Before & after bike ghettos

On Oct 19, 3:38*am, Chalo wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Parks can be pleasant, including linear parks. *However, a)
they are often not properly done; b) they are usually falsely called
"transportational" (because riding out-and-back is not
transportation); and c) the equivalent amount of money could do much
more good for true transportational bicycling, if spent on other
efforts. *For those reasons, I think most bike trails should be build
using park funds, not transportation funds.

The next best thing to a bike freeway we are ever likely to get is a
creekside or riverside trail. *Call it a "linear park" if you like,
but this is the sort of right of way that allows cyclists to traverse
significant stretches of city without having to wait at traffic lights
or even to cross streets-- because street "overpasses" are already
present in the form of bridges.

When such trails occur within a city, all trail access points can
constitute access to home, work, or shopping for many people. *If this
concept doesn't work in the 'burbs, well, what can I say... it's far
from the only screwed-up thing about the 'burbs.

It's only right that cyclists and peds should have some limited access
thruways, and it's only right that these should be legitimate
applications for transportation funds. *We cyclists have spent all our
taxpaying lives buying motorist-only freeways. *A little reciprocation
would be nice.

Sure, it would be nice. But opportunities for such things are
extremely rare.

Columbus Ohio has such trails along one of the rivers, and I've ridden
them. Ditto for bike paths in (say) Beaverton Oregon, along some
creeks. But the "street overpasses in the form of bridges" are
sometimes very disfunctional - as in, ride your bike north up a ramp
from the east river side path, turn left and ride facing traffic on a
narrow sidewalk with an 8" drop down to the traffic lane until you're
on the other side of the river, stop and push the ped button to get a
green light, lift your bike down the dropoff and ride across the ped
crossing to reach the next portion of the path, which is on the west
side of the river or creek.

It's not that they're not trying. It's that due to geography or land
ownership problems, they have to patch these things in wherever they
can, and it's usually a very kludgey solution, even when there is a
watercourse or unused railroad line available. When those aren't
available, the entire idea is impossible.

I speak from memory of my earlier advocacy days, when I was on a local
committee looking to do exactly such things. We searched and searched
for any feasible way to do such a path into the city center - or
anywhere else, for that matter. We had to give up. Oh, at extreme
expense, we could have gotten people about half a mile away, but there
were already pleasant ways to ride that far.

Another example: We actually got a federal grant for a walking trail
(not asphalt, and not for bikes because frequent stairs would be
needed) along a scenic creek near my home. Ultimately we had to
return the grant money. We simply couldn't convince local land owners
(e.g. cemetery trustees) to permit the trail to pass on even unused
creekside land they owned. Owners on the other side of the creek (a
church) were ready to give permission, but it would have required the
construction of an expensive, beyond-budget bridge.

These things are not simple. They're usually not even possible. I've
been on the teams trying.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:

But the "street overpasses in the form of bridges" are
sometimes very disfunctional - as in, ride your bike north up a ramp
from the east river side path, turn left and ride facing traffic on a
narrow sidewalk with an 8" drop down to the traffic lane until you're
on the other side of the river, stop and push the ped button to get a
green light, lift your bike down the dropoff and ride across the ped
crossing to reach the next portion of the path, which is on the west
side of the river or creek.

It's not an overpass if you can't go under it, now is it?

Austin's Lady Bird Lake Hike and Bike Trail illustrates the principle
nicely: Along the north shore of the lake, it passes under the
bridges of Interstate 35, Congress Avenue, South First Street, the
venerable International and Great Northern railroad bridge, the
Pfluger pedestrian bridge, and Lamar Boulevard before crossing at a
bike/ped bridge under the Mopac freeway:

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...keandBike7.jpg

One can walk or ride over ten miles, from deep in the east side to
deep in the west side of town, without once crossing the path of a
motor vehicle. Parts of the trail become quite congested with joggers
and other yahoos at peak hours, but that's because it works so well to
exempt trail users from having to interact with motor traffic.

It's not that they're not trying. *It's that due to geography or land
ownership problems, they have to patch these things in wherever they
can, and it's usually a very kludgey solution, even when there is a
watercourse or unused railroad line available. *When those aren't
available, the entire idea is impossible.

Impossible is not the right word. Much more expensive and less useful
road projects get built all the time, often to serve a speculative
future demand predicated upon the bulilding of the road. Good cycle
facilities can be built if there is public will to make them happen.

One of the things in Austin's transportation bond initiative this year
is $14 million to construct a boardwalk that knits the Hike and Bike
Trail together across the tract of a bunch of intransigent property
owners on the south shore of the lake. $14 million is less than it
would take to buy workable easements from these buttheads, and it is
chump change compared to a even a minor detail of a motor freeway.
But the result will be another branch of workable cycle freeway
running from a historically poor and neglected corner of town.

