Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Sprawl and Cycling

They could put in more bike paths in suburbia to soften the need to suffer and brave the high-speed arterials. Good ones that give you shortcuts and not just parallel to the main artery.

This is utterly impossible, because there are very few urban transportational bike path routes that can be made safe at reasonable cost. The only theoretically practical transportational bike path generally installable in urban areas is the elevated bicycle freeway, such as was proposed for West Los Angeles, westbound from UCLA. Almost all ground level urban bike paths must cross other traffic at frequent intervals, and the standard intersection is much safer than the intersection that has to also carry a third class of traffic.

This is utterly impossible, because there are very few urban transportational bike path routes that can be made safe at reasonable cost. The only theoretically practical transportational bike path generally installable in urban areas is the elevated bicycle freeway, such as was proposed for West Los Angeles, westbound from UCLA. Almost all ground level urban bike paths must cross other traffic at frequent intervals, and the standard intersection is much safer than the intersection that has to also carry a third class of traffic.
How can you say this? Where I live these paths already exist and I make use of them on a daily basis for transportation needs. And what is your definition of "very few" and "safe at reasonable costs"? Should we really put a cost of the safety of the public?
I agree with sbhikes. I'd like to see more paths out here that connect the culdesac subs. If there were two of them, no more than 100 feet each, I could totally avoid the 6 miles I do along side the expressway and instead enjoy a nice liesurely ride to work.

I still don't see how the rest of your comment supports your "utterly impossible" statement.

How can you say this? Where I live these paths already exist and I make use of them on a daily basis for transportation needs


Yeah, so what? Are you telling me the paths in your area even come close to the linear miles of roadways? If not, how much of a percentage? 5% or more like 0.5%.

Columbia, Maryland is a 'planned city' with lots of paths. They all go around in circles and meander through neighborhoods. Fine for 'birds and bees' recreation but not for point A to point B transportation.

Yeah, so what? Are you telling me the paths in your area even come close to the linear miles of roadways? If not, how much of a percentage? 5% or more like 0.5%.
How on gods green earth did you get THIS from reading my post?


Columbia, Maryland is a 'planned city' with lots of paths. They all go around in circles and meander through neighborhoods. Fine for 'birds and bees' recreation but not for point A to point B transportation.
And the ones I ride on are useful, but then again, I wasn't talking about Columbia, MD... in fact I don't think I've ever heard of it. Once again, what does this have to do with MY post or the one by sbhikes that lead to my part in this discussion?

[EDIT]
You know, it's the people with (what seems to be) the attitude you have displayed here that are the MAIN problem with A&S. You came in here, read my post, and tried to start some sort of confrontation using it. But instead of using what I said, you made your own stuff up and tried to put words in my mouth just so that you could argue with me.
How do you define pointless again?

And the ones I ride on are useful, but then again, I wasn't talking about Columbia, MD... in fact I don't think I've ever heard of it. Once again, what does this have to do with MY post or the one by sbhikes that lead to my part in this discussion?


Just because 2 people out of several billion happen to live and work within a reasonable distance of a bike trail and are able to utilize the train for utilitarian purposes has no bearing on the remaining portion of the population that don't happen to live and work within a reasonable distance from a bike trail. It's totally preposterous to think that governments could find enough real estate and budget to build enough bike paths to make any sort of meaningful reduction in auto use.


Edit: replace 'train' above with 'trail'

Just because 2 people out of several billion happen to live and work within a reasonable distance of a bike trail and are able to utilize the train for utilitarian purposes has no bearing on the remaining portion of the population that don't happen to live and work within a reasonable distance from a bike trail. It's totally preposterous to think that governments could find enough real estate and budget to build enough bike paths to make any sort of meaningful reduction in auto use.

I'm happy that you think sbhikes and I are representitive of the 6 billion people on this planet, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. However, I don't recall making any statement that we did, in fact, I believe I was quite clear that I was talking about MY area, the one I live in, and none else. I was asking J.F. about his "utterly impossible" statement.
But still, you avoided adressing any of my comments to you, and instead bring "the train" into this. The train? Just where in the hell did that come from? And how does it relate to me wishing I had 200 feet of MUP at my disposal.
You sir, are quite confusing right now and I suggest you put away the alcahol. For christs sake, this is a holiday weekend and should be spent WITH the family, not trying to avoid them by spending it inside a bottle. ;) :p

I'm happy that you think sbhikes and I are representitive of the 6 billion people on this planet, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. However, I don't recall making any statement that we did, in fact, I believe I was quite clear that I was talking about MY area, the one I live in, and none else. I was asking J.F. about his "utterly impossible" statement.
But still, you avoided adressing any of my comments to you, and instead bring "the train" into this. The train? Just where in the hell did that come from? And how does it relate to me wishing I had 200 feet of MUP at my disposal.
You sir, are quite confusing right now and I suggest you put away the alcahol. For christs sake, this is a holiday weekend and should be spent WITH the family, not trying to avoid them by spending it inside a bottle. ;) :p

If you can't figure out a minor typo, than I suggest it is YOU my good man who has been imbibing. Now, go run along and play...you might find an Easter egg down by the trail!

If you can't figure out a minor typo, than I suggest it is YOU my good man who has been imbibing. Now, go run along and play...you might find an Easter egg down by the trail!
Not imbibing, I'm dog drunk right now. :D
And I saw the typo, I was just bringing up a point, and that point being that it serves no purpose in a conversation to make your own crap up and totally disregard what the person actually said. I had to, since obviously you are avoiding my previous questions.
BTW, I have a few more bottles of Knoppague Castle left in the basement if you want to join me for a drink. There's a nice trail that will bring you right up to my front door ;)

I don't understand how anyone could thing building a bike path is impossible. We're talking about sprawl. When they build it why not install a bike path? They already do that in lots of places. They just have to make it planned. You know, like a Bicycle Master Plan kind of thing. Like actually plan all this development rather than simply approve with a rubber stamp every hair-brained sprawling development that comes across the desk. Plan it with goals in mind to make it easier for people to have choices in what they use to do their errands and go to work. It's not impossible in the least. And things like bike path improve the property values so it's not even a hardship.

