| |
Main
Date: 09 Jun 2007 15:48:55
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
If you have links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities,
please post them here or email me. I'm interested in illustrating some
things for our city.
Thanks.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Jun 2007 18:02:36
From:
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Jun 14, 10:05 am, gds <gary_j...@msn.com > wrote:
> Tucson has a number of MUP's that follow our washes and have been
> designed with underpasses so one does not encounter cars, stop signs
> or traffic lights at all. And at certain times of the day they are
> fine for cycling. But in early morning or late afternoon, the times
> that transportational cyclists are most likely out the MUP's have a
> lot of walker's, child cyclists, in line skaters, and runners. So, I
> find it better cycling to take the parallel roads and deal with the
> cars.
>
> My non scientific poll is that folks who like to ride at 13 mph or
> less like the MUP's, folks who like to ride >16 mph abhor them and the
> folks who ride 13-15 mph have mixed opinions
Again, the MUPs here, even when congested, usually provide the faster
option due to the intersections on the adjacent streets. I suspect
that many proud 'vehicular cyclists' who oppose MUPs and claim that
they can't ride at an 'effective' speed on them don't really put two
and two together in terms of how much time they spend waiting at red
lights on the surface streets.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jun 2007 21:02:37
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:05 am, gds <gary_j...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Tucson has a number of MUP's that follow our washes and have been
>> designed with underpasses so one does not encounter cars, stop signs
>> or traffic lights at all. And at certain times of the day they are
>> fine for cycling. But in early morning or late afternoon, the times
>> that transportational cyclists are most likely out the MUP's have a
>> lot of walker's, child cyclists, in line skaters, and runners. So, I
>> find it better cycling to take the parallel roads and deal with the
>> cars.
>>
>> My non scientific poll is that folks who like to ride at 13 mph or
>> less like the MUP's, folks who like to ride >16 mph abhor them and the
>> folks who ride 13-15 mph have mixed opinions
>
> Again, the MUPs here, even when congested, usually provide the faster
> option due to the intersections on the adjacent streets. I suspect
> that many proud 'vehicular cyclists' who oppose MUPs and claim that
> they can't ride at an 'effective' speed on them don't really put two
> and two together in terms of how much time they spend waiting at red
> lights on the surface streets.
>
> Robert
>
Actually 13-15 MPH in a gully wash sounds about right. Much faster, even
on a dirt bike can put you down, if not harmed, then at least
embarrassed if someone sees you.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 09:05:38
From: gds
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Jun 14, 6:55 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 14, 12:24 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1181795788.704693.191...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 12, 3:05 pm, "Graham Harrison"
>
> > > > I second *all* of that. The Warrington site is a gem. I would go so far
> > > > as to say I am also a definite "anti" of cycle facilities. I particularly
> > > > abhor facilities shared with pedestrians because I believe that (a) it puts
> > > > them at significant risk and (b) it means I have to slow down.
>
> > > That's pretty short-sighted. A well-designed MUP can drastically
> > > reduce or eliminate street intersections. This means a
> > > transportational cyclist can shorten travel times using the MUP
> > > instead of adjacent streets, even if the MUP is well-used by
> > > pedestrians and even if the peds have the right-of-way.
>
> > Thinking of the MUPs I know of in this region, this seems a bit of a
> > fantasy.
>
> > On occasion, geography allows for a nice MUP that has fewer intersection
> > crossings than the main road, but at some point you might as well just
> > do what Vancouver has done for lots of its bike routes: mark a quiet
> > street that parallels a major thoroughfare as a bike route, and then put
> > up "only bikes may pass" access barriers at a few intersections, add
> > priority cyclist walk-buttons at the lit intersections, and generally
> > make it easy for cyclists and meandering for cars.
>
> > Thinking about my own commute, I actually do use a single MUP, though in
> > fairness I'm not quite sure it's designated as such. It's a wide paved
> > path through a park that doesn't have any "no bikes" signage, but is
> > mostly used by pedestrians.
>
> > It saves me a bit of time by being part of a diagonal shortcut through
> > the park, which also cuts a small hill and a tedious right turn (as in
> > wait for a lot of traffic on the road I'm turning onto) out of my route.
> > The MUP part is 200m, I'd guess.
