|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
Cycling Building a Better Bike Path A transport-bill windfall promises more room to ride, our reporter finds By REED ALBERGOTTI Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL October 15, 2005; Page P10 Thousands of Denver cyclists use the city's 85 miles of bike paths -- so many, in fact, that crowding has led to serious collisions and, in the fall of 2003, to the death of a bicyclist in Littleton, Colo., a suburb. Now the Department of Parks and Recreation is proposing a cyclist speed limit -- and turning to new bike-path designs. One approach: dedicated pedestrian trails to get joggers out of the way of bikers. Cities across America such as Portland, Ore., Dallas and Clearwater, Fla., are grappling with a dilemma. They'll soon be able to tap a big new source of money to build bike paths, thanks to unusually generous provisions for cyclists in the $286.5 billion transportation bill that Congress approved in August. But some transportation engineers and city planners argue that it's time to put the breaks on. They cite new research showing that widely used trail designs don't do enough to protect bikers -- and the joggers, in-line skaters and parents with strollers that typically share the paths. Many cities see bike paths as one solution to road congestion and higher gas prices, and are eager to expand these networks. But the current debate shows that cities' success in getting more bikers off the road and onto cycling paths has created a whole new set of challenges. One 13-mile stretch of the Silver Comet Trail in Marietta, Ga., is so crowded that people have called the parks department to report collisions and arguments on the path. While many city officials support more bike paths, there is a lack of consensus on the best approach to building them. In some cases, designers say the ideal would be to create separate jogging trails and keep the bike paths only for cyclists -- but a hitch is that usually only shared-use paths qualify for those federal funds. Another approach is to widen the bike paths. That can provide ample room for both bikers and joggers -- but in some cases, increasing the size by 2 feet, or 20%, could double the cost of the path. Still others talk about "traffic calming" -- basically, narrowing paths or adding curves in critical spots to force everyone to slow down. Planners in Elizabeth, N.J., might put bicycle speed humps on a new trail, according to Jonathan Phillips, executive director of Groundwork Elizabeth, a nonprofit environmental group that lobbied for the path. In downtown Clearwater, Fla., city officials hope to reduce crowding by doubling the width of part of the Pinellas Trail to 20 feet; they propose to turn one lane of street traffic into a two-way bike and skate path. And in Oakland, Calif., signs on a new extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail will direct faster cyclists into an adjacent bike lane on the street. "I've been saying all along that these paths were going to get congested," says Kathryn Hughes, a bicycle planner for Oakland's Public Works Agency. "You've got to get [the faster riders] on the street." Some of these plans are not popular with the neighbors. Homeowners in Minneapolis, for example, say that widening a trail would saddle their neighborhood with too big an expanse of asphalt. Thousands of miles of bike paths have been built to provide cyclists with sanctuaries from automobile and truck traffic. Tens of millions of people use 13,000 miles of bike trails just on old railroad rights of way alone, according to Rails to Trails Conservancy. But especially in cities, many of these trails have become congested. A handful of new studies document this congestion. One small Connecticut survey conducted in the fall of 2002 and the summer of 2003 reported 51 collisions or falls. North Carolina State researchers found cyclists unhappy about sharing space with joggers, baby carriages and kids peddling their first two-wheelers. "You've got a mix of elementary students and meatheads," says Theo Petritsch of Sprinkle Consulting, who has researched bike-path use. One problem is dated guidelines for bike-path designers. To address that, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials is in the process of revising its guidelines, which haven't been updated since 1999. The current standards for bike paths are based on the space needs of cyclists, which Mr. Petritsch says is the wrong calculation to use in most cases. That is because various other groups, with different needs, are increasingly using the paths, too. Bikes pulling a kid in a trailer, for example, have a much wider turning radius, while skaters often take up a full half of many standard trails. (People who design highways don't design them for a standard sedan, they design them for 18-wheelers, which demand the most space.) One complicating factor is that while some bike paths have been around for several decades, data on usage is still scarce. With the prospect of so much federal money for bike paths -- and the reality of so much congestion -- cities from Minneapolis to Dallas are taking action. In Dallas, the Friends of the Katy Trail responded to crowding on a shared-use path by building a second, separate jogging trail with a rubber running surface. But it had to be funded privately. Another key issue in the bike-path debate is whether wider is better. Increasing a lane can disproportionately add to the construction cost because of the extra excavation or engineering involved. Some engineers say that wide, straight paths simply encourage bicyclists to go faster, increasing the odds of dangerous collisions; these experts argue instead for what they call "traffic calming" -- narrowing paths and incorporating bends and shorter lines of sight that may make cyclists slow down. Exactly which bike paths will share in the windfall from the new transportation bill will be up to the states. One exception: $38 million is earmarked for bike paths in Louisville, Ky., a project mentioned in the bill. Bikes Belong, a lobbying group funded by the bicycle industry, estimates that about $1 billion from the transportation bill will go toward trails. -- Candace Jackson contributed to this article. URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112931666031069013.html Bicycle traffic calming. What a great idea! First, build a path to get bicycle vehicles off the roads to reduce congestion, then mix with chaotic pedestrian multi users. But since bicycles are too fast (but too slow to be on roads), attempt to make it more inconvenient to ride a bike on the path by slowing it down and introducing more hazards (as if multi users weren't enough). But wait! Another great idea is to get fast cyclists off the path and onto bike lanes. There they can be confined to the glorified shoulders at the side of the road where high speed travel is contraindicated. Wayne |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
It would be nice it they could get there facts straight!
