jgadamski

I live in Portland which tries to paint itself with the Bike-topia label. Its not that we are good, we just suck a little less than other places..or do we?
I have seen in recent years rural areas trying to leverage their experience into a form of economic development. There are incredible trails between near Spokane WA, through Idaho into Montana: the Coeur d' Alene trails, the Hiawatha and the Milwaukee Rd.. for example. I look forward to a week of riding when I can get the time.
But.. are trails the measure of good bike friendliness? Or is safely getting to your daily stuff: work, school, shopping, etc the measure?
One obstacle of urban 'safe facilities' is most space is spoken for and very expensive. the more rural you are, the easier ( i believe) to build that infrastructure.
I have all sorts of opinions, but I want to have an open thread where folks can speak of what they know..their piece of the Country and how it meets their needs for what they want to do, be it utility or recreational riding.
Whats happening where YOU live?

Chris516

Urban/Suburban

More cash flows to upkeep. Than rural country roads.

CliffordK

I definitely prefer the small cities like Eugene over the big cities like Portland. There are just too many people and cars in Portland. But, even the city has good places and bad places. One of the problems in the cities is that the best through streets are the major arterials, but they get hammered with traffic.

Rural areas are a mixed blessing. The secondary dead-end roads can be very nice for biking (other than the occasional jacked up pickup-truck). But, one has to hit major roads to get anywhere. One can justify the benefits of good road shoulders, but in many cases, it is hard to justify large numbers of rural off-road bike paths... unless one is lucky enough to be near a major rails to trails project such as the Katy Trail.

And I can imagine some bikepath carnage (without the cars). I decided to leave Strava on as I was riding around town today. I picked up a couple of bikepath segments with 27 and 28 MPH KOM speeds. Anybody else think that might be a little much?

bmthom.gis

I'm down in Columbia, SC. I live outside of the city in the suburbs, and once you go a few minutes farther away from the city, the area is decidedly rural. SOme road have bike lanes, some don't. There is a lot happening in the city itself for bike and pedestrian advocacy. We still suffer from the ever present problem of having these great cycling corridors, but they aren't connected. For instance, the bike lane that comes into the city makes an abrupt end at a busy intersection. If you go straight, you have to go up and over a steep bridge with no shoulder to the road. If you go left (I used to go left), you have to cross two lanes of traffic to get into the left turn lane, and now there is a bunch of construction going on. I tend to go right these days just before the intersection. That road put me out just a bit further down. No shoulder or anything and a lot of people trying to get into the correct lane but so far I have been fine. This way allows me to come up near the bike co-op and behind the sorority houses in order to get to work.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9877...m1!1e3!5m1!1e3

CrankyOne

There is much more infrastructure (lane miles of road, sewer, water supply, etc) per capita and per taxable unit in suburban areas than urban. However, the taxable value is greater in suburban areas as well. Both are facing fiscal problems with how development has been allowed over the past 70 years (largely not sufficient tax base to support the infrastructure).

More: Strong Towns

Specific to bikeways, land acquisition is typically easier in exurban than suburban which is easier than urban. However, the farther out you go the more car centric of a populace you'll encounter. You'll generally find many more voters who'll support bikeways in urban areas and who view riding a bicycle one or two miles to the grocery or school to be normal or appealing. The farther out you go in to the first ring, suburban, and exurban areas the more you'll encounter people who view cyclists as abnormal (think MAMIL), as only for recreation and not transportation, and who have no interest in seeing bikeways developed.

kickstart

Seattle and the east side has some good infrastructure, the outlying areas its very sporadic. In my area there's some great north-south infrastructure, but east-west needs work.

Worknomore

Here in south central Michigan there is very little infrastructure in most towns and little in the cities. We do have a vast network of paved farm to market roads with very little traffic. If you care to hit the unpaved roads you can go anywhere. In 30 years of cruising, centuries, and touring I have had only a couple of close passes. Most rides I encounter less than 5 cars an hour. Quite delightful! Commuting into town is another story.

Dave Cutter

Who own these trails? And what is that departments mission. That is the standard to which we measure the success of any accomplishment.

Here in Ohio..... most trails are rust-belt left-over rails-to-trails. Often the paths are still owned by some rail road, or corporate holding concern. Then given or lent (on long-term loan) to a county or state park system. The park departments are charged with the responsibility of providing recreational space and faculties. They do a fine job.

But downtown... here in the city... wide berm bike lanes and sharrows are owned and operated by the city funded transportation dept. They paint the lines, put up signs, patch the holes and sweep the streets. They also do a fine job.

They are like apples and oranges.

No. I understand the concept. But factually that isn't correct. Many states, cities, towns, villages, and rural areas (townships) are financially in fine shape. Of course... these are all conservative areas that practice good solid spending policies. Bad management causes poor spending... not growth.

CrankyOne

If that is factually not correct I'd be curious to see your facts. Chuck Marohn, who is a very outspoken conservative BTW, has found something quite different. More: https://www.strongtowns.org/newcomers...o-strong-towns

Dave Cutter

No you don't! You just want to hi-jack a perfectly nice thread with silly links that mean nothing. Everyone knows tax and spend liberals have ruined many cities and harmed some states. But growth doesn't cause or mean poor management.

The same with bicycle paths in many cities. Some well managed cities have inexpensive and well ran programs. But some cities throw-away millions with little to show for the publics dollars. Locally we had two of the $10,000 "Obama stimulus" signs. We could have painted a lot of sharrows for $20,000.

BeastBikes

I'm from Seattle as well and I agree with you on east-west as well. Definitely need some improvements in those areas.

