OK, reading it closer I see that the Midvale lanes do meet AASHTO standards, but they don't meet DOT's much better standards. I stand corrected on that.
I still maintain that these widths are defective. I can't recommend Midvale as a biking route unconditionally. Team AASHTO and anyone else who is satisfied with the status quo is hereby invited to join me for a ride for some "field research". Its not as bad as Seminole Highway, though: http://www.silurian.org/dot/crossing.html Also, I do recognize that this is 'all political', and I respect the patience and good intentions of those you who put in the time and energy, trying to do the Right Thing; particularly in those meetings that involve certain near-west alders. And yes, I do understand these things involve compromise. And part of that compromise is that the fine people who live along Midvale will from time to time have to put up the honking and yelling that comes with this situation. On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Michael Rewey <[email protected]> wrote: > First. I was on the BPW when the Midvale configuration approved. I do not > believe we > narrowed it, as suggested, from what was put before us. > > This is what I sent previously on the same subject. > > ------------------------------- > This project was a marking "retrofit" after the street was resurfaced. There > are two 10-foot > car lanes and a 12-foot bike/parking lane. Ideally 13 feet would have been > better. The car > lanes were narrowed from 11 feet in order to get bike accommodations. > Hopefully the > narrower lanes will slow down the cars. Studies show that a one-foot > narrower lane slows > down cars from 0 to 3 mph. > > Yes 13 feet would have been better. That is what WisDOT considers desirable. > The > AASHTO minimum is 11 feet. > > The marking could have been a little more precise so that there would have > been no > pavement marking within the 12 feet bike/parking lane. The 4-inch wide > pavement marking > should have been entirely in the motor vehicle lane. > > It all happened with staff, BPW and council support in spite of bikies > "favorite" alderoid who > spoke at length against encouraging bikes on Midvale. It passed with only > one "no" from her. > > I am very encouraged with the council's positive resolve on bike issues. > --------------------------- > > Mike Rewey > > -------------------------------------------------- > On 27 Aug 2010 at 15:51, Ross, Arthur wrote: > > Darin, > > Midvale does meet AASHTO´s minimum width for a combined parking and bike > lane. The > AASTO guidelines are not on-line but you can stop by my office anytime to > review it. It is not > what Traffic Engineering proposed and prefers, but there was a political > process (and as an > advocacy trainer told us when the Bicycle Federation was being organized, > "it´s all politics all > the time") that wound up narrowing the cross-section from what TE proposed > and I believe > the Board of Public Works approved. Every project in already developed areas > is going to > involve a political process as the needs and desires of the neighborhood, > businesses and > politicians are weighed and balanced. Competing needs/interests will include > not only peds, > bikes and motor vehicles, but also parking, trees, terrace space (and the use > of it for > sidewalk cafes, merchandise displays, bicycle parking), etc. > > For info on the opening of the Badger Trail I would contact Ahna Bizjak, > [email protected] > Since this a Fitchburg project > > Arthur > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
