And if you've had the pleasure of walking or cycling on the splendid pedestrian-bike path that runs along the newly restored, mile-long Yahara River Parkway, you'll appreciate why.
Before the 12-year parkway project was officially completed June 9, biking from the north shore of Lake Monona to Tenney Park on Lake Mendota usually took 15 minutes, notes Captain Tenacity, aka Ed Jepsen, the driving force behind the undertaking. It also meant risking your life crossing heavily traveled East Johnson Street and East Washington Avenue, he says.
Now, the trip takes five minutes at most.
"People tell me they can't believe how much quicker this makes it," says Jepsen, who last week was acting like a proud papa as he showed off the scenic 101-year-old parkway, which connects the Marquette and Tenney-Lapham neighborhoods.
Though the 56-year-old east side resident emphasizes the project was a "great team effort" involving hundreds (he gives special credit to recently retired Ald. Judy Olson, neighborhood activists Richard Linster and Bob Queen, and his colleagues in the Friends of the Yahara River Parkway, a nonprofit group), the general consensus is this was Ed's baby.
Which explains why Jepsen and his wife, Kristin Groth, threw a party at their Oakbridge Avenue home shortly after the June 9 ribbon-cutting ceremony that was attended by Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, assorted city staffers and about 60 neighbors and parkway advocates.
"Ed is such a great asset because he had a clear vision of how the neighborhoods could be linked by the parkway," says David Flesch, a Dane County court commissioner and Tenney-Lapham neighborhood resident. "He went to all the planning meetings, lined up all the political support, got the neighbors involved. He planted the trees, watered the trees. He did everything."
Jepsen, who in his other life works for the Department of Natural Resources, estimates that he's contributed more than 5,000 hours to the project since it was first proposed by the two neighborhoods in the early 1990s and approved in 1997 by a city steering committee that Jepsen co-chaired.
At that time, the parkway was "like a series of sausage links that were pinched by the bridges (at East Johnson and East Washington)," Jepsen says. "This project opens the links up. Now there's no impediment each time you come to a bridge."
That's because the project features two new underpasses: a tunnel that runs under the East Johnson Street bridge at Tenney Park and another, wider underpass beneath the handsome, new Prairie-style bridge on East Washington Avenue.
"It's made a huge difference," says Molly Reineck, who was jogging on the path one recent morning. Reineck, a 28-year-old social worker, says she and her fiance, Reed Damon, recently purchased a home in the Tenney area and now use the path to bike to restaurants and other businesses on Williamson Street.
One quibble: "I wish they'd put more lights on it, because it's really dark at night," she says.
The total cost of the project was roughly $4.3 million ($2.7 million of which were federal funds).
And while Jepsen is the first to admit that that's not cheap, he suggests it's small potatoes when you consider the benefits for east side residents.
"I think you have to ask, What do we want the city to be?' " he says. "And if you live on the isthmus, you're very sensitive to the issue of traffic. That's why isthmus residents generally are very supportive of mass transit, commuter rail, the trolley idea and whatnot.
"The concept here was to have a greenspace from lake to lake that would be accessible for both boaters and people who walk and bike along it."
Still, there were some formidable obstacles to overcome, Jepsen says.
Among them: securing the necessary funding, mostly through grants; persuading city officials and engineers to go along with what the neighborhoods wanted; and alleviating the concerns of residents and business people who questioned whether it made sense to convert a large section of Thornton Avenue -- which had served as a popular shortcut for drivers wanting to get from Williamson Street to East Washington Avenue -- into a bike path-greenspace.
Jepsen says he understood the concerns.
"Change is always difficult," he says. "But as I said at the opening, if you're going to have a great city you've got to have great infrastructure. And that's not just roads and bridges, it's also greenspace and transportation systems, the things that knit neighborhoods together."
Jepsen acknowledges that some people are flabbergasted when they find out how much time he devoted to the project. What was the incentive?
"OK, if you want the truth, I'm obsessive," he says with a laugh. "I guess deep down I've always wanted to be an urban planner. And my philosophy is, if you really care about something, then get involved and do something about it."
In fact, if there's one thing he's learned over the years, it's that there's nothing quite as fulfilling as volunteering, says Jepsen, who also helps out at the Luke House and the Interfaith Hospitality Network, both of which serve the homeless.
