Detente

Andy Gee said:

Today, it seems that the road/greenway split depends on whether or not the
disputant has some good greenways available or not. For the readers of
this group, is this true or not?

What do you mean by "good greenway"? And what do you mean by
"available"?

To some, "good" is defined as "having no cars," period. It doesn't
matter if it's crowded, chaotic, narrow, with rough pavement and blind
curves. Anything without cars is "good."

To some, "available" means "I can hang my bike on the back of my car
and drive there within half an hour. Then I'll ride for 15 minutes and
drive back home."

IOW, people who use bikes as exercise toys and are afraid of all
traffic will feel charitable toward any bike path.

People who use bicycles as practical transportation, and/or people who
know how to be comfortable on roadways, have much higher standards for
bike paths.

I think these distinctions are more important than whether someone has
a "good" bike path available. They usually control the person's
definition of "good."

- Frank Krygowski

--
mark
"Andy Gee" wrote...>

<Snip political science/history lesson>

Quoted message said:

Today, it seems that the road/greenway split depends on whether or not the
disputant has some good greenways available or not. For the readers of
this group, is this true or not? Perhaps we can just get the subsidies
for
alternative transportation, not have to worry about offending people we
get
our oil from, and go on to win the war in the Middle East.

Just a thought.

--ag

My corner of Colorado has an excellent greenway/shared use path system
available, one that has been called world class by Lonely Planet Travel
Guides. There are times when I enjoy cycling on the shared use paths, but
there are quite a few times when I prefer to be on the roadway for various
reasons, and I feel very strongly that cyclists should not be required to
use greenways/shared use paths. I've had several close calls with oncoming
bicyclists on the shared use paths, I know of at least one fatality
resulting from a head-on collision on a shared use path (Boulder, CO a few
years back), and I've seen and heard about too many bicycle accidents
resulting in serious injuries on the local shared use paths. Depending on
traffic levels on the shared use paths I frequently feel safer on the roads
than on a shared use path going to the same destination. I've made a few
suggestions to the county to make the shared use paths safer, and I've been
in touch with the local sheriff's department a few times about the problem
of motorists who harass cyclists on the road. I think cyclists should be
able to choose whether they use a shared use path or the roadway based on
prevailing circumstances each time they get on their bicycle.
--
mark

[email hidden] wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Andy Gee said:

Today, it seems that the road/greenway split depends on whether or
not the disputant has some good greenways available or not. For the
readers of this group, is this true or not?

What do you mean by "good greenway"? And what do you mean by
"available"?

To some, "good" is defined as "having no cars," period. It doesn't
matter if it's crowded, chaotic, narrow, with rough pavement and blind
curves. Anything without cars is "good."

A "good" greenway has 10 feet to handle 2-way traffic, an average of no
more than one traffic light per mile, adequate signage and lane
markings, toilets, water fountains, benches, concessions, and goes
between or to places where people live and places where people want to
do stuff.

Quoted message said:

To some, "available" means "I can hang my bike on the back of my car
and drive there within half an hour. Then I'll ride for 15 minutes
and drive back home."

"Available" means I can ride to it in two miles or so,

Quoted message said:

IOW, people who use bikes as exercise toys and are afraid of all
traffic will feel charitable toward any bike path.

I'm talking about people who can use bikes for real transportation as
well as fun and sport. Most such people seem to look down on the whole
greenway, bike trail, bike lane idea. Some people are wildly in favor.

Quoted message said:

People who use bicycles as practical transportation, and/or people who
know how to be comfortable on roadways, have much higher standards for
bike paths.

Yup, I have a pretty high standard for a bike path.

Quoted message said:

I think these distinctions are more important than whether someone has
a "good" bike path available. They usually control the person's
definition of "good."

