My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/28/92 Agenda & Packet
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
05/28/92 Agenda & Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/3/2024 2:03:28 PM
Creation date
6/1/2023 12:50:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• <br /> Tra •ls to <br /> Vol. 2 , No. 2 May, 1992 <br /> The 1992 Minnesota Bicycle Conference <br /> Highlights On Feb.25-26,the Annual State Bicycle Conference was held with about 350 attendees— <br /> more than double last year's. I attended both days and found them very informative and <br /> exciting for the bicycle movement. <br /> Countercurrents at work: There were quite a number of countercurrents which were apparent to me during the <br /> conference. These seemingly opposite directions do have valid justification and the <br /> challenge is to reconcile these viewpoints or at least establish a middle ground. I'd like to <br /> discuss six of these countercurrents in detail,providing my own reconcilitation of these. <br /> 1)Separate bikes from cars vs. <br /> integrate biking on roadways. The first three very troublesome conflict areas really are different angles for a broader <br /> 2) Off-road(along roadways) vs. issue;namely,"How to design safer,interconnected bikeway systems to meet the needs of <br /> on-road facilities. most of the users." The theme of "making most roadways bicycle-friendly rather than <br /> 3) Child cyclist needs vs. experi- building separate off road systems"is espoused by most cyclists and bike safety experts. <br /> enced cyclist needs. Yet much of the discussion at the conference was about large off-road systems. Any <br /> • decision to build a system based on predominantly off-road facilities will result in a very <br /> expensive system that meets the needs of children or other slower recreationsal cyclists. <br /> What is worse is that in heavily residential or commercial areas,these facilities are likely to <br /> be very unsafe because of heavy cross-traffic and turning cars. Paved shoulders and bike- <br /> lanes(paved shoulders with pavement graphics special signage),on the other hand,are not <br /> • suitable for young children. Except on low volume/speed local streets biking on <br /> shoulderless roads(with 10-12 ft travel lanes)has to be considered unsafe for most <br /> cyclists. The reconciliation of the problem is to make most roadways safe for biking,by <br /> providing bike lanes,paved shoulders,and in some cases wide curb lanes. The costs of <br /> doing this are a fraction of that required for off-road facilities. A continuous grid of <br /> bikeways is easily realized. The needs of children can be met by providing off-road paths at <br /> certain intervals,and the needs of many recreational cyclists can be met by off-road <br /> facilities on independent rights-of-way and on riparian* corridors. Areas of very high bike <br /> and/or car traffic require special consideration. Safe coexistence of cars and bikes may not <br /> be possible and separation may be the best alternative. Well designed and signed"bike- <br /> lanes"may provide a safe space exclusively for bikes,but converting a roadway to a bicycle <br /> arterial by blocking through car traffic(placing posts at one end of each block)can <br /> minimize conflicts. Such a bicycle arterial can be given right of way over cars or bicycle <br /> actuated traffic lights can be installed to allow continuous bicycle flow. In summary,these <br /> counter-currents are resolvable by providing a good mix of off-road paths,paved shoulders, <br /> bike lanes,and bicycle arterials. A visible and continuous network of these is what we <br /> should strive for. <br /> 4)A jurisdiction's liability vs. <br /> bikers' needs The liability question is typically being used as an excuse to do little or nothing to <br /> accomodate cyclists. The lawyer from the Attorney General's Office indicated that liability <br /> issues are minimal so long as a best effort has been made to make our facilities as safe as <br /> feasible for cyclists. He frequently gets asked"Give me some reasons why we can't do <br /> something"rather than"How can we build facilities to safely accomodate cyclists and <br /> • minimize liability". Bike lanes with signage can greatly improve safety in an area of heavy <br /> car/bike traffic. Although some risk remains,a city can successfully argue that without <br /> *riparian—alongside stream,lake,or ocean but extendable to any logical barrier to cross-traffic such as a mountain,forest,park preserve,or even to a military base or <br /> limited access freeway right-of-way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.