Making America into Amsterdam

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 10:02:34 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-21 13:57, sms wrote:
On 7/21/2018 8:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 18:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their
own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience
culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.


Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf



"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56% Recreation 38% Training 3% Other
2% Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


Because it is either wrong or you picked a trail with hardly any
connections to destinations where people need to go. Want to have an
example where this worked most excellently? Voila:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61031

Quote "The Guadalupe River Trail is used more frequently for active
transportation, with 35.4% reporting commuting to/from work".

I don't see Frank's posts, but based on the past, his "data" is usually
either totally fabricated, or he finds obscure web references that are
not necessarily related to the question at hand.

The link he provided is a prime example. Trails for "Rails to Trails"
are often recreational trails, not the same as Multi-Use-Trails in urban
and suburban areas which have been designed to tie together residential
and commercial areas. I have ridden one such "rail to trail"
http://www.ridethehiawatha.com/. There are definitely parking lots.
It's not an area where anyone lives, it's purely recreational.

As an elected official I recently attended a "Trails and Waterways
Summit" where we discussed overcoming obstacles to continuing to develop
the trails network along creeks and rivers. The only real hope of
relieving traffic congestion is to at least slightly increase the bike
mode. Even a small increase would have an effect on congestion
https://valleywaternews.org/2018/07/16/first-trails-summit-is-a-success/.
I don't know of ANY of the county's creek and river trails where they
installed parking lots for people to drive to the beginning of the trail
and then bike, but perhaps there are some.

Where do all these waterways go past? Intel. Cisco. Google. Facebook.
Microsoft. Kaiser. Apple. Levi's Stadium. The ones that already have
paths are primarily commute routes during the week. Some see heavy
recreational use on weekends, but some do not. Since the water district
does not allow lighting, good lighting is needed to use them at night.


Similar in our area. Intel, Micron, Kaiser and so forth can be reached
via bicycle infrastructure. So can my former employer by now because
Rancho Cordocva learned from Folsom even though that took many years.
Some people understand this stuff and some don't. Then there are the
glass-half-empty folks.

I've ridden a bike to every job I've ever had. I could reach them all by bike. I can reach practically anywhere by bike. In Oregon, most of I-5 is a bike route, although you have to be careful with the off ramps. My house can be reached by bike, and in fact, the hill in front of my house is a Strava segment. There was a little peleton riding by when I went out to get the paper this morning, and my neighborhood is basically a dead-end.

My son was riding on Skyline yesterday -- a shoulderless, two lane road, when he passed a pack of over 100 cyclists from one of the local cycling clubs. The car drivers were being assholes, but hey, what else is new. Bikes are not a novelty around here, and people ride on the roads, paths, trails, etc., etc. I just got back from the Gorge which was teaming with bikes and cars, regrettably. Vista House was a zoo, and with the fire, the road to the Falls was still closed, and I couldn't get the ODOT guy to let me through, so I had to turn around and come home. It was still a fun descent and climb out and ended up with 75 miles of good tempo riding. https://www.youtube..com/watch?v=iQRS3OOvkTM&t=132s

For Frank, I could only go as far as Angel's Rest, about 3.5 miles from Multnomah Falls. It looked pretty normal, except there were charred trees at Shepperd's Dell. On this crappy video, the trees at 1:25. The undergrowth was burned out, so the cliffs are more visible -- but not as visible as they were in the 1930s: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/04/ec...89f9bb7602.jpg


In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails.. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective. There are a lot of people on the Springwater, many homeless. You feel like you are in a scene from Mad Max or Night of the Living Dead. Dodging shopping carts helps build bike handling skills.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 2:40:23 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 10:02:34 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-21 13:57, sms wrote:
On 7/21/2018 8:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 18:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/20/2018 10:53 AM, sms wrote:


I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost all
areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on their
own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S., experience
culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep south.


Here's a link to survey data from 20 trails in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey:
https://www.railstotrails.org/resour...in al_Rev.pdf



"Purpose of Trail Use: Health 56% Recreation 38% Training 3% Other
2% Commuting 1%"

That's not "my own neighborhood." That's the next state over, and the
one past that. 20 trails. Ten years of surveys.

