Cycling infrastructure refers to all infrastructure which may be used by cyclists. This includes the same network of roads and streets used by motorists, except those roads from which cyclists have been banned, plus additional bikeways that are not available to motor vehicles, such as bike paths, bike lanes, cycle tracks and, where permitted, plus amenities like bike racks for parking and specialized traffic signs and signals. Cycling modal share is associated with the size of local cycling infrastructure; the manner in which the public road network is designed and managed can have a significant effect on the utility and safety of cycling. The cycling network may be able to provide the users with direct, convenient routes minimizing unnecessary delay and effort in reaching their destinations. Settlements with a dense road network of interconnected streets tend to be viable utility cycling environments; the history of cycling infrastructure starts from shortly after the bike boom of the 1880s when the first short stretches of dedicated bicycle infrastructure were built, through to the rise of the automobile from the mid-20th century onwards and the concomitant decline of cycling as a means of transport, to cycling's comeback from the 1970s onwards.
A bikeway is a lane, way or path which in some manner is designed and /or designated for bicycle travel. Bike lanes demarcated by a painted marking are quite common in many cities. Cycle tracks demarcated by barriers, bollards or boulevards are quite common in some European countries such as the Netherlands and Germany, they are increasingly common in other major cities such as New York City, Ottawa and San Francisco. Montreal and Davis, which have had segregated cycling facilities with barriers for several decades, are among the earliest examples in North American cities. Various guides exist to define the different types of bikeway infrastructure, including UK Department for Transport manual The Geometric Design of Pedestrian and Equestrian Routes, Sustrans Design Manual, UK Department of Transport Local Transport Note 2/08: Cycle infrastructure design the Danish Road Authority guide Registration and classification of paths, the Dutch CROW, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide to Bikeway Facilities, the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the US National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
In the Netherlands, most one way cycle paths are at least 2.5 metres wide. The Netherlands has protected intersection to cyclists crossing roads; some bikeways are separated from motor traffic by physical constraints —bicycle trail, cycle track—but others are separated only by painted markings—bike lane, buffered bike lane, contraflow bike lane. Some share the roadway with motor vehicles—bicycle boulevard, advisory bike lane—or shared with pedestrians—greenway, shared use path; the term bikeway is used in North America to describe all routes that have been designed or updated to encourage more cycling or make cycling safer. In some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, segregated cycling facility is sometimes preferred to describe cycling infrastructure which has varying degrees of separation from motorized traffic, or which has excluded pedestrian traffic in the case of exclusive bike paths. There is no single usage of segregation. Thus, it includes bike lanes with solid painted lines but not lanes with dotted lines and advisory bike lanes where motor vehicles are allowed to encroach on the lane.
It includes cycle tracks as physically distinct from the sidewalk. And it includes bike paths in their own right of way exclusive to cycling. Paths which are shared with pedestrians and other non-motorized traffic are not considered segregated and are called shared use path, multi-use path in North America and shared-use footway in the UK. There have been a lot of studies on the safety of all types of bikeways. Proponents say that segregation of cyclists from fast or frequent motorized traffic is necessary to provide a safe and welcoming cycling environment. Opponents point out the increased risk from various types of infrastructure including shared use paths. Different countries have different ways to define and enforce bikeways; some detractors argue that one must be careful in interpreting the operation of dedicated or segregated bikeways/cycle facilities across different designs and contexts. Proponents point out that cycling infrastructure including dedicated bike lanes has been implemented in many cities.
