Advocacy & Safety - U.S. Secretary Of Transportation encouraging a "sea change"

U.S. readers may find this encouraging:

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/03/my-view-from-atop-the-table-at-the-national-bike-summit.html#more

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. Snip:


Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.

Incredible. Amazing statement for a Transportation Secretary.

Another way of saying: "Cities and communities, if you want some funds from Big Brother, put some bike lanes somewhere. Anywhere."

*AHEM*

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4263924493_1158046043_o.jpg

Some benefits.

-Kurt

There was a "bike lane" put in on US-302 in Berlin VT last year that is only one mile long and is nothing more than the shoulder of the road. It even abruptly vanishes where instead of cleaning up a rock slide they just put jersey barriers where the white line should be. Google Earth is too old to show any of this.

planning for bikes in the transportation mix is a sea change Americans need. A quick perusal of the 2010 proposed AASHTO guide illustrates the federal highway officials have THEIR act together when it comes to planning for bikes as transportation! state implementations decidedly less so in many cases.

maybe LaHood has something up his sleeves?

plan for seniors on trikes in florida for instance, that may not feel comfortable taking blind corners in front of nearly blind seniors piloting land yachts to the local early bird special.

and i mean that with the upmost respect to floridians and seniors.


Initial steps in the plan, from
Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.
Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities.
Go beyond minimum design standards.
Collect data on walking and biking trips.
Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling.
Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected (for example, snow removal)
Improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects.


sounds pretty good, eh?

and
Look, bike projects are relatively fast and inexpensive to build and are environmentally sustainable; they reduce travel costs, dramatically improve safety and public health, and reconnect citizens with their communities.

Yes it does sound good--along wth the health care bill passed a couple hours ago, it's a refreshing sign that government--at least on the federal level--is starting to work for "we the people" again, instead of the corporate interests.

It's a good idea for cyclists to pull together and insist on a voice in the planning of this new infrastructure. Those who don't speak up have no right to complain about possible "disappearing bike lanes" as a couple posters already have.

Yes it does sound good--along wth the health care bill passed a couple hours ago, it's a refreshing sign that government--at least on the federal level--is starting to work for "we the people" again, instead of the corporate interests.

Edit: not really a topic for here, I'll bring it up in the P&R forum.

We have a bike lane by my home that comes and goes over the course of a few hundred yards, in one of the most accident prone sections of road they could not spare a contiguous 3 feet of shoulder. This basically required that you weave in and out of traffic or ride in the right hand lane anyways despite the bike lane.

As refreshing as LaHood's perspective is, it is equally disturbing the reception he got at a Congressional Transportation Subcommittee meeting... that's the subject of this thread I posted a couple of days ago. I urge you to read the document I linked to... It's very enlightening:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?629786-Your-Legislators-representing-YOUR-interests%21-You-ve-GOTTA-read-this%21

Thanks!

Roger

Edit: not really a topic for here, I'll bring it up in the P&R forum.

We have a bike lane by my home that comes and goes over the course of a few hundred yards, in one of the most accident prone sections of road they could not spare a contiguous 3 feet of shoulder. This basically required that you weave in and out of traffic or ride in the right hand lane anyways despite the bike lane.


Well, yes.......,but lets not look a gift horse in the mouth. I am sure some of the the money and emphasis will be misplaced and poorly spent....but attention of cycling at this level should not be wasted, either.

roughstuff

Edit: not really a topic for here, I'll bring it up in the P&R forum.

We have a bike lane by my home that comes and goes over the course of a few hundred yards, in one of the most accident prone sections of road they could not spare a contiguous 3 feet of shoulder. This basically required that you weave in and out of traffic or ride in the right hand lane anyways despite the bike lane.
It's my understanding that the federal guidelines prohibit the "disappearing" bike lanes. Was the lane you mention funded by federal $?

