Progress on Germany's 200 mile long bicyclebahn

Am 30.06.2016 um 23:46 schrieb Frank Krygowski:

Until someone proves to me that pedestrians are going to be
excluded, I'll believe that the thread IS about a multi-user path.

And it looks like pedestrians will use it, based on this and other
photos:
http://c.fastcompany.net/multisite_f...-10-cities.jpg


The difference to a standard MUP is 'separate lanes for cyclists and
pedestrians'.
Cedar lake trail in Minneapolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Lake_Trail has two (6ft?) bicycle
lanes and one pedestrian lane since 1995;
the RS1 has a design standard of one 4m (13ft?) bidirectional lane for
cycling plus one 2m bidirectional lane for pedestrians, ideally
separated by grass but in places (existing old railroad bridges) only
separated by a lane marker.

I don't know whether it's better to have one wide bidirectional bike
lane or two narrow unidirectional lanes; on Cedar lake trail it was not
easy to overtake an inline skater using the bike lane.

Rolf

On 7/1/2016 1:30 AM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 07-01-2016 06:19, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't think the prevalence of recreational riders is due to facility
management. I think it's due to simple geography: Where is the MUP, and
where are the traffic generators?

The geography is chosen for its recreational value because the planners
think biking is a recreational activity. It doesn't occur to them that
a route with little "nature" to see might have another reason to exist.

Well, as usual I'm basing my comments on what I've personally observed.
That includes three sagas in my area. In chronological order, they we

1) My work on a committee looking for practical MUP routes to connect
our suburb to or toward the downtown. We spent maybe a year on the
project (and some others) before giving up, realizing that it was
impossible.

2) The campaign, ultimately successful, to put a MUP on an abandoned
rail line maybe ten miles west of us. That's part of the 80+ mile
MUP... er, "bicycle highway" that nobody uses for transportation. It
got done largely because nobody wanted that land.

3) The campaign, ultimately unsuccessful, to put a MUP on a rather
little used RR line connecting the inner city to the mall and plaza
shopping in the suburb adjacent to me. A MUP there really would have
transportation value. That failed because although it's not heavily
used, authorities did not want to lose the use of the rail line.

(FWIW, I don't see why that right of way can't accommodate both the RR
line and a MUP. I'd favor that.)

In any case, the common theme was this: If the land is useful for
transportation as a MUP, it's also useful for other things, and it's
thus too difficult to acquire the ROW.

It's not that there are no examples of really useful MUPs. But if you
could make a career out traveling the country and betting MUPs would
become linear parks, not transport facilities, you'd soon get rich.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/1/2016 3:41 AM, John B. wrote:

Here, in Bangkok, there are no, or at least none I've seen, specially
constructed bike paths, whether MUPs or MUTs. or MICe".

However the numbers of bicycles I see on my Sunday ride has noticeably
increased over the past years. I did mentioned it at my favorite bike
shop and the sales manager said that, "yes they were selling more
bikes now".

My own guess is that numbers of bicycles and frequency of use is not
specifically related to availability of bike paths, under whatever
name.

And as mentioned, San Francisco had a surge in bike use just like most
other big cities, at a time when a lawsuit prevented the construction of
almost any bike facilities.

I think it comes down to fashion. There are lots of trends that appear
(and disappear) with no easily identifiable cause. Why is it suddenly
considered sensible to spend a fortune on tattoos? How come Hummers and
big conversion vans were once so popular, and are now so rare? Why did
women suddenly start wearing stiletto heels with jeans, and now have
switched to either sandals or boots? Why do young folk now walk the
streets staring down at their smart phones? What is it with fixies anyway?

As an experiment I asked my two grand kids, age 14 and 12, whether
they would like to have a bicycle to ride back and forth to school....
They just looked at me like, "Grandpa just went crazy!" and never
replied

:-) OTOH: My little grandson just learned to ride a real pedal bike -
one that I gave him and taught him to ride.

On getting the bike, his very first words to his mom we
"Mom! Now we won't have to take the car to school!"

BTW, the kid's natural cadence seems to be 135. Those little legs can
really spin!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/1/2016 3:48 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.06.2016 um 23:46 schrieb Frank Krygowski:

Until someone proves to me that pedestrians are going to be
excluded, I'll believe that the thread IS about a multi-user path.

And it looks like pedestrians will use it, based on this and other
photos:
http://c.fastcompany.net/multisite_f...-10-cities.jpg



The difference to a standard MUP is 'separate lanes for cyclists and
pedestrians'.
Cedar lake trail in Minneapolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Lake_Trail has two (6ft?) bicycle
lanes and one pedestrian lane since 1995;
the RS1 has a design standard of one 4m (13ft?) bidirectional lane for
cycling plus one 2m bidirectional lane for pedestrians, ideally
separated by grass but in places (existing old railroad bridges) only
separated by a lane marker.

I don't know whether it's better to have one wide bidirectional bike
lane or two narrow unidirectional lanes; on Cedar lake trail it was not
easy to overtake an inline skater using the bike lane.

Keeping walkers separate from bicyclists is definitely a good idea.
Walking has, practically speaking, no rules at all. Pedestrian motion
is extremely random.

One MUP I rode in North Dakota had a center stripe, with signs directing
peds to one side, cyclists to the other. However, it wasn't a very wide
path, and we passed peds on both sides, probably because they really
wanted to walk 3 or 4 abreast.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 10:34:48 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Well, as usual I'm basing my comments on what I've personally observed.

