Just received this from Erik Osborn, chair of Portland Bike/Ped Advisory Committee, looking for comments. Please add yours to this message thread, or if you prefer to just email Erik, you may do so through his profile.

---

Dear Gang,

PACTS is assembling a stakeholder group to prepare a vision for the vet's bridge replacement to be carried forward into design. Yes, that's right, replacement. Sounds like right now they are thinking of building a whole new bridge. I've been asked to represent bike/ped on the stakeholder team, and *need to hear your thoughts and ideas* so I can represent the bike/ped community sentiment as well as possible.

Here is what I am thinking for starters, but can certainly be swayed if I hear otherwise:

- Good connectivity for bikes & peds into existing roadway & path infrastructure on either end is the first priority.

- On bridge I picture a separate sidewalk w/ barrier (willing to go with one-side only for cost savings provided crossover connectivity is provided on both ends) for peds & wide shoulders for bikes - like the Casco Bay Bridge which seems to work well.

- I also want to push on wheather this bridge is needed at all. This question has been raised before because replacing the whole bridge will be $$, and with the new Fore R. Parkway the bridge is basically redundant. We had talked about converting the structure to bike/ped only.

John B am especially interested in thoughts from you & your meetup group since, if I remember right, you and others have put some thought into this, especially related to connectivity on either end.

Green Streets too. Sarah?

- Erik

P.S. Portland Trails will be with the stakeholder group as well.

Gee, I thought there'd be lots of comments about this by now, given the frustration so my cyclists express about this bridge. Whatsa matter, Ken got you all intimidated?

Okay then, here's my thoughts. It's an interesting observation that this bridge is redundant for cars now that they can get onto 295 from the same onramp and use the Fore River Parkway after crossing the river, and I think on the face of it, most cyclists would love to see the current Veterans' Bridge rebuilt as a bike/ped only bridge, for all the obvious reasons. But I have two concerns:

• What about winter? Even the best winter maintenance regimen is not going to get such a path usable by bikes in the dead of winter except for those with studded tires, and some of us who are usually on dry roads in the winter don't bother with studs. For those who do run studs, maybe with some clearing it would be okay. But what are the chances it would get the best maintenance possible? I know that for me, the SoPo Greenway is unusable between around December and May. If the bridge continued to carry car traffic, the road surface would be pretty usable most of the time, even if any bike lanes were not. If it were bike/ped only, cyclists not running studded tires would not be able to cross here at all much of the year, leaving us only Outer Congress and the Casco Bay Bridge, both long detours if we are headed for the west side. (Granted non-stud using winter transportational cyclists are a small group to begin with.)
  
  
• The obvious concern that Ken brings up a lot: Shared use paths are not very conducive to bicycle transportation, however nice they are for recreation, at least once you get more than a year or so of experience under your belt, due to potential conflicts with all the variations of pedestrians that it would carry. The stats do indicate that the crash record of paths is terrible, granted the consequences are usually minor compared to collisions with cars. This could be somewhat ameliorated by having separate marked lanes, maybe even physically separated, for peds and bikes, but comments I've heard from other places indicate that these are often not respected by many peds.

OTOH, if the bridge continues to carry car traffic, we know from our experience with the Casco Bay Bridge that the most difficult part of bridges is entry and exit. Most experienced cyclists I know really hate the way that the SoPo Greenway routes you into a crosswalk to navigate the south end of the bridge. Even with the "pedestrian" signal there, the light pattern is so complex that you can easily sit there for more than a minute waiting for your turn to come up. And that crosswalk assumes you are on the path already, not coming off it. It crosses one side of the intersection, so if you are going in another direction instead of the path, it's unclear how you should act.

Nevertheless, for those who favor a segregated model, it may be possible to have a separate light phase for bicyclists only, and feed bicyclists into the intersection on their own green in such a way that they can get anywhere they need to go from there. However, the presence of pedestrians would complicate this greatly and increase the potential for bike/ped collisions, so would you then want separate light phases for pedestrians and for cyclists, in addition to cars? Is it workable at this point?

