Six jours

Assuming that was directed toward me, I'm not against bike paths, trails, or whatever. I'm just against attributing imaginary benefits to them, along with arguments against cars, car drivers, and car infrastructure, and arguments for taxing anyone who behaves in a manner some of you don't like.

Hope that clears things up.

rekmeyata

You guys really want to know what will end a lot of youths lives born in this last decade and a half? Video games. Yup, that's all that teens and not quite teens want to do these days is sit and push buttons in front of the tube while snacking and drinking pop. When I was that age we all got outside and ran or biked around, played outdoor sports, did anything physical, why? because we didn't have video games so we had to find alternative ways to get our pent up energy out, not so with this generation. I think we're heading into a bunch of youth that will die early, we already have the largest, read that as fattest, teens in the history of the US by some 31% and that number is doubled from just 30 years ago when it was only 15%. This should have a very negative impact over the overall health of Americans as these teens become adults when most adult start to gain more weight.

work4bike

I disagree with the idea that building massive bike path infrastructure will have so many benefits as listed in this thread; the way some describe the benefits, it's as if bike lanes are equal to oxygen for our survival.

Personally, I don't want money spent on them in my area, because of the other concerns already mentioned, they're just a place for people to walk their dogs and kids and you have to stop/yield at all road crossings.

However, this is a democracy, so the voters get the say, so I would welcome an experiment in a city that would like a very large bike lane infrastructure and see how that works for you. I've seen it in places like Washington D.C. and that's why I know it's not for my area.

CrankyOne

I agree with you completely. What benefits of bicycle infrastructure do you believe are imaginary? What harms from cars?

CrankyOne

I agree with you on Washington DC (and similarly with most infrastructure in the U.S.). It is quite poorly designed bicycling infrastructure. MUPs are also problematic in most instances.

Well designed infrastructure using Dutch standards is completely different. Bicycle riders usually stop less often than car drivers and can often maintain nearly whatever speed they want.

That said, people should also be able to safely walk their dogs and kids. People with dogs and kids pay taxes as well. In a low density area a MUP might be appropriate but in most instances (except for low traffic residential streets with a 20 mph or less speed limit) there should be three separate elements; motor traffic, bicycle and disabled traffic, and walking. There is one MUP that I ride nearly every day that works well because it is not very crowded and most people stay to the right and move to the right for people to pass. Further on this same MUP is much more crowded when it gets near a retail area and the city are looking at rebuilding this portion with a dedicated 8' bicycle path and a separate 6' walking path (on each side).

CliffordK

A riverfront bike trail has many advantages.

First of all, the scenery is nice.
Second, they are rarely crossed by roads, and most of those have a bridge which a path can go under.

One of the things Eugene has done is put in several miles of sawdust paths which are much more comfortable for jogging, so it naturally decreases the number of joggers on the MUT.

I certainly would not consider park land as wasted space.

Anyway, then a lot depends on whether the path goes in the desired direction.

I frequently hit the Eugene/Springfield riverside path because it is the best and safest way to get between Eugene and Springfield. and into the downtown Eugene area. A new riverside path in Springfield is less used because it adds 2-3 miles and a small hill to my rides.

I rarely hit some sections of the paths since they're not going where I'm going, but they certainly serve various neighborhoods. I often choose the less scenic south bank trail over the north bank trail due to fewer pedestrians.

genec

Interesting that so many here oppose quality bike path concepts... I have to ask... Have you EVER been anywhere where quality cycling infrastructure exists? Or are you used to the same poorly designed crap we tend to see all over the US... stuff that is maintained by parks departments and are meant for mothers and children to toddle along at 8-10MPH (may even have posted signs saying exactly that...)

Quality infrastructure is to cycling what interstate freeways are to motoring. Since there is so little of this high quality cycling infrastructure in the US... most of you are of course relying on your experiences on low grade, narrow asphalt with tight turn radii, that leads to nowhere, on which to base your opinions.

