Public Open House – Non-Motorized Planning Session

Saturday, March 10th, 2012 from noon to 2pm

Milford Senior Center, 1050 Atlantic Street

Milford Township would like your input! The Township adopted a resolution supporting Complete Streets in February 2011. A “complete street” is safe, accessible and convenient for all users regardless of transportation mode, age, or physical ability. The Planning Commission is looking to document where you think improvements are needed to provide safe facilities for non-motorized users. Maps of the community will be available and staff will be on hand to talk about non-motorized issues and mark up maps with your ideas to pass along to the Planning Commission.

• Where should sidewalks or paves shoulders be provided?
• Should additional trails be built?
• Are there areas that are unsafe for pedestrians or cyclists?
• What non-motorized improvements should be a priority?

The session will be set up as an Open House, so no need to commit to the whole 2 hour time slot – just stay to give your input and mark up the maps. If you have ideas and suggestions, but can’t make it to the Open House, please email your comments to Don Green, Township Supervisor at supervisor@milfordtownship.com or call 248.685.8731.

Related Posts

• Milford Township and Complete Streets
• Hamtramck supports Complete Streets
• South Oakland County communities in the news

According to the Spinal Column:

Milford Township Planning Commission members are reviewing design features as part of the township’s “complete streets” policy to make streets more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists.

This comes after the commission passed a complete streets policy resolution in January, which was then adopted by the Milford Township Board of Trustees in February.

The policy allows the Planning Commission to review all street plans to ensure all public and private street projects, including reconstruction, are built to follow the guidelines of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials to accommodate all users of the rights-of-way or private road easements.

“This allows the township to be more involved in street improvements with help from the county and state planning process,” said Milford Township Building Official Timothy Brandt.

The Township is also looking to “adopt a non-motorized transportation network plan.”

What’s interesting about this development is Michigan townships generally aren’t in the road business. They don’t receive state or federal road funds. They typically rely on their county or county road commission for road design, construction, and maintenance.

And to date, the Road Commission for Oakland County does not support Complete Street designs. How this gets resolved given the Township’s resolution remains to be seen.

One interesting note: the newest Road Commissioner for Oakland County is from Milford. From what we hear, he gets Complete Streets and might help push the organization forward.

An unnecessary exception?

Below is the Milford Township Complete Streets resolution, which includes this interesting exception:

Where non-motorized network improvements are contrary to the community’s intent to preserve areas having or perceived to have a low density pattern of development, being generally void of man-made improvements such as paved roadways, and exhibiting open Fields, farmland or woodlands as common elements of the visual landscape; and,

To us, this looks like unnecessary. Complete Streets are context sensitive. There is no singular design. Low density communities have designs that make sense for that area. Complete Streets are not incompatible with low density development nor open space preservation.

Perhaps this was added to allay fears that it would lead to paving roads and removing roadside trees for sidewalks.

And the Village of Milford?

Milford Township and the Village share the same planner, who has offered to help the Village with a Complete Streets policy. Tow Village Planning Commissioners attended a Complete Streets introduction last fall and “found it to be very informative” but that’s all we know.

Charter Township of Milford
Oakland County, Michigan
Resolution No.:
Resolution to Adopt a Complete Streets Policy

At a regular meeting of the Charter Township of Milford Board held on 2011 at which a quorum of the Board was present, the following preamble and

Resolution was offered by and supported by

WHEREAS a complete street is a safe, accessible, and convenient street for all users regardless of transportation mode, age, or physical ability; and

WHEREAS research has demonstrated that complete streets offer many benefits to communities, regardless of their size and location, including improving public safety and air quality, relieving congestion, fostering livable communities, and bolstering economic growth; and

WHEREAS Michigan recently became the 14U| slate to adopt complete streets legislation by signing into law Public Act 135, which amends Public Act 51 of 1951 governing the expenditure of state transportation funding, and Public Act 134 which amends the Michigan Planning Enabling Act; and,

WHEREAS PA 135 stipulates that before a city, village or township approves any project that affects a roadway or transportation facility under the jurisdiction of another agency, it shall consult with that agency and agree on how to address the respective complete streets policies before approving a non-motorized project affecting a transportation facility whether it is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), or under the jurisdiction of the county or another municipality; and

