Bikeboard February 2007

bikeboard@lists.bikelover.org

9 participants
28 discussions

Hi Everyone,
by Nancy LaRocque 04 Feb '07

04 Feb '07

Hi Everyone, I apologize for not being an active participant with the bike board. At this time I am going to resign my position on the board so the Traffic Commission can appoint a replacement. I am sorry as I realize I should have done this sooner. Good luck with everything, and I know I will see and experience your progress. Sincerely, Nancy LaRocque

1 0

Bikes on Road sign
by Frank Gmeindl 03 Feb '07

03 Feb '07

Bike Board, Remember at last week's meeting, I described the "Bicycles on Road" signs that I thought Ron Eck meant? Here's the link to "San Francisco's Shared Lane Pavement Markings: Improving Bicycle Safety" at http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%… This is an excellent report that may represent the cutting edge in share the road signage as well as provide substantive data on the effectiveness of the signage. (Too bad it's a pdf file. It has some great photos that I wish we could rip for our presentation to the Traffic Commission.) Frank

1 0

3/10-11 LCI
by Frank Gmeindl 03 Feb '07

03 Feb '07

Bike Board Members, Before you know it, Mark Archibald will be here to teach us the Road I course of the Effective Cycling program March 10-11. If you haven't already paid me, please let me know if you'll take the course. At our meeting last Thursday, 5 Bike Board members paid. At our January meeting, 9 or us signed up. (I still have the sign up sheet;) Our instructor says 12 is a good target class size. A few people who aren't Bike Board members have told me they'd like to take the course. If there's room, I'd like to welcome them to take it. Frank

1 0

Re: [Bikeboard] share the road with bicyclists
by Jim Rye 03 Feb '07

03 Feb '07

Hi Bob, Thanks again very much for your interest in signage to facilitate bicycling for transportation at WVU. Here are two robust sites that illustrate quite a variety of signage (including "on pavement") to facilitate bicycling and walking for transportation: http://www.pedbikeimages.org/category_front.cfm?categoryId=2 (Bicycling Pictures--see especially "On Street Bike Lanes" and "Pavement Treatments") http://www.pedbikeimages.org/category_front.cfm?categoryId=19 (Design and Engineering--see Especially "Bike Trails and Shared Use Paths" and "Signs and Making Signals") At each link, clicking on "download for print" shows a much larger image. I have attached an example from the above site (http://www.pedbikeimages.org / photo by Dan Burden) that employs pavement and roadside signage, although I strongly advocate for the roadside signage to state "Share Road (or Lane) WITH Bicyclists". Alternatively, the sign might just state "Bike Route", although I think the "WITH Bicyclists" is the stronger message from an education and enforcement standpoint. The "Group Photo Pool" at the Flickr site http://www.flickr.com/groups/bicyclefacilities/ also has many illustrations, e.g.,: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/196792900/in/pool-bicyclefacilities/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikesontransit/184912823/in/pool-bicyclefacili… http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/172598546/in/pool-bicyclefaciliti… This report from San Francisco has numerous examples of pavement signage: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%… >>> Bob Roberts 02/01/07 7:44 AM >>> Please do and we thank you. >>> Jim Rye 2/1/2007 7:24:48 AM >>> Dear Bob, Thank you again for involving me in discussions about bicycling facilitities etc on campus. I am especially glad that you are looking into the "Share Road (or Lane) WITH Bicyclists". I wanted to let you know that I also have some links to similar markings on for pavement if you would like me to send them. Thanks again. Jim Rye