For our local area I think this will be a positive thing. If the city can improve bike facilities (which is already in their plan), and then turn around and point to the feds when cagers complain, I think it will make it easier for them to be pro-bike, from a political standpoint.

The phrase is "having a say" in planning, which one would think should eventually result in a move AWAY from things like that rediculous bike lane photo posted above.

The phrase is "having a say" in planning, which one would think should eventually result in a move AWAY from things like that rediculous bike lane photo posted above.

It so happens that we who "have a say" in the bicycling community have to fight with traffic planners who have their own perception of "having a say."

Case in point, that BL is as a result of bullheaded Miami-Dade country traffic developers who insist that BL's should be designed in that fashion. You simply can't argue with them - which is exactly what the City of Miami's Bicycle Coordinator has been doing for a couple of years now (M-D maintains the roads within the City). Don't even try to explain sharrows to them.

-Kurt

It so happens that we who "have a say" in the bicycling community have to fight with traffic planners who have their own perception of "having a say."

Case in point, that BL is as a result of bullheaded Miami-Dade country traffic developers who insist that BL's should be designed in that fashion. You simply can't argue with them - which is exactly what the City of Miami's Bicycle Coordinator has been doing for a couple of years now (M-D maintains the roads within the City). Don't even try to explain sharrows to them.

-Kurt

Could it be that their hands are tied by the use of MUTCD and other uniform traffic standards and the laws of the city? We have similar problems in San Diego, where the city for instance will only use a "Share the Lane" sign when a bike lane is terminated and cyclists have no choice but to take the lane... in San Francisco they use a sign that says "Cyclist may use full lane," which has quite a different meaning to both cyclists and motorists. But as that sign has not been in the official uniform traffic manuals... oops, can't use it here.... Same state, different cities.

Could it be that their hands are tied by the use of MUTCD and other uniform traffic standards and the laws of the city? We have similar problems in San Diego, where the city for instance will only use a "Share the Lane" sign when a bike lane is terminated and cyclists have no choice but to take the lane... in San Francisco they use a sign that says "Cyclist may use full lane," which has quite a different meaning to both cyclists and motorists. But as that sign has not been in the official uniform traffic manuals... oops, can't use it here.... Same state, different cities.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MUTCD recognizes sharrows, and also recognizes proper BL striping.

The Miami-Dade, City of Miami, and Coral Gables codes state nothing additional to state law (which is quite lenient, and has no mandatory BL rule), except that the City of Miami requires the fitting of a bicycle bell - a law they adopted so they could kick tramps off the street.

That said, all three cities listed above do have at least one example of proper BL striping as well - in addition to the pitiful. The photo above was taken in Coral Gables; they have a couple of half-decent BL's which end as intended, the nutty crap that you see above, and no sharrows. The City of Miami just recently put down sharrows on one street (probably took hell to get those), and their BL's can be anything from half-decent to a split sidewalk (on new road construction, no less). Miami-Dade has a few BL's, usually all bad; a few are short enough that significant harm is done.

-Kurt

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MUTCD recognizes sharrows, and also recognizes proper BL striping.

The Miami-Dade, City of Miami, and Coral Gables codes state nothing additional to state law (which is quite lenient, and has no mandatory BL rule), except that the City of Miami requires the fitting of a bicycle bell - a law they adopted so they could kick tramps off the street.

That said, all three cities listed above do have at least one example of proper BL striping as well - in addition to the pitiful. The photo above was taken in Coral Gables; they have a couple of half-decent BL's which end as intended, the nutty crap that you see above, and no sharrows. The City of Miami just recently put down sharrows on one street (probably took hell to get those), and their BL's can be anything from half-decent to a split sidewalk (on new road construction, no less). Miami-Dade has a few BL's, usually all bad; a few are short enough that significant harm is done.

-Kurt

Yes, it does, in the latest versions... have those versions of the MUTCD been adopted by your city?

Sadly the MUTCD also has minimum and recommended standards... is it possible that some of these BL fit the minimum standards?