Wake up to the 21st century already!

This is utterly impossible....The only theoretically practical transportational bike path generally installable in urban areas is the elevated bicycle freeway...

what a loadacrapola, john.

your mischaracterizations are pathetic. sorry, but I'm calling your spiel lame.

I don't understand how anyone could thing building a bike path is impossible. We're talking about sprawl. When they build it why not install a bike path? They already do that in lots of places. They just have to make it planned. You know, like a Bicycle Master Plan kind of thing. Like actually plan all this development rather than simply approve with a rubber stamp every hair-brained sprawling development that comes across the desk. Plan it with goals in mind to make it easier for people to have choices in what they use to do their errands and go to work. It's not impossible in the least. And things like bike path improve the property values so it's not even a hardship.

Wake up to the 21st century already!

Well D.
We ARE 2 in six billion after all ;)

I don't understand how anyone could thing building a bike path is impossible. We're talking about sprawl. When they build it why not install a bike path? They already do that in lots of places. They just have to make it planned. You know, like a Bicycle Master Plan kind of thing. Like actually plan all this development rather than simply approve with a rubber stamp every hair-brained sprawling development that comes across the desk. Plan it with goals in mind to make it easier for people to have choices in what they use to do their errands and go to work. It's not impossible in the least. And things like bike path improve the property values so it's not even a hardship.

Wake up to the 21st century already!

It's real easy to sit at your computer and make demands on other people's land and other people's money. Sprawl is the result of several factors, both economic and social: zoning, cheap land, cheap oil, expansion of utilities and white flight come to mind right off the bat. That being said and being employed in the land development business, I can assure you that developers do not want to give up one more square foot of land for open space amenities (and that's what a path or trail would be in a new development) than they have to. Secondly, experience tells us that even when local governments want a pathway of some sort, the people who actually purchase the houses don't want it. They bought their house to 'get away' from everybody else and they don't want unrestricted access to 'their' development by outsiders. Moreover, pedestrian and bike paths have become havens for illicit activity on occasion and the resulting bad publicity has devalued these types of paths even further.

The fact is that if you live in a new house, in a new neighborhood - especially a low density development, you have voted with your feet and your wallet and you are part of the problem, not part of the solution (to sprawl that is).

But the people who live in the suburbs could argue that they don't like their tax money going towards public transit in the city which they don't use, increased policing due to higher (statistically) crime rates in the city, etc... etc...
Double edged sword.

Another thing to consider, is that suburbanites pay more taxes (for the most part) due to larger homes, more land, and the like.

I don't necessarily buy that argument. In my area there are 3 forms of property taxes depending on where you live. If you live in the county you pay county taxes and a "township" tax (basically funds the local EMs and VFD) If you live in the city or other incorporated area you pay both county taxes as well as city taxes. The total amount you pay is totally dependent on the valuation of your property. A 1600sf house in the county on a 1/2 acre has a valuation of $180,000 will pay around $1863 a year in taxes. A smaller house on a smaller lot in the city with a similar valuation will pay $2538. Then you have the issue of other outlying counties having lower tax rates. However most people don't take into consideration the cost of owning and maintaining a car for commuting use. I grew up in mostly older urban neighborhoods on the edges of small to medium sized cities or in small towns. I can still remember the corner grocery stores and hardware stores. Quite often these were owned and staffed by people that lived in the neighborhood. Unfortunately with the current zoning structure as well as other factors this has become mostly a thing of the past.

Aaron:)

I still don't see how the rest of your comment supports your "utterly impossible" statement.

I agree that utterly impossible is too strong of a statement. However, John does have a point that producing and maintaining these facilities--at the standards that many forum members demand--require a lot of resources. It is certainly plausible that these resouces could be better used by simply making roads/laws more accommodating to cyclists.

what a loadacrapola, john.

your mischaracterizations are pathetic. sorry, but I'm calling your spiel lame.

Hi Bek,

This is not helpful. See my request for a high degree of civility at the beginning of my thread.

Thanks.

-G

EDIT: It might be the case Bek, that you doubt discussing the issue with John will change his mind about Sprawl and such. But there are a lot of people who read these threads whose opinion might be changed. However, I personally doubt that your response would lead to that. From what I gather, you have a lot of experience--although I do not know the nature of your experience--with bicycle facilities. Tell us why building and maintaining high quality facilities does not require an undue amount of resources.

If you can't figure out a minor typo, than I suggest it is YOU my good man who has been imbibing. Now, go run along and play...you might find an Easter egg down by the trail!

All parties ...

Please see my request at the beginning of my thread. Thanks.

-G

sorry, invisible hand, but john's insistence the only transportational bike facilities that work in urban areas are elevated structures is complete bull. I don't really care about your 'high degree of civility' pleas in light of john's clear DENIAL OF REALITY.

look at seattle, minneapolis, denver, boston, and other cities when transportation cooridors are developed with minimal intersections and high degree of utillity for cyclists to transit their communities.

I bet a LOT of other cities have MUPs that serve well for bike transportation, and then there are the integrated on road bike facilties that serve to increase cycling and cyclist safety in cities across the world.

john is anti facilties and dreams up this impossibility construct just to rail against bike infrastructure.

bike transportational paths work. well designed bike lane networks work. john is full of it.

sorry, got no time to eludicate any more gracefully than that.

The bike paths (note I did not say "facilities") where I live (quite urban/suburban) are of different kinds.

1) Sidwalk-style bike paths. These create new intersections with every driveway they cross. They also force users to yield right-of-way at intersections with the parallel road. The net effect is constant stop-and-go cycling, and checking over your shoulder for behind-your-back cross traffic.

2) Paths parallel to RR tracks. These minimize the number of intersections because there also tend to be fewer intersections with the RR tracks. There is one I in particular I have used which has one major problem: where it intersects roads, it channels cyclists into pedestrian crosswalks, which are usually blocked by motorists waiting at traffic lights. There are limited access points, so that once a cyclist gets on the path, he/she is forced to accept difficult and inconvenient, sometimes dangerous, street crossings.

