a little background. more than six months ago, the administration decided
to close the B-line indefinitely to buy time to run the johnson creamery
smokestack through a bunch of red tape.  parks staff decided to implement
an incoherent detour which resulted in most b-line traffic going through
the city hall parking lot, and then using a path to get back to the
b-line that was less than 6 feet wide and had a geometry that was
challenging to cyclists.  that lasted for 4 months, and then two months
ago, at the request of the director of engineering but not under his
supervision, they dramatically improved the geometry at the opening to
the path and they added barriers in the parking lot so that there is a
protected channel for b-line traffic.

GO[photo of rufus]
it is a big improvement but even now, it faces a remaining challenge.
that kid's arms are only 4 feet across.  the channel is less than 6 feet
wide, and since it is such a long channel it produces real challenges
when you meet oncoming traffic.  when i have my kid trailer, i have to
come to a complete stop at a spot where it's a little wider and even so
people struggle to go past me.  with my cargo trailer, i do not think
i could make it through at all.

GO[photo of farmer's market]
in addition, parks department simply doesn't care about the b-line.  for
example, on saturday mornings they encourage a coffee shop to block the
detour.  the customers waiting in line are standing at the only spot
where you can enter the detour without hopping a curb, and the coffee
shop itself is in the way of getting to that spot.

so that's why i think engineering ought to oversee closures to
transportation facilities through the regular process of having an
approved maintenance of traffic plan.  to be honest, engineering doesn't
have a great track record on this stuff, but they've been improving.

and it's their job.  it's what engineers do.

GO[MUTCD slide]
engineers formally respect a few documents.  first is the manual of
uniform traffic control devices, the MUTCD.  it says a detour will
replicate the desirable characteristics of the existing footpath.  the
B-line is 12 foot wide, and its desirable characteristics include being
able to walk or even bike side by side and to make way for oncoming
traffic with a minimum of difficulty.  does that mean the detour should
be 12 feet wide?  YES the MUTCD speaks to that to.  it says, quote the width
of the existing pedestrian facility should be provided for the temporary
facility end quote.

[ordinance]
another engineering document is the city ordinance covering closures to
the right of way.  it says a sidewalk detour must be 8 feet wide if it's
in the downtown overlay, which this is.

GO[transportation plan]
and the third document is the transportation plan, which says bike and
ped facilities should be the city's highest priority, not systematically
excluded from competent traffic management.

engineering staff has expertise with these documents and their
application, and would not have approved a detour that is less than 6
feet wide for a facility as important as the b-line.  but parks staff
has no responsibility to or familiarity with any of these documents.

so that brings us to my proposed ordinance.  i feel dumb presenting this
because because state law and city ordinance ALREADY indicate that this
is the responsibility of engineering.  but the administration seems to be
operating under a historical conception that right of way is defined as
any land attached to a car facility, and has determined that engineering
department has no authority over a multi-use path with no car facility.

GO[12.24 definitions slide]
so, to avoid any sort of controversy, i propose simply taking the
existing definition of right-of-way from chapter 12.24 and copying and
pasting it verbatim into chapter 12.08.  i hope this is not naive of me,
but i believe that with a definition in hand, they will recognize that
this transportation facility meets the requirements for regulation.

i've wasted a sickening amount of time doing research on this question of
whether the b-line is ROW.  i am embarrassed at the amount of time i spent at the county recorder's office. and i'm gonna try to condense that for you.

[greenways system plan p1, p36; newspaper, MPO TIP]
first, is it transportation?  the 2008 greenways system plan calls
multi-use trails quote bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities
end quote.  in 2007, the H-T reported that the B-line was being built by
INDOT, a transportation agency, because the grant came from the Federal
Highway Administration, another transportation agency.  the 2008
metropolitan planning organization's transportation improvement program
confirms this, showing federal transportation money going to the B-line
project.  the B-line was conceived as a transportation facility, built
with transportation dollars, and is today the backbone of our bicycle and
pedestrian transportation network that our transportation planners use
when prioritizing other transportation projects, like the 7-line.

yeah, people go for a casual stroll sometimes but that's true about every
street.  people drive in circles around my neighborhood just for the
thrill of it.  people take country drives just to smell the air and look
at the trees.  these are all managed like transportation facilities.

[dictionary]
which brings me to the phrase right of way.  it has two common uses in
english.  there's this idea of who gets to go first at a stop sign, and
then there's the idea of land that you have the right to traverse.  it's
used in real estate to mark, for example, a shared driveway.  but
obviously, here we're interested in the general public right to travel
along government-owned transportation facilities.

[federal code]
one of the things i found in my research is that federal law says the
b-line is right of way.  specifically, rail right of way.  before the
b-line could be built, the railroad abandoned the right of way to the
city by issuing a notification of interim trail use.  yes, interim.
under federal law, the rail can still be restored. the city can only use
the land on the condition that they manage that right of way.  they
cannot transfer it to a private developer or for any other use.

[property type overlay, and assessment doc]
which probably explains why the few properties that overlap or contain
the b-line are still marked as property tax assessment code 82, which
state law describes as quote PUBLIC ROAD / ROW.  the railway went through
and made sure all that was set up that way probably a century ago, and no
one has changed it since.  for reference, in places where a public road
like north walnut goes through a property parcel, it is coded that same
tax code 82.

GO[transportation plan p43]
and finally, the transportation plan is extremely on point here, and
really ought to settle the whole thing just on its own.  in the section
for multiuse paths, they say that a multiuse path can go within the right
of way of a road, or it can be separate from roadways and in its own
right of way.  in black and white, the transportation plan says that the
land which contains a multiuse path separate from the road is its own
right of way.

so, i think bicycle and pedestrian facilities, especially key ones like
the b-line, need to receive the same support from engineering that car
facilities have traditionally enjoyed.  i think this ordinance should
accomplish that.

to be clear, i'm happy with any other approach to this problem, so long
as bicyclists and pedestrians aren't treated like ugly stepchildren.