RFS 8932 assigned. If received outside of normal business hours, we will investigate this issue on the next business day.

Bike Path crossings function as any other non-signaled crosswalk. Bike Path users must not enter the roadway until safe to do so; vehicles or any other roadway traffic must yield to Bike Path traffic if it is safe for them to do so. The stop sign is a reminder for all bike path users to observe the safety of the crossing before proceeding - and also functions as an additional safety measure for vehicles - street traffic has more of an opportunity to observe them and yield if bike path traffic stops at the intersection. We will take under advisement how to communicate this more effectively.

The general consensus is that pedestrians can walk into traffic, when not safe, and vehicles must stop for them (slam on brakes if needed). This is the problem with pedestrians ALWAYS having the right of way. Pedestrians rarely stop to see if it is safe.

The stop sign is not meant to act as a stop sign for pedestrians, but as a reminder to cross safely? So the Stop sign is not a "stop" sign at all. How does this act as a safety measure for vehicles. Vehicles have no sign but are required to stop? Vehicles can observe them "if" bike path traffic stops, then yield to stopped people in the path? Honestly, who's idea was that. The 2 concepts contradict each other. There is nothing intuitive or common sense about the current set up. Maybe have yield signs for the cars. How else are they to know what to do when the bike path traffic have stop signs?

Stop signs are pretty self explanatory. Stop. Look both ways. Cross when safe. Same stuff we all learned growing

I agree that is what they mean, and that they do apply to persons on the bike path and not to cars in the roadway .

I just wanted to make a fast comment from the common sense side of this deal. First off , the so called BIKE PATH actually should be referred to as the Recreation path, a multi use trail for all kinds of use. Thus, since it is not just a so called Bike path, the same laws on it should not apply same as sidewalk and crossings. I feel the all traffic on the path should yield to the cars as well as any bikes riding on the street crossing the path. safty first. still slow down for the path, but make the bikes yield for the cars as well as walkers, skate boarders, roller skaters, bikers, joggers etc. all intersections should be posted on the path only. not the streets. but on the streets they could or should have slow, multi purpose crossing ahead. .

Kinda on point

The bigger issue is that the Parks Department have stated that the stops signs are not stop signs. Ignoring who's entitled to what, the current set up makes no sense.

I completely agree with Crusader, its a recreation payh and should be handled different from most sidewalk and crossings.

What happens when a bike on the path meets a bike on the road? Who has the right of way?

Wow. Okay. So we all know that road traffic (including people on bikes) has to stop for people in crosswalks, yes? The crosswalks are clearly marked, right? Shouldn't slowing down as you approach a crosswalk make good sense then?

I do agree; the stop sign should be removed from the rec path. Apparently drivers are having difficulties understanding what crosswalks mean, so the stop sign can go up for them.

All intersections were studied by engineers as part of the Intersection Scoping Study completed in January of 2014. Standards for crossings were looked at for all areas where the path and roadway intersect, including a yield analysis based on site lines and speed of traffic (for cars and on the path). The full report can be viewed here http://www.btvbikepath.com/pdf/2014-01-20_VHB_Intersections%20Scoping%20Study%20Report_Final.pdf
Unfortunately there is no way to increase the site lines at this intersection such that yield signs can be used. Much of the immediate work as called for in the report has been completed. Additional work to the path will continue in the coming years as part of the full rehabilitation project.

Thank you for posting the link to the report.
After reading the report it is interesting to find that pedestrians have the right of way but bicycles do not on the bike path:
"In addition, it should be noted that as stated by law, motorists are required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, but they are not required to yield to bikes unless the bikes are already in their path in the crosswalks or unless the cyclist dismounts and crosses the road on foot"

Has anyone considered placing signs on the ROAD stating in words that Pedestrians have the right of way and signs on the Bike Path stating in words that cars have the right of way and for bicycles to stop.

Its apparent from the report that yield signs can not be used for most bike path crossings. "The AASHTO Bike Guide provides guidance for calculating the required sight distance for path users to safely cross an intersection with a roadway under a yield control scenario."