>
> > I'm also aware of one recreational MUP that works quite well for
> > cyclists. It's a virtual road to nowhere about 10 km long. The reason it
> > works is because the walkers virtually disappear after the first
> > kilometre or two, leaving the last 8 km of this out-and-back to the
> > cyclists and a very occasional rollerblader.
>
> > Seymour Valley Trailway:http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/water/recreational.htm
>
> > But as transportation, I would merely say that while a good MUP is
> > conceivable, the majority are so unsuitable that any route intended for
> > bike travel (as opposed to mere recreation, and that only at rather slow
> > speeds) should probably not be a MUP. There will be exceptions, but they
> > are, ahem, exceptional.
>
> Your fantasy is a reality where I live. In Denver one can travel by
> bike 10-20 miles through the heart of the city without encountering a
> single street intersection. MUPs on which peds have the right-of-way
> function as de facto freeways for bikes most of the time. It's
> incredibly effective and useful for transportational cyclists. I think
> this could be a reality for any urban area that has a river or canal
> flowing to its center, which is not an exceptional situation at all.
>
> Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tucson has a number of MUP's that follow our washes and have been
designed with underpasses so one does not encounter cars, stop signs
or traffic lights at all. And at certain times of the day they are
fine for cycling. But in early morning or late afternoon, the times
that transportational cyclists are most likely out the MUP's have a
lot of walker's, child cyclists, in line skaters, and runners. So, I
find it better cycling to take the parallel roads and deal with the
cars.
My non scientific poll is that folks who like to ride at 13 mph or
less like the MUP's, folks who like to ride >16 mph abhor them and the
folks who ride 13-15 mph have mixed opinions.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 13:55:24
From:
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Jun 14, 12:24 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1181795788.704693.191...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 3:05 pm, "Graham Harrison"
>
> > > I second *all* of that. The Warrington site is a gem. I would go so far
> > > as to say I am also a definite "anti" of cycle facilities. I particularly
> > > abhor facilities shared with pedestrians because I believe that (a) it puts
> > > them at significant risk and (b) it means I have to slow down.
>
> > That's pretty short-sighted. A well-designed MUP can drastically
> > reduce or eliminate street intersections. This means a
> > transportational cyclist can shorten travel times using the MUP
> > instead of adjacent streets, even if the MUP is well-used by
> > pedestrians and even if the peds have the right-of-way.
>
> Thinking of the MUPs I know of in this region, this seems a bit of a
> fantasy.
>
> On occasion, geography allows for a nice MUP that has fewer intersection
> crossings than the main road, but at some point you might as well just
> do what Vancouver has done for lots of its bike routes: mark a quiet
> street that parallels a major thoroughfare as a bike route, and then put
> up "only bikes may pass" access barriers at a few intersections, add
> priority cyclist walk-buttons at the lit intersections, and generally
> make it easy for cyclists and meandering for cars.
>
> Thinking about my own commute, I actually do use a single MUP, though in
> fairness I'm not quite sure it's designated as such. It's a wide paved
> path through a park that doesn't have any "no bikes" signage, but is
> mostly used by pedestrians.
>
> It saves me a bit of time by being part of a diagonal shortcut through
> the park, which also cuts a small hill and a tedious right turn (as in
> wait for a lot of traffic on the road I'm turning onto) out of my route.
> The MUP part is 200m, I'd guess.
>
> I'm also aware of one recreational MUP that works quite well for
> cyclists. It's a virtual road to nowhere about 10 km long. The reason it
> works is because the walkers virtually disappear after the first
> kilometre or two, leaving the last 8 km of this out-and-back to the
> cyclists and a very occasional rollerblader.
>
> Seymour Valley Trailway:http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/water/recreational.htm
>
> But as transportation, I would merely say that while a good MUP is
> conceivable, the majority are so unsuitable that any route intended for
> bike travel (as opposed to mere recreation, and that only at rather slow
> speeds) should probably not be a MUP. There will be exceptions, but they
> are, ahem, exceptional.
Your fantasy is a reality where I live. In Denver one can travel by
bike 10-20 miles through the heart of the city without encountering a
single street intersection. MUPs on which peds have the right-of-way
function as de facto freeways for bikes most of the time. It's
incredibly effective and useful for transportational cyclists. I think
this could be a reality for any urban area that has a river or canal
flowing to its center, which is not an exceptional situation at all.