From an integrated (vehicular) model, the best method for cyclists using a bridge, as with all intersections, is to merge into the proper general travel lane and position for your destination. But this is at least intimidating, and often tricky even for moderately experienced cyclists, when there are multiple lanes of high speed traffic, as is the case at either end of the Casco Bay Bridge. It might be a little easier if the bridge were built more in the style of a local road, instead of the current freeway style of Veterans' Bridge, to try to encourage local rather than highway speed. Both ends should have plenty of signage indicating the presence of cyclists and pedestrians, with crosswalks and crossing lights for the peds, and perhaps sharrows* to indicate the legal potential for bikes in the travel lanes. Certainly "Share the Road" signage* should be used and maybe would be just as good as or better than sharrows, or even better than that, signs saying "Bicycles May Use Full Lane"*, to make it even clearer.

Maybe keeping it for local car traffic as well as bikes and peds, with a design discouraging high speed and volume as much as possible, is the best compromise. Given the choice that motorists have to use 295/Fore River Parkway, I don't see why car capacity need be a design consideration at all. Why not just decide what car capacity is enough, preferably lower than the current bridge, and let the overflow demand use the interstate?

---

* Illustrations:


A "sharrow" (shared-use arrow)

The stats do indicate that the crash record of paths is terrible, granted the consequences are usually minor compared to collisions with cars.

I'm not ready to grant that. Useful 'paths' in dense developed areas still will intersect with normal roadways. Almost without exception in the present culture they do this a tintersection of TERRIBLE design. I suspect the already quoted bad path safety statistics _understate_ just how bad paths really are because I suspect many _path_-intersection-caused bicyclist injuries might get assigned to roadways and not the path because the injury happened in roadway space - even though caused by the bad design or poor/awkward bicyclist and motorist behavior these poor intersection designs lead to.

Since I live so much closer to the million dollar bridge, that is the bridge I take into Portland. Even when going to the Downeaster station. Having said that, I would take the Vet's bridge if it was designed better. They (City of SoPo) are planning an East-West corridor from Highland Ave. to Cash Corner...

If the bridge is redundant, and traffic volume studies show support that, I would hate to have the bridge removed. It would be nice to have a Bike-Ped only bridge. I second what John says, in such a case, it should be plowed.

I'm about to bike to the stakeholder's meeting, and wanted to let you all (Ian, Ken, John) know that I took the time to read your comments first. Good points, esp. the likelyhood (or not) of good winter maintenance if this was made bike/ped only. I agree with everything you guys say. Path connections are generally terrible (Fore R. Parkway is a case in point), and I favor a design that encourages as many classes of cyclists to be as vehicular as possible... I agree with John's sentiment that this means we need a design that has more local feel than a highway (fewer & narrower lanes, for example). We want cyclists to feel like they can use the road, not be intimidated by it. The current intersection on the Portland side is exactly what we don't want. Keeping the road as narrow as possible benefits peds too: we don't want them to feel like their headed into a vast sea of pavement, esp. for the mobility challenged.

Anyhow, will let you know how it goes.

Even though the Fore River Parkway may make the Veterans Bridge "redundant", I don't see it going away for automobile traffic. The traffic volume in the morning is huge...just look at how many cars exit 295 north heading for "Waterfront/Commercial St". If they were all to take the Congress St exit, I can imagine a major back-up of cars waiting at the light to turn left onto the Parkway.

I agree that the entrance and exit to the bridge is what matters. The Casco Bay Bridge is great with the 8 ft- wide break-down lane (now officially a bike lane, I guess), but getting on and off the bridge can be scary.

I'd encourage all interested parties to attend the MaineDOT Public Hearing on Veteran's Bridge on Monday the 17th at Portland City Hall, 6 PM. I don't know any more about it than that.

I've added more of the official information into the meeting notice, and thought I'd also include an email that Erik just sent out today:

---

On Monday night (6 PM, Portland City Hall, State of ME Room) DOT will be soliciting public feedback on the proposed replacement of Veteran's Bridge, which connects Rt.1 from SoPo to the Peninsula. DOT needs to hear from you that the new bridge design should focus on alternative tranporation modes: cycling, transit, and walking. DOT has recieved federal funding to fast-track replacement of this bridge. Construction will start next year. *** They say that new bridge may last 50 to 100 years, so it is critical that it be designed for the transporation future we want to see. ***

Alternative transportation advocates (that would be you all) have long identified this bridge as an important missing link in our bike/ped infrastructure for two big reasons:

1) There are plans for major bike/ped facilities on either side of the bridge: Commercial St., Fore R, and Thomson's Pt. trails in Portland, and in SoPo the West End Trails project has big plans for a network of trails connecting brick hill, the jetport area, the mall, Long Ck, etc. *** vet's bridge would be a direct connection between these networks, which would be huge! ***

2) Vet's bridge could be a great and much needed alternate route to Congress St. for getting between the Peninsula & the jetport/mall area.

