Dr. Vehicle & Mr. Bike Path

[buzzman]

A gorgeous spring day today in Boston and running a little late so I take the streets and roads route downtown- about an 8.5 mile ride.

I ride this route in what could be called a model vehicular style- call me Dr. Vehicle. I ride right in the center of the right lane for much of the route, stop at traffic signals, pass buses only on the left. I make great time and the route is direct. However, in addition to the countless interactions with automobiles on this route I pass through 88 intersections, pass dozens of parked and double parked cars, ride through construction zones and encounter packs of jaywalking Boston University students who think nothing of stepping off a curb and into the path of an oncoming vehicle of any type but seem to particularly favor cyclists.

My ride home tonight at 10 pm I went the alternate route- the bike path (an MUP along the south side of the Charles River). I ride about a mile to get onto the path and then ride 8.5 miles on the path and then another mile home. So a little longer ride. Riding at 10pm I encounter only a handful of couples walking along the path, a few joggers and one cyclist going the opposite direction. Long sections of the path are completely my own little private road. The magnolia and dogwood trees are in full bloom, the river an inky black, owls swoop over my head, the lights of Harvard University reflect in the mirror-like surface of the water- in other words it's spectacularly beautiful. Because the path is empty and is intersected only 6 times on the entire route I can hammer along at a brisk pace if I want.

After 30 years living in Boston finally this bike path has received some improvements and not necessarily due to the advocacy of cycling organizations but because of bike/ped coalitions and the Charles River Conservancy. In fact, many of our most vocal bike advocates have downplayed the significance of this bike path, often pointing out it's poor condition as an example of it's failure as a transportation infrastructure.

My question is how does it serve a cyclist like me when cycling advocacy organizations put their primary focus on our rights to the road and either ignore, oppose or downplay the significance of bike infrastructure? 30 years of that kind of advocacy has changed absolutely nothing about riding on the roads in Massachusetts. It is no different. No better. No worse. But advocacy for infrastructure actually makes a noticeable difference.

So please tell me why I shouldn't put my advocacy time, effort, support and money for bike/ped coalitions like Livable Streets instead of supposed bike advocacy groups that stress cyclist education and road rights? I currently support both but seriously question the efficacy of the second in accomplishing anything tangible.

[politicalgeek]

Typically the MUPs/off road bike paths are considered as more of a recreational, rather than vehicular, use for bikes. They often don't connect well (at least a good portion of the ones in Columbus) with the infrastructure around it and allow access only at designated trail heads.

Each group, because of their definitions and goals, will view infrastructure in different ways. Infrastructure to a group stressing education and road rights would probably push more towards marked lanes on road, better detection at traffic lights, share the road campaigns, bike boulevards and such. This type of infrastructure would be much more on road and connected with the community.

The best thing is to find out the mission of each and their goals. Work with both if you want and push for change in leadership, if thats what it takes, to see some of the accomplishments you want.

[Allister]

I think there's always going to be pressure, no matter how irrational, to get bikes off the road completely, so, while it may not be making things better, supporting the right to use the road will hopefully stop it getting worse. There's nothing wrong with supporting both. If nothing else, cyclists competent in riding on the road are also going to be competent path users.

[Bekologist]

communities that support bicycling thru infrastructure typically incorporate a mix of on and off road bike infrastructure including MUPs and roadway bike lanes in addition to wide lanes and totally unaccomodated/unmodified streets.

The realistic stance of most moderate bicycling advocates recognize the merits of mixed infrastructure enhancements including MUPs and on street bike paint.

[balitom]

In my daily commute I use a combination of roads and multi-use paths. The roads can be a bit intense but the multi-use paths are very pleasant and appreciated by my fellow Seoulites.

I sought out an on-line bike advocacy group about 18 months ago when I was considering moving back to the States. My goal was to align my skills and experience as a civil engineer with my passion for cycling. What I was hoping to find on the bike advocacy site were connections that could help me make this career shift. Instead, I found that the group was totally opposed to spending money on infrastructure for cyclists. So I remain in this city of 20 million people who've constructed nearly 1000 kilometers of multi-use paths in the last ten years, without a public complaint, and who've taken up cycling by the tens of thousands.

