Sorry, but it's true.

I did another ride this weekend down in Oxnard. It's like the tour of ugly industrialism and tacky capitalism. I'm reminded how lucky I am to live and ride where I do.

Some of these ugly streets have even worse intersections. Big, awful affairs that even if you did them in the proper VC manner it's like you end up in a "you can't get there from here" situation anyway. It's no wonder people ride on the wrong side of the road sometimes. It can be the only way to get where you want to go in any kind of reasonable way. Sometimes merging into the left lane is impossible. Even the fall-back two-corner turn can't be done in some places.

What this world needs are more separated bike paths. Tons of them. All linked together so you can get nearly everywhere without having to take the parade of ugliness and tackiness and so you can actually get somewhere. So many people are totally unwilling to embrace the auto-centric Notions of cycling that are tossed about here and why should they have to. They want to ride but they want it to be a nice experience and a convenient one as well. They want bike paths and I don't blame them. More bike paths! Let's make cycling a truly viable option for everyone.

And before HH or the other Sandiego-ites blast me for this, remember you are riding through goddam paradise compared to a lot of places.

Diane, I couldn't agree with you more.

Check this out...
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t292537-m7-80km-no-traffic-no-stops.html
http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/Safety-SafetyProgrammes.asp

thanks to this cycling freeway and its interconnecting cycleways I commute 60 miles a day 5 days a week completely segragated from motorised traffic, except for a couple of hundred yards at each end through quiet local streets. If it wasn't for these segregated facilities I would drive rather than commit suicide on a bike in 70+mph traffic. HH can do all the vehichular pretending he wants, I ride in the real world not in my mind while driving an RV:rolleyes:

bike paths may work in some locations. Lots of east-coast metro areas just don't have the real estate. Personally, I think bike paths are fine for recreation. But for utilitarian/commuting I can't see how a municipality is going to be able to justify the cost or even physically be able to build bike paths to every destination.

I want to go out my door and ride to my destination with the least amount of detours. Just like driving.

A freeway is a good model for a bike path system. Fully segregated except for some limited access points. Gets you from one side of town to the other. Once there, you can mess around with the roads to get to your specific destination. If I've got a 10 mile commute and 8 of those 10 can be done on a dedicated, uninterrupted bike highway... heaven! As for funding, you've just got to get the support.

Not around here. No way.

It would just be another ugly and unnecessary strip of asphault.

What the world needs is more white stripes painted on the pavement for the VC ideologues to get their panties in a bunch about. I hate to stereotype people as crackpots but, when I read the rantings of some VC-ists about "segregation" and "discrimination", I can't help but laugh and think, "what a bunch of frickin' nutcases!"

Meanwhile, I just keep ridin' my bike.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp.

A freeway is a good model for a bike path system.
No a freeway is not a good model for a bike path system. A freeway is a specialized and limited travelway. Getting to and from a freeway alone is a typical utilitarian biking distance in and of itself. Unless you're talking about having bike paths modeled after freeways running all over town to all the same points streets already access, with grade separated intersections with all streets, it makes no sense.

The ultimate solution is to put bicycle travel on a separate physical plane from motorists. My idea is to underground all motor traffic. You want to work towards that, and I'm with you. In the mean time, teaching cyclists how to effectively and safely use the existing vehicular roadway system to get to and from all desired destinations seems like a much more judicious use of our efforts. Working for "more separate bike paths" is arguably sending the opposite message and therefore contrary to this initiative.

What the world needs is more white stripes painted on the pavement for the VC ideologues to get their panties in a bunch about. I hate to stereotype people as crackpots but, when I read the rantings of some VC-ists about "segregation" and "discrimination", I can't help but laugh and think, "what a bunch of frickin' nutcases!"

Meanwhile, I just keep ridin' my bike.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp.
As insightful as usual. :rolleyes:

You know, HH, it doesn't have to be all that bleak. A couple of bike freeways that go where most bicyclists go is a great benefit to lots of people.