- Frank Krygowski

That's really rich coming fromthe guy who constantly tells everyone else that what they personally saw/experienced doesn't matter.

Cheers

On 2016-07-01 00:41, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:19:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/30/2016 6:53 PM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 07-01-2016 00:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
However, I do think that most MUPs do not qualify as transportation
facilities, and should be funded from Parks and Recreation. As
mentioned many times, the vast majority are used almost entirely for
recreation. I can remember riding quite a few in Ohio, several in
Pennsylvania, a couple in Maryland, one in Idaho, one in North Dakota, a
couple in Oregon... and probably many more in the U.S.. I've ridden
them in Estonia, France, Italy, Austria, Britain, Ireland, Canada. In
almost every case, all the users were obviously recreational riders.

When they're managed by people whose mission is recreation, then they
are going to be designed for recreation, which results in almost all the
users being recreational riders.

I don't think the prevalence of recreational riders is due to facility
management. I think it's due to simple geography: Where is the MUP, and
where are the traffic generators?

If you can somehow squeeze a MUP into a city's boundaries where it
connects residential areas with business and shopping areas, I can see
it getting some transportational use. But most cities have few or no
realistic opportunities for such paths, because the land has value and
is owned by people who don't want to give it up.

What becomes available for MUP rights of way are failed railroad lines
in either distant suburbs or rural areas. Those routes seldom have
significant numbers of nearby residents or businesses. They therefore
become used almost exclusively by those who drive there to offload their
bikes and ride back and forth. Management changes wouldn't affect that.

Here, in Bangkok, there are no, or at least none I've seen, specially
constructed bike paths, whether MUPs or MUTs. or MICe".


Venture out to the airport maybe?


However the numbers of bicycles I see on my Sunday ride has noticeably
increased over the past years. I did mentioned it at my favorite bike
shop and the sales manager said that, "yes they were selling more
bikes now".

My own guess is that numbers of bicycles and frequency of use is not
specifically related to availability of bike paths, under whatever
name.


Could projects like this have something to do with it?

http://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2014/0...ns-bike-track/

https://saltymom.net/2014/03/25/bang...o-urban-oasis/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/uwebkk...n/photostream/

This one is going to be a tight squeeze:

http://www.newmandala.org/wp-content.../bike-path.jpg

It's not anything like we have in the Sacramento Valley but it's a
start. We saw some new bike shops popping up over the last years and the
only thing that changed (improved) was the cycling infrastructure.


As an experiment I asked my two grand kids, age 14 and 12, whether
they would like to have a bicycle to ride back and forth to school....
They just looked at me like, "Grandpa just went crazy!" and never
replied

Which I think may be the "normal" view of bicycles, at least here.


No surprise at all. I know exactly two kids in our entire (large)
neighborhood who bicycle. One of them mostly because his dad does and
they ride together. When I was young some time way back in the last
century nearly all kids rode bicycles the millisecond their homework was
done.

Now, if you had asked them whether they want a brand-new smart phone or
video game console they'd have said "We have the coolest grandpa in the
world!" :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/1/2016 1:34 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 10:34:48 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Well, as usual I'm basing my comments on what I've personally observed.

- Frank Krygowski

That's really rich coming fromthe guy who constantly tells everyone else that what they personally saw/experienced doesn't matter.

Find me a quote of that.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/1/2016 3:46 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-01 00:41, John B. wrote:
O
However the numbers of bicycles I see on my Sunday ride has noticeably
increased over the past years. I did mentioned it at my favorite bike
shop and the sales manager said that, "yes they were selling more
bikes now".

My own guess is that numbers of bicycles and frequency of use is not
specifically related to availability of bike paths, under whatever
name.


Could projects like this have something to do with it?

http://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2014/0...ns-bike-track/

A bike path circling the airport will increase bicycling elsewhere in
Bangkok? Magic!


This one is going to be a tight squeeze:

http://www.newmandala.org/wp-content.../bike-path.jpg

It's not anything like we have in the Sacramento Valley but it's a
start.

Yep. "Any bike facility is a good bike facility," right? :-/

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 07-01-2016 16:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Well, as usual I'm basing my comments on what I've personally observed.
That includes three sagas in my area. In chronological order, they we

1) My work on a committee looking for practical MUP routes to connect
our suburb to or toward the downtown. We spent maybe a year on the
project (and some others) before giving up, realizing that it was
impossible.

Ah, but this personal observation involves you (and hopefully others)
TRYING to make a USEFUL trail. If you weren't there and all the other
people were looking for pleasant recreational routes, ....

In any case, the common theme was this: If the land is useful for
transportation as a MUP, it's also useful for other things, and it's
thus too difficult to acquire the ROW.

In our case, we do stand a chance of eventually getting some "useful for
transportation" routes on rail lines that were abandoned long ago. And
rail lines are generally useful for transportation—that's why they were
located there before highway competition made them fade.

I shouldn't say "we" because I don't live there any more.

--
Wes Groleau

On 07-01-2016 09:41, John B. wrote:
As an experiment I asked my two grand kids, age 14 and 12, whether
they would like to have a bicycle to ride back and forth to school....
They just looked at me like, "Grandpa just went crazy!" and never
replied

Let me guess: they expect someone to drive them to school.

"If God intended us to walk, we wouldn't have been born with cars."

--
Wes Groleau