Cheers from Seoul,

Tom

[Bekologist]

Today i chose to ride a longer, more pleasant route along a MUP on my morning commute near the center of a metropolis of 4 million; much more pleasant than the direct yet more tedious (more road "chatter" and potential conflict) route.

I took a pleasant, meandering river MUP path, under trees along the canal, under a drawbridge. On the MUP I rode past ships against a mountain range skyline that I was able to enjoy, versus being intensely focused on the traffic and road environment.

I see great improvments to cycling via well thought out bike infrastructure. the accomodation model for cyclists wins versus the bicyclist education model, hands down, time and time again, more and more every day, around the world.

...more bicyclists, safer bicyclists, reductions in bike accident rate per rider, greater participitation across gender, age, and all socioeconomic brackets...

Uber-VC and Dr. Vehicle, as well as timid schoolmouse and the elderely schoolmarm, can take advantage of well thought out on-road bike lanes and MUPs.

anti-accomodationism is folly.

[wahoonc]

I am not a big fan of MUP for commuting/transportational cycle use. They are great for families out with the youngsters and other slow riding. The ones around here have a tendency to get clogged up with 3-4 abreast walkers, strollers, wandering dogs with owners attached etc. I would like to see infrastructure along the lines of what exists in Denmark and The Netherlands where you have dedicated bike ways and pedestrians stay off. Mixing with automotive traffic has it's own issues. Most of the roads I ride are not particularly sharing friendly. Then you have the total lack of education and tolerance of both motorists and bike riders/cyclists (I would hope that someone that calls them self a cyclist is cognizant of the rules and regulations and follows them:rolleyes:)

We have a long way to go; until we can get a major/single lobby group and a set standard for cycling facilities, including parking at all locations.

Aaron:)

[bikesafer]

So please tell me why I shouldn't put my advocacy time, effort, support and money for bike/ped coalitions like Livable Streets instead of supposed bike advocacy groups that stress cyclist education and road rights? I currently support both but seriously question the efficacy of the second in accomplishing anything tangible.

Because, there will be many times when the paths will not be a realistic option for cyclists either based on their destination, safety, or congestion. If all the money, effort and advocacy goes into these paths, and we get pushed of the roads more because of it, (especially in states that require cyclist to use paths where available),we will have nowhere to go when the paths aren't a good option.

Where I live, those bike or MUP paths will often be filled with pedestrians, dogs on leashes that stretch across the entire path like clotheslines, or, dogs running loose, or groups of people walking 3,4, or 5 abreast who won't move out of anyone's way. The worse scenario is getting robbed on the path. At least the paths I've been on, I wouldn't ride at night unless I was with at least one other person, for fear of someone jumping out of the woods and stealing my bike. It’s happened before.

[Torrilin]

Around here, most MUPs cross a lot of streets. The two I use often each have a special advantage. One lets me skip a bit of tricky road layout. Without it, I'd have to ride up one side of a triangle, use an unpleasant intersection, and ride down the other side to get to my local yarn shop. The path intersects with several major roads, so I can always redirect on streets or use a mix to get where I'm going. The other path is along an old rail bed, so it provides a flatter route towards the mall. Again, there are plenty of intersections with major streets - and without them I couldn't *get* to the mall.

Both routes have flaws. The first (the Wingra Creek Path) has a "pedestrian only" signal at every intersection, since the lines of sight aren't always good. It would be clearer if the signal didn't imply the path was pedestrian only. Also, right turn on red is allowed at the intersections, which is dangerous. Just removing the turn on red would go a long way towards improving the layout (but I think that applies to almost all intersections in Madison).

The second route (the Southwest Path) has a spectacularly bad intersection. The path runs through a 4 way light at a 45 deg. angle, and there are no signals for path traffic. There are pedestrian controls for use on the streets, so if you're willing to walk your bike to deal with the bad design it is manageable. And if you're on any of the streets and turning, it's manageable. It is not the worst intersection I've ever seen, but it's not a good one either. Since the intersection needs major road repairs, I'm hoping that they'll try to improve the design when it gets repaired.

