The US Bike Route thread got me thinking.. If you could design a bike route, what criteria would the system have?
Traffic counts and road condition, obviously, but what else should be a determining factor?
Amongst other things...
- Grade separation across busy routes
- Physical separation from vehicles in urban areas where possible. Thinking along the lines of a cycletrack, or "Protected Bike Lane" in more recent nomenclature.
Let me answer the question this way: As a bicyclist, what would I want to have in a bike route?
Personally, I have no interest in riding on auto roads. I do it only because I have to. Constantly worrying about getting paved over by a careless motorist takes all of the fun out of biking, in my opinion. But even without that concern, a road that is engineered to be driven by cars traveling 40 or 50 mph or more–with clear zones and line-of-sight distances appropriate to those speeds–is unrewarding to ride on a bike at 20 or less. So ideally, I'd want to be riding on a dedicated bikeway with minimum geometry that is safe for speeds of around 25-30 mph but with curves and limited sight distances that are appropriate to "bicycle scale" .
Where bicycle traffic remains sparse, I think a single 10' wide carriageway with a broken yellow line dividing the pavement into two 5' lanes (plus gravel shoulders) should be sufficient. But for urban/suburban commuter routes that see heavy traffic, I think expanding the bikeway to a single 20' carriageway or two 10' carriageways with two marked lanes in each direction isn't unreasonable.
In areas with moderate to heavy traffic where pedestrians are commonly found, I think a sidewalk should be provided. In my experience, pedestrians seem to prefer walking on pavement over gravel shoulders, although they prefer concrete sidewalks over asphalt trails.
I'd like to see grade separation where possible–whether that be running the bike route over/under other roads in urban areas...or by the selection of routes that coincidentally have few to no conflicts in rural areas. River or ex-rail routes can often run under existing bridges and overpasses.
But as to other standards, I could summarize by saying that I'd like to see cyclists taken as seriously as–and held to account as much as–motor vehicle drivers. Signage and pavement markings should follow MUTCD standards and be through and complete, respecting the fact that bike riders need no less guidance than their car-driving counterparts. Bike-scale BGSes should present useful information about intersecting bike routes, state and US route numbers, and street names where appropriate.
Perhaps all of the above is pie-in-the-sky wishing that will never happen. But in order for significant numbers of non-cyclists to ditch their cars in favor of a bike commute–or take up recreational biking or bike tourism–I think a user-friendly bicycle route network is what it will take.
If there's any possible way a motorist could be delayed by a cyclist on the route, it shouldn't exist. Bikes should probably be banned from the road. Roads are for cars, not bikes.
The only requirement I would make is that the shoulders of the road have to be wide enough to allow bikers to safely make their way down the road without being in danger of colliding with a vehicle.
Quote from: epzik8 on July 11, 2017, 10:24:14 PM
The only requirement I would make is that the shoulders of the road have to be wide enough to allow bikers to safely make their way down the road without being in danger of colliding with a vehicle.
You realize that most car-bike crashes are at intersections, where cars cross the shoulders, right?
Paint some "sharrows" on the roadway and be done with it. At least that's the way my town did it.
The routing of USBR 76 in Kentucky seems to use lightly-traveled routes (for the most part) with only short, unavoidable segments of busier highways. There's no regard for terrain, and certainly most of the roads used for the routing don't have viable shoulders on which the bicyclists could stay to keep out of the way of vehicular traffic.
Really there's minimal and ideal.
Ideal would be at least 10' foot width fully dedicated with little interaction with peds/motor vehicles, stopping infrequently and able to be comfortably cycled on a road bike at 20-25mph.
Minimal would be not sharing road space with others on high-trafficked footpaths or roads, nor on high-speed roads, not an obstacle course, wide enough and not being designed by an idiot.
Quote from: NE2 on July 11, 2017, 08:08:03 PM
If there's any possible way a motorist could be delayed by a cyclist on the route, it shouldn't exist. Bikes should probably be banned from the road. Roads are for cars, not bikes.
Of all things I figured you'd be pro-cycling. Bad assumption on my part. I hope the 'delays' you experience by people like me don't hurt your day too badly.
Quote from: SectorZ on July 12, 2017, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 11, 2017, 08:08:03 PM
If there's any possible way a motorist could be delayed by a cyclist on the route, it shouldn't exist. Bikes should probably be banned from the road. Roads are for cars, not bikes.
Of all things I figured you'd be pro-cycling. Bad assumption on my part. I hope the 'delays' you experience by people like me don't hurt your day too badly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Quote from: NE2 on July 12, 2017, 03:12:45 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 12, 2017, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 11, 2017, 08:08:03 PM
If there's any possible way a motorist could be delayed by a cyclist on the route, it shouldn't exist. Bikes should probably be banned from the road. Roads are for cars, not bikes.
Of all things I figured you'd be pro-cycling. Bad assumption on my part. I hope the 'delays' you experience by people like me don't hurt your day too badly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Gotcha - I think...