Google sponsored links
What do you think constitutes a "good" bike path?
This discussion is completely open to anything and everything from form (like sidewalk style MUP to segregated lane), to maintenance, to where a bike path belongs (maybe only along higher speed limit roads or only where it is completely segregated from car traffic like bisecting a park). Or maybe you think that there are no "good" bike paths and we should always ride in the road?
If the Mods feel this belongs in VC then so be it, but personally this is an advocacy issue for me as I would like to hear what other experienced cyclists have advocated for and what worked and did not.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Motor vehicles have the roads built for them
Pedestrians have sidewalks built for them
Therefore, cyclists should have bike paths built for them
Freeway type, about 8-12ft wide, paved, uses off ramps and goes over/under intersections. Too expensive and limited use to ever become reality on any scale.
Freeway type, about 8-12ft wide, paved, uses off ramps and goes over/under intersections.
That sounds like a good bike path to me, plus maintenance/cleaning including plowing in places where needed.
Al
Freeway type, about 8-12ft wide, paved, uses off ramps and goes over/under intersections. Too expensive and limited use to ever become reality on any scale.
doesn't Marin county in cali have a system like this?
For me, a good bike path depends on what I want to do. If I am crossing a city, something direct is good (we have an excellent on in Kitchener-Waterloo which moves past one of our universities and links to a rail trail - very direct IF that is the direction you wish to travel.) I almost never use the paths in the suburbs simply because I dont live there and find they wind too much. If I want to do any off roading, the path I want is basically single track which is one way and well maintained (luckily, we have that here too...)
a good bike path is part of a regional transportation grid that facilitates bicycling across municipalities for transportation and recreation.
a good bike path is part of a network of bike infrastructure that encourages bicycling longer distances across communities.
a bicyclist wouldn't need to use a bike path for a half mile trip to the grocery store (unless they lived right on the path, and the grocery store was next to it as well) but for commuters that traverse 10 plus miles of urban sprawl, a bike path as part of a transportation network is very expeditious.
reclaimed railroad rights of way work well for placing bike paths across municipalities. even current rail lines can provide space for bike paths.
doesn't Marin county in cali have a system like this?
For me, a good bike path depends on what I want to do. If I am crossing a city, something direct is good (we have an excellent on in Kitchener-Waterloo which moves past one of our universities and links to a rail trail - very direct IF that is the direction you wish to travel.) I almost never use the paths in the suburbs simply because I dont live there and find they wind too much. If I want to do any off roading, the path I want is basically single track which is one way and well maintained (luckily, we have that here too...)
I would think that would be part of the Bay Trail, so I'll have to look into that. Down toward Monterey, there are trails running alongside the freeway in some areas.
We've got one just like how Bek and Chip describe.
Tonight on my way home, I needed to turn left on to the bike path from a road. I had to wait for traffic in the right-tire track because there were 5 cyclist coming in opposing traffic and a truck passing them, playing chicken with me. Meanwhile, the cyclist to my right is waiting for all of us cyclists and the truck so he can cross. A cyclist to my left is waiting too. After I finally made the turn, I found myself crossing a bridge with 6 cyclists ahead of me, and 3 cyclists in opposing traffic.
We were all going somewhere.
Bike traffic was heavy today, but I think that qualifies as a good bike path.
Freeway type, about 8-12ft wide, paved, uses off ramps and goes over/under intersections. Too expensive and limited use to ever become reality on any scale.
Except for the width requirement (mostly 6-8ft) the MUP along the bow river (both south and north side) fit CC's requirements. FWIW I take the path most days even if it entails an extra 2.5k out of 7.5k because taking it means no traffic lights (otherwise about 15-20% of my commute time) for me, and so it ends up being faster even though it is 50% longer (but prettier:))
This is: http://www.miamivalleytrails.org/miami.htm
76 miles of awesome :)
I live a few blocks straight down from the end of a bike trail, it takes me all the way to the edge of the city at a good point where I can go any direction, including another shorter trail to go out west. Even at the peak usage times on the trail, it's not THAT bad, I might have to announce my passing a few times, but it's usually spaced out enough. I only have to cross 3 roads, and occasionally have to actually sit and wait for the light at one of them so I can make really good time on the trail. The inconvenience of the people who wonder all over the trail is minimal when I consider the alternatives: Taking a large and busy state route (45-55mph limits) with somewhat of a shoulder or a skinny, busy two lane road with bits and pieces of a very narrow shoulder.
