06-11-2022, 04:14 PM
Thinking more about this, especially after seeing all the perspectives here, I think I’ve realized a bit more about what it is I don’t like about the signs with detailed surface and grade information.
When we build a road somewhere, it goes without saying that cars will have a good surface and lots of space. But it doesn’t (yet) go without saying that bicyclists will have a good surface and lots of space to get to the same destination. The trails I’m mostly thinking of are an alternative to riding on motor vehicle routes; for example the trails next to the Spur Line on both sides of Uptown Waterloo.
So I think I would revise my preference to say that there should be a network of high-quality bicycle infrastructure that reaches all the same places as the road infrastructure, and which doesn’t need specific per-trail indications or consideration of what standard is used in the design.
Then if there are additional routes that may be steeper, narrow, or paved differently (or not paved), that’s fine too. Additionally, there are enough people who prefer jogging (or riding) on gravel that it makes sense in many places to have a gravel shoulder next to the paved path. Of course, this needs to be a good surface, not the loose-pack unrideable surface one sometimes finds next to roads.
Part of the confusion arises because we have motor vehicle oriented infrastructure and we’re now trying to improve the bicycle infrastructure. The above has fairly obvious consequences when designing a new city: just make sure there are bicycle routes to all road destinations, and then maybe add additional paths as well. But when retrofitting to an existing city, it’s less obvious whether a new path is improving access to existing locations or if it is instead a new recreational trail.
So in practice this may all just go back to the idea of having classes of trail. Also I shouldn’t complain too much about the signs: they’re an indication that somebody is trying.
When we build a road somewhere, it goes without saying that cars will have a good surface and lots of space. But it doesn’t (yet) go without saying that bicyclists will have a good surface and lots of space to get to the same destination. The trails I’m mostly thinking of are an alternative to riding on motor vehicle routes; for example the trails next to the Spur Line on both sides of Uptown Waterloo.
So I think I would revise my preference to say that there should be a network of high-quality bicycle infrastructure that reaches all the same places as the road infrastructure, and which doesn’t need specific per-trail indications or consideration of what standard is used in the design.
Then if there are additional routes that may be steeper, narrow, or paved differently (or not paved), that’s fine too. Additionally, there are enough people who prefer jogging (or riding) on gravel that it makes sense in many places to have a gravel shoulder next to the paved path. Of course, this needs to be a good surface, not the loose-pack unrideable surface one sometimes finds next to roads.
Part of the confusion arises because we have motor vehicle oriented infrastructure and we’re now trying to improve the bicycle infrastructure. The above has fairly obvious consequences when designing a new city: just make sure there are bicycle routes to all road destinations, and then maybe add additional paths as well. But when retrofitting to an existing city, it’s less obvious whether a new path is improving access to existing locations or if it is instead a new recreational trail.
So in practice this may all just go back to the idea of having classes of trail. Also I shouldn’t complain too much about the signs: they’re an indication that somebody is trying.