We've got one that goes all the way from the city limit line to UCSB. I have little need to go to UCSB myself. I graduated quite a bit ago. But I can, and do, use the bikeway to get to Goleta where it meets up with another bikeway that leads me to residential streets I can use to get wherever I want to go. Or to Goleta Beach, where it goes right by, a destination in itself. Also, lots of non-students work at UCSB and I know a few who use it to get to work. They all say with such a great bikeway why would you NOT ride your bike to work.

The thing is, people who live the car lifestyle want roads that meet the needs of cars. These roads often do not meet the needs of cyclists.

Bikeways don't have to take you all the way from your door to your destination. They just need to connect things as much as possible in order to ease the way. People want this. The people I know. Not you guys, but ordinary people. And I agree.

As nice as VC is, it doesn't remove the ugliness, the stress, the noise or the smog from riding a bike on ugly, modern urban streets out here in Sprawlville. I want as nice an experience as possible. Otherwise I'm telling you the climate control, the stereo, the cup-holder are looking a whole lot better.

a bikeway sounds like heaven to me! I never knew they existed. I realize I am so lucky to have a choice of direct routes that don't involve major arterials. so much nicer.:)

If given the choice I choose the bike trail or bike lane to the general road. I know the odds of something happening between me and car are slim, but if it does then I'll get the worst of it.

The freeway model for a trail might work with some modification. Freeways tend to be a bit limited in access to be used as a pure model. I will, however, say that a modified freeway model with numerous "entraces" and "exits" works well here in DC on the Capital Crescent Trail and on the Mt. Vernon trail. Both are very nice trails and are very safe for cyclists. I do wish they'd add a few more access points, however.

I am personally torn on the issue. Now maybe it is partly because I don't live in a big city area, but I am unacustomed to bike lanes in general. I just don't have them near my house. I am lucky in many areas to have any shoulder. But I don't mind personally.

I could commute to work, 27 miles each way. I have done the commute route in pieces and even without bike lanes it is ok.

I can't say I have ever seen a truly segregated "Bike lane" I have been on plenty of separate paths. But these are all multi use. The problems I have had with them are in many ways similar to the sidewalk.

1. Not wide enough
2. Shared by cyclists, runners, joggers, walkers, rollerbladers, etc
3. Often not maintained like a road. Don't get plowed in winter. Not kept up as well as a road.

As a result I for one can't go nearly as fast on them. This is a problem when you are trying to get somewhere.

Also because of their size, they are a perfect catch 22. If they ever became popular enough, the traffic would make them more dangerous. The only major accident I have ever had on a bike was on a MUP. And it sent me over the handlebars.

So given my situation, I am not all that keen on them. Now I would love segregated bike paths in certain areas, such as paralleling certain freeways, so I could ride in spots where otherwise there is no good route. But also only if they are willing to make them wide enough to be safe.

The other problem with that is we already have too much of this country/world covered in asphalt.

-D

If given the choice I choose the bike trail or bike lane to the general road. I know the odds of something happening between me and car are slim, but if it does then I'll get the worst of it.

The freeway model for a trail might work with some modification. Freeways tend to be a bit limited in access to be used as a pure model. I will, however, say that a modified freeway model with numerous "entraces" and "exits" works well here in DC on the Capital Crescent Trail and on the Mt. Vernon trail. Both are very nice trails and are very safe for cyclists. I do wish they'd add a few more access points, however.


The problem is sustainability IMO. As I said in my other reply. I have had plenty of problems with the Capital Crescent trail. The problem is that it is an awesome trail...when it is empty.

The last time I was on it was about a month ago. I took a long lunch during the week and did the "Zoo review" Started in Bethesda and rode beach drive, which is not closed to traffic during the week. And beach drive basically has no shoulder. Then the CC trail back to betesda. Personally I preferred beach drive. I was able to go at a very nice fast pace. Once I hit the trail (it was one of the nice days in early spring, right after the cherry blossoms.

The CC trail was pretty packed for a weekday. I had numerous times where there were 2 or even 3 people walking abreast. I had to literally slow to 5mph or slower to safely pass. And also had times like this where I had to stop because of oncoming traffic on top of the walkers or runners.

Like I said, the only major accident I have ever had was on a MUP. And if I hadnt landed off in the dirt i prolly would have had at least a broken collarbone.