So to try and actually answer your question, a good bike path/trail to me is one that actually goes somewhere. That makes it useful not only for recreational riders/walkers/joggers but it makes commuting or at least running errands farther out, much more enjoyable and a real possibilty. Systems of trails are even better. St. Louis (metro east area) is the only area that I've ridden with a big system of trails that you can really use to get from one area to another, like riding from Edwardsville to downtown.
As far as bike lanes, I have mixed feelings about ones in cities where people pulling in and out of parking spaces can be a hazard, and people parking in it. The only two roads with bike lane markings on them here are on roads without anything on the right. The bad things about them are:
-They always have debris all over in them, I don't know how so much gravel get all over them, especially on top of a bridge?!?
-The other big problem here is the way they are designed. One of them starts and stops and starts again on the short stretch of road it is on. It's mostly a bike lane wherever there is some road shoulder, thus causing you to jump back out in the car lane if you were in the bike lane. The other road with a marked lane seems to have had the gutter included in the width measurement, that is if they actually had a specified width. To make it even more interesting, it has a lot of lines of the stuff they used to fill in crack and to fill the crack between the road and gutter. Even in dry weather, I've felt my wheels act funny when I go over them, so it pretty much segregates the lane into 2 halves.
Oh and neither bike laned area is marked too well either.
Not sure if that's kind of what you were looking for, I went too much into rant mode, but I think you get the idea of what I was getting at.
Not sure if that's kind of what you were looking for, I went too much into rant mode, but I think you get the idea of what I was getting at.
Exactly what I am looking for actually. What bike lanes work for everyone, what don't and can we design something better?
Good bike paths, by location:
1. Short-cut path creating connectivity between low-volume residential streets so that longer trips may be made without using busy high-speed arterials.
2. Short-cut paths creating more convenient routes between adjacent developments of different land uses.
3. Rail-trail paths covering long distances with minimal junctions, especially if important trip endpoints are served, but still pleasant for recreation if not.
4. Paths along waterways, having minimal junctions, often usable for both recreational and utilitarian use.
5. Paths alongside fully controlled access highways (freeways) providing a minimal-junction route in a corridor where cycling would ordinarily be banned.
6. Paths on critical bridges that are otherwise fully controlled access highways.
7. Bike/Ped bridges over barriers such as freeways, railways, and waterways.
By design:
- paved, smooth, and well maintained
- at least 8 feet wide, 10 feet or wider if significant traffic
- adequate unpaved space on each side for stopping and for pedestrians to step aside
- unpaved mulch surface beside the trail for runners who prefer unpaved surfaces
- sight lines and curves adequate for 25 mph
- open 24 hours if not redundant to good roadways for cycling
The bike paths I've seen are typically not designed for a smooth paceline of riders zipping along at 25 m.p.h. or more to mix with joggers, rollerbladers, and dogwalkers. To be adequate, bikepaths would need to be constructed to nearly the same dimensions as automobile roadways. They need smooth cinder/grass/earthen pathways for pedestrians on either side. Secondly, a massive educational campaign would be required to instruct parents that the bikepaths wouldn't be the place to teach Lil' Johnny how to ride a two-wheeler. Ahhh, it's all wishful thinking...
Good bike paths, by location:
1. Short-cut path creating connectivity between low-volume residential streets so that longer trips may be made without using busy high-speed arterials.
2. Short-cut paths creating more convenient routes between adjacent developments of different land uses.
That is pretty good, but can you explain these two a little better? Maybe provide examples or pictures?
