Frank should love this article!!!

Colorado Bicycler said:

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3249958

(Now I am going to duck and cover)

I do think it's a good idea to gather data. However, I note that he's
simply finding the bike count with respect to time. IOW, there was no
mention of distinguishing between, say, retired folks out for a
recreational cruise vs. people using the trail as true transportation.

And of course, that was the point I'd been trying to make you
understand: Linear parks are fine, but they should be sold honestly.
In my view, even 10,000 people playing on a linear park do not justify
stealing _transportation_ money.

BTW, last night (Thanksgiving night) on the BBC World News they had an
article talking about America's energy gluttony. The commentator was
pointing out that instead of addressing real solutions, Americans were
doing things like "building bike paths through the Philadelphia zoo" for
those few people who might be tempted to drive their cars there.

ISTM that he generally agreed with my assessment of these things.

- Frank Krygowski

Perhaps one way of explaining a bit is that almost all of our
Denver/Boulder recreational trails have also been connected to form a
pretty good, several hundred mile long, commuter trail system.

Frank Krygowski said:

IOW, there was no
mention of distinguishing between, say, retired folks out for a
recreational cruise vs. people using the trail as true transportation.

Not in the Denver Post article, but studies of transportation modes in
Colorado show that 16% of utility trips (e.g. for work or shopping) are
made by bike in Boulder.

Quoted message said:

In my view, even 10,000 people playing on a linear park do not justify
stealing _transportation_ money.

This is just my completely unscientific observation, but a great deal
of the path usage in Boudler seems to be transporational.

Now, how do you feel about 40,000 people driving down Colorado Avenue
in Boulder to watch the Buffs lose to the Huskers? Is this recreational
use of city streets stealing transportation funds?

RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/

I guess there is another factor that I would consider.

Colorado is a very "Fitness Aware" state. Many, many folks are into
fitness. Fitness is pretty much "IN." I don't know about Cleveland,
but fitness is a very high priority amongst the citizens here. And
several ways that fitness is accomplished are through fitness cycling,
jogging, walking and in-line skating.

The folks here are willing and able to pay for the recreational and
fitness opportunities - that is why they have levied themselves time
and time again to provide for open space and recreational spaces. And
they have required million and millions of dollars from the Colorado
lotteries to go directly into trails and open space.

Then, through some pretty good regional planning, all of these trails
get connected together into a network of trails all across the metro
area. So, then we have, GLORY BE, BOTH needs satisfied with the same
dollar, so to speak. Bicycling as transportation, and opportunities
for fitness, which abound.

Coloradans also bike in the mountains, where there is a highly
developed series of interconnected bike paths, connecting such towns as
Breckenridge, Frisco, Vail, Keystone, Edwards, Glenwood Springs and
many more. Now, these trails in the mountains have become a prime
recreational draw, and therefore a financial boom, not a drain. In
fact, these trails are built to DRAW tourists in, and they have changed
the Colorado summer mountain economy from one of doldrums to one of
flurry. Now these mountain trails are used only incidentally for
commuting. But all-in-all I am trying to express bicycling and other
activities as an extremely high priority in the eyes of the electorate
in this state.

And, I think, that is enough said by the Colorado Bicycler. If I
haven't made my point on this topic clear by now, then I admit to being
a terrible communicator.

Thanks for reading.

Fritz M said:

Now, how do you feel about 40,000 people driving down Colorado Avenue
in Boulder to watch the Buffs lose to the Huskers? Is this recreational
use of city streets stealing transportation funds?

It's commercial use for which the stadium hosting the game pays
nothing.

Colorado Bicycler said:

I guess there is another factor that I would consider.

Colorado is a very "Fitness Aware" state. Many, many folks are into
fitness. Fitness is pretty much "IN." I don't know about Cleveland,
but fitness is a very high priority amongst the citizens here. And
several ways that fitness is accomplished are through fitness cycling,
jogging, walking and in-line skating.

The folks here are willing and able to pay for the recreational and
fitness opportunities - that is why they have levied themselves time and
time again to provide for open space and recreational spaces. And they
have required million and millions of dollars from the Colorado
lotteries to go directly into trails and open space.