Robert
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 04:36:28
From:
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Jun 12, 3:05 pm, "Graham Harrison"
> I second *all* of that. The Warrington site is a gem. I would go so far
> as to say I am also a definite "anti" of cycle facilities. I particularly
> abhor facilities shared with pedestrians because I believe that (a) it puts
> them at significant risk and (b) it means I have to slow down.
That's pretty short-sighted. A well-designed MUP can drastically
reduce or eliminate street intersections. This means a
transportational cyclist can shorten travel times using the MUP
instead of adjacent streets, even if the MUP is well-used by
pedestrians and even if the peds have the right-of-way.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 06:24:20
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
In article <1181795788.704693.191150@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:05 pm, "Graham Harrison"
>
> > I second *all* of that. The Warrington site is a gem. I would go so far
> > as to say I am also a definite "anti" of cycle facilities. I particularly
> > abhor facilities shared with pedestrians because I believe that (a) it puts
> > them at significant risk and (b) it means I have to slow down.
>
> That's pretty short-sighted. A well-designed MUP can drastically
> reduce or eliminate street intersections. This means a
> transportational cyclist can shorten travel times using the MUP
> instead of adjacent streets, even if the MUP is well-used by
> pedestrians and even if the peds have the right-of-way.
Thinking of the MUPs I know of in this region, this seems a bit of a
fantasy.
On occasion, geography allows for a nice MUP that has fewer intersection
crossings than the main road, but at some point you might as well just
do what Vancouver has done for lots of its bike routes: mark a quiet
street that parallels a major thoroughfare as a bike route, and then put
up "only bikes may pass" access barriers at a few intersections, add
priority cyclist walk-buttons at the lit intersections, and generally
make it easy for cyclists and meandering for cars.
Thinking about my own commute, I actually do use a single MUP, though in
fairness I'm not quite sure it's designated as such. It's a wide paved
path through a park that doesn't have any "no bikes" signage, but is
mostly used by pedestrians.
It saves me a bit of time by being part of a diagonal shortcut through
the park, which also cuts a small hill and a tedious right turn (as in
wait for a lot of traffic on the road I'm turning onto) out of my route.
The MUP part is 200m, I'd guess.
I'm also aware of one recreational MUP that works quite well for
cyclists. It's a virtual road to nowhere about 10 km long. The reason it
works is because the walkers virtually disappear after the first
kilometre or two, leaving the last 8 km of this out-and-back to the
cyclists and a very occasional rollerblader.
Seymour Valley Trailway:
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/water/recreational.htm
But as transportation, I would merely say that while a good MUP is
conceivable, the majority are so unsuitable that any route intended for
bike travel (as opposed to mere recreation, and that only at rather slow
speeds) should probably not be a MUP. There will be exceptions, but they
are, ahem, exceptional.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2007 14:03:45
From:
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Jun 9, 11:44 am, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com >
wrote:
> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.20d47190535f5278989703@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
> > In article <HZzai.20243$j63.8...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > cpeter...@mouse-potato.com says...
> >> If you have links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities,
> >> please post them here or email me. I'm interested in illustrating some
> >> things for our city.
>
> > There is a "Bicycle Facilities" group on flickr that might illustrate
> > some things for them.
>
> I'll look over in flickr
>
> > What sort of facilities are you looking for specifically?
>
> Positive and useful signage, both directional for cyclists and educational
> for motorists.
>
> Routing on both on all-vehicle roadways and non-motorized roadways, such as
> I have seen in Vancouver and Marin County.
>
> At the risk of incensing the VC crowd, I'll say I'm also looking for
> sensibly developed bike lanes.
One of the problems with "educational" signage such as "Share The
Road" is that it leads drivers to believe that they've a right to the
road and cyclists are lucky if motorists are willing to give them any
room at all.
I can't think of any 10 letter signs (about the limit of something
readable at 35 mph) that would make any informed change to drivers
knowledge about cyclists rights.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jun 2007 13:58:25
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
<cyclintom@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1181682225.712821.327440@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I can't think of any 10 letter signs (about the limit of something
> readable at 35 mph) that would make any informed change to drivers
> knowledge about cyclists rights.