On weekends and at weekday rush hours both can be quite busy. If I treat it like a busy road (eyes open, speed matching the flow of traffic, watch for people being careless) things are fine. If I try to treat it like my own personal bike highway, it would be very dangerous. Rush hour is rush hour, even when it happens at noon on a Saturday *g*. Since both paths connect residential areas, parks, shopping areas and business areas it's silly to expect low traffic.

[chipcom]

So please tell me why I shouldn't put my advocacy time, effort, support and money for bike/ped coalitions like Livable Streets instead of supposed bike advocacy groups that stress cyclist education and road rights? I currently support both but seriously question the efficacy of the second in accomplishing anything tangible.

First rule of politics - put your support and money behind whomever will help you to achieve your goals of the moment. Remove and restore as needed.

[John E]

The types of advocacy I strongly support are:
1) cyclists' continued right to use our public roads;
2) traffic calming or safe, efficient bypasses for dangerous intersections;
3) strong prosecution of DUIs;
4) individual accountability for every road user;
5) education of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians;
6) opportunistic construction of MUPs where they make sense, such as along rivers, railroads, or freeways.

The organizations to which I belong, such as the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, have won some significant fights for safe accommodations. I am currently working with a group of private citizens who have a decent shot at greatly enhancing cycling safety along Coast Highway 101 in Leucadia.

My favorite personal MUP-vs.-road example is the San Luis Rey river MUP vs. the Hwy 76 expressway. Eastbound, I'll take the MUP every time, to avoid a couple of nasty free merges and diverges, but westbound I prefer the straighter and faster expressway shoulder.

[david7700]

The types of advocacy I strongly support are:
1) cyclists' continued right to use our public roads;
2) traffic calming or safe, efficient bypasses for dangerous intersections;
3) strong prosecution of DUIs;
4) individual accountability for every road user;
5) education of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians;
6) opportunistic construction of MUPs where they make sense, such as along rivers, railroads, or freeways.


I do not believe cyclists should have all the same roadway rights as automobiles. Many car drivers agree with me and "education" will not change that opinion. MUP's (your ironic last choice) seems to be the only safe solution for bicycle riders. I have never had life threatening issues on the shared path, maybe a minor inconvenience of moving out of someone's way, but that is preferable to taking on 3000 lbs of steel!

[genec]

I do not believe cyclists should have all the same roadway rights as automobiles. Many car drivers agree with me and "education" will not change that opinion. MUP's (your ironic last choice) seems to be the only safe solution for bicycle riders. I have never had life threatening issues on the shared path, maybe a minor inconvenience of moving out of someone's way, but that is preferable to taking on 3000 lbs of steel!

Until MUPs are able to reach every home and shop as the regular streets do, then cyclists will and should have the same access to roads as motorists.

I have seen a situation where paths did go everywhere... but it will never occur here. In Oulu Finland they had an extensive network of bike paths that had the same coverage as their car street network... in fact, in some ways it was better, as cyclists could get right into the center of town (where cars were restricted) and the cycle paths often were more direct and shorter then trying to get to the same location by car using streets.

The best solution here, where whole cities have been designed around the car, is traffic calming and dedication of some streets as bike boulevards and the use of paths, where possible. A few bike freeways would also be nice. But cyclists here will always have to share some roads with motor traffic... of some sort.

An act to give legal priority to human powered transit might change the face of things, but not quickly.

[noisebeam]

Until MUPs are able to reach every home and shop as the regular streets do, then cyclists will and should have the same access to roads as motorists.


Add to that no 'sidewalk' type intersections with roads. They not only would have to reach every place, they also have to be at least as safe for matched average speeds.

Al

[joejack951]

Add to that no 'sidewalk' type intersections with roads. They not only would have to reach every place, they also have to be at least as safe for matched average speeds.

Al

There's a one scenic MUP in my area but it is useless for me (putting aside the fact that it doesn't go anywhere I need to go) because you might be lucky to average 10mph on them. Most of your time is spent riding the brakes due to tight turns and steep hills (the MUP is narrow too). When I can easily average 15mph on the road, I would need a very direct MUP to match that conveniece (and this MUP are far from direct) and probably some intersection priority which is hardly likely to ever happen.