Why no comment on the data, Stephen? Joerg?


Because it is either wrong or you picked a trail with hardly any
connections to destinations where people need to go. Want to have an
example where this worked most excellently? Voila:

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61031

Quote "The Guadalupe River Trail is used more frequently for active
transportation, with 35.4% reporting commuting to/from work".

I don't see Frank's posts, but based on the past, his "data" is usually
either totally fabricated, or he finds obscure web references that are
not necessarily related to the question at hand.

The link he provided is a prime example. Trails for "Rails to Trails"
are often recreational trails, not the same as Multi-Use-Trails in urban
and suburban areas which have been designed to tie together residential
and commercial areas. I have ridden one such "rail to trail"
http://www.ridethehiawatha.com/. There are definitely parking lots.
It's not an area where anyone lives, it's purely recreational.

As an elected official I recently attended a "Trails and Waterways
Summit" where we discussed overcoming obstacles to continuing to develop
the trails network along creeks and rivers. The only real hope of
relieving traffic congestion is to at least slightly increase the bike
mode. Even a small increase would have an effect on congestion
https://valleywaternews.org/2018/07/16/first-trails-summit-is-a-success/.
I don't know of ANY of the county's creek and river trails where they
installed parking lots for people to drive to the beginning of the trail
and then bike, but perhaps there are some.

Where do all these waterways go past? Intel. Cisco. Google. Facebook.
Microsoft. Kaiser. Apple. Levi's Stadium. The ones that already have
paths are primarily commute routes during the week. Some see heavy
recreational use on weekends, but some do not. Since the water district
does not allow lighting, good lighting is needed to use them at night..


Similar in our area. Intel, Micron, Kaiser and so forth can be reached
via bicycle infrastructure. So can my former employer by now because
Rancho Cordocva learned from Folsom even though that took many years.
Some people understand this stuff and some don't. Then there are the
glass-half-empty folks.

I've ridden a bike to every job I've ever had. I could reach them all by bike. I can reach practically anywhere by bike. In Oregon, most of I-5 is a bike route, although you have to be careful with the off ramps. My house can be reached by bike, and in fact, the hill in front of my house is a Strava segment. There was a little peleton riding by when I went out to get the paper this morning, and my neighborhood is basically a dead-end.

My son was riding on Skyline yesterday -- a shoulderless, two lane road, when he passed a pack of over 100 cyclists from one of the local cycling clubs. The car drivers were being assholes, but hey, what else is new. Bikes are not a novelty around here, and people ride on the roads, paths, trails, etc., etc. I just got back from the Gorge which was teaming with bikes and cars, regrettably. Vista House was a zoo, and with the fire, the road to the Falls was still closed, and I couldn't get the ODOT guy to let me through, so I had to turn around and come home. It was still a fun descent and climb out and ended up with 75 miles of good tempo riding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQRS3OOvkTM&t=132s

For Frank, I could only go as far as Angel's Rest, about 3.5 miles from Multnomah Falls. It looked pretty normal, except there were charred trees at Shepperd's Dell. On this crappy video, the trees at 1:25. The undergrowth was burned out, so the cliffs are more visible -- but not as visible as they were in the 1930s: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/04/ec...89f9bb7602.jpg


In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective. There are a lot of people on the Springwater, many homeless. You feel like you are in a scene from Mad Max or Night of the Living Dead. Dodging shopping carts helps build bike handling skills.

-- Jay Beattie.

Ooops. I forgot my crappy Shepperd's Dell video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkKWmHHvQ0M

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 08:04:22 -0400, Duane
wrote:

But I don't see the point of belittling people that do ride bikes only
for recreation.

I haven't heard anyone belittle people who ride only for recreation. I
rather admire some of them: I could *never* ride in tight circles for
hours on end -- no matter how much my back hurts, one lap is the most
I can stand.

But every chance I get, I'll vigorously belittle people who build very
expensive parks and pretend that they are somehow promoting
transportation.

