Feedback

To make Guilford Avenue safer for Baltimore’s bicyclists, make it better for everyone

“Sharrows” and bike lane can’t make up for vacant houses and deserted streets.

September 1, 2010 at 11:16 am 22

guilford avenue cyclist

A cyclist on Guilford Avenue, a north-south route through Baltimore that the city is encouraging for bike commuting.

Photo by: Fern Shen

  • Story Link
  • 22

Categories

In the urban laboratory that is Baltimore, someone is always taking notice of how we lab rats travel through the maze. How will we react when new objects are placed in our paths or old objects get rearranged?

City planners’ current foremost lab seems to be the north corridor, from downtown to Mount Vernon and Charles Village.

Right now on the urban lab docket, there are streetcars, circulators, a Wal-mart, traffic calming, one versus two-way streets, tearing down the Jones Falls Expressway and much more. And now there is the Guilford Avenue Bike Boulevard, promised in the blog of City Bike Czar Nate Evans, in which he unequivocally states:  “Guilford Avenue (between University Pkwy and Mt. Royal Ave) will be the city’s first bike boulevard.”

Perhaps it is generally obvious that this section of Guilford Avenue is the perfect urban place for bicycles, because of its low traffic volume and general attractiveness. But the Brew’s new bike writer Liam Quigley has scored a bullseye by tapping into the cyclists’ psyche in his very first article (attracting 49 comments at last count!), which demonstrates that, as a group, bike riders have wide-ranging opinions as to what a good bike route should be. And bike riders are just one of the many species out there in the urban laboratory.

We all share the same urban maze

What it all boils down to is this: We all want to be in great urban neighborhoods, bike riders and non-riders alike. Bikers love riding through great neighborhoods. People love living in great neighborhoods. What’s good for the neighbors is good for everyone.

That’s why, even with the alliteration (our Brew Editor loves alliteration!),  “bike boulevard” is not a good name for what we should all be trying to accomplish on Guilford Avenue. The other common euphemism for “bike boulevard” is more useful – “neighborhood greenway.” That puts the focus where it belongs, on making a better neighborhood.

And Guilford Avenue, for all its attractiveness, still has plenty of vacant, boarded-up houses — the primary sign of a failed neighborhood. Property values are simply not high enough to get enough people to invest. (The long-sought Barclay redevelopment could transform the area, but it hasn’t really gotten underway yet.) The people have spoken.

Yes, traffic flow is low and calm, but that’s not enough. Those who say that all any street in Mount Vernon or Charles Village needs to succeed is to tame the traffic are ignoring what has happened on Guilford Avenue. Liam Quigley even found cyclists who believe that the traffic volume is actually too low to be safe – and that there is not enough surveillance of what is happening on the street.

Guilford Avenue between 22nd and 23rd (Photo by Gerald Neily.)

Guilford Avenue between 22nd and 23rd (Photo by Gerald Neily.)

The key to Guilford Avenue’s traffic character is not to be found in the various accoutrements that may or may not comprise a “bike boulevard” – stripes and signs and “sharrows” and humps and circles and islands. To torture our metaphor a bit more, these things are like the treadmills and other obstacles placed in front of lab rats, that each of us deals with differently. But the layout of the maze is still the same.

The biggest obstacle

For bikes, the biggest obstacle has already been dealt with. Bikes are now encouraged to ride through the Department of Education parking lot that interrupts Guilford Avenue for one block, between North Avenue and 20th Street. Yet this parking lot, and the massive building it is attached to, comprise a “superblock” that still interrupts Guilford for all traffic other than bikes.

The superblock also interrupts Guilford Avenue’s north-south orientation, giving it more of an orientation to the east to what, for most people, is considered the “terra incognita” of Greenmount Avenue.

Guilford, looking south, with blocked-off portion near Department of Education shown in purple.

Guilford, looking south. Purple portion near the Department of Education is where the new street would be located (Google Earth.)