- Frank Krygowski

"mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

My corner of Colorado has an excellent greenway/shared use path system
available, one that has been called world class by Lonely Planet
Travel Guides. There are times when I enjoy cycling on the shared use
paths, but there are quite a few times when I prefer to be on the
roadway for various reasons, and I feel very strongly that cyclists
should not be required to use greenways/shared use paths. I've had
several close calls with oncoming bicyclists on the shared use paths,
I know of at least one fatality resulting from a head-on collision on
a shared use path (Boulder, CO a few years back), and I've seen and
heard about too many bicycle accidents resulting in serious injuries
on the local shared use paths. Depending on traffic levels on the
shared use paths I frequently feel safer on the roads than on a shared
use path going to the same destination. I've made a few suggestions to
the county to make the shared use paths safer, and I've been in touch
with the local sheriff's department a few times about the problem of
motorists who harass cyclists on the road. I think cyclists should be
able to choose whether they use a shared use path or the roadway based
on prevailing circumstances each time they get on their bicycle.
--
mark

This is interesting. When you say shared-use, what is it you mean? Car
and bike, or bike and walkers, bladers, and boarders? I don't consider
it a "greenway" if motor vehicles can use it. In New York, a "shared
use" road is a regular road which is a suggested bike "route" and had a
bike lane on it which didn't have enough room to continue.

What does your county say to you when you write to them? We seem to
have a bikeway fairy (younger sibling of the pothole fairy) that goes
around making minor improvements -- a curb cut here, evening out the
grade there, a useful sign or two somewhere else.

I would never suggest that cyclists should be ghetto-ized into bicycle
reservations. I just think that a small part of the gobs of subsidy
that goes to more and more roads would be better spent where physics and
mathematics say it's more efficient. But apparently most cyclists
disagree with me, and i'm trying to figure out why.

--ag

Andy Gee said:

We seem to
have a bikeway fairy (younger sibling of the pothole fairy) that goes
around making minor improvements -- a curb cut here, evening out the
grade there, a useful sign or two somewhere else.

I would never suggest that cyclists should be ghetto-ized into bicycle
reservations. I just think that a small part of the gobs of subsidy
that goes to more and more roads would be better spent where physics and
mathematics say it's more efficient. But apparently most cyclists
disagree with me, and i'm trying to figure out why.

You may be misinterpreting what's being said.

Personally, I'm very much in favor of truly useful bike facilities.
It's just that I know, from long experience, that most dollars that go
to bike facilities are not useful for actual transportation.

If you commanded me to choose where the next fifteen miles of bikeways
must be installed in our county, I'd plant 1/8 mile here, 1/4 mile
there, perhaps 50 yards over there. I'd be connecting schoolyards and
shopping plaza back entrances and parks and libraries to adjacent
neighborhoods. I'd be connecting one cul-de-sac neighborhood of
McMansions to the adjacent cul-de-sac neighborhood of bigger
McMansions, so kids could get around. And where a freeway forms a
barrier to biking and walking, I'd do a fly-over bridge.

But I know where the next fifteen miles actually _will_ be installed.
It's going to be out in the unpopulated area, literally running through
cornfields. It's going to extend the existing cornfield rail-trail to
some remote country road. IOW, it's going to be pretty darned useless.

And anyway, if given the choice, I probably wouldn't spend fifteen
miles worth of money on bike trails. If I were told to spend it on any
infrastructure improvement, my first priority would probably be to
widen certain key roads... and, if necessary, add some traffic calming
techniques to keep car speeds down. There are many relatively small
"hot spots" that discourage cycling. Fixing those would allow easy
connection to pleasant existing streets, and leveraging benefits far
outweighing the cost.

I'd also put money into bike-sensitive traffic light detectors
(cheap!), bike racks on buses, bike parking racks at any reasonable
place, etc.

But if I could back away from the idea even more - if I were given
totally free reign with the money, I'd put almost all into education.
I'd do TV and radio spots telling cyclists how to ride properly and
effectively, and (probably more important) TV and radio spots teaching
drivers that cyclist do have a legal right to the road.

