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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

wrote:

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.

You're not getting it. The south metro Denver MUPs
described by Colorado Bicycler function as important
transportation corridors on weekdays. On the weekend
they function more as recreation facilities. They
fulfill both roles, and both roles quite well.

I have never found these paths to be particularly
congested. I have been on congested paths and
these Denver MUPs generally are not. Boulder
Creek MUP--that's a congested path.
The primary feeling one gets from these Denver
MUPs is that they are wide open and it's easy to
ride fast on them. In fact, that is really what
caused the single fatality last year(?)--two dudes
riding fast, with their heads down, neither one
paying attention at the moment they needed to pay
attention. These MUPs are usually so open and fast
that it can lull one into complacency. I think the
best safety improvement that could be made here
or any similar paths are signs which say 'Cyclists
keep your head up!'

The Platte River MUP would have to be unimaginably
congested before the streets would become a
faster way to travel between downtown and the
southwest suburbs.

'Linear park'--cracks me up. The MUP that I have
described here, the Cherry Creek MUP that cuts
through the city center for miles, is part of an
arrow-straight concrete ravine that channels the
river through downtown. There is nothing 'linear
park' about it. It's a no-nonsense transportation
facility that is used overwhelmingly by commuters.
So stop trying to throw the baby out with the
bathwater.

snip
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.

No, they funtion as BOTH parks and transportation
facilities. I know it's a mind-blowing concept.

And the parks don't work well for strong cyclists - that is, those most
likely to use them for transportation.

You're talking out your ass about paths you've
never seen. These particular MUPs
function very well for transportational cyclists.

Robert

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.