Speedo, the controversy surrounding the plowing of the Minuteman Bikeway is somewhat notorious. The plowing, which was supposedly opposed due to an original agreement with abutting residents but it was later revealed that the big hold up was a bike advocacy group that was promoting vehicular cycling and touting the Minuteman as a "recreational only" path not suited for commuters. Pressure from residential abutters, who had deliberately purchased homes along the bike path in order to commute by bike, has moved things a step closer to regular plowing. If it's not plowed you can thank some of your fellow bike riders who feel year round use of the Minuteman is a threat to our rights to ride on the road.

You may want to check with Doug Minck and Mass Bike to express your opposition to or support of plowing the Minuteman.


Well, I'm confused. All the discussion that I heard about the trial plowing in Arlington was over money.

And this (http://www.masspaths.org/snow/) page about the snow status of various paths features your man Minck. Was he a pro or a con?

Either way, the crux of bike transportation is on the roads. Unless you solve the problem on the roads it doesn't matter if there's a nice chunk in the middle.

Speedo

That's unfortunate. I've seen quite a few MUPs like that myself, but it doesn't have to be that way. Here in Denver we've had a very useful MUP (or three) in place for decades. There are no stops. It's not tiny -- about 15 feet wide. Used by scores of commuters, it is also used by recreational riders, and pedestrians, and even some homeless people, yet usually allows cyclists to ride about as fast as the wind will let them. Because there are no street intersections -- no red lights or stops -- a rider on the MUP can travel much faster than would be possible using the streets.

I'm going to ask a dumb question... How does a network of 2-3 MUPs let you get groceries, go to work, and go to the library with no intersections? (Never mind things like bra shopping, since I'm pretty sure that's not one of your transportation issues *g*)

I'm trying to imagine what you describe, and I can't see how it would work in a city of 200k, never mind a city of 500k. Madison has a pretty dense layout, and I just can't imagine 3 paths being sufficient to cover normal transportation needs. That's why I don't use the paths exclusively... they don't go where I need to go. They often make great "bike highways" or shortcuts though.

Actually, what you just described is called a ROAD, and we've got plenty of 'em. All we really need besides that is good motorist and cyclist education.

Actually "roads" tend to be about twice as wide a decent path needs to be... A typical street is wide enough for two cars to pass side by side, whereas a path only need be about 10 feet wide; about one auto width wide or room for two pairs of cyclists to pass side by side. (making a path the width of one auto allows for maintenance and patrolling.)

So while cities tend to find more room to widen roads and freeways, they are in fact "finding" twice the room needed for a good path... and if a good path structure was laid out, the city might find that they don't need to add two lanes for cars on the freeway.

I'm going to ask a dumb question... How does a network of 2-3 MUPs let you get groceries, go to work, and go to the library with no intersections? (Never mind things like bra shopping, since I'm pretty sure that's not one of your transportation issues *g*)

I'm trying to imagine what you describe, and I can't see how it would work in a city of 200k, never mind a city of 500k. Madison has a pretty dense layout, and I just can't imagine 3 paths being sufficient to cover normal transportation needs. That's why I don't use the paths exclusively... they don't go where I need to go. They often make great "bike highways" or shortcuts though.

It doesn't work... that is the problem... there are places where such a system has actually been installed and they do work well... Oulu Finland is such a place (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgUkNxUE0wc), wide paths exist everywhere and they are often a shorter more direct route then the streets for motorists. The paths go everywhere, but then they were designed that way to work within the city as part of the transportation system, and yes, they are even plowed in the winter.

In the US since so much is already paved, getting a complete bike path network would be quite difficult. But indeed having a network of paths that crisscrossed the city would allow for faster longer distance trips much like the auto freeway system now works for cars. A bike freeway could probably be built in most cities by paralleling existing auto freeways. Most of the places cyclist want to go would be along freeway routes anyway as most cities developed along those routes. Most freeways have extra land set aside as buffer zones, and for future expansion... so why not use that land (only half as much is needed for a bike path as bikes are less then 1/2 the width of cars) so a decent 9-10 foot path could be built along freeway routes with bridges or tunnels at cross streets and freeway ramps. These paths would act as a bike freeway allowing cyclist to preserve energy by not stopping at ever intersection as they cross town... even local short trips might bypass a few regular signaled intersections, thus allowing cyclists to zip around to errands.

While cyclists would still have to use regular roads once they left the bike freeway, the freeway would permit faster trips over all due to connectivity and no stops.

