Transportation Advisory Committee – Oct. 17, 2024: Active Transportation Plan – Draft Plan Document, Appendix 4: Public Comments

Summary of Public Comments

Positive Themed Comments:

1. Support for Active Transportation Plan:
   • Plan Endorsement: Strong endorsement of the plan’s goals, particularly the emphasis on infrastructure connectivity and consistency. Recognition of the plan’s potential to improve safety and encourage active transportation. Appreciation for the inclusion of local biking organizations in discussions.
   • Bike Lane Connectivity: Positive feedback on plans to improve connectivity between bike lanes and trails, such as the Pinecreek Trail and connections between Cascade and Manitou Springs.
   • On-Street Bike Infrastructure: Appreciation for the emphasis on on-street bike infrastructure and the inclusion of NACTO recommendations.
2. Specific Infrastructure Suggestions:
   • Protected Bike Lanes: Many commenters support the addition of more protected bike lanes and routes that deter cars. Calls for more bike lanes, protected bike lanes, and routes that deter cars.
   • Improved Signage: Requests for better signage where bike paths merge with pedestrian sidewalks, end abruptly, or cross major intersections. Suggestions for specific areas where improved signage and infrastructure could enhance safety and navigation.
   • Safe Routes to School: Support for prioritizing safe routes to school and improving school zones.
   • ADA and Elderly Considerations: Positive remarks on considering the needs of ADA and elderly individuals in planning.
3. Encouragement for Non-Car-Centric Planning:
   • Design Choices: Advocacy for designing streets with a focus on pedestrian and cyclist safety. Emphasis on prioritizing safe routes to schools, signalized multi-use trail crossings, and sidewalks in underserved areas.
   • Vision Zero Plan: Support for creating a Vision Zero plan for El Paso County.
   • Public Involvement: Positive feedback on the idea of hosting public information sessions to engage citizens in the planning process.
4. Feedback on Specific Projects:
   • NACTO: Praise for projects like the Pinecreek Trail and the emphasis on on-street bike infrastructure following NACTO recommendations.
   • Project Details: Request for more details about funded projects and clearer explanations of project labels.
   • Bike Parking: Support for the need for safe bicycle parking to encourage non-recreational cycling.
   • Micro Mobility: Positive comments on leveraging electric micro mobility for better connectivity.

Negative Themed Comments:

1. Criticism of Current Infrastructure:
   • Bike Lanes: Frustration with the reduction of lanes in downtown areas to make room for bike lanes, causing confusion and gridlock. Suggestions to remove bike lanes from roads and restore lanes taken away downtown (Colorado Springs).
   • Bike Lane Consistency: Complaints about bike lanes and trails ending abruptly, lacking clear direction, or being unsafe.
   • Separation of Bike Lanes: Concerns about the current bike lanes causing confusion and safety issues, especially in downtown areas.
   • Signage and Education: Complaints about inadequate signage where bike paths merge with pedestrian sidewalks or end abruptly.
2. Concerns About Safety and Enforcement:
   • Trails: Safety concerns on certain trails, with mentions of dangerous conditions and lack of maintenance.
   • Sidewalks and Crossings: Negative feedback on the lack of sidewalks in certain areas and the need for better signalization of multi-use trail crossings.
   • E-Bikes: Mixed opinions on e-bikes, with some expressing concerns about their safety due to speed and weight. Calls for stricter regulation and enforcement of e-bike usage.
   • E-Bikes on Trails: Concerns about the safety of e-bikes on trails, described as electric motorcycles that can cause serious injuries.
   • Enforcement of Rules: Complaints about the lack of enforcement of existing rules, especially regarding e-bikes on trails.
   • Homelessness and Safety: Safety concerns related to homeless individuals on trails, particularly the Monument Valley Trail.
3. Negative Impact on Motorists:
   • Clarity of Infrastructure: Highlighting the negative impact of bike lanes on motorists, including confusion at intersections and increased traffic congestion. Specific scenarios where cyclists or pedestrians could be at risk due to unclear signage and striping.
   • Restoring Downtown Streets: Criticism of changes to downtown streets, such as making Cascade a two-lane street each way, which some feel has caused confusion and safety issues.
   • Stop Lights on On-Ramps: Complaints about stop lights on on-ramps affecting traffic flow.
4. General Dissatisfaction with Government Actions:
   • Other Enforcement: Frustration with government actions, including the implementation of traffic ticket cameras and tolls against public votes. Criticism of the government’s involvement in code enforcement, described as money-making schemes.
   • Timely Project Completion: Dissatisfaction with the slow progress of infrastructure projects, with mentions of major sections of trails being shut down for extended periods. Frustration with the prolonged completion times for infrastructure projects, causing disruptions.