Edit: not really a topic for here, I'll bring it up in the P&R forum.

We have a bike lane by my home that comes and goes over the course of a few hundred yards, in one of the most accident prone sections of road they could not spare a contiguous 3 feet of shoulder. This basically required that you weave in and out of traffic or ride in the right hand lane anyways despite the bike lane.

Yup, we have one of those around here also...

Is that going to be the future of cycling though, eventually pigeon holing bicycles "off the roads" into bike-lane ghettos then into dead-end and sterile places like a MUP?

Yay? What your transport minister guy says is pretty vague...

There was a "bike lane" put in on US-302 in Berlin VT last year that is only one mile long and is nothing more than the shoulder of the road. It even abruptly vanishes where instead of cleaning up a rock slide they just put jersey barriers where the white line should be. Google Earth is too old to show any of this.

I lived in Brattleboro(VT), in Windham County, on four separate occasions; three times in the 1970's, the last being in the early-1980's. I would be very surprised if they have bike lanes there, even though, I moved from there twenty-seven years ago.

Is that going to be the future of cycling though, eventually pigeon holing bicycles "off the roads" into bike-lane ghettos then into dead-end and sterile places like a MUP?

Yay? What your transport minister guy says is pretty vague...

Precisely. Generic comments from lawmakers should be taken very cautiously. One man's "bicycle infrastructure" is another man's nightmare.

-Kurt

Yup, we have one of those around here also...

Is that going to be the future of cycling though, eventually pigeon holing bicycles "off the roads" into bike-lane ghettos then into dead-end and sterile places like a MUP?

Yay? What your transport minister guy says is pretty vague...
We don't have lords and ministers here... Just secretaries.

Also, we have laws in most states (evidently not Texas) that expressly permit cyclists to use the highways. So your slippery slope argument about "bike ghettos" would require dozens of laws to be changed. This doesn't appear likely in the foreseeable future.

Yup, we have one of those around here also...

Is that going to be the future of cycling though, eventually pigeon holing bicycles "off the roads" into bike-lane ghettos then into dead-end and sterile places like a MUP?

Yay? What your transport minister guy says is pretty vague...

A sterile MUP may in some cases be far better than fighting for road space on a high speed 55MPH arterial road with motorists that are using mobile phones and only stare a few feet ahead at the tail of the car they are following.

See this for an example of "sterile MUP to nowhere". http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.965854,-117.176246&spn=0.001913,0.005166&t=o&z=19

the administration behind LaHood needs to recognize the bull in the transportation chinashop is the automobile and america needs to do something about it.

personal mobility at the expense of quality of life is a morass most of suburban america lives in today.

Anyone driven in LA lately? I have. what a transportation dystopia. so bad it affects the public psyche of everyone living there.

We could escape with a series of large, economy building, public works projects that would foster in a new era of public transportation, livable communities and bike friendly roadways.

I lived in Brattleboro(VT), in Windham County, on four separate occasions; three times in the 1970's, the last being in the early-1980's. I would be very surprised if they have bike lanes there, even though, I moved from there twenty-seven years ago.


Brattleboro! GAteway to rt 9 and the big haul across the southern part of the state over Hogback Mtn. ARf! Third in the nation in the %age of unwed mothers! Got to love those long, dull, Vermont winters!

The main street(s) in town (all 2 of em) are a bit narrow for bike lanes...and traffic moves slowly thru the area anyway...so its really best to just take your lane and go from there.

roughstuff

A sterile MUP may in some cases be far better than fighting for road space on a high speed 55MPH arterial road with motorists that are using mobile phones and only stare a few feet ahead at the tail of the car they are following.

