Another Reason Why Bike Trails Are Not the Answer

Jeff Williams wrote in
:



A comparison of the costs of the two types of systems really only
matters in an either-or scenario. It might be useful if you are
trying to convince government to pony up the funds for a parallel bike
route system (simply to show how little it would cost).


the comparison I had in mind was for an all too typical situation: Someone
buys up some empty land in the next layer out from the existing sprawl
somewhere. He subdivides, builds houses & townhomes and stuff, and sells
them. Phase 1 goes well, Phase 2 goes well, then by the time they get to
Phase 3, the roads are getting a little crowded heading into the center of
the local sprawl. Phases 4 through 6 are going to be in trouble pretty
soon. So the developer and the folks living in 1 through 3 come to me and
say, Hey Andy, give us some money so we can build more and wider roads to
ease congestion. So I say to them, well, I've got the money, but wouldn't
it be smarter to build, say, a little light rail and a few nice, safe
greenways for you to get around on, that ought to get your extra capacity
into town. If you want more and wider roads, why don't y'all put some
money away and save up for 'em? Then they say to me, Andy, one of your
senators is a nebbish and the other one's at least a levee if not a dyke.
All of your congretional delegation is communists and wierdos. So we're
just going to take your money.

That's basically the situation. "Depending on government to build roads"
essentially means "Depending on Andy to build roads" while Andy would
rather do some real cost accounting before shelling out any more money.

--ag

Joshua Putnam wrote in
.net:



Roads serve motorists, buses, cyclists, and pedestrians. Bicycle
trails serve a fraction of the bicycle community but do not serve
motorists, and if they're to be safe bicycle trails they don't serve
pedestrians. So should we spend transportation budgets on roads to
serve 90%+ of the population, or on trails to serve less than 3% of
the population who could ride on the roads anyway?



Urban roads have to have sufficient controls to handle momentums in the
12,000 - 20,000 kg m/s range. That's expensive. And they fit about one
person per 10 m^2. A bicycle reservation only has to control for momentum
in the 500 - 1000 kg m/s range and can fit a person every 4 m^2. The
controls and the density of an urban road _slow me down_ considerably and
needlessly. On an exurban road I'm fine, and on a bicycle reservation or
greenway I'm fine.
So, under many (but not all, maybe not even most) circumstances, despite
what people vote for, they can move faster and cheaper by bike on a bicycle
reservation. So if they want my money to build another road, I'm going to
call them on it.

--ag

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:00:48 GMT,
,
Andy Gee wrote, in part:

So, under many (but not all, maybe not even most) circumstances, despite
what people vote for, they can move faster and cheaper by bike on a bicycle
reservation.

Were they truly reserved for the guaranteed exclusive use by bicycles,
they'd be better because they'd never get approved, funded or built.
Access would have to be restricted thereby limiting their usefulness
for getting to places where the roads already go. They're best viewed
as long skinny parks, that's all.
--
zk

sd / msg
.com dtd 8 Oct 2005
15:09:38 -0700:

Bismarck, North Dakota (which, BTW, has a mandatory sidepath law)

This is something which interests me, Frank. If a local law is passed
which reasonably good evidence shows will actually result in putting
you at more danger, is that not unconstitutional?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Rich wrote:


A well designed and implemented trail is a nice place to ride. Much
more scenic and quite then roads, and oftentimes many fewer
intersections at which you must stop.


I'll admit that I sometimes enjoy riding a nice bike trail.
Aesthetically, it can be nice to be away from motor vehicle noise.

But in my experience, almost all bike trails fit one of two categories:
1) Crowded with chaotic users, or 2) badly maintained.

The nice, wide, conveniently located ones have enough people wagging
back and forth across them that they're more obstacle course than
trail. The more remote ones tend to get little use, so the authorities
think the initial design and subsequent maintenance need little
attention.

I actually enjoy the latter more than the former - as long as the
pavement is fairly smooth. I'm good at watching for road hazards like
bad pavement edges, big potholes, slippery mud across the asphalt, half
the trail sliding down into a gorge (all of which I've seen many
times). I'd rather deal with those than with another mom with baby
carriage and dog and 4 year old on wobbly bike.

But the remote, empty trails I enjoy are impossible to justify based on
utility. The ones that are justifiable based on their use are, for me,
impossible to enjoy.


BTW, speaking of bad design: our bike club is once _again_ trying to
force a re-building of a "multi-user path" in a park that puts two-way
bikes on the LEFT side of a one-way road, with periodic sets of wooden
posts directly in the path (supposedly, to remind the drivers not to
drive where the bikes are) and deep rumble strips separating the bikes
from things like traffic light sensors, right turn access, etc.

It's one more example of "Well, if we do ANYTHING to keep the bikes
away from the cars, it's an improvment."

Bleaugh!

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
sd / msg
.com dtd 8 Oct 2005
15:09:38 -0700:

Bismarck, North Dakota (which, BTW, has a mandatory sidepath law)

This is something which interests me, Frank. If a local law is passed
which reasonably good evidence shows will actually result in putting
you at more danger, is that not unconstitutional?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't know if anyone would call it
unconstitutional.