The sad thing is that the road next to this path is ideal: four lanes, residential, speed limit 30 mph.

3) Paths that are built in park-like greenspace, which for a mile or two provide almost freeway-style independence from intersections. Unfortunately, there is a rapidly dwindling amount of space that can be used to build this kind of path.

4) Paths which are built in parks for pure recreation. These are "destinationless," in the sense that the go around in circles.

All in all, options 1 and 2 are most likely to be built for transportation, and of these two, option 1 is most probable. Option 3 is the very best option, and I use one of these frequently--it happens to be very beautiful. But this kind of path is rarely possible in many developed areas: it so happens that the ride is very short.

Here is a solution.

Sell your house in the exurbs. Move to within a mile or two of work. Enroll your kids in public school (they provide a bus). Forget about lobbying for a path so you can ride mindlessly through the country to get to work.

I don't understand how anyone could thing building a bike path is impossible. We're talking about sprawl. When they build it why not install a bike path? They already do that in lots of places. They just have to make it planned. You know, like a Bicycle Master Plan kind of thing. Like actually plan all this development rather than simply approve with a rubber stamp every hair-brained sprawling development that comes across the desk. Plan it with goals in mind to make it easier for people to have choices in what they use to do their errands and go to work. It's not impossible in the least. And things like bike path improve the property values so it's not even a hardship.

Wake up to the 21st century already!

Hi Diane,

I do think that Galen has a point that sprawl is a result of several factors and that citizens with the same rights as us chose to live in that environment. I am not as convinced as others that if you "build it, they will come" in numbers that justify the allocation of resources needed to create and maintain such facilities.

In other words, if people want big houses and yards and are willing to pay the true social cost for them, then it is hard for me to limit their choices. As an aside, I recall from the last few conferences I attended that in the USA people (both builders and residents) fail to cover the negative externalities of sprawl. So in that sense, there is a reason to place limits or additional costs to the direct participants on sprawl.

So what does this have to do with cycling? Damn good question.

Assume for the time being that my statement above regarding sprawl creating negative externalities to society that are not internalized by builders and residents of said sprawl. If we believe that "smart" planning that includes cycling friendly communities and travel alleviates the effects and/or desire of sprawl, then we should allocate more resources towards cycling-specific facilities.

Some of the earlier posts, in my opinion, made pretty good arguments for net-negative effects of sprawl on cycling. I gather that the cul-de-sac design for much of the sprawl lamented in this forum is not only driven (perhaps) by customer wants but also an ability for the builder to fit more homes into a fixed amount of space. If we believe that sprawl residents really care about living on a low traffic street instead of actually living in a cul-de-sac, then there is a good argument for requiring that these neighborhoods be filled with through streets fitting with traffic calming measures omitting a few arterial throughways.

More generally, this is very speculative, I gather that the main arterial throughways in sprawl were probably created either due to historical decisions which may or may not be relevant today OR due to geographical features which lend itself to placing a road there. That written, my guess is that placing a bike facility elsewhere is probably expensive; e.g., extra bridges for crossing streams, rivers, and such. Consequently, it probably makes sense to use the same roads and structures that autos use. Now whether you think that better training/legislation, WOLs or bike lanes (or some combination) are more effective in this environment is another issue.

sorry, got no time to eludicate any more gracefully than that.

No problem Bek. When you have time, I (and probably many others) would be interested in a more thorough discussion of it. This is cyberspace, the thread will be around for a while.

Note that I wrote my last post prior to reading this. Given the expansion of the DC area into Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, there is a very practical reason for me to learn more about this. Moreover, the increased density of areas within the beltway also make traffic engineering quite relevant. Lucky for us, each bridge connecting Arlington to DC is cycling accessible. But getting to some of those bridges, ironically, can be somewhat troublesome from a pure transportation perspective.

Since my last post mentioned geographical features that drive arterial throughways, I should not have limited it to geography. The connections between Arlington and DC are driven not only by several streams and land features, but also the location of Arlington Cemetary, the Pentagon, plus military installations, public parks, and so on.

sorry, invisible hand, but john's insistence the only transportational bike facilities that work in urban areas are elevated structures is complete bull. I don't really care about your 'high degree of civility' pleas in light of john's clear DENIAL OF REALITY.

look at seattle, minneapolis, denver, boston, and other cities when transportation cooridors are developed with minimal intersections and high degree of utillity for cyclists to transit their communities.

I bet a LOT of other cities have MUPs that serve well for bike transportation, and then there are the integrated on road bike facilties that serve to increase cycling and cyclist safety in cities across the world.

john is anti facilties and dreams up this impossibility construct just to rail against bike infrastructure.

bike transportational paths work. well designed bike lane networks work. john is full of it.

sorry, got no time to eludicate any more gracefully than that.

I was specifically discussing bike paths, not bike lanes. And I wrote "installable in urban areas", meaning areas that are already built up. And I have always stated that waterfronts and similar obstructions to motor traffic can provide for bike paths that have few locations that cross motor traffic, but I have also stated that such locations are too few to provide for general bicycle transportation on paths.

I also point out that nobody has solved the problem of ground-level intersections that safely and efficiently provide for three classes of traveller: pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist. The best engineering solution, done in a newly constructed London suburb (which I have seen because it is near one of my cousins), is a big block system with arterial sidepaths, in which the arterial intersections are two-layer traffic circles, one above for motorists, one below for cyclists. Despite these advantages, the system attracts very little bicycle traffic. That was possible because it was an entirely new development; it is impossible in an existing development. Galen has described the difficulty of getting paths in new developments. Davis, CA, is said to be a very bicycle friendly city. Some of the new area north of town was built with paths because that was what the community wanted. However, these paths don't provide the results that most path advocates desire; they merely get users off low-traffic residential streets.

A recent type of residential development is nicknamed "lollipop", consisting of a small residential area (the candy part) whose only connection with the outside world is through one entrance (the stick) from a major arterial. This thoroughly impedes access from the outside world, which the inhabitants like. Path advocates say that paths between adjacent lollipops would enable bicyclists and pedestrians to access adjacent lollipops without using the arterials. Such paths have to be built at initial development, but they aren't, because that not only takes area but it devalues the two lots adjacent to them.

