Spooky Tooth Bike made in Tucson, Az
12-29-07, 11:20 AM
#1
Doc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Georgia
Posts: 47
Bikes: Trek Madone, Rans Velocity Squared
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Spooky Tooth Bike made in Tucson, Az
Last edited by BillyBob1; 12-29-07 at 11:32 AM.
12-29-07, 07:06 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Rethinking Current Corridors For Human Transportation
JAWB - Just Another Whiny Bicyclist
It's TIME to reconsider some of the problems indicated in this article in the light of newer, innovative ideas:
The whiny bicyclists in this article need to get a life, i.e. live their OWN life and get their busy body noses out of the lives of others who have the right to use the road as much as they do. With that comment, I do believe that rethinking current corridors for transporting people must include the increasing proliferation of low speed vehicles whether powered or not. Personally, I can't stand WASTING money on greenways when parallel corridors for low speed vehicles, i.e. pedestrians, currently exist. The answer is using innovative design in revamping sidewalks to accommodate a wide range of low speed vehicles. (*) For example in the USA, slower speed vehicles would progressively be moved further right with pedestrians occupying the rightmost lane which can create havoc with low speed vehicles at intersections and driveways due to the incline. Placing low speed vehicles and pedestrians on the main part of the road seems more dangerous than necessary due to cars moving into the rightmost lane in the case of emergencies, etc. Maybe, the multiple use sidewalk should be considered a SEPARATE bi-directional path from the main road. If not, how does one separate the multiple use corridor for low speed vehicles from the main road AND keep the additional cost minimal? Basically, how does a community redesign the concept of the sidewalk into a multiple use corridor for low speed vehicles and pedestrians? From just thinking about this process, the ideal solution seems to be placing the low speed vehicles on the rightmost lane of the main part of the road and sufficiently isolating that lane from emergency traffic or on the rightmost side of a bidirectional corridor due to inclines for driveways, etc. A multiple use, bidirectional corridor for low speed vehicles and pedestrians only NEEDS one side of the road, but this restriction creates even more problems than using a separate bidirectional corridor on each side of the main road. Isolating non-powered, i.e. pedestrian, traffic to ONE side of the main road is another possibility. In other words, bidirectional pedestrian traffic is reserved for ONE side of the main road. The other side of the main road is reserved for bidirectional low speed vehicular traffic, but the problem with inclines for driveways remains. The cheapest solution is probably reducing the width of sidewalks for solely unidirectional pedestrian traffic and placing a unidirectional corridor for low speed vehicles on the rightmost lane of the bidirectional main road and then sufficiently isolating (**) that lane from emergency traffic. Let's get it done.
(*) Naturally, this process will take decades, but eventually will be far more flexible and efficient than greenways. Basically, the low speed vehicles will travel the SAME route as cars.
(**) Some type of marker spaced sufficiently apart to miss at posted speed, but generally hit at speeds higher than posted.
It's TIME to reconsider some of the problems indicated in this article in the light of newer, innovative ideas:
The whiny bicyclists in this article need to get a life, i.e. live their OWN life and get their busy body noses out of the lives of others who have the right to use the road as much as they do. With that comment, I do believe that rethinking current corridors for transporting people must include the increasing proliferation of low speed vehicles whether powered or not. Personally, I can't stand WASTING money on greenways when parallel corridors for low speed vehicles, i.e. pedestrians, currently exist. The answer is using innovative design in revamping sidewalks to accommodate a wide range of low speed vehicles. (*) For example in the USA, slower speed vehicles would progressively be moved further right with pedestrians occupying the rightmost lane which can create havoc with low speed vehicles at intersections and driveways due to the incline. Placing low speed vehicles and pedestrians on the main part of the road seems more dangerous than necessary due to cars moving into the rightmost lane in the case of emergencies, etc. Maybe, the multiple use sidewalk should be considered a SEPARATE bi-directional path from the main road. If not, how does one separate the multiple use corridor for low speed vehicles from the main road AND keep the additional cost minimal? Basically, how does a community redesign the concept of the sidewalk into a multiple use corridor for low speed vehicles and pedestrians? From just thinking about this process, the ideal solution seems to be placing the low speed vehicles on the rightmost lane of the main part of the road and sufficiently isolating that lane from emergency traffic or on the rightmost side of a bidirectional corridor due to inclines for driveways, etc. A multiple use, bidirectional corridor for low speed vehicles and pedestrians only NEEDS one side of the road, but this restriction creates even more problems than using a separate bidirectional corridor on each side of the main road. Isolating non-powered, i.e. pedestrian, traffic to ONE side of the main road is another possibility. In other words, bidirectional pedestrian traffic is reserved for ONE side of the main road. The other side of the main road is reserved for bidirectional low speed vehicular traffic, but the problem with inclines for driveways remains. The cheapest solution is probably reducing the width of sidewalks for solely unidirectional pedestrian traffic and placing a unidirectional corridor for low speed vehicles on the rightmost lane of the bidirectional main road and then sufficiently isolating (**) that lane from emergency traffic. Let's get it done.
(*) Naturally, this process will take decades, but eventually will be far more flexible and efficient than greenways. Basically, the low speed vehicles will travel the SAME route as cars.
(**) Some type of marker spaced sufficiently apart to miss at posted speed, but generally hit at speeds higher than posted.
Last edited by tpreitzel; 12-29-07 at 08:59 PM.