WHEREAS PA 135 further stipulates that before MDOT submits its multiyear capital plan to the state transportation commission or a county road agency approves its multi-year capital plan, for any project that affects a roadway or transportation facility within or under the jurisdiction of a city, village, or township, the MDOT or county road agency shall consult with the affected city, village or township and agree on how to address the respective complete streets policies; and

WHEREAS the aforementioned consultation requirements do not apply if neither the agency proposing the projecl nor the affected agency has a complete streets policy; and

WHEREAS the Milford Township Planning Commission previously articulated their support for complete street initiatives or projects through the adoption of the Milford Community Master Plan on February 26, 2009;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system located within the Charier Township of Milford and to promote the health and economic opportunities of its residents and visitors, it is the policy of the Township to encourage “complete streets” and, in furtherance of that policy,

IT IS ALSO RESOLVED until such time the Charter Township of Milford may adopt a non-motorized transportation network plan, the Township Planning Commission shall review all street plans to ensure all public and private street projects, including reconstruction projects, are built using guidance from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines and AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials) standards to safely accommodate all users of the right-of-way or private road casement, including pedestrians, people requiring mobility aids, bicyclists, skateboarders, and drivers and passengers of transit vehicles, trucks, automobiles and motorcycles, with [he following exceptions:

• Where their establishment would be contrary to public health and safety or would otherwise be prohibited;
• When the cost would be excessively disproportionate to its need or probable use, or burdensome to total infrastructure cost associated with the project;
• Where the length of the project does not permit a meaningful addition to the nonmotorized network;
• Where the provision of non-motorized facilities is environmentally unfeasible due to natural resource constraints;
• Where non-motorized network improvements are contrary to the community’s intent to preserve areas having or perceived to have a low density pattern of development, being generally void of man-made improvements such as paved roadways, and exhibiting open Fields, farmland or woodlands as common elements of the visual landscape; and,
• Where reconstruction of the right-of-way is due to an emergency.

Resolution Adopted

Related Posts

• Milford Twp: Non-motorized planning session this Saturday
• Transportation key to young staying in Michigan
• ACTION ALERT: Oakland County Complete Streets

The Milford Village Council at its Tuesday, Sept. 7 meeting received a presentation from the Milford Downtown Development Authority (DDA) regarding possible “sharrow” lanes for bicycles in the village.

A “sharrow” is a specific on-pavement lane marking that identifies that bicycles and cars share the same lane. They are currently in place in sections of the state, including Ann Arbor, South Haven and Flint.

The DDA is recommending installing sharrows on the major connectors in the DDA district, including along General Motors Road, Milford Road, Main Street and Commerce.

Sharrows are a great, low-cost solution in many cases, especially where there is no parking and widening a road for bike lanes is too expensive. Bike lanes and/or sharrows are a much better, safer alternative to the side paths that had been proposed earlier this year in Milford.

At a recent MDOT meeting, some staff were unaware of sharrows, but were willing to look into their possible implementation on a state trunkline in Detroit. In this case the sharrows would provide bike lane continuity on short sections of road where there is inadequate road width for bike lanes.

Related Posts

• Building community in Detroit with bicycles
• Metro Detroit Trail Updates for August 2010
• MDOT announces grants for local trails

MDOT and the city of Pontiac are hosting a groundbreaking ceremony for the new trail bridge over Telegraph. The ceremony is August 12th at 10AM on the eastern edge of the bridge near Old Telegraph.

This bridge will connect two important pieces of the Clinton River Trail that are currently very difficult to connect using surface streets. A rendering of the bridge is shown on the right. This project is being funded primarily with ARRA (a.k.a. stimulus) money. The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund is also contributing.

This still leaves one major gap in the Clinton River Trail for Pontiac: from Bagley Street west of Downtown to the Auburn Hills border at Opdyke.

We are clearly ignoring the trail’s improper signed routing of the Clinton River Trail through Downtown Pontiac on sidewalks. Yes, a newly signed bicycle route on sidewalks.

We’re not sure how such obvious mistake could have been funded by MDOT given the AASHTO bicycle guidelines clear instructions against it — especially within a central business district. It’s unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians.

Macomb Orchard Trail: More Asphalt

The Detroit News is reporting that nine more miles of the Macomb Orchard Trail will be paved.

Officials recently authorized the county to seek a low-interest loan to pay for paving those parts of the trail.