Besides, you never know where it might lead, he says.
Case in point: In 1998, while attending a parkway planning meeting hosted by the Urban Open Space Foundation, he noticed an attractive woman taking notes. Intrigued, he later called her, introduced himself and asked her out.
Two years later, Captain Tenacity and Kristin Groth were married.
"See what can happen when you volunteer?" he says.
sggoodri
06-29-07, 01:27 PM
the project features two new underpasses: a tunnel that runs under the East Johnson Street bridge at Tenney Park and another, wider underpass beneath the handsome, new Prairie-style bridge on East Washington Avenue.
Providing shorter travel routes is good. A well designed path on which cyclists can operate in a manner that does not conflict with ordinary rules for drivers is good.
Does this path require cyclists to operate contrary to the traffic rules for drivers of vehicles in order to enjoy a shorter route? If so, why? If not, why post in this sub-forum?
skanking biker
06-29-07, 01:41 PM
Perhaps I should have labelled the thread "Bike path makes travel easier, faster, and less stressful."
Apparently the denzins of Madison disagree w/ JF's assertion that bike paths make riding more difficult and do not decrease the stress for riders.
John Forester
06-29-07, 05:47 PM
Perhaps I should have labelled the thread "Bike path makes travel easier, faster, and less stressful."
Apparently the denzins of Madison disagree w/ JF's assertion that bike paths make riding more difficult and do not decrease the stress for riders.
I have not made such an unqualified claim. I have always stated that there do exist a few locations where a good transportational bike path can be built, but always with the caveat that there are so few such locations that they cannot form a transportation system. Furthermore, I have always stated that even well-designed bike paths, if they attract the quantity of traffic that would justify their cost, are likely to be filled with traffic that operates without obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which therefore forms a great danger to cyclists attempting to operate at normally attainable roadway speeds. It is commonplace that paths that provide good service at morning commuting hours, when most of the traffic is go-to-work cyclists with some sense of the rules, they fail to provide the same service in the evening commuting time, when much of the traffic operates in ways that disobey the rules of the road.
I note that the only traffic described in the announcement is that of jogging.
Some of you discussants are so strongly devoted to trying to demonstrate something deleterious in what you think is my position (motoring for all) or what is my position (cyclists ought to operate as drivers of vehicles, with appropriate social and governmental support) that you advance illogical arguments and erroneous facts to support your faith. The result that you have demonstrated is that you have only illogical arguments and erroneous facts. That's your fault, not mine.
Bekologist
06-29-07, 11:11 PM
I have always stated that there do exist a few locations where a good transportational bike path can be built.. a few locations in most cities, johhny? seems to be the case in most big and mid sized cities I've been in.
....always with the caveat that there are so few such locations that they cannot form a transportation system your caveat is lousy. Bike paths and MUPS can form part of a transportation system for bicycling across communities.
your damnification of bike infrastructure is outlandishly fallacious, jhon.
joejack951
06-30-07, 08:32 AM
a few locations in most cities, johhny? seems to be the case in most big and mid sized cities I've been in.
your caveat is lousy. Bike paths and MUPS can form part of a transportation system for bicycling across communities.
your damnification of bike infrastructure is outlandishly fallacious, jhon.
Let's see $4.3 million and 12 years to get this: "The concept here was to have a greenspace from lake to lake that would be accessible for both boaters and people who walk and bike along it." Sounds like a recreational facility that may see some transportational use. Wouldn't you rather see that same money put towards widening the outside lane of the busy arterial that connects the same areas if transportational cycling is your goal?
Bekologist
06-30-07, 08:49 AM
cities like Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Santa Barbara sounds like Green Bay, and many others have MUPS that can and do serve transportational bicyclists. Denver has over 200 miles of transportationally appropriate path as part of that metro bike network.
I'd like to see greater emphasis on bike facilties of all kinds, joe. Wide lanes, bike lanes, bike paths, driver education, public service campaigns, legislative advocacy, subsidies for bicycling, better bike racks, etc.
all of that is part and parcel of encouraging and facilitating bicycling. not just wide lanes.
joejack951
06-30-07, 08:56 AM
all of that is part and parcel of encouraging and facilitating bicycling. not just wide lanes.
Maybe, but where is the effort and money best spent?
