in the Great Trinity Forest, the Trinity Forest Trail will provide a “spine”/link to other trail networks, neighborhoods, parks, and other recreational facilities along the Trinity River Corridor. These first phases will link a major DART Light Rail Station at Lake June to the new Trinity Equestrian Center, the new Trinity Interpretive Center and Dallas County’s Mc Commas Bluff Park. The bluff provides a spectacular view of “Lock and Damn No. 1”. Phase 1 would be from the Trinity Interpretive Center to the Trinity Equestrian Center. Phase 2 would be from the Trinity Equestrian Center to the Lake June DART Station. Phase 3 would be from Trinity Interpretive Center to Mc Commas Bluff Park.

Trinity Strand Trail: $4,000,000

The Trinity Strand Trail, previously known as the Old Trinity Trail, will be located adjacent to the Old Trinity Meanders within the Old Trinity Industrial District. When complete, it will connect with the Katy Trail at Stemmons Park located near the intersection of Oak Lawn Avenue and Stemmons Freeway, the future Trinity Levee Trail at the Baker Pump Station, and Motor Street Via improved sidewalks leading to the Trinity Railway Express. The project could include hard surfaces trail sections, granite surface trail segments, and connecting pedestrian bridges that link both sides of the Old Trinity Meanders. This trail is a critical link in the NCTCOG’s Veloweb and the City of Dallas Trail Network Master Plan. (Scope for this STEP application could include any segment within this three mile corridor).

Woodall Rodgers Pedestrian Decking: $10,000,000

The creation of a Deck Plaza spanning the Woodall Rogers Freeway would provide a critical connection between Downtown and Uptown. In its present condition, the Woodall Rogers Freeway is a physical “chasm” and barrier for citizens having the ability to travel conveniently and safely between the Downtown, Uptown and Victory areas. The implementation of the Woodall Rogers Deck Plaza would provide and ideal pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access between these areas through enhanced pavement, sidewalks, lighting, landscaping and other urban transportation amenities. The Texas Legislature has earmarked $10,000,000 from STEP for this project.

Parry Avenue Gate Restoration – Fair Park: $3,000,000

Restore and enhance the historic trolley stop and entrance to Fair Park, which is known as the Parry Avenue Gate, and the location of the planned Fair Park DART light rail station. The restoration of the Parry Avenue Gate will encourage bus, bicycle, pedestrian, and light rail use of the entrance.

Cedar Crest Trail: $4,000,000

The Cedar Crest Trail will link the Morrell Light Rail Station and the Monroe Shops development to the DART Corinth Station, Moore Park and the Santa Fe Trestle Trail over the Trinity River, providing an eventual pedestrian/bicycle connection to Fair Park. Districts 4, 7

Northaven Trail: $4,000,000

The Northaven Trail will be the first phase of an east-west pedestrian/bicycle trail linking the Stemmons Corridor to the North Central Expressway Corridor. Phase I will extend from Highway 75 to Hillcrest Road, with a linkage to the White Rock Creek Trail. Districts 11, 13

The Cyclist Inferiority Complex

Comments by John Forester, P.E.

I have used the term "cyclist-inferiority" in several applications, but these application all serve to describe aspects of the false concept that cyclists are inferior to motorists.

The political application is that it serves the motoring organizations, and therefore the highway organizations that they control, and in addition many politicians, to consider cyclists as inferior to motorists. By considering cyclists inferior to motorists, government can deny to cyclists some of the important rights that apply, in legal terms, to drivers of vehicles, but which are commonly supposed to apply to motorists, because cyclists and motorists are the only significant users of the nation's roadways. The rights denied are denied purely for the convenience of motorists. The most important of these are the right to use most of the width of the roadway, and the right to use roadways at all when bike lanes or bike paths have been produced, or those roadways which cannot be reached by driveways. The only reason for these restriction s that stands up to scientific analysis is the belief, on the part of motorists, that cyclists delay motorists.

The social application is the extension of the above political excuse to characterize cyclists. The official view is that 95% of cyclists are unable to learn how to obey the traffic laws. Of course, they conceal this behind propagandistic jargon, terming the ability to obey the traffic laws "expert skill" and those with it the "elite." Since cyclists are very little different from the population at large, that means that, supposedly, 95% of motorists must be incapable of driving properly. However, the meanness of that attitude is demonstrated immediately by the obvious reluctance of the same motoring organizations and motorists to restrict motor-vehicle driving privilege to those who demonstrate an expert, elite, level of skill. No, as long as you drive a car, only considerably below average skill is required to receive a driving license. It is absurd to consider that most adult cyclists are incapable of knowing how to obey the traffic laws when most adult cyclists, in the USA at least, have been certified by the government as having that knowledge and skill. The only excuse for this absurdity has to be the false idea that riding a bicycle makes you temporarily incompetent, an incompetence from which you recover the moment you get behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle.