Comments regarding this exchange has been sent to DPW engineers for review and consideration. In terms of the original request, it appears that the sharing of the intersection study document has provided some clarity on the situation, although further clarity could be attained?

As a frequent user of this path, part of the issue is that the crossings at private driveways with incredibly low speeds and infrequent traffic are treated the exact same way as busy crossings at public streets. People will walk, run or bike past the stop signs at Little Eagle Bay condos, and the stop signs at the far west end of LakeWood Estates, and then assume that the next crossing at Shore Road will be the same.

Prioritizing path users at crossings with private driveways and removing those specific stop signs might help alleviate some of the issues at busier stops with public streets further north. Since many of the path users are tourists or weekend warriors who start from the waterfront and head north, the first two stop signs they see make no sense... so they continue on their way and treat the next signs they come across as if they're also low traffic junctions.

This makes ZERO sense to me: "In addition, it should be noted that as stated by law, motorists are required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, but they are not required to yield to bikes unless the bikes are already in their path in the crosswalks or unless the cyclist dismounts and crosses the road on foot"

So, if I'm on my bike and stop on the path to wait to cross, I could be there all day unless I dismount & push my bike... in which case a car would have to yield?

According to the Engineering reports, Starr Farm Road is a low volume neighborhood street, I doubt you'd be waiting there all day. You recommend that we remove the stop signs that bicyclists ignore near private driveways so they can be more alert at the "busier" crossings. They are just going to cont. to ignore them further up.

Unfortunately it's state law that bicyclists have to yield to cars on the bike path. Regarding bicyclists on sidewalks intersecting with private driveways or road crossings in Burlington:
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/FAQ/Can-I-ride-my-bicycle-on-the-sidewalks

"If you choose to ride on the sidewalks, please remember that sidewalks are designed for pedestrian traffic, not bicycles. Ride at slower speeds than you would on the street. Be prepared to stop at driveways and intersections, and obey WALK/DON'T WALK lights at signalized intersections."

At peak times, there are significantly more bicyclists at the intersections than cars. I don't think bicyclists would have to wait much. And yes, if you didn't want to wait, you could just dismount and walk.

Additional signs indicating that bicyclists are required by law to stop may stop them from ignoring the stop signs that they already choose to ignore.

VToutdoor, if you are going to try to honestly argue that people on bicycles don't have the Right of Way on the bike path, then let's just stop calling it a bike path right now. It's a big glorified sidewalk.

You keep saying you wouldn't have to wait that long to cross on a bike. You're right. But I'm going to say the same thing about putting stop signs streetside. And making cars stop at the glorified sidewalk crossings would be safer too.

The engineering report did not recommend 4-way stop signs for these intersections. I completely agree, its just routine to call it a bike path. ITS A MULTI USE REC PATH. Not trying to argue that bicycles don't have the right of way, its just been quoted as being state law.

I guess my big issue is that despite state law, despite the presence of stop signs, bicyclists feel they don't have to follow the law and want more enforcement on other modes of transportation. I just don't get it. Why aren't bicyclists fighting for better signs informing other cyclists of the law to help keep themselves safe vs. fighting to have all the right of way at the expense of others.

I understand your frustration with scofflaw bicycling. The problem is that signs saying "Cars will not stop for bicyclists in crosswalk" are counter productive and won't actually make anyone safer.

On the other hand, turning all of the multi-use path intersections to stop signs facing the street might actually make drivers more mindful.

I don't view this as something that's being taken away from drivers. It's actually in their best interests as well not to hit anyone in the multi-use path.

Its also in a multi-use path users best interest to not move in front of a moving vehicle. Look both ways. Currently if a bicyclist doesn't stop, gets hit by a car, then it was their choice to run to stop sign and get hit by a car.
Read the engineering report and get back to me on turning the stop signs towards the cars.

But signs on the bike path stating, bike must yield to cars, bikes must stop, could get the point across.

VToutdoor.. great points, I agree. I also think that you can not demand all the rights of a car and then do not obey any rules yourself.