-D

The freeway model for a trail might work with some modification. Freeways tend to be a bit limited in access to be used as a pure model. I will, however, say that a modified freeway model with numerous "entraces" and "exits" works well here in DC on the Capital Crescent Trail and on the Mt. Vernon trail. Both are very nice trails and are very safe for cyclists. I do wish they'd add a few more access points, however.

I wouldn't characterize either of those trails as "very safe" when they are busy. On a sunny weekend both trails are complete chaos. I feel safer on just about any road in DC.

There may be places it would work, but in Los Angeles it would be ridiculous. There is pavement everywhere here. Why should there be a separated bikeway when there is a huge slab of pavement right in front of my house that leads anywhere in the city I chose to go. Los Angeles, at least where I live, is a mix of residential and retail, any bike lane would lessen my right to the hundreds of miles of great roads that don't have bike lanes. I could see widening a few popular roads or at least some new pavement, but for me I'd just rather have a little more driver education of my current rights which has to be a lot cheaper than laying down new strips of asphalt.

I am of mixed opinion about it. First they need to keep freaken joggers, mothers with baby strollers from them. Not an easy task. Then you have to deal with people who can't ride a bike and are danger to themselves and others around them. Thats an impossible task, since that would descriminate against cyclists who the paths were designed for. So result probably will be serious cyclists will start to avoid it and ride on streets. Which will kind of defeat the puprose of them so the funding will be cut, condition of the paths will detiorate, etc.

I agree. But let's still give the option of allowing cyclists to ride in the roadways if they wish to. One thing that is a concern is if there are bike paths that run along side roadways laws & ordinances may be developed that does not allow cyclists to use the roadway.

There is an unenforced ordinance in Sioux City already.

Another one was attempted for the entire state by some over zealous state senator who wanted to save cyclists from themselves which spawned the birth of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition & a stop was put to it.

I am all for bike paths, but let's still allow cyclists the right to use the roadways should they choose to do so.

I agree. But let's still give the option of allowing cyclists to ride in the roadways if they wish to........

Florida does this. By state law a paved shoulder is required to be included on all new roads and resurfacing projects, but it's a paved shoulder, not a bike lane. This gives the option to the cyclist on either riding the on the paved shoulder or on the road.:)

What this world needs are more separated bike paths. Tons of them. All linked together so you can get nearly everywhere without having to take the parade of ugliness and tackiness and so you can actually get somewhere.
Separated bike paths are great. I love them.

The problem is that in urban environs, real estate is so scarce that it's virtually impossible to have very many separated bike paths that go anywhere. Anywhere that people need to go has already been paved for automotive traffic.

As long as paths aren't substituted for my right to the same roads I enjoy with my car, they can be excellent.

Let's all move to the Netherlands.

I basically agree with what lots of people said around here. Would I love a convenient smooth and safe segregated bike path that goes where I want to go? You bet I do! Have I ever seen such a bike path? No. They are too narrow and they are generally far too chaotic. Even if they aren't MUPs, you'll get cyclists on them riding several abreast blocking the path completely. People feel there are no laws to be followed on a nice "safe" bike path, and that makes me really apprehensive about riding there.

Now, it's a different thing to have bike paths in suburbia. They are easier to build there and they wouldn't be as crowded. Although I must say a wide road shoulder works just fine, and provides extra benefits not just to cyclists but to all road users (pedestrians, motorists, slow-moving vehicles...).

First they need to keep freaken joggers, mothers with baby strollers from them. Not an easy task. Then you have to deal with people who can't ride a bike and are danger to themselves and others around them.

Interesting attitude... replace joggers, mothers, et. al. with "cyclist" and you have the same attitude expressed by motorists.

I love the bike path part of my commute. I get into some wooded green areas of the city that most drivers probably have never seen. This spring I've seen gooselings, and baby rabbits. At times during my commute I'm so far from motorized traffic that I can't even hear a car. Peace!!! The river follows me on my commute and I swear it's good for my heart to just watch this water calmly heading on its way.

That's not to say the bike path is all roses and iced tea. I've had other bike riders run me off the path, I've had to slow down behind joggers, but I'll take a head on collision with another bicyclist over one with an suv any day of the week. At least for the moment the density of jerks, idiots, and maniacs is still higher on the road ways than the bike paths.

As far as i'm concerned this is the way to travel. Until the oil finally dries up and all those asphalt roads become bike highways, i'll stay on my bike path. You can have your roads,traffic lights,crazy nutzos with lethal weapons, and cell phone talking idiots. I want my baby animals, silence and flowing water.

What this world needs are more separated bike paths

Diane, I am surprised at you. We have enough divorce and separation among humans, can't we wish for the bike paths to stay together?

The bikeway we have is a BIKEway. Not a multi-user path. Any pedestrian knows they put their life at risk to walk on it. So they don't. They walk closer to the creek.

You say you can't ride on them because all the others riders go too slow and block your way? How selfish of you! How smug. You sound as bad as these aggro drivers out there who get mad at the slower drivers on the freeway. Sounds like you simply want to be the only bike rider in the whole world. Welll, I'll tell you, a bikeway doesn't force you to use it. You can still use the road if you want. The rest of the world wants bikeways.

To all you folks who say there's no room. The LA river has a bike path. How many cities have rivers or creeks or greenbelts or other areas like this where something like this could go? How about just building them into the new developments?

The status quo isn't good enough. More people would ride if there were better facilities. Some of you sound like you should work for the oil and auto industries.

As nice as VC is, it doesn't remove the ugliness, the stress, the noise or the smog from riding a bike on ugly, modern urban streets out here in Sprawlville. I want as nice an experience as possible.

Like many other aspects in life, the "niceness" of cycling somewhere often comes down to perspective, expectations, and attitude. Ugliness and stress in particular are at least as much in the eyes and bones of the beholder as is beauty.

If you let it, learning VC can also liberate you and alter your experience in sprawlville to be much, much nicer.

Like many other aspects in life, the "niceness" of cycling somewhere often comes down to perspective, expectations, and attitude. Ugliness and stress in particular are at least as much in the eyes and bones of the beholder as is beauty.

If you let it, learning VC can also liberate you and alter your experience in sprawlville to be much, much nicer.

But it won't put green grass in the middle of the roads or allow the commute to also be a quite time for reflection. When I ride on roads the only animals I see aren't cute or very healthy.

What this world needs are more separated bike paths. Tons of them. All linked together so you can get nearly everywhere without having to take the parade of ugliness and tackiness and so you can actually get somewhere. So many people are totally unwilling to embrace the auto-centric Notions of cycling that are tossed about here and why should they have to. They want to ride but they want it to be a nice experience and a convenient one as well. They want bike paths and I don't blame them. More bike paths! Let's make cycling a truly viable option for everyone.

+1 (is anyone keeping score?)

I chose the long route home yesterday, using the Rideau River pathway for about half my trip. River on one side, parks on the other, grass, trees, and wildlife. Beautiful, I got home with a big grin on my face - despite still having to negotiate Heron/Bank later (a problem intersection).

I guess if your fantasy life is strong enough, lumbering behemoth SUVs can start to look like deer leaping through fields of wildflowers, smog can start to look like sunshine and fresh air, and the noise can sound like a rushing stream or crashing waves at the ocean. My fantasy life isn't strong enough I guess.

I rarely have occasion to use a multiuse trail, but there are a couple I really appreciate:
1) San Luis Rey river path in Oceanside, a great way to bypass the 78 expressway's free merges and diverges;
2) Rose Canyon path, La Jolla to Mission Bay, again much better (and actually more direct) than the alternatives;
3) San Diego River path, which avoids some messy intersections.

Conversely, on Coast Highway 101 through Encinitas, I prefer the travel lane or the intermittent Class II bike lane over the Class I on the west side of the road -- too many pedestrians and skaters, and a couple of nasty (decidedly non-HH approved :) ) driveway crossings.

The bikeway we have is a BIKEway. Not a multi-user path. Any pedestrian knows they put their life at risk to walk on it. So they don't. They walk closer to the creek.

I have never heard of a bike only path. Must be nice. But if were a betting man I would say this is a great minority of paths in the US compared to MUP.