The superstitious application of the phrase cyclist-inferiority refers to the feelings induced in people by the propaganda which has been used to promote motorists' interests. These feelings include the ones that cars own the roads, that cars don't look out for me, that I, when on a bicycle, am an intruder onto their range, from which they will eject me by either threats or death. One pervasive and effective form of that propaganda has been the traditional bike-safety propaganda program (it never was safe cycling instruction and cannot be called that), which taught cyclist-inferiority superstition, no matter how dangerous that was for cyclists. Thirty percent of car-bike collisions in the Cross study (mid 1970s) are caused by the cyclist obeying the precepts of bike-safety education.

The psychological application of the phrase cyclist inferiority refers to the cyclist-inferiority phobia, complex, or superstition, depending on severity of the case. This is the sense that:

"I, the cyclist, don't really belong on the road, which is owned by the cars, and that I am unable to follow the traffic laws for drivers of vehicles, or that if I did I would quickly be smashed.

"The roads are very dangerous places where everybody is against me, and where I have no place that I can call my own to which I could retreat as a place of safety. Since the greatest danger is from cars, which operate to my danger, obviously the greatest danger to me is the same-direction traffic that comes from behind. To protect myself from this great danger, I must do all that I can to avoid same-direction motor traffic, to defer to it when it is present, to always give it the right of way, etc., including promoting bike lanes and bike paths to protect myself from this danger."

It suits motorists, which means most people in the USA, and therefore the various governments of the USA, to have cyclists considered inferior to motorists. That provides the excuse for doing things that clear the roads of cyclists for motorists' convenience. And it assists them a whole lot if cyclists cooperate by considering themselves to be inferior to motorists.

For all of these reasons (and there are probably more), it is accurate to apply the name of "cyclist inferiority" to the type of cycling and the associated feelings, superstitions, and political urges that carry out this program of motorist superiority

John Forester

726 Madrone Avenue
Sunnyvale, California
94086
408-734-9426

Feel like sharrowing?

That street marking is called a "sharrow" (shared-lane arrow). It tells motorists that they are sharing the street with bicycles, and they show cyclists where their best placement is (4' out from the curb, or 11' out if there is a parking lane).

Would you like to see these along the Dallas Bike Routes?

To Kill a Mockingbird Bike Lane

• The bi-directional trail-lane was removed in the interest of public safety. This is a non-conforming design that was adopted as a temporary solution, and it has obviously inherent problems that required remedy. This section of Mockingbird Lane will remain on the City’s Bike Route system (Bike Route 280). East-bound bicyclists will still be allowed (and expected) on the bridge in the outside travel lane.

• The Texas Transportation Code (Sec. 551.101) states that bicyclists have all the rights of vehicle drivers: “Every person riding a bicycle shall be granted all rights and be subject to all duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle”.

• Maintaining a one-way, east-bound lane would only encourage the continued use of that lane for wrong-way travel. The only way to stop wrong-way bicycle and pedestrian travel is to remove the “temporary” trail-lane. This has been done in the interest of public safety. Any concerns about bicyclists sharing the road the with motor vehicle traffic are far outweighed by the need to remedy the use of the roadway as a two-way trail.

• The narrow lane widths (10.5 feet), combined with the unusually high curb on the inside lanes, will not allow either a wide-outside-lane, or a separate bike lane.

• The new bicycle connection between West Lawther and the new trail section is now open, and provides an easy transition to the new bridge for cyclists who feel that Mockingbird Lane is no longer desirable.

• The City used to put "flex-stakes" on the roadway ahead of where the trail joined the roadway to warn motorists of the bike-trail lane. Those stakes had a life expectancy of about two weeks before cars would drive through the stakes (usually when merging with traffic while entering Mockingbird from West Lawther) often enough to take them down. The “bike-trail” lane has never offered anything more than the appearance of safety, while potentially misleading users into believing that they were somehow protected from the passing motorists.

• The treatment of Mockingbird was of a "non-conforming" use, meaning that the design and usage of the trail on the roadway was discouraged by accepted use guides. It was always meant as a temporary installation.

• Bicyclists who wish to continue using Mockingbird Lane may do so, merging with the normal flow of traffic east-bound on Mockingbird Lane. The traffic volume in the outside lane is considerably lower than the two inside lanes, due to the number of driveway, cross-streets, and entry and exit ramps.