Much of the discussion on this list has asserted that I live in an unreal world because I am motivated by opposition to bicycle facilities. Some of that discussion has advanced examples contrary to my general judgment. All I say to all of those critics is that I have considered the real difficulties of producing a general system of transportation by bike paths, while they live in an imaginary world in which those difficulties, though never solved, just disappear. I also state that the examples advanced are those with the exceptional and rare natural advantages that prevent crossing motor traffic, and as such cannot be examples of a general system. They may be very useful for those who find their routes useful, but they can carry only a very small portion of the bicycle traffic because they serve only very small parts of the urban area.

It's real easy to sit at your computer and make demands on other people's land and other people's money. Sprawl is the result of several factors, both economic and social: zoning, cheap land, cheap oil, expansion of utilities and white flight come to mind right off the bat. That being said and being employed in the land development business, I can assure you that developers do not want to give up one more square foot of land for open space amenities (and that's what a path or trail would be in a new development) than they have to. Secondly, experience tells us that even when local governments want a pathway of some sort, the people who actually purchase the houses don't want it. They bought their house to 'get away' from everybody else and they don't want unrestricted access to 'their' development by outsiders. Moreover, pedestrian and bike paths have become havens for illicit activity on occasion and the resulting bad publicity has devalued these types of paths even further.

Fine and dandy bub, you've made your point. But once again you are overlooking what has been said.
Here is the quote by sbhikes:
They could put in more bike paths in suburbia to soften the need to suffer and brave the high-speed arterials. Good ones that give you shortcuts and not just parallel to the main artery.
This is referring to bike paths that give a cyclist the oportunity to avoid having to ride on the highspeed highways that connect the suburbs to each other and to the cities. We are not talking about pathways that lead door to door but pathways that allow the cyclist to avoid the uncomfortable highways. How come you keep missing that clearly presented point? And now, since that point has been made clear, we can examine the rest of what you said. You said developers don't want to give up their land to pathways and that governments sometimes do. GREAT!! Since the pathways we are talking about are supported by the government, and will likely traverse government land, then the homeowners can be left out of it. Never the less though, us suburbanites are not the hermit type people you are making us out to be. We do enjoy human interaction. We CHOSE to live here, remember that.
As far as paths becoming havens for ilicit behavior in the past, are you going to try and tell me that the cities are crime free or that suburban pathways have more of this type of crime than street corners in the cities? What are you trying to point out with that statement? Maybe we should do away with city street corners then, right?
Just because a drug dealer "once" dealt drugs from the sidewalk in front of my house DOES NOT mean that my house is a drug house, or that my sidewalk is a "drug sidewalk".



The fact is that if you live in a new house, in a new neighborhood - especially a low density development, you have voted with your feet and your wallet and you are part of the problem, not part of the solution (to sprawl that is).
And what problem is that? Sprawl? I live in it and don't consider it a problem. The freedom to exercise the American dream? To have a meaningful life and be happy? To own a new home in a new area and have enough land that your children can play in the yard without having to worry about motor traffic and the likes?
Not everyone wants to live in the cities and have cars rumbling by their bedroom windows at 3:00am with loud stereos and loud exhaust. Not everyone wants to walk out on their front porch (if they even have one) and smell exhaust fumes. Not everyone wants to live so close to their neighbors that they can hear each other snoring in their sleep. Is it that hard to expect that a vast majority of people think differently than you do?
I live car free in the suburbs and could not be happier. Me and my family love it here. I make enough money to afford to live here and I HAVE NO PROBLEMS transporting them, goods, and myself around. Tell me good sir, what is the problem?

I agree that utterly impossible is too strong of a statement. However, John does have a point that producing and maintaining these facilities--at the standards that many forum members demand--require a lot of resources. It is certainly plausible that these resouces could be better used by simply making roads/laws more accommodating to cyclists.

I can agree with you. But our discussion was about bike paths that would give the cyclists an alternative to riding on the high speed arterials only. Well, the discussion WAS about that until everyone post decided to overlook the intent and go in their own direction.
As far as supporting a multitude of facilities I do agree, in fact I don't like the idea of having paths as alternatives to 35mph or less roads with proper lane widths for cyclists. But anyone who has ridden a 60mph highway with no shoulder understand how uncomfortable it is, and can respect how dangerous it really is. A path to give the option of avoiding a majority of those would be quite welcome.

I can agree with you. But our discussion was about bike paths that would give the cyclists an alternative to riding on the high speed arterials only. Well, the discussion WAS about that until everyone post decided to overlook the intent and go in their own direction.
As far as supporting a multitude of facilities I do agree, in fact I don't like the idea of having paths as alternatives to 35mph or less roads with proper lane widths for cyclists. But anyone who has ridden a 60mph highway with no shoulder understand how uncomfortable it is, and can respect how dangerous it really is. A path to give the option of avoiding a majority of those would be quite welcome.

+1, why not have more options available?

I don't necessarily buy that argument. In my area there are 3 forms of property taxes depending on where you live. If you live in the county you pay county taxes and a "township" tax (basically funds the local EMs and VFD) If you live in the city or other incorporated area you pay both county taxes as well as city taxes. The total amount you pay is totally dependent on the valuation of your property. A 1600sf house in the county on a 1/2 acre has a valuation of $180,000 will pay around $1863 a year in taxes. A smaller house on a smaller lot in the city with a similar valuation will pay $2538. Then you have the issue of other outlying counties having lower tax rates. However most people don't take into consideration the cost of owning and maintaining a car for commuting use. I grew up in mostly older urban neighborhoods on the edges of small to medium sized cities or in small towns. I can still remember the corner grocery stores and hardware stores. Quite often these were owned and staffed by people that lived in the neighborhood. Unfortunately with the current zoning structure as well as other factors this has become mostly a thing of the past.

