Re: DOT equals dept of transporation right? Then why always highways?

On Feb 10, 10:51 pm, Rick Powell <rkpow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 10, 4:58 am, Larry G <gross.la...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 9, 5:37 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Larry G <gross.la...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:13 pm, Rick Powell <rkpow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 8, 4:57 pm, Larry G <gross.la...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You guys won't build a road unless it has logical termini - right?-

A state DOT won't PLAN a road that does not have logical termini, but
it might be built in segments as money becomes available.  Big
difference in the ultimate plan, and the execution of it.  It seems
the same is true of bike/ped networks, at least when they are being
paid for piecemeal by development instead of being built as an end-to-
end larger public project.  If things are being built piecemeal, one
would hope there is a regional plan in place that ultimately will
provide useful origins and destinations when everything fills in.  I
understand the desirability and frustration of trying to set up a
regional bike/ped fund to build logical segments rather than piecemeal
frontage construction...I know a community that tried to do something
similar, and they couldn't get all the developers on board, so they
went back to the piecemeal approach.

I think if there is a PLAN for a complete section of bikeway - to
provide a Point A to Point B - functionality - then it could be built
in segments - much like a beltway is, a section at a time - with a
longer term goal of functionality that accrues from the belt... but we
don't do this with bike lanes - right?

Do you know of bike plans that work like this where they've laid out
the desired end-status of lanes that actually have "logical termini"
and they are gradually filling in the segments until they complete the
whole section?

Yeah, Raleigh's nationally known bike/pedestrian trails were done like
that.  They'd build one from one road to another so that people could
get some use out of it, then when money was available they'd build
another section over to another road.  One of the last pieces was a
1000'+ wooden structure over a floodplain near where I live.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Woodhttp://wood.jlansford.net/

Sounds like things might work better/differently ??? where ya'll live
so perhaps that's an issue.. that I'm looking at a different part of
the elephant than ya'll are.

So let me go take a closer look at the links provided.

I just know that where I live - it is very difficult to get around on
a bike and that most of the plans for trails that I'm aware of seem to
be not oriented to "connecting" locations such that folks could use
bikes to get from one location to another.

and for instance, there is not a prioritized list (AFIK) of segment
gaps to be connected as soon as possible whenever money is available.
It's more along the line of .. when a road is to be improved - that
they'll add the bike lanes but if those lanes stop and go no further -
then that's how they stay.. there does not seem to be a plan to
connect the disconnected segments.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I stated before, if your community had a regional plan with logical
termini and job, school and recreational oriented destinations, and
had planners aggressively chasing state and federal "enhancement"
grants, developer contributions, and other sources of funding, it
would stand a much better chance of filling in the system sooner
rather than later.

RP

We have an MPO meeting tonight. I'm going to urge that we delve into
this further.
.

Relevant Pages