After comments on the overall routes are incorporated in the map and the aspirational network has stabilized, the next step is to evaluate the individual routes for usefulness, safety, and practicality. Given that further analysis, we can choose the highest-priority routed for further development and advocacy.
Evaluation
Subject to further refinement of the process, we see the evaluation proceeding along these lines: Create a table (see below) with a row for each segment and columns for the cost and benefit attributes. Ask all stakeholders, especially bicyclists, to provide their own assessments of the segments they’re familiar with. Combine these results in a summary evaluation table.
[[note: still struggling with WordPress Table tool. Stand by for a legible table]]
| Segment | Overall | – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Useful for- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – | Safety | Practicality | ||
| Commuting | Errands | Recreation | ||||
| Bartlett Meadow to Beacon | ||||||
| South end Wightman | ||||||
| Beacon west of Murray | ||||||
| Beacon east of Murray | ||||||
| … etc for the other dozen or so … | ||||||
Priorities
Final selection of segments to work on first should be informed by more-than-casual analysis of the merits of each segment. After we have a reasonably well fleshed out evaluation, we will consult the stakeholders to select the highest-priority segments.
An additional requirement for each priority segment is that it must have an identified advocate.