Motor vehicles have the roads built for them
Pedestrians have sidewalks built for them
Therefore, cyclists should have bike paths built for them
The implication there is that cyclists belong on the path, not the road. What if the path doesn't go where you want to go? I'm not a hard-core VC "purist", but as long as bikes are permitted on the road, I'll be on the road.... :-)
What do you think constitutes a "good" bike path?
I'd say criterium number one would be: no pedestrians. I'd rather mix it up with cars than peds -- at least cars (around here) maintain some semblance of lane discipline! ;-) Peds, on the other hand....
My favorite paths to use here in Columbus follow the freeways, they are basicaly access roads for maintenance on the freeways' overpasses. It seems like at least along freeways these sorts of paths could be built in much the manner that Chipcom suggested. The rights of way are already obtained all that remains is to pave them and build any necessary small scale bridges. I think it is a great way to get a large extensive system in place, that by the very design of the freeways in your city, would already go places you need to go.
As much of the existing surface streets have already been routed to avoid the freeways there would be minimal crossings needed. Once I get on the MUP here I have one crossing in five miles of riding. On the road route I would use instead I can expect to have one crossing in an 1/8'th of a mile of riding.
Every single close and to close call I've had has happened in an intersection. If we can reduce by orders of magnitude the number of intersections I have to ride through, then I think it will make my ride proportionally safer.
Freeway type, about 8-12ft wide, paved, uses off ramps and goes over/under intersections.
That's about it. I would add the location/network idea that's already been discussed in later posts. The path has to take me where I want to go in order to be "good" in my book.
Too expensive and limited use to ever become reality on any scale.
Not true. Fortunately.
--J
That is pretty good, but can you explain these two a little better? Maybe provide examples or pictures?
1. Short-cut path creating connectivity between low-volume residential streets so that longer trips may be made without using busy high-speed arterials.
In areas where the street system is dendritic, with busy thoroughfares forming the only through streets and where branching cul-de-sac neighborhoods adjacent to one another do not connect, short-cut paths between the neighborhoods allow residential streets to be used for through-bicycling rather than having to use the thoroughfares. Having the connections formed by paths rather than streets keeps through-motorists out of the neighborhood.
2. Short-cut paths creating more convenient routes between adjacent developments of different land uses.
Again, in areas where the road system has a very low density of through streets, it is not uncommon for developments to back up against one another, e.g. a neighborhood and a shopping center, but have no direct connection. Cycling between two points a stone's throw apart (but separated by streams, fences, woods, etc. ) may require a mile long ride, with a substantial distance being on a high-speed thoroughfare.
John Allen's illustrated article on sprawl and useful short-cut paths:
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sprawl.htm
My article about street layout and suburban walkability:
http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/sidewalks/buffers.htm
I'd say criterium number one would be: no pedestrians. I'd rather mix it up with cars than peds -- at least cars (around here) maintain some semblance of lane discipline! ;-) Peds, on the other hand....
Thus, to me one of the indicia of a "good" bike path is seperate, directional pedestrian lane alongside of the bikepath
I'll answer by saying what kind I don't like: glorified sidewalk that differs from a sidewalk mainly in the presence of stop signs at every crossroad and large driveway, especially where it runs next to a really nice piece of roadway.
That's about it. I would add the location/network idea that's already been discussed in later posts. The path has to take me where I want to go in order to be "good" in my book.
Not true. Fortunately.
--J
Maybe over there. ;) As of 1998 (the last time I had to approve a road project) the cost of building 1 mile of highway (4 lanes, curb & gutter), was about one million (US) per mile, not including the costs of acquiring land/right-of-ways or bridges. I figure a paved path with under/overpasses and exit ramps would cost about 100k per mile. For short 'shortcuts', probably a doable cost, but way out of the ballpark for any significant distance, especially when cities are hard pressed to just keep up their roads, let alone build new ones for cyclists only...which the general public would perceive as recreational facilities more than anything else.
I don't like sidewalk bike paths. Refuse to use them unless they are like Lakeshore Drive in Chicago or something like that (that's a pretty wide sidewalk and a pretty serious rule against riding in the street.)
The best bike paths take you behind people's homes so that you're along a creek or other natural, undeveloped area, where you can see birds and smell the fresh air and all the other non-cyclist users actually prefer walking off the path.