Here's another really important point: this project is to replace the bridge only. Perhaps more critical for bike/ped are the connections on either end, which are really a mess right now. In order for DOT to be convinced that they need to build *any* bike/ped facilities on the bridge at all, they need to know that the Cities on either end are committed to making these connections. We need to make sure DOT knows they won't be building a "bikepath to nowhere". I think that the reasons mentioned above make a strong case that this isn't true. Portland's recent Active Transportation Project application is another solid example of local commitment. Also, remember that PACTS priority request for money to replace the bridge? Well, now that bridge replacement is being funded by another mechanism, it was suggested the PACTS request could be divereted to making the needed bike/ped connections on either end.

Still, it would be very helpful Council members from both towns present to speak up for local commitment. Kevin, Dave, Ed you guys in? Tom Blake, would be great to have you there too. Nan, Portland trails should come as well. BCM? Anyone else?

Dan Stewart, DOT's bike/ped coordinator, is on our side on this one, but the rest of DOT's project team may need some convincing. So please show up and speak up.

Please forward this to your friends and associates.

I know there may be a variety of views here, including the vehicular, but in all cases, please come and make your voice heard! We've talked about this bridge as a problem area for years, this is our chance to do something about it!

Was hoping to make this but had other obligations... anyone attend ? Whats the low down ?

Very quick summary, my impressions: MDOT's main concern at this time is limited to the span itself, since each end of the bridge is in a different local jurisdiction. They have a fairly reliable source of money, and are looking to design a new bridge with a 50-100 year lifespan. They have not put out the request for proposal yet and weren't ready to talk about specific designs, but they seemed amenable in the abstract to accomodating bikes and peds. At the same time, however, they assumed a 20% increase in car traffic over time (I'm not sure on what time frame) and in no way were considering making it bike/ped only, due to that projection.

Many in the audience questioned that projection, and urged some kind of design move away from its current interstate-like configuration, such as a more local road feel, 2-lane instead of 4-lane, or a more inspiring architecture such as that new bridge that was just built downeast. And of course most concern centered around not the span itself, but the connections on both ends, which are complicated by the current onramps and offramps, especially to I-295 on the SoPo side, which raises both engineering as well as legal barriers. (They cannot legally allow bikes on shoulders [or lanes] of any interstate onramps or offramps.) MDOT seemed inclined to let the cities work out much of the design on the ends, and we learned that SoPo has already begun talking to an engineering firm about a design study.

Dan Stewart, MDOT Bike/Ped Coordinator, already has some ideas for fitting segregated bike/ped ways into the existing connections. That's in not set in stone, but he will have a lot of input into the process. (I commented that from a transportation standpoint, segegrated paths would not be well-maintained in the winter, so I would still like to see on-road considerations for year-round all-weather usage.) I thought that it was enlightening how many times when a question was asked about bike/ped configurations, they had to turn to Dan to answer it for them. I thought it showed how these considerations are still way behind cars for most of these officials.

Charley LeFlamme (Bicycle Coalition) urged several times to look at existing recent bridges in other areas of the country for bike and ped-friendly designs, rather than reinventing the wheel ourselves.

So the design is still very up in the air, and there is much talk among a number of groups about convening stakeholder groups to create visions and make recommendations. Among the groups represented were the BCM, Portland Trails, South Portland Land Trust, the Portland Bike/Ped Advisory Commitee, and this Meetup (Mark Saurwald, Charlie Thieme, Erik Osborn, Bruce Wallingford [Ernie's Cycle Shop], and me), among other private citizens. I'm sure that some configuration of such groups will form in the next month or two. Any meetings that I learn about I will post to our calendar, and encourage others to notify me if they hear of any.

One of the bigger challenges is that MDOT is really fast-tracking this, since this is now one of their highest priority bridges in the state. They are hoping to have a design in about a year from now, with construction in 2010-11. Less than a year sounds to most of us like a challenging timeframe in which to come up with a vision and influence the design for such a major project that will have long-lasting implications for the region.