See this for an example of "sterile MUP to nowhere". http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=32.965854,-117.176246&spn=0.001913,0.005166&t=o&z=19
What's wrong w/ that bike path? It's no scenic ride I guess, and I don't know anything about the area-- but if that runs all along that route 56, then it would seem to me to be a useful addition to the right of way of that highway-- I can't tell from scrolling around where it goes, but it's better than anything that is done around here (which is nothing except one rail-trail and a beach boardwalk.)

What's wrong w/ that bike path? It's no scenic ride I guess, and I don't know anything about the area-- but if that runs all along that route 56, then it would seem to me to be a useful addition to the right of way of that highway-- I can't tell from scrolling around where it goes, but it's better than anything that is done around here (which is nothing except one rail-trail and a beach boardwalk.)

There is nothing wrong with it...

Hence my counter point to the comment about "sterile MUP to nowhere."

That path is a virtual bike highway, and far far more comfortable to ride than the old high speed arterial road that both the path and freeway replaced. It was done with State and Federal dollars. I hope to see much more of the same.

The interesting thing about the comment of the sterile MUP to nowhere is the highway originally was a sterile highway to nowhere... Actually it connected a small township about 30 miles away with a light industrial area. Since the road has been converted to highway, there is now development occurring on either side of the highway. The MUP runs under surface cross streets as shown in the pics I posted, and has "off ramps" at those surface streets, allowing connections to those new communities. Originally, those connections went "nowhere." Now there are destinations.

The fact is such "sterile MUPs to nowhere" can and should be part of any area development, and part of any freeway expansion... perhaps in this sea change, that may just happen.

I don't know if you're playing devils advocate here or what, but being told to get off the road and onto the bike-lane or MUP is not my idea of an equal oppourtunity.

I guess some of you like your bike ghettos, to me using the MUP is less than ideal way to get around town and trying to use a bike-lane to get everywhere would also be less than ideal. When i use the term sterile MUP, i am basically talking about the mup which runs next to a river and goes nowhere in particular since it is for recreation and naval gazing peds(by far the majority here). A MUP which gets you over an interstate highway is not sterile - it serves a purpose. Don't somehow construe my point with the desire to cycle in 55mph traffic. That isn't what i want either.

Further, you can already see an inkling in another A&S post about laws trying to force cyclists off the road and into bike-lanes(even when such lanes are unsafe and poorly designed things which creep along in the gutters and next to parked cars).

What this man has in mind when he says he is going to make a drastic change and gives no details should be worrying.

I guess some of you like your bike ghettos, to me using the MUP is less than ideal way to get around town and trying to use a bike-lane to get everywhere would also be less than ideal. When i use the term sterile MUP, i am basically talking about the mup which runs next to a river and goes nowhere in particular since it is for recreation and naval gazing peds(by far the majority here). A MUP which gets you over an interstate highway is not sterile - it serves a purpose. Don't somehow construe my point with the desire to cycle in 55mph traffic. That isn't what i want either.


But if the roads are only designed for 55MPH motor traffic... then that is all you will get!

When I leave my home if I need to go north, I have a choice between a 45 and a 55MPH road, both arterial roads. If I go east or west it is on a wide multilaned arterial road lined with parked cars. The moving traffic travels at 40-45MPH. From my office I can take a round about commute home, which is on a 55MPH multilaned arterial road to get to a 65MPH arterial road. There are no other choices. Motorists on the other hand have the use of 2 different freeways, as well as the same aforementioned arterial roads to travel north and south. East and west they are limited to either the arterial road or yet another freeway. At one point the only way for me to go north or south is to actually get on the freeway with my bike. There are no alternative roads!

This situation is quite common in the US west.

The "sterile MUP" that I posted was built to offer cyclists an alternate (and parallel) route after a high speed narrow arterial road was rebuilt into a limited access freeway.

Roadwork is controlled by various government agencies... MUPs and provisions for cyclists are usually controlled by parks departments, who have little insight into transportation needs.

A "sea change" may change this... transportation should be diversified, and not wholly dependent on one single means... such as the private motor vehicle... which in itself is largely dependent on one single fuel source.

