On Sep 1, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Jon Morrison wrote:

>
>
> May I ask for clarification on an earlier comment ("We
> all need to learn to be more comfortable doing this on roadways built
> with a more solid respect that each and every public way should be
> shared with pedestrian use.")? - Should I take this to mean, that
> every road needs to have sidewalks

No, don't take it that way. That is not what I mean.

> or that one paved surface should
> be used by cars, bikes and peds?

In cases when a roadway is the only improvement along the public
corridor, that is what I mean yes.

I do believe there is a major mode break between vehicle drivers and
pedestrians (but not between different types of vehicles.) Therefore I
believe there will be many places that it will work out to the benefit
of all users to include specialized pedestrian facilities as the part
of public corridor. However, even if the corridor _only_ gets improved
by a roadway, that should not be used to restrict pedestrian use of
any public corridor, and all users need to be ready to account for
pedestrian use.


> And (possibly an extreme) does
> this mean that cyclists and cars should co-exist on the highway
> system on 65MPH limit roads (where an 8 mph cyclist (going up a
> hill?) could be overtaken by an 18 wheeled vehicle at 65 MPH)?

If the conditions and configuration allow it, yes. If the conditions
and configuration do not allow it, no. Overtaking vehicle driver may
potentially need to moderate their speed for any overtaking maneuver.
They have to be ready for that. Drivers do that now at a very very
very high rate of success.

Along with what I already mentioned about what we all have to get used
to in a more sensible transportation future going forward... a few
more things:

1) A greater variety of class/weight of vehicle with a range of top
speeds - all using a shared single roadway system with little-to-no
segregationist philosophy in its design.
2) Many many fewer resources devoted to freeway style roadways.
3) Much smaller emphasis on arterial ideas in road net design.
4) Much greater emphasis on redundant connectivity in road net design.
5) Much more commercial transportation, especially long haul
commercial transportation, on private mass transit systems.
6) Acceptance by bicyclist advocates that, while bicycling represents
a lower impact use of the low occupancy vehicle art of our
transportation system, it has a small or non-existent role to play in
helping create the _shift_ in transportation policy we need. What we
need calls for a shift in emphasis to walking and mass transit, not
bicycling. To the degree "bicycling" advocacy promotes segregationist
ideas and even more over engineering of roadways with bad ideas, that
effort probably will even wash out the margin benefit it could
provide, by the way it becomes a junior cheerleader for the status quo.

Ken