"Thousands of Denver cyclists use the city's 85 miles of bike paths -- " Yes, I guess the city hs 85 miles or so, but the entire Metro area has about 400. The Highline Canal Trail is 67 miles long for a starter. I have 30 miles just in my little town of Parker/Franktown. "so many, in fact, that crowding has led to serious collisions and, in the fall of 2003, to the death of a bicyclist in Littleton, Colo., a suburb. " Yes, things ARE congested - on weekends, which is when this accident occurred. At the same time, there have been at least 10 bicycle fatalities on the road (including one shooting). I happened to know the guy who was killed. "Now the Department of Parks and Recreation is proposing a cyclist speed limit -- and turning to new bike-path designs. One approach: dedicated pedestrian trails to get joggers out of the way of bikers" Yes, the South Suburban Parks District has ALREADY built dual trails on about 10 miles of weekend heavy use path. Interestingly, the walkers still walk on the bike path! Personally, I stay off of these paths on the weekends. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:18:46 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:
Some of these plans are not popular with the neighbors. Homeowners in Minneapolis, for example, say that widening a trail would saddle their neighborhood with too big an expanse of asphalt. Anyone know more details about what path in Minneapolis is having expansion resistance like this? Minneapolis certainly does have its share of stinkers, but it also has some very fine bike paths and MUPs (e.g. the 29th St. Greenway). Reid |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:18:46 GMT,
, Wayne Pein wrote: Cities across America such as Portland, Ore., Dallas and Clearwater, Fla., are grappling with a dilemma. They'll soon be able to tap a big new source of money to build bike paths, thanks to unusually generous provisions for cyclists in the $286.5 billion transportation bill that Congress approved in August. But some transportation engineers and city planners argue that it's time to put the breaks on. They cite new research showing that widely used trail designs don't do enough to protect bikers -- and the joggers, in-line skaters and parents with strollers that typically share the paths. Get rid of the cars and you'd have an instant bike path anywhere you'd like. Dogs and kids can stay on the sidewalks. Skaters and joggers are moving pylons. Leave one lane for emergency vehicles. Create car-free zones connected by car-free corridors. -- zk |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
Zoot Katz wrote:
: Get rid of the cars and you'd have an instant bike path anywhere : you'd like. Dogs and kids can stay on the sidewalks. Skaters and : joggers are moving pylons. Leave one lane for emergency vehicles. : : Create car-free zones connected by car-free corridors. Quit dreaming, Zoot. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
The problem on weekends is that you get large groups of fairly advanced
bicyclers forming pace lines along these trails or others just going too fast. This is the time that these folks should be USING THE ROADS AND STREETS, not the MUPS. The Denver Metro area is a very "outside" group of folks, with runners, walkers, in-line skaters, walkers and just strollers, all trying to use the same trails in certain areas, primarily along the South Platte Trail in Littleton and portions of the Cherry Creek Trail. If you are smart, you can figure out how and when to use these trails safely, which is what I do. I never try to show off how fast I can go when the trails are busy. This is a time for 10 mph or slower. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
Zoot Katz wrote:
Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:18:46 GMT, , Wayne Pein wrote: Cities across America such as Portland, Ore., Dallas and Clearwater, Fla., are grappling with a dilemma. They'll soon be able to tap a big new source of money to build bike paths, thanks to unusually generous provisions for cyclists in the $286.5 billion transportation bill that Congress approved in August. But some transportation engineers and city planners argue that it's time to put the breaks on. They cite new research showing that widely used trail designs don't do enough to protect bikers -- and the joggers, in-line skaters and parents with strollers that typically share the paths. Get rid of the cars and you'd have an instant bike path anywhere you'd like. Dogs and kids can stay on the sidewalks. Skaters and joggers are moving pylons. Leave one lane for emergency vehicles. Create car-free zones connected by car-free corridors. Eventually it will be that way, the issue is, cities in North America, have largely been designed in the last 100 years, and have been designed to be car centric. This has resulted in the Megacity, where you get large tracts of low density housing in one area, shopping in another, religious needs in another, industry in still another. All these areas are connected by large roads and highways. If you look at areas that are pre-car, density is higher, lots of 3 story townhomes, and 3-4 storey apartment buildings, roads are narrow, and areas are fairly small, often it's designed like an independant village, in that it's common to have a everything mixed together, and there are people in some of these areas, that live, work, shop, attend church all within a 10 block area. Of course walking or cycling within such a neighbourhood is quite easy. A neighbourhood could have a subway station in it's core, to connect neighbourhoods together. So if you need to live in one, and work in another, it's easy to do. W |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