I actually worked on such a project once, a set of television Public
Service Announcements, and it was very successful. Unfortunately, the
sponsoring company came upon hard times and pulled the plug - and
inexplicably, wouldn't let anyone else have the rights to use the PSAs.
One of my great disappointments.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Personally, I'm very much in favor of truly useful bike facilities.
It's just that I know, from long experience, that most dollars that go
to bike facilities are not useful for actual transportation.

which is why we should forget about greenways and bike paths and
make our roads safe for cyclists instead. bikepaths don't
usually go where folks need to go for work or shopping, so they
are useless for anything other than recreation.

we need to make roads safe enough that parents are no longer
afraid to let their children bike to school. we need national
design standards that require adequate lane width for bikes (and
striping of bike "lanes" should be optional).

Andy Gee said:

A "good" greenway has 10 feet to handle 2-way traffic, an average of no
more than one traffic light per mile, adequate signage and lane
markings, toilets, water fountains, benches, concessions, and goes
between or to places where people live and places where people want to
do stuff.

Wow. What's a "great" greenway have? Free bike washes and a massage
parlor every mile?

"Andy Gee" wrote>

Quoted message said:

This is interesting. When you say shared-use, what is it you mean? Car
and bike, or bike and walkers, bladers, and boarders? I don't consider
it a "greenway" if motor vehicles can use it. In New York, a "shared
use" road is a regular road which is a suggested bike "route" and had a
bike lane on it which didn't have enough room to continue.

Shared use means pedestrians, roller bladers, bicyclists, but no motor
vehicles.

Quoted message said:

What does your county say to you when you write to them? We seem to
have a bikeway fairy (younger sibling of the pothole fairy) that goes
around making minor improvements -- a curb cut here, evening out the
grade there, a useful sign or two somewhere else.

I've made a few phone calls and I made a few suggestions at last summer's
bike to work day breakfast. No letters yet. One of my suggestions was
partially implemented, solid yellow centerline on all the shared use paths,
to remind people which half to stay on. I'm a little curious as to whether
it's cut down on accidents, or if people just look at it and continue
cycling three abreast across the full width of the path. I've made a few
phone calls to county Roads and Bridges trying to get a "no bicycles" sign
removed from a stretch of road where the sign is not warranted. No luck
there yet. I've made a few phone calls to the sheriff's dep't. with legal
questions about motorist behavior and the aforementioned "no bicycles" sign,
and gotten courteous, helpful responses. I've made phone calls to CDOT
and/or the county about traffic light loops that won't respond to a bicycle
and the lights got fixed pretty quickly.

Quoted message said:

I would never suggest that cyclists should be ghetto-ized into bicycle
reservations. I just think that a small part of the gobs of subsidy
that goes to more and more roads would be better spent where physics and
mathematics say it's more efficient. But apparently most cyclists
disagree with me, and i'm trying to figure out why.

I agree. As pleasant as they sometimes are, most of the shared use paths in
my county are less practical than the roads for actually getting someplace
efficiently on a bicycle. At the same time I would like to see some
provision made for less experienced or skilled cyclists to get comfortable
on a bicycle before they try to mix in with motor vehicle traffic. If some
of them never mix in with motor vehicle traffic that's OK with me too.
--
mark

Quoted message said:

--ag

Dennis P. Harris said:

Quoted message said:

Personally, I'm very much in favor of truly useful bike facilities.
It's just that I know, from long experience, that most dollars that go
to bike facilities are not useful for actual transportation.

which is why we should forget about greenways and bike paths and
make our roads safe for cyclists instead. bikepaths don't
usually go where folks need to go for work or shopping, so they
are useless for anything other than recreation.

we need to make roads safe enough that parents are no longer
afraid to let their children bike to school. we need national
design standards that require adequate lane width for bikes (and
striping of bike "lanes" should be optional).