Examples: Obern Trail in Santa Barbara, Ventura River trail to Ojai.
Freeway type, about 8-12ft wide, paved, uses off ramps and goes over/under intersections. Too expensive and limited use to ever become reality on any scale.
This describes the Cherry Creek Trail north (Confluence Park to Cherry Creek State Park) Cherry Creek Trail south (E470 south to Franktown), the Platte River Greenway (104th Ave to C-470), Bear Creek Trail (confluence with the Platte to Bear Creek Res), Clear Creek Trail (confluence with the Platte to Golden), C470 Trail (I-25 to I70), Sand Creek (confluence with the Platte to Aurora) and almost E470 here in the Denver area. The system isn't perfect but those 7 trails represent around 250 miles of mostly freeway like bicycling. There's also the Summit County system around Breckenridge which also connects to the Vail system over Vail Pass. That also connects (almost completed) to the Glenwood Canyon system which all together is another 100+ miles in Colorado. There are others in Colorado Springs, Durango and Grand Junction.
Much of my morning commute is on part of the Clear Creek trail which affords me 7 of my 10 miles without having to worry about stopsigns, lights or traffic...and few pedestrians.
Glenwood Canyon is quite possibly the most spectacular bike path on the planet.
I'd say criterium number one would be: no pedestrians. I'd rather mix it up with cars than peds -- at least cars (around here) maintain some semblance of lane discipline! ;-) Peds, on the other hand....
The Cherry Creek Path in Denver handles this problem nicely where ped. traffic and bicycle traffic are at their densest. For the 3 miles from Colfax Ave to the confluence with the Platte River, the trail is split into a pedestrian trail and a bicycle trail. When the construction started on this section of trail, I thought it was a waste of money but in practice it works very well. This area has lots of both ped and bicycle traffic because it runs right past 3 colleges (all on the same campus).
I don't like sidewalk bike paths. Refuse to use them unless they are like Lakeshore Drive in Chicago or something like that (that's a pretty wide sidewalk and a pretty serious rule against riding in the street.)
I would happily ride Chicago's Lakeshore Drive path. At least, I would bike the sections I used when I visited. I consider those parts to be a waterfront path, not a sidewalk path. There were only a few vehicular junctions on it, and the surroundings were very pleasant.
I spotted a couple of choke points and crossings that were less than ideal, but not bad enough to object to the principle of a waterfront path. When I was there the path traffic wasn't very busy; if it got too congested on a really nice day I can imagine wanting to ride on some roadway sections of Lakeshore Drive if travel time were a priority.
If I remember correctly, the parts I saw had separate paths for pedestrians and cyclists. I think I was south of the Navy Pier. Am I mistaken?
the ideal bike path:
needs to actually GO SOMEWHERE - preferably be usable to reach a wide variety of important destinations
separated from autos - in other words, NOT a sidepath
for bikes only, NOT an MUP
straight - NO WINDING OR CURVES
mostly flat with some hills
well maintained (NO CRACKS, BUMPS, OR UNEVEN PAVEMENT OF ANY KIND)
well-lit at night
well-patrolled so it doesn't become a gang haunt
underpasses or overpasses at ALL street crossings
needless to say, a path with all the above characteristics isn't happening anytime soon here
making it freeway-like with onramps/offramps would be cool also but honestly I can see a lot of crashes happening with that kind of setup, especially during warm weather when there are a lot of cyclists who don't know how to ride properly out there
the ideal bike path:
needs to actually GO SOMEWHERE - preferably be usable to reach a wide variety of important destinations
separated from autos - in other words, NOT a sidepath
for bikes only, NOT an MUP
straight - NO WINDING OR CURVES
mostly flat with some hills
well maintained (NO CRACKS, BUMPS, OR UNEVEN PAVEMENT OF ANY KIND)
well-lit at night
well-patrolled so it doesn't become a gang haunt
underpasses or overpasses at ALL street crossings
needless to say, a path with all the above characteristics isn't happening anytime soon here
making it freeway-like with onramps/offramps would be cool also but honestly I can see a lot of crashes happening with that kind of setup, especially during warm weather when there are a lot of cyclists who don't know how to ride properly out there
Straight??? How in the world are you going to get "straight" anywhere? Even train tracks go around curves and corners... get real man, don't make things impossible.