Jurisdictions have guidelines around the selection of the right bikeway treatments in order make routes more comfortable and safer for cycling. Bikeways can fall into these main categories: separated in-roadway bikeways such as bike lanes and buffered bike lanes; the exact categorization changes depending on the jurisdiction and organization, while many just list the types by their used names Bike lanes, or cycle lanes, are on-road lanes
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is a document issued by the Federal Highway Administration of the United States Department of Transportation to specify the standards by which traffic signs, road surface markings, signals are designed and used. These specifications include the shapes and fonts used in road markings and signs. In the United States, all traffic control devices must conform to these standards; the manual is used by state and local agencies as well as private construction firms to ensure that the traffic control devices they use conform to the national standard. While some state agencies have developed their own sets of standards, including their own MUTCDs, these must conform to the federal MUTCD; the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices advises the FHWA on additions and changes to the MUTCD. At the start of the 20th century—the early days of the rural highway—each road was promoted and maintained by automobile clubs of private individuals, who generated revenue through club membership and increased business along cross-country routes.
However, each highway had its own set of signage designed to promote the highway rather than to assist in the direction and safety of travelers. In fact, conflicts between these automobile clubs led to multiple sets of signs—sometimes as many as eleven—being erected on the same highway. Government action to begin resolving the wide variety of signage that had cropped up did not occur until the early 1920s, when groups from Indiana and Wisconsin began surveying the existing road signs in order to develop a standard, they reported their findings to the Mississippi Valley Association of Highway Departments, which adopted the report's suggestions for the shapes to be used for road signs. These suggestions included the familiar circular railroad crossing sign and octagonal stop sign. In 1927, the American Association of State Highway Officials, or AASHO, published the Manual and Specifications for the Manufacture and Erection of U. S. Standard Road Markers and Signs to set standards for traffic control devices used on rural roads.
This was followed by the Manual on Street Traffic Signs and Markings, which set similar standards for urban settings. While these manuals set similar standards for each environment, the use of two manuals was decided to be unwieldy, so the AASHO began work in 1932 with the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, or NCSHS, to develop a uniform standard for all settings; this standard was the MUTCD. The MUTCD was first released in 1935, set standards for both road signs and pavement markings. Since that time, eight more editions of the manual have been published with numerous minor updates occurring between, each taking into consideration changes in usage and size of the nation's system of roads as well as improvements in technology. In 1966, Congress passed the Highway Safety Act, P. L. 89-564, 72 Stat. 885, now codified at 23 U. S. C. § 401 et seq. It required all states to create a highway safety program by December 31, 1968, to adhere to uniform standards promulgated by the U. S. Department of Transportation as a condition of receiving federal highway-aid funds.
The penalty for noncompliance was a 10% reduction in funding. In turn, taking advantage of broad rulemaking powers granted in 23 U. S. C. § 402, the Department adopted the entire MUTCD by reference at 23 C. F. R. 655.603. Thus, what was a quasi-official project became an official one. States are allowed to supplement the MUTCD but must remain in "substantial conformance" with the national MUTCD and adopt changes within two years after they are adopted by FHWA; the 1971 edition of the MUTCD included several significant standards. Most of the repainting to the 1971 standard was done between 1971 and 1974, with a deadline of 1978 for the changeover of both the markings and signage. On January 2, 2008, FHWA published a Notice of Proposed Amendment in the Federal Register containing a proposal for a new edition of the MUTCD, published the draft content of this new edition on the MUTCD website for public review and comment. Comments were accepted until July 31, 2008; the new edition was published in 2009.
Proposed additions and revisions to the MUTCD are recommended to FHWA by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a private, non-profit organization. The NCUTCD recommends interpretations of the MUTCD to other agencies that use the MUTCD, such as state departments of transportation. NCUTCD develops public and professional awareness of the principles of safe traffic control devices and practices, provides a forum for qualified individuals to exchange professional information; the NCUTCD is supported by twenty-one sponsoring organizations, including transportation and engineering industry groups, safety organizations, the American Automobile Association. Each sponsoring organization promotes members to serve as voting delegates within the NCUTCD; the United States is among the majority of countries around the world that have not ratified the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, thus the FHWA MUTCD differs from the Vienna Convention. Warning signs tend to be more verbose than their Vienna Convention counterparts.