We cannot make roads safe for children. Children are only as safe as
their behavior. Further, a bike is 2 feet wide. I know of no road that
can't fit my bike. So, roads are great for bicycle drivers. If
bicyclists were more competent, and if all motorists held people on
bicycles in higher regard, there would be no need to alter the
infrastructure.

By adequate lane width I know you mean widenen it so motorists can pass
easier and some bicyclists then feel more comfortable. This is useful in
places, but an utter waste and infeasible in others. So mandatory
national design standards are not feasible.

Wayne

mark said:

I've made a few phone calls and I made a few suggestions at last summer's
bike to work day breakfast. No letters yet. One of my suggestions was
partially implemented, solid yellow centerline on all the shared use paths,
to remind people which half to stay on. I'm a little curious as to whether
it's cut down on accidents, or if people just look at it and continue
cycling three abreast across the full width of the path. I've made a few
phone calls to county Roads and Bridges trying to get a "no bicycles" sign
removed from a stretch of road where the sign is not warranted. No luck
there yet. I've made a few phone calls to the sheriff's dep't. with legal
questions about motorist behavior and the aforementioned "no bicycles" sign,
and gotten courteous, helpful responses.

Is this evidence that in locales where a high priority is given to
separate bicycle facilities, the predictable corollary is that it is
more likely to ban bicycle drivers from roads? It's already well
established that where bike lanes exist, laws are enacted making their
use compulsory (and if actual laws are not created, motorist coercion
ensures it anyway).

Quoted message said:

I agree. As pleasant as they sometimes are, most of the shared use paths in
my county are less practical than the roads for actually getting someplace
efficiently on a bicycle. At the same time I would like to see some
provision made for less experienced or skilled cyclists to get comfortable
on a bicycle before they try to mix in with motor vehicle traffic.

What about residential streets? Aren't they ubiquitous?

If some

Quoted message said:

of them never mix in with motor vehicle traffic that's OK with me too.

Me too.

Wayne

"Wayne Pein" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

mark said:

I've made a few phone calls and I made a few suggestions at last summer's
bike to work day breakfast. No letters yet. One of my suggestions was
partially implemented, solid yellow centerline on all the shared use
paths, to remind people which half to stay on. I'm a little curious as to
whether it's cut down on accidents, or if people just look at it and
continue cycling three abreast across the full width of the path. I've
made a few phone calls to county Roads and Bridges trying to get a "no
bicycles" sign removed from a stretch of road where the sign is not
warranted. No luck there yet. I've made a few phone calls to the
sheriff's dep't. with legal questions about motorist behavior and the
aforementioned "no bicycles" sign, and gotten courteous, helpful
responses.

Is this evidence that in locales where a high priority is given to
separate bicycle facilities, the predictable corollary is that it is more
likely to ban bicycle drivers from roads? It's already well established
that where bike lanes exist, laws are enacted making their use compulsory
(and if actual laws are not created, motorist coercion ensures it anyway).

Possibly. There's only one stretch of road (across a dam) that's signposted
this way, and no law or ordinance that the sign is based on. The "motorist
coercion" so far consists of some yahoo (usually a tourist, AFAICT) yelling
"get on the bike path", which I ignore. I do hear a fair bit of grumbling
about "my taxes paid for that bike path", to which I answer that I don't
recall asking the county to spend the taxpayer's money that way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree. As pleasant as they sometimes are, most of the shared use paths
in my county are less practical than the roads for actually getting
someplace efficiently on a bicycle. At the same time I would like to see
some provision made for less experienced or skilled cyclists to get
comfortable on a bicycle before they try to mix in with motor vehicle
traffic.

What about residential streets? Aren't they ubiquitous?

There's a fair bit of open space between towns in this county ( but less and
less every year), and a few of the bike paths go through some very scenic
stretches where there aren't any other roads or, in one case, the only other
road is an Interstate highway. There are stretches of bike path that make
for excellent cycling when they're empty.
--
mark

[email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris) sd / msg
<[email hidden]> dtd Mon, 10 Oct 2005
18:47:57 -0800:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Personally, I'm very much in favor of truly useful bike facilities.
It's just that I know, from long experience, that most dollars that go
to bike facilities are not useful for actual transportation.

