Help pick the bike route signage the City uses!!
Which one did you vote for?
my pick = Option A.
Option B – 3-Rivers is a cute idea but obfuscates the bike icon.
Option C – another logo on top could really confuse things.
Most concise. The bike icon tells me I’m on a bike route and the direction with location name is easy to understand.
I thought the 3rivers symbol in option B would be somewhat confusing to people from out of town.
In Option C I think there is a disconnect with the information given. I know I’m on a bike route because there is a bike symbol, but the number doesn’t mean anything to me. At first I thought it was a mile marker. I don’t think I could associate a whole bunch of locations in the city with corresponding numbers.
I cant wait to see these In the city.
I picked B. I dig the 3-rivers logo. It ties in the bike racks too. Anyone who can’t figure out this is a bike probably doesn’t own a bike. I’d be equally happy with A though.
C seems like the least helpful of the group unless you are familiar with what numbered route goes where, and then, you probably don’t need the signs.
i know! c is no good, I want as much real estate on a sign as cars on roadways get! i was torn between a and b, but i ultimately picked b for fun. its going to be awesome when these are up!!!
Option A FTW.
I love the 3Rivers motif on the bike racks, but for some reason on the sign it looks ugly.
C is a bad idea.
A is so much clearly better, I’m surprised they needed a survey. B looks like a new rack design.
C is consistent with PennDOT bike route signs. If they started having a hundred thousand of these around the state, then maybe it would be useful, but in general, no.
All three of me voted for Option 2. Does that survey record ip addys?
Wait, I want Option BB!
C: 44 bicycles ahead? 44 bicycles overhead? Next bicycle 44 miles? Number of wheels on a bicycle plus the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything?
I imagine anything ‘custom’ would cost more money.
It would be kinda cool to get the second one made into a bike rack now that someone mentioned it!
i think c is good for long distance use, like for the PA bike route system, but for around town, meh.
i think SF uses something similar to C. A is also the standard in the MUTCD
A. B is cool if you know what it means, but probably will be a distraction. Standards are good.
I went with A. It’s the cleanest/easiest to read. I don’t know how much more expensive the custom wheel design is (they’re going to have to custom print most destination names anyway) but if they ever wind up replacing them, it would be easy to overlook the Three Rivers design and re-order the standard design. A mix and match would be neat in its own way, but for consistency’s sake, I’d go with A.
It would take a lot of signs around, at most every intersection, before the route numbers really became useful to the average occasional cyclist.
I would like to formally vote against the pavement markings that were proposed at the meeting.
I can’t see the page linked, IE or mozilla, and google says it’s there but won’t show me cached. Employer hasn’t blocked it (didn’t show the “No Page For You” internets nazi page, just the “page doesn’t exist” thing)… Am I doing something wrong?
I don’t know what pavement markings were discussed, but in Davis, they have a “bike loop” around the whole city, marked with green, painted pavement markings (very few signs–only a couple of “maps” along the route, of the route). If you have a few minutes, watch the video going around clockwise or counter-clockwise.
It is mostly a recreation thing, rather than a commuter route, but it is perfect for people visiting from out of town who want to ride bikes. The thing started 20 feet from my front door (mile 10 in the clockwise video!). All you had to do is point to the green marks and tell them to follow. It turns out that my normal commute to the campus building I worked in exactly followed the marked route for that portion of travel.
I chose A but I ask you: Is there any chance these could be somewhat interactive? For example, instead of a sign that you can decipher in a fraction of a second (like if you were traveling in a motor vehicle at high speeds), why not provide more detailed information (kiosk style) at each sign. I know that means more money, but for the out of towner that doesn’t want to go to any place that has “Hill” in the name, there aren’t enough options.
An out-of-towner on a bike doesn’t need a sign to see there are hills in every direction. Plus, think about the purpose road signs serve: you’re going to Squirrell Hill? 3 miles that way. What more do you need – and if you require more, that’s why they made the Google machine.
almklm – i like the loop idea. We already have belts (red through purple!) Why not expand the belts to include bikes… or if cars have belts, why can’t bikes have chains? We could have red chain through purple chain, they could be scaled for bike riders and put on streets that are more bike friendly.
It might be nice to have certain places, like maybe Point Park, where they post the BikePgh map – or maybe even a enlarged version that would be easier to see the details.
(ejwme – I was primarily responding to the “kiosk” idea) – but I like the loop idea too – in theory. Unfortunately I think our geography would defeat any practical application. Worth a shot though – or possibly as a means of establishing more “bike throughways” kind of like the ELB.
We already have belts (red through purple!)
If I recall correctly there are several of the colored belts that don’t make a full loop.
I chose A but I ask you: Is there any chance these could be somewhat interactive?
just had a conversation with the consultant about this. he thinks that’s one of the benefits of a route signage plan is that you can give choices at times. for instance, we were talking about getting from shadyside to squirrel hill, and say you’re on aiken or negley, you can choose whether you want to climb negley or go a little out of your way to get up wilkins.
sorry, i don’t think pointing 3 miles that way will necessarily get someone to squirrel hill. riding in a town with wayfinding is a very different experience than riding in a town without, and taking one wrong turn in this town means that you may end up at the bottom of a hill or a completely different neighborhood altogether
Do the belts that are currently in-place work? I, admittedly, have only lived here for three years but I hear more jokes about them than stories of people using them.
And if we can all have Google with us on our bikes, scrap the sign idea and save the money.
First, these signs need to be practical. Explain to me how putting some sort of decision tree on a road sign is going to be usable or understood.
Our geography (which forces our roads into knots) is obviously going to make any signage plan a challenge. Layering on a bunch of options is only going to make it worse.
Do the belts that are currently in-place work?
Sure they work. Oddly routed in some places, yes. Not full loops in others, yes. But when I moved here 20 years ago we wore out three maps in the car before we finally could get places without getting too lost. The belts were helpful if you were lost because omce you found one, you could follow it and get somewhere you recognized. Would it be the shortest way to get there–usually not, but it works. Many native Pittsburghers are seriously geographically challenged, the won’t cross rivers for example. People from the North Hills won’t ever go to the South Hills and visa versa. The belts can be quite helpful.
The Yellow, Orange and Red Belts can also be worked into quite a number of longer road rides in the area.
On another topic, I agree keep the signs simple. I voted for the A design, though it was ideal. The signs in Portland like that made perfect sense to me.
But heck, it’s the 21st century so here’s a high-techy idea ‘nat, put a smart code on each sign. Folks with smart phones who want to stop and scan that code would get linked to the Bike Pittsburgh map and see all the routes from that point.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.