DAPER Feedback please, not trying to reinvent the wheel here.
04-09-22, 12:19 PM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
DAPER Feedback please, not trying to reinvent the wheel here.
Hi Forum, The City of Reno has requested a blog from me with recommendations for improvements to safety in our region. Through talking with advocates, I have developed an easy way to explain some concepts incorporating that feedback with a catchy acronym called "DAPER." I would like to post the entire blog, but it has a lot of links and I am relatively new here so the forum won't allow me to post links yet. Any feedback on this proposal, including other things I should look at to educate myself, would be much appreciated. I am no expert, I just talk to a lot of people who are. Thank you!RENOS NEW “DAPER” STANDARD
The Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance has synthesized a standard that government staff and officials can use when considering all micro-modal facilities: D.A.P.E.R.
Direct - Is the path on the fastest route between major destinations A and B? Micro-modes have a right to the fastest routes between points A and B which is often a major thoroughfare. If vehicle speeds are too high, install a protected path.
Accessible- Can people access a proposed bike path from the neighborhood where they live?
Protected - Are we considering local sentiments and is the path sufficiently protected from traffic according to those local sentiments (see the ongoing Safe Mobility for All survey)?
Equitable- Are we installing paths that serve everyone including underserved communities?
Responsible - Is the path development responsible? Paths must be connected and consistent. In some cases, drivers will be inconvenienced, but that is the price of sharing the road. It is irresponsible to develop new transportation routes for micro modal transportation that make it hard, inconvenient, or even worse, terrifying and deadly to use micro modal transportation.
Without constant vigalence, these principals can inadvertently be overlooked, especially when considering national cycling advice over local. For instance, the new Oddie Wells protected bike path had a section where the path disappeared. Also, the new Micro-modal plan presented by the RTC in March favors major thoroughfares for cars only, relegating bicycles and other multi-modal to nearby, longer routes, essentially punishing cyclists who have to exert more effort and forcing them to travel longer distances. While the RTC was following some national recommendations, this should be reconsidered since most of Reno’s major thoroughfares have more room than larger cities and we are just getting started in terms of micro mobility. The proposed strategy is not equitable, doesnt consider local conditions and TMBA encourages RTC to reconsider this approach to be at the forefront of micro modal development, not following in the footsteps of other more crowded communities.
If a path is not DAPER, it doesn’t automatically need to go in the crapper. No, every micro-modal path will meet DAPER standards, but if we don’t have a ceiling to reach for, we will always just be sitting here on the floor instead of riding our fancy micro-modal options into the future . . . and that’s no place for Reno to be. Reno can be "next level" with bike police enforcement on drivers, aiming for the DAPER path standards, and rewarding drivers who give micro modal some macro-respect.
The Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance has synthesized a standard that government staff and officials can use when considering all micro-modal facilities: D.A.P.E.R.
Direct - Is the path on the fastest route between major destinations A and B? Micro-modes have a right to the fastest routes between points A and B which is often a major thoroughfare. If vehicle speeds are too high, install a protected path.
Accessible- Can people access a proposed bike path from the neighborhood where they live?
Protected - Are we considering local sentiments and is the path sufficiently protected from traffic according to those local sentiments (see the ongoing Safe Mobility for All survey)?
Equitable- Are we installing paths that serve everyone including underserved communities?
Responsible - Is the path development responsible? Paths must be connected and consistent. In some cases, drivers will be inconvenienced, but that is the price of sharing the road. It is irresponsible to develop new transportation routes for micro modal transportation that make it hard, inconvenient, or even worse, terrifying and deadly to use micro modal transportation.
Without constant vigalence, these principals can inadvertently be overlooked, especially when considering national cycling advice over local. For instance, the new Oddie Wells protected bike path had a section where the path disappeared. Also, the new Micro-modal plan presented by the RTC in March favors major thoroughfares for cars only, relegating bicycles and other multi-modal to nearby, longer routes, essentially punishing cyclists who have to exert more effort and forcing them to travel longer distances. While the RTC was following some national recommendations, this should be reconsidered since most of Reno’s major thoroughfares have more room than larger cities and we are just getting started in terms of micro mobility. The proposed strategy is not equitable, doesnt consider local conditions and TMBA encourages RTC to reconsider this approach to be at the forefront of micro modal development, not following in the footsteps of other more crowded communities.
If a path is not DAPER, it doesn’t automatically need to go in the crapper. No, every micro-modal path will meet DAPER standards, but if we don’t have a ceiling to reach for, we will always just be sitting here on the floor instead of riding our fancy micro-modal options into the future . . . and that’s no place for Reno to be. Reno can be "next level" with bike police enforcement on drivers, aiming for the DAPER path standards, and rewarding drivers who give micro modal some macro-respect.