I say this with all due respect... GET the F out of DODGE. Go to another city such as the often mentioned Denmark, or Oulu or Copenhagen to see what can really be done when cycling matters. Frankly even in Davis, CA, I found the bike paths to be very much of the same "park quality" as just about anywhere else in the US. The only thing Davis had going for it was something of a dedication to cycling at the city level... and an interesting layout of the older city streets... and this leads to a modal share of 28%, near the university areas of the city... otherwise, the modal share is around 6%... thus cycling is typically done by young students.

The cities I mentioned, Denmark, or Oulu or Copenhagen have cyclists of all ages... a vast difference due to how cycling is viewed and treated by the residents of the cities mentioned.

In the US, as long as bikes are "toys," (sold in toy stores) treated as "devices" by law (CA CVC 231) and infrastructure is maintained by parks people... well frankly, the US will continue to take poor marks for cycling, while requiring imports of foreign oil for the most basic transportation... the mind set here is that driving is a privilege and cycling is a "sport" for the very few.

Chris516

I have not been anywhere where a quality cycling infrastructure exists. When lived in Minnesota, the only good bike/ped path was the Willard Munger Trail that went from Duluth(where I lived), south to Minneapolis, without an deviations or cross trails to worry about. So, The lack of signage wasn't a problem. The trail was pretty simplistic. But, in the D.C.-Metro region, where there is an abundance of trails, is also a lack of signage, at juncture points. Also, The few bike lanes that do exist are broken up in so many places where, a bike lane suddenly disappears. Because of these two elements', it is another reason why I 'take the lane'. Because the street signage is the only consistent thing I can go by. Also, The maintenance of bike trails and bike lanes ends up being treated as secondary financially, to the main road.
I don't rely on the right-turn radii.
This confused me until I read further. Then I understood your reasoning. While I have never been to the Nordic countries. I have seen pictures of how their approach to cycling infrastructure is done. Far better than the U.S.
Yes!!
DITTO!!!!

Mr. Hoopdriver

Just build wider lanes.
I hate sequestered bicycle lanes. If, for nothing else, it makes left turns ambiguous.

I am traffic.
And in the city, I am as fast or faster than impediments such as buses, mailmen, big ol' weighted down diesels, or your average DOT equipment.

I don't need a special lane, and I bristle at the suggestion.

rekmeyata

I love it when I hear others compare the US with Copenhagen, first off Copenhagen has extremely narrow city roads, so narrow that two cars can't pass each other, kind of makes it more critical to find another form of transportation like....hmmm....I know, bikes that can pass each other. It's the cheapest and quickest way to get around in Copenhagen, add on top of that the price of gasoline is much higher than in the US; and due to that less than 22% of the population of Copenhagen even owns a car! So they either use public transportation, walk, or bike.. And also most people live within a couple of miles of work so pedaling to work is no big deal compared to the use where the average commute is 16 miles.

Does that mean that the US can't do better? Of course not, but cycling in Europe is their main passion and life style, it isn't that way for Americans, it's just a hobby shared by a very few, so why spend gobs and gobs of money for something that is going to be lightly used? All we be doing is throwing money down a pit, it's an unwise thing to spend billions of dollars on paths and lanes when only 1 or 2% of the population in cold climate areas would ever use the paths. Now there are places in much warmer climates, like Davis California where cycling thrives very well, but most of the US does not enjoy the benefits of California weather.

spare_wheel

for 6% of portlanders it's not a hobby, it's their primary commute mode. if north american cities spent even a few percent of their transportation budget on active transport there would be far more people cycling and walking to work. unfortunately, we continue to subsidize an unhealthy and destructive tragedy of the commons at the expense of active and public transport...but this is changing.

deal.



minneapolis is not a warm city.

CliffordK

If it was up to me, I'd put some bike paths up in Alaska.

Remember that there are many northerly cities that have beautiful weather during the summer.

MUTS aren't completely ignored even in the winter, and perhaps it is even better to give give bikes a buffer from traffic during bad weather.