Bekologist
06-30-07, 09:35 AM
this is my opinion, but merely making roads with wider lanes for better distracted driving by texting, cell phone chatting, movie watching drivers is a total bicycling advocacy copeout and a bow-down to autocentric road design.
cities that are more "bikeable" have broad, diverse bike facilties implementation and bike networks including a diversity of on road and off road accomodations.
RobertHurst
06-30-07, 09:36 AM
Maybe, but where is the effort and money best spent?
Of course, this depends on local concerns. Different places have different needs, some of which may need to be addressed urgently at the expense of anything else. But speaking very generally, transportation dollars are best spent on fully separated class one bikeways through urban areas, imo. It's been said that there are not many places where transportationally useful paths could be built -- there may be some truth in that, but with a good MUP a little goes a long way. In cities where just one can be installed properly it is likely to have a significant, noticeable positive effect for local cyclists that far outweighs any residual negative effects on access to roads. I think there are a lot of folks living in places where it is hard to imagine transportationally significant MUPs; I hope those people don't screw it up for others who could really use these facilities.
Robert
John Forester
06-30-07, 10:10 AM
a few locations in most cities, johhny? seems to be the case in most big and mid sized cities I've been in.
your caveat is lousy. Bike paths and MUPS can form part of a transportation system for bicycling across communities.
your damnification of bike infrastructure is outlandishly fallacious, jhon.
Oh, my, my, my, you do expose your rage, don't you, by the illogical nature of your comments? To support your sneer, please provide data on the lengths of transportational MUPs versus the lengths of the streets in the same areas. Or, if you can put it together, use the length of the locations that would allow good transportational MUPs to be built. I think that you will find the length of existing, or reasonably possible, good transportational MUPs to be far smaller than the length of the streets that cyclists already use.
The comment about there being insufficient locations for good transportationally useful MUPs to form a system is intended to caution those who argue for a complete system of MUPs with the argument that this would avoid the necessity of using traffic-cycling skills. There are such people, still.
Roody
06-30-07, 03:22 PM
We have a beautiful Rivertrail here in Lansing, a MUP that's totally segregated from motor traffic. It runs diagonally across the city, so it makes distances shorter for many trips. I like it and use it a lot. It's quite pretty, and it's easy riding becaus it follows the river, hence no hills.
But I sure don't use it when I'm in a hurry. Despite the shorter distances, you have to ride much more slowly, or you'll hit somebody or something for sure.
Less stressful? No, not really. I mutter under my breath a lot, because the idiotic walkers and cyclists ride all over the trail and weave and dodge with no preictability whatsoever. Not to mention the geese and woodchucks! I wear out my brake pads on that trail.
I don't see trails being superior to roads until they limit them to bikes, and put cops on them to enforce vehicular safety rules.
genec
06-30-07, 03:36 PM
I don't see trails being superior to roads until they limit them to bikes, and put cops on them to enforce vehicular safety rules.
Oh like the cops now enforce the rules on the streets... right... :rolleyes:
John E
06-30-07, 05:03 PM
I evaluate roads, bike lanes, and MUPs on a case-by-case basis. I particularly like San Diego's Rose Canyon bikeway, for which there is no reasonably direct alternative. I also like the San Luis Rey River path, but would admittedly feel differently if it were more heavily used. I tend to use it eastbound to avoid a couple of nasty free merges and diverges at access ramps, but use the faster and more direct 78 expressway westbound.
A complete and usable bicycle transportation system must include road access and wide outside lanes or usable shoulders on high-speed arterials, but these do not preclude opportunistic MUPs and Class I facilities.
sbhikes
06-30-07, 06:08 PM
Among them: securing the necessary funding, mostly through grants; persuading city officials and engineers to go along with what the neighborhoods wanted; and alleviating the concerns of residents and business people who questioned whether it made sense to convert a large section of Thornton Avenue -- which had served as a popular shortcut for drivers wanting to get from Williamson Street to East Washington Avenue -- into a bike path-greenspace.
Jepsen says he understood the concerns.
"Change is always difficult," he says. "But as I said at the opening, if you're going to have a great city you've got to have great infrastructure. And that's not just roads and bridges, it's also greenspace and transportation systems, the things that knit neighborhoods together."