Superblocks are notorious for the way they kill activity that would otherwise be generated by urban street grids. Baltimore’s most potent example of this is the role that the Charles Center and Baltimore Arena superblocks played in killing Howard Street. In general, the closer on Guilford Avenue one gets to this Dept. of Education superblock, the more vacant houses and lots there are.

So perhaps the block of Guilford Avenue which does not now exist through the Department of Education parking lot should be completely rebuilt and restored as a street, to fully incorporate Guilford Avenue into the north-south orientation between Charles Village and Mount Vernon. Traffic flow and patterns can still be fine-tuned to the desired effect, with elements such as those being considered for the “bike boulevard.” There is no need to simply let traffic flow unchecked as it does on Calvert, St. Paul and Charles. But at least people would see all these north-south streets in a comparable way.

Guilford Avenue below 29th St. (Photo by Fern Shen)

Guilford Avenue below 29th St. (Photo by Fern Shen)

The most important goal for everyone is to make Guilford Avenue a great neighborhood street, and the real experts in this are the people who live there now, who live with the street every day and who have invested their lives to make the most out of their neighborhood.

If Guilford Avenue is made into a better street for the neighbors, it will be better for everyone.

  • Ari Schenck

    On the whole this is a good perspective, but removing the car obstructing Dept. of Education parking lot is going to instantly make Guilford an attractive north-south arterial route for cars. You'll get speeding insane drivers and the same level of traffic as Calvert/St. Paul/Charles thus removing any possibility of a good, low-traffic bike, pedestrian and neighborhood-friendly route. Put a park in with pedestrian/bike paths, or just take back part of the lot for this purpose –anything, but no cars please.

    • Dukiebiddle

      With all the 4 way stop signs I'm not convinced Guilford would become an attractive north/south arterial. I would much rather share that road with slow moving traffic than with ride down that road with no witnesses completely alone.

      Of course, this is all abstraction, as the Dept. of Education is not going to open up that lane to motor traffic.

      • Chris Merriam

        I agree with you and Gerry about connecting Guilford via the DoE parking lot. For the reasons you mentioned (two-way, full-time parallel parking, narrow lanes), opening Guilford to thru-traffic would not result in speeding, but it would provide another uninterrupted route between University and Downtown, which would result, at the very least, in more witnesses.

  • Dirk

    Atrocious writing, straining for cleverness while offering very little information.

  • Dukiebiddle

    I was pretty vocal in the last thread about my concerns for safety on Guilford for cyclists. My chief concern is that too many resources are being devoted to this single north/south route that has the critical flaw of exasperating Baltimore's most critical safety concern to cyclists, safety from street crime. That isn't to say that I think the concept should be abandoned, only that there is really no need to modify the engineering to make the 'bike boulevard' more official, as it is already exactly what any costly engineering would hope to do, be a place where cyclists can calmly cycle at a slow pace without concern for motorized traffic. More engineering really won't improve that, and it won't make cyclists any safer from street crime. Quite the contrary, actually, because the cyclists will be more exposed and there will be no eyes on the street to protect them.

    Meanwhile, Charles Street, which has what must be a 16 foot wide right lane between North and 29th, is not receiving any improvements, as it seems that it has been decided that all cyclists should accept Guilford, even though there are no witnesses on Guilford to protect cyclists from street crime. This is not to say that Charles Street would guarantee safety, obviously, as recent attacks show; but I don't personally have access to any data that shows that Charles has had more attacks than Guilford. But as long as there are more witnesses, either as pedestrians on the street, drivers of motorized vehicles or cyclists (and the ideal has plenty of all three), like Charles Street, that gives the cyclist the option of more safety through more options. If a cyclist stops at all red lights on a heavily trafficked streets, they will be bunched with motor vehicles waiting at the same light, thereby creating more safety from street crime. Meanwhile, if a group of neerdowells decide to set up a theft trap on Guilford they'll be able to pick off every single cyclist at will. The important thing here is to allow the engineering to give cyclists options so that they can avoid the potential dangers that their urban experience alarms them to.