In my humble opinion, a good path should be like a good freeway... it goes no where specific, but it does act like a feeder between major areas. A path will never go from your front door to the bike shop for instance, but it should go from your part of town to the part of town where your bike shop or work or school exists... but expect to take local streets between a path and your door.
One thing a good path should do is help you preserve inertia... it should not force a cyclist to stop for every darn intersection in town... just as a freeway allows motorists to get up to a certain speed and hold that speed for a long distance, that is what a good path should do.
A good bike path would get me from point A to point B better then the local roads. I can deal with the peds. I can deal with the dark. I can deal with the trash. Its' the drug dealers where the Cherry Creek trail hits the Platte River Trail that bothered me. The best "bike paths" I have ever seen were Interstate shoulders. Flat, smooth, no peds, clean (except for I-5 in CA), and a constant tailwind from all the trucks and cars.
A good bike path would get me from point A to point B better then the local roads. I can deal with the peds. I can deal with the dark. I can deal with the trash. Its' the drug dealers where the Cherry Creek trail hits the Platte River Trail that bothered me. The best "bike paths" I have ever seen were Interstate shoulders. Flat, smooth, no peds, clean (except for I-5 in CA), and a constant tailwind from all the trucks and cars.
How long has it been since you left Denver? Confluence Park is in the middle of one of the hottest areas in town now. Very upscale and very trendy. We can thank REI for that...their flagship store is the anchor for that whole area.
OK here are some pics of a good bike path... Notice the width which you can see in by comparing the cyclists to the path (yeah that is my commuter ride in the first pic.) Note the underpasses, note the nice bridge, and take note of the "on ramp" connecting the path to the regular surface streets. This path is about 11 miles long. The good news is that for about 6 miles it is nice and wide with good sight lines. The path paralles a new freeway, and I just found out last night that the freeway was laid onto an old road that ran through the area that cyclists had long used, so the path simply maintained connectivity that would have otherwise been lost due to the limited access freeway. I also know that the path used the same environmental impact report, which is why it was built right next to the freeway.
Now I never rode that area before, never really had a need to go out that way, so I don't know how the old road was, but due to the need for a freeway, I can imagine that the old road might have been a rather "hairy" ride in places for cyclists. I now ride the path simply because it IS there... meaning that a "facility" brought in at least one new cyclist to the area... and judging by some others I see, I would bet it brought more than one cyclist.
Now the bad news: The path does not cross all streets with underpasses... there are at least 3 at grade intersections... two of which are not bad simply because there is not a lot of traffic... yet. The other one is a joke, and cyclists have to really be on their toes to cross while motorists leave the freeway and make right turns on red while not even looking... in spite of loads of warning signs... the motorists just fly off the ramp and make the right turn across the bike path connection as if it doesn't exist. And the at grade intersections... all cyclists have are cross walks and stupid walk buttons... more on that in a second.
The part of the path in the pics is what I want to highlight as "a good path." It is wide, it saves inertia by being below grade, and you can ride fast... I do 25+ on this thing and love it. It connects "areas" as I mentioned in an earlier note, it connects Sorrento Valley with Poway, one being an area where people work, the other, where people live. And along the way there are now growing communities (sort of like mushrooms popping up) due to the freeway, and the path will serve those communities also.
The downsides:
1) The few at grade intersections... which could have used inductive sensors, vice walk buttons which treat cyclists like rolling pedestrians vice "drivers of vehicles." Oh well, you have to stop for the idiot motorists anyway. BTW the busiest interesection has received funding approval for a tunnel below grade.
2) The lack of signage. The one sign I show is perhaps the one sign there is... I know where this path is, yet I have ridden right past it on the connecting surface streets, as it doesn't have any signs at all.