You say you can't ride on them because all the others riders go too slow and block your way? How selfish of you! How smug. You sound as bad as these aggro drivers out there who get mad at the slower drivers on the freeway. Sounds like you simply want to be the only bike rider in the whole world. Welll, I'll tell you, a bikeway doesn't force you to use it. You can still use the road if you want. The rest of the world wants bikeways.

Selfish? How uninsightful. You missed (at least) my entire point. I don't care about slower riders. But the paths we have at least here are not wide enough to accomodate both the slow recreational riders and the faster commuting riders safely.

If you truly want a network of paths that are useful for TRANSPORTATION, you need funding. To justify the funding you need people who will use them. Pure recreational use will never generate the users needed to justify the funding.

I have a bunch of other points, but I don't want to bog down this reply. Bottom line is that in order for such a path to be useful in my situation, or anyone in a similar situation is to be able to GO. The distance from my house to work is 27 miles. When I have ridden it, I have to be able to go fast. I have a busy job, wife, daughter and newborn son. I can't afford to spend hours just riding to and from work. My route is a 50mph 2 lane road primarily, with a wide shoulder/BL (shoulder with "share the road" signs). i can easily maintain a 17mph average speed, which still gives me a 90min commute. I am lucky to be able to maintain a 14mph average on any of the paths I have ridden, unless they are empty. That is just not acceptable for me to use them for transportation. Speed is being smug for me, it is necessity.


The status quo isn't good enough. More people would ride if there were better facilities. Some of you sound like you should work for the oil and auto industries.

You are right. The current status of paths are not good enough. Until they can build them to be good TRANSPORTATION alternatives more people won't use them. So we don't need any more paths like we have now (at least here).

-D

I guess if your fantasy life is strong enough, lumbering behemoth SUVs can start to look like deer leaping through fields of wildflowers, smog can start to look like sunshine and fresh air, and the noise can sound like a rushing stream or crashing waves at the ocean. My fantasy life isn't strong enough I guess.
Well, SUVs don't look like deer leaping through fields of wildflowers to me, but there is no plausible route that would take me through terrain like that between home and work, for example. So, short of routes that can follow green belts or go through parks, it's generally unrealistic to expect that kind of experience in the urban/suburban environment. The smog is no different 5 feet or 5 miles from the road than on the road. Humans can get accustomed to all kinds of noises. Ask anyone who lives by an airport, street car track, or RR track... So the attitude adjustments that can be made to make cycling in traffic pleasant are not nearly as fantastic as you like to exaggerate. Not that I'm religious, but I find this famous little prayer apropos to cycling in traffic:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer

I'd like to see some percentage of the residential streets in my town closed to motor traffic. Trouble is that people live on these streets. So do we allow local car traffic only? How do you manage that?

I've had the opportunity to ride on a few separated bike paths that were former railroad ROW's and I found the experience to be very nice. There is a bit of an annoyance with people walking their dogs and pedestrians walking two abreast from time to time, but for the most part they provided for good rides.
The nice thing about some of these former rail lines is that due to the nature of their past usage, they make pretty good commuting routes. They did tend to link urban/business areas, after all.
If there was one that put me within a reasonable proximity to my place of employment, I'd probably use it frequently.

It's funny how VC advocates are always being accused of living on another planet and yet to my ears the separate facilities proponents sound even more unrealistic. More pavement through greenbelts, no cars roadways, I'm all for more cyclists but how can anyone logically argue for more pavement in our cities?

I guess if your fantasy life is strong enough, lumbering behemoth SUVs can start to look like deer leaping through fields of wildflowers, smog can start to look like sunshine and fresh air, and the noise can sound like a rushing stream or crashing waves at the ocean. My fantasy life isn't strong enough I guess.
Sure I'm up for separated paths.... as soon as CA drops in the ocean and my commute can be along a crashing ocean front. ;)

Al

Serenity now, serenity now. SERENITY NOW!!

I was suprised that it took 7 years for them to pass a 3million bond for the last 2 miles to connect the 12 mile coastal trail with the campbell creek trail system, basically connecting all MuPs making a square inside the city. I think most of it was built in the 80's when the city was flush with oil money from prudhoe bay.

I thought with recreational use by everyone including x-c skiers in winter would make it an easy sell but not the case.