You are indeed correct that there have been no declarative statements as to the possible future changes by our "minister of transportation." But recognition that a problem exists is the first step in correcting it.

What this man has in mind when he says he is going to make a drastic change and gives no details should be worrying.

The "drastic change" is that some consideration will be given to non-automotive transport where almost none was given before. Consider that the alternative is for the DOT to continue prioritizing automotive travel in urban development, which is what has gotten our cities in the car-centric jam that we are now in. The details in such an announcement must by their nature by vague, as the announcement was made to draw attention to a change in priorities at the highest level of transportation planning. This is the result of years of lobbying by pedestrian advocacy groups like Safe Routes to Schools, Livable Streets, Livable Communities; environmental groups like Sierra Club; and cycling advocates.

Now that priorities have changed, policy can follow. Policy that will most likely vary from city to city as local governments apply for federal funds for urban infrastructure, and policy that cycling advocates will constantly have to voice their opinion on if they wish for positive, effective changes in how the needs of cyclists are addressed by transportation planners. More federal funding will be available for bike infrastructure projects both bad and good, so advocates must still fight against bad policy.

This is step in the right direction, a recognition of the needs of user groups other than motorists. And that is a drastic change! Sure, change could be change for the worse. It could also be change for the better. Automatically assuming that a shift in priorities to consider transport modes other than the car will lead straight to "bike ghettos" is incredibly pessimistic and indicates a lack of faith in the power of advocacy.

The "drastic change" is that some consideration will be given to non-automotive transport where almost none was given before. Consider that the alternative is for the DOT to continue prioritizing automotive travel in urban development, which is what has gotten our cities in the car-centric jam that we are now in. The details in such an announcement must by their nature by vague, as the announcement was made to draw attention to a change in priorities at the highest level of transportation planning. This is the result of years of lobbying by pedestrian advocacy groups like Safe Routes to Schools, Livable Streets, Livable Communities; environmental groups like Sierra Club; and cycling advocates.

Now that priorities have changed, policy can follow. Policy that will most likely vary from city to city as local governments apply for federal funds for urban infrastructure, and policy that cycling advocates will constantly have to voice their opinion on if they wish for positive, effective changes in how the needs of cyclists are addressed by transportation planners. More federal funding will be available for bike infrastructure projects both bad and good, so advocates must still fight against bad policy.

This is step in the right direction, a recognition of the needs of user groups other than motorists. And that is a drastic change! Sure, change could be change for the worse. It could also be change for the better. Automatically assuming that a shift in priorities to consider transport modes other than the car will lead straight to "bike ghettos" is incredibly pessimistic and indicates a lack of faith in the power of advocacy.

+1000 Very well stated.

But if the roads are only designed for 55MPH motor traffic... then that is all you will get!

When I leave my home if I need to go north, I have a choice between a 45 and a 55MPH road, both arterial roads. If I go east or west it is on a wide multilaned arterial road lined with parked cars. The moving traffic travels at 40-45MPH. From my office I can take a round about commute home, which is on a 55MPH multilaned arterial road to get to a 65MPH arterial road. There are no other choices. Motorists on the other hand have the use of 2 different freeways, as well as the same aforementioned arterial roads to travel north and south. East and west they are limited to either the arterial road or yet another freeway. At one point the only way for me to go north or south is to actually get on the freeway with my bike. There are no alternative roads!

This situation is quite common in the US west.

The "sterile MUP" that I posted was built to offer cyclists an alternate (and parallel) route after a high speed narrow arterial road was rebuilt into a limited access freeway.

Roadwork is controlled by various government agencies... MUPs and provisions for cyclists are usually controlled by parks departments, who have little insight into transportation needs.

A "sea change" may change this... transportation should be diversified, and not wholly dependent on one single means... such as the private motor vehicle... which in itself is largely dependent on one single fuel source.

