What I Learned at the Bike ABQ “Meet & Greet”

By Scot

As mentioned earlier this week, I made a rare public excursion from the BB Cave and mingled with quite a few folks who were kind enough to show up for the Bike ABQ “Meet & Greet” this past Tuesday.

While turnout wasn’t quite as high as the first such event some months back, City, County, and State staff were on-hand, and it was a great chance to directly find answers to a laundry list of cycling/walking infrastructure questions. What I heard was overwhelmingly positive, and it’s clear that the atmosphere for making our roads less car-centric is becoming less and less cloudy.

I’ll pass along a few things which illustrate this condition of metaphorical sky, while leaving out a few others I don’t want to jinx.

  • The new long-range 2045 bikeways plan (sorry, no link) includes changes that proscribe making Copper/Campus a bike boulevard all the way from the current segment of Fair Heights Bike Boulevard (Copper& Monroe) to the University of New Mexico campus.
  • The long-awaited revision to that guiding document for how roads are constructed, the Development Policy Manual (DPM), is nearing final approval. Below is a look at the current draft requirements for “roadway elements.” To use a really hackneyed idiom, the DPM is where the “rubber hits the road,” and the specificity contained here is of utmost importance in how our streets look. While still in draft form prior to final approval, the general consensus is that the new DPM is a much more “Complete Streets” compliant guiding document. You can see other chapters in draft form here.

DPM Draft

  • Long-serving Director of Traffic Engineering John Kolesar has left that position (via retirement, IIRC) and that’s generally seen as a very hopeful sign toward less car-centric roadway planning and implementation from the Department in coming days. No news on who the new Director is, an understandably widespread condition given the change in City Administration. Note, for example, the vacant positions on the DPM Executive Committee.
  • Those eagerly awaiting new striping jobs around town (Scot shyly raises his hand here), such as Girard between Lomas and Indian School, need to know that those jobs are delayed due to the need for warmer temps before thermoplastic striping adheres properly to the road surface. I recall something about it needing to be 45 degrees, but my memory is awful and I can’t recall whether than meant the lows had to be 45 or higher, or what.

There’s more, but as I mentioned above, I don’t want to jinx anything. Regarding improvements, both those mentioned here and those not, what is eminently clear is that continued public involvement (that means YOU) is having an effect on how our local roadways are being planned and built.

Keep up the good work, citizens. Thanks also to all City/County/State staffers who attended, and your role in making Burque Better.

2 thoughts on “What I Learned at the Bike ABQ “Meet & Greet”

  1. With regards to DPM, has GABAC and the various bicycle advocacy organizations been part of the update and review process? In other words, has there been a legitimate seat at the table for bicycle and pedestrian interests that forms the “general consensus”?

    It’s great to finally see some consideration of more definitive striping detail, especially at driveways. I looked around could not find any detail on parking striping (perceived bike lanes) which has lead to a lot of confusion/ambiguity for both cyclists and MV operators (as well as decision makers). Any insights? It would be a great safety improvement to see reference to MUTCD parking striping schema in section 3.5, Bicycle Route Design.

    Like

  2. Dear SMH: Regarding your question “With regards to DPM, has GABAC and the various bicycle advocacy organizations been part of the update and review process? In other words, has there been a legitimate seat at the table for bicycle and pedestrian interests that forms the “general consensus”?”

    Fortunately, yes there has. A bit remarkable actually. A few of us sat down to add input at meeting a few months back, and while one/many might argue that I/others aren’t broad or consensus enough, I feel it was an inclusive setting and one that helped include bicycle and pedestrian interests into the new DPM.

    Thanks for asking…it’s an important topic and question. – Scot

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s