Then, through some pretty good regional planning, all of these trails
get connected together into a network of trails all across the metro
area. So, then we have, GLORY BE, BOTH needs satisfied with the same
dollar, so to speak. Bicycling as transportation, and opportunities for
fitness, which abound.

Coloradans also bike in the mountains, where there is a highly developed
series of interconnected bike paths, connecting such towns as
Breckenridge, Frisco, Vail, Keystone, Edwards, Glenwood Springs and many
more. Now, these trails in the mountains have become a prime
recreational draw, and therefore a financial boom, not a drain. In
fact, these trails are built to DRAW tourists in, and they have changed
the Colorado summer mountain economy from one of doldrums to one of
flurry. Now these mountain trails are used only incidentally for
commuting. But all-in-all I am trying to express bicycling and other
activities as an extremely high priority in the eyes of the electorate
in this state.

And, I think, that is enough said by the Colorado Bicycler. If I
haven't made my point on this topic clear by now, then I admit to being
a terrible communicator.

Thanks for reading.

The bike trail network in CO is amazing.

We're working on such a trail network here in Southwest VA. Anyone who's
ridden the Virginia Creeper Trail has seen what it has done for Abingdon
and Damascus. This is not lost on the powers that be, including Gov.
Warner (who rode with our club on the New River Trail).

The first step is actually in the works -- connecting the Huckleberry
Trail here in Blacksburg/Christiansburg to the New River Trail in Pulaski
County. Yes, it's planned as a transportation corridor too, serving New
River Community College, the Volvo plant in Dublin, and downtown Radford
and Radford University; not to mention providing an appealingly safe bike
route between Blacksburg and Radford.

I encourage anyone who's interested in supporting this, or getting
involved directly, to contact me through our bike club website
(www.nrvbike.com).

It sure was nice being able to use the Huckleberry Trail to ride to the
mall this evening before our tailgate party, staying off the roads filled
with drunk football fans.

I do not believe all roads should allow all vehicles -- some should be
restricted to non-motorized travel.

Matt O.

A nice resource of most of the Denver Trail System:

http://www.denvertrails.com/Pages/Trails.html

And an even better map showing the major trails of the Denver Metro
trail system:

http://www.sandcreekgreenway.org/assets/maps/Postmaplarge.jpg

Fritz M said:

This is just my completely unscientific observation, but a great deal
of the path usage in Boudler seems to be transporational.

In my response to Colorado Cyclist's orginal post, I suggested it might
be valuable to actually _do_ some scientific observation. If there were
real data, those pushing trails as "transportation" would have evidence
to back their claims.

Of course, there's the chance that such data has been collected - and
that those pushing trails have good reasons for NOT quoting the data!

Quoted message said:

Now, how do you feel about 40,000 people driving down Colorado Avenue
in Boulder to watch the Buffs lose to the Huskers? Is this recreational
use of city streets stealing transportation funds?

I'd say your personal definition of "recreational" needs tuning up.

The event was recreational. The transportation to the event was not.

When a person is motoring, walking or cycling "just to get out" or "to
look at the scenery" or "to get exercise" etc., that should be defined
as recreation. When a person is doing the same specifically to get
somewhere, that is transportation.

Both uses are fine. All I've been saying is, I think facilities which
are almost entirely recreational should not be sucking transportation
dollars.

It seems this is a difficult concept, though!

- Frank Krygowski

Colorado Bicycler said:

I guess there is another factor that I would consider.

Colorado is a very "Fitness Aware" state. ...

Quoted message said:

Now these mountain trails are used only incidentally for
commuting. But all-in-all I am trying to express bicycling and other
activities as an extremely high priority in the eyes of the electorate
in this state.

<sigh> And, as I've said MANY times, I think that's fine. If people
want to pay for linear parks, let them do so. But sell them honestly!

I simply think such parks should not be using grant money, etc. intended
for transportational uses. There are more efficient, more productive
uses for that money.

Quoted message said:

And, I think, that is enough said by the Colorado Bicycler.

:-) No, I predict you'll be back within a month, saying "Ahah! A
survey of the "Round Scenic Lake Park" bike trail found one person
commuting to his job cleaning the park's restrooms! So it IS
transportational!!!!!"

