Andy Clarke: The biggest exclusions are liability concerns and trails for ATB's; but AASHTO may not consider this to be within their scope.
Andy Clarke: In addition, there is really nothing innovative or exciting in the book. What about "advanced stop lines" at intersections; gaps in road closures that allow cyclists through; shared bus and bike lanes; special traffic signals for bicyclists; speed humps that don't damage bicycle wheels and all that good stuff?
John Forester: When the various products that are specified in the AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities are examined to see whether they work properly, the only ones that work properly are the auxiliary, general items that should be applicable to all roadways, such as traffic signal detectors, drain grates, and surface quality. The principal products that are specified by the AASHTO Guide, which are bicycle planning, bicycle routes in the simple form commonly used, bicycle lanes and bicycle paths, collectively termed bikeways, are all failures. (Note: this statement is taken from a lengthy discussion, included in the author's letter; see attached)
Jim Clark: We don't really need a Guide if we want to do this right. All bicycle facility design criteria should be woven throughout the chapters of the Green Book. In this way the engineer will automatically be referring to bicycle considerations just as he would refer to proper geometric treatment for trucks and buses.
Sharon Todd: Cross referencing or adding an index to the Guide would be a big asset and would increase its usefulness. Also, a final edit for sentence structure, punctuation, and redundancy would help clarify the statements made in the Guide.
Steven Yost: I would be in favor of the Guide being incorporated into a chapter of the AASHTO Green Book. This would render bicycle information accessible to the designers immediately.
Terry Eldred: Since we now have ten more years of experience in working with bicycle facilities, we should be able to provide more specific design recommendations in a number of areas; such as road cross sections (urban and rural), drain grate design, dividers (separating motorized and nonmotorized), railroad crossings, and structures. While providing specific recommended designs may inhibit flexibility or creativity in solving design problems, the AASHTO guide is sometimes the only source of design information for bicycles available to road administrators in small cities and counties.
Rick Knapp: I believe that one of the most significant achievements in the California Criteria [upon which the AASHTO Guide was, to some extent, based] was that we didn't just state the standard; we explained why the standard, and the likely consequences of other approaches that might be considered (that don't work). The current AASHTO Guide incorporated this approach. I feel strongly that this be maintained. Without this, too many people believe, too many people believe they have a "better idea" or something "just as good." The Guide needs to serve as an educational document, as well as a set of standards. (Note: this statement is digested from a lengthy discussion, included in the author's letter; see attached)
Rick Knapp: [One of my co-reviewers] found the Guide to be "passive, dull, uninspiring, and not as positive as it could be." He felt the California Criteria were "more educational, positive, and inspirational to someone given the task of planning and designing a bikeway."
Rick Knapp: [Another reviewer] indicated concern that the tone of some portions presented negative image of bicyclists.