Received: by 10.101.2.7 with SMTP id e7mr3963459ani.14.1351272750669;
        Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bicycledriving@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.154.170 with SMTP id h30ls5726558yhk.7.gmail; Fri, 26 Oct
 2012 10:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.183.202 with SMTP id q50mr15944614yhm.29.1351272750062;
        Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.183.202 with SMTP id q50mr15944612yhm.29.1351272750049;
        Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <fores...@johnforester.com>
Received: from nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.203])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i7si160308yhj.6.2012.10.26.10.32.29
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 66.94.237.203 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of fores...@johnforester.com) client-ip=66.94.237.203;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 66.94.237.203 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of fores...@johnforester.com) smtp.mail=fores...@johnforester.com
Received: from [66.94.237.197] by nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Oct 2012 17:32:29 -0000
Received: from [68.142.198.106] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Oct 2012 17:32:29 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Oct 2012 17:32:29 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 224003.16150...@smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: bky07J0VM1mYWoQB3XJD5HVtybWys4T9S4P0mp.ikGxvbZF
 s1aqddW9hG9Xnnhq71CJQyDBG0L3GYgm0EZsWwTErwZksqbGSUrl6r2phHZX
 1tRLyDipRhANKOJ1Bfb_xAnwAP4JfqLN9HIPATq0k4Ivo08XX4XEnP4Jivyd
 DStI5mxbg0GbEDUg.t2I1IK8vY0Wv9L.Mg.Wo5P68RgQdIgQy9Zsgpo8bPiC
 RNmd_7EDphXagRCyPeSbVZSEYY4yGK_Edw2Z8lNvNZkYn8ueo_a67FfgbbR2
 fb1ogUUADg7w1NJ.FkeKmG9H8FYWVTFOxwCGERpiYu4.bBkL3oNmI1H2kYca
 abk6ZwOkrXbooaW.6XJuuED8G_brKR_sGRrC0YFj3DCmg_LXX2C.ECxh9Xms
 cIKncCU2qA14RF7Ws8Kwj.mM834271A3amPGeY0vjea7yr99Eoughv9xUnTP
 2PE0RYszsvMsQtd66NUs9o59.rlZMRtPk8J4J.26aEDx529_EaNfFHru4Z8H
 wjiRFrDIjgGVUMeT0B8X.ClfnI4e3eEWK.qPS2C1DG8j_SaLkGbERBk5ZyiD
 QItX61eBY1BofGfOX39cNjXz_wpTJJ2cCygsqTtVJn13sot9BpWgIztko9fD
 4ljJ5wq.IwjIOIZDIXgsKVYxmPbGkdL2v6dBjcSke1gUSSOGUlm3e_iL6y6W
 n0ZtnQA--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: 0_W1EVuswBDaSFjayRqaFDbr3LnSojJYYVmaCV1_JW5o
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (fores...@67.124.202.23 with plain)
        by smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Oct 2012 10:32:29 -0700 PDT
Message-ID: <508AC916.10...@johnforester.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:32:06 -0700
From: John Forester <fores...@johnforester.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bicycledriving@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Re: Letter to Ray LaHood
References: <5087680F.6040...@att.net> <508AB08A.9070...@att.net>
In-Reply-To: <508AB08A.9070...@att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cycle tracks are not a traffic control devices, but are transportation 
facilities for cyclists.

The NACTO designs are the result of allowing bicycle advocates in 
certain cities to jump into the highway design standards process. The 
AASHTO standards were an attempt to design according to accepted traffic 
principles and traffic laws. With the exceptions listed in the FTR and 
BL laws, the combination pretty much allowed operation according to the 
standard rules of the road. The biggest violation was, of course, having 
bike lanes that encouraged incompetent cyclists to overtake on the 
right-hand side of right-turning motor traffic. However, NACTO designs 
apparently are based on the principle that incompetent cyclists need 
painted guidance (or physical guidance in the case of cycle tracks) at 
all times, so that the designs often violate standard traffic 
engineering principles and rules, without the designers having expressed 
any concern over these violations. So the politicians, not having any 
traffic expertise themselves, are left with conflicting "standards" 
whose conflicts they cannot evaluate.

On 10/26/2012 8:47 AM, Tricia Kovacs wrote:
> Dear BicycleDriving,
> I thought you might be interested in the letter I received from Gabe 
> Rousseau regarding the AASHTO/MUTCD guides. Has anyone else on this 
> forum corresponded with FHWA regarding the endorsement of NACTO? Did 
> you receive any response? Is my letter from Gabe a form letter?
> Tricia
>
>  On 10/24/2012 12:01 AM, Tricia Kovacs wrote:
>> I wrote to Ray LaHood to ask him to withdraw his support of the NACTO 
>> guide. I got a letter back from Gabe Rousseau who told me that the 
>> AASHTO guide is a guide, not a federal standard like the MUTCD. He 
>> said that the treatments like bike boxes and cycletracks are governed 
>> by the MUTCD. This confuses me because there is less guidance on 
>> bicycle facilities in the MUTCD than the AASHTO guide. He also 
>> referred me to this webpage:
>> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/mutcd_bike.cfm 
>>
>> which confuses me even more about what is allowed. It looks to me 
>> that cycletracks are OK because they are not a traffic control 
>> device. How could that be, isn't a bicycle considered traffic? There 
>> are no FHWA experiments in progress on cycletracks. Why wouldn't 
>> there be? I wrote to Gabe for clarification.
>> Tricia Kovacs
>> Columbus, Ohio
>

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481    fores...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com