1 0

Context Senstive Solutions Put to Practice: A Warning
by director 03 Feb '07

03 Feb '07

Good morning, I wanted to share this message from Thunderhead with the bike board, because it deals with an issue that has already happened in most of West Virginia. The emphasis of separated bike paths and exclusion of bikes on roads (by intent or neglect - I've seen both). Although sidewalks, separated trails and shorter pedestrian crossing distances on roadways are important - the federal right of cyclists to share the roadway safely is being eroded - irrationally. The effective end result is that cycling - the most efficient and effective means of single rider transportation over short distances - is being pushed off the road by 70% empty, 90% inefficient motor vehicles. This isn't a good trend and we should take every opportunity to emphasize how cycling has a right and a reason to share the road. Rights are like muscles, if you don't give them attention and use them you lose them. Nick ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Eric Gilliland" <gill(a)waba.org> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:21:35 -0500 National bike groups and bike/ped professionals may not be aware of the disaster potentially poised to happen in Montgomery County, Maryland, a major suburban county located right next to Washington D.C. The county council there is considering a pair of bills that would overhaul the county's "road code" - those laws that define its roadway design standards. The new legislation would essentially mandate narrow lanes in most circumstances, virtually eliminating the concept of a "wide outside lane" or "shared lane" for bikes on new or rebuilt roads. The legislation does not give cyclists any consideration except on roads identified as bike routes in the county master plan. That contradicts established principles framed in AASHTO guidelines and elsewhere (include the ITE CSS guide), that cyclists should be routinely considered during the design of all roads, not just select roads. Moreover, for county roads that are master-planned as "signed shared roadway" bike routes, the legislation allows only one extra foot of lane width. Specifically the legislation calls for lanes to be fixed at 10.5', 11', or 12' wide depending on roadway type (12' for suburban arterials, for example), with an extra foot added for shared roadway bike routes (i.e. 11.5' to 13'). The bills do not define minimums or maximums but instead specify hard widths that would apply regardless of project-specific factors, public input, etc. Waivers may only be granted by the county council itself. The legislation allows shoulders only on limited types of curbless roads and stipulates that they be 2' wide (4' on highways). The bills do however require bike lanes where called for in the master plan, although these are not numerous. Shared use paths would also be built where called for in the master plan. The legislation represents a fundamental paradigm shift that could have far-reaching implications if adopted by other counties and states. The bills were motivated by an admirable desire to reduce pedestrian crossing distances, calm traffic and eliminate impervious surface, and as such it has support from many usual cycling allies. But that makes it no less damaging. It appears to have been partly inspired, somewhat unfaithfully, by the ITE's new draft standard, "Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities". That document embraces bike lanes to the near exclusion of other on-road bikeway types. In any case, the Montgomery County legislation sets a dangerous precedent for design standards nationwide. It is all the scarier because it originates in a county that is uaually progressive on bike issues, from people who are usually supportive of cycling. Pedestrian safety is very important, but the proposed legislation seeks to make minor gains in pedestrian safety at an enormous cost to a complete other mode of transportation. Eric Gilliland WABA Jack Cochrane MoBike _______________________________________________ Thunderhead mailing list http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/thunderhead Thunderhead Archive: http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/private/thunderhead

1 0

Infrastructure doc and ppt available
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 02 Feb '07

02 Feb '07

Hi everyone, I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Greg meant to send some updated infrastructure documents to this email list for review, but unintentionally sent them to his own committee's email list thinking the whole board would receive them. They are pretty large files. You can fetch them here: http://cheat.org/pipermail/bike-infrastructure/attachments/20070202/8a30102… http://cheat.org/pipermail/bike-infrastructure/attachments/20070202/56741c2… Jonathan

1 0

Bike education video for drivers
by director 02 Feb '07

02 Feb '07

Good Morning, Last nite at the meeting I mentioned that I had seen mention of a video for bike education. It was produced for the League of Illinois Bicyclists and it's at this link: http://www.bikelib.org/video/index.htm You can download it from there, or get if from me. The guy I contacted also offered to send it on DVD. I should have it in a few days and I'll keep a copy at Positive Spin. I'll also look at donating a copy to the library like I discussed for the other education videos. Nick

1 0

Links to pictures of bike/ped facilities
by director 01 Feb '07

01 Feb '07

Good evening, These links were in a message from Thunderhead Alliance last week. They show all kinds of categories of facilities and people using them. Hope they're of use... http://www.pedbikeimages.org/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/bicyclefacilities/ Nick Hein

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Bikeboard February 2007