CrankyOne

Chill. I posted a response to the OP and you disagreed with it, interjected partisan politics, and now don't want to back up your rhetoric.

What good do sharrows do? Do they make people safer bicycling on streets that have them? Do they feel safer? How many more people ride a bicycle because the painted sharrows make them feel safer?

Where do sharrows fall in this chart:

Chart from: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/09/0...s-survey-says/

Dave Cutter

You got me there! Not sure sharrows do any good at all. Pretty sure that signs declaring: stimulus spending coming soon.... can't do much good ether.

Safety is not a feeling, nor a stat, or a product. Safety is the result of a process or series of processes. I am not sure those things can be bought. There are inherent risks in cycling... although cycling is NOT a risky activity. People will always be injured in all normal activities. And all people die! It is only logical that some injuries and deaths will occur while cycling.

B. Carfree

My experience is that there is a sort of donut shape to support (or antipathy) towards people on bikes, where the empty space of the donut is the good stuff. In the urban center, bikes are accepted (mostly). Then in the surrounding suburban ring of car-commuters, it's a hated object and anyone on one is from a foreign invading tribe. Further out, in more rural settings, the love returns (regardless of one's attire).

Unfortunately, in places that have picked up either too many cities or where people do very long car commutes, one might never leave the bad part of the donut.

fthomas

Here in Southern California there are some nice sea to mountain paved trails, but where I live bike lanes are the norm on major arterial roadways, which are 45mph or more. Amazingly, many of the feeders to the arterials are neither designated as bike routes or have bike lanes. There are very, very few bike trails if any connecting the major sea to mountain paved trails.

Major arterials will have bike lanes, but once they cross an interstate there will be no bike lanes or really a means to safely take a lane and navigate through the on and off ramps and cross the Interstate to again join the bike lane on the other side. The hazards are amplified by vehicular traffic at speeds of 45 mph.

In areas of construction of large multi-family projects the City is doing nothing to provide alternate safe passage for pedestrians and cyclist. Bike lanes are just closed with no construction taking place in the bike lane. Traffic enforcement is lax if non-existant. It is shocking to see the number of drivers texting and using their cell phones with no Hands free device. First offence is $76 and 2nd is $190. Add court costs and other fees the tickets are far more expensive. No enforcement = distracted drivers which are as dangerous as those Driving Under The Influence!

CrankyOne

Just what you ordered: Self-Driving Cars Could Destroy Fine-Based City Government. What?s the Downside? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Dave Cutter

Being nether technophobic or a Luddite.... I welcome many of the new technologies. It does appear that many of the A&S crowd scorn many technologies as well as embrace the new (or is it ancient??) religion of environmentalism. I've also noticed many seem to favor a centralized "ruling" government (certainly an ancient concept).

I wonder what this desire to live in centuries long past has to do with bicycle advocacy... and safety?

I fail to see why we can't stay within the discussion set-forth by the OP.

enigmaT120

The only rural facilities where I live and ride are the roads and they work fine. No shoulders, certainly no bike lanes, so vehicular cycling is the only possible way to ride. Motor traffic tends to be high speed but rarely heavy. I think but can't prove that I'm less likely to get run over out here, but much more likely to be killed if I am hit.

My rides are much prettier than an city I've ever seen.

scott967

Likewise I live in a suburb which is detested by smart-growth types because it does not meet their definition of "live work play". Yet it works extremely well for all forms of cycling because of its low density and wide roads. It needs no "infrastructure" (though the city has installed some bike lanes, sharrows, and signs I suspect mainly to show they are "doing something" for cycling). Actually the stuff they use for the sharrows (also the "bicycle icon" on lanes) is kind of bumpy and I prefer to ride around these things.

scott s.
.

Looigi

Sharrows are bad IMO, because though the law is no different between where they are and aren't, it leads people to believe it is.

kickstart

Yes and no, which can be said for all bike lanes, markings, and signage, but they also show that bikes do belong on roads where many think they don't. With enough signs and markings, in time the expectation of bikes on the road will become the the rule rather than the exception.

To which follows.

In urban centers where cycling is popular, bikes on the road are normal and tolerated. In rural areas and small towns, low bike and motor vehicle volumes minimize conflict.
In suburban and metropolitan areas high traffic volumes, and low numbers of cyclists ensure conflict. Bike lanes, marking, and signage can help remind housing tract, trail park, and section 8 HUD inhabitants the roads are for everyone, not just SUVs, jacked up trucks, and pimp mobiles.

jgadamski

Thank you for your comments. I have been considering a move, partially based on the ability to safely ride in a given area. I don't get overwhelmingly confident in any area, rural, suburban or urban. Everybody is mostly navigating on roads where cars are the prime consideration. I will probably stick where I am. The devil you know vs the one your don't.

Chris516

Portland is supposed to be a good riding area. At least I thought that.

jgadamski

Perhaps better than some places, but I suspect it is mostly PR from my view. A pro bike mayor fell from grace and his successor and city leadership have placed bike safety on a much lower priority. They recently adopted the vision zero goal, but only after two particularly upsetting collisions. My point being i believe it pretty much sucks to be a transportation cyclist in most places, even the 'best'.

Looigi

Bikes are allowed on the vast majority of roads, and virtually none have markings, especially outside of urban areas. We have a stretch of main street in our town that has sharrows for 4 blocks, and there are none anywhere else . What signal does this send motorists? So, IMO, it's almost all yes and no no.

Rather than spend money on sporadic and misconstrued signage and markings, I think it better to spend that money on road user education and awareness programs. And please not, "Share the road", which is meaningless and open to wide interpretation.