I'm going to ask a dumb question... How does a network of 2-3 MUPs let you get groceries, go to work, and go to the library with no intersections? (Never mind things like bra shopping, since I'm pretty sure that's not one of your transportation issues *g*)

I'm trying to imagine what you describe, and I can't see how it would work in a city of 200k, never mind a city of 500k. Madison has a pretty dense layout, and I just can't imagine 3 paths being sufficient to cover normal transportation needs. That's why I don't use the paths exclusively... they don't go where I need to go. They often make great "bike highways" or shortcuts though.


.... they DO make great bike highways or shortcuts. why expect an expressway to get you all the way to the bra counter at your favorite lingerie boutique? and 3 arcs across a grid gets you pretty close to many points in the grid.....

Bike paths serving as arterial 'bike highways' on key routes across cities do work in many cities in america already, and many more cities could take advantage of rail or water transportation cooridors and place 'bike highways' across many cities of 300,000 or 500,000.

Denver, minneapolis, seattle, portland, NYC, Boston, all have paths that get used by large numbers of transportational and commuting bicycists.

BTW contrast a typical US bike path... http://www.efghmaps.com/temp/35724.jpg

...with an Oulu bike path... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgUkNxUE0wc

Serious transportation paths need to look like the latter. Note the width, the dashed center stripe, and the easy sweeping curves that allow for good sight lines.

Well, I'm confused. All the discussion that I heard about the trial plowing in Arlington was over money.

And this (http://www.masspaths.org/snow/) page about the snow status of various paths features your man Minck. Was he a pro or a con?

Speedo

Doug M. seems to be an advocate for plowing. And he would be the person to ask about the why's and wherefores of the plowing issues to get a more accurate account.

As far as I know, the money issue for plowing the Minuteman is minimal since it takes one truck one quick pass to clear the path- it's easier and simpler than a road- no parked cars, few obstacles. The issues have ranged from: the abutters don't want it plowed- (ended up being false), the x-country skiers use it (turns out it gets so rutted from bikers who ride it anyway and runners that it's useless for x-country skiing except for immediately after a snowfall). There have been plans to connect the Minuteman so that it goes all the way through Somerville to connect with the Charles River path. I use the Minuteman to visit friends in Arlington. I ride the Charles River MUP from Watertown Square to Cambridge cut through Cambridge for a mile or so of quiet streets and pick up the Minuteman just south of Alewife and off I go up to their place, which I exit the path at a small gate-like opening ride up back street right to their door. Sure beats Mass Ave in my book and just as fast. Total mileage on that ride is about 3 miles of road 7.5 miles of bike path.

Either way, the crux of bike transportation is on the roads. Unless you solve the problem on the roads it doesn't matter if there's a nice chunk in the middle.

I agree with this statement but barring changes in infrastructure how do we "solve the problems on the roads". With all due respect please don't suggest only "cyclist education and riding vehicularly", while these tactics have some minimal impact on a few bike riders they don't really change the cycling environment. I've been around Mass Bike, for example, since it was the Boston Area Bike Coalition back in the early 80's and as sympathetic as I've been with their agenda it's been their work with other groups like Rails to Trails or Livable Streets that has been far more effective at making substantial changes in public awareness and policy than it's emphasis on riding skills.

I'm going to ask a dumb question... How does a network of 2-3 MUPs let you get groceries, go to work, and go to the library with no intersections? (Never mind things like bra shopping, since I'm pretty sure that's not one of your transportation issues *g*)

I'm trying to imagine what you describe, and I can't see how it would work in a city of 200k, never mind a city of 500k. Madison has a pretty dense layout, and I just can't imagine 3 paths being sufficient to cover normal transportation needs. That's why I don't use the paths exclusively... they don't go where I need to go. They often make great "bike highways" or shortcuts though.

Certainly not a dumb question. IT gets at the problem that roads for cars have been under development for about a hundered years in the USA. Roads for cycling are generally only a recent idea. Here in the Buffalo area I am lucky that I live in an area (Amherst) where some of the earlier paths started and are not being cross connected. For a long time most paths went from nowhere to nowhere. For that matter we have two bike paths that still do that and serve virtually no purpose. The one even makes you stop every 50 yards where it crosses a side street, and they also make you get off your bike and walk accross a board walk for about a 1/4 mile... thanks but no thanks. I'll stay on the main road there. There are also projects in the pipe line during the next 5 years that will use old rail road right of ways to criss cross parts of the heavily populated Tonawandas. None of these paths are a total solution, but people would be able to use local roads to get to these "cross town" paths and get help them get through a city while avoiding some pretty bad roads (i.e. busy roads without any shoulders). The more they build the more they gets used. The more they get used the easier it gets to convince people to spend some public $$$ to get more long streaches put into place that allow you to get some one township to an other. One of the roads in my area that I need to take to get to the grocerie stores was in very bad shape. It was completely overhauled including a nice wide and smooth shoulder. It may not have a bike lane sign on it, but it an excellent road now to ride along.