As far as Europe... they TAX Gas. Yes, there is a pittance of a gas tax here. Try buying gas in Europe some time. A good reason to jump on the bike.

martl

I don't have data on this one. Not every streets data is publically available, i don't know what road that is in the media picture. But i can give you another example. "Seidelstrasse, Munich. One of the busiest roads in town (and yes, we have 1.5Mio people living here).

Before:



After:

CliffordK

Ok,
A lesson on how not to build a bike path.
Skimming along the edge of buildings.
Trees and shrubs between cars and bikes to obstruct vision.
Bikes sharing sidewalk with pedestrians along the edge of buildings.
Are commercial doors required to open outward as they are in the USA?

Anybody else see that as a disaster waiting to happen?

Quite a bit different from some of the off-street bike paths here in Eugene, Oregon.




Note, the jogging path running parallel to the bike path in the second photo.

And, yes, to a large extent this goes right down through the middle of the city, hitting the University Campus area, the college football stadium, as well as the Downtown area, and one of the largest indoor shopping malls in the area (not all of them have died).

There are even at least 4 bicycles/pedestrian only bridges crossing the Willamette river (as well as a couple of bridges with off-street bike lanes), all along a few mile stretch of the river. There may be more bike bridges than car bridges across the river.



One can have well designed on street and off street paths as well as poorly designed on street and off street paths.

Part of the problem is retrofitting cities that are hundreds or thousands of years old to be "bike friendly".

martl

Yes, they are.
I could post worse examples. Funny thing is, they look strikingly similar to some projects hailed by cycling advocates in UK and elsewhere - narrow cycling canyons with high curbs, often dual-direction, obstructed with bollards or between sidewalk and a bus stop and other utter nonsense.

The product of when local bike advocating demanded "Infrastructure", preferrably "protected" one, back in the 70ies and 80ies. In a densly developed urban environment, this is what you typically get, because of thoughtless planning, not knowing any better, intention to keep "traffic" (as in: motorized traffic) flowing, intention to "protect" cyclists by putting them out of reach and possibly out of sight of cars, and mostly becuse there just isn't enough space (well there is, but it cost a car lane).

They are not a disaster waiting to happen, because the disaster already happened way too often. And not only on truly bad Infra like this, but also on "dutch style" infra like this:

(bike path is to the right of the grassy area, quite wide, well paved, view almost not obstructed. physically separated from the road and from the pedestrians area further to the right)



What happened here was that the lorry in the pic had started a right rurn, then waited for a pedestrian to pass at the border of the "protected" bike line.
A cyclist approaching from rear assumed the lorry driver had seen her and moved across the road in front of the lorry, which hadn't and couldn't have seen her and started driving again just in the very same moment - the lorry was standing at a 30° angle to the road, putting the bike lane completely into his blind view. One more cycling fatality. Quite a typical accident pattern.

CliffordK

Those post things are a pain, especially when pulling a trailer. But, I can understand trying to discourage cars from going in the wrong place. I've seen cars get messed up by the movable bollards protecting bus lanes (in Europe, I think).

As far as "protected" bike paths on a multi-lane road.

I'll try to get some photos of the Rosa Parks Park Path in Springfield shortly. It was a Rails to Trails project. Anyway, it runs down the center strip of a 2x2 4-lane road. It could have a bit better stop lights. However, what I can tell myself is that if I have cars moving on both sides of me, then they CAN NOT turn into my pathway so it is safe to proceed.



If I have a count-down light, then I can be reasonably certain I can get across the intersection. If not, there is always the risk of a light change when I'm in the middle.

By doing a traffic light timing of turns first, then straight, then cross-roads, one would avoid the problem of a turning truck with bikes/pedestrians in the blind spot.

CliffordK

I will say round-a-bouts are a bit of a pain on a bike.
They have those in Europe, right?

spoiledrotten

They have them here, in a number of places that I've used. I went through this one yesterday, on my ride.

genec

The irony being that said cities were often "retrofitted" to make them less bike friendly in the first place... to make them "car friendly."

CliffordK

We have a couple of round-a-bouts here. A few are one-lane, another is 2-lane, and a few are little more than a tiny circle placed in the middle of the road that really isn't more than a speedbump. I usually "take the lane", hit them as fast as I can go, and go through them with the traffic, but the signs seem to want bikes to get off and use cross-walks, which then dump you off on the wrong side of the road, sometimes with no easy way to get back on the right side of the road.