“We’ve already submitted our application and it’s being reviewed,” said Bob Hoepfner, the county’s chief highway engineer. “Hopefully we’ll know if it’s approved in about a month. We’d like to get it paved this year if we can.”

There were many complaints about the existing pea gravel surface, so this is certainly good news for cyclists and pedestrians.

Milford Village: Seeking Sidepaths

Another Oakland County government with its DDA was looking to build a side paths for bicyclists (calling them “safety” paths) in spite of the AASHTO bicycle guidelines against it. This sidepath would include 18 intersections in less than one-third of a mile: 2 sidewalks, 3 roads, and 13 residential driveways.

“We asked how can we do this economically,” [Village Manager Arthur] Shufflebarger said. “The DDA went through the options, and said this one was the least expensive.”

They apparently didn’t go through the AASHTO bicycle design guidelines for options. The least expensive option would be an safe, on-road connection.

That said, the?sidepath project was stopped within the same month due to other reasons.

I-275 Metro Trail: Open House

MDOT is scheduling another 5.5 miles of trail reconstruction along I-275 for next spring. This includes rehabilitating “six bridges and two boardwalks, install a pedestrian signal at Ecorse Road and upgrade signs.”

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is hosting an open house-style meeting to provide an overview on the 2011 construction work on the I-275 Metro Trail in Wayne County. The project includes reconstruction of the bike path between US-12 (Michigan Avenue) and I-94. Interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to learn details and provide feedback regarding this project.

The open house is August 10th, from 5pm until 7pm at the Fellows Creek Golf Club (2936 South Lotz Road in Canton.)

Related Posts

• Metro Detroit trail construction updates
• Our Economic Stimulus Bike Projects
• Trust Fund Grants for Metro Detroit

Apparently they are only follow the same rules set forth by the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority.

Whenever a usable and designated path has been provided near a roadway, cyclists, hikers, joggers, runners and in-line skaters shall use that path and shall not use the roadway. However, the speed limit on the hike-bike trails is 10 miles per hour, so cyclists riding at faster speeds shall use the roadway.

It’s doubtful many people will observe 10 MPH limit since it’s unreasonably low and many bicycles don’t have speedometers.

So what is the better answer?

It’s probably to not set a speed limit at all. The trail signs would require bicyclists to yield to pedestrians, stay to the right, and avoid recklessness. That should cover everything.

Besides, the trail should meet the AASHTO standards which calls for a minimum design speed of 20 MPH.

Shared use paths should be designed for a selected speed that is at least as high as the preferred speed of the faster bicyclists. In general, a minimum design speed of 20 MPH should be used. Although bicyclists can travel faster that this, to do so would be inappropriate in a mixed-use setting. Design and traffic controls can be used to deter excessive speed and faster cyclists can be encouraged to use the roadway system. Lower design speeds should not be selected to artificially lower user speeds. When a downgrade exceeds 4%, or where strong prevailing tailwinds exist, a design speed of 30 MPH or more is advisable.

If the trail is designed for safe travel at 20 MPH then it doesn’t make sense posting a speed limit at half that.

Related Posts

• Milford Twp: Non-motorized planning session this Saturday
• Milford Township and Complete Streets
• Detroit RiverWalk expansion and nudging the HCMA

The reason we didn’t list any weird west side rules is because we hadn’t looked there.

So, in order to be balanced, here are some more true or false questions:

1. You cannot sell ice cream from your bike in West Bloomfield
2. It’s illegal to drive into Kensington Metropark with your bicycle on a rack.
3. Plymouth police can impound residents’ unlicensed bicycles and it costs $3 to get them back.
4. It is illegal to use a child trailer on your bike in Northville.

Again, all are unbelievably true.

1. West Bloomfield prohibits ice cream sales from bicycle because it’s “a necessary police measure for the prevention of traffic accidents and personal injuries in the streets of the township.” Selling ice cream from a truck is no problem because they’re less likely to cause accidents and personal injuries. R-i-g-h-t!

West Bloomfield also prohibits the sale of ice cream that is “unsound, unwholesome, defective, faulty or deteriorated.”

2. We’ve discussed this really wacky Milford Township ordinance before. They also require you to wear a bicycle helmet, but only on the Kensington bike paths that are paved and 10 feet wide.

3. Plymouth also has a mandatory sidepath ordinance which needs to be taken off the books. Cyclists shouldn’t be forced to use sidewalks, especially when they are the less safe option.

