Before & after bike ghettos

On 10/19/2010 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.

Chalo

Well said. In a post upthread, I included side-by-side videos of the
same commute from my neighborhood to downtown using streets and path.
The path follows the Charles River (one on each side, this one shows
south side). It's a major cycling conduit, mostly commuters during the
week, recreational cyclists on the weekend. All-in all, it runs about 15
miles, east to west.

It's a 40 year old path, improved only a little over the years. It could
be a lot better for very little additional investment. Certainly a tiny
fraction of the recent $15B+ spent on the "Big Dig".