Okay guys; let's not make the assumption that ALL bicyclists break the law. We are having a good conversation here; don't ruin it with tired old generalizations.

VToutdoor, I read the report. I'm not disagreeing with you about the contents of the report. I just don't see logic in calling this path a "Bike Path" and then not giving any Right of Way to it's primary users. An analogy would be like putting stop lights on I-89.

I'm also not disagreeing with you about multi-use path users best interests. But I am pointing out that stop signs street side will likely make those intersections safer. The bicyclists aren't killing anyone, after all.

What is the worst that will happen if stop signs are turned street side? Will there be major traffic jams? Likely not. Will it calm traffic on these neighborhood streets? Likely so. My question to you is: why exactly are you against street side stop signs on the bike path intersections?

I agree. Keep it civil and no entitlement finger pointing.
I also agree, bike path is just a convenient term. Its a multi-use rec path.

You could put stop signs on the street side, but by law the bikes are supposed to stop. That's really it! I live along the bike path and the basic disregard for the stop signs is annoying, as would another stop sign for cars because the bikes cant follow the rules. Cyclists aren't killing anyone, but one of them might get injured or killed.

I also agree with the report regarding street stop signs: "One problem with that approach is that the stop signs would likely lead to motorist frustration and violations during the night and winter months when the number of crossing bikes would be minimal."

The automobile traffic in these areas is minimal, really nothing to calm. I guess the parts that bugs me the most is the fact that the stop signs are for bikes, bikes don't want to stop, so they want to make cycling less inhibited by inconveniencing others. (sort of seems like an entitlement attitude which doesn't appear to be justified)

There is certainly entitlement on both sides of the intersection, so to speak. Drivers seem to feel like they should be allowed to roll through the crosswalk (judging from the SeeClickFix comments above) and people on bikes don't think they need to stop because they are on a "Bike Path."

Perhaps this cyclist entitlement comes from the way the multi-use path was branded. The "Bike Path" is being sold as a protected path that prioritizes active transportation. But every intersection has a stop sign facing the path, to force riders to stop for traffic that probably isn't there.

The quote you posted is poignant and fair. Allow me to repost: "One problem with that approach is that the stop signs would likely lead to motorist frustration and violations during the night and winter months when the number of crossing bikes would be minimal."

I think this is already happening on the multi-use path. People on bikes are frustrated by the false promise of the path branding and violating the stop sign. I can't think of a good solution to make everybody happy.

Well drivers can roll through the crosswalk, there's no stop sign; Drivers can drive right through the crosswalk if no one is there.
I think the cycling entitlement attitude is a reaction to aggressive drivers and bikers wanting to stand their ground, and it extends beyond the "bike path". The problem is everyone focuses on the bikers that don't obey the traffic laws (many in my opinion, but that's my opinion) and according to the Burlington PD its hard to ticket and enforce rules of the road regarding cyclists. I guess they can get a ticket but no penalty if they don't pay it. BPD also lacks the resources to enforce everything too.

I don't know if I would say the bikes are frustrated by the stop signs. From what I see everyday, they don't care about the stop signs.

Quoting the Parks Department, "In terms of the original request, it appears that the sharing of the intersection study document has provided some clarity on the situation, although further clarity could be attained?"
Hopefully DPW engineers can figure it out within the confines of state law. A whole new question, how to enforce it? There has to be someway to enforce rules of the road and hold cyclists accountable when they ignore them. Maybe then cyclists wont feel like they have to defend their right to be on the road when drivers see the ones ignoring the rules being ticketed.

Sure; drivers can proceed safely through the crosswalk if there is no one in it. Otherwise they must yield to crosswalk users.

I've almost been run down using crosswalks in Burlington because the driver couldn't be "inconvenienced" to lawfully yield to me as the pedestrian. That's the entitlement that needs to end.

As far as people on bikes feeling entitled goes; yes, of course they feel entitled. They should. The law entitles them to the same privileges as cars, as well as special privileges as vulnerable users. I should be clear though; as of right now that does not mean that people on bikes can blow stop signs.

