Last night’s City Council meeting had at least one bizarre moment. It occurred after Brent Willett approached the podium to address the City Council as a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and Fairfield Economic Development Association (FEDA). In order to address concerns from the business community regarding the new three lane configuration coming to Burlington Avenue, Brent presented two letters (one from the Chamber and the other from FEDA) summarized as follows:
we [FEDA and Chamber of Commerce] understand that the planned curriculum of traffic lanes will be adjusted from its current and historic four lane orientation to a one which will feature one eastbound lane, one westbound lane, one middle left-turn lane, and bike lanes on one or both sides of the roadway, with the exception of the section of roadway between Main Street and Court Street, where bike lanes are for one block suspended altogether due to vehicle parking considerations.
FEDA has long been supportive of innovative public transportation policies which- in order of
priority- address the safety of travelers, improve the overall efficiency of freight and passenger
travel and create and preserve recreational opportunities for Fairfield area residents.
As does FEDA, the Chamber requests on the behalf of its members that the Fairfield City Council become inclined and commit future resources toward a scientific review by a qualified actor of traffic safety incidence improvements, vehicle efficiency data and bicycle use and safety data no more than 12 months from the completion of the striping of Burlington Avenue later this summer.
After presenting his opening address to the Mayor and City Council, the response from the Mayor and several Council members was that the new lanes are not “bike lanes”. Just last week I received emails from city leaders using the term “bike lane” when referring to the new smaller lanes going on the outside of the roadway in both directions. However last night neither the Mayor or City Council members wanted to call them “bike lanes”. City Council member Martha Norbeck said they were not designated bike lanes. And the Mayor pointed out that the redesign of Burlington Ave did not include the goal of putting in bike lanes, but rather that was a secondary consideration resulting form the extra space left over from a three lane configuration.
So on one side you have Brent Willett representing a group of business owners concerned about the loss of lanes to bicyclists:
We have been unable to identify any current- or projected-use bicycle or bicyclist safety data having been consulted by the Council during its deliberations on the issue of traffic striping. This lack of data consultation on the bicycle component of a critical transportation is a concern.
This is a legitimate concern, and I want to be clear here – Brent is the messenger of the business community and not approaching the Council with an anti-bike position. If I was a business owner facing not only the impact of the new bypass, but now a reduction in lanes from four to three, while at the same time two bike lanes were being added; I too would be left with the perception that my concerns as a business owner were not being addressed.
On the other side you have the City leadership shying away from a pro-bicycle lane position and using language that really made it sound like bikes would not be more welcome on Burlington Ave than they are now. I understand that they wanted to focus the discussion on the three lane configuration being better for traffic flow and not make it appear (correctly it seems) that the new lane design had the goal of including alternate forms of transportation; but it seemed to come at the expense of having a bicycle friendly component included in the strategic planning of this community. I not only found this contrary to the current goals of the “Go-Green” initiative, but fear that bike lanes (and bicyclists) are going to become the scapegoat for a summer of construction headaches and the confusion around a fundamental change in how traffic flows through our city.
What I witnessed last night seemed to be the beginning of a looming issue of misperception around the goals of the new lane configuration. Last night I experienced my own misperception: my understanding was that Burlington Ave is getting two bike lanes on either side of the road. That these lanes will be 4 ft wide or larger, with a solid white stripe down the left side, and a bike symbol painted in the lane every block. Furthermore, these lanes are “bike lanes”, no cars or Harley Davidson’s are allowed in these lanes, they are not passing lanes for vehicles (solid white stripe), and just as law enforcement will require cyclists to obey the rules of the road, they will require that motorists obey the striping for the bike lane.
However, after last night’s City Council meeting, I’m not sure what type of lanes cyclists are getting if any. I’m hoping to get a clearer response from the City and will post it here.
[Local Fairfield resident Will Merydith is a husband, father, web developer and writer for Living In Small Sizes. The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily the opinions of the Fairfield Voice.]