Likes For kyplaskon:
04-10-22, 02:34 PM
#2
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,949
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6177 Post(s)
Liked 4,794 Times
in
3,306 Posts
My city did recently install some separated bike paths to connect the older neighborhoods to the newer business and shopping areas being developed. However they just parallel the new roads made to get to them. So the essentially just become a very nice sidewalk.
I won't ride on them and just ride in the road. If I was on those paths, I'd have to consider many more traffic situations and maybe stop at every road crossing, drive way and entrance or exit to a parking lot that they cross. By staying in the road I won't have to stop for all of those things.
I do use those roads, not the paralleling bike path/sidewalk on my bike occasionally to get to odd routes I sometime ride. The majority of the motor vehicles don't mind that I'm on the road with them, though most of the roads are four lane. One going through a traffic circle. Which is not an issue either on my bike. Not for the faint of heart though.
If the separated paths can connect those start and end points with out paralleling the roads made for motor vehicles and had fewer crossings of other roads traveled by motor vehicles or one was elevated over or under the other, then that would be a path I'd more likely use.
Is that sort of what you are wanting?
I won't ride on them and just ride in the road. If I was on those paths, I'd have to consider many more traffic situations and maybe stop at every road crossing, drive way and entrance or exit to a parking lot that they cross. By staying in the road I won't have to stop for all of those things.
I do use those roads, not the paralleling bike path/sidewalk on my bike occasionally to get to odd routes I sometime ride. The majority of the motor vehicles don't mind that I'm on the road with them, though most of the roads are four lane. One going through a traffic circle. Which is not an issue either on my bike. Not for the faint of heart though.
If the separated paths can connect those start and end points with out paralleling the roads made for motor vehicles and had fewer crossings of other roads traveled by motor vehicles or one was elevated over or under the other, then that would be a path I'd more likely use.
Is that sort of what you are wanting?
Last edited by Iride01; 04-10-22 at 02:41 PM.
04-11-22, 07:29 AM
#3
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Hi Forum, The City of Reno has requested a blog from me with recommendations for improvements to safety in our region. Through talking with advocates, I have developed an easy way to explain some concepts incorporating that feedback with a catchy acronym called "DAPER." I would like to post the entire blog, but it has a lot of links and I am relatively new here so the forum won't allow me to post links yet. Any feedback on this proposal, including other things I should look at to educate myself, would be much appreciated. I am no expert, I just talk to a lot of people who are. Thank you!RENOS NEW “DAPER” STANDARD
The Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance has synthesized a standard that government staff and officials can use when considering all micro-modal facilities: D.A.P.E.R.
Direct - Is the path on the fastest route between major destinations A and B? Micro-modes have a right to the fastest routes between points A and B which is often a major thoroughfare. If vehicle speeds are too high, install a protected path.
Accessible- Can people access a proposed bike path from the neighborhood where they live?
Protected - Are we considering local sentiments and is the path sufficiently protected from traffic according to those local sentiments (see the ongoing Safe Mobility for All survey)?
Equitable- Are we installing paths that serve everyone including underserved communities?
Responsible - Is the path development responsible? Paths must be connected and consistent. In some cases, drivers will be inconvenienced, but that is the price of sharing the road. It is irresponsible to develop new transportation routes for micro modal transportation that make it hard, inconvenient, or even worse, terrifying and deadly to use micro modal transportation.
Without constant vigalence, these principals can inadvertently be overlooked, especially when considering national cycling advice over local. For instance, the new Oddie Wells protected bike path had a section where the path disappeared. Also, the new Micro-modal plan presented by the RTC in March favors major thoroughfares for cars only, relegating bicycles and other multi-modal to nearby, longer routes, essentially punishing cyclists who have to exert more effort and forcing them to travel longer distances. While the RTC was following some national recommendations, this should be reconsidered since most of Reno’s major thoroughfares have more room than larger cities and we are just getting started in terms of micro mobility. The proposed strategy is not equitable, doesnt consider local conditions and TMBA encourages RTC to reconsider this approach to be at the forefront of micro modal development, not following in the footsteps of other more crowded communities.
If a path is not DAPER, it doesn’t automatically need to go in the crapper. No, every micro-modal path will meet DAPER standards, but if we don’t have a ceiling to reach for, we will always just be sitting here on the floor instead of riding our fancy micro-modal options into the future . . . and that’s no place for Reno to be. Reno can be "next level" with bike police enforcement on drivers, aiming for the DAPER path standards, and rewarding drivers who give micro modal some macro-respect.
The Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance has synthesized a standard that government staff and officials can use when considering all micro-modal facilities: D.A.P.E.R.
Direct - Is the path on the fastest route between major destinations A and B? Micro-modes have a right to the fastest routes between points A and B which is often a major thoroughfare. If vehicle speeds are too high, install a protected path.
Accessible- Can people access a proposed bike path from the neighborhood where they live?
Protected - Are we considering local sentiments and is the path sufficiently protected from traffic according to those local sentiments (see the ongoing Safe Mobility for All survey)?
Equitable- Are we installing paths that serve everyone including underserved communities?
Responsible - Is the path development responsible? Paths must be connected and consistent. In some cases, drivers will be inconvenienced, but that is the price of sharing the road. It is irresponsible to develop new transportation routes for micro modal transportation that make it hard, inconvenient, or even worse, terrifying and deadly to use micro modal transportation.
Without constant vigalence, these principals can inadvertently be overlooked, especially when considering national cycling advice over local. For instance, the new Oddie Wells protected bike path had a section where the path disappeared. Also, the new Micro-modal plan presented by the RTC in March favors major thoroughfares for cars only, relegating bicycles and other multi-modal to nearby, longer routes, essentially punishing cyclists who have to exert more effort and forcing them to travel longer distances. While the RTC was following some national recommendations, this should be reconsidered since most of Reno’s major thoroughfares have more room than larger cities and we are just getting started in terms of micro mobility. The proposed strategy is not equitable, doesnt consider local conditions and TMBA encourages RTC to reconsider this approach to be at the forefront of micro modal development, not following in the footsteps of other more crowded communities.
If a path is not DAPER, it doesn’t automatically need to go in the crapper. No, every micro-modal path will meet DAPER standards, but if we don’t have a ceiling to reach for, we will always just be sitting here on the floor instead of riding our fancy micro-modal options into the future . . . and that’s no place for Reno to be. Reno can be "next level" with bike police enforcement on drivers, aiming for the DAPER path standards, and rewarding drivers who give micro modal some macro-respect.
You misspelled "vigilance" and "doesn't" which I'm pointing out only because I think those are corrections you would want to make.
I like how you discuss Reno's wide main thoroughfares as being an opportunity. but I think you need to make this a more practical argument rather than focusing on rights rhetoric. Leave the rights stuff in, but explain it more in these terms, which you can "steal" from me or entirely rewrite if you like:
Major thoroughfares become major thoroughfares for a reason. They are the routes that have the best access to where people start from and/or where they need or want to go. If you build micro-modal infrastructure in a location where people aren't going or coming from, you might get a nice recreational path but it won't be used as transit.
--
Add another letter to your acronym because right now that looks way too much like "diaper" and every other arrangement of those letters are worse.
Maybe add a P to make it "DAPPER". The second P could stand for "Planned", and the notion could be that each segment of the system should be designed such that it transitions smoothly to its adjoining segments.
Likes For livedarklions:
04-11-22, 09:52 AM
#4
Newbie
Thread Starter
Thank you! I have corrected some errors and added some things. I have a statewide publication interested in publishing this. So thank you for the feedback. I have run it by some engineers here and it seems good.TMBA’s Proposed “DAPPER” Standard
T he Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance has synthesized a standard that government staff and officials can use when considering all micro-modal facilities and ask, is this project D.A.P.P.E.R.?
Direct - Is the path on the fastest route between major destinations A and B? Micro-modes have a right to the fastest routes between point A and B which is often a major thoroughfares. If vehicle speeds are too high, install a protected path.
Accessible - Can people access a proposed bike path from the neighborhood where they live?
Protected - Are we considering local sentiments and is the path sufficiently protected from traffic according to those local sentiments (see the ongoing Safe Mobility for All survey)?
Presentable - Paths should be aesthetically pleasing. Victorian Avenue in Sparks is a great example with it’s landscaping. Landscaping can be as wide as just 1-foot. This is a standard concept in freeway development with art and landscaping now required. It should be required for micro-modal paths as well which will make our streets dapper.
Equitable - Are we installing paths that serve everyone including underserved communities?
Responsible - Is the path development responsible? Paths must be connected and consistent. In some cases, drivers will be inconvenienced, but that is the price of sharing the road. It is irresponsible to develop new transportation routes for micro modal transportation that make it hard, inconvenient, or even worse, terrifying and deadly to use micro modal transportation.
We invite the community and experts to provide feedback on this quick and easy concept and consider adopting it as a community-wide standard. This is especially a challenge if planners continue to consider national standards over local needs and as we know, local needs are often a political win for everyone.
