neighbor_ryan

neighbor_ryan t1_iyan3bj wrote

My understanding is:

  1. Ped/Bike bridges are much easier and cheaper than car bridges
  2. It wouldn't require demolishing anything, you could do switchbacks in a tiny footprint on infill
  3. A tunnel would arguably be even better: less elevation change needed, cheaper to build (apparently), ventilation is easy, they're common in Europe.

A few of us pitched Rob Menendez Jr. on it at a JSQCA meeting a few months ago. My angle was that it would be pretty easy to build, and someone would get to put their name on it. It should be a slam dunk for some local or regional pol, it would be extremely popular.

7

neighbor_ryan t1_ix91gu8 wrote

Here's a (slightly out of date) map of protected bike lanes in JC: https://bikejc.github.io/maps?l=wb

In the settings in the lower right of that page, you can also toggle a layer showing the "Bike Master Plan" that was passed by the planning board in 2019: https://bikejc.github.io/maps?l=wbp

I also just put the Bike Master Plan PDF onto a webpage for easier browsing; you can see the full proposed map here: https://bikejc.github.io/bike-master-plan/#map

The data for the maps above mostly came from the city's ArcGIS; this map contains unprotected bike lanes, this one contains bike parking locations. They're also not totally up-to-date.

I'll hopefully be helping update and develop all this further in the next couple months, as I have some time off from work.

5