Happy riding,
André

I'm going to ask a dumb question... How does a network of 2-3 MUPs let you get groceries, go to work, and go to the library with no intersections? (Never mind things like bra shopping, since I'm pretty sure that's not one of your transportation issues *g*)

I'm trying to imagine what you describe, and I can't see how it would work in a city of 200k, never mind a city of 500k. Madison has a pretty dense layout, and I just can't imagine 3 paths being sufficient to cover normal transportation needs. That's why I don't use the paths exclusively... they don't go where I need to go. They often make great "bike highways" or shortcuts though.

Our MUPs certainly don't 'cover' all potential transportation needs. Sorry if I gave that impression. But they augment existing infrastructure and usually make travel by bike much faster and more convenient in any direction the MUPs happen to go.

A fully-separated Class I Bikeway is able to completely avoid street intersections when it is laid out along a river, canal, lake shore, rail corridor, highway or any existing right-of-way that is separate from the street grid; on/off ramps then connect to street-level. It's a huge bonus for cyclists. Because many people seem to have trouble picturing this, I wrote a little expose about one of our paths on my website: http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/11108_Denvers_Cherry_Crk.html

Robert

Before cars, there were bikeways everywhere. Seriously.

I've long advocated the Median Trail System along Interstates. We've got all that land, as pointed out above, and could put in dedicated light duty paths along them. I'd primarily focus on their use by sub 35 mph scooters (which we'll all have instead of SUVs soon) but bicycles and hikers are also good. Not just in cities. I want the trails to go along I81 and I 40.

As far as I know, the money issue for plowing the Minuteman is minimal since it takes one truck one quick pass to clear the path- it's easier and simpler than a road- no parked cars, few obstacles.


The issue got a fair amount of chatter on my work bike e-mail list. I think they stopped plowing because they ran out of the allocated money.





Either way, the crux of bike transportation is on the roads. Unless you solve the problem on the roads it doesn't matter if there's a nice chunk in the middle.


I agree with this statement but barring changes in infrastructure how do we "solve the problems on the roads". With all due respect please don't suggest only "cyclist education and riding vehicularly", while these tactics have some minimal impact on a few bike riders they don't really change the cycling environment.


You forgot motorist education! ;)

I don't think it's one thing or the other. It's the whole arsenal. I must confess to a kneejerk reaction to bike path promotion because so many bike path proponents see them as the end all, be all, fixit solution. A bike path, where it exists is nice, I'm not complaining about riding on the MM. Heck, when I ride it, I've got it all to myself! But advocating for bike paths is really doing more for recreation than it is for transportation. Fixing a pothole or two on the roads would do more for me than paving another unused railroad bed.

Speedo

I don't think it's one thing or the other. It's the whole arsenal. I must confess to a kneejerk reaction to bike path promotion because so many bike path proponents see them as the end all, be all, fixit solution. A bike path, where it exists is nice, I'm not complaining about riding on the MM. Heck, when I ride it, I've got it all to myself! But advocating for bike paths is really doing more for recreation than it is for transportation. Fixing a pothole or two on the roads would do more for me than paving another unused railroad bed.

Speedo

But that is the crux of the whole problem... as long as cyclists are treated as users of toys and not folks with real transportation needs then the parks departments are given the go ahead for recreation needs.

As soon as cyclists are seen as part of the whole transit picture... (maybe when gas is $15 a gallon) and paths are designed by transit engineers and are given the same weight as freeways... then perhaps real paths will be built.

Until then... we have to take our "toys" to the streets... and play with all the other amateurs.... too bad those other amateurs all think they are in NASCAR. :rolleyes:

The issue got a fair amount of chatter on my work bike e-mail list. I think they stopped plowing because they ran out of the allocated money.
[...]Fixing a pothole or two on the roads would do more for me than paving another unused railroad bed.

I would say it depends on the railroad bed. A new MUP along a rail corridor that flows right into downtown connecting the places where people live to the places where people work, and allowing uninterrupted passage between these places, would be a huge bonus for cycle-commuters who live along it.

The point about plowing is important and well-taken. We've had plenty of problems with that on the Denver MUPs. They're getting better about it, but still leave large glaciers to fester for weeks, to my astonishment. They're really asking for trouble with that. As a veteran year-round rider, I would say there's something to the argument that facilities designed for peds and in-line two-wheeled vehicles should receive winter maintenance of a higher standard than used for streets, not the other way 'round as we see today.

