On 7/4/2018 12:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
IMO, we should work on roads with adequate bike facilities and then physically separated facilities where it makes sense, like along existing barriers -- rivers, highways, transmission lines, abandoned rail right-of-ways, etc. I also see no problem on prioritizing road building and repair since I spend far more time on roads than paths.

Physically separated facilities are almost always built where
right-of-way acquisition is easy. If the intent is switching people from
cars to bikes, that usually does not make sense. This country has
hundreds of miles of bike paths - usually on former railroad
right-of-ways - that run from nowhere to nowhere. They function as
linear parks and actually increase, rather than decrease, car miles.

I agree that there are some places where separated bike ways would be
more practical as transportation facilities. It's too bad parallel bike
paths were not put in place along many interstate miles, especially
inside metro areas. But that ship has sailed.

But since the existing roads go to all the places I want to ride, I'm
more in favor of maintaining the existing roads. IME, a smooth road of
adequate width is a joy to ride. Ten or fifteen years later, that same
road is a moonscape of potholes and patches and an ugly riding experience.

As mentioned before, I'm also in favor of bicycle boulevards. These have
many benefits. They are generally less expensive than special-built
segregated facilities. They don't require lots of crazy and dangerous
exceptions to normal traffic laws. They benefit the residents of those
routes by decreasing cut-through traffic.

Sadly, they don't satisfy the contingent that thinks it's suicidal to
ride on any normal road. And they're not spectacular enough for the
Streetsblog people or the big "let us design your segregated facilities"
firms.


--
- Frank Krygowski