I'm glad there are people like this around who care about great infrastructure, and who are willing to do the work to build and knit together neighborhoods the way people want them to be. I'm grateful not everyone (and gratefully hardly anyone outside the rarified world of BF) thinks like JoeJack, John Forester and other like-minded obstructionists.
joejack951
07-03-07, 08:51 AM
I'm glad there are people like this around who care about great infrastructure, and who are willing to do the work to build and knit together neighborhoods the way people want them to be. I'm grateful not everyone (and gratefully hardly anyone outside the rarified world of BF) thinks like JoeJack, John Forester and other like-minded obstructionists.
As soon as the bike path advocates start caring about cyclists rights to the road I'll start caring about 1 mile long $4.3 million shortcut paths. Too many bike path advocates are more than happy to declare every road too dangerous to bike on in exchange for getting a bike path installed. I see a huge problem with this.
Bekologist
07-03-07, 09:12 AM
joe, your misconceptions are alarming.
Brian Ratliff
07-03-07, 09:14 AM
As soon as the bike path advocates start caring about cyclists rights to the road I'll start caring about 1 mile long $4.3 million shortcut paths. Too many bike path advocates are more than happy to declare every road too dangerous to bike on in exchange for getting a bike path installed. I see a huge problem with this.
non sequitur? It seems you already care. Perhaps a bit too much. I mean, we all pay for some stuff that we don't agree with or don't like. It's the price to pay for living in the USA. Right now, I happen to be paying for a $4 billion/month war that I wish I wasn't. For that amount of coin, we could make a serious dent in a whole slew of social problems. Alas though, this is a democracy and sometimes we pay for things we don't like.
Sorry, I'll stop with the P&R stuff now. I just want to make a point that you seem unjustifiably resentful for paying for things that a majority of your local population seem to want.
joejack951
07-03-07, 12:51 PM
non sequitur? It seems you already care. Perhaps a bit too much. I mean, we all pay for some stuff that we don't agree with or don't like. It's the price to pay for living in the USA. Right now, I happen to be paying for a $4 billion/month war that I wish I wasn't. For that amount of coin, we could make a serious dent in a whole slew of social problems. Alas though, this is a democracy and sometimes we pay for things we don't like.
Sorry, I'll stop with the P&R stuff now. I just want to make a point that you seem unjustifiably resentful for paying for things that a majority of your local population seem to want.
I shouldn't have brought the money issue into it. That clouds my argument as you are correct in stating that we all pay for a lot of things that we don't agree with. The main point that I wanted to stress has to do with giving up rights to the road to get these paths installed.
John Forester
07-03-07, 01:17 PM
I'm glad there are people like this around who care about great infrastructure, and who are willing to do the work to build and knit together neighborhoods the way people want them to be. I'm grateful not everyone (and gratefully hardly anyone outside the rarified world of BF) thinks like JoeJack, John Forester and other like-minded obstructionists.
Diane considers the value of this facility to be in "knit[ting] together neighborhoods the way people want them to be." Madison is rather an hour-glass shaped city, with lakes on each side of the narrow waist. The trail under discussion crosses the narrow waist along the valley of the river that joins the two lakes. The total distance is 1.1 miles. The large part of the cost, it appears, was in tunneling under the major two of the six roads that cross the valley, possibly on bridges. The neighborhoods that would find themselves connected by this trail, in addition to the existing connections by streets, constitute about 30 city block-lengths of streets.
It is rather obvious that there is little transportational potential along this route, particularly since the fish in the lakes at each end do not ride bicycles. This trail is clearly largely a recreational trail, and may well be very nice for that purpose. I have no objections at all to having such a trail completed, provided that it is done with park or recreational funds. I strongly object to calling this a significant facility for bicycle transportation. Doing so is symptomatic of the foolishness of our governmental program for bicycle transportation.
The presence of this trail on this list, devoted to vehicular cycling and associated aspects of bicycle transportation, is an irrelevant affront to many of us produced by whomever introduced this facility into this forum.
I-Like-To-Bike
07-03-07, 01:23 PM
The main point that I wanted to stress has to do with giving up rights to the road to get these paths installed.
What rights to the road have you been forced to give up due to the installation of bike paths?
I-Like-To-Bike
07-03-07, 01:25 PM
The presence of this trail on this list, devoted to vehicular cycling and associated aspects of bicycle transportation, is an irrelevant affront to many of us produced by whomever introduced this facility into this forum.