I suppose that is one of my complaints. One of the most common bike paths I hit goes for about 1/2 mile, then abruptly ends with bicycles on the wrong side of the road. There is a traffic light nearby, but it isn't setup for bikes. A sidestreet connection off that bike path (with bike paths on the side street) involves stopping and going down steps. Then, one again gets on the wrong side of the street and has to make one's way across.

I suppose the steps at least slow a person down from hitting that intersection at 20 MPH without looking.

work4bike

I've been all over northern Europe. Personally, I like the roads I ride on much better than feeling like a herd of cattle on their paths; I just love going fast.

It's great they have the cycling infrastructure they got, but it ain't happening here, period. So why should our state and federal govt spend so much money? I'm very skeptical of how many people would actually use them for cycling commuting, as shown in many places here in the U.S.

Just look at what they've done in DC, it's a mess, but think if they attempted to build a bike path as they have in Denmark or Holland; you're talking a lot of money. Washington DC is just a crazy place to try and get around and I don't see how they can easily just put in separated bike paths, just because little places in Europe can do it doesn't mean it can happen here.

Funny video of some bike lanes put in DC., but if you look in other places, like NYC I've seen worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBaEzmbmrz4

Furthermore, like it or not cyclists in America just piss off people, so the more infrastructure you build the more problems we will have. Look at the issue people are already having with the increase in cyclists just in DC and this isn't unique to DC, I can look at any newspaper from around the country and if there is a story about a cyclists the bulk of the comments (regardless if it's a red or blue city/state) will be very hostile towards the cyclists. A new bill would ban cycling or Segway riding on DC sidewalks next to bike lanes - Greater Greater Washington

Excerpt:

"Lame duck councilmember Jim Graham wants to make it illegal to ride a bicycle or ride a Segway on the sidewalk along roads when there is a bike lane going in the same direction, except for children 12 years and under. Graham, who currently represents Ward 1 but was defeated in the Democratic primary by Brianne Nadeau, introduced the bill this morning. His press release says:..."

work4bike

I don't have problems with round-a-bouts, mostly because I can take the sharp turns much faster than cars.

work4bike

I do have a problem with infrastructure when it comes to being on two feet. I run a lot and it scares me more to come up on intersections on my feet than on a bike. I also want to see better infrastructure for running, but I'm starting to look around at various parks and stuff and do some cross country type running, but I'll have to ride myself there, than run.

It's funny, I don't feel very limited when I get on my bike; I'm comfortable anywhere, but when it comes to finding a new running route, it's a little bit of a challenge. I'm not sure what I would do if I lived in DC, never tried to run on their MUPs.

CliffordK

As I posted earlier, many of our local jogging paths (Eugene, Oregon) have sawdust which is much nicer for running than pavement, and also gives an incentive for the joggers not to be on the same paths as the bikers.

At least the Katy Trail in Missouri has a fine gravel. I think it is a bit of a pain for biking, especially just after the snow melts, but great for jogging. I just couldn't imagine jogging the entire 200 mile route.

CrankyOne

A few thoughts. I don't know if that junction meets Dutch standards or not, it doesn't appear to though it might. The reality though is that even bicycle riders on the safest of Dutch infrastructure are occasionally killed by a driver. Dutch infrastructure is not perfect and one anecdote does not a good analysis make.

It still remains that the safest country in the world to ride a bicycle is The Netherlands. It is also the only country where riding a bicycle is safer than riding in a car (and The Netherlands is quite safe for riding in a car). For each mile you are twice as likely to be killed riding in a car in the U.S. as riding a bicycle in The Netherlands. It is safer to ride a bicycle on Dutch infrastructure than ride in a car in most European countries (only in Norway, Sweden, Ireland, and Denmark is a car safer than a bicycle is in The Netherlands). Claiming that Dutch bicycle infrastructure is unsafe ignores this rather huge reality.