Comments on: Calls for More Bike Lanes Rebuffed by ConnDOT http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/ News and opinion from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:36:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: In Reversal, ConnDOT Studies Bike/Pedestrian Path on Putnam Bridge « Mobilizing the Region http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/comment-page-1/#comment-28 In Reversal, ConnDOT Studies Bike/Pedestrian Path on Putnam Bridge « Mobilizing the Region Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:36:02 +0000 http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/#comment-28 [...] seems to have changed its tune from earlier this year, when the agency told Rep. Kehoe that such a pathway was prohibited by law, and that there was no [...] [...] seems to have changed its tune from earlier this year, when the agency told Rep. Kehoe that such a pathway was prohibited by law, and that there was no [...]

]]> By: G P Olsen http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/comment-page-1/#comment-27 G P Olsen Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:37:58 +0000 http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/#comment-27 In that case, the proposed Putnam Bridge path sounds fine. The remaining issue might be providing connections to it either side. In that case, the proposed Putnam Bridge path sounds fine. The remaining issue might be providing connections to it either side.

]]> By: Tom Kehoe http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Tom Kehoe Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:34:27 +0000 http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/#comment-26 To be clear, the bikelanes being proposed for the Route 3 Putnam Bridge would be ones segregated from traffic. This bridge is the same design and vintage as the Founders Bridge and Bissell Bridge. Multiuse paths have been added to both. To be clear, the bikelanes being proposed for the Route 3 Putnam Bridge would be ones segregated from traffic. This bridge is the same design and vintage as the Founders Bridge and Bissell Bridge. Multiuse paths have been added to both.

]]> By: G P Olsen http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/comment-page-1/#comment-25 G P Olsen Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:56:45 +0000 http://blog.tstc.org/2007/11/13/in-ct-calls-for-increased-bike-access-repeatedly-rebuffed/#comment-25 The bikeways on the I-291 and I-95 bridges that you mention are physically separated from the driving lanes -- an appropriate treatment. The ConnDOT response appears to be directed toward the idea of providing unsegregated bike lanes on CT-3 and CT-2, similar to those found on lesser roadways. Providing a separate bike-ped facility on the Putnam Bridge or on the CT-2 right-of-way might be appropriate, albeit expensive. However, allowing bikes or peds on the same roadway with much higher speed vehicles is downright dangerous. The conflicts at ramp terminals alone would be deadly to cyclists. The bikeways on the I-291 and I-95 bridges that you mention are physically separated from the driving lanes — an appropriate treatment.

The ConnDOT response appears to be directed toward the idea of providing unsegregated bike lanes on CT-3 and CT-2, similar to those found on lesser roadways. Providing a separate bike-ped facility on the Putnam Bridge or on the CT-2 right-of-way might be appropriate, albeit expensive. However, allowing bikes or peds on the same roadway with much higher speed vehicles is downright dangerous. The conflicts at ramp terminals alone would be deadly to cyclists.

]]>