Man you guys are the worst advocates I've ever heard! Not enough money! Too much pavement! We can get used to noise! Smog is no worse with your face in the tailpipes as it is 5 miles away!

Right now not more than 1/4 a mile away a bike path is being constructed. Is Santa Barbara county awash in more funds than anywhere else? Do we have more space than other places? Are we just a bunch of pave-aholics? No. And yet with advocacy we get more bike paths and have a pretty darn beautiful environment to live in.

Is there more pavement just because you put in a bike path? No. They're putting in another lane on the freeway already. What's a little extra for a bike path where otherwise there'd just be a drainage ditch or weeds? Are pedestrians going to walk all over this bike path? No. There's a hiking trail to use instead.

Advocacy. That's when cyclists get together to get things done that benefit cyclists. It's how you move from car-centered sprawltopia to something you can live with.

I'm sure there will be other Minneapolis riders popping up to disagree with me, but although I'm content to ride on the road (and frequently do), I love our separated bike paths. More and more are being constructed, with an eye to transportation, not just recreation. These aren't MUPs; walking/jogging paths are separate from and parallel to the bike paths.

The existence of bicycle infrastructure does encourage more people to get around by bicycle. You have probably seen this study (http://www.ce.umn.edu/%7Elevinson/pa8202/Dill.pdf) showing that more bicycle facilities means more bicycle commuting. How could this be a bad thing?

Smog is no worse with your face in the tailpipes as it is 5 miles away!
If you mean exhaust, and not smog, then you might try writing exhaust instead of smog.

But even exhaust is much less problematic today than it was 25 years ago.

When I'm stopped at a light, I adjust my position to be away from the exhaust of the car stopped in front of me. I can't remember the last time I actually noticed breathing in exhaust. I did get a wiff of marijuana smoke on the commute this morning, but I couldn't locate the source.


It's funny how VC advocates are always being accused of living on another planet and yet to my ears the separate facilities proponents sound even more unrealistic. More pavement through greenbelts, no cars roadways, I'm all for more cyclists but how can anyone logically argue for more pavement in our cities?
If only it was just funny, Marcus. It's tragic, really. The time, money and efforts spent on misguided initiatives is a travesty.

When I'm stopped at a light, I adjust my position to be away from the exhaust of the car stopped in front of me. I can't remember the last time I actually noticed breathing in exhaust. I did get a wiff of marijuana smoke on the commute this morning, but I couldn't locate the source.

Same here. Curious about the mj smoke, I never noticed it on the street until I started bike commuting. Now in the last half year have noticed it about three times (once was ped, twice from cars). No wonder police like to patrol on bikes ;) Too bad we can't smell the folks drinking booze in the car.

Al

I'm sure there will be other Minneapolis riders popping up to disagree with me, but although I'm content to ride on the road (and frequently do), I love our separated bike paths. More and more are being constructed, with an eye to transportation, not just recreation. These aren't MUPs; walking/jogging paths are separate from and parallel to the bike paths.

The existence of bicycle infrastructure does encourage more people to get around by bicycle. You have probably seen this study (http://www.ce.umn.edu/%7Elevinson/pa8202/Dill.pdf) showing that more bicycle facilities means more bicycle commuting. How could this be a bad thing?
In the short run some bicycle facilities in some areas might increase bike usage by some marginal amount.
But in the long run, the only practical way to increase bicycle usage by any significant amount is to change people's attitudes about riding in traffic. We need to be working on initiatives that change our culture, by making cycling with motor traffic more and more accepted. Bike facilities work against such initiatives, by reinforcing the opposite notion - that cyclists should be separated from motorists, that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

So what happens is that we sacrifice our ability to succeed with long-term efforts in bringing about major increases in bicycle usage for the chance of some short term marginal increases in bicycle usage. Seems like a lousy tradeoff to me. And that's why it's a bad thing.

Does that answer your question? Or does it raise more questions?

So what happens is that we sacrifice our ability to succeed with long-term efforts in bringing about major increases in bicycle usage for the chance of some short term marginal increases in bicycle usage. Seems like a lousy tradeoff to me. And that's why it's a bad thing.

Does that answer your question? Or does it raise more questions?

Just one: how do we know it's a "short term marginal increase in bicycle usage"? Are there studies demonstrating such?

