The Detroit Green Task Force visited Philadelphia earlier this year to learn from that city’s sustainability efforts. The group included city councilmembers, department directors, sustainability advocates and others. As co-chair of the GTF Transportation and Mobility committee (and executive director of the Detroit Greenways Coalition), my focus was learning what they did best in helping people use green travel modes.
One big takeaway was Philly had a very decent bike network in their Center City — a sharp contrast with Downtown Detroit, which only has the Cass bike lanes and RiverWalk.
It got us to thinking what would a bike network look like in Detroit?
We came up with this vision map. The solid lines are existing bike lanes, though we did fudge things to include the forthcoming bike lanes on Michigan Avenue east of Cass. We also could have made Wilkins and Grand River solid but those bike lanes need some improvement.All of the dashed lines are proposed bike lanes. Some could get built in the near-term, too:
MDOT will be constructing Hastings and Montcalm as part of the I-375 Reconnecting Communities project.
MDOT has initial designs for Gratiot Avenue.
DDP has plans to build an Adams cycletrack.
A portion of the Second Avenue is getting built with the Water Square and Huntington Place improvement project.
What about Woodward? It should have bike lanes, but of course the curb-running Q Line makes that much more difficult.
What are your thoughts? Would building out this bike lane network help you get around Downtown Detroit?
As a 501c3 non-profit, we cannot endorse candidates for elected office. However, we can share what they’ve said about things that matter to us.
Detroit Environmental Agenda
We’re a founding member of the DEA and this is the group’s third voter’s guide. While the entire guide is worth reading, here are their responses to topics most related to our work.
Environmental Issues
Doubling the DDOT budget
Doubling the budget for the Office of Sustainability
Expanding truck routes ordinance citywide
Continued implementation of the City’s Streets for People Plan
Continued implementation of the City’s Climate Strategy
Mayoral candidates Jonathan Barlow, Fred Durhall III, Saunteel Jenkins and Mary Sheffield answered yes to all of the above. Joel Haashim did not specify.
There were more varied answers among the council candidates
Name
District
1
2
3
4
5
Valerie Parker
At-large
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mary Waters
At-large
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Coleman A. Young III
At-large
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Roy McCallister
District 2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Angela Whitfield Calloway
District 2
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Scott Benson
District 3
NA
NA
Yes
NA
NA
Latisha Johnson
District 4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Willie Burton
District 5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tatjana Jackson
District 5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Michael Steven Ri’chard
District 5
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tyrone Carter
District 6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gabriella Santiago-Romero
District 6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Denzel Anton McCampbell
District 7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regina Ross
District 7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The candidates did provide additional text answers to these five question, which are included in the DEA Vote Guide.
Note that not all of the mayoral and council candidates responded.
Mayoral Candidate Forum
The Detroit Parks Coalition and Bridge Detroit hosted a forum in July. Unfortunately the event ran long and we were unable to ask our question about greenways. Even still, those that participated spoke highly of parks and greenways.
I-375 Questionaire
The ReThink I-375 Community Coalition asked the mayoral candidates questions about the MDOT I-375 project. One question was, “While not all of the new roads developed through this project will be in the City of Detroit’s jurisdiction, what do you think your role as Mayor should be in ensuring safe, vibrant roadways for both motorized and non-motorized use result from this project?”
Candidates Durhall, Jenkins, Perkins, and Sheffield all provided answers, but some added more detail on the non-motorized aspect:
Jenkins: “The non-motorized pavement for walking and biking need to be clearly separated from the heavy traffic of the surface streets. Safety has to be a top priority.”
Perkins: “Ensuring Safety for All Users: Road safety should be a top priority, and I will work to ensure that all new and redesigned roads include features that protect both motorized and non-motorized users. This includes dedicated bike lanes, safe pedestrian crossings, improved signage, and well-lit areas to ensure that everyone can safely navigate the streets, day or night. I will advocate for a “complete streets” approach, ensuring that the infrastructure supports all modes of transportation, whether it’s driving, biking, walking, or using public transit.”