And nobody knows better than yourself about relevant affronts, eh?
joejack951
07-03-07, 01:28 PM
What rights to the road have you been forced to give up due to the installation of bike paths?
In areas where I ride daily? None. There's no room to put bike paths either so I probably don't have much to worry about. The closest bike ban due to an existing path is the Schuykill River path in Philly where cyclists are banned from the roadway during morning rush hour. Plenty of other bike bans have occurred in other cities that have been brought to my attention in this forum. As a cyclist who values his right to the road, I don't see any of these bans (notice that I didn't say "bike paths" in place of bans) as a good thing and would like to prevent more of them from occurring.
sbhikes
07-03-07, 02:02 PM
And nobody knows better than yourself about relevant affronts, eh?
:lol: Good one!
Brian Ratliff
07-03-07, 03:54 PM
You know what's funny. JF always addresses Diane in the third person, as if she is on display and he is talking to someone else. Everyone else (who happen to all be male) he addresses directly. It is, really, the only time in my life that I have seen such a display of ingrained sexism.
Sorry, just a little observation. Carry on.
sbhikes
07-03-07, 04:23 PM
You know what's funny. JF always addresses Diane in the third person, as if she is on display and he is talking to someone else. Everyone else (who happen to all be male) he addresses directly. It is, really, the only time in my life that I have seen such a display of ingrained sexism.
Sorry, just a little observation. Carry on.
Just about every interaction he has with me is like that. Plus he's got me confused with someone he actually met once. It is so strange and disturbing to read anything he writes I keep him on ignore. Otherwise it's like a parallel universe colliding with reality.
skanking biker
07-03-07, 04:29 PM
This trail is clearly largely a recreational trail, and may well be very nice for that purpose. I have no objections at all to having such a trail completed, provided that it is done with park or recreational funds. I strongly object to calling this a significant facility for bicycle transportation. Doing so is symptomatic of the foolishness of our governmental program for bicycle transportation..
errrrrr. Try again later. This trail, while used for recreation by some, is also used by many for transportation to and from work. WHile this particular trail is quite small, its significant lies in the fact that it connected 2 other major trail systems in the city, thus making it easier to reach the downtown via bike without having to deal with rushhour traffic on East Washington Avenue. This trail is simply one of many connector routes in madison's comprehensive bicycle transportation system.
Bekologist
07-03-07, 09:09 PM
yes, many cities have trail networks that provide a VERY VIABLE spine to a bicycle transportation system.
Denny Koll
07-03-07, 09:19 PM
In Michigan the trail system will hopefully link up in the near future so I can ride the 150 miles to Grand Rapids from Saginaw if I choose to. Thank God for the trail system which makes bicycle transportation feasible and fun. Riding the two lane highways for that trip would be suicide. Trails are safe and enjoyable.
Roody
07-05-07, 03:15 PM
In Michigan the trail system will hopefully link up in the near future so I can ride the 150 miles to Grand Rapids from Saginaw if I choose to. Thank God for the trail system which makes bicycle transportation feasible and fun. Riding the two lane highways for that trip would be suicide. Trails are safe and enjoyable.
Either you live in bizarro-Michigan or you don't understand the concept of transportational cycling. The trails here are becoming wonderful recreational facilities, and they are paid for with recreational funds, as they should be. But they have nothing to do with transportational cycling, which is the topic of this thread. A 150 mile commute, or trip to Meijer's, is out of the question for all but the most diehard transportational cyclists. :rolleyes:
Also, many on the touring forum or road bike forum would question your characterization of road riding as "suicidal."
skanking biker
07-05-07, 04:29 PM
Either you live in bizarro-Michigan or you don't understand the concept of transportational cycling. The trails here are becoming wonderful recreational facilities, and they are paid for with recreational funds, as they should be. But they have nothing to do with transportational cycling, which is the topic of this thread. A 150 mile commute, or trip to Meijer's, is out of the question for all but the most diehard transportational cyclists. :rolleyes:
Also, many on the touring forum or road bike forum would question your characterization of road riding as "suicidal."
What difference does it make WHY the person is riding? The important thing is the act of riding. Riders have all sorts of different motivations for riding to any given place. When I ride to work I am doing so for transportation but also for the pleasure of enjoying nature at sunrise---killing two birds with one stone if you will. What if the guy is riding 150 miles to visit a friend---isn't that "transportational"?