We should be asking what we want Burlington to look like in 10 years. Do we want more cars, or more healthy people walking, jogging, and riding active vehicles? How can we (you, me, and the city) rebuild the infrastructure so that everyone is happy?

I don't believe that my statement is hypocritical. It seems acceptable for people to ignore or try to reason away automobile entitlement, while undermining other road users' entitlement. I'm just making it clear that other road users are entitled to use the road.

Cyclists are not legally required to pay insurance. This isn't about "wanting" to be entitled to the road; it's about already being entitled to use the road. Your anecdotal evidence about seeing bicyclists violate the law is not helpful, unless you want me to tell you about all of the times I've watched automobiles wantonly blow the red light in front of my house.

Either way, none of what you said about cyclists is relevant to the issue at hand, which is who should have the Right of Way on the MUP.

I do agree with you about the big issues, actually. The City Budget, infrastructure, Cost of Living, Police, drugs, Code Enforcement are all important issues to think about. A bikeable city is just as important as these issues, and will even assist in solving some of them.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. The drivers' entitlement attitude needs to end, but you reinforce the mindset of cyclist entitlement? That's a fairly hypocritical statement. The fact is, cars and bikes are BOTH entitled to the road, but for some reason cars are targeted for violations and cyclists aren't.

Cyclists pay no liability insurance but want the same acknowledgement as a vehicle, with "special privileges"? If cyclists want to be "entitled" to the road, I just wish they would follow the rules of the road. Why violate rules of the road when so vulnerable? I see it every day.

If we want to look at Burlington in 10 years, I think we have bigger issues with the City's failing school budget, crumbling infrastructure, huge cost of living, under funded police department, drug problem, strained municipal code enforcement, etc. In ten years we can try to have the best bike city in America, but at what cost. It wont do any good to have a great biking City, when the City has fallen apart.

Right, but you said that the car's "entitlement" needs to go away? That's the part I disagree with. Both are entitled to the road. My anecdotal evidence of cyclists violating the law is just expressing why drivers may be frustrated with cyclists in the city. There's no enforcement.

I don't agree with cars violating red lights, but at least they could be ticketed and penalized if they don't pay the ticket. That's the difference. Cars can be found in violation, but cyclists can't? How can we fix that. We've digressed from the original posting.

State law has already established who has the ROW at MUP intersections.

I should clarify; the entitlement I was referring to is when people driving cars think it is acceptable to endanger people and violate the law to get to their destination faster. A legally licensed driver with a legally registered and insured automobile is entitled to use the road lawfully, of course.

I understand why drivers are frustrated with scofflaw cyclists. My point I'm making is about your generalizations. I know you have seen drivers break the law, but you aren't saying, "I wish drivers would follow the rules."

As far as enforcement goes; people on bikes are required to follow the law and can be ticketed if they aren't. The Police aren't doing their job; enforcing the law in front of my house with the Red Light Scofflaws, and enforcing the law when it comes to bike scofflaws. Would you agree to that?

Yes. Ok, agreed. No car should think it is acceptable to endanger people and violate the law to get to their destination soon, bikes included.

In my opinion, drivers licenses are handed out like candy and are given out as though they are a right, not a privilege. I wish cars, trucks, longboarders, cyclists, and the 49 cc mopeds that don't require registration or insurance would follow the rules of the road.

With regards to the police, they are trying to do their job. Burlington is just underfunded and could use 50% more officers. They just cant enforce everything in the city. They are doing the best they can with what they have. The problem is as BPD states, it is difficult to ticket and enforce rules of the road when it comes to cyclists. From what has been explained to me, the police can ticket a cyclist, but there is no recourse to the violator if no one shows up to court or doesn't pay the ticket.

Cyclists want the same respect on the road and they are expected to follow the rules of the road, but they are enforced differently. This is the exact point about the Rec Path, there are stop signs, we've established who has the ROW. So how do we enforce these rules and hold cyclists accountable when they are monitored and ticketed differently?