Sheffield: “Designs that prioritize pedestrian and bike safety must also be premiered here, just as we are prioritizing redesigned and safer roadways within our neighborhoods.”
This video about Detroit — our history and bike infrastructrure — is really one of the best and we’re not saying that just because we’re in it. Nic Laporte created a well-balanced overview of where we’ve been and where we’re heading.
The video also has us talking about the history of stop streets and stop signs, which is something we plan to write more about. We believe this is an important perspective, especially when it comes to bicycling and Idaho stop laws.
Below are comments we gave before Detroit City Council:
We are continuing to advocate for the city council to adopt a Complete Streets ordinance.
Complete Streets are those that are designed for all users – motorists, transit users, pedestrians, people with disabilities, bicyclists, and more. Complete Streets make it easier for everyone to safely travel along and across the street.
We began our ordinance work 15 years ago and much has changed. Back then, we saw the ordinance as a tool to get the city to build Complete Streets.
While we weren’t successful in passing that initial ordinance, we were successful in pushing for change. Detroit now has a Complete Streets Department and an excellent Streets for People Transportation Plan. It’s built some amazing Complete Street projects including streetscapes. Thousands of speed humps and other traffic calming features have been installed. And, DPW has been very successful tapping into state and federal funding to make this happen.
So why do we need an ordinance today?
We believe a Complete Streets ordinance can codify what the city is doing today, while giving the city more leverage in getting the state and county to do the same.
We don’t expect the ordinance to change course or have any major effect on the DPW budget. Those changes have already occurred.
Still, we believe this ordinance is as important as ever.
As we’re seeing right now in Washington DC, a new administration can abruptly shift a transportation department’s direction away from best practices. An ordinance could dissuade this from happening in Detroit.
Detroit had 130 traffic fatalities in 2023 with 28% being pedestrians, so clearly there is a continued need to emphasize safer street designs.
We believe an ordinance would help keep us on that path.
The Detroit Historical Museum has an interesting photo in their collection. It’s a group shot of the Detroit Rambler Bike Club from 1896. What makes it so unique is the Black bicyclist standing prominently in the center behind the club banner.
We shared this photo with Andrew Ritchie, author of Major Taylor: The Extraordinary Career of a Champion Bicycle Racer. He said, “Given the League of American Wheelmen Black-exclusion that had taken place officially in 1894, the Detroit club is definitely making a pointed statement.”
We have been trying to gain more information on this photo. Unfortunately the Historical Museum does not have the key identifying the club members.
However, it appears the Black bicyclist (#16) may be “Trainer Edwards” of the 1894 Rambler racing team, but that’s all we know so far. We have not been able to find an Edwards listed in either the 1890 or 1900 Census, nor is he in the 1895 Polk Directory.
#33 might be the 1894 team manager, George H. Formhals. Formhals is listed in the 1895 Polk Directory as the general manager for the Gormully & Jeffrey Manufacturing Company which made Rambler bikes in Chicago. They had a store at 1275 Woodward (formerly 201 Woodward), but the building is no longer there.
Rambler bikes were very popular in Detroit. Their 1895 advertisement claimed that one-eighth of all bikes in Detroit were Ramblers, but we haven’t verified that claim.
In 1896, Gormully & Jeffrey gave away gold souvenirs to those who rode 3,000 miles on a Rambler bike. Each week, riders would have to show their cyclometer to their local Rambler agent. The total miles ridden were tallied across the country.
Detroit won in a landslide and got the “$400 in gold” prize. The highest individual mileage was over 15,000 miles though we don’t know if that was a Detroiter.
The Detroit Historical Society does have a second Rambler group photo from 1896 with some riders in both images.
There are also records of a Rambler bike club in 1887, which would have been riding high wheelers. Louis “Birdie” Munger was a First Lietenant. Munger started his own bicycle company in Chicago, which led him to befriend, coach and support Major Taylor. It’s unclear if Munger’s involvement with that earlier club somehow influenced these later incarnations.
Sante Fe New Mexican, May 12, 1897
Rambler Automobiles?