You are indeed correct that there have been no declarative statements as to the possible future changes by our "minister of transportation." But recognition that a problem exists is the first step in correcting it.

Somehow even though I wrote out the "55mph example" and you bolded it yourself, you insisted on using the 55mph highway example as some sort of point and case... oh well.

The "drastic change" is that some consideration will be given to non-automotive transport where almost none was given before. Consider that the alternative is for the DOT to continue prioritizing automotive travel in urban development, which is what has gotten our cities in the car-centric jam that we are now in. The details in such an announcement must by their nature by vague, as the announcement was made to draw attention to a change in priorities at the highest level of transportation planning. This is the result of years of lobbying by pedestrian advocacy groups like Safe Routes to Schools, Livable Streets, Livable Communities; environmental groups like Sierra Club; and cycling advocates.

Now that priorities have changed, policy can follow. Policy that will most likely vary from city to city as local governments apply for federal funds for urban infrastructure, and policy that cycling advocates will constantly have to voice their opinion on if they wish for positive, effective changes in how the needs of cyclists are addressed by transportation planners. More federal funding will be available for bike infrastructure projects both bad and good, so advocates must still fight against bad policy.

This is step in the right direction, a recognition of the needs of user groups other than motorists. And that is a drastic change! Sure, change could be change for the worse. It could also be change for the better. Automatically assuming that a shift in priorities to consider transport modes other than the car will lead straight to "bike ghettos" is incredibly pessimistic and indicates a lack of faith in the power of advocacy.

Sure, you are just assuming though that gov't is listening to all these advocacy groups and policy planners will simply implement what they recommend. That seems naive to me, but if you are certain.

What seems more likely is policy will be made around some half-aborted concept of what local government thinks giving bicycles attention means.

Sure, you are just assuming though that gov't is listening to all these advocacy groups and policy planners will simply implement what they recommend. That seems naive to me, but if you are certain.

What seems more likely is policy will be made around some half-aborted concept of what local government thinks giving bicycles attention means.

+10,000.

-Kurt

Somehow even though I wrote out the "55mph example" and you bolded it yourself, you insisted on using the 55mph highway example as some sort of point and case... oh well.

My point is that even not using the highway, the roads around here are still 55MPH. Surface streets. NOT highways.

My other point was that the government, given the right direction (see earlier post about MUP) CAN build good paths that work.

My point is that even not using the highway, the roads around here are still 55MPH. Surface streets. NOT highways.

My other point was that the government, given the right direction (see earlier post about MUP) CAN build good paths that work.

Ok, well I am not for mixing bicycles and cars going 55mph, maybe the speed limit ought to be lowered or traffic calmed?

Government, given the right direction, can accommodate cyclists on the street. MUPS and bike-lanes are great for bicycle "highways" - provided joggers, dog walkers and everything in between won't use them for recreation - but there should not be this notion that bicycles belong on MUPS and in bike-lanes, bicycles belong on the road and until people get that through their brains conditions won't improve since the gov't can't just build a whole other transport system ontop of the roadways. Eventually you'll end up on a road with cars and that is what scares the crap outta people.

We'll see what happens, but i think this announcement just means more MUPS and bike-lanes.

Sure, you are just assuming though that gov't is listening to all these advocacy groups and policy planners will simply implement what they recommend. That seems naive to me, but if you are certain.

What seems more likely is policy will be made around some half-aborted concept of what local government thinks giving bicycles attention means.
When Americans decided to prioritize automobile transportation, they built the best car infrastructure in the world. I think we can now build the best mixed use infrastructure in the world--if that's where we set our priorities.

This cynical attitude that governments can do nothing right overlooks some of the greatest accomplishments of human history, beginning with the Great Pyramids and continuing to the Interstate highways and the moon landing.

When Americans decided to prioritize automobile transportation, they built the best car infrastructure in the world. I think we can now build the best mixed use infrastructure in the world--if that's where we set our priorities.