Also, I really don't care from whence the funds to build cycling infrastructure come. Money is money, all green, and all spends the same way.
I-Like-To-Bike
07-05-07, 05:21 PM
Also, I really don't care from whence the funds to build cycling infrastructure come. Money is money, all green, and all spends the same way.
Trying to make some sort of ethical/legal issue of "Transportational" funding sources vis-à-vis "Recreational" funding sources of bicycling facilities is a favorite Red Herring/Smokescreen that Forester and acolytes frequently use to fool the gullible.
genec
07-05-07, 05:28 PM
Trying to make some sort of ethical/legal issue of "Transportational" funding sources vis-à-vis "Recreational" funding sources of bicycling facilities is a favorite Red Herring/Smokescreen that Forester and acolytes frequently use to fool the gullible.
Wow does that mean that there is a functional difference between say residential streets set for 25MPH and National Park roads set for 25MPH... just because the roads are funded differently.
I never thought about it. Is my car/bike/motorcycle/horse more "greener" on a National Park Road?
randya
07-05-07, 06:31 PM
...the only time in my life that I have seen such a display of ingrained sexism.
also known as misogyny. besides, everyone knows that women are major obstacles to the elitist male vehicular cycling utopia the Foresterologists dream of...
:eek:
;)
Denny Koll
07-05-07, 07:03 PM
Either you live in bizarro-Michigan or you don't understand the concept of transportational cycling. The trails here are becoming wonderful recreational facilities, and they are paid for with recreational funds, as they should be. But they have nothing to do with transportational cycling, which is the topic of this thread. A 150 mile commute, or trip to Meijer's, is out of the question for all but the most diehard transportational cyclists. :rolleyes:
Also, many on the touring forum or road bike forum would question your characterization of road riding as "suicidal."
No...the point is that we are moving in this direction with more and more MUPs connecting. It is the future. Just think how much we have progressed in the past ten years as far as the Michigan trail system. Live in the past if you want but I embrace the trails. I know you have an ax to grind and an agenda to promote but I'm not buying it.
Denny Koll
07-07-07, 09:18 AM
New MUP just got finished that goes almost right to the building complex where I work. Now part of the work commute is on the MUP instead of dodging idiot drivers with cell phones glued to their ears.
qmsdc15
07-07-07, 09:33 AM
...I keep him on ignore...
Perhaps John knows Diane has him on her ignore list, which would explain why he doesn't address her directly. :D
Roody
07-15-07, 09:46 AM
No...the point is that we are moving in this direction with more and more MUPs connecting. It is the future. Just think how much we have progressed in the past ten years as far as the Michigan trail system. Live in the past if you want but I embrace the trails. I know you have an ax to grind and an agenda to promote but I'm not buying it.
You know nothing then. I've posted countless times on this forum (including in the post you quoted) that I like and use trails frequently. For your benefit, I'll say it one more time: I love bike trails!!!!
But, with almost no exceptions, the Michigan rail-trails that you refer to are NOT for routine bicycle transportation. They cut through rural fields and forests, and usually don't go anywhere near actual destinations for the vast majority of cyclists. They are strictly for recreational use. I ride on the TART trail and connectors in the rural Traverse City/Leelenau area frequently. I love it. But when the trail goes through the urban parts of Traverse City, it's almost unridable due to heavy foot, dog leash, and rollerblade usage, as well as numerous bad street crossings.
As great as these trails are, they have an unintended bad consequence for cyclists. They drain money and energy away from promoting and facilitating cycling as practical urban and suburban transportation. Most of the cycling advocates in Michigan are so focused on rail-trails that they have neglected the crappy bike lanes that exist all over the state. And governments feel free to make the claim that they're spending money on the "cycling infrastructure" when they're actually just building bike highways to nowhere, to be enjoyed by weekend hobbyists. Fine for them (and for me when I'm in the hobbyist mode) but not acceptable to the growing number of transportational cyclists you see on the sidewalks of every city in the state.
genec
07-15-07, 10:59 AM
As great as these trails are, they have an unintended bad consequence for cyclists. They drain money and energy away from promoting and facilitating cycling as practical urban and suburban transportation. Most of the cycling advocates in Michigan are so focused on rail-trails that they have neglected the crappy bike lanes that exist all over the state. And governments feel free to make the claim that they're spending money on the "cycling infrastructure" when they're actually just building bike highways to nowhere, to be enjoyed by weekend hobbyists. Fine for them (and for me when I'm in the hobbyist mode) but not acceptable to the growing number of transportational cyclists you see on the sidewalks of every city in the state.