Quoted message said:

which is why we should forget about greenways and bike paths and
make our roads safe for cyclists instead.

They already are. It's the drivers that are the problem...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[email hidden] wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

If you commanded me to choose where the next fifteen miles of bikeways
must be installed in our county, I'd plant 1/8 mile here, 1/4 mile
there, perhaps 50 yards over there. I'd be connecting schoolyards and
shopping plaza back entrances and parks and libraries to adjacent
neighborhoods. I'd be connecting one cul-de-sac neighborhood of
McMansions to the adjacent cul-de-sac neighborhood of bigger
McMansions, so kids could get around. And where a freeway forms a
barrier to biking and walking, I'd do a fly-over bridge.

Connectors between parks pretty much describes the Queens County section
of the NYC greenway. And subdision connectors for suburbs should be a
priority, not only for the kids. Look at a map of the Orlando Metro
area, imagine how many people drive to work on the Interstate going all
the way _around_ because they can't get out of their subdisions any
other way. Shopping mall parking lots and schools would be insurance
problems, though.

Quoted message said:

But I know where the next fifteen miles actually _will_ be installed.
It's going to be out in the unpopulated area, literally running
through cornfields. It's going to extend the existing cornfield
rail-trail to some remote country road. IOW, it's going to be pretty
darned useless.

So, would you agree with the statement that bike facilities are no good
because they suck? That is to say, there's no practical way, in most
places, to get an actual useful facility built?

Quoted message said:

And anyway, if given the choice, I probably wouldn't spend fifteen
miles worth of money on bike trails. If I were told to spend it on
any infrastructure improvement, my first priority would probably be to
widen certain key roads... and, if necessary, add some traffic calming
techniques to keep car speeds down. There are many relatively small
"hot spots" that discourage cycling. Fixing those would allow easy
connection to pleasant existing streets, and leveraging benefits far
outweighing the cost.

I live in Stuyvesant Town in Manhattan (A Park Runs Through It [TM]),
the home of Euro-style traffic calming. Technically, though, biking is
forbidden in Stuy Town. Except, you know, for ST maintenance folks, ST
security, pizza delivery, kids, you get the picture.

Quoted message said:

I'd also put money into bike-sensitive traffic light detectors
(cheap!), bike racks on buses, bike parking racks at any reasonable
place, etc.

Would you agree with traffic light being re-timed so both bikes and cars
could travel at optimum speeds? (optimum urban speed seems to come up
at about 17 MPH for cars -- too fast in some places and they get
bottled up later, too slow and everyone might as well walk.)

--ag

Wayne Pein <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Is this evidence that in locales where a high priority is given to
separate bicycle facilities, the predictable corollary is that it is
more likely to ban bicycle drivers from roads? It's already well
established that where bike lanes exist, laws are enacted making their
use compulsory (and if actual laws are not created, motorist coercion
ensures it anyway).

Bikes are grandfathered in, I don't think it would be constitutional to ban
a bike from a non-interstate or non-park authority-owned parkway.

However, we do have a rule that says if there's a bike lane, you have to
ride in it where safety allows. That is, if the bike lane is on the left,
you can't ride on the right. That's where the busses go.

--ag

Andy Gee said:

So, would you agree with the statement that bike facilities are no good
because they suck? That is to say, there's no practical way, in most
places, to get an actual useful facility built?

I wouldn't be quite that harsh. I'd say that bike paths (or MUPs) are
almost never useful for transportation. There are lots of them that
are useful for recreation for a certain clientele.

Quoted message said:

I live in Stuyvesant Town in Manhattan (A Park Runs Through It [TM]),
the home of Euro-style traffic calming. Technically, though, biking is
forbidden in Stuy Town. Except, you know, for ST maintenance folks, ST
security, pizza delivery, kids, you get the picture.