Public Comments Received

Comment 1

First, you want feedback? No need for us to email you. You posted this on social media, be sure to read the comments. So, you want to alleviate congestion in the region? Get bicycle lanes off the damn road and return the lanes taken away downtown. It’s cause mass confusion on merging and turning. Discourage sport bicyclists from the artery streets, standard sidewalks and two-lane shoulder-less highways. Especially, keep them off the freeway! Soft pave some of the trails for them. Slightly widen key sidewalks for regular bicyclists, expect young and cautious riders to be on the sidewalks (they can grasp being slower and walking their bike when tight with pedestrians, we did it for decades) and to move against oncoming traffic (as every competent person knows you should) without being harassed by police (PUBLIC SERVANTS); AND ban sport bicyclists from riding side by side more than two at a time AND ENFORCE IT along with stripping their protections as pedestrians if an accident occurs because they were not.

Casual (and even common exercising) bicyclists are not the same as the egos who are riding around, pretending they are going to be, or those who really are going to be in the Olympics, and the people who are doing that need to not obstruct the average pedestrians and travelers.

Add more foot and bike over and under passes. You can take any idea of traffic signs on trails backed by enforceable code and shove them up your citizen extorting, public fund milking rear ends!!! The more government gets involved in code enforcement and money making the worse things get.

There should also be a highspeed interchange added for automotive’s.

Colorado and El Paso County are large enough with plenty of room for roads for personal vehicles, and side access ways for yuppies who want to play athlete and nature hike. Only one of those two keeps trying to use the government to obstruct the others, including people walking around, because they think they should be allowed to ride around on their multi-thousand-dollar ego feeder without others in their way because they are special, and it’s not car owners.

P.S. Stop violating the public votes on traffic ticket cameras and tolls. WE SAID NO!!!

Comment 2

Restore downtown streets like Cascade, from downtown to Nevada to two lane each way. Create separate bike lanes to run parallel to sidewalks and either not in the street, or on the very edge, between edge and parking area. Get rid of stop lights on on-ramps.

Comment 3

please shift focus from roadways that our car-centered to people-centered. We need planners who design streets for people safety outside of cars. Throughput for vehicles is the center. This is wrong and unsafe!!! We need to analyze the crash data (all of it—not just fatalities) to determine where the most need is first, prioritize safe routes to school and school zones (drop off/pick up and parking lots of schools—which are NOT designed for kid safety). How about roadways with multiuse trail crossings? Why can’t those all be signalized somehow? How about including sidewalks where no sidewalks help families in food deserts get to basic amenities safely without a car?? Please reach out to Bike COS and Beautiful Colorado Springs for help figuring this out. Please, please, please create a proper Vision Zero Deaths plan for El Paso County with ALL stakeholders at the table to come up with solutions. Also, planners SHOULD NOT be allowed to design roadways without first walking or rolling / wearing the shoes of the ADA or elderly first. AARP has a Walk Audit and Bike Audit toolkit that help planners figure out how to design road space for people and address the reasons why all community members DO NOT feel safe trying active transportation. thank you.

Comment 4

Pikes peak is a massive cycling attraction yet there is no safe connection between cascade and manitou springs, please try to implement some sort of bikeway connecting the two.