    I think it's a pretty well established standard that urban bicycle infrastructure needs to go though well trafficked areas. That's especially true in a city with a particularly high street crime rate like Baltimore. It just seems like our Bicycle Master Plan ignores that reality.

    Frankly, the city needs to put a stripe on Charles between North and 29th and stop trying to corral us through empty, gang infested territory. It's fine that Guilford is an option that we cyclists can use when we feel it's safe, but we need to have another option when our urban spidey sense tells us to watch out. One single bike lane on a small stretch of Charles that has a ridiculously wide right hand lane would do that.

    • grenavitar

      Dukie, I take a few issues with how you characterize the situation and characterize the view of the city.

      I think it's misleading to say the city is trying to “corral” cyclists into Guilford. When I get off my train at Penn Station–living on Calvert–I normally take Guilford and often see other riders ahead or behind me.. I also see many riders take Charles and a few on Calvert. In the morning coming down I often see riders on St. Paul and on the few times I take Guilford south I occasionally see other riders. City and state law allows all roads for cyclists and most of the corralling was previously done in the past decades when neighborhood roads were designed to support high volumes at high speeds with minimal respect to bikes and pedestrians. The Guilford design started by Nate Evans is less about corralling and more about giving options. He understands that not everyone likes slow traffic bike boulevards. But he understands some people do. I love Guilford because going up a hill at slow speeds I prefer a low traffic road to a bike lane. But for people like you, it might be good to check out http://charlesstreet.mdprojects.com/ It's at 60% design but it talks about a bike lane on Charles from 26th to University Parkway. Participating in the community forums they're having could help make sure it's acted on. Maybe participation will help get it striped below 26th. Not all resources are being dedicated to Guilford. Guilford is in fact pretty cheap compared to most road projects. And, as you can see from the new striping on St. Paul, the plans for Charles, the restriping of University, that Guilford is not the only road getting attention in the corridor.

      And low traffic areas have little to do with safety. Take Ken Oak Rd. in Mount Washington off of Northern Parkway. It similarly has low traffic and even less density but it's a great place to ride–and I haven't heard anything about bike assaults there. The issue isn't the amount of traffic, it's as Gerald Neilly says, about building better neighborhoods. I understand that there have been issues on Guilford and they should be taken seriously but many riders–myself included–ride it without incident. Traffic engineering is not making Guilford Ave. less safe. Other issues are what make it less safe. I also think that we (commuters from CBD/Universities to more affluent neighborhoods) need to realize that people live here too. I see plenty of resident kids riding bikes on Guilford who might enjoy traffic calming at the few areas of the road where cars often speed and the nice old lady I wave to as she sits on her lawn chair most every day when I pass might like some flowers in the mini-circle. Because one great thing about Guilford is that it's often full of stoop sitters. These stoop sitters are the eyes on the road. I don't think stoop sitters on Guilford could protect me from “gang infested territory” but they can protect me from rogue kids and young adults committing crimes of opportunity.

      And finally, it is INCREDIBLY beautiful to ride up Guilford when the trees over the streets are blooming. It really is an amazing ride in mid Spring.

      • Dukiebiddle

        There is no need for traffic calming on Guilford. What little traffic is already there is already calmed by the stop signs. As for a bike lane from 26th to University: Well with the separated lane between 29th and University what you're talking about there is a three block lane when one is needed between North and 29th. Also, while I think it is great that there as sometimes other visible cyclists on Guilford for an hour or so in the morning and evening, that isn't good enough. Options have to be made available, and yes, I understand experienced cyclists like you and I can choose between Charles, Calvert and Guilford, but the purpose of bicycle infrastructure is to improve road access to cyclists who are more risk averse. Riding through BGF territory is not for the risk averse. Frankly, I'm not too concerned with your issue with my characterization of the city. I'm certainly not going on some Baltimore Sun comment thread style screed. I'm addressing the very real and quite genuine dangers of street attacks in this city that are frequent to pedestrians and cyclists in the zone between Midtown/Belvedere and Charles Village. Of the three routes in question which one poses the greatest threat to cyclists to street attacks? Personally, I think the answer is pretty obvious. This, of course could be cleared up very quickly if the assault data was made public.