On the other hand, MUTCD guide signs (directin
Prague 10 is both a municipal and administrative district in Prague, Czech Republic with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Vršovice large part of Strašnice small part of Vinohrady large part of Malešice part of Záběhlice part of Michle small part of Žižkov other small parts Hus' House Trmalova Villa Strašnice Crematory Vršovice Castle Vlasta Neighborhood Vršovice Savings Bank Building Prague 10 - Official homepage
International Standard Serial Number
An International Standard Serial Number is an eight-digit serial number used to uniquely identify a serial publication, such as a magazine. The ISSN is helpful in distinguishing between serials with the same title. ISSN are used in ordering, interlibrary loans, other practices in connection with serial literature; the ISSN system was first drafted as an International Organization for Standardization international standard in 1971 and published as ISO 3297 in 1975. ISO subcommittee TC 46/SC 9 is responsible for maintaining the standard; when a serial with the same content is published in more than one media type, a different ISSN is assigned to each media type. For example, many serials are published both in electronic media; the ISSN system refers to these types as electronic ISSN, respectively. Conversely, as defined in ISO 3297:2007, every serial in the ISSN system is assigned a linking ISSN the same as the ISSN assigned to the serial in its first published medium, which links together all ISSNs assigned to the serial in every medium.
The format of the ISSN is an eight digit code, divided by a hyphen into two four-digit numbers. As an integer number, it can be represented by the first seven digits; the last code digit, which may be 0-9 or an X, is a check digit. Formally, the general form of the ISSN code can be expressed as follows: NNNN-NNNC where N is in the set, a digit character, C is in; the ISSN of the journal Hearing Research, for example, is 0378-5955, where the final 5 is the check digit, C=5. To calculate the check digit, the following algorithm may be used: Calculate the sum of the first seven digits of the ISSN multiplied by its position in the number, counting from the right—that is, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, respectively: 0 ⋅ 8 + 3 ⋅ 7 + 7 ⋅ 6 + 8 ⋅ 5 + 5 ⋅ 4 + 9 ⋅ 3 + 5 ⋅ 2 = 0 + 21 + 42 + 40 + 20 + 27 + 10 = 160 The modulus 11 of this sum is calculated. For calculations, an upper case X in the check digit position indicates a check digit of 10. To confirm the check digit, calculate the sum of all eight digits of the ISSN multiplied by its position in the number, counting from the right.
The modulus 11 of the sum must be 0. There is an online ISSN checker. ISSN codes are assigned by a network of ISSN National Centres located at national libraries and coordinated by the ISSN International Centre based in Paris; the International Centre is an intergovernmental organization created in 1974 through an agreement between UNESCO and the French government. The International Centre maintains a database of all ISSNs assigned worldwide, the ISDS Register otherwise known as the ISSN Register. At the end of 2016, the ISSN Register contained records for 1,943,572 items. ISSN and ISBN codes are similar in concept. An ISBN might be assigned for particular issues of a serial, in addition to the ISSN code for the serial as a whole. An ISSN, unlike the ISBN code, is an anonymous identifier associated with a serial title, containing no information as to the publisher or its location. For this reason a new ISSN is assigned to a serial each time it undergoes a major title change. Since the ISSN applies to an entire serial a new identifier, the Serial Item and Contribution Identifier, was built on top of it to allow references to specific volumes, articles, or other identifiable components.