• The situation on the northern end of the lake now mirrors the southern end. Cyclists spent many years riding with the traffic on Garland Road between East Lawther and Winsted before the bike/ped bridge and widened trail were added on the south side. Virtually all of the high-speed bicycle traffic now chooses the trail/bridge connection over continuing to use Garland Road (this mode shift occurred even BEFORE the Park Department made East Lawther one-way north bound from Garland Road).

• Unfortunately, the type of constant velocity, high-aerobic cycling that some of the bicyclists at White Rock Lake Park use Lawther Drive and Mockingbird Lane for may not be appropriate for either the conditions or location.

• We regret if anyone thought the City ever said the "bike-lane" would remain. We have always been quite explicit that the bike ROUTE would remain, but that the "magic paint" and/or "magic buttons" bike/ped lane would be removed. We had hoped we could increase the outside lane width to 14 ft, but with just less than 33 feet of roadway on the bridge, and with the necessary curb-stripe offset of a MINIMUM of 1 foot from the inside (fast) lane curb, the actual lane widths are only than 10.5 feet.

• When the Mockingbird Lane bridge is reconstructed in the future, it will be widened to include wide-outside lanes for cyclists at that time. However, this is not a near-term project.

• The type of accident cyclists fear the most (being struck from the rear by a motor vehicle) is the least common of serious accidents involving cyclists, and even then is USUALLY associated with darkness, poor visibility and inadequate cyclist illumination. Crossing movement collisions (intersections) and head on collisions wrong-way cyclists) are by far and away the most common serious incidents for cyclists, followed by "one-bike" accidents. The new design eliminates about 70% of the serious accident types, while accepting a risk that involves less than 5% of all cyclist serious injuries. All risk cannot be eliminated, but decisions in both behavior and design can be taken to minimize those risks.

• For more information, please call the City of Dallas' Transportation Alternatives Coordinator, Mr. P.M. Summer, at 214-670-4039.

The Wheels of Perception

The Texas Department of Transportation recently sponsored a “Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Accommodation” workshop put on by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The course was put on for TxDOT engineers and Safety coordinators, as well as local law enforcement officers and transportation planners. The presenters were Dan Burden (previously the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator for the Florida Department of Transportation) and Kirby Beck (Effective Cycling Instructor, bicycle police officer from Coon Rapids, Minn., and a board member of I.M.B.P.A.).

The three-day course is an informative, if shallow by necessity, overview of bicycle/pedestrian transportation issues. There were many great case studies of bike paths, lanes, wide outside lanes, tunnels, bridges, and other treatments to make cycling safer and more convenient -- including bike helmets and “conspicuity” (I love that word -- it sounds like something my grandfather did that required him to keep a spittoon handy). But there was an over-riding (although beneath the surface) message that needs to be addressed.

By focusing so much attention on safety, we are communicating an entirely different message -- one that has been picked up by cycling’s foes. The unintentional message that we are sending is this: “Bicycling is an unsafe activity.” Add to that message our preoccupation with expensive gadgets and highly specialized equipment (not to mention Lycra shorts), and we are reinforcing the all too common belief that cycling is a remote and esoteric activity.

A local city councilman, in explaining why he was voting for a mandatory bicycle helmet ordinance for all ages, compared cycling to skydiving! See if you can follow me on this: jumping out of a plane a couple of miles above land and hoping that a glorified bed sheet will stop your fall doesn’t require a law making the skydiver wear a helmet, but getting on a bicycle to ride a mile to the local 7-11 does. If that doesn’t make sense to you, just look at the visual similarity between a cyclist dressed for a winter ride and a skydiver preparing to jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet. Goggles, gloves, bright colors, helmet, and tight-fitting clothes are all common between the two. But is the attitude?

I always find it ironic for a bicycle/pedestrian expert to show slide after slide of cyclists in Europe and Asia safely using bicycles for transportation, but who then launches into a warning about the dangers of cycling by showing all the hazards that exist here. The irony is compounded when they offer the magic elixir of bike safety; a bike helmet (or as some more accurately prefer to call them, a bicycle crash helmet). I too have been guilty of pushing bike helmets beyond their reasonableness. I won’t launch into this except to point out that the design speed of bike helmets matches the safety requirements of life on the bike path (mirroring the conditions of European and Asian cycling, oddly enough), not life on the streets. If a bike helmet offered real protection from automobiles, it wouldn’t say inside it, “Not for use with motor vehicles.”

The simple fact is that such a lightweight helmet (lightweight by design and necessity) can only offer protection from low speed crashes. But don’t mistake low speed for low danger. At relatively low speeds, the sudden stop caused by a head hitting a concrete curb at only a few miles per hour can cause severe trauma to the brain. Falling off a bike while standing still, if the head strikes a hard surface, can be very dangerous. On rare occasions, it can even be fatal.