But the funds for most trails DO NOT come from transportation resources... Usually the funding is from parks and rec vice transportation (in fact this is one of the complaints of John Forester RE trails... and that they are only marginally usable).
Denny Koll
07-15-07, 12:07 PM
You know nothing then. I've posted countless times on this forum (including in the post you quoted) that I like and use trails frequently. For your benefit, I'll say it one more time: I love bike trails!!!!
But, with almost no exceptions, the Michigan rail-trails that you refer to are NOT for routine bicycle transportation. They cut through rural fields and forests, and usually don't go anywhere near actual destinations for the vast majority of cyclists. They are strictly for recreational use. I ride on the TART trail and connectors in the rural Traverse City/Leelenau area frequently. I love it. But when the trail goes through the urban parts of Traverse City, it's almost unridable due to heavy foot, dog leash, and rollerblade usage, as well as numerous bad street crossings.
As great as these trails are, they have an unintended bad consequence for cyclists. They drain money and energy away from promoting and facilitating cycling as practical urban and suburban transportation. Most of the cycling advocates in Michigan are so focused on rail-trails that they have neglected the crappy bike lanes that exist all over the state. And governments feel free to make the claim that they're spending money on the "cycling infrastructure" when they're actually just building bike highways to nowhere, to be enjoyed by weekend hobbyists. Fine for them (and for me when I'm in the hobbyist mode) but not acceptable to the growing number of transportational cyclists you see on the sidewalks of every city in the state.
You're are only responding to the part of my post that you feel comfortable with. The point you are missing (intentionally?) is that although the Michigan trail system is a great means of getting from place to place...it is growing. This is just the infancy stages of it's development. Of course you can't get everywhere you want to go to on them at this point...but I'm excited about the prospect of being able to do this within a few short years. At this point I can ride to a grocery store, restaurant, school and part of the way to work on the trail system. It is the future of bicycle transportation.
Roody
07-15-07, 12:14 PM
You're are only responding to the part of my post that you feel comfortable with. The point you are missing (intentionally?) is that although the Michigan trail system is a great means of getting from place to place...it is growing. This is just the infancy stages of it's development. Of course you can't get everywhere you want to go to on them at this point...but I'm excited about the prospect of being able to do this within a few short years. At this point I can ride to a grocery store, restaurant, school and part of the way to work on the trail system. It is the future of bicycle transportation.
Do you foresee a day when all destinations will be accessible by bike trails? If so, in what year would you predict that bike trails will serve as many destinations as the existing road system?
Also, I wonder if you see a distinction between an urban trail system (supported by county and municipal funds) and a rural trail system (supported by state and NGO funding)? Do you really think that a rural system, going, say between Grayling and Gaylord is a useful transit system for more than a tiny number of cyclists?
Roody
07-15-07, 12:20 PM
But the funds for most trails DO NOT come from transportation resources... Usually the funding is from parks and rec vice transportation (in fact this is one of the complaints of John Forester RE trails... and that they are only marginally usable).
Of course. My only point is that rural trails are RECREATIONAL facilities, but governments (and naive members of this forum) describe them as cycling facilities and tout them as alternatives to roads, which are TRANSPORTATIONAL facilities. California is probably more "advanced" in this regard, but here in Michigan many cycling advocates are totally involved in pushing these rail/trails as a boon to cycling as transit.
Urban trails, OTOH, if well designed, can serve as nice transportational facilities for cyclists, as an alternative to roads, which a subset of transportational cyclists don't like.
The general public certainly doesn't get the distinction between bikes as recreation and bikes as transportation. Evidently, neither do many cyclists.
CB HI
07-15-07, 12:50 PM
But the funds for most trails DO NOT come from transportation resources... Usually the funding is from parks and rec vice transportation (in fact this is one of the complaints of John Forester RE trails... and that they are only marginally usable).
