Old 05-16-13, 05:01 PM
  #72  
kalliergo 
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Depends on the MUP, location and design. One (yes, only one) near me has a parallel walking track... yet oddly peds still walk on the bike path itself. The sad fact is peds will go anywhere their legs will take them... just like cyclists will ride on sidewalks. No point in banning them, best for all to do a reality check and just get along.
In California, per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Class I bikeways (bike paths) are intended for bikes and peds.

Comparatively few adjacent pedestrian facilities exist.

1003.1 Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths)

Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way, with cross flows by vehicles minimized.

Class I bikeways, unless adjacent to an adequate pedestrian facility, (see Index 1001.3(n)) are for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, therefore any facility serving pedestrians must meet accessibility requirements, see DIB 82. However, experience has shown that if regular pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facilities for pedestrians may be beneficial to minimize conflicts.
Edit: The referenced accessibility guidelines are those established pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
__________________
"What if we fail to stop the erosion of cities by automobiles?. . . In that case, we Americans will hardly need to ponder a mystery that has troubled men for millennia: What is the purpose of life? For us, the answer will be clear, established and for all practical purposes indisputable: The purpose of life is to produce and consume automobiles."

~Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities
kalliergo is offline