This cynical attitude that governments can do nothing right overlooks some of the greatest accomplishments of human history, beginning with the Great Pyramids and continuing to the Interstate highways and the moon landing.

*waves little flag around* i'm not a cynic, honest!

I don't know if you're playing devils advocate here or what, but being told to get off the road and onto the bike-lane or MUP is not my idea of an equal oppourtunity.

I guess some of you like your bike ghettos, to me using the MUP is less than ideal way to get around town and trying to use a bike-lane to get everywhere would also be less than ideal. When i use the term sterile MUP, i am basically talking about the mup which runs next to a river and goes nowhere in particular since it is for recreation and naval gazing peds(by far the majority here). A MUP which gets you over an interstate highway is not sterile - it serves a purpose. Don't somehow construe my point with the desire to cycle in 55mph traffic. That isn't what i want either.

Further, you can already see an inkling in another A&S post about laws trying to force cyclists off the road and into bike-lanes(even when such lanes are unsafe and poorly designed things which creep along in the gutters and next to parked cars).

What this man has in mind when he says he is going to make a drastic change and gives no details should be worrying.
As Secretary of Transportation, LaHood sets policy in a broad sense by deciding guidelines that states and municipalities must follow in order to receive federal grants for construction projects. His department doesn't actually design the projects.. Therefore, he is not in a position to give details about individual projects.

LaHood did reveal one very important detail: in the future, the transportation department will be much more serious about non-motorized transit.

=get off the road

Sure, you are just assuming though that gov't is listening to all these advocacy groups and policy planners will simply implement what they recommend. That seems naive to me, but if you are certain.

What seems more likely is policy will be made around some half-aborted concept of what local government thinks giving bicycles attention means.

Well, if the gov't wasn't listening to alternative transport advocacy groups, then no change in priority would've been made at all. This change of attitude in the Dept. of Transportation indicates that some politicians have been listening. And it's not just about bike projects, it's about pro-pedestrian infrastructure and public transportation as well. It's about the DOT ceasing to judge all transportation projects based solely on their impact upon motorists.

And no, I do not assume that policy planners will simply implement whatever advocacy groups recommend. This is a democracy, and nothing is done simply. Like I said before, every user group is going to have to fight to get what it wants. And now there's more available for the getting. How is this bad? I mean, I'm not certain that every project funded under newly available DOT support is going to be great; but you seem certain that they're all going to be terrible. It seems rather naive of you to assume that the people and organizations that've gotten their voices heard all the way up to Cabinet level will be unable to have any effect on the local level.

I'm having a hard time agreeing with your hatin'. Just because many policy planners don't understand how to integrate bicycle traffic into the overall traffic structure, we shouldn't celebrate when an auto-centric transportation agency announces that greater attention is finally going to be payed to the needs of non-motorists? Just because local gov'ts have done things incorrectly in the past, they're incapable of doing better in the future?

Maybe the secretary of transport is also listening to motorists who want a final solution for cyclists and pedestrians.

I'm not going to waste more time participating in a discussion with zealots who call anybody with a dissenting opinion a cynic and a hater.

Enjoy your gift horse.

=get off the road
My city's bike master plan is not about getting bikes off the roads at all. It's mostly about making the roads better for bikes. There are plans for new trails and overpasses in the busiest areas, where hardly anybody rides at this time. But most of the planned bike infrastructure is the roads, plain and simple.

This is local planning, with input from hundreds of local cyclists. But of course, some of the money will eventually come from the USDOT. With LaHood's announcement, there's a chance that many of the improvements for bikes will happen 5 or 10 years sooner than scheduled on the master plan.

Maybe the secretary of transport is also listening to motorists who want a final solution for cyclists and pedestrians.

I'm not going to waste more time participating in a discussion with zealots who call anybody with a dissenting opinion a cynic and a hater.

Enjoy your gift horse.

What a baby.