Colorado Bicycler wrote: It would be nice it they could get there facts straight! "Thousands of Denver cyclists use the city's 85 miles of bike paths -- " Yes, I guess the city hs 85 miles or so, but the entire Metro area has about 400.... Sounds to me like they got that fact right, then! "so many, in fact, that crowding has led to serious collisions and, in the fall of 2003, to the death of a bicyclist in Littleton, Colo., a suburb. " Yes, things ARE congested - on weekends, which is when this accident occurred. OK, another fact they got right. Personally, I stay off of these paths on the weekends. And later: The problem on weekends is that you get large groups of fairly advanced bicyclers forming pace lines along these trails or others just going too fast. This is the time that these folks should be USING THE ROADS AND STREETS, not the MUPS. ... If you are smart, you can figure out how and when to use these trails safely, which is what I do. It's not a question of being smart. It's a question of having freedom from a working schedule. ISTR that you are retired. Correct? It's much easier for a retired person to say "I'll just use the path when most everyone else is at work." Obviously, that strategy doesn't help the people who actually _are_ at work! Come the weekend, when those people have time to ride a bike, the bike path that so many lobbied for becomes either unpleasant or dangerous for those on bikes! Or so you make it sound. I never try to show off how fast I can go when the trails are busy. This is a time for 10 mph or slower. Please, keep in mind that NORMAL bicycle speed, for the vast majority of cyclists, is much higher than 10 mph. Riding at 10 mph is ludicrously slow. I'm reminded of a dear friend of mine who was once a dedicated cyclist. Back then, she would complain about the "racers" who had taken over her club. She couldn't comprehend why anyone would be pushing themselves to ride 19 miles per hour. She thought it was anti-social, reckless, macho behavior. What she didn't realize was that she was talking to someone who could cruise at 20 mph with no problem. And I was not a racer. I was simply much younger, and in much better shape. I was enjoying the ride, the scenery and the conversation as she was, but just doing it at my (then) natural pace. With age, I've slowed down. Now I cruise at a bit over 18 mph. But for either my younger self or my present self, riding a bike at 10 mph is ludicrous. We have a crowded MUP near here that I avoid as much as possible. It's got a 10 mph speed limit for bikes. It requires constant attention to keep the bike that slow. It requires braking on the very slight downgrades. Again, it's a ludicrous way to ride. (And oddly, the speed limit applies _only_ to bikes. I've been passed by skaters, who have no speed limit!) ISTM that you, "Colorado Cyclist," are wearing the same blinders my dear friend was. 10 mph is fine for you, apparently. And trails are uncrowded when you are able to ride, because of your special situation - so you believe trails are wonderul. But you need to face the fact that these things are NOT wonderful for many, many others, as evidenced by the original article. They are sold as a greenway transportation nirvana, funded by transportation dollars, yet they function almost entirely as parks. And the parks don't work well for strong cyclists - that is, those most likely to use them for transportation. I say again: Pay for them as parks. And please, let's be realistic about them. Be honest about their bad points as well as their good points. Let the public know what's really going on. Perhaps, if the general public is told how hazardous these things can be, those of us who choose to ride on the road will get less "Get on the bike trail!" hassling. - Frank Krygowski |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bike paths in the news.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:01:13 -0400, The Wogster wrote:
If you look at areas that are pre-car, density is higher, lots of 3 story townhomes, and 3-4 storey apartment buildings, roads are narrow, and areas are fairly small, often it's designed like an independant village, in that it's common to have a everything mixed together, and there are people in some of these areas, that live, work, shop, attend church all within a 10 block area. Of course walking or cycling within such a neighbourhood is quite easy. A neighbourhood could have a subway station in it's core, to connect neighbourhoods together. So if you need to live in one, and work in another, it's easy to do. But that's like living in a city, and everyone knows cities are full of problems, especially crime. People living so close together just doesn't work. Neighbors don't get along when you squeeze them all together like that. And where do you expect kids to play -- in the street? With all the cars and strangers coming by? Kids need yards. Besides, why would anyone ride a subway when they could afford a car? You liberals just don't get it. :-) Sorry, living in the South gets to me sometimes! Matt O. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
May 6 NYC NBG Day to Honor Fallen Bike Activist | Cycle America | General | 0 | April 11th 05 04:15 PM |
May 6 NYC NBG Day to Honor Fallen Bike Activist | Cycle America | Recumbent Biking | 0 | April 11th 05 04:13 PM |
19 Days to go: NBG Mayors' Ride Excitement #5 | Cycle America | General | 0 | March 30th 05 07:34 PM |
Some questions etc.. | Douglas Harrington | General | 10 | August 17th 04 02:42 AM |
aus.bicycle FAQ (Monthly(ish) Posting) | kingsley | Australia | 3 | February 24th 04 08:44 PM |