How very topical: "For the Record, the Feds Don’t Require Streets to Speed Car Traffic."

Perhaps now City Hall will take the fight to INDOT ... wait ... guess not, seeing as the last time our stewards of speed-through had the chance to fight for the right of walkers to cross the street at Main and West 1st, we folded faster than you can say "nice fresh asphalt just before the election."

That's not breaking eggs. It's capitulation.

For the Record, the Feds Don’t Require Streets to Speed Car Traffic, by Angie Schmitt (Streetsblog)

When advocating for a street redesign that will take some space away from cars, it’s common to run up against this classic brush-off from your local transportation agency: The federal government won’t allow it.

Well, the Federal Highway Administration recently went on the record to shoot down that excuse. The FHWA doesn’t require states and local governments to speed cars through streets, even ones classified as part of the National Highway System. Stephen Lee Davis at Transportation for America published this excerpt of a memo from FHWA regarding Level of Service, or LOS, a measure of congestion:

…FHWA does not have regulations or policies that require specific minimum LOS values for projects on the NHS. [National Highway System] The recommended values in the Green Book are regarded by FHWA as guidance only. Traffic forecasts are just one factor to consider when planning and designing projects. Agencies should set expectations for operational performance based on existing and projected traffic conditions, current and proposed land use, context, and agency transportation planning goals, and should also take into account the input of a wide cross section of project stakeholders.

Davis explains why this matters:

This might seem like a minor clarification, but FHWA just gave the green light to localities that want to implement a complete streets approach. By making clear that there is zero federal requirement to use level of service (and that there never has been), FHWA is implying that transportation agencies should consider more than just traffic speeds when planning street projects.

Lane widths prominent as "FHWA prepares to knock down complete street barrier."

It cannot be repeated often enough: Spring Street runs through a densely populated downtown urban area, and a revitalizing downtown business district, and has traffic lanes the width of interstate lanes.

Until we do something about these widths, traffic will not slow, and walker/biker safety will continue to be compromised.

It is a public safety issue, and it is an issue of political morality.

Why must public safety be contingent on Jeff Gahan's re-election?

He may be able to sleep at night, but this doesn't mean the remainder of us should rest easily.

FHWA prepares to knock down complete street barrier, by Robert Steuteville (Better Cities & Towns)

A significant barrier to human-scale, complete streets appears ready to fall. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing to drop 11 of 13 mandatory standards for streets under 50 miles per hour, which will help in the design of federally owned urban streets.

“It is definitely a step in the right direction that FHWA is finally responding to the overwhelming amount of research showing little safety benefit to most of their controlling criteria,” says Wes Marshall, associate professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Colorado.

Wider lane width is one of the crucial criteria for urban streets that has been shown to have no safety benefit. A series of studies have shown that in urban places 12-foot lanes—which have been used on arterial streets since the middle of the 20th century, are less safe than narrower lanes because they encourage speeding. For comparison, Interstate lanes are 12 feet wide.

The feds, walkability and bike lanes: Why local and state traffic engineers should be trusted as far as you can toss their cars.

Contrary to perceptions, the greatest threat to pedestrian safety is not crime, but the very real danger of automobiles moving quickly. Yet most traffic engineers, often in the name of safety, continually redesign city streets to support higher-speed driving.
-- Jeff Speck

It seems that the Feds want to make several points perfectly clear. Click the link to read this gratifying testimony, in black and white.

Of course, this doesn't explain Jeff Gahan's failure to make use of the transformational walking and cycling measures offered him by Speck, and buttressed with cold, hard fact by John Gilderbloom.

But that's political cowardice, which isn't directly addressed by the FHA in its memo.

Feds to Traffic Engineers: Use Our Money to Build Protected Bike Lanes, by Angie Schmitt (Streetsblog)

The Federal Highway Administration wants to clear the air: Yes, state and local transportation agencies should use federal money to construct high-quality biking and walking infrastructure.

State and local DOTs deploy an array of excuses to avoid building designs like protected bike lanes. “It’s not in the manual” is a favorite. So is “the feds won’t fund that.”

Whether these excuses are cynical or sincere, FHWA wants you to know that they’re bogus.

"Protected bike lanes are now official federal policy."

Photo credit: People for Bikes

Recognize these "star-spangled" ideas?

They're integral to Jeff Speck's Downtown Street Network Proposal, which currently is consigned to oblivion or 2017, whichever comes (or mayor goes) first.

The feds jump on board: Protected bike lanes are now official federal policy, by Michael Andersen (People for Bikes)

Protected bike lanes are now officially star-spangled.

Eight years after New York City created a Netherlands-inspired bikeway on 9th Avenue by putting it on the curb side of a car parking lane, the physically separated designs once perceived as outlandish haven’t just become increasingly common from coast to coast—they’ve been detailed in a new design guide by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

The FHWA guidance released Tuesday is the result of two years of research into numerous modern protected bike lanes around the country, in consultation with a team of national experts.

“Separated bike lanes have great potential to fill needs in creating low-stress bicycle networks,” the FHWA document says, citing last year’s study by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities. “Many potential cyclists (including children and the elderly) may avoid on-street cycling if no physical separation from vehicular traffic is provided.”

And what a wonderful review it could be.

Better than chocolate, no doubt. Maybe now they'll be forced to talk about how the many projections still being used to justify ORBP were wrong. Maybe now we can at least start talking about increasing public mobility instead of how best to appease narrow, chamber of commerce interests. I fully expect the usual suspects to try to rush and limit the scope but a full, transparent review is warranted, if for no other reason than to combat the ruthless propaganda foisted on the region by 1Si and GLI. Watch for River Fields to take its usual to-hell-with-downtown position as well.

Still, it's an opening, and one that should be used to the public's advantage. It's also one heck of an issue to be addressed very specifically in the upcoming New Albany mayoral election.

Feds, states order bridges review, hope to finish in one year, by Marcus Green (Courier-Journal)

In a move that could further delay the Ohio River Bridges Project by years, the federal government is ordering a sweeping review of proposed changes to the project.

The Federal Highway Administration announced Monday in a preview of Tuesday’s Federal Register that a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will be needed.

Thanks to the 'Ville Voice and Say No To Bridge Tolls for the tip.