Originally Posted by sbhikes
There may be some roads that can be adequately retrofitted to accommodate bicycles. But that sort of misses the point. There must be a strategy behind these changes. What is the goal?
In Denmark the goal was to get people on bikes, probably to reduce traffic congestion, maybe to improve the livability of the community. I don't really know. Unless there is a goal and bicycle transportation structures are part of meeting that goal, and there are metrics to measure the progress toward that goal, it's all just ill-designed paint on the road.
The way I understand it, the goal was to provide for both cyclists and drivers. They already had an abundance of cyclists, and things were getting hairy, so they made the decision to accomodate both, and this happened quite awhile ago. Accomodations over there are not perfect, but they are trying and alot of what they have done is working very well. This doesn't happen overnight, it takes years. I like what they are doing and I think some of our idiots (sorry--elected offficials) should be paying attention because it won't be long before there is an overabundance of cyclists using the roads here with the same old, tired, non-working infastructure. Some places are really trying here, though. My county actually has a 25 year plan in place, but finding the money and the leadership to do it is another story. Some of what this county wants to do is make raised lanes---not raised like sidewalks, but 10-20 feet above the roadways, which cost a fraction of what redesigning and, or, re-striping roads would cost, and would tie into the existing trails (paved) and other major roads. Just some thought.