Aaron:)
Thanks for the clarification and examples. I should have made it more clear that I was making my statement based on the way things are around here. Whereas a house inside the city of Detroit that costs $45,000.00 would cost well over $200,000.00 in Gross Point Woods or Bloomfield Hills, and tha's just for the house. Add a few acres of land into that and it goes up.
I was also thinking of the extra ammount of money spent in gas and other purchases that city dwellers don't face.

Here is a solution.

Sell your house in the exurbs. Move to within a mile or two of work. Enroll your kids in public school (they provide a bus). Forget about lobbying for a path so you can ride mindlessly through the country to get to work.

So you're suggesting that we parents give up everyting we have worked hard for and fought for just so we can please some cyclists who live in the cities and feel like complaining about a lifestyle that doesn't affect them? I am starting now to see why people dislike the vocal cycling community and have message boards bashing us.

I really want to put my children in public school in Detroit:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/NEWS01/704050441/1003/NEWS01

I really want to live inside the city of Detroit:
http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25


silly, just silly

What most residents of expanding suburbs want is more and larger freeways (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0406transportation0406.html) - and lots of arterials to connect to them. Oh and schools and such, which often lag new developments. Bike paths that connect to the dangerous world outside of a new development are likely bottom of the list of wants, if not near top of list of not-wants.

Locally in existing suburbs space is very limited for off street paths. Arterials are on a 1mi grid. Where I live ground level bike path that provide the connectivity (or even 20% of it) are impossible. There is simply no room. Room for paths is along canals. See map here:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Bike/pdfs/BikeMap2007.pdf
Al

Thanks for the clarification and examples. I should have made it more clear that I was making my statement based on the way things are around here. Whereas a house inside the city of Detroit that costs $45,000.00 would cost well over $200,000.00 in Gross Point Woods or Bloomfield Hills, and tha's just for the house. Add a few acres of land into that and it goes up.
I was also thinking of the extra ammount of money spent in gas and other purchases that city dwellers don't face.

Funny around here it is almost the opposite. If you live in the desirable city areas a equivalent sized house on a small lot costs more than my current home on 40 acres...including the acreage. Property values are funny, they seemed to be based on desirability. I do agree on the cost of transportation when you are commuting to and from a suburban area to an urban area.

Aaron:)

+1, why not have more options available?

Because the resources needed to create and maintain them might be better used elsewhere. It is hard to argue this in the abstract since what you are giving up is particularly vague. But unless you can make the economy more efficient, getting bicycle facilities means that you have taken labor and capital from the production of something else. Maybe you just took something away from the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Maybe you just took something needed to make more schools and hospitals in New Orleans. It can be difficult to grasp without a practical problem in front of you; but the capacity to produce those facilities is coming from somewhere. You need to weigh that loss against what you believe is gained from the bicycle facilities.

This is one of the reasons why I am interested in Bek's and others argument for the application of such resources. Note that I don't really expect a complete argument with estimates of the benefits and costs. But it will be interesting to hear first-hand accounts that address aspects of such planning:

*where the funding came from--did you raise taxes?
*how it was used--bike facilities, lanes, share the road signs, and so on
*the final result as it applies to cycling and society--did traffic or travel times lessen? did people take up cycling? did people begin commuting by cycle? how did it affect sprawl?.

I don't really expect Bek (or anyone else) to produce something on the fly that addresses everything. But it would be interesting to read some brief comments along those lines. Hopefully, there will be a few pointers to something "user-friendly" (i.e., written for a dummy like myself) that begins to address these concerns.

Writing as a layperson, I expect that the production and maintenance of roads, tunnels, and bridges to be expensive; i.e., take a lot of resources. Hence, why my first thought is that for the large areas that sprawl encompasses in various areas of the country, a strategy that has bicycles on roads with cars will probably be most cost-effective (I think that this is John's position). In other words, designing a second system just for alternative transportation (MUPs) will be prohibitively expensive. But I admit this is speculation on my part. Quite simply, I have little experience in the area.

Just so I am clear, I do find the discussion of modifying sprawl--either in its initial design or a retrofit--in minor ways plausible. Although retrofitting is less plausible than "getting it right" the first time.

A recent type of residential development is nicknamed "lollipop", consisting of a small residential area (the candy part) whose only connection with the outside world is through one entrance (the stick) from a major arterial. This thoroughly impedes access from the outside world, which the inhabitants like. Path advocates say that paths between adjacent lollipops would enable bicyclists and pedestrians to access adjacent lollipops without using the arterials. Such paths have to be built at initial development, but they aren't, because that not only takes area but it devalues the two lots adjacent to them.

Some communities have succeeded in requiring connecting paths between adjacent developments as a condition of site plan or zoning approval. This becomes more viable, and more important for cyclists, as the size of the development increases. Here in Cary, residential developments that connect to only one arterial can be quite large; protected stream buffers discourage road connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods because culvert crossings are not allowed but road bridges are expensive. Developers also seek to limit connectivity to discourage through traffic. However, bike paths and bike/ped bridges can connect these neighborhoods at lower cost and can fit into smaller places with somewhat more challenging topography than can full-scale roads and bridges.

I've approved a lot of planned unit developments that included path connections in and out of the neighborhood as requirements for approval. One included a connection that is very useful to me, connecting my home to downtown Cary through 25mph residential streets thanks to one short-cut path that allows me to avoid the 45mph thoroughfares that were once my only links. My family now rides downtown regularly using this short-cut.

-Steve Goodridge

Some communities have succeeded in requiring connecting paths between adjacent developments as a condition of site plan or zoning approval. This becomes more viable, and more important for cyclists, as the size of the development increases. Here in Cary, residential developments that connect to only one arterial can be quite large; protected stream buffers discourage road connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods because culvert crossings are not allowed but road bridges are expensive. Developers also seek to limit connectivity to discourage through traffic. However, bike paths and bike/ped bridges can connect these neighborhoods at lower cost and can fit into smaller places with somewhat more challenging topography than can full-scale roads and bridges.

