by Ky Plaskon, President of BikeWashoe.org
On Wednesday, the Reno City Council will consider a $20 million micro-mobility network connecting UNR to Midtown, the bus station, and finishing its groundbreaking Fifth Street protected bike path. But, they left out the public’s top choice from a survey that City staff said was used to design the plan.
The staff report says, “The (survey) input showed that generally all routes were supported, some more than others.”
City staff failed to share with council members which routes were more supported than others, and, they conveniently left out the public’s top choice—University Way/Center Street. That’s dishonest.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the pattern for City of Reno staff. They took it upon themselves three years ago to stall the protected bike path on University Way/Center Street after The Row Casinos asked them to move the project to Virginia Street. This is despite the University Way project being approved by the City Council in the Regional Transportation Plan and already being at 30% design with support of a professional engineering study.
Now, when it gets overwhelming public support, they conveniently leave out that fact. If city staff is not going to be transparent with the public and Reno City Council, we will.
Here is how the public ranked the streets by level of importance according to the city’s own survey.
The report does say that the city has applied for a grant for the Sixth Street project, which is reassuring.
The omission of the survey results is just one of many examples in the report where it seems city staff is conveniently leaving out facts and inserting their personal opinions. The result is that the Reno City Council can’t make an informed decision.
The staff report says “The Center Street/University Way is not supported by transportation engineers because of vehicle speeds, vehicle volumes, reduction of travel lanes, number of major driveway access conflicts, lack of visibility and expectations of vehicle operators, and intersection conflicts with micro-modes traveling against the direction of vehicle traffic.”
That is in direct contradiction to a professional traffic engineering study that recommended University Way/Center Street. That study was required before the University Way project design started. City staff have that study, they have read it, but it seems they don’t like it. In fact, we have heard that City staff are individually lobbying council members to kill the University Way project. That’s dishonest.
So, City of Reno engineers, not backed by any studies, think University Way/Center is too dangerous for micro-mobility. No duh! That is the whole point of safety improvements—so people stop getting killed on the street.
City staff also said in their report that there is opposition to reducing travel lanes on University Way. What they conveniently forgot to include is that the very spot where the bike path would be is currently occupied by dumpsters and fire department-only parking. How can there be opposition to remove travel lanes that aren’t even travel lanes—they are dumpster lanes. Are the dumpsters opposed to the bike path? This kind of approach makes downtown Reno more dumpster-friendly than bike-friendly. 
Treating micro-mobility differently than other road projects is discriminatory against people who use alternative transportation.
This is not how we “do it right,” especially regarding safety. When the Reno City Council meets on Wednesday, council members should make it clear that this is not how city staff should operate, and they should make University Way/Center Street priority number one.
But wait, there’s more! Underlying all this micro-modal smoke and mirrors is a general lack of transparency with taxpayers about the costs of these projects. The City of Reno and RTC’s cost of four miles of bike lanes is $5 million per mile—more than five times the cost reported by other cities. Protected bike paths in Washington D.C. cost as little as $300,000-$1 million per mile, according to the Washington D.C. Department of Transportation.
So what’s the difference between the costs for Washington D.C. and Reno? Reno and RTC lump in the costs of improvements that benefit drivers—resurfacing streets and building “peanut round-a-bouts” that are only for drivers—and then call it a “micro-modal project.” When you break out the costs, these are more like car projects. To be transparent with the public and taxpayers, the costs should be broken out in their own budgets for micro-modal vs. cars.
Here is another big difference between how Reno and other cities are doing bike lanes. Reno plans to install permanent bike infrastructure that is extremely expensive both to install and to change after it is installed.
In D.C., they use a simple design of plastic reflective “candlesticks” and parking lot wheel bumpers bolted to the ground. They offer the same, if not more, protection at one-fifth the cost. The bumpers and candlesticks can be quickly and cheaply moved to benefit businesses, accommodate loading zones and, ultimately, save taxpayers money.
With this method, Washington D.C. has installed its entire 50-mile bike network for less than $50 million. The results: 10% of all trips in the city core are by bike, and half of all riders are women. Reno’s plan, on the other hand, is to install four miles of bike path for $20 million and take four years to do it. It would take forever to build a city-wide bike network at that cost and pace.
Here is the question that might be swirling around in your mind: Can Washington D.C.’s method work in Reno? Yes. The City of Reno proved it last year when they installed the Fifth Street protected path. According to RTC, it cost $300,000 per mile and they did it in less than four months.
Waiting four years and charging taxpayers five times as much doesn’t make sense. It’s a monumental step backward and cost-prohibitive. Considering the true cost of micro-modal at $1 million per mile, the City of Reno should be able to complete its entire seven-mile downtown network for less than its $20 million budget and do it by the end of next summer.
The Reno City Council should set city staff straight, demand honesty, and send a message that we are serious about offering safe micro-mobility fast. Tell city staff to break out the costs of this micro-modal network with cars vs. micro-modal, include the public’s top priority—University Way/Center Street—in the downtown network plan, and use low-cost alternatives to get it all done. That is how we “do it right.”
Community members can provide public comment to city council members before 4 p.m. Tuesday by calling (775) 393-4499 and leaving a voice mail or using the online form. Public comment can also be given in person at Reno City Hall during Wednesday’s City Council meeting, which starts at 10 a.m.
Ky Plaskon is President of the Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance (BikeWashoe.org) and Secretary of the Nevada Bicycle Coalition.
Submitted opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of This Is Reno. Have something to say? Submit an opinion article or letter to the editor here.