Comment 5

We need more bike lanes, more protected bikes lanes, and routes which deter cars due to main bike throughfare. We need to allow ebikes on roads, trails, and paths.

Comment 6

I am writing to express my support for the overall goals of the Active Transportation Plan and to offer some specific comments and questions regarding the draft plan. And thank you for including Bike Colorado Springs in the initial discussions when this plan was kicked off I am happy to see the emphasis on infrastructure connectivity and consistency throughout the plan. As a frequent bike rider and someone who walks regularly in our region, I have experienced firsthand the challenges of navigating a fragmented network of trails and bike lanes. The plan’s focus on creating a more seamless and connected system is essential for encouraging active transportation and improving safety. I was pleased to see the corridors that were identified as priorities and as a daily bike commuter and someone who uses my bike as my main form of transportation I agree with these priorities. Specifically I think the Pinecreek trail will be a very worthwhile addition as getting to the briargate area via bike is not all that pleasant today. I would also like to understand what setting a corridor as a priority means for a trail that is complete such as the Pikes Peak Greenway. Does that identify that funding to improve those connections should be prioritized? I would also like to commend the plan for its emphasis on on-street bike infrastructure, specifically the inclusion of the NACTO Recommendations for infrastructure type. Regarding the on-street bike infrastructure, I have noticed that some of the “Trails” marked as complete do not fully meet the NACTO on-street guidelines outlined in the draft. I would like to know if the recommendation is to improve these corridors with off-street trails or other enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connections. Specifically, the Ute Valley Trail is marked as complete on all the maps, connecting directly under I-25 south of Rockrimmon. However, the current connection to the Regional Trail involves narrow or non-existent sidewalks on Rockrimmon. I would like to understand if the plan recommends improving this connection. I would appreciate more details regarding the funded projects and a clearer explanation of the “no overlap” label on the funded project list/map. This information would help me better understand the timeline and priorities for implementing the plan’s recommendations. Additionally, while the demand index maps show scores for Employment, Hospitals & Clinics, Retail, Parks, and Schools, I would like to see a more quantitative analysis of population density and walkability compared to other corridors. Although the population maps are presented, it would be helpful to have specific population numbers to better inform decision-making and resource allocation. While this plan has many great aspects, I would have appreciated a public information session when the draft plan was initially published to provide an opportunity for citizens to learn more about the proposed changes and ask questions. I would still recommend hosting such a presentation to ensure that the public has a clear understanding of the plan’s goals and recommendations. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and questions. I believe that the Active Transportation Plan has the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for residents and visitors to the Pikes Peak region. By addressing the issues raised in this comment, we can ensure that the plan is both effective and equitable. I look forward to continued collaboration between the community and PPACG to ensure the successful implementation of this plan. By working together, we can create a more vibrant, sustainable, and equitable community for everyone. The team at Bike Colorado Springs will continue to be available to assist in any way possible on this and future plans.

Comment 7

I would love to see better signage when a dedicated bike path merges with a pedestrian sidewalk, ends abruptly with no option to not merge with traffic, crosses major intersections, or ends altogether. For example, the Sinton Trail when it merges with the sidewalk at Garden of the Gods west of the county building or the east end of Rock Island trail. The signage should show where to go to get to the continuation of the trail or the closest bike lane. The other is the end of Dublin east of Powers where there is no safe lane or direction on where to go to get to the next bike lane. Cones or pylons in GoG to keep cars from using the bike/pedestrian lane near view areas and parking spaces. Education during driver’s test about the 3′ rule and right away. More enforcement protects cyclists when aggressive drivers yell at, encroach upon, and jeopardize their safety. A way for cyclists to report easily when drivers are being dangerous or aggressive.

Comment 8

While we appreciate projects that upgrade cycle/pedestrian infrastructure, these projects should not begin unless you have allocated the necessary resources to complete them in a TIMELY manner. Shutting down major sections of trails for 6 to 8 months to complete a 2 to 3 week project is UNACCEPTABLE.

Comment 9

More bike lanes, more bike trail connections. Leverage what we already have with the electric micro mobility craze.

