Topic creep alert! > From: Robbie Webber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'd love to hear an afternoon report during peak hour. That is often the > time when the paths are so crowded in good weather that we really do > have to slow down or take another route. I can't complain, because it's > great that so many people are walking, running, strolling, biking, > commuting, shopping, or otherwise enjoying the paths. But sometimes I > really do stay off of them because of "congestion."
Congestion? Well, let's just pave more lanes! I know, we're all accustomed to cringing at the idea of paving our way out of congestion. But why is it never considered for bike routes? Often when I'm on the bike path, seeing (and sometimes being part of) near head-on collisions as some users pass others, it occurs to me, would this be acceptable on a car thoroughfare? Isn't the textbook response, after the first head-on, to "improve" the road to two lanes in each direction? This further gets me wondering, why aren't there "2+2"-lane bike paths, where traffic volume calls for it? Or roads with two bike lanes in each direction? Seems to me this would be a safer thing than just making the path wider overall. At what point do traffic volumes drive construction of more path lanes, the way traffic volumes drive construction of more car lanes? --------------- Paul T. O'Leary Desktop Insurgent Madison, WI USA _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