The entire transportation bond initiative is likely to fail because it
includes meaningful amounts of money for things other than more lanes
for gas burners. Even in a liberal oasis like Austin, there are a
great many people who can't imagine why someone wouldn't want to lead
a life just as miserable as their own. These people see cycling and
ped rights-of-way as purely recreational facilities, even more than
you seem to. But they are wrong.

Chalo

On Oct 20, 6:05*am, Chalo wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

But the "street overpasses in the form of bridges" are
sometimes very disfunctional - as in, ride your bike north up a ramp
from the east river side path, turn left and ride facing traffic on a
narrow sidewalk with an 8" drop down to the traffic lane until you're
on the other side of the river, stop and push the ped button to get a
green light, lift your bike down the dropoff and ride across the ped
crossing to reach the next portion of the path, which is on the west
side of the river or creek.

It's not an overpass if you can't go under it, now is it?

The point was, it doesn't work well. You couldn't go under it, so it
wasn't an overpass. You couldn't even ride a bike through that
section unless you were an observed trials guy. So you end up
walking, squeezing around tight corners, dropping off curbs, etc. Try
that with a tandem, a loaded trailer, a bakfiets, or a bike with any
serious load.

And that's not the worst I've seen. How about a separate bike trail
that required me to lug my fully-loaded touring bike up two stories
worth of stairs? It was no fun.

And the second point is, some people talk about bike "freeways"
everywhere, or in most places, or in many places - but they are
possible only in a few places, for reasons I describe. The rest run
head-on into reality, and simply can't be built, at least to match the
daydreams of their proponents. Most of the ones that can be built are
possible only because they're on land so thinly used that there are
not enough traffic generators to even pretend a "transportation"
component.

If your town has a nice river running through it, as very many do,
then bike paths along the river may work. And that will typically
allow access to roughly 1% of the places people want to go. It's
pretty, it'll be popular for walking, jogging, rollerblading, and
to&fro recreational rides. It will also cost about a million dollars
per mile, but it's going to be a recreational, not transportation
facility. And it's not going to change your city into a place where
even 1% of trips occur by bike.

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 20, 11:17*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:05*am, Chalo wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

But the "street overpasses in the form of bridges" are
sometimes very disfunctional - as in, ride your bike north up a ramp
from the east river side path, turn left and ride facing traffic on a
narrow sidewalk with an 8" drop down to the traffic lane until you're
on the other side of the river, stop and push the ped button to get a
green light, lift your bike down the dropoff and ride across the ped
crossing to reach the next portion of the path, which is on the west
side of the river or creek.

It's not an overpass if you can't go under it, now is it?

The point was, it doesn't work well. *You couldn't go under it, so it
wasn't an overpass. *You couldn't even ride a bike through that
section unless you were an observed trials guy. *So you end up
walking, squeezing around tight corners, dropping off curbs, etc. *Try
that with a tandem, a loaded trailer, a bakfiets, or a bike with any
serious load.

And that's not the worst I've seen. *How about a separate bike trail
that required me to lug my fully-loaded touring bike up two stories
worth of stairs? *It was no fun.


Hey, this is my optional route for cyclocross practice --http://
www.flickr.com/photos/dieselboi/97403955/ Yes, it keeps going up, but
you do have the option of taking the road. -- Jay Beattie.

On Oct 20, 4:21*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:


Hey, this is my optional route for cyclocross practice --http://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselboi/97403955/*Yes, it keeps going up, but
you do have the option of taking the road. -- Jay Beattie.

Looks like Pittsburgh. Lots of roads so steep that the sidewalks have
stairsteps. In fact, lots of official "streets" that _are_ stairs.

http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/about...gh/a/steps.htm

- Frank Krygowski

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:17 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:05 am, Chalo wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

But the "street overpasses in the form of bridges" are
sometimes very disfunctional - as in, ride your bike north up a
ramp from the east river side path, turn left and ride facing
traffic on a narrow sidewalk with an 8" drop down to the traffic
lane until you're on the other side of the river, stop and push
the ped button to get a green light, lift your bike down the
dropoff and ride across the ped crossing to reach the next portion
of the path, which is on the west side of the river or creek.

It's not an overpass if you can't go under it, now is it?

The point was, it doesn't work well. You couldn't go under it, so it
wasn't an overpass. You couldn't even ride a bike through that
section unless you were an observed trials guy. So you end up
walking, squeezing around tight corners, dropping off curbs, etc. Try
that with a tandem, a loaded trailer, a bakfiets, or a bike with any
serious load.

And that's not the worst I've seen. How about a separate bike trail
that required me to lug my fully-loaded touring bike up two stories
worth of stairs? It was no fun.


Hey, this is my optional route for cyclocross practice --http://
www.flickr.com/photos/dieselboi/97403955/ Yes, it keeps going up, but
you do have the option of taking the road. -- Jay Beattie.

Ha! sweet! I'd love to ride down there sometime, looks like fun!

Cheers Dre