Separate ISSNs are needed for serials in different media. Thus, the print and electronic media versions of a serial need separate ISSNs. A CD-ROM version and a web version of a serial require different ISSNs since two different media are involved. However, the same ISSN can be used for different file formats of the same online serial; this "media-oriented identification" of serials made sense in the 1970s. In the 1990s and onward, with personal computers, better screens, the Web, it makes sense to consider only content, independent of media; this "content-oriented identification" of serials was a repressed demand during a decade, but no ISSN update or initiative occurred. A natural extension for ISSN, the unique-identification of the articles in the serials, was the main demand application. An alternative serials' contents model arrived with the indecs Content Model and its application, the digital object identifier, as ISSN-independent initiative, consolidated in the 2000s. Only in 2007, ISSN-L was defined in the
Dedicated or segregated cycle facilities are controversial, in particular concerning safety. Proponents say that segregation of cyclists from fast or frequent motorized traffic is necessary to provide a safe and welcoming cycling environment. A 2010 Montreal study found that cycle tracks resulted in fewer injuries when compared to comparable parallel roads with no cycling facilities. Studies into the risks and benefits of dedicated cycling facilities have drawn differing conclusions. Recent research, such as the 2010 Montreal study, suggests a lower risk for cyclists using cycling-specific infrastructure in certain traffic dynamics, though there has been research suggesting that cycling-specific infrastructure raises the risk for cyclists. A 2006 report by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program in the US concludes that "bicycle safety data are difficult to analyze because bicycle trip data are hard to uncover". One major reason for the inability to draw definite conclusion may be that facilities with different risks are categorized together so that off-road paths – paved or unpaved, bicycle-only or multi-use – were lumped together, as found by research at the Cycling in Cities program at the University of British Columbia.
A 1997 study by Moritz of North American bicycle commuters calculated a relative danger of different facilities based on the survey results of " divided by the ". Moritz calculated a relative danger of 1.26 on a major street with no cycling facilities, 1.04 on a minor street with no cycling facilities, 0.5 for streets with bike lanes, 0.67 for mixed use/"bike" path. The "other" category which included sidewalks had a relative danger of 5.32. Moritz made it clear that this was "ot a statistical or random sample of BCs." A large study undertaken by S. U. Jensen et al. into the safety of Copenhagen cycle tracks before and after they were constructed concludes "The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle traffic of 18–20% and a decline in car traffic of 9–10%. The cycle tracks constructed have resulted in increases in accidents and injuries of 9–10% on the reconstructed roads." The number of accidents and injuries decreased mid-block. These changes in road safety have been estimated taking both general trends in safety and changes in car and cycle traffic into account.
The Copenhagen study found accident and injury rates were related to the amount of car parking, turn lanes, blue cycle crossing markings, raised exits at non-signalised intersections, suggesting that risk is dependent on making various improvements to the cycle tracks. For instance, recent planning guidelines in the US advise that cycle tracks drop to a bike lane before arriving at an intersection to increase the visibility of cyclists. In 2009, the University of British Columbia Cycling in Cities Research Program looked at injury and crash data separated by bicycle facility type and found that "purpose-built bicycle-only facilities have the lowest risk of crashes and injuries", they found such bike-only facilities had lower risk than cycling on-road with motor traffic as well as off-road with pedestrians on sidewalks or multi-use paths. The highest risk of crashes and injuries were found to be on unpaved off-road trails. A 2010 study in Montreal, Canada authors found 2.5 times as many cyclists rode on the cycle tracks compared to the reference roads and that the relative risk of injury was lower on a cycle track than on the comparable reference road.
They concluded that "ycle tracks lessen, or at least do not increase and injury rates compared to bicycling in the street" A final report from Cycling in Cities in 2012 found that cycling on segregated tracks had one ninth the risk of cycling on major streets with parked cars and no cycle infrastructure, concluding that, "Transportation infrastructure with lower bicycling injury risks merits public health support to reduce injuries and promote cycling."The New York City Department of Transportation implemented a bicycle path and traffic calming pilot project for Prospect Park West in Brooklyn in 2010 and published their results in early 2011. It created a two-way bicycle path with a three-foot parking lane buffer and the removal of one lane from motor vehicles, they found. Transportation engineers Ian Hallett, David Luskin, Randy Machemehl, by studying the interactions of drivers and bicyclists on Texas roads, have discovered that having painted bike lanes on streets and roads helps both commuters stay in safer, more central positions in their respective lanes.