Where the speed limit is 25 - 30 mph on Mercer Island, they have a sign with
pictographs of a motorist, a bicyclist, and a pedestrian. They have three
words: Safety - Courtesy - Patience. Mercer Island is a favorite cycling
spot - a loop of the island is 11 miles with few stop signs, roads shaded
with leafy greenery and with good pavement, and a view most of the way. I
know people who ride out there, lap the island 5 times and ride home. With
this many cyclists, though, on a twisty and mostly shoulderless road, of
late there's been some heated interactions between cyclists and motorists. A
little reminder for everyone to be nice to one another doesn't hurt.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Jun 2007 15:01:25
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:58:25 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote:
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1181682225.712821.327440@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I can't think of any 10 letter signs (about the limit of something
>> readable at 35 mph) that would make any informed change to drivers
>> knowledge about cyclists rights.
>
>
> Where the speed limit is 25 - 30 mph on Mercer Island, they have a sign with
> pictographs of a motorist, a bicyclist, and a pedestrian. They have three
> words: Safety - Courtesy - Patience. Mercer Island is a favorite cycling
> spot - a loop of the island is 11 miles with few stop signs, roads shaded
> with leafy greenery and with good pavement, and a view most of the way. I
> know people who ride out there, lap the island 5 times and ride home. With
> this many cyclists, though, on a twisty and mostly shoulderless road, of
> late there's been some heated interactions between cyclists and motorists. A
> little reminder for everyone to be nice to one another doesn't hurt.
I love it!
Matt O.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2007 19:33:20
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:03:45 -0700, cyclintom@gmail.com concluded:
\
>I can't think of any 10 letter signs (about the limit of something
>readable at 35 mph) that would make any informed change to drivers
>knowledge about cyclists rights.
BIKES RULE!
--
zk
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 16:00:20
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Jun 9, 2:44 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com >
wrote:
> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.20d47190535f5278989703@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
> > In article <HZzai.20243$j63.8...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > cpeter...@mouse-potato.com says...
> >> If you have links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities,
> >> please post them here or email me. I'm interested in illustrating some
> >> things for our city.
>
> > There is a "Bicycle Facilities" group on flickr that might illustrate
> > some things for them.
>
> I'll look over in flickr
>
> > What sort of facilities are you looking for specifically?
>
> Positive and useful signage, both directional for cyclists and educational
> for motorists.
>
> Routing on both on all-vehicle roadways and non-motorized roadways, such as
> I have seen in Vancouver and Marin County.
>
> At the risk of incensing the VC crowd, I'll say I'm also looking for
> sensibly developed bike lanes.
>
> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Peterskyhttp://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
> See the books I've set free at:http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
Hi Claire,
You might want to consider the Warrington Cycling Campaign's Facility
of the Month. It is an excellent UK compendium of how NOT to do
things. I think some of the examples could be a good educational
thing.
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month.
Personally I don't think you can have sensibly developed cycling lanes
except under very unusual circumstance. In some specific instances
they seem to work v very well but I doubt that there is enough
knowledge out there to predict when they will. I know of one that
works well from Monday to Friday 7:30 to 9:30 AM but which is not very
useful the rest of the time.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2007 22:05:24
From: Graham Harrison
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1181430020.416263.128160@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 2:44 pm, "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com>
> wrote:
>> <j...@phred.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:MPG.20d47190535f5278989703@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>>
>> > In article <HZzai.20243$j63.8...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> > cpeter...@mouse-potato.com says...
>> >> If you have links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle
>> >> facilities,
>> >> please post them here or email me. I'm interested in illustrating some
>> >> things for our city.
>>
>> > There is a "Bicycle Facilities" group on flickr that might illustrate
>> > some things for them.
>>
>> I'll look over in flickr
>>
>> > What sort of facilities are you looking for specifically?
>>
>> Positive and useful signage, both directional for cyclists and
>> educational
>> for motorists.
>>
>> Routing on both on all-vehicle roadways and non-motorized roadways, such
>> as
>> I have seen in Vancouver and Marin County.
>>
>> At the risk of incensing the VC crowd, I'll say I'm also looking for
>> sensibly developed bike lanes.
>>
>> --
>> Warm Regards,
>>
>> Claire Peterskyhttp://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
>> See the books I've set free at:http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>
> Hi Claire,
>
> You might want to consider the Warrington Cycling Campaign's Facility
> of the Month. It is an excellent UK compendium of how NOT to do
> things. I think some of the examples could be a good educational
> thing.