There is a connection between the Rambler bikes and Rambler cars.
In 1900, Gormully & Jeffrey was sold to the American Bicycle Company. Thomas B. Jeffrey started a new company to make Rambler automobiles. In 1916, this new company was sold and became the Nash Motors Company, which in 1954, became part of the American Motors Corporation. Ramblers were built in the U.S. through 1969, and in Mexico through 1983.
A new report compares Michigan with five other Midwestern states.
Walking, accessibility, biking, and transit saw considerable improvements in policy and funding with the adoption of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. An often overlooked piece of those legislative changes was the creation of a new document: the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment (VRUSA, also pronounced Ver-roo-suh, for short).
The VRUSA is a tool to evaluate how a state Department of Transportation (DOT) understands the issue of traffic violence among people who walk, roll, and bike. It also documents what state DOTs are doing to address and improve the safety of vulnerable road users.
While every state is supposed to follow the same guidance from the Federal Highway Administration with developing their own VRUSA, that does not always look the same in practice. These documents are essentially self assessments — the onus is on states to evaluate themselves and their efforts.
In creating their VRUSAs, each state needed to detail their efforts to protect vulnerable road users in five key areas:
Overview of VRU Safety Performance – what trends exist in VRU crashes and what progress is the state DOT making to address this?
Summary of Quantitative Analysis – what data and methodology did the state DOT use to identify high-risk areas of VRUs?
Summary of Consultation – who did the state DOT consult with in the community and what solutions did these individuals or groups offer?
Program of Projects or Strategies – what specific steps is the state DOT taking to reduce VRU crashes?
Safe System Approach (SSA) – how was the Safe System Approach incorporated into the state DOT’s VRUSA?
The first major deadline for states to complete and submit their VRUSA was November 2023. After that, states are expected to update the document as part of their Strategic Highway Safety Plan update, which must be completed every five years.
Thanks to funding from the RE-AMP Network, we were able to study this further in partnership with BikeWalkKC, 1000 Friends of Iowa, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Bike Cleveland and Transportation Riders United. We analyzed and compared the VRUSAs of Michigan and five other states and compiled our work into the findings below:
Ways that the Federal Highway Administration can strengthen its guidance on how state DOTs develop their VRUSAs,
Details on how each state completed (or didn’t complete) the required parts of a VRUSA, and
Recommendations on how those states can do more to support the needs of vulnerable road users in the future.
Additionally, the report makes recommendations for how each state DOT can do more to support the needs of vulnerable road users. What did this look like for Michigan?
MDOT’s program of projects and strategies should address the changes needed to make VRU safety a key criteria in road project funding prioritization (e.g. implementation of Virginia’s SMART SCALE program).
MDOT should identify existing projects and strategies that are a barrier to improving VRU safety.
In light of these points, the question becomes: “How can advocates in other states use this approach to push their state DOTs to do more for Vulnerable Road Users?” Examples include:
Draw attention to dangerous corridors. Use the report to highlight the dangers for people who walk, roll, and bike along corridors identified as harmful. Invite your state DOT staff and/or local media to do a walk audit along those corridors so they understand the challenges from the pedestrian perspective.
Share the VRUSA with local leaders. Make sure that the elected leaders and staff of communities that are overrepresented in your state’s VRUSA know and understand why their community is unsafe for vulnerable road users and what can be done to address it. That can help to strengthen your efforts to get the state DOT to do more.
Push state DOTs to take steps they have missed or ignored. What the VRUSA says or does not say is a reflection of what a state DOT has done or not done. Advocates can help the public understand that the poor safety outcomes may speak to the need for additional steps. In Missouri, for example, BikeWalkKC is using the VRUSA to push MoDOT to develop a statewide active transportation plan (one of only five states that has not taken this crucial step).
In publishing this report, we hope to demystify the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment for active transportation advocates across the country. The goal is to make it easier for people to understand what their state DOT is (or is not) doing for its most vulnerable road users. It serves as a tool to help people push their state DOTs to do better.