4. Northville prohibts attaching wagons or other vehicles to bikes. They probably meant to prohibit kids from attaching Red Flyers to their Schwinns, but the ordinance is overly broad.

In the prior entry, Jeremiah Staes noted that many of these are probably unenforceable. In other words, even if a police officer wrote a ticket, it’s likely a judge would dismiss it. That doesn’t mean bicycle advocates shouldn’t try to get these fixed or better yet removed from the books.

Staes also made an insightful comment that this shows how Michigan’s strong Home Rule is a detriment. Ideally each city, village, and township couldn’t tweak the laws with respect to cycling. Unfortunately state law allows it. The county government has not shown leadership on issue and the result is a hodge podge mess.

And this applies not only to each cities ordinances but their policies on accomodating bicycles. If we could get just a couple local governments to accomodate bicycles each year, it’ll still take decades to get everyone straightened out. But again, Oakland County has been unwilling to lead on this issue which makes the bicycle advocacy effort just that much more difficult.

Related Posts

• Major Detroit trail and park grants get the nod
• Detroit bike shorts: Suburban updates
• Complete Streets: a bitter pill for the Road Commission

Milford Township regulates activities at Kensington Metropark through their ordinances. Besides requiring bicycle helmets only on the paved bike path, they have an ordinance that regulates the possession of bicycles within the park.

You basically cannot possess a bicycle within the park unless you’re riding it on the road or bike path.

The ordinance prohibits people from driving to the park with bicycles on their car. It’s not clear if you’re violating the ordinance when you stop riding your bicycle.

But as poorly written as this ordinance is, it probably isn’t legal under state law. Townships can only regulate the “licensing and use of bicycles” not their transport.

Sec. 20-147. Off-the-road vehicles and motor-driven cycles.
No person shall operate or have in his possession, within the boundaries of the Kensington Metropolitan Park, any bicycle or off-the-road motor-driven vehicle, including by way of example but not by way of limitation, any minibike, moped, motorcycle, dunemobile, snowmobile, converted snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, amphibious vehicle or similar motorized device; provided that bicycles, motorcycles and other motor-driven vehicles lawful for operation under the Uniform Traffic Code may be used to provide transportation to the park if promptly parked in a designed parking lot upon arrival or if operated on the surfaced area of a roadway excluding any roadway posted for use of authorized vehicles only; and provided, further, that bicycles may be used on designated bicycle paths.
(Code 1992, 12-139; Ord. No. 107, 9, 5-9-1972; Ord. No. 107-A1, 10, 5-21-1986)

Related Posts

• More ridiculous rules of the road
• Evaluating the Health Benefit of Bicycle Helmet Laws
• Trust Fund Grants for Metro Detroit

An interesting study was released last month which models the health benefits of Australia’s mandatory bicycle helmet law.

The bottom line: Australia’s mandatory bicycle helmet law has adversely affected overall health.

A model is developed which permits the quantitative evaluation of the benefit of bicycle helmet laws. The efficacy of the law is evaluated in terms of the percentage drop in bicycling, the percentage increase in the cost of an accident when not wearing a helmet, and a quantity here called the “bicycling beta.” The approach balances the health benefits of increased safety against the health costs due to decreased cycling.

Using estimates suggested in the literature of the health benefits of cycling, accident rates and reductions in cycling, suggest helmets laws are counterproductive in terms of net health. The model serves to focus the bicycle helmet law debate on overall health as function of key parameters: cycle use, accident rates, helmet protection rates, exercise and environmental benefits.

This study also estimated the health impact of a mandatory U.S. helmet law would cost approximately $5 billion per year.

The idea of a Michigan state law requiring bicycle helmets came up during a 2004 Senate hearing while we were updating Michigan’s bicycle laws. I noted that helmets use should be voluntary. The kid that rides his bike with or without a helmet is far healthier than the kid that doesn’t ride a bike at all. We shouldn’t throw up barriers to having more kids riding bicycles.

Fortunately Michigan does not have a mandatory bicycle helmet law, but some Michigan communities do:

• Adrian (under 15)
• E. Grand Rapids (under 18)
• Farmington Hills (under 16)
• Kensington Metropark (all ages)

Among these, the Kensington helmet requirement is quirky.