I understand and appreciate your argument, I'm just not convinced that it's valid.

It's funny how VC advocates are always being accused of living on another planet and yet to my ears the separate facilities proponents sound even more unrealistic. More pavement through greenbelts, no cars roadways, I'm all for more cyclists but how can anyone logically argue for more pavement in our cities?

Paved areas in greenbelts is actually a rather good idea in many cases. Green trails do not work. Any trail will not stay green. In short order it will be dead dirt. That means either constant upkeep or erosion. Paved or otherwise 'improved' surfaces make more sense for high use areas. And the funny thing is people will stay on the paved area and avoid the grass. For cycling that is also the problem. The bike path soon becomes the pedestrian and dog walking path and at that point is often less inviting than the street for cycling.

If you truly want a network of paths that are useful for TRANSPORTATION, you need funding. To justify the funding you need people who will use them. Pure recreational use will never generate the users needed to justify the funding.

-D

The only bike facilities I have seen that can be justified based on transportation are related to college campuses. Otherwise every path or lane I have ever seen that can be justified is justified based on recreational usage. The Santa Monica beach path, Balboa Park (In the sane Fernando Valley flood control basin), Griffith Park and several others in San Diego and Santa Barbara all have enough cyclist traffic every weekend to be justified.

To be viable as a transportation alternative you need bikepaths everywhere. That simply will not happen. For recreational use it is possible to put in paths where there is something worth riding and they will get enough riders to be justified.

"QUICK, There's a green area let's pave it!!"

"Why?"

"To encourage more people to ride bicycles and save the evironment!"

In the short run some bicycle facilities in some areas might increase bike usage by some marginal amount.
But in the long run, the only practical way to increase bicycle usage by any significant amount is to change people's attitudes about riding in traffic. We need to be working on initiatives that change our culture, by making cycling with motor traffic more and more accepted. Bike facilities work against such initiatives, by reinforcing the opposite notion - that cyclists should be separated from motorists, that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

So what happens is that we sacrifice our ability to succeed with long-term efforts in bringing about major increases in bicycle usage for the chance of some short term marginal increases in bicycle usage. Seems like a lousy tradeoff to me. And that's why it's a bad thing.

Does that answer your question? Or does it raise more questions?

I disagree. Bike facilities can make a long term change. In fact they are a part of the only way I can see a long term change happening. But the facilitiies needed are for recreation, not commuting. Build a nice path that is the kind of place that looks fun to ride for those who do not ride yet. In short a place people will drive to so they can ride. Then build/paint feeder bike lanes. Farther away perhaps bike routes. At first people drive to ride. But soon they can do the whole park and still be fresh. After a while they think it is pretty foolish to drive the whole way and do 2 loops, maybe it would make sense to drive to somewhere near where the bike lane starts. It they are reasonable close eventually that stage ends with 'Why drive at all, I can ride all the way to the park/beach). Next stage is I thnk I'll find some more nice places to ride and finally it is I can ride almost anywhere.

The Beach Bike Path in and south of Santa Monica is a great example. Surprising how many folks park a mile inland and ride to the beach once there are bike lanes or marked routes.

Just one: how do we know it's a "short term marginal increase in bicycle usage"? Are there studies demonstrating such?

I understand and appreciate your argument, I'm just not convinced that it's valid.
The only studies that show any increase in bicycle usage associated with new bikeways is marginal.

But it's also just logical. Yes, with an ideal infastructure in place, on a separate plane from motor traffic, which you could actually use to get to and from any practical destination without having to encounter or negotiate with motor traffic, bicycling for those who need to be separated from motorists would be much more pleasant and popular.

But the reality is that creating such an infrastructure, or anything close to it, is practically impossible in the foreseeable future. Even in America's only platinum level "bike friendly" city, Davis, CA, the creation of bike facilities has not increased the per-capita usage of bikes since the early 60s, before any of the infrastructure existed. The practical reality is that no matter how many bikeways we build that we actually can realistically build in, say, the next hundred years, in order to use a bike for almost any practical/utilitarian purpose, you're going to have to ride in traffic. And if you have to ride in traffic, and don't wanna ride in traffic, you're not going to ride. The only practical solution is to get these people over there belief to not wanna ride in traffic. And once you get them over that hump, then they don't need the bike paths anyway.