Very rare occasions, it turns out. But we are reacting like death is at our door, inviting us along on a bike ride! If bicycling was as dangerous as many wish us all to believe it is (cycling professionals as well as politicians and pro-helmet activists), our political and economic tensions with Communist China, Japan, and Asia would be greatly reduced. There wouldn’t be anyone to threaten us (perhaps those bodies in Tiananmen Square were only cyclists who had died while riding around the square).

Because the rhetoric is so intense, it’s easy to be misunderstood on this issue. But we need to look at the monster we have created in “bike safety.” I have even heard one nationally prominent cycling advocate compare bike safety to gun safety. “There we go again,” equating bicycles with life threatening activities, when we should be emphasizing (both to cyclists and non-cyclists) the health benefits of cycling.

When did cycling begin to be seen as a health threat and not as a healthy activity? In talking to some friends in the bicycle retail industry, it seems that it was the aftermath of the 70’s Energy Crisis that sparked “the great fear.” Recall how an existing bicycle boom was fueled even faster by the gasoline price shocks. Nationwide, people who otherwise used bicycles only to define ceiling height in their garages, began riding their bicycles to work, school, and on errands.

Where does an inexperienced bicycle commuter ride their bike? On the same streets that they drive their cars (it’s the only route they know). These inexperienced cyclists soon found that mixing with high speed automobiles on multi-lane thoroughfares and on crowded, narrow roads, wasn’t much fun. It not only felt dangerous, without the proper skills it was dangerous.

When fuel supplies increased (and gasoline prices decreased slightly), these people abandoned their bikes for the “safety” of their cars. The bike boom went bust. A panicked cycling industry began looking for reasons for the bust and identified “safety” as a prime suspect. Two solutions were adopted; bike lanes to protect bicycles from cars, and bike helmets to protect the cyclists.

The great irony here is that “safety” didn’t fuel a new cycling boom -- mountain bikes did. And how were (and are still) mountain bikes advertised? As gonzo fun toys for death-defying, risk-takers! But what was the real appeal? An upright, stable riding position. In a classic marketing campaign borrowed from the automobile industry, consumers were shown gonzo wild-men (and wild-women) flying through the air coming down Mt. Tam in Northern California. In the store, however, the vast majority of consumers were buying low-pressure, fat tired, upright riding bikes that have about as much in common with pro racing bikes as your Chevy in the driveway has to do with a NASCAR racer (very little).

Do you see what we are doing? We are promoting bicycles to gentle people by showing them how dangerous they are as part of the advertising. Their experience is that cycling is safe and fun, but we are telling them that it is dangerous. People all too often believe what they are told by ad agencies more than what they learn from experience. How many guys with beer guts and a six-pack of Bud pick up super-models in thong bikinis? How many young women become successful by smoking Virginia Slims? That’s advertising overcoming reality.

Here’s the message we should be sending out; Cycling is safe and fun! Very safe and very fun. Crashes happen (and can be avoided), and a helmet is a very good safety precaution. I never leave home without mine, because it is pretty cheap insurance. But cycling must be put into relationship with other risks. Statistically, stairs are a far more dangerous place than bicycles. Bathtubs are a far more dangerous place. Jungle Gyms? Give me a break (no pun intended).

How much more dangerous are stairs, bathtubs, swing-sets, and riding in a car than riding a bicycle? I don’t know, because the Head Injury Prevention lobby won’t release that data for fear of showing that their demands for mandatory bicycle helmet laws are unjustified (the chairman of the local bike helmet law advocacy group withheld that information because he felt that the data would, “be used against mandatory helmet laws.”)

Now say after me, “Cycling is safe and fun.”

“Cycling is safe and fun.”

That’s the point that the League of American Bicyclists makes in Effective Cycling. Effective Cycling courses teach cyclists how to be prepared for most any conditions they will meet on the road: how to behave in traffic, how to dress for the weather (cold, rain, and heat), how to keep your bike in good mechanical condition. Why it’s a good idea to wear a helmet. These are the skills that prevent crashes, not just mitigate the danger. And perhaps more importantly, there is no false sense of security imparted in developing Effective Cycling skills, only the confidence gained from understanding your environment.

Obey the laws, wear your helmet, don’t be foolish (riding at night without good lighting is about as smart as working on your toaster without unplugging it), and have fun. Live long and prosper.

Repeat after me. “Cycling is safe and fun.”

“Cycling is safe and fun.”

“Cycling is safe and fun.”

“Cycling is safe and fun.”

Now let’s shut up and ride!

The Singing Bridge

May 17, 2006 , 7 P.M., White Rock Lake Park.