The vast majority of path funding, since 1991 have come from federal transportation funding through ISTEA and TEA21. The state portion of the funding may be parks & rec funds, but that is generally only 20% of the full project cost.
Denny Koll
07-15-07, 01:31 PM
Do you foresee a day when all destinations will be accessible by bike trails? If so, in what year would you predict that bike trails will serve as many destinations as the existing road system?
Also, I wonder if you see a distinction between an urban trail system (supported by county and municipal funds) and a rural trail system (supported by state and NGO funding)? Do you really think that a rural system, going, say between Grayling and Gaylord is a useful transit system for more than a tiny number of cyclists?
The thing that is happening in this area of Michigan is that the rural trail systems....Saginaw Valley Rail Trail, Pere Marquette Rail Trail are spurring growth of Urban connecting trails with the desired goal of having an interconnecting series of trails through both rural and urban areas. Three weeks ago a section of city trail was finished that runs right past where I work. Right now many destinations can't be traveled to by trails...but many can. In ten years I think the trail system will flourish and bicycle use will increase as a result. Many people feel safer using a trail than sharing the road with folks who could kill them in an instant.
CB HI
07-15-07, 02:27 PM
Many people feel safer using a trail than sharing the road with folks who could kill them in an instant.
Key word, feel safer even if that felling is not fact.
Denny Koll
07-15-07, 05:08 PM
Key word, feel safer even if that felling is not fact.
That's a good point but that's their reality I'm afraid...anyone scanning the titles of the bikeforums threads might just agree with them.
Roody
07-15-07, 05:32 PM
The thing that is happening in this area of Michigan is that the rural trail systems....Saginaw Valley Rail Trail, Pere Marquette Rail Trail are spurring growth of Urban connecting trails with the desired goal of having an interconnecting series of trails through both rural and urban areas. Three weeks ago a section of city trail was finished that runs right past where I work. Right now many destinations can't be traveled to by trails...but many can. In ten years I think the trail system will flourish and bicycle use will increase as a result. Many people feel safer using a trail than sharing the road with folks who could kill them in an instant.
I think we need to judge each trail on its own merits and demerits. I don't believe that trails will be a major part of the transit mix in the foreseeable future, but their use is warranted in some cases. I don't trust any dichotomous view that trails are all good or all bad. Here are two examples that illustrate the differences between adequate and inadequate trails:
Here in Traverse City the TART trail (a rail/trail) runs through Traverse City. It crosses many streets mid-block--not a safe situation for kids or novice cyclists. It is shared with pedestrians, rollerbladers and dog walkers. It may feel safer than the street to kids and novices, but any experienced cyclist would recognize that it is not actually safer than the adjacent streets, and in some spots it's probably less safe. I don't believe that the urban portion of this trail is an adequate facility for either recreational or transit use. Feels great; less safe.
In Lansing we have the Rivertrail, which is totally segregated from motor traffic for its entire length (13 miles, I believe). Due to this segregation, it is probably a safer route than the adjacent streets, especially for kids and novices. It connects many popular destinations, including downtown, several major employers, MSU, Old Town and others. IMO, it is an adequate transportational and recreational facility. Feels great; is safe.
CB HI
07-15-07, 07:37 PM
Feels great; less safe.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Denny Koll
07-15-07, 08:19 PM
I've been on the TC path and I agree it's not one that I'd like to spend a lot of time on. Not all good or all bad...also agree. Anything that encourages people to get on bikes...I'm in favor of. I see more people around here on bikes than ever.
My feeling is the trail system is the way to accomplish this best. Oh...I've ridden that trail along the Red Cedar several years ago too.
Roody
07-15-07, 08:41 PM
Anything that encourages people to get on bikes...I'm in favor of. I see more people around here on bikes than ever.
I'm seeing more riders than ever also, even though my city has done nothing to increase or modify bike facilities for years. Each of the 3 major approaches to cycling facilities could probably increase ridership if they were consistently implemented.
Bike lanes--need to be well-designed and marked to increase cycling, and present on all or most arterial-type streets.
Segregated facilities--need to have very wide coverage to popular destinations in order to increase cycling.
Vehicular cycling--needs to better educate cyclists and motorists in order to boost ridership.
(Of course this leaves the question of why it's desirable to increase the number of cyclists. I mean, as long as we're having fun, why do we need a lot of other people doing it too?)