?? Honestly, I know nothing about Stuyvesant Town. It sounds unusual
and interesting - but the anti-bike thing sounds weird. I guess I
should do some googling.

Quoted message said:

Would you agree with traffic light being re-timed so both bikes and cars
could travel at optimum speeds? (optimum urban speed seems to come up
at about 17 MPH for cars -- too fast in some places and they get
bottled up later, too slow and everyone might as well walk.)

Hmmm. I haven't thought about that much at all. ISTM, on first
glance, that timing traffic lights for cars makes sense. Save time,
save fuel, less pollution, less noise. But I doubt you could do it for
both cars and bikes.

Come to think of it, I doubt you could do it for bikes at all. There's
way too much variation in cyclist riding speeds.

- Frank Krygowski

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would you agree with traffic light being re-timed so both bikes and cars
could travel at optimum speeds? (optimum urban speed seems to come up
at about 17 MPH for cars -- too fast in some places and they get
bottled up later, too slow and everyone might as well walk.)

Hmmm. I haven't thought about that much at all. ISTM, on first
glance, that timing traffic lights for cars makes sense. Save time,
save fuel, less pollution, less noise. But I doubt you could do it for
both cars and bikes.

Come to think of it, I doubt you could do it for bikes at all. There's
way too much variation in cyclist riding speeds.

- Frank Krygowski

When I lived in Oakland, CA and commuted by bicycle to Alameda the downtown
Oakland traffic lights were timed for about 20 mph. A strong cyclist could
keep up with the lights pretty easily, which was a lot of fun.

Cities in Germany time the traffic lights, vary the timing depending on
traffic, and use electric signs to tell motorists what speed the lights are
timed for.
--
mark

"Andy Gee" wrote

Quoted message said:

Bikes are grandfathered in, I don't think it would be constitutional to
ban
a bike from a non-interstate or non-park authority-owned parkway.

However, we do have a rule that says if there's a bike lane, you have to
ride in it where safety allows. That is, if the bike lane is on the left,
you can't ride on the right. That's where the busses go.

--ag

Where in the US does this rule exist? Here in Colorado there is no such
rule, I frequently ride in the roadway right next to the bike path or bike
lane.
--
mark

Jasper Janssen <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:33:46 -0600, Rich <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Andy Gee said:

A "good" greenway has 10 feet to handle 2-way traffic, an average of
no more than one traffic light per mile, adequate signage and lane
markings, toilets, water fountains, benches, concessions, and goes
between or to places where people live and places where people want
to do stuff.

Wow. What's a "great" greenway have? Free bike washes and a massage
parlor every mile?

The bike washers of course have to be bigtitted blondes.

Jasper

Oddly enough, the Hudson River Greenway - Bicycle 9 (Ft. Lee NJ to the
Canadian border) has plenty of charity car washes on the route. It's a
road, not a dedicated greenway, though. I'm always tempted to stop for
the little cheerleaders, but never risked it. However, I do stop for
the fund-raising lemonade.

--ag

Andy Gee said:

Wayne Pein <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Is this evidence that in locales where a high priority is given to
separate bicycle facilities, the predictable corollary is that it is
more likely to ban bicycle drivers from roads? It's already well
established that where bike lanes exist, laws are enacted making their
use compulsory (and if actual laws are not created, motorist coercion
ensures it anyway).

Bikes are grandfathered in, I don't think it would be constitutional to ban
a bike from a non-interstate or non-park authority-owned parkway.

"Constitutional" is apparently not relavent. There exists bike bans on
normal roads. Fort Collins CO, a "bicycle friendly" community comes to
mind.

Quoted message said:

However, we do have a rule that says if there's a bike lane, you have to
ride in it where safety allows. That is, if the bike lane is on the left,
you can't ride on the right. That's where the busses go.

One has to question the "friendliness" of something that is compulsory.

Wayne