3) It has been around for about 3 years and it still is not on any local maps... you have to know it is there. (remember no signs either)
4) It noisy. Being right next to the freeway, often you have to yell if you are riding with someone else.
5) Further west it is an MUP, and it is narrower, and it does have blind curves... not good. It is also paralled by a horse path... not a bad thing, except every once in a while the horses cross and leave "deposits."
6) It is not lit. But then the freeway is pretty dark too... so maybe the lighting just has not been installed yet.
Freeway type, about 8-12ft wide, paved, uses off ramps and goes over/under intersections. Too expensive and limited use to ever become reality on any scale.
Except here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/MidtownGreenwayTrail6.jpg
Seperate ped lane, seperate east and west bike lanes, on and off ramps (at right in photo), whole thing is mostly one level below street grade. Goes border to border east/west across Minneapolis.
Those paths look really nice much better then the ones I see here, although MUP scenic route on the coast or the creek trail system is pretty nice.
http://www.trailsofanchorage.com/KP163A.jpg
I love trails that follow creeks. They duck under streets and highways leaving me miles of intersection free riding. Columbus has two such trails, one next to the Olentangy River and the other following Alum Creek. After that I like rail trails especially out in the country. The Miami Trail is awesome. Our ride leader likes to takes us on a down and back at 144 miles each summer before RAIN.
Most of the trails are empty of users for the colder six months of the year and still pretty empty early in the morning in the summer.
Straight??? How in the world are you going to get "straight" anywhere? Even train tracks go around curves and corners... get real man, don't make things impossible.
hey man, I said IDEAL. a lot of the other conditions I listed are NEVER going to happen either (bikes only? well-patrolled? not in this lifetime... at least not in this area anyway).
I listed straight as a condition because a lot of the paths in our area are anything but... almost all of them are winding with a lot of sharp turns which slow the pace of cyclists using them, probably a good thing because they're really narrow and shared with multiple users, but it makes them less practical for commuting and transportation.
perfectly straight isn't possible I know, but LESS sharp turns would definitely make the paths better.
hey man, I said IDEAL. a lot of the other conditions I listed are NEVER going to happen either (bikes only? well-patrolled? not in this lifetime... at least not in this area anyway).
I listed straight as a condition because a lot of the paths in our area are anything but... almost all of them are winding with a lot of sharp turns which slow the pace of cyclists using them, probably a good thing because they're really narrow and shared with multiple users, but it makes them less practical for commuting and transportation.
perfectly straight isn't possible I know, but LESS sharp turns would definitely make the paths better.
What you really mean are wide radius turns or curves, such that speeds can be maintained and sightlines are long enough to not make blind turns. Straight is just not practical... especially considering that most towns are built along some geographical feature such as a water way, which probably is anything but "straight."
Yeah, wide radius turns are what make hiways and railroads possible, and the same design criteria should be applied to bike paths, to allow at a minimum, constant 25MPH speeds. Otherwise cyclists are treated as nothing more than rolling pedestrians... and that simply limits the practicality of a "good path."
I love paths that go by creeks, too. I just love ducks. And egrets and herons. The path I ride to work each day has a lot of hawks. A couple of times they've been close enough to see individual feathers. And for a while there on my way home from work I would see thousands of crows sitting in trees. Crows are boring, but when you see thousands of them it's really freaky!
I sometimes get really annoyed by the noise of autos and the smell. I often can't wait to get onto the path where things quiet down, I can see greenery and birds. I don't have to deal with traffic. It's wonderful.
I think a lot of people would like an alternative to traffic. Good bike paths provide that. A real alternative to traffic: birds, creeks, trees and quietude. I can actually hear the classical music playing on my iPod.
The Minuteman commuter bikeway (http://www.minutemanbikeway.org/Pages/basics.html) is a good example. It parallels a major roadway (Mass ave) and is very well designed. Access is very good. At the bedford end, it's all industrial parks, and at the cambridge end, it's the Alewife MBTA stop. There was a problem with theft / vandalism for some time, but this had diminshed since the T police increased their presence and visibility there.
Judging by how heavily it's used, I'd say people want more like this.