Comment 10

I am highly encouraged by this plan to expand paths that allow cyclists and walkers to get around all over the city. When you take the proposed sections away, it really highlights how difficult it can be to commute to work on a bike. It would also be exciting to see roads that are new builds or undergoing repair or renovation to also have improved bike lanes to allow for additional easy access route to run errands, drop kids off, or just go to dinner safely. Thank you!

Comment 11

The future of urban living must include well-implemented and non car-centric infrastructure connectivity and consistency. Too many of our trails and bike lanes end abruptly without clear direction. Too many streets have bike gutters instead of standard bike lanes. This makes for dangerous conditions and discourages people from trying to get around by bike or walking.

Comment 12

Please improve transportation coverage, options, accessibility, infrastructure, and safety. Not just cars.

Comment 13

Continue to make it harder and/or more costly to use and park a single motor vehicle. If it’s too easy people will continue to use motor vehicles even for short distances instead of bicycle or other multi modal transport schemes. Close high use pedestrian areas to most or all motor vehicles in lieu of foot or bicycle travel. Thx.

Comment 14

This format for giving public comment seems to be a way to not ask for public comment…way too much detail to write a little comment about, so this comment will be general in nature. The key for me is to stop widening and lengthening roads at all in the region we already have too many roads. Only work on infill in empty lots for housing, build higher and denser, build trails, fill in sidewalks, have protected and separated bike lanes that connect homes, businesses, third spaces, schools, and parks…make sure trails/walking/biking is direct and connected to transit and protected from cars. We need fewer cars and investment in these more efficient forms of transportation that don’t require as much space. So look at a map and notice where it’s dangerous to bike/walk, notice where trails are disconnected, add responsive pedestrian lights and connect trails. The planners need to be out walking and biking the region to understand what’s missing.

Comment 15

PPACG Board comment: please look at speed differentials on sidewalks as a safety concern (e.g. scooters vs pedestrians)

Comment 16

PPACG Board comment: please discuss responsibility/courtesy of trail users on private property (easements)

Comment 17

Public comment: “I bike commuted to work for 20 years and have been cycling for recreation in Manitou and Colorado Springs for more than 40 years. I now ride an average of 3 or 4 days a week. I seldom ride for non recreational purposes because there isn’t safe bicycle parking anywhere that I’m aware of. I would love to ride to shopping, restaurants, appointments, etc, but if I have to leave my bike chained out in the open, I’m not going to do it. It doesn’t matter how many more trails you build or how well landscaped they are, what Manitou and Colorado Springs need is safe bike parking.”

Comment 18

“The Monument Valley trail going South from Bijou is unsafe I’m my opinion. People passed out on the trail, people fighting with themselves, and aggressively trying to get in the way, perhaps to steal my bike?? People openly defecating along the trail and the creek north of Filmore on the trail. I live near the trail and won’t ride through downtown due to this, nor will many people I know.

Comment 19

“The other item of concern have is ebikes. Let’s call them what they are: electric motorcycles. E-bikes are many times heavier than regular bikes and riders know that they can ride as fast as they want as there is no enforcement on the trail whatsoever. I bike commuted for years and when pedestrians and “regular” bicyclist collide it is bad enough; with the much heavier ebikes expect more serious injuries. My observation is that many out of shape and occasional riders ride e-bikes faster than their riding abilities and surely several times faster than they could ride a regular bike. I am a motorcyclist and I guess if you allow ebikes on the trail why can I not ride a Triumph on the same? I promise to ride the speed limit…

Comment 20

“Enforcement of existing rules; there are plenty of class 3 ebikes on the trail now. I suggest not making rules I guess of things that COS is not willing to enforce.”

Comment 21

The reduction of lanes in downtown to make room for a bike lane is very confusing. And unsafe, as when drivers are turning right from the through lane might hit pedestrians/cyclists etc. who want to continue ahead. It also creates gridlock because people can no longer pass using a left lane. Cars back up while waiting for multiple right turners.