        • grenavitar

          Cyclists are legally required to stop at stop signs. Unless the Idaho stop is implemented then legal cycling on Guilford would be a nightmare. The project is two fold:
          1) keeping (or improving) the traffic calmed nature of Guilford while removing obstacles stop signs which slow down cyclists (hence minicircles/humps).
          2) providing better markings so that cyclists know it is an option for those who do not want to drive with speeding cars.
          With the caveat of it running through some sketchy areas, Guilford is the only possibility for a traffic calmed North-South route and that's why it's being marked.

          26th to University is 9 blocks and a mile of bike lane. It's not a ton but it's a start–especially if it's good, well protected, well paved, and easy to ride on bike lanes.

          I would not describe your writing as “screed” and didn't imply it. I merely meant to have a discussion on this… discussion board. You are addressing important issues but I am defending the improvement of a facility which I use. I do not seek to eliminate funding for other roads and would love to see a dedicated North-South buffered bike lane. I just don't think it needs to be either-or.

          I also think it's important to emphasize the cost of bike lanes. Adding a painted/thermoplasted bike lane to a road which is being repaved has negligible affect on the cost of the project. A lot of when and why bike facilities are put in is related to when roads are scheduled to be repaved. St. Paul just happened and got bike facilities for a small portion. Charles is next. Calvert will come soon. Guilford is being done as a bike boulevard because it's not a project that involves much striping, only sharrows, so it doesn't need to be coordinated with a repave (except for around 22nd where it gets bad). It's also a good idea to attend MBAC and the local planning meetings. We need all the help we can get so that there are a variety of good facilities. I look forward to a day when we have the Jones Falls Trail, buffered bike lane on Charles, and (a safer) Guilford.

          • Dukiebiddle

            I'm not opposed to the infrastructure improvements on Guilford from a position of waste. My concern is that the focus has been prioritizing Guilford, even though it is an expensive venture, even though the motorist modal share is so low and so rare that motorist constitute absolutely no danger to cyclists in the zone in question, and all this while Charles is slowly being repaved WITHOUT bike lanes, apparently because contracts were already written or something. That sounds to me like prioritization is being led by the path of least resistance. I'm really sure why the necessary funding is not being allocated bike lanes in more visible areas or why modifying the contracts is not pursued. It's great and all that a bike lane is being added between 26th and University, but the zone between 26th and University is already safe on Maryland, Charles, St. Paul, Calvert and Guilford. That isn't the zone in question. The danger, the problem, is all south of 26th and north of North Avenue, and the closer you get to Greenmount the greater that danger becomes.

            As for the 4-way stops and Idaho stops, I ride between 75 and 130 city miles every week, I manage to stop at every stop sign (down to half a mile an hour, never put a foot down, a virtual stop – which is far closer to stopping than that practiced by 99% of motorists), and it is not a nightmare. Yes, I understand that Idaho stopping is perfectly safe, and I also know that it will be impossible to pass such legislation outside of Idaho. Stopping at stop signs is not the hardship that we bicyclists sometimes like to pretend it is. But if they want to put up signs that say “Except for Bicyclists” under the stop signs they should go right ahead, although it will not do anything to help with bicyclist safety, which brings us right back to the issue of prioritization. Why are DOT bicycle infrastructure funds not being spent on infrastructure that makes cyclists safer?

          • grenavitar

            On Charles south of North and I think North to 25th you can't build a bike lane and keep the number of car lanes. Not that I wouldn't love a full sized, safe bike lane there but I don't think that's something that will happen without more cyclists and a sustained campaign. Although, I think something like these sharrows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USKQUbFbYqg) would be really interesting for Charles leading into a buffered bike lane north of 25th. But my point is that the lack of bike lanes south of North on Charles is less funding related than it not having enough support (or outright opposition). Because downtown is more dense the fight for space is more fierce since it actually means taking space from cars for a dedicated lane. I wouldn't consider Guilford to be a priority over major N-S bike lanes, it's mostly an issue of timing and little to no opposition.