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

:-) No, I predict you'll be back within a month, saying "Ahah! A

survey of the "Round Scenic Lake Park" bike trail found one person
commuting to his job cleaning the park's restrooms! So it IS
transportational!!!!!"
---------------------------

Me - I wouldn't do that :o)

As far as I know, all the dollars that are spent on either
transportation or recreation come from the same source - the National
Deficit.

Frank Krygowski said:

When a person is motoring, walking or cycling "just to get out" or "to
look at the scenery" or "to get exercise" etc., that should be defined
as recreation. When a person is doing the same specifically to get
somewhere, that is transportation.

Both uses are fine. All I've been saying is, I think facilities which
are almost entirely recreational should not be sucking transportation
dollars.

It seems this is a difficult concept, though!

Okay, how bout facilities which have many recreational users
but also seem to have at least as many transportational users?
Neither Fritz or C.B. is making this up, believe it.

Do these paths deserve 'transportational funding?'

This seems to be a concept with which you have great difficulty.
You cannot even bring yourself to admit the possibility that such
paths exist.

Robert

Frank Krygowski wrote:
....

Quoted message said:

When a person is motoring, walking or cycling "just to get out" or "to
look at the scenery" or "to get exercise" etc., that should be defined
as recreation. When a person is doing the same specifically to get
somewhere, that is transportation.

Both uses are fine. All I've been saying is, I think facilities which
are almost entirely recreational should not be sucking transportation
dollars.

It seems this is a difficult concept, though!

- Frank Krygowski

Hey Frank.

In principle, I agree with you. I suspect that, for many readers here,
the problem is that the cycle paths with which they are most familiar
are general purpose paths - used broadly for both recreation and
transportation.

I would not want to see transportation dollars spent on a truly
recreational facility. However, within a city, unless the path is a
fairly short closed loop, I expect you'll see a lot of cyclists using it
for transportation. Even if it doesn't get them from point A to point
B, it may well be a useful part of the trip.

Ottawa has some wonderful bike paths, lovely for recreation, frequently
very useful for transportation. Birds Hill Park (near Winnipeg) has
some wonderful bike paths but, excepting people working in the park,
it's very unlikely anyone would use them for transportation. I'd accept
my transporation $$$$ being spent on Ottawa's bike paths. I'd be
seriously annoyed if transportation $$$$ were spent on Bird's Hill Park
bike paths. The distinction between the two is obvious to any sane person.

That said, I'm not certain that bike paths are generally a great idea
for transportation. Bike paths rarely take me from point A to point B.
At best, they take me from near point A to near point B. Frequently,
the added distance required to get to the bike path negates the value of
the bike path. Would the transportation funding be better spent elsewhere?

Jeff

Frank Krygowski said:

Fritz M wrote:
Both uses are fine. All I've been saying is, I think facilities which
are almost entirely recreational should not be sucking transportation
dollars.

One problem that you might want to take into consideration, is that the
network of bike/walk trails is only just beginning to be fleshed out.
Right now, big chunks of bike trail start nowhere and end up nowhere, more
or less. However, twenty years from now, when virtually all bayou and
creek waterways have trails, many old rail right of ways have trails, and
linking roads have useable bike lanes; that same nowhere to nowhere trail
may carry an aweful lot of cycling and pedestrian transportational traffic.

For now, I still prefer multilane roads to paths and residentials, but
that may change sooner than I expect, there are a lot of miles of trail
being built right now, and they are very near to being what I would call
useful.

Fuel price may have an impact in the future as well, so it would be nice
if we have, in place, alternative infrastructure to support
transportational cycling to provide some remidiation for that possibility.
The recent spike to $3/gal proved that demand destruction in the US is
possible, and that there really is a sensitive spot between $3 & $5 a
gallon. We don't really know what the long term effect on behavior
would be if those prices were sustained at some point, but it is
enough justification for having some core utility cycling infrastructure
in place.

PS: roadies ain't gonna like what we're going to do with those currently
recreational trails, but thats a differnet kettle of fish. e.g.: my
greying, heavy body, riding a heavy steel hybrid with bulging panniers,
lugging 50 pounds of groceries at 10 mph while listening to my Rush
Limbaugh podcast over bluetooth headsets... :->

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

When a person is motoring, walking or cycling "just to get out" or "to
look at the scenery" or "to get exercise" etc., that should be defined
as recreation. When a person is doing the same specifically to get
somewhere, that is transportation.