You know, I’m no genius, but it doesn’t take one to know that it is far less dangerous to have collisions between bicycles and pedestrians than between cars and them. All non-motorized vehicles should use the sidewalk or dedicated bike trails. But you’ll probably just ignore this. Please start thinking before making unsound and costly changes. Old people were raised to pull as far to the right, leaving no room for any person or vehicle, in order to avoid accidents. You have a bunch of old people that are driving while confused. Not good people!

First photo: I see a dashed line as the intersection draws near. That means I can cross those lines and turn from the far right lane. Right?

You have old people trying to figure this out on the fly!

I am including this particular comment, because I’m unsure whether what I’ll say here has truly been considered by those who decided to change downtown roads, such as Cascade.

Talking through two related scenarios:

#1-Someone is speeding down Cascade. In the bike lane is a cyclist or scooter rider. They suddenly have a mechanical issue, which propels their body in front of the car. Sadly, the car hits the person, being unable to veer in time. The rider dies, and a passenger in the car suffers whiplash from the driver suddenly applying brakes.

#2- The same rider is negotiating down a sidewalk, when the same mechanical issue propels the rider in front of another cyclist. Although both fall, the most probable severe injury is limited to cuts and scratches-maybe broken bones, but no one dies.

I hope that also being considered is that with pedestrians and cyclists/scooters, there is a significant speed difference from autos, which allows them to notice and prepare to handle the moment when they pass each other. Bikes and Scooters, I assume have horns to sound, if there is uncertainty about whether someone is paying enough attention. But I have personally seen that riders are becoming better at even verbally announcing their presence and even alerting pedestrians to expect more in their riding party to come after them. Maybe simply education is all that is needed?

I think this should be the main reason to return streets like Cascade to their previous state-so no one dies, and to minimize injury.

Of course, the other reasons I’ve previously mentioned, (gridlock/road rage issues, unclear signage and striping), are additional reasons.

To me, this should be a no brainer. I even wonder if there is ever a person who suffers injury, that would consider suing the City for not accounting for the elements I’ve touched upon?

Lastly, I’m including photos of the striping/signage issue. Just a few I found immediately, so there could be intersections that have even worse situations.

One that really confuses me is South bound Cascade, exiting to right lane, in order to turn right on Bijou.

You’ll see here that there are two areas with dashed lines. One has green paint.

Now, when I approach the first set of dashed lines, I’m assuming that this is a preliminary opportunity to get into the far right lane, which later has a painted “To 1-25” on it. And that the green is like a “Last chance to get in that lane”. Is this correct? Or is the first set of dashed lines ONLY for vehicles that want to make that diagonal right turn? This is a place where confused drivers MIGHT start to enter the right lane, then quickly realize it’s not. So they quickly steer back onto Cascade, in order to wait to get to the green area. An opportunity for an accident there. Right?

I at least notice proper signage, but it appears to come too late for drivers thinking the first dashed line are an invitation to get right. Maybe they notice the sign midstream, and again, suddenly veer back onto Cascade, in order to comply with the sign.

So, it’s this kind of thing, coupled with older people who never have encountered green dashed areas, and therefore need some kind of education in the form of commercials, etc. (Now maybe there has been such, but I’ve never seen one.) The only way these people will be educated is when they are reapplying for a license. And that’s a lot of time on the road, not knowing what the
“upgraded” system is trying to inform drivers.

(Here are the last of the screenshots, spoken of earlier)

Turn right from thru-lane, or get into far right lane?

Please provide explanations for each please:

(In each case, some kind of turn arrow or sign would be of immense help. Even a double arrow, one prong going forward, one going right, would clarify)

Thanks for your reply.

PS. Keep in mind that many people feel as I do, but don’t have time/aren’t civic minded/feel it’s useless to provide the same input. I just put up with the confusion/frustration for over a year, at least, until I just couldn’t take it anymore. My suggestion: Make a survey about this very issue: Dedicated bike lanes crowding out extra auto lanes and the striping/signage issues. Please allow a space for public to add their own thoughts/options. Hope that helps!