I've approved a lot of planned unit developments that included path connections in and out of the neighborhood as requirements for approval. One included a connection that is very useful to me, connecting my home to downtown Cary through 25mph residential streets thanks to one short-cut path that allows me to avoid the 45mph thoroughfares that were once my only links. My family now rides downtown regularly using this short-cut.

-Steve Goodridge
But aparantly this is a bad thing, is utterly impossible, and is not part of the solution but rather the problem... or so I'm lead to believe. :rolleyes:

But our discussion was about bike paths that would give the cyclists an alternative to riding on the high speed arterials only. Well, the discussion WAS about that until everyone post decided to overlook the intent and go in their own direction.

Hmmmm, OK. Just to make sure I fully understand, what you want to pick the most worrisome areas--the "hotspots"--and provide alternatives there.

That sounds much more plausible.

What a lot of people want is more time. They could have it if they felt they could let little Johnny ride his bike to school and soccer practice instead of driving him. The suburbs should be livable for children as well as adults.

Suburban Trails Plan in Aboite Twshp, Fort Wayne, Indiana

This is a good plan, I've been in the area and the trails are connecting the schools with the neighborhoods and have traffic control at intersections and are planned to avoid driveways where ever possible. They ren't finished you, but eventually connect to commuter trails into Fort Wayne that are looking to be more convenient than driving.

http://www.greenwayconsortium.com/pdf/aboite.pdf

But aparantly this is a bad thing, is utterly impossible, and is not part of the solution but rather the problem... or so I'm lead to believe. :rolleyes:

It may very well be utterly impossible even in an established suburb. There are a few neighborhoods near me that have these types of paths that offer connectivity between the neighborhoods. Some were installed to connect the neighborhoods to schools and others offer easy routes to parks or the library. What these paths all have in common is that they were built when the neighborhoods were constructed 30 some years ago or they only go through space that was already set aside as park space. The newer neighborhoods seem to not have any of these paths, such as the neighborhood I live in. If you look at a map of the area and try to see where more of these paths could be constructed, you'd realize how utterly impossible it would be. For starters, you be taking a portion of somebody's yard and creating a public space out of it. I can assure you that the vast majority of my neighbors would want nothing to do with such a thing, no matter how big of promises were made as to it's positive affects on the community.

Now, if you see how many obstacles exist in a relatively sparsely populated suburb, look at how many obstacles exist in an established major city. That's where the "utterly impossible" comment really applies.

Suburban Trails Plan in Aboite Twshp, Fort Wayne, Indiana

This is a good plan, I've been in the area and the trails are connecting the schools with the neighborhoods and have traffic control at intersections and are planned to avoid driveways where ever possible. They ren't finished you, but eventually connect to commuter trails into Fort Wayne that are looking to be more convenient than driving.

http://www.greenwayconsortium.com/pdf/aboite.pdf

Look carefully at that map. The legend has categories: Completed trails, Existing sidewalks, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3. Consider the logic that says that existing sidewalks constitute a good cycling facility. Then note the locations of the other "trails". All of these are shown as on one side of an existing arterial (though the actual implementation might be different, but there is no evidence of this. So the trail system consists of sidepaths alongside arterials. Dangerous as hell, unless there are traffic signals at every intersection, which probably will never be. And if there are so many signals, then there will be many delays, making cycling slower than it should be.

Just one more example of the difficulties that are created when one tries to build a trail system on top of the existing roadway and sidewalk system, the difficulties that I have been writing about all along.

Look carefully at that map. The legend has categories: Completed trails, Existing sidewalks, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3. Consider the logic that says that existing sidewalks constitute a good cycling facility. Then note the locations of the other "trails". All of these are shown as on one side of an existing arterial (though the actual implementation might be different, but there is no evidence of this. So the trail system consists of sidepaths alongside arterials. Dangerous as hell, unless there are traffic signals at every intersection, which probably will never be. And if there are so many signals, then there will be many delays, making cycling slower than it should be.

Just one more example of the difficulties that are created when one tries to build a trail system on top of the existing roadway and sidewalk system, the difficulties that I have been writing about all along.
I understand what you are saying, but I have seen and ridden the infrastructure that is completed. I know what the long term goal is John. The completed trail network is very nice and the eventual completion of the project will make cycling safer for kids, and provide a training ground. There is no plan to bar road bikes from the road, either, this infrastructure is planned primarily for recreational riders and the commuter link will eventually provide a faster route into town than the road network with what will be more convenience for cycle commuters. Assuming it develops as planned, it will provide a good hybrid system.

This isn't an effort to sweep cyclists aside....Aboite Township is actually ahead of the curve, because there are a lot of cyclists there, both recreational and competitive, as well as a fair utility cycling (Commuters) population that do it for the health benefits rather than necessity. Granted, Aboite's plan is the exception rather than the rule, but it's a viable plan.

As to signals, yes, the crossings are at signals, predominantly and there is a concerted effort to avoid driveway crossings along the arterial sidepaths.

It may very well be utterly impossible even in an established suburb.

Where there are existing residences, without right of way already established, the political barriers can indeed be insurmountable.

When I once suggested that a utility easement be upfit with a greenway path connecting a poorly-connected neighborhood with a new development with attractive amenities for kids, I got hate mail from residents who didn't want a path anywhere near their homes.

This is why built-up communities so often turn to badly designed sidewalk-type bike paths. The cyclists who warn against promotion of sidewalk cycling tend to be less politically powerful than (1) existing homeowners who don't want paths near their houses, and (2) path proponents who insist on path connectivity by any means rather than accept a transition to on-road facilities such as bike lanes or wide outside lanes.

But given the ongoing rate of suburbanization, I think it is smart to plan ahead for good connector/short-cut paths. If the path is planned or built before the lots are sold to residents, the residents who choose to live near the path will have self-selected to be friendly to the idea. Providing any kind of new traffic connection after residents settle in is a major hassle.

Where there are existing residences, without right of way already established, the political barriers can indeed be insumountable.

When I once suggested that a utility easement be upfit with a greenway path connecting a poorly-connected neighborhood with a new development with attractive amenities for kids, I got hate mail from residents who didn't want a path anywhere near their homes.