Both uses are fine. All I've been saying is, I think facilities which
are almost entirely recreational should not be sucking transportation
dollars.

It seems this is a difficult concept, though!

Okay, how bout facilities which have many recreational users
but also seem to have at least as many transportational users?
Neither Fritz or C.B. is making this up, believe it.

I do believe it! I've previously mentioned a couple facilities I've
been involved with, that are clearly transportational. But it seems
demonizing me is more important than remembering!

Quoted message said:

Do these paths deserve 'transportational funding?'

Look, this is obviously a "grey area" kind of thing. Any given path can
have anywhere from 0% to 100% transportational use. Perhaps the funding
sources should be based on that percenage?

Of course, there are problems. One is that the funding happens before
the construction, and the percentage of transportational use isn't known
ahead of time.

But a bigger problem is that the current standard is, a 1%
transportational threshold to get 100% transportational funding. That
is, there have been millions of transportational dollars spent on
miles and miles of bike paths, because kids might use one half mile to
get from a middle school to a park.

That's clearly dishonest justification, and a misuse of funds.

Perhaps this would be a solution: Those proposing a given path would be
forced to predict the percentages of transportational vs. recreational
use, and justify their numbers. Then the funding could match those
numbers - 75% recreation, 25% transportation would get funded 75% from
parks, 25% from the DOT.

BUT there should be proper surveys done after the fact to verify the
predictions. If the actual mix were found to be 90% miles ridden for
recreation, 10% miles ridden for transportation, then agencies should
shuffle funds so costs come out of the proper pot.

Typically, this would leave MUCH more bicycle transportation money for
use on the streets, which is where most transportational cylcing _must_
be done. At the very least, we could get _all_ loop detectors working
for _all_ cyclists in short order!

If this were done for the bike paths C.B. and R15796789094 are touting,
I wonder what the results would be?

- Frank Krygowski

rwwff said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Fritz M wrote:
Both uses are fine. All I've been saying is, I think facilities which
are almost entirely recreational should not be sucking transportation
dollars.

One problem that you might want to take into consideration, is that the
network of bike/walk trails is only just beginning to be fleshed out.
Right now, big chunks of bike trail start nowhere and end up nowhere, more
or less. However, twenty years from now, when virtually all bayou and
creek waterways have trails, many old rail right of ways have trails, and
linking roads have useable bike lanes; that same nowhere to nowhere trail
may carry an aweful lot of cycling and pedestrian transportational traffic.

That may happen with some trails, but I think you're doing more of the
same - that is, using a small percentage of hypothetical successes to
justify a very large number of "failures" - that is, failures for the
purpose of transportation.

There are two major trails near me. One will, supposedly, eventually
connect Lake Erie with the Ohio River. To do so, it passes through
hundreds of miles of nearly-unpopulated farmland. What percentage of
this will _ever_ be used for transportation?

Quoted message said:

For now, I still prefer multilane roads to paths and residentials, but
that may change sooner than I expect,...

But keep in mind that if the dollars went to the roads, you might stay
on the roads much, much longer. And have lots of other riders for company.

Quoted message said:

... there are a lot of miles of trail
being built right now, and they are very near to being what I would call
useful.

I'm not sure what your standard for "very near" is, but I've been on
hundreds of miles of bike trails. Not 1% were anything like "useful"
except for recreational cruising.

Can you post links to maps, etc, to show what "near useful" trails you
have in mind?

Quoted message said:

Fuel price may have an impact in the future as well, so it would be nice
if we have, in place, alternative infrastructure to support
transportational cycling to provide some remidiation for that possibility.
The recent spike to $3/gal proved that demand destruction in the US is
possible, and that there really is a sensitive spot between $3 & $5 a
gallon. We don't really know what the long term effect on behavior
would be if those prices were sustained at some point, but it is
enough justification for having some core utility cycling infrastructure
in place.

The question that comes to my mind is, what kind of infrastructure, and
how will it access useful destinations?

From my house, the most logical places for transportational bike trips
are the various shopping plazas, groceries, banks, offices, schools and
the library. I ride to all these, but few people do.