Without a marked bike lane, there appears to be a lot of uncertainty about how much space each person needs—even when adequate road space is provided. In the 1970s, the California Statewide Bicycle Committee commissioned Kenneth D. Cross to study car-bike collisions; the Committee had supposed that many collisions would occur when cars overtook bicycles and that such a finding would help to justify their plans to offer segregation between junctions. Unexpectedly, Cross found that only 0.5% of car-bike collisions had occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and overtaking straight-ahead motorists. Cross
Cambridge is a city in Middlesex County and part of the Boston metropolitan area. Situated directly north of Boston, across the Charles River, it was named in honor of the University of Cambridge in England, an important center of the Puritan theology embraced by the town's founders. Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are in Cambridge, as was Radcliffe College, a college for women until it merged with Harvard on October 1, 1999. According to the 2010 Census, the city's population was 105,162; as of July 2014, it was the fifth most populous city in the state, behind Boston, Worcester and Lowell. Cambridge was one of two seats of Middlesex County until the county government was abolished in Massachusetts in 1997. In December 1630, the site of what would become Cambridge was chosen because it was safely upriver from Boston Harbor, making it defensible from attacks by enemy ships. Thomas Dudley, his daughter Anne Bradstreet, her husband Simon were among the town's first settlers.
The first houses were built in the spring of 1631. The settlement was referred to as "the newe towne". Official Massachusetts records show the name rendered as Newe Towne by 1632, as Newtowne by 1638. Located at the first convenient Charles River crossing west of Boston, Newe Towne was one of a number of towns founded by the 700 original Puritan colonists of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under Governor John Winthrop, its first preacher was Thomas Hooker, who led many of its original inhabitants west in 1636 to found Hartford and the Connecticut Colony. The original village site is now within Harvard Square; the marketplace where farmers sold crops from surrounding towns at the edge of a salt marsh remains within a small park at the corner of John F. Kennedy and Winthrop Streets; the town comprised a much larger area than the present city, with various outlying parts becoming independent towns over the years: Cambridge Village in 1688, Cambridge Farms in 1712 or 1713, Little or South Cambridge and Menotomy or West Cambridge in 1807.
In the late 19th century, various schemes for annexing Cambridge to Boston were pursued and rejected. In 1636, the Newe College was founded by the colony to train ministers. According to Cotton Mather, Newe Towne was chosen for the site of the college by the Great and General Court for its proximity to the popular and respected Puritan preacher Thomas Shepard. In May 1638, The settlement's name was changed to Cambridge in honor of the university in Cambridge, England. Newtowne's ministers and Shepard, the college's first president, major benefactor, the first schoolmaster Nathaniel Eaton were Cambridge alumni, as was the colony's governor John Winthrop. In 1629, Winthrop had led the signing of the founding document of the city of Boston, known as the Cambridge Agreement, after the university. In 1650, Governor Thomas Dudley signed the charter creating the corporation that still governs Harvard College. Cambridge grew as an agricultural village eight miles by road from Boston, the colony's capital.
By the American Revolution, most residents lived near the Common and Harvard College, with most of the town comprising farms and estates. Most inhabitants were descendants of the original Puritan colonists, but there was a small elite of Anglican "worthies" who were not involved in village life, made their livings from estates and trade, lived in mansions along "the Road to Watertown". Coming north from Virginia, George Washington took command of the volunteer American soldiers camped on Cambridge Common on July 3, 1775, now reckoned the birthplace of the U. S. Army. Most of the Tory estates were confiscated after the Revolution. On January 24, 1776, Henry Knox arrived with artillery captured from Fort Ticonderoga, which enabled Washington to drive the British army out of Boston. Between 1790 and 1840, Cambridge grew with the construction of the West Boston Bridge in 1792 connecting Cambridge directly to Boston, so that it was no longer necessary to travel eight miles through the Boston Neck and Brookline to cross the Charles River.
