On 2017-01-04 11:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2017 9:52 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 03 Jan 2017
11:57:40 -0800 the perfect time to write:
There is no safe way to get to Placerville by bicycle
other than singletrack. Placerville is a city. Riding on Highway 50 is
prohibited.

Yes, we know you don't live in a civilised country (where bicycles
have the right to use public highways) but in a barbarian backwater
where any cyclist on a road is considered fair game and potential
roadkill. What is so special about Highway 50, and how was the
right-of-way for non-motorised traffic lost?

The situation Joerg describes can be a problem. I heard about a similar
thing occurring in southern Ohio, where what had been a two lane highway
was converted to a freeway, and bicyclists were prohibited. The state
bike advocacy organization tried to get the prohibition overturned, but
the state department of transportation (which is frequently not
cooperative) said that too few cyclists used that road and that parallel
routes were available.


The latter is often a plain lie.


... They were probably right on the low bike usage,
but the parallel routes are so hilly that they're prohibitive.

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in
cities, I don't think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've
seen indicates no real safety problem; and most cyclists willing to put
up with the bad aesthetics of those roads are probably dedicated enough
to be reasonably competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments
should build (and later maintain) a separate bike path within that right
of way, and afterward maintain it properly. In rural areas, the
crossing conflicts are few, and those tend to be the big problem with
most bike lanes, even "protected" ones.


Not in Folsom, they were smarter. Often you can even pick between a
tunnel and an overpass. I can leave here in the middle of rush hour yet
I can predict to within a few minutes when I will be at a destination 20
miles away. No chance in a car.

Sometimes they went a bit over the top in fanciness:

http://chrachel.com/wp-content/uploa...5-1024x683.jpg

On freeways there is a way to do this on the cheap but it's not a scenic
ride and it's noisy: Use the median for a bike path, with hard-turn
ramps at exits.

From Sacramento to Davis they provide a bike path next to the freeway
but I prefer riding on dirt sans noise, Diesel smell and all that.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._bike_path.jpg


... And providing some extra
separation from parallel traffic would at least slightly reduce the
noise level. The percentage increase of the road construction project's
costs would be small.


However, the planners and decision makers don't get it. Instead, they
equip some non-essential roads with bike infrastructure as show-off
projects. The result is that us cyclists regularly have to travel the
dirt paths seen here, past where the road ends:

https://goo.gl/maps/Z4PM2YyLbyL2

This is real fun on a road bike after it has rained. Even more so while
it is raining.


The parts of the UK with cycling infrastructure have almost no
cycling, whereas Cambridge, with almost no dedicated infrastructure,
leads the country in cycle use. Because it's the only place that
discourages car use.
Basingstoke, Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harlow, and others were new
towns built with excellent cycling infrastructure, but almost no
cycling at all. Build it and they will drive instead, as long as you
don't discourage them!
Mass use of cycles in The Netherlands preceded the dedicated
infrastructure by decades!
Discouragement is pretty subtle in The Netherlands, mostly consisting
of NOT providing huge multi-lane highways into town and city centres
or allowing motor vehicles to dominate the urban environment.

I agree that discouragement of motor vehicles is necessary to achieve
high bike mode share. Unfortunately, I don't see that discouragement
happening to any notable degree in the U.S. That's why I think our bike
mode share will never exceed a percent or two, despite the daydreamer's
fantasies.


Which is good enough for the US. It means zero in some rural areas
without bike paths but 5% or more in some urban areas such as Portland
with good cycling infrastructure. The health effect of 1-2% country-wide
versus zero is tremendous. Those people usually remain net contributors
to a health care system instead of net loads. Also to the economy
because the get sick less often. Ever since I started serious riding
against I never had more than a few days of sniffles or sneezing, and
even that only once (while nearly everyone around me came down hard with
some flu bug).

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/