First, to make it clear, it's a state law for North Dakota, not a city
law for Bismarck. But more to the point, these laws (IIRC) were
instituted way back, perhaps the 1960s or 1970s, when it was common
"knowledge" that bikes and cars couldn't safely mix.

I believe most such state laws have been repealed. I think only a few
remain. But I don't know if its been done on constitutional grounds.
I think it's more likely been just because they've been proven to be
mistakes.

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

sd / msg

Bismarck, North Dakota (which, BTW, has a mandatory sidepath law)

This is something which interests me, Frank. If a local law is passed
which reasonably good evidence shows will actually result in putting
you at more danger, is that not unconstitutional?

I would think that if someone actually brought that take on the
law to court, it might stand a very good chance of being ruled
unconstitutional.

The latest issue of Adventure Cyclist (the publication of the
Adventure Cycling Organization) has a good article by John
Schubert where he summarizes some of the responsibilities of
bicyclists and motorists over most all states.

The over-riding objective of road use law is to drive/ride
safely. Motorists too often feel the prime directive of
road use is to maintain speed. Any event that causes a motorist
to slow is not looked upon kindly. So we end up being in a
conflict between cyclist causing motor traffic to slow, versus
bicyclist maximizing his safety.

Irrespective of the details of how a state expects a bicyclist
to ride its roads, there is no expectation that a cyclist must
ride in a manner reducing his safety to accommodate a motorist
attempting to maintain his speed!


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
sd / msg
This is something which interests me, Frank. If a local law is passed
which reasonably good evidence shows will actually result in putting
you at more danger, is that not unconstitutional?

I would think that if someone actually brought that take on the
law to court, it might stand a very good chance of being ruled
unconstitutional.

Exactly which part of the constitution is this in confict with?

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
sd / msg
This is something which interests me, Frank. If a local law is passed
which reasonably good evidence shows will actually result in putting
you at more danger, is that not unconstitutional?

I would think that if someone actually brought that take on the
law to court, it might stand a very good chance of being ruled
unconstitutional.

Exactly which part of the constitution is this in confict with?

You know, the part about not being put in any danger. It's right in there,
we're pretty sure. Right along with the right not to have your feelings
hurt.

In article ,
Rich wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:

They can be chaotic with mixed use.

I find it interesting that you don't like mixed use trail (bikes and
peds), but are OK with mixed use roads (cars and bikes). It seems mixed
use is OK with you as long as it's you holding up others and not the
other way around.

The complaint is largely this: bicycles can and are operated in a manner
which is compatible with the rules of the road. The speed differences on
city streets are such that a fit cyclist is typically moving moving at
half traffic speed, more or less, and often better. I often ride a busy
road in Vancouver (W. Broadway) where I can keep pace with or outpace
the flow of traffic, but I have no problem riding 30-40 km/h on the
flats (that's fast for a commuter, slow for a racer). Over the hilly
terrain that is my commute, my benchmark is whether I can stay ahead of
the express bus for the last 5 km or so of my commute. From repeated
trials, it appears that bus averages about 30 km/h as my cyclocomputer
measures, which is to say with traffic lights excluded, but counting
time stopped at bus stops included.

A well designed and implemented trail is a nice place to ride. Much
more scenic and quite then roads, and oftentimes many fewer
intersections at which you must stop.

Rich

My experience with multi-use trails which have a reasonable amount of
pedestrian traffic, is that bicycles are an utter terror to them, and
that the pedestrians are incredibly random obstacles to the cyclists.
Since the average walking pace on a trail is probably in the 5 km/h
range, the speed differential to even a fairly casually ridden bicycle
(20 km/h, which is dawdling for most regular riders) is substantial.
Even a pretty serious jogger is going to be doing 10-12 km/h, maybe 15,
but a serious cyclist might be in the 30-50 km/h range over similar
terrain.

What's much worse is that pedestrians do not move in expected ways. It's
easy for a pedestrian to execute a 90-degree change of direction with no
warning, and in the case of children and dogs, that happens pretty often.

Now, it is possible for cyclists on roadways to behave this badly: I
nearly had a head-on with a cyclist once because he came through a
roundabout the wrong way with no lights at night. But in such a case you
will note that most people here would excoriate the cyclist. As serious
cyclists, we want road riders to act like the rules of the road apply to
them.

As for the general cyclist beef with cars, it is largely about cars
being driven in disobedience of the rules of the road. The classic cases
are basically about misjudging clearances to or speeds of a cyclist. So
a car driver makes an unsafe pass and then "right hooks" a cyclist by
turning right while the cyclist is still alongside to the right. That's
illegal! Or a car enters the right of way of a cyclist because they
underestimated their approach speed. Also illegal.

Aside from that, the other objections tend to be for obnoxious or stupid
behavior: deliberate attempts to run cyclists off the road, yelling,
throwing objects, etc. All illegal, and all hardly a problem for most
drivers, who frankly aren't that into us .

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos