Connecting Disconnected subdivisions

Sounds like you need little more than some signage to indicate the
routes.

This is done a lot here in Tucson. Low traffic neighborhood streets are
designated as bike routes and the only extra cost is the signs.

I should add that there is little use of bike "paths" in this system.
Folks do use higher traffic main roads to get from sub area to sub
area. That has never been viewed as a problem.
However, as has been noted in other threads, raod size, traffic density
and other factors are probably different here than in central Atlanta.
Although from my visits there outside of the most central areas density
in Atlanta is not that bad.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Atlbike said:

A city planner and I came up with a great idea at a recent Dekalb
County focus group for bicycle and pedestrian planning. What if certain
disconnected subdivisions in Atlanta were connected by paths or trails?

This has been proposed for many communities in my area. Some people
love it as a great way for cyclists and pedestrians (especially
school children) to get around with less risk from car accidents.
Other people are fighting it vigerously because they think it will
bring "undesirable people" into their quiet neighborhood. You can
interpret "undesirable people" anyway you want.

jack

i live in atlanta too
[chamblee - we have corresponded..]

a few points

connecting is likeky to be impossible without using private property
ie; someone's back yard
which may also be fenced

some streets don;t go through because of terrain - there may
be a creek or ravine back there

along the same lines, neighborhood streets are sometimes
less flat than the main roads. there is a reason the main roads
go where they do.

in a very few cases, some points are actually connected but it
does not show on any map for cars

example: jones mill road, connecting
between peachtree corners circle and
winters chapel. looks like a dead end on the map. in reality the
road actually used to connect, it was blocked by dirt piles which
bikes and foot traffic constantly traverse.

i'm all for it though
i agree that neighborhood streets can
already do 90% of what a bike path could.
a few connections would make it 99%

wle.

Makes a lot of sense. Existing roads don't need to be planned. You
eliminate project creep immediately by having systemic constraints.

I'd start with some real destination winner's like routes to the busy
grocery stores, maybe the library, and public schools. Why pick those?
Because it's easy to disseminate infomation about your project...

Don't worry about undesireables. If enough regular people can be
induced to ride your routes that issue will shake loose.

[email hidden] (C) wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Atlbike said:

A city planner and I came up with a great idea at a recent Dekalb
County focus group for bicycle and pedestrian planning. What if
certain disconnected subdivisions in Atlanta were connected by paths
or trails?

This has been proposed for many communities in my area. Some people
love it as a great way for cyclists and pedestrians (especially
school children) to get around with less risk from car accidents.
Other people are fighting it vigerously because they think it will
bring "undesirable people" into their quiet neighborhood. You can
interpret "undesirable people" anyway you want.

You beat me to the punch -- this is the purpose in having a subdision
in the first place. No one wants people like me in their neighborhood.
Here in the NY metro area, there's an imginary "ring" beyond which cheap
trains and streets safe for non-autos are hard to come by. Many of the
parkways exclude buses; some of the Robet Moses specials were made
physically impossible to have buses. We just spent x billions of
dollars to add the "Z" train and move everything around and extend
service. When the people outside the "ring" were finished, the service
actually got extended about 300 feet.

And now I'm paying for the fear that these people have. That is, I have
to pay for the damage when someone drives into my city.

Has anyone polled the residents of these subdivisions?

I guess bikers are the n*s of the transportation world.

--ag

Atlbike said:

Let me know what you think.

I agree it's a far more logical idea than trying to run separate paths
everywhere.

And I agree it's going to be difficult. In our community, we had a
walking path along a creek in a public park beaten down because some
snoots spread worries about "transients" using the path. You know,
stealing big-screen TVs, kidnapping handicapped children, murdering and
raping because of that path in the woods.

And let me emphasize, I'm not making _any_ of that up!

It will require the greatest diplomacy and the greatest luck to get any
property owner to cede land for a ROW. And the first time someone
throws a candy wrapper in a back yard, there will be hell to pay.
Furthermore, you can probably expect _some_ minor problems. (When a
bike trail was put behind some yards near here, on an abandoned
railroad ROW, one resident had a birdfeeder stolen, apparently by two
middle-aged women!)

All that said, I'm in favor of the idea, especially (as one poster
said) to give access to the more important traffic generators. It's a
much more efficient use of money, and it will do much more good than
the typical off-street bike path.

- Frank Krygowski

Atlbike said:

I'm about to post an article on my website about an idea I had with a
city planner at a Dekalb County Focus group on bicycle and pedestrian
planning. I'd love to get some feedback on the idea from this group.
Thank you.

".......
A city planner and I came up with a great idea at a recent Dekalb
County focus group for bicycle and pedestrian planning. What if certain
disconnected subdivisions in Atlanta were connected by paths or trails?
Doesn't this seem like a great idea? Has anyone else thought about
this? This would basically allow bikers to bypass the more dangerous
roads by riding through subdivisions. The car traffic wouldn't
increase in the subdivision because cars wouldn't be given access to
the paths.

It sounds like a good idea, at least in theory, however in practise,
well, give governments a chance to screw something up, they will every
time. I hate the term bike path, because most bike paths are really
multiple-use paths (MUP), that end up with so many pedestrians, that the
path becomes useless for cyclists, at times when cyclists would be
most likely to use them.

A better design is a bike road, or bikeway, that is signed and marked as
off limits to pedestrians. I think the best design is a road that is 3m
(~9'9"😉 wide marked for two bike lanes, with a 1m(~3'3"😉 slightly raised
sidewalk on either side, pavement markings would have painted, every so
far "bicycles only" which appears right side up, when your in the proper
lane. The centre line of the bike lane would be similar to any other
road, to indicate where it's appropriate to pass and where not.

When intersections with other roads can not be avoided, then stop and
warning signage, or a completely controlled intersection would be used,
triggers on the bike lane would be tripable by any standard bicycle.

W

Frank wrote:
....

Quoted message said:

And I agree it's going to be difficult. In our community, we had a
walking path along a creek in a public park beaten down because some
snoots spread worries about "transients" using the path. You know,
stealing big-screen TVs, kidnapping handicapped children, murdering and
raping because of that path in the woods.

And let me emphasize, I'm not making _any_ of that up!

But you forgot the public urination. The snoots always go on about
that. (What are they, Phyllis Schaffly?)

HTH

--Karen D.

Frank wrote:
....

Quoted message said:

And I agree it's going to be difficult. In our community, we had a
walking path along a creek in a public park beaten down because some
snoots spread worries about "transients" using the path. You know,
stealing big-screen TVs, kidnapping handicapped children, murdering and
raping because of that path in the woods.

And let me emphasize, I'm not making _any_ of that up!

But you forgot the public urination. The snoots always go on about
that. (What are they, Phyllis Schaffly?)

HTH

--Karen D.

"Atlbike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A city planner and I came up with a great idea at a recent Dekalb
County focus group for bicycle and pedestrian planning. What if certain
disconnected subdivisions in Atlanta were connected by paths or trails?
Doesn't this seem like a great idea? Has anyone else thought about
this? This would basically allow bikers to bypass the more dangerous
roads by riding through subdivisions. The car traffic wouldn't
increase in the subdivision because cars wouldn't be given access to
the paths.

A friend of mine in Irvine says that this is done all over Orange County. We
have that here -- two connectors, one ped, one multi-use, between our little
neighborhood, and the subdivision that backs on to us. If you have to use
your car, it's a mile drive, vs. a quarter mile walk, to destinations like
the local school.

The problem is getting access to right-of-way after the property's been
developed. Before development is a lot easier. The ped connector at the end
of our street is what planners would call a social trail -- something that's
been hammered out by feet for a generation, but doesn't have official
status. Under the City's pedestrian plan, the trail was identified for
official development as a ped connector when the property it sits on was
developed. About a month ago, the sign went up: "Notice of Land Use
Action" -- it's going to be short-platted. I organized a little campaign
among my neighbors to remind the City that we'd like to see the pedestrian
connection be maintained. It looks like it's going to be a condition of the
short plat.

It would be great if a similar connection could be made out of the
development, Hidden Hills to the north of us, to the development to the
north of it. But there's no way anyone could get the property rights to do
it. Instead, there's just dead ends and no way out up there, and if you
lived in Hidden Hills, you'd have to leave the development, whether on foot
or otherwise, to get to the houses that back on your own.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And I agree it's going to be difficult. In our community, we had a
walking path along a creek in a public park beaten down because some
snoots spread worries about "transients" using the path. You know,
stealing big-screen TVs, kidnapping handicapped children, murdering and
raping because of that path in the woods.

This sort of thing was brought up when we were advocating for bike lanes on
West Lake Sammamish Parkway. Some dingbat said that having increased bicycle
traffic in front of her house would increase the risk of burglary. One of
the bike advocates stood up and spoke, and painted a verbal picture of him
toting her wide-screen TV on his bob yak trailer -- it was a total crack up,
and residents never brought up the issue of increased risk of crime again.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Claire Petersky said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And I agree it's going to be difficult. In our community, we had a
walking path along a creek in a public park beaten down because some
snoots spread worries about "transients" using the path. You know,
stealing big-screen TVs, kidnapping handicapped children, murdering and
raping because of that path in the woods.

This sort of thing was brought up when we were advocating for bike lanes on
West Lake Sammamish Parkway. Some dingbat said that having increased bicycle
traffic in front of her house would increase the risk of burglary. One of
the bike advocates stood up and spoke, and painted a verbal picture of him
toting her wide-screen TV on his bob yak trailer -- it was a total crack up,
and residents never brought up the issue of increased risk of crime again.

Yup, we get this [censored] too. Right now there's a proposal to turn a
derelict railway trestle across the New River in Radford, VA into a
bike/ped bridge. This bridge is a wonderful idea, so wonderful that the
City of Radford has made it their #1 public works effort. But some
obnoxious, backward old NIMBY's on the other side of the bridge in Pulaski
County are coming up with this crime garbage, like they did in holding up
completion of the New River Trail several years ago.

Apparently they're blind to the fact that the Virginia Creeper Trail
literally saved the dying coal towns of Damascus and Abingdon, that the
New River Trail has done the same for property values all along it (old
railway stations converted to B&Bs, etc.), and that property values
adjacent to the Huckleberry Trail here in Blacksburg have been greatly
enhanced by that trail as well. And -- none of these areas have
experienced any increase in crime. In fact it has decreased, what little
there was to begin with. This is the predictable, positive result of
taking a piece of industrial blight and turning it into a public space.
Believe me, Pulaski County needs all such help it can get.

I've heard the same story about the rail trails in western MA. Initially
there's always resistance from a few cranky offa-my-land types, but after
the thing is built nobody can praise it enough.

Matt O.

Claire Petersky said:

"Atlbike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A city planner and I came up with a great idea at a recent Dekalb
County focus group for bicycle and pedestrian planning. What if certain
disconnected subdivisions in Atlanta were connected by paths or trails?
Doesn't this seem like a great idea? Has anyone else thought about
this? This would basically allow bikers to bypass the more dangerous
roads by riding through subdivisions. The car traffic wouldn't increase
in the subdivision because cars wouldn't be given access to the paths.

A friend of mine in Irvine says that this is done all over Orange
County. We have that here -- two connectors, one ped, one multi-use,
between our little neighborhood, and the subdivision that backs on to
us. If you have to use your car, it's a mile drive, vs. a quarter mile
walk, to destinations like the local school.

The problem is getting access to right-of-way after the property's been
developed. Before development is a lot easier.

This is true, Irvine is full of such paths. And yes, they were designed
in from the beginning. But furthermore, most of the housing tracts were
very large, and still are. So for a given area of city, there are fewer
property owners to deal with in getting these paths built, which makes it
a lot easier.

FWIW -- Irvine, and Woodbridge in particular, was unfairly and
inaccurately used by the book Suburban Nation as an example of the bad
cul-de-sac style development you mention above. I am intimately familiar
with the streets cited as the example, and I can assure you they have
pass-throughs at the end of every cul-de-sac -- so people can indeed
walk/bike directly to nearby streets, without going the roundabout way.

I understand why developers want to build cul-de-sacs, and why it's almost
impossible to get anything else built these days. But there's no reason
every cul-de-sac that could use one can't have a pass-through. There
ought to be a law!

Matt O.

Atlbike said:

A city planner and I came up with a great idea at a recent Dekalb
County focus group for bicycle and pedestrian planning. What if certain
disconnected subdivisions in Atlanta were connected by paths or trails?
Doesn't this seem like a great idea?

knee jerk suburbanites don't trust anyone that's not in a car.
it's californication, pure and simple. grid streets are best,
since they allow traffic alternate paths; branch & tree
subdivisions originated in southern california. dan burden, of
www.walkablecities.org says that they are guaranteed to increase
the mental illnes, as kids can't easily go places except when
chauffeured, since most streets and roads have no sidewalks.

but surbanites constantly fight the idea of bike paths going by
their house. it encourages all the wrong types of folks to go
buy, and "they" bring crime into the neighborhood. it makes no
difference that it's not true; the residents along the proposed
bath always "know" that it will happen, regardless of the studies
and experience in other communities.

yet another reason for insisting that ALL streets and full access
roads be bike and pedestrian friendly. if we spent the money
that's been spent of paths full of dogs and rollerbladers on
making our streets safe for cyclists over the past 20 years, we'd
have a ***lot*** more folks bike commuting.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 02:08:03 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole said:

I understand why developers want to build cul-de-sacs, and why it's almost
impossible to get anything else built these days. But there's no reason
every cul-de-sac that could use one can't have a pass-through. There
ought to be a law!

some places there is... check dan burden's great stuff at
www.walkable.org (oops, should have checked it before a previous
post, this one is correct)

their workshops are great, and their community planning efforts
are, too. the only problem is getting governments to actually
pay heed to the recommendations.

Atlbike said:

A city planner and I came up with a great idea at a recent Dekalb
County focus group for bicycle and pedestrian planning. What if certain
disconnected subdivisions in Atlanta were connected by paths or trails?
Doesn't this seem like a great idea? Has anyone else thought about
this? This would basically allow bikers to bypass the more dangerous
roads by riding through subdivisions. The car traffic wouldn't
increase in the subdivision because cars wouldn't be given access to
the paths.

There are a few suburbs here set up with lots of little segregated
neighbourhoods, each accessed (by car) only from the ring road, but the
bike and foot paths and ways go everywhere. Seem to work pretty well for
them.

Jasper

In Palo Alto, CA, the streets are laid out in a grid, however many of
them have curbs or barricades to prevent automobile passage while
allowing access for bicycles and pedestrians. The barriers are
strategically located to reduce through traffic. For example, at least
half of the smaller streets connecting to the major through roads or to
Stanford University are blocked at the ends. Unless I am mistaken,
these are old neighborhoods that have recently added the barricades to
reduce automobile through-traffic, which actually worsens the traffic
on the main arteries. However, I would like to see the model applied
to new developments as a compromise between the pedestrian-friendly
grid layout and the cul-de-sac that limits traffic and allows kids to
play in the street.

Jason

wle said:

some streets don;t go through because of terrain - there may
be a creek or ravine back there

A bike/ped bridge typically costs peanuts compared to a car bridge,
though. Especially an arterial car bridge.

Jasper