            And that leads us into what what is DOT prioritizing. I don't really think you can know since there are so many actors. You have city planners who are hopefully working with the city's bike-ped planner who are then hopefully transmitting good plans to DOT which will get around to doing the project on their schedule. These projects are being funded out of a variety of local, state, and federal funds which all have different requirements such as maybe having to fully follow the MUTCD which determines the width requirements for lanes, etc. The MUTCD until pretty recently was way behind on its bicycle facilities until recently which made it difficult for planners to incorporate certain aspects if they had to follow the MUTCD (which is why Baltimore trying to also follow NACTO guidelines for bike facilities could be nice). And sometimes the bike-ped planner has to make sure that their plans are implemented by the road crews. Not to mention that there are not “bicycle infrastructure funds” (unless I've very mistaken). There are different pots of money and some like TE funds or STP funds can be used for bike lanes, but that requires a political consensus at DOT (city, state, and to a lesser extent fed) that that should be done. Groups like One Less Car exist to try to push more funding towards bikes.

            One thing re: safety. One of my major concerns is having _good_ bike lanes. I'm not a fan of the bike lanes next to the taxi stand outside Penn Station on St. Paul. I much prefer riding on St. Paul in my own lane of traffic taking the lane. Most bike lanes should be buffered and while some definitely increase safety, some make riding worse (although this is often an issue of enforcement).

          • Dukiebiddle

            There's plenty of room for a bike lane without reducing motor vehicle lanes between Lafayette and 29th, but apparently the repaving and painting contracts were already written and couldn't be modified for some clerical reason. So now we won't see much needed infrastructure on Charles for at least a decade. The road that is too narrow for infrastructure is Calvert, which is a great option for those of us confident enough to bypass bicycle infrastructure. Although I hear there is a possibility of cycle track on Maryland. If such a cycle track is 2 way that could solve the problem. If it only heads south we're pretty much stuck in same problem with northern routes.

            Bike lanes really aren't for those of us willing to ride in traffic with cars. We're already doing it. Their intent is to make cycling more accessible to the risk averse: older citizens, women, mothers with children… as once you make attract the risk averse you overcome the greatest modal hurdle. We can all sing the praises of Dutch standard bicycle infrastructure until we're horse and we won't begin to see it for many many years, if at all. While a bike boulevard certainly has appeal to a city like Portland, that is not riddled with huge swaths of crippling poverty and the resultant social dysfunction, but Baltimore does have that social dysfunction. And as the author of this Brew post is pointing out, if you reduce the motor vehicle traffic even further on Guilford you run the very real risk of making a dangerous area even more dangerous, as motor vehicle traffic that is on Guilford now does not pose a significant threat to cyclists, while the street crime does.

            Yes during rush hour cyclist feel safe riding through the worst part of Guilford, and that's great. It reminds me of all the suburban commuters driving through the worst part of Bel Air Rd. during rush hour. It's still reflective of a crippling infrastructure problem that there is no option in the north/south corridor for the risk averse that does not put them in greater danger during the non-rush hours.

  • PKG

    Good points about the superblock. That parking lot needs to go. I generally skip that part of Guilford in favor of Maryland Ave anyways due to the safety issues, but riding through that parking lot sucks too.

  • http://twitter.com/ecogordo Gordon Steen

    Guilford Ave has the potential to be the best street in Baltimore by transforming it into a bike greenway. Just look what bikes have done for Portland, OR. The DOE parking lot helps by reducing car traffic. Once the greenway is in place, my guess is more of those empty buildings will be rejuvenated.

    • Dukiebiddle

      An important thing to remember is that Baltimore is not Portland.

      • JohnS

        Yeah, but it could be more like Portland. And for a few blocks on Guilford, it's like Portland, at least with respect to safe cycling.

