Rethinking Streets for Bikes
I quickly read through this. Context: I'm Dutch and live in Utrecht, The Netherlands.<p>This booklet has one massive flaw: it is constructed using American best-practices. At best, a couple of examples could be considered almost acceptable. Most of them were woefully inadequate and consist of little more than a blob of quickly-fading green paint in ill-considered positions. Worst of all, several examples are clearly flawed, and to me seem even more dangerous than not having any infrastructure at all.<p>If the goal is to show to unimaginative people that it is indeed physically possible to create something resembling bike infrastructure, then it will do fine. But if you're trying to actually create a good, safe, well-used cycling network, then this is not the way to do it.<p>If you want good examples, go visit something like <a href="https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/</a> . This booklet almost reads as if it was written by someone who has only heard about cycling infrastructure, but never actually lived in a city which has it. The intention is there, but there's an even longer way to go.<p>Some trivial stuff to change:<p>- Add green dye to the asphalt instead of adding a layer of green paint. This means that it will not fade.
- Color the whole cycle path, not just a few small parts of it. You're trying to create a continuous network, remember?
- Don't use a zebra-crossing style striping at crossings. A continuous green bar would be way easier to see and interpret as something to stop for.
- Don't create turn boxes. They are always in dangerous positions and there are better alternatives.<p>But most important of all: don't just add cycle paths to your main car roads. You wouldn't add a sidewalk and crosswalk to an interstate, would you? Create the main cycle routes on secondary streets, and make them unattractive for cars.