This is why built-up communities so often turn to badly designed sidewalk-type bike paths. The cyclists who warn against promotion of sidewalk cycling tend to be less politically powerful than (1) existing homeowners who don't want paths near their houses, and (2) path proponents who insist on path connectivity by any means rather than accept a transition to on-road facilities such as bike lanes or wide outside lanes.

But given the ongoing rate of suburbanization, I think it is smart to plan ahead for good connector/short-cut paths. If the path is planned or built before the lots are sold to residents, the residents who choose to live near the path will have self-selected to be friendly to the idea. Providing any kind of new traffic connection after residents settle in is a major hassle.

+1!!! NIMBY You would not believe the crap people will spout when they think their "lifestyle" is being infringed upon. Quite a few years back Fayetteville, NC was going to add sidewalks along a very busy arterial road that runs through an area with neighborhoods on both sides, the main argument against it was that it would bring "undesirable" people and criminals (along with drugs, drug dealers and *******) into the area:eek: :rolleyes: :D PULLLEZE these are the same people that live in a gated community with a guard shack, but you can go 300' down the street and walk in between the plantings. More cities and suburban areas need to take it upon themselves to design pedestrian and cycling facilities into place. I remember growing up that all of the neighborhoods has sidewalks in them, I believe what happened is that developers convinced the public they didn't need or want them but I believe it was an economic boon to the developer.

Aaron:)

What a lot of people want is more time. They could have it if they felt they could let little Johnny ride his bike to school and soccer practice instead of driving him. The suburbs should be livable for children as well as adults.
This one hits home.

I grew up in a suburb of DC. I rode my bike to school where there was a bike rack loaded with other kid's bikes. The first time I rode to school (excited, so "grown up" in elementary school, showing off that I had learned to ride a bike without falling down, like the big kids,) a school patrol told me to "get off the sidewalk," and a chorus of other kids joined in. I had never ridden anywhere else, I couldn't believe I was wrong! :eek: But that's not what I wanted to post about.

Fact is, the sidewalk was filled with other kids walking to school. That's why I wasn't supposed to ride my bike there, it was crowded. Today, I don't see very many kids walking to school, and I sure don't see many riding bikes. Some schools forbid kids riding bikes to school, now. Things have changed.

I think there are too many lawyers with nothing more to do than make a buck suing anyone who can't afford the publicity. "We'd better show everyone we are against riding bikes to school so we won't get sued if a kid gets hit by a car."

TIA (This Is America.)

Anyone notice a common thing in this thread? It seems that the people who are against the suburbian life are those that don't live in it, and those that live here seem to have no problem at all cycling and living their lives.
hrm...

Anyone notice a common thing in this thread? It seems that the people who are against the suburbian life are those that don't live in it, and those that live here seem to have no problem at all cycling and living their lives.
hrm...

I have lived urban, suburban and rural. I much prefer the rural or urban. To me living in a sea of houses where you can't walk to the store, church or school is a waste. At least if you are living rural you KNOW you are going to be miles from anything. Then it comes down to a question of sustainability, urban you used to be able to buy most of the things you needed for daily life with in a few blocks of your home. Rural you either raise it, make it yourself or plan to purchase it on your trips to "town". Suburban you have to drive to get what you need. The biggest reason I got out of the suburban lifestyle was the HOA's telling me what I could and couldn't do as well as the hassle of having to get in the car and drive to places. My absolute personal preference on a place to live is a small town of 10k or slightly less. Typically you will have most everything you need with in a few blocks of where you live. The one we are planning our move two has 2 old fashioned hardware stores and a lumber yard within 3 miles of town center (one is actually in the town center) If people would learn NOT to waste $10 worth of gas just to go to the nearest Super Center to save a couple of bucks on some item I think we all would be better off for it.

Aaron:)

I have lived urban, suburban and rural. I much prefer the rural or urban. To me living in a sea of houses where you can't walk to the store, church or school is a waste. At least if you are living rural you KNOW you are going to be miles from anything. Then it comes down to a question of sustainability, urban you used to be able to buy most of the things you needed for daily life with in a few blocks of your home. Rural you either raise it, make it yourself or plan to purchase it on your trips to "town". Suburban you have to drive to get what you need. The biggest reason I got out of the suburban lifestyle was the HOA's telling me what I could and couldn't do as well as the hassle of having to get in the car and drive to places. My absolute personal preference on a place to live is a small town of 10k or slightly less. Typically you will have most everything you need with in a few blocks of where you live. The one we are planning our move two has 2 old fashioned hardware stores and a lumber yard within 3 miles of town center (one is actually in the town center) If people would learn NOT to waste $10 worth of gas just to go to the nearest Super Center to save a couple of bucks on some item I think we all would be better off for it.

Aaron:)

I too would love to live in the small town America, maybe one day I will. Can you show me an example of a suburb where there are no stores that people can walk to? I have seriously never seen one, other than the outlaying urban areas of the suburbs. Usually there is some sort of small market within 3 miles of ones home. And from what I have seen, the homes that don't have at least some sort of store close to them are few and far between.

Can you show me an example of a suburb where there are no stores that people can walk to? I have seriously never seen one, other than the outlaying urban areas of the suburbs. Usually there is some sort of small market within 3 miles of ones home. And from what I have seen, the homes that don't have at least some sort of store close to them are few and far between.

Some suburbs are better than others, and some of the bad ones are evolving to be better. I find that most dense suburbs have walkable distances to shopping if one can spare the time, but the crows-flight distance is not the most important issue.

Oftentimes the suburban residential neighborhoods are required by ordinance to be isolated from commercial land uses such as supermarkets. The only routes between these land uses may be circuitous routes requiring travel on high-traffic thoroughfares, which often lack sidewalks, in some case having narrow outside lanes that end with a steep muddy drop into a drainage ditch, or vegetation and other obstructions to walking along the edge of the roadway. They are most unpleasant places to walk, even dangerous for walking after dark, and impossible for walking side-by-side with another person. Suburbs often fail to plan for walking on the thoroughfare routes because nobody of political importance walks on them. Oftentimes the thoroughfares are under the control of the state, which won't provide pedestrian facilities unless the municipality requests and pays fo rthem.