Without a standard in place, these principles are inadvertently being overlooked and we continue to make the same mistakes as a community. For instance, the RTC is constructing the first raised cycletrack (protected) on Oddie- Wells. But at the very busy intersection of Sutro, Oddie, and Wells where cyclists need protection most, there is a gap in the protected lane. This is unacceptable.
T he Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance has synthesized a standard that government staff and officials can use when considering all micro-modal facilities and ask, is this project D.A.P.P.E.R.?
Direct - Is the path on the fastest route between major destinations A and B? Micro-modes have a right to the fastest routes between point A and B which is often a major thoroughfares. If vehicle speeds are too high, install a protected path.
Accessible - Can people access a proposed bike path from the neighborhood where they live?
Protected - Are we considering local sentiments and is the path sufficiently protected from traffic according to those local sentiments (see the ongoing Safe Mobility for All survey)?
Presentable - Paths should be aesthetically pleasing. Victorian Avenue in Sparks is a great example with it’s landscaping. Landscaping can be as wide as just 1-foot. This is a standard concept in freeway development with art and landscaping now required. It should be required for micro-modal paths as well which will make our streets dapper.
Equitable - Are we installing paths that serve everyone including underserved communities?
Responsible - Is the path development responsible? Paths must be connected and consistent. In some cases, drivers will be inconvenienced, but that is the price of sharing the road. It is irresponsible to develop new transportation routes for micro modal transportation that make it hard, inconvenient, or even worse, terrifying and deadly to use micro modal transportation.
We invite the community and experts to provide feedback on this quick and easy concept and consider adopting it as a community-wide standard. This is especially a challenge if planners continue to consider national standards over local needs and as we know, local needs are often a political win for everyone.
Without a standard in place, these principles are inadvertently being overlooked and we continue to make the same mistakes as a community. For instance, the RTC is constructing the first raised cycletrack (protected) on Oddie- Wells. But at the very busy intersection of Sutro, Oddie, and Wells where cyclists need protection most, there is a gap in the protected lane. This is unacceptable.
Likes For kyplaskon:
04-11-22, 10:58 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 2,475
Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1233 Post(s)
Liked 318 Times
in
245 Posts
Reno is a LITTLE city, says so on the sign. LOL. I haven't been there in over 30 years, is it really any different??
They are NOT putting a bike path on the casino strip. Pfffft.
I rode the Hwy 99 thru Seattle/ Everett/ Tacoma, then back to Alberta. NO problem.
Here they are making 12 foot raised bikeways on quiet residential streets that are wider than the car lane. It's NUTS, crowding the parked car doors. Some get maybe 4 bikes an hour.
PS I just looked at Sparks Blvd. It has BOTH a side path and a road shoulder. Da hell are you whining about??
Most of new Reno has those moronic spaghetti plate neighborhoods that are very UN-friendly to bikes. All cities have adopted this STUPID design. The older part is kind of grid. Little need for lane tinkering.
They are NOT putting a bike path on the casino strip. Pfffft.
I rode the Hwy 99 thru Seattle/ Everett/ Tacoma, then back to Alberta. NO problem.
Here they are making 12 foot raised bikeways on quiet residential streets that are wider than the car lane. It's NUTS, crowding the parked car doors. Some get maybe 4 bikes an hour.
PS I just looked at Sparks Blvd. It has BOTH a side path and a road shoulder. Da hell are you whining about??
Most of new Reno has those moronic spaghetti plate neighborhoods that are very UN-friendly to bikes. All cities have adopted this STUPID design. The older part is kind of grid. Little need for lane tinkering.
Last edited by GamblerGORD53; 04-11-22 at 12:05 PM.
04-11-22, 04:49 PM
#6
Senior Member
Agree that the acronym DAPPER might be better; Direct, Accessible, Presentable, Practical, Equitable, Responsible.
Emphasizing that the planned project is achievable and not some pie-in-the-sky idea.
Also it avoids the less desirable DIAPER; Direct, Impractical, Accessible, Presentable, Equitable, Responsible.
Emphasizing that the planned project is achievable and not some pie-in-the-sky idea.
Also it avoids the less desirable DIAPER; Direct, Impractical, Accessible, Presentable, Equitable, Responsible.
Likes For Pratt:
04-24-22, 09:32 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Greenville, NC
Posts: 1,386
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times
in
40 Posts
IMHO, one of the really under-appreciated problems with off-road trails is their intersections with roads. Frequently, it's really hard to make a left turn onto a MUP from the road, with no signal and with none of the car traffic even aware that someone might want to take a left. Left turns from the trail to the road often suffer similar problems. Boulder, CO has done a great job with its underpasses, but in places where under/overpasses are impractical, we need special care for intersection signage and visibility. Maybe that could be part of your Reno standard.