Robert

I would say it depends on the railroad bed. A new MUP along a rail corridor that flows right into downtown connecting the places where people live to the places where people work, and allowing uninterrupted passage between these places, would be a huge bonus for cycle-commuters who live along it.

The point about plowing is important and well-taken. We've had plenty of problems with that on the Denver MUPs. They're getting better about it, but still leave large glaciers to fester for weeks, to my astonishment. They're really asking for trouble with that. As a veteran year-round rider, I would say there's something to the argument that facilities designed for peds and in-line two-wheeled vehicles should receive winter maintenance of a higher standard than used for streets, not the other way 'round as we see today.

Robert

Ah yes, another typical case of cars having higher priority then people.

Our MUPs certainly don't 'cover' all potential transportation needs. Sorry if I gave that impression. But they augment existing infrastructure and usually make travel by bike much faster and more convenient in any direction the MUPs happen to go.

Ok, then the situation in Denver is a lot more like Madison :). From your description, it sounded very much like there was no street access at all.

A fully-separated Class I Bikeway is able to completely avoid street intersections when it is laid out along a river, canal, lake shore, rail corridor, highway or any existing right-of-way that is separate from the street grid; on/off ramps then connect to street-level.

That is an area where I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I *much* prefer a street level intersection because it is maintainable and takes up little space. At street level, the intersection can be cleaned easily when it accumulates litter, tree debris or snow. On a properly designed path, the transit department doesn't even need special equipment to do so, since the path is wide enough for a standard pickup truck plow or an ordinary street sweeper. A common local complaint is that the bike paths get plowed better than the streets... and from my experience this winter, it's true. (this is not an endorsement... Madison's idea of street plowing is the worst I have ever seen in my life. Even making allowances for the worst winter on record.)

Madison's Southwest Path uses a mix of street level intersections and on/off ramps. Even the worst street intersection (the diagonal one I talked about upthread) is one that a nervous new rider can manage. The average ramp has turn radii that take a fair bit of skill to manage - by eyeball, some of the radii are less than 5'. Due to the level difference between street and path, the turns accumulate leaves and small tree branches. That takes the turns from being tough to being "I'd rather walk it". Since the path itself stays relatively branch, leaf and glass shard free, I suspect that the sweepers the city uses can't manage the ramp turns. And if the street sweepers can't manage the turns, I suspect the ramps don't get plowed either. This is less than useful in a city that averages 40" of snow a year.

The line of sight problems with the ramps are serious as well. At a brisk walk, they're fine. At my usual 10mph on a bike, it is very difficult to check for traffic on the path. The line of sight feels very much like an early interstate interchange, where you were expected to stop at the stop sign at the top of the ramp, and there were no acceleration lanes. Where ramps intersect with streets, you have much better lines of sight (due to sidewalks and housing setbacks), so it doesn't feel as deadly.

... they DO make great bike highways or shortcuts. why expect an expressway to get you all the way to the bra counter at your favorite lingerie boutique? and 3 arcs across a grid gets you pretty close to many points in the grid.....

Uh, because in the real world, malls tend to be located at expressway interchanges? I can think of at least a dozen malls in PA at interchanges, then several more each in Los Angeles, Madison, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Dayton, and the Baltimore/DC area. The expressway won't get me into Vicky's, but it will get me within walking distance *g*. I think given that range of samples that presuming a mall will be right at an exit is reasonable.

And oddly enough, the only independent boutiques I know of are *also* located right off a highway... I can buy underwear in Madison's downtown, but only because there is a Land's End outlet. If they don't have what I need, I end up biking to the mall. By comparison, there are plenty of grocery stores, banks, hardwares stores and other common destinations that are on regular streets. So I do think it's reasonable to look at a bike path and wonder if it allows access to the same kinds of opportunities as a street or a highway. If it doesn't, it's not very useful to me.

The issue got a fair amount of chatter on my work bike e-mail list. I think they stopped plowing because they ran out of the allocated money.

I checked with Doug Mink and he concurs with your assessment that money was the major issue. I do recall that there was some infighting within the bike community but according to Doug it didn't spill over into negotiations with the town. The issue of the X-country skiing argument never got very far because the path is a mess within a few hours of a snowstorm and not suitable for skiing.

Evidently Arlington had the best record for plowing last year with Lexington being intermittent.

My apologies for the confusion- I just remember getting ticked off at some cyclists who wouldn't get on board for plowing because they felt we should be on the road.

And you're right again!- I'm 100% with you about motorist education- did you ride today?- do Boston drivers turn into total JAM's when it rains or what? and oddly enough- I HIT A POTHOLE! So, score 3 for you!