A second bridge, the Canal Bridge, opened in 1809 alongside the new Middlesex Canal. The new bridges and roads made what were estates and marshland into prime industrial and residential districts. In the mid-19th century, Cambridge was the center of a literary revolution, it was home to some of the famous Fireside Poets—so called because their poems would be read aloud by families in front of their evening fires. The Fireside Poets—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, James Russell Lowell, Oliver Wendell Holmes—were popular and influential in their day. Soon after, turnpikes were built: the Cambridge and Concord Turnpike, the Middlesex Turnpike, what are today's Cambridge and Harvard Streets connected various areas of Cambridge to the bridges. In addition, the town was connected to the Boston & Maine Railroad, leading to the development of Porter Square as well as the creation of neighboring Somerville from the rural parts of Charlestown. Cambridge was incorporated as a city in 1846 despite persistent tensions between East Cambridge and Old Cambridge stemming from differences in culture, sources of income, the national origins of the resident
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation is an executive department of the US state of California. The department is part of the cabinet-level California State Transportation Agency. Caltrans is headquartered in Sacramento. Caltrans manages the state's highway system, which includes the California Freeway and Expressway System, is involved with public transportation systems throughout the state, it supports Amtrak's Capitol Corridor. In 2015, Caltrans released a new mission statement: "Provide a safe, sustainable and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability." The earliest predecessor of Caltrans was the Bureau of Highways, created by the California Legislature and signed into law by Governor James Budd in 1895. This agency consisted of three commissioners who were charged with analyzing the state road system and making recommendations. At the time, there was no state highway system. California's roads consisted of crude dirt roads maintained by county governments, as well as some paved roads within city boundaries, this ad hoc system was no longer adequate for the needs of the state's growing population.
After the commissioners submitted their report to the governor on November 25, 1896, the legislature replaced the Bureau with the Department of Highways. Due to the state's weak fiscal condition and corrupt politics, little progress was made until 1907, when the legislature replaced the Department of Highways with the Department of Engineering, within which there was a Division of Highways. California voters approved an US$18 million bond issue for the construction of a state highway system in 1910, the first California Highway Commission was convened in 1911. On August 7, 1912, the department broke ground on its first construction project, the section of El Camino Real between South San Francisco and Burlingame, which became part of California State Route 82; the year 1912 saw the founding of the Transportation Laboratory and the creation of seven administrative divisions, which are the predecessors of the 12 district offices in use as of 2018. The original seven division headquarters were located in: Willits Mercantile Building for Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties Redding C.
R. Briggs Building for Lassen, Shasta, Siskiyou and Trinity counties Sacramento Forum Building for Alpine, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Plumas, San Joaquin, Solano, Sutter, Tuolumne and Yuba counties San Francisco Rialto Building for Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, Sonoma counties San Luis Obispo Union National Bank Building for Monterey, San Benito, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo counties Fresno Forsythe Building for Fresno, Kern, Madera, Merced and Tulare counties Los Angeles Union Oil Building for Imperial, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura countiesIn 1913, the California State Legislature began requiring vehicle registration and allocated the resulting funds to support regular highway maintenance. In 1921, the state legislature turned the Department of Engineering into the Department of Public Works; the history of Caltrans and its predecessor agencies during the 20th century was marked by many firsts. It was one of the first agencies in the United States to paint centerlines on highways statewide.
In late 1972, the legislature approved a reorganization, suggested by a study initiated by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, in which the Department of Public Works was merged with the Department of Aeronautics to become the modern California Department of Transportation. For administrative purposes, Caltrans divides the State of California into 12 districts, supervised by district offices. Most districts cover multiple counties; the largest districts by population are District 4 and District 7. Like most state agencies, Caltrans maintains its headquarters in Sacramento, covered by District 3. Transportation in California State highways in California United States Department of Transportation List of roads and highways Official website Named Highways, Freeways and Other Appurtenances in California