Alternatively, some suburbs plan for standardized sidewalk construction on both sides of thoroughfares, require redundant connectivity between different land uses by smaller roads like collectors in addition to the thoroughfares, and require paths to be provided where road connections are not preferred. There is also interest in mixed uses and denser residential and mixed-use development near commercial activity centers. This is the vision that many of us here in Cary have for our fast-growing community.

-Steve Goodridge

I too would love to live in the small town America, maybe one day I will. Can you show me an example of a suburb where there are no stores that people can walk to? I have seriously never seen one, other than the outlaying urban areas of the suburbs. Usually there is some sort of small market within 3 miles of ones home. And from what I have seen, the homes that don't have at least some sort of store close to them are few and far between.

We have over 8,000+ homes in our township there is one Food Lion grocery store near the center of it, it is 1.5 miles from where I live and the bulk of the homes are on the other side of me. They are getting ready to open up an additional 8,000 homes in the next 2 years. I suspect we may get more stores at that time. Prior to the Food Lion being built it was another mile down the road to the nearest stop and rob. And none of these stores are what I would consider walkable. The subdivisions are off of narrow two lane country roads with no appreciable shoulder where people consider 55 mph too slow so they insist on passing 100yds prior to the stop signs. I actually am insane enough to ride these roads;) Another area that comes to mind that is similar to this is the area to the west of Manasass, VA going out towards Gainesville. I realize we may be a bit of an anomaly but that is the way they do it in the south, home of Nascar and wannabees.:) I firmly believe "true" small town living can be the way to go. The one I am working on is Dunn, NC. Unfortunately too many small towns near larger cities have been gobbled up by the people wanting the small town feeling but wanting to impress their values on it. It has made many small towns un-affordable for what I consider to be average folks. (people making more than minimum wage but not making high 5 figures or more. As an example I hold up Harrisburg, NC and Apex, NC, both were nice small towns but if you make less than about $75k a year you can forget being able to afford a home there. Most of these former small towns have reinvented themselves as bedroom communities and have little work opportunities for much other than service jobs, if you have the service job you probably can't afford to live there. I spend too much of my life on the road and get to see a lot of places first hand. I am not as familiar with the northern cities as I only get to visit those on occasion.

Aaron:)

Here area couple of links to the places. The info from City Data on Anderson Creek is off by about 7 years, the population is over double that right now. The golf club was put in right across the road from my house, and they have already made zoning moves towards my land to restrict my use of it.:mad:

Anderson Creek Club (http://www.private-communities.org/visit_community.asp?communityid=18) Anderson Creek Township (http://www.city-data.com/township/Anderson-Creek-Harnett-NC.html) Apex, NC (http://www.apexnc.org/) Harrisburg, NC (http://www.harrisburgnc.org/) Dunn, NC (http://www.city-data.com/city/Dunn-North-Carolina.html) Dunn city site (http://www.dunn-nc.org/)

So you're suggesting that we parents give up everyting we have worked hard for and fought for just so we can please some cyclists who live in the cities and feel like complaining about a lifestyle that doesn't affect them? I am starting now to see why people dislike the vocal cycling community and have message boards bashing us.

I really want to put my children in public school in Detroit:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/NEWS01/704050441/1003/NEWS01

I really want to live inside the city of Detroit:
http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25


silly, just silly

What is silly is a bunch of white-bread upper middle class people moving away from a densely populated area where one can easily cycle (or walk for that mater) to the store, to shop, go to movie theaters and other forms of normal everyday activities so they can live exclusively in their 'safe' little enclave away from the riff raf. Then, have the nerve to turn around and demand that the government construct a pathway for them so they can ride to and fro unmolested by the 'traffic' that they themselves created by buying into a social system (really, it's an anti-social system) where the only mode of travel able to support that social system is the automobile.

You can have your stinking cull-de-sac and your stinking strip mall. Really, you deserve it. Heaven forbid your kid go to school with anybody who's parents don't pull down six figures... perish the though!

I too would love to live in the small town America, maybe one day I will. Can you show me an example of a suburb where there are no stores that people can walk to? I have seriously never seen one, other than the outlaying urban areas of the suburbs. Usually there is some sort of small market within 3 miles of ones home. And from what I have seen, the homes that don't have at least some sort of store close to them are few and far between.
Three miles is no longer considered 'walking distance' in the US. Plus, if the walking needs to be done on streets with no sidewalks, it's not gonna happen.

Something else I have noticed is that a lot of the streets in a the subdivisions I have observed wind and wander around. The store may be less than 3 miles in a straight line from the subdivision but by the time you get there you may have had to use 5 miles of roads. Mainly due to the fact the subdivisions are dead ended. I believe the term I have heard used is lollipop layout. And that certainly fits many of the ones I have seen.

Aaron:)

What is silly is a bunch of white-bread upper middle class people moving away from a densely populated area where one can easily cycle (or walk for that mater) to the store, to shop, go to movie theaters and other forms of normal everyday activities so they can live exclusively in their 'safe' little enclave away from the riff raf. Then, have the nerve to turn around and demand that the government construct a pathway for them so they can ride to and fro unmolested by the 'traffic' that they themselves created by buying into a social system (really, it's an anti-social system) where the only mode of travel able to support that social system is the automobile.

You can have your stinking cull-de-sac and your stinking strip mall. Really, you deserve it. Heaven forbid your kid go to school with anybody who's parents don't pull down six figures... perish the though!

It's nice that you think you know me so well, when in fact you are way off. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3934460&postcount=21)
You are just way too emotional to even discuss something like this. I'm talking about poeoples rights as Americans and you are talking about... what exactly?
And just an FYI, everything you have mentioned above, I have access to via bicycle.
It seems that maybe you should spend your time in the P&R forum where your type of rhtoric are more appreciated. Or maybe you should join some soothsayer message board since you are soooooo good at reading people.
I'm finished with you, unless you want to drop the "poor little us" attitude.
A pitty really.