Will, thanks for this review. If anything it appears there is greater confusion about this issue than clarification. I'm probably misunderstanding, but it seems that the business and civic components were not really consulted (or maybe did not participate) prior to this becoming a point of potential contention.
oh boy. The city needs to make sure they create official bike lanes as they had originally discussed and talked about for the last two years or more. Seriously. And the business owners need to realilze we are in the middle of creating a boutique-town and that riding bikes is a part of that design. You can't have it both ways. How incredible Fairfield would be if they stay the course and correctly designate the bike lanes. The Mayor should know how important this is for marketing this city.
Civic Leaders Shy Away From …… More like they ran away screaming with their hands over their ears. That was one of the most 'head scratching' moments in recent council history. I wish they would state the reason, is it liability, or lack of funds to correctly sign it, something else that can't be spoken?
The idea came from the U of I students that created the Bikeway/Walkway plan found here: http://www.jeffersoncountytrails.org/uiowa/Fairfi... (from page 12) "…4-lane portion could be converted to a 3-lane stretch flanked by striped bicycle lanes." Interestingly this statement is footnoted to Darren Hamilton – who interrupted Brent Monday to make sure he didn't say "BIKE LANES" any more!
When this all shakes out, I'm guessing it's liability issues at the root of the about-face. Unless someone coughs up a lot of studies proving the safety of bike lanes, Council may appease merchants who are slow to try new concepts. It would be a shame.
Will, you don't have to convince me.
I agree with Phyllis.
And I think "boutique town" may have been bandied about at various branding meetings for Fairfield, but never chosen to be included in any official description. It certainly is descriptive. And I'm not sure all people will see the advantages of being a boutique town, haha.
I want to be supportive of the council and the business community… but I WANT BIKE LANES!!
Facts bordering on supposition.
Feeling pressure from higher up the pay-grade, chain of command, FPD (Officer Kendrick Bell) is researching grants to deliver bike safety programs. He has checked with AJs Bike shop and a few other businesses for some assistance.
I will concur with an earlier reply that this may be a liability issue at stake. Hedging from FEDA and the Chamber seem to indicate a formation of the "I-told-you-so," sub-committee.
Watching traffic on east Burlington, I think that "bike safety," should be redefined as, "bike risk." Some (small percentage) vehicles, like some cyclists are a little lackadaisical. Additionally, I stopped one young boy from biking down the wrong side of the street several times (also) without a bike helmet; asking him nicely to Ride Right.
Crikey! I've become my father.
Does anyone on the City Council read this blog? Do you send them a summary of the thoughts presented?
One of the lines I'm trying to navigate with this story (and other topics to come) is my respect for the opinions of all community members, my respect for the work performed by the city leaders, objective analysis and my own opinion/perception on how we are moving forward (or backwards) as a community.
I hope that I walked that line successfully here and am open to any opinions/suggestions on how to correct if necessary.
Back to this story – where I (as a cyclist) and Brent (representing the business community) agree, is that there needs to be clear rules built into the bike lanes to promote safety and maintain traffic flow. To me this means that you need a clear definition of the lanes – i.e., call them "Bike Lanes" and mark them appropriately. Safety WILL be a concern if these lanes are not clearly defined.
I think "boutique-town" is a great term for expressing the vision of Fairfield to business owners and residents alike. Has that term been used before with respect to the vision for Fairfield?
That's the heart of my confusion. By shying away from designating them bike lanes, you essentially remove what I believe is the biggest safety issue – a clearly defined bike lane. With a white stripe and clear signage/marking to inform/educate drivers and cycilists on the usage.
I just finished reading that document Mark – thanks for the link. I'm even more confused and frustrated. It's all in that document. It even makes a statement (and obvious one) about the improved safety to all types of commuters.
What is the issue here? The City Council has everything they need.
What's frustrating is the documentation and information regarding bike safety has already been provided. See Mark Bell's comment above which references a document with details on Bike Safety. The State of Iowa (Department of Transportation) also has detailed guidelines and *recommendations* for bike lanes.
My perception as I learn more about this issue is that the City Leadership has really dropped the ball here. I'm going to most likely address the council next meeting with a couple of issues. And as much as I hate to say this, I believe that a critical mistake has already been implemented on Business 34 that violates one of the safety guidelines put out by the Department of Transportation (I'll post details later this weekend).