And I wish I had the skill to explain things to the mayor who wants to
ban me from Fort Wayne Street by painting edge-of-the-road lines that
will encourage drivers to turn right from the middle of the street.

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:32:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

But, I wonder. Isn't most bike riding primarily recreation. I'm sure
it is, at least here.

In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.

If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?

And before anyone argues "I gotta have a car" I remind you that Frank,
and undoubtedly many others, have ridden from one side of the country
to the other... on a bicycle. Good Lord, Lewis and Clark walked!

I need a car indeed.

--

Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 21:44:59 -0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:32:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

But, I wonder. Isn't most bike riding primarily recreation. I'm sure
it is, at least here.

In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Change really to early (makes better sense :-)



Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


same people - same people always seem to have two cars"

If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?

And before anyone argues "I gotta have a car" I remind you that Frank,
and undoubtedly many others, have ridden from one side of the country
to the other... on a bicycle. Good Lord, Lewis and Clark walked!

I need a car indeed.

--

Cheers,

John B.

Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 08:04:22 -0400, Duane
wrote:

But I don't see the point of belittling people that do ride bikes only
for recreation.

I haven't heard anyone belittle people who ride only for recreation. I
rather admire some of them: I could *never* ride in tight circles for
hours on end -- no matter how much my back hurts, one lap is the most
I can stand.


Well the comments about people using rail trails because they have parking
lots sounded pretty negative to me.

But every chance I get, I'll vigorously belittle people who build very
expensive parks and pretend that they are somehow promoting
transportation.


I don’t see much of that in Montreal. The expensive parks are for
recreation and come out of the parks and recreation budget. They seem well
used here.

And I wish I had the skill to explain things to the mayor who wants to
ban me from Fort Wayne Street by painting edge-of-the-road lines that
will encourage drivers to turn right from the middle of the street.


I agree with you there. We’re starting to get these paint boxes on corners
that don’t seem to be in any place where they would make sense. I’m
wondering how slick they are in the rain...

--
duane

On 20/07/2018 6:08 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 14:33, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:01:15 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-20 09:29, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 7:53:52 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 7/20/2018 5:04 AM, Duane wrote:
On 19/07/2018 8:31 PM, sms wrote:

snip

Perhaps they opened some new parking lots for those bike paths.
That has got to be it. As we recently learned "almost ALL trail
users in almost all areas use a car to haul their bike to the
trail." LOL. Usenet is always amusing.

I don't live out in the wilds with mountain lions and sabre
tooth tigers.Â* I live in a city so the paths I'm talking about
are ALL close to parking.Â* Like my driveway.Â* Or my office
parking lot.Â* Or the streets they parallel.

Yes, that's how the bike paths are where I am to. Occasionally, if
they pass through a park, there are parking lots. Many of the paths
are along creeks and rivers which had many parks next to them long
before a path was put in. The American River Path is one such
example. It's often convenient to put paths next to waterways
because the path can take advantage of the existing underpasses
under roads.

I was astounded to learn that "almost ALL trail users in almost
all areas use a car to haul their bike to the trail."

Seriously, some people need to learn that life exists outside their
own neighborhood, and that not all areas of the country are exactly
the same, so they don't make statements that generalize based on
their own limited experiences. Certainly people from Silicon Valley
and the Bay Area, that have never experienced the eastern U.S.,
experience culture shock when they go back east, or to the deep
south.

Sort of OT, but I was riding to work this morning through the South
WaterfrontÂ* in a road surface bike lane, and two suburbanite young
women -- one with a baby jogger -- came running straight at me.Â* I
said something to the effect of "what the f*** are you thinking?"
And then there was an older guy doing the same thing.Â* This is like a
bike lane super-highway area and yet you have these clowns who just
don't get it. I'm seeing a lot of this lately -- it has become a
thing to run in the bike lane, and it is the same young hip
demographic for the most part. I'm getting tired of yelling at them.
We need some of Muzi's shooters to clean out the bike lanes.


