Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Trimodal? No. Multimodal, in the sense of Randya's post above.
Is the problem difficult? Of course. Does this mean we shy away? No. Otherwise we would never have FEA and CFD designed bicycles weighing 17 lbs (who in the
world would want a 17 lb bicycle, and why apply aerospace design tools on something as little as a bicycle; you know, those tools cost several $10,000 for a
single seat for a
single year). We wouldn't have modern cars (make an engine block out of aluminum? Impossible! Stick with steel as the design problems are an order of magnitude less. Aluminum is utterly impractical).
And I think, HH, you are mistaking my mind's eye vision. If you are thinking any thoughts revolving around bike lanes, you are wrong. I didn't color this wish with a preconcieved notion of the solution! In my mind's eye, I am just now getting my arms wrapped around the problem. I don't know the solution. But I can tell that all attempts at it so far are only partial solutions. But really, what's the fun in solving a problem if the solution is already known?
And how in the world is this not an engineering problem?
Basic math problem...
That talk's for quitters
.
I didn't think you were thinking bike lanes.
But no research is required to understand the basic problem. We know what it takes to add another mode to an existing transport system. Look at any railroad system. Or how about a subway... that's right, use a separate plain (I've long called for the undergrounding of all motor vehicles - wouldn't that be nice?).
There just aren't that many categories of choices. You either spend inordinate resources to handle the new mode entirely separatedly (like a railroad, and just as limited in terms of source, destination and route), or the freeway system, you put it on a separate plain (like a subway, or the Disneyland monorail), or you (and everyone else) takes the hit (literally) at intersections, either with multi-grade/multi-mode facilities, or with added delays.
There is no other way.