Good bike paths, by location:
1. Short-cut path creating connectivity between low-volume residential streets so that longer trips may be made without using busy high-speed arterials.
2. Short-cut paths creating more convenient routes between adjacent developments of different land uses.
3. Rail-trail paths covering long distances with minimal junctions, especially if important trip endpoints are served, but still pleasant for recreation if not.
4. Paths along waterways, having minimal junctions, often usable for both recreational and utilitarian use.
5. Paths alongside fully controlled access highways (freeways) providing a minimal-junction route in a corridor where cycling would ordinarily be banned.
6. Paths on critical bridges that are otherwise fully controlled access highways.
7. Bike/Ped bridges over barriers such as freeways, railways, and waterways.
By design:
- paved, smooth, and well maintained
- at least 8 feet wide, 10 feet or wider if significant traffic
- adequate unpaved space on each side for stopping and for pedestrians to step aside
- unpaved mulch surface beside the trail for runners who prefer unpaved surfaces
- sight lines and curves adequate for 25 mph
- open 24 hours if not redundant to good roadways for cycling
+1 Good synopsis of my thoughts.
My only other comment is it depends a bit on what the intended usage or target users of the path are. I don't like side paths but it could be argued that they are helpful in areas where they are intended for slow speed local neighbourhood traffic like younger riders (near schools maybe) when there is clear expectation that faster through riders still have full rights to the roadway.
That sounds like a good bike path to me, plus maintenance/cleaning including plowing in places where needed.
Al
Glad that you added the emphasis Al.
-G
Good bike paths, by location:
1. Short-cut path creating connectivity between low-volume residential streets so that longer trips may be made without using busy high-speed arterials.
2. Short-cut paths creating more convenient routes between adjacent developments of different land uses.
3. Rail-trail paths covering long distances with minimal junctions, especially if important trip endpoints are served, but still pleasant for recreation if not.
4. Paths along waterways, having minimal junctions, often usable for both recreational and utilitarian use.
5. Paths alongside fully controlled access highways (freeways) providing a minimal-junction route in a corridor where cycling would ordinarily be banned.
6. Paths on critical bridges that are otherwise fully controlled access highways.
7. Bike/Ped bridges over barriers such as freeways, railways, and waterways.
By design:
- paved, smooth, and well maintained
- at least 8 feet wide, 10 feet or wider if significant traffic
- adequate unpaved space on each side for stopping and for pedestrians to step aside
- unpaved mulch surface beside the trail for runners who prefer unpaved surfaces
- sight lines and curves adequate for 25 mph
- open 24 hours if not redundant to good roadways for cycling
I like this description too. But I will add that there need to be an appropriate set of rules/laws that govern the traffic. Particularly if one share's Bek's vision of a MUP network for transportation/commuting.
To give an example, here are two sets of rules which are technically for the same paths in Arlington, VA.
http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/EnvironmentalServices/dot/planning/bike/EnvironmentalServicesBike3.aspx
http://www.nvrpa.org/trailrules.html
I prefer the first set of rules since they are more explicit.
One that goes right by my house and that I can take anywhere I might want to go. It should go by any of my friends houses I may want to visit, go to my workplace, to all stores, etc.. For me a nice wide paved shoulder on the current road system, properly marked with a freshly painted fog line would do the trick. Add a little signage to remind drivers what the shoulder is there for.
To make it great require stringent training for drivers. Enforce strict penalties for driving violations. Encourage courtesy among people.
What do you think constitutes a "good" bike path?
This discussion is completely open to anything and everything from form (like sidewalk style MUP to segregated lane), to maintenance, to where a bike path belongs (maybe only along higher speed limit roads or only where it is completely segregated from car traffic like bisecting a park). Or maybe you think that there are no "good" bike paths and we should always ride in the road?
If the Mods feel this belongs in VC then so be it, but personally this is an advocacy issue for me as I would like to hear what other experienced cyclists have advocated for and what worked and did not.
SW Ohio rail trails (http://www.miamivalleytrails.org/miamivalleytrails.htm)
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.