The Metroparks don’t require helmets. Milford Township has an ordinance that applies to bicyclists only at Kensington while riding on the paved trail where it’s 10 feet wide. And the helmet must meet the ANSI standard, eventhough there was no ANSI helmet standard from 1998 through 2003.

It appears you do not need to wear a helmet while bicycling on the roads or any unpaved designated bike trails at Kensington.

Related Posts

• Breaking the law at Kensington Metropark
• Trust Fund Grants for Metro Detroit
• Milford Continues on the Right Path

Proposed trail bridge over Telegraph Road in Pontiac

The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) Board has recommended funding for 81 recreation projects and land acquisitions totaling $48.5 million be funded for 2008.

This was the most ever awarded for Trust Fund grants.  This is due to the higher prices paid for mineral (including oil & gas) leases on state property.

“Michigan is blessed with natural resources and special places that should be protected and enjoyed for generations to come,” said Governor Granholm. “These recommendations represent ways that we can ensure that Michigan citizens and visitors will be able to enjoy outdoor recreation now and in the future.”

A Threat to the Trust Fund

The Trust Fund is set up so that it can continue to fund recreation projects and land acquisition projects after the gas and oil run out.  That’s not the threat.

The threat is the Transportation Funding Task Force who recently recommended that the Trust Fund monies be diverted into the transportation budget.  As a whole, this was perhaps their only out-of-the-box recommendation yet it only shows how out-of-touch they are with reality.

Fortunately in 1985 Michigan voters put the Trust Fund in the state constitution to protect it from bad ideas such as this.

In the words of Dennis Muchmore, the MUCC Executive Director, “Raiding the Trust Fund would be an outrageous and unwarranted attempt to circumvent the public will.”

2008 Recommended Grants – Recreation Projects

Clinton River Trail Bridge (Pontiac), $485,000. This project will construct a new pedestrian bridge, approach and ramps over Telegraph Road.  This is absolutely huge and it almost didn’t make the cut.  This is only partial funding.  Additional grant money will be required.

Bell Creek Park Non-Motorized Trailway (Redford), $450,000. This project includes development of 600 feet of elevated boardwalk across a floodplain of the Bell Branch of the Rouge River, connecting two sidewalk ends. A 75-foot long bicycle/pedestrian bridge will span the river.

Kensington Metropark-Milford Trail Connector, $315,000. The project would include 1.2 miles of paved trail from the Kensington Metropark loop trail to the Milford-Kensington Trail (at the Dairy Queen.)

2008 Recommended Grants – Land Acquisitions

DNR  Southeast Lower Peninsula Land Consolidation, $4 million. This project will acquire various properties within Southeast Michigan, but especially private land within our state parks.

Academy Preserve Acquisition (Monroe), $2,192,500. This project will acquire approximately 128 acres of open space in the City of Monroe with a portion of Frenchtown Township. The site includes an oak savannah, oak-hickory forest, lowland forest, farmland and a forested island in the River Raisin.  There you go, Erie Hiker!

Michigan Air-Line Railway (West Bloomfield), $1,452,500. This project will acquire approximately 17 acres, or 2.5 miles, of railway corridor that connects the existing West Bloomfield trail west to Haggery Road.  This is great news for a trail project we discussed earlier.

Related Posts

• Metro Detroit Trail Updates for August 2010
• Commerce rail-trail section gets critical funding
• Metro Detroit Trails in the Media

Riding the Milford Trail (Photo by Bill Herman)

Milford is continuing to push ahead as a major regional outdoor recreational center.  They are combining the quaint, authentic small downtown atmosphere with biking, walking, and equestrian trails as well as the Huron River.

Milford is surrounded by the nearby Milford mountain bike trail, Highland State Recreation Area, Proud Lake State Recreation Area, Island Lake State Recreation Area, Kensington Metropark.

And to sweeten the attraction, they’re working to connect all the trails to the Village.  The Huron Valley Trail and Lakes Community Trail are both nearby.

The latest progress is on the 3-mile trail connecting Kensington to the Village.  Currently under construction, it’s expected to be completed by next Memorial Day.

The Detroit News recently covered this new trail construction.  Note that the article photos were taken by longtime mountain biker Bryan Mitchell.

Detroit News:  Workers blazing a trail for biking, walking, fun

Related Posts

• MDOT announces grants for local trails
• Breaking the law at Kensington Metropark
• Evaluating the Health Benefit of Bicycle Helmet Laws