I mentioned before that I went on record supporting bicycle lanes and required bike racks at the last public hearing for the proposed Land Development Code for the Heart of Peoria area. I was encouraged to also present my concerns in writing during the public hearing process, so I’ve now done that as well. Here is the text of my letter to the Planning and Zoning commissions:

Please enter this letter into the record at the public hearing on 29 November 2006 identified as “A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY INCLUDING AN ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN, REGULATING PLAN, AND CHARRETTE REPORT FOR THE HEART OF PEORIA PLAN AREA.”

I have two requests for modification to the proposed Land Development Code as outlined below:

1. Include bicycle lanes in examples of street transects.

Section 6.7.1 of the proposed Land Development Code states (emphasis mine), “INTENT: The streets within the Form Districts are intended to balance the needs of all types of traffic—auto, bicycle, and pedestrian—to maximize mobility and convenience for all the citizens and users of the respective districts.” However, in the pages that follow, none of the streetspace examples or specifications show bicycle lanes.

While I recognize that not all urban thoroughfares will include bicycle lanes, such lanes should be incorporated whenever it is feasible to accommodate multimodal travel and ensure the safety of cyclists on busy roadways. Thus, it would be prudent to include in the Land Development Code examples of how bike lanes could be integrated into street design. The following graphics, reprinted from an Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, are provided as examples of what I’m proposing for inclusion:

2. Include bicycle racks in parking requirements for businesses.

Section 6.1.4(F)(8) states that one of the goals of the parking requirements is to “incorporate convenient bicycle parking.” However, sections 6.2 through 6.5 do not specifically require parking facilities for bicycles, such as bike racks. There are many references to “vehicle parking,” but “vehicle” is not defined in section 11, and I would argue that “vehicle” is popularly understood to mean a motorized vehicle, not a bicycle.

Thus, I suggest that in sections 6.2 through 6.5, under each of the Siting requirements, subheading “Garage and Parking,” language be inserted such as “a number of off-street bicycle parking spaces shall be provided equal to the greater of two (2) spaces total or five (5) percent of the automobile parking space requirement.” The numbers and percentages may need to be adjusted; this is just an example of the type of language that would be appropriate to ensure adequate bicycle parking. For an example of bicycle parking requirements in another community, Denver’s regulations can be read on-line at http://massbike.org/bikelaw/~denver.htm.

While I have referenced just the form districts in my letter, I also think it would be a good idea to incorporate these ideas into the entire Heart of Peoria area.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

I’d like to say that I discovered these omissions with my own keen observational skills, but that would be untrue. They were actually brought to my attention by Mahkno and Bernie Goitein (independent of each other), so my thanks to them.

Note: The graphics I included are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication “Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities,” available online here.