I totally agree with your first three paragraphs. In my opinion, it should be much more difficult to earn a drivers license and much easier to lose it. What you are saying is part of the culture shift we need to start; that is, to treat driving with the gravity it commands.

I don't mean to bash the Police. They are out there doing what they can. I believe you are correct; they need twice the budget pretty much (I think this is true with DPW as well).

Better enforcement for bicyclists is tricky, as you have said. It's similar to ticketing a pedestrian. I have been told that a cyclist that gets a DUI (that's legally possible) could lose their drivers license, even though no automobile was involved. Better education, especially early on, is important, but I really don't have a good answer for you otherwise.

I agree that the ROW is as listed above, but I'm hoping that the intersections are modified to prioritize MUP users. I'm no expert, but in my opinion that seems safer overall and prioritizes other modes of transport while creating a minor inconvenience for automobile drivers having to stop a new stop sign (as much as one can be inconvenienced while sitting in a climate controlled car with a stereo).

As the RECREATIONAL path that it is bicyclists should relax and enjoy the ride, yielding to pedestrians and making sure they are not racing - this is not a race track it is a recreational path with all sorts of people that can be seriously hurt by a speeding bicycle.

As for the issue on this thread, STOP means STOP completely. A simple solution would be to put a FOUR WAY STOP Sign on every crossing of the recreational path. That would end the ambiguity. Specifically the crossing on Appletree Point should have a double stop sign not just for the path but also for the cars to and fro on Staniford. I drive my car daily, my bike sometimes, through everyday and feel very uncomfortable every time I pass through that intersection - a 4 WAY STOP SIGN would match what we already have in many places around Burlington and clarify traffic patterns for everybody.

A four way stop sign, as Azur suggested, would be a nice compromise.

"As for the issue on this thread, STOP means STOP completely. A simple solution would be to put a FOUR WAY STOP Sign on every crossing of the recreational path. That would end the ambiguity"

There is nothing ambiguous about this situation, Stop means Stop. There are stop signs for bicycles and the stop signs are completely ignored. How will configuring the intersections with 4-way stop signs make bicycles magically follow the rules that govern them? They will cont. to ignore them and now expect the cars to stop.

Still not resolved

On January 20, 2014, VHB conducted an intersection scoping study for the CCRPC (Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission), on behalf of Burlington. In the study VHB recommended and advised the City on 12 intersections along the Bike Path, at which time the City was developing design documents for the rehabilitation and reconstruction for portions of the Path. Copy link previously provided. http://www.btvbikepath.com/pdf/2014-01-20_VHB_Intersections%20Scoping%20Study%20Report_Final.pdf
VHB provided both long and short term recommendations guided by state law and national/state design standards for multi-use paths. While many of our crossings have not been reconstructed, they do have appropriate signage and follow state law. Long term improvements will be enhanced though the reconstruction of the bike path through this area.

I read page 28 of the PDF report. Thanks for posting that. I need a bit of clarity. As far as the Appletree Point crossing with Staniford. Is the recommendation to keep the stop signs on the Recreational Path and not add two stop signs on the Staniford-Appletree direction? I'm a bit confused by the map. Sorry to re-open the issue. Thanks, Azur

Azur, The Appletree Point intersection is not proposed to have stop signs for vehicles. Per the report, the only 2 intersections proposed to have stop signs added for vehicles are Little Eagle Bay and the North Ave Extension due to unique roadway circumstances and cyclist behavior.

Per the report regarding 4 way stops, "One problem with that approach is that the stop signs would likely lead to motorist frustration and violations during the night and winter months when the number of crossing bikes would be minimal."

The map on page 27 shows the recommendations: Stop signs would be retained on the path; new signage would be added on the street (recommendations to consider flashing crossing indicators) to indicate the crossing; stop ahead lettering is proposed to be on the path.

Burlington Parks,
Thank you for following this topic. I look forward to seeing what improvements can be made to improve safety and compliance.
Thanks