I believe in evolution. I know that much can be achieved through one incremental step a time. But you have to have a destination, a goal. You have to know where you're going, and whether it's reachable one incremental step at a time.

What is the goal of the facilities advocates? More facilities. That's it. It's an end in itself. Whether these more facilities will actually achieve any true cycling advocacy goals (increase cycling usage by any significant amount, increase cycling safety), cannot even be discussed. They are assumed to be self evident or something. If you even try to raise these questions, and start to point out how the real goals might not be achieved with more facilities, and try to propose an alternative approach, you're treated as a heretic. If you don't believe me, stay tuned...

In the end, there is money in building more facilities (whether they achieve any true advocacy goals or not), and "more facilities" do help in getting some cyclists out of the way of motorists. Those two factors give more facilities a huge advantage over any other proposed cycling advocacy initiative. But now I'm being a heretic again.

Is any of this convincing for you?

Education is the key, instead of taking the bike paths for the field trip and do the power weave on the MuP those teachers should take the kids on the road and show them VC techniques.

Other then possible lawsuits, I really think it's a good idea teaching them confidence and assertive biking in an urban jungle enviroments. Whats with parks and recreational areas, those are for peds not for us bikers.

I disagree. Bike facilities can make a long term change. In fact they are a part of the only way I can see a long term change happening. But the facilitiies needed are for recreation, not commuting. Build a nice path that is the kind of place that looks fun to ride for those who do not ride yet. In short a place people will drive to so they can ride. Then build/paint feeder bike lanes. Farther away perhaps bike routes. At first people drive to ride. But soon they can do the whole park and still be fresh. After a while they think it is pretty foolish to drive the whole way and do 2 loops, maybe it would make sense to drive to somewhere near where the bike lane starts. It they are reasonable close eventually that stage ends with 'Why drive at all, I can ride all the way to the park/beach). Next stage is I thnk I'll find some more nice places to ride and finally it is I can ride almost anywhere.

The Beach Bike Path in and south of Santa Monica is a great example. Surprising how many folks park a mile inland and ride to the beach once there are bike lanes or marked routes.
Actually, we seem to agree.

Every community should have some kind of recreational "family" biking area/park. Some place to go with the kids, or to take a spin if you're rusty without worrying about motor traffic, etc. To a certain degree, mountain biking areas provide this function. But also the parks and green belts with bike paths. That's great.

And, yeah, it would be nice to have some low stress routes leading to and from at least some of these parks, to provide a transition area from park riding to street riding, though we would disagree on whether these routes should have bike lanes. Here's what an LCI recently wrote on this topic, comparing bike lanes to training wheels:


Here's an analogy that conveys how I view bike lanes: Bike lanes are to skillful lane positioning as training wheels are to skillful cornering; both ****** skills development. Just as training wheels prevent normal cornering, bike lanes prevent cyclists from developing the traffic judgements necessary to use normal lane positioning. As a traffic cycling instructor that does use and teach others to use good lane positioning skills, I deeply resent it when "bike advocates" and traffic engineers attempt to replace my ability to make traffic judgements with a stripe that often makes lane positioning more difficult because the exceptions in CVC21208 (Mandatory Bike Lane Law) are not well known and even less well understood. That same applies to CVC21202 (Far To Right Law). If bike lanes were optional facilities, like shoulders are, then I wouldn't be so annoyed by them, since I wouldn't be legally obligated to use them.


Anyway, let's not digress on bike lanes. The point is, I'm okay with building some facilities for recreational purposes. (I'm also okay with dedicated transportational bike paths that provide improved alternative routes; but given that streets already provide the most direct path in most cases, the opportunity for these bikeways is minimal).


But the point of this thread, "the world needs more separated bike paths", goes way beyond that. In San Diego and Diane's Santa Barbara, for example, there are already plenty of recreational biking areas to meet the purposes we're discussing here.

Diane's "argument" ultimately amounts to nothing more than repeating the PnP (Paint aNd Path advocates) mindless mantra: more facilities, more facilities, more facilities.