        • Dukiebiddle

          Except it isn't actually safe, AT ALL. Sure, it is safer from the threats posed by motor vehicle traffic, but motor vehicle traffic is not the greater danger to cyclists and pedestrians in the zone in question. In the past few months, how many pedestrians have been stabbed and robbed in the area between Mt. Royal and 27th street? How many cyclist have been assaulted and robbed? Conversely, how many cyclists have been struck by motor vehicles within that zone in the same period of time? The assaults are the greater danger.

          • curtbikes

            I bike from inner harbor up calvert to work in am and back down st paul at 730pm. I ride these streets because they are well travelled, and there are stores and businesses along the way. One time I popped off of calvert st after north ave onto guilford at 645 am and was chased by a dude in a karate uniform and bare feet. I don't pop off the main drag anymore. I would rather be hit by a car door or a car than be jumped or stabbed. If the traffic gets too bad on the main drag I would rather get off and walk on the sidewalk next to the main drag than go into untravelled areas.
            We need good separated bike boulevards on well travelled roads – one going east west and one going north south – for starters. There should have been a dedicated bike path all around the inner harbor. Think of the attraction of that for baltimore as a living and touring destination.
            The ongoing crime on my commuting route concerns me. I always have worn a large kryptonite chain across my chest when I ride . This seems to intimidate some people, although I originally bought it to deter theft. Now I also watch out for groups of adults, couples, and groups of kids who might be up to no good. I try to keep an extra protective eye out for other travellers on their way. I went by one police car once the other day – that was nice. Perhaps there are more undercover police we don't see.

  • http://blog.cyclosity.com/ Liam

    In other cities, blocks where car access is cut off and bikes are allowed through is a big selling point of the bike boulevard idea. Interesting that it might be a reason for a similar project being less successful in Baltimore.

  • UB Biker

    I think the Guilford bike boulevard is a great idea. I am a UB student who lives in Hampden, and so I often take a North route home along either Charles, Calvert, or Guilford. Each street has its pros & cons. Charles is busier but widens nicely north of 25th for a biker, Calvert has less traffic but remains relatively narrow (with parked cars), and Guilford has no traffic but there are slightly higher safety concerns.

    I typically take Calvert up to 25th, then cut west to Charles to take advantage of the wider street. However, once the bike boulevard is built on Guilford, I will take that exclusively so that I no longer have to deal with car traffic. That advantage overtakes my safety concerns.

    Re: the comment that the Guilford stretch has lots of stop signs, we all know that most city bikers observe the Idaho stop sign rule, even if it's not the law, so the stop signs are a minimal detraction.

    • Dukiebiddle

      The 4 way stop signs are an arterial deterrent to motor vehicle drivers, not necessarily cyclists. Guilford would not become an arterial for motor vehicle drivers, even if the Board of Ed. parking lot was opened to vehicular traffic because of all the stop signs.

  • Liam

    Editors :

    What happened to disqus? Technical issues? The implementation seemed pretty successful and it sucks to have to login again.

  • Killian

    I'm a 20 something student who lives on 22nd and guilford(you can actually see my car in the one picture). I ride my bike everyday on Guilford, and at any given time. In my travels safety has been a problem, but honestly I'm never bothered on my bicycle. Most days people compliment me on my bike/maybe I'll have a conversation with someone in the neighborhood. There have been instances where I've been threatened, but I was on a bike! I just rode away a lot quicker/dodged harm's way. The worst part about riding on Guilford is how poor the condition of the street is. It is supremely awful. A good repaving is what it needs. Maybe since I live in the neighborhood, and most people recognize me I don't get bothered as much. I really can't be sure. I love Guilford Ave.

The Daily Drip

More of the Daily Drip »

Below the Fold

  • January 27, 2012

    • Catching up on a slew of interesting things to do and read this weekend that we almost lost track of in the Kickstarter hub-bub. Here are just a few: SATURDAY (1/28/12) New Mercury Non-fiction Reading – Check out tell-it-like-it-is education blogger Edit Barry (see below) and a pack of other feisty non-fictional characters from the [...]

Twitter

Facebook