>
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month.
>
> Personally I don't think you can have sensibly developed cycling lanes
> except under very unusual circumstance. In some specific instances
> they seem to work v very well but I doubt that there is enough
> knowledge out there to predict when they will. I know of one that
> works well from Monday to Friday 7:30 to 9:30 AM but which is not very
> useful the rest of the time.
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
I second *all* of that. The Warrington site is a gem. I would go so far
as to say I am also a definite "anti" of cycle facilities. I particularly
abhor facilities shared with pedestrians because I believe that (a) it puts
them at significant risk and (b) it means I have to slow down. I also
dislike facilities where the stop line for cars is such that they block my
progress when I'm using the facility (which is true of many shared use paths
in the UK).
You might want to look at uk.rec.cycling for some debates on the subject
(both positive and negative).
Having said I am anti facility I was quite impressed by the design manual
which TFL (London Transport) put together
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx It is
*not* perfect and we have plenty of examples in London (much less the rest
of the UK) where it is not followed but if you must do something I reckon
it's a reasonable starting point.
I would prefer driver and cyclist education to ensure the various means of
transport co-exist.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 16:38:19
From: Colin Nelson
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
"Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:HZzai.20243$j63.8037@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> If you have links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities,
> please post them here or email me. I'm interested in illustrating some
> things for our city.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky
> http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
> See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>
>
Some ideas here (UK but still useful)
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/
Sometimes it`s handy to know what`s not a good facility. Click on `facility
of the month` on the above site.
--
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 09:13:37
From:
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
In article <HZzai.20243$j63.8037@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
cpetersky@mouse-potato.com says...
> If you have links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities,
> please post them here or email me. I'm interested in illustrating some
> things for our city.
There is a "Bicycle Facilities" group on flickr that might illustrate
some things for them.
What sort of facilities are you looking for specifically?
--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html >
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 18:44:07
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
<josh@phred.org > wrote in message
news:MPG.20d47190535f5278989703@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <HZzai.20243$j63.8037@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> cpetersky@mouse-potato.com says...
>> If you have links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities,
>> please post them here or email me. I'm interested in illustrating some
>> things for our city.
>
> There is a "Bicycle Facilities" group on flickr that might illustrate
> some things for them.
I'll look over in flickr
> What sort of facilities are you looking for specifically?
Positive and useful signage, both directional for cyclists and educational
for motorists.
Routing on both on all-vehicle roadways and non-motorized roadways, such as
I have seen in Vancouver and Marin County.
At the risk of incensing the VC crowd, I'll say I'm also looking for
sensibly developed bike lanes.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jun 2007 11:05:50
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:44:07 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote:
> <josh@phred.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20d47190535f5278989703@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> In article <HZzai.20243$j63.8037@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> cpetersky@mouse-potato.com says...
>>> If you have links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities,
>>> please post them here or email me. I'm interested in illustrating some
>>> things for our city.
>>
>> There is a "Bicycle Facilities" group on flickr that might illustrate
>> some things for them.
>
> I'll look over in flickr
>
>> What sort of facilities are you looking for specifically?
>
> Positive and useful signage, both directional for cyclists and educational
> for motorists.
>
> Routing on both on all-vehicle roadways and non-motorized roadways, such as
> I have seen in Vancouver and Marin County.
>
> At the risk of incensing the VC crowd, I'll say I'm also looking for
> sensibly developed bike lanes.
Try the AASHTO manuals. Seriously. There's some good stuff in there,
developed through years of research by some very smart people.
We'd have much better bike facilities if traffic engineers would actually
follow established standards and best practices.
Matt O.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Jun 2007 09:18:08
From:
Subject: Re: Looking for links to photos of what to do in terms of bicycle facilities
|
In article <pan.2007.06.10.15.05.46.464806@letterboxes.org >,
mattotoole@letterboxes.org says...
> Try the AASHTO manuals. Seriously. There's some good stuff in there,
> developed through years of research by some very smart people.
>
> We'd have much better bike facilities if traffic engineers would actually
> follow established standards and best practices.
Good point.
Since Claire is in Washington -- WSDOT's design manuals for bicycle
facilities incorporate most of AASHTO's bicycle facility standards, and
are available free on-line.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/EESC/Design/DesignManual/desEnglish/1020-E.pdf
--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html >
|
|
