I located these interchanges in MapQuest.com and notice that U.S.
Rt. 11 is shaded as limited-access to the south of and just for
about a half-mile north of the interchange with U.S. B.R. 6; north
of that half-mile, U.S. Rt. 11 changes into a non-limited-access
road. The bureaucrats must have tried pulling a fast one by recently
converting those sections of U.S. Rt. 11 into limited-access, hence
the new bigoted signs which followed. Such a conversion could
possibly be considered illegal under federal law under Title 23
U.S.C. 109(m): "Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic.
-- The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any
regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance
of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the
safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light
motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a
reasonable alternate route or such a route exists" (
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/sec217.htm ).

MapQuest.com also happens to use the same colored shading for the
majority of grade-separation ramps, including those between two
intersecting non-limited-access roads such as S.R. 107 and U.S. B.R.
6, as for limited-access roads themselves, so perhaps the
bureaucrats are also using such a comparison as an excuse for
bigotry on these ramps as well.

One needs to realize that what might or might not be reasonable for
one particular type of bicycle, bicyclist, or bicycle trip will not
necessarily be the case for another. Bicycles without low-enough
gears, bicycles with heavy loads, or less-fit bicyclists might not
be able to handle steep hills or rougher roads as others could. What
might be a reasonable alternate route between the respective
immediate centers of two towns on a map might be far out of the way
between two arbitrary points A and B. Needing to go a few extra
miles might not be a big deal for a whole-day touring bicycle trip
but would likely be a big deal for a short utility bicycle trip.

Still, even if each and every bigoted sign were required by law to
show a "suggested" nonmotorized alternate route, it would at least
show a little respect toward such road users, and it would also
likely burden the bureaucrats in many cases such that maybe they
would reconsider the bigoted signs in the first place.

Andrew Smolik

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Tom Frost Jr <tomfrostjr@...>
wrote:
>
> Contrary to Tom Ridge's promise in the late 90s that freeways
> would be opened up to cycling (included in the promise were
> various freeways here in the northeastern part of the state), not
> only have I not seen any of the bigoted signs disappear from the
> any of the on ramps thereof (in N.E. Pennsylvania) that I've
> happened to check in the years since. The State has gone in the
> _opposite_ direction by continuing its expansion of these bigoted
> signs onto non-freeway roads. The latest one of these "Motor
> Vehicles Only" signs to appear on non-freeway roads (_very_
> recently; its post and footer looks brand-new, confirming what I'd
> already suspected was the reason I'd never noticed it before
> during my two and a half decades of using that route with all of
> my various vehicles - _it_ _wasn't_ _there_ for very long before I
> first noticed it a week and a half ago) is on the on-ramp leading
> from Business Rt. 6 westbound, onto rt. 6/11 northbound, just
> inside Scranton on the non-freeway route from Dickson City to
> Clarks Summit.
>
> I _know_ not to expect any help from the so-called Bicycle
> Transportation Institute; that's why I'm not bothering to post
> this there. But for the benefit of any cyclist advocates of
> _lesser_ Uncle-Tom variety who might _also_, like BTI, think that
> the cycling community should tolerate letting bureaucrats in on
> the process of deciding what roads are and aren't "reasonable" to
> allow cyclists to use and who therefore might want me to describe
> what the local "reasonableness" info is on the various route
> options in the corridor affected by this new bigoted sign on rt.
> 6/11, here's the local "reasonableness" info: Rt. 6/11 is a
> non-freeway road that parallels I-81 from Dickson City (or
> technically Scranton, as noted above) to Clarks Summit. The only
> probably-100%-as-short-distance alternative to Rt. 6/11 for
> getting from Dickson City to Clarks Summit (northbound; at least
> they forgot to put any bigoted sign on 6/11 southbound, from
> Clarks Summit) is I-81, but ladies and gentlemen, we'd _been_
> using _6/11_ as an alternative to _I-81_ for years because _I-81_
> is a bigoted road. The next-most-"reasonable" alternative is the
> Morgan Highway, a road that _does_ involve _substantially_ more
> distance (just some of that extra distance being, for many
> trip-origin points, _south_, along the Scranton Expressway) _and_
> climbing _and_ local knowledge.
>
> And now for my question (which it took me a week and a half to
> calm down enough to ask - as opposed to what I _considered_ doing,
> i.e. write to the newspaper and announce that if PennDOT doesn't
> remove its new Rt. 6/11 bigoted sign within 30 days, that's when I
> will recommend that cyclists stop obeying _all_ bigoted signs, and
> that the first one that _I_ violate will be the one on I-81's
> Dickson City northbound on-ramp): What does the
> more-patient-than-me faction of Pennsylvania's cycling community,
> such as the good folks at the Pennsylvania Bicycle Access Council,
> recommend that we do about these expansions of motor-vehicles-only
> bigotry?
>
> Incidentally, the one other non-freeway bigoted sign that I've
> happened to notice in N.E. Pa. is on the on-ramp from Rt. 107 onto
> eastbound Business Rt. 6 in Jermyn. I _meant_ to have a hissy fit
> about _that_ when I first noticed it about 6 months ago, but, I
> neglected to do so because that one's on a
> much-lesser-traveled-by-me route.
>
> - Tom Frost Jr.