<html>
<body>
Derek: <br>
Have you seen the Regional Bike Map? Not all, certainly, but some bike
routes are marked with destination signs already, right? We could do
better of course. There are State approved signs for numbering bike
routes - San Francisco has some. <br>
Getting around town on comfortable routes for bicycling can be very
challenging... without a guide. <br>
Maybe you or someone would like a project to work out a good route that
could use signing/naming? and put together a proposal that the Coalition
might persuade the City, County or ? to fund?<br><br>
At 10:09 AM 3/31/2008, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">As a short-term, possibly
cheaper alternative to building new fully separated bike paths along
freeways, how about creating "official" bike routes that
roughly parallel freeways, using existing streets and new signs pointing
the way? For example, the SR-52 bike route could use Clairemont Mesa
Boulevard for one leg of the route.<br><br>
On 3/30/08, <b>Gene Carman</b>
<<a href="mailto:gcarman@san.rr.com">gcarman@san.rr.com</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Actually a bikepath "hiway" along the same routes of the
existing freeways would probably serve the largest population in the area
due to population growth that tends to occur along freeways.
Cyclists want to go to the same locations as drivers. <br>
<dd>In many cases, there is a wider amount of land dedicated to the
freeway right of way then is actually used for freeway... a single
bikepath can be created in less space then 2 new lanes on a freeway, and
along the same right of way. Adding a 10 foot wide bikepath
can reduce the traffic load on a freeway more then adding two 10 foot
wide lanes to a Freeway can reduce congestion. <br>
<dd>Funding should come from the same agencies that fund
Freeways... bike transportation facilities are simply another form
of public transportation.<br>
<dd>OK, I've answered all the questions... when do we get started?
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>