So if we want to provide enticing bike facilities, how would we do it?
Attempt to sqeeze in an entire network of car-free bike paths? That's
absolutely impossible; the existing buildings, roads and land ownership
prevent it. It's a pie-in-the-sky idea.

OTOH, perhaps if (say) the five lane arterial that I now ride were
re-striped for 14 or 15 foot wide outer lanes; if it were given
sidewalks; and if the freeway ramps just west of here were given
fly-over bike/ped crossings, then five thousand people would find it
within their possible comfort zone to bike the mile to the closest major
shopping center. I'd have lots of non-motorized company on that road.

Perhaps the almost-unused center turn lane could be made into a green
area, making a boulevard. Then people could cross the street without a
70-foot sprint. The elderly couple across our street could once again
walk to the restaurant.

Perhaps if the residential streets were given traffic calming
treatments, motor traffic would slow enough to encourage more walking
and biking. And the school down the block wouldn't have so many mom's
dropping off so many overweight kids.

I think ideas like this are much more valuable than what we're getting
now around here - nice, smooth rail-trail bike paths parallel to empty
country roads!

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski said:

I'd say your personal definition of "recreational" needs tuning up.
The event was recreational. The transportation to the event was not.

I was trolling. Sorry.

In spite of my bad example, there is recreational road use. The
mountain roads are filled every weekend with motorcyclists on their
Harley Davidsons out for their Sunday rides. Transportation funds were
used to build the roads that they and thousands of other tourists
enjoy.

In Boulder, paths are funded through a mix of transportation, parks,
flood management, and Colorado lottery dollars.

Transportation funding comes primarily through a city sales tax.
Boulder residents recognize that this transportation tax includes path
funding.

Flood management funds are involved for things like replacing culverts.
When that happens, a few thousand dollars are budgeted to install a
path if a path is designated in the city master plan for that location.

Regarding cycling in Boulder: The interconnected path system in Boulder
does create a useful transportational network. There are conflicts, of
course -- businesses don't like on-street parking taken away to make
room for a bike lane, for example -- but there isn't much grumbling
about the use of transportation funds for paint and paths.

RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/

Frank Krygowski said:

rwwff said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Fritz M wrote:
Both uses are fine. All I've been saying is, I think facilities
which are almost entirely recreational should not be sucking
transportation dollars.

One problem that you might want to take into consideration, is that the
network of bike/walk trails is only just beginning to be fleshed out.
Right now, big chunks of bike trail start nowhere and end up nowhere,
more
or less. However, twenty years from now, when virtually all bayou and
creek waterways have trails, many old rail right of ways have trails, and
linking roads have useable bike lanes; that same nowhere to nowhere trail
may carry an aweful lot of cycling and pedestrian transportational
traffic.

That may happen with some trails, but I think you're doing more of the
same - that is, using a small percentage of hypothetical successes to
justify a very large number of "failures" - that is, failures for the
purpose of transportation.

There are two major trails near me. One will, supposedly, eventually
connect Lake Erie with the Ohio River. To do so, it passes through
hundreds of miles of nearly-unpopulated farmland. What percentage of
this will _ever_ be used for transportation?

<snip>

Sorry to take you off subject, but could you elaborate on this trail?
I'm a fellow Ohioan, thanks.

Brian Kerr said:

Frank Krygowski said:

There are two major trails near me. One will, supposedly, eventually
connect Lake Erie with the Ohio River. To do so, it passes through
hundreds of miles of nearly-unpopulated farmland. What percentage of
this will _ever_ be used for transportation?

<snip>

Sorry to take you off subject, but could you elaborate on this trail?
I'm a fellow Ohioan, thanks.

Much of it has been built. I don't know the total cost, but it must be
tremendous. From Ashtabula due south through Warren, Niles, west of
Youngstown, through Canfield, eventually through Leetonia, Lisbon and south.

Hint: There are NO cities in the fifty miles or so between Ashtabula
and Warren. There are precious few traffic generators south of Niles
and north of Canfield. There's nothing much south of Canfield.

Parts of it are pretty (say, from Leetonia to Lisbon). Much of it is
boring. Our club's last invitational metric century used part of it,
and some riders abandoned the trail and used the roads, just to see some
more interesting scenery.

It's NOT transportational. But I guarantee transportation funds were
sunk in that project, and more will be in the future.

- Frank Krygowski