But most of the planned bike infrastructure is the roads, plain and simple.
.
The roads are already there. Perhaps I should have more accurately written:

=get cyclists out of the way

have most of you read thru the proposed draft of the 2010 AASHTO guide?

there's NO 'bike ghetto' :rolleyes: OR 'get off the road' extant in that compelling document.

have most of you read thru the proposed draft of the 2010 AASHTO guide?

there's NO 'bike ghetto' :rolleyes: OR 'get off the road' extant in that compelling document.
We wouldn't want research or reality to interfere with our paranoid fantasies.

The roads are already there. Perhaps I should have more accurately written:

=get cyclists out of the way
The roads are there but often in no condition for people who would like to ride bikes.

The actual "government conspiracy" is to make the cars get out of the way. Serious policy planners realize that we've almost reached the maximum of cars that will fit on our roads. The only real solution is to have fewer cars, and to do that we need a better infrastructure for bikes and feet.

Ok, well I am not for mixing bicycles and cars going 55mph, maybe the speed limit ought to be lowered or traffic calmed?

Government, given the right direction, can accommodate cyclists on the street. MUPS and bike-lanes are great for bicycle "highways" - provided joggers, dog walkers and everything in between won't use them for recreation - but there should not be this notion that bicycles belong on MUPS and in bike-lanes, bicycles belong on the road and until people get that through their brains conditions won't improve since the gov't can't just build a whole other transport system ontop of the roadways. Eventually you'll end up on a road with cars and that is what scares the crap outta people.

We'll see what happens, but i think this announcement just means more MUPS and bike-lanes.

I actually agree with you. Although I think there's a place for MUP's and such. But they can't solve the problem, they only reduce it.

They never want to talk about solutions like: Traffic calming and no more cul-de-sacs. But they're the best solutions, IMO. Maybe it's because those things can't be tacked on later?

The roads are there but often in no condition for people who would like to ride bikes.

The actual "government conspiracy" is to make the cars get out of the way. Serious policy planners realize that we've almost reached the maximum of cars that will fit on our roads. The only real solution is to have fewer cars, and to do that we need a better infrastructure for bikes and feet.

Oh boy. Along with global wamingism and 'peak oil,' I suppose 'peak roadways' will be the next Fed shibboleth. Except in urban areas during morning and afternoon rush to and from work, the vast majority of roads are perfectly fine.

Since the completion of the interstate system and affiliated ring roads in the 1970s, total highway mileage has been almost stagnant, despite a massive increases in population, commerce, and delivery based retailing such as Ebay and other online sites.

roughstuff

It's my understanding that the federal guidelines prohibit the "disappearing" bike lanes. Was the lane you mention funded by federal $?

Roody, what guidelines? AASHTO guidelines are generally not binding, though highway engineers are often told "do it, or show why we should not." And there really aren't federal regulations on highway geometry, since USDoT has authority over only a small fraction of American highways. The States are mostly responsible.

Could it be that their hands are tied by the use of MUTCD and other uniform traffic standards and the laws of the city? We have similar problems in San Diego, where the city for instance will only use a "Share the Lane" sign when a bike lane is terminated and cyclists have no choice but to take the lane... in San Francisco they use a sign that says "Cyclist may use full lane," which has quite a different meaning to both cyclists and motorists. But as that sign has not been in the official uniform traffic manuals... oops, can't use it here.... Same state, different cities.

I'd think that on that right turn, traffic engineers noticed that drivers tend to cut the curve, regularly violating the inner lane boundary and encroaching into the bike lane. I of course don't know that to be a fact, but it is a well-known problem in the highway world. If that's the case, bikes located there will be toast. Drivers who get used to cutting have a hard time returning to normal lane tracking behavior. Actual implementation of a bike path involves making trade-offs between the various problems that are present, and choosing the design that best resolves a complex of competing factors. I'm pleased they actually provided for and indicated the continuity of the bike path, and didn't just end it before the curve.