An 800 lumen front light takes care of that. It triggers their flight
instincts. In bike lanes I always have it on. Rarely on bike paths or
MUP but when I encounter too many distracted or inconsiderate joggers I
turn it on. It makes a substantial difference.

A light would have done nothing -- on a flat, straight stretch with two
riders headed straight at them in bright sunlight, it was just sneers.
You think your cougars are dangerous, these two had no fear.

Also, if you blind them, then it turns into a confrontation -- and
sometimes even if you don't blind them. I was running a 1 watt blinky on
a MUP at dusk, and some dope with his dog running all over the place was
complaining about my light. I about cartwheeled over his dog.Â* Note the
sign: "dogs on leashes."Â* It does not say "no 1 watt blinkies." I'm
absolutely sick of the dog owners ignoring the leash laws.

-- Jay Beattie.





Not to mention that blinding the idiot heading straight for you may
not be
the best plan...


Good quality lights do not blind but do make an approaching vehicle
prominently known. There is a reason why motorcycles in the US must use
daytime running lights.


It depends largely on how competent the person is that aligns the
lights. I've been blinded enough times to know that.

And in Canada, all motor vehicles are required to have DRLs. But there
hasn't been any study recommending them for bicycles as far as I know.
They did just raise the fines for missing reflectors (even in daylight)
on bikes by 400%. So who knows what they use for these decisions.

BTW, I was going to work last Friday heading east and the sun was just
in my face. My current helmet doesn't have a visor and I wasn't wearing
my cycling cap under it so I was getting blinded. I did see a guy
coming toward me with his front light blinking where I probably wouldn't
have seen him as quickly without it. That's probably the first time
I've seen that useful.

On 7/23/2018 6:33 AM, Duane wrote:
Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 08:04:22 -0400, Duane
wrote:

But I don't see the point of belittling people that do ride bikes only
for recreation.

I haven't heard anyone belittle people who ride only for recreation. I
rather admire some of them: I could *never* ride in tight circles for
hours on end -- no matter how much my back hurts, one lap is the most
I can stand.


Well the comments about people using rail trails because they have parking
lots sounded pretty negative to me.

I'm not belittling the people because they are using these linear parks.
A person who drives to a linear park to ride back and forth is almost
precisely the same as a person who drives to a city park to walk its
pathways.

I'm belittling people who pretend that a linear park is a transportation
facility, one that will somehow reduce motor vehicle miles. That idea is
silly.

But every chance I get, I'll vigorously belittle people who build very
expensive parks and pretend that they are somehow promoting
transportation.


I don’t see much of that in Montreal. The expensive parks are for
recreation and come out of the parks and recreation budget. They seem well
used here.

For a long time, I've said that these linear parks should be paid for
out of park budgets, not out of transportation budgets. If Montreal does
it that way, that's good.

And I wish I had the skill to explain things to the mayor who wants to
ban me from Fort Wayne Street by painting edge-of-the-road lines that
will encourage drivers to turn right from the middle of the street.


I agree with you there. We’re starting to get these paint boxes on corners
that don’t seem to be in any place where they would make sense. I’m
wondering how slick they are in the rain...



--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:33:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

Well, SMS is talking about trails created by a local planning authority -- a home rule city or county, and you're talking about rails-to-trails conservancy projects, which are a different thing. The two major rail-trail projects in my area get lots of bike traffic, e.g. https://bikeportland.org/2017/12/19/...the-u-s-261628 Two of our rail trails have a morning bike rush hour.

I think the close-in portions of these trails are rather unique because useful rail rights of way remain in use -- or the smart landowners take back theproperty when the right of way is abandoned, and cities don't have the money to buy them -- or they think they own them, build facilities and then get a wake up call, like the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle -- which goes right through the UW and gets lots of bicycle traffic. A lot of rail-trails, however, are in the middle of nowhere, and it is probably the rare rail-trail that gets as much use as in PDX or Seattle.

You have to look at each project and decide whether it was a good idea based on objective criteria and not wishful thinking. Again, I'm fine with roads and think the best bang for the buck is bike lanes.

-- Jay Beattie.