[andrelam]

I personally feel that both making the roads safer and providing nice off street riding are good goals. In our area a movement started nearly a decade ago to start connecting some of the various MUPS. We had lots of Bike paths (I like that they are still called BIKE paths) that went from pretty much nowhere to nowhere. By connecting these sections you can now ride from unobstructed from Amhest (SUNY at Buffalo university) all the way to down town Buffalo on some very nice paths. At the same time some of the roads that were listed as Red (aka avoid on a bike as they are so dangerous) have been rebuilt and now have nice wide shoulders. I know how the ride in traffic, but if there is plenty of room for cars to get by me without anyone having to squeeze over, I feel it is good for everyone.

Yesterday was a good example how I can use both the paths and the roads for different reasons:
We had to make a visit to one of our offices that is in the city. Since the weather was just about perfect (mid 60's with sun and only light wind) we descided to ride rather than send one of our coworkers with a car. It was an absolutely glorious 18 mile ride along the Erie Canal and Niagara River. On the way back We cut through the city to take a more direct route home. Along the way me co-worker headed towards his house, and I went back to the office the direct route. My ride through the city used "Orange" routes which are deamed good roads for cyclists (wide enough for busses and trucks to pass), but not officially marked with bike lanes, and also a bike route that connects the SUNY at Buffalo City campus with the one in Amherst where I work pretty much next door.

The paths provided a wonderful scenic route to take and generally is farther away from cars so you can enjoy the scenery and nature. The problem is that you have to go around the city. The city route was more direct, but still very easy to ride even for someone with minimal VC riding experience. Neither one is clearly better, just different. I think that progress on both fronts is helpful. I see loads of families and riders usings the MUPS, yet far fewer people are brave enough to venture into city traffic.

Happy riding,
André

[genec]

Add to that no 'sidewalk' type intersections with roads. They not only would have to reach every place, they also have to be at least as safe for matched average speeds.

Al

Agreed... the Oulu paths were well designed... the paths that we face here in the US are every thing from poor broken sidewalks with tight turns (and even stairs) to the MUP I ride from time to time that is perhaps 9-10 feet wide with turns one can easily take at 25MPH or higher and it is grade separated... with exit ramps for street connections. However, there is perhaps only about 5 miles of this... which means that hardly matches the network available to motorists.

That is part of the whole problem with paths... there is no standard, and most are geared toward "park riders" moving at 10MPH or less.

If bikes were looked upon as real transportation and there were standards for paths, then certainly this country has the means to create adequate and proper paths. We are just not likely to see such in our lifetimes.

[atbman]

I do not believe cyclists should have all the same roadway rights as automobiles. Many car drivers agree with me and "education" will not change that opinion. MUP's (your ironic last choice) seems to be the only safe solution for bicycle riders. I have never had life threatening issues on the shared path, maybe a minor inconvenience of moving out of someone's way, but that is preferable to taking on 3000 lbs of steel!

Interesting choice of words. So you think that automobiles (hunk of machinery) have superior civil rights to that of people (cyclists).

The fact that "Many car drivers agree with me" is like saying that because a group of people, who are largely ignorant of the laws pertaining to both themselves and cyclists, should therefore have their ignorant views accepted and the views of experienced and knowledgeable cyclists whould be ignored is somewhat illogical. As for "education will not change that opinion", this is either an acknowledgement that US drivers are ineducable (aka stupid) or a craven submission to their ignorant prejudice. Since drivers in other countries manage to avoid treating you the way that too many US drivers seem to, it would appear that education is not the impossible dream you appear to believe. Unless, of course, your driving tests continue to be as inadequate as may think - and, having seen someone taking the practical part of the Florida test, they are grossly inadequate to test a driver's ability to drive safely on the highway.

While there are a good few examples of poor law making, the vast majority of the legislation that has been referred to on this site is reasonably well-drawn up. And that vast majority of legislation acknowledges the rights of cyclists to use the public highways which they have helped to pay for.

MUPs can be a useful addition to cycling infrastructure, as long as they are well designed and built. It is unlikely, however, that there is sufficient room to put them in position to provide "safe" routes for all riders. That being the case, your argument leads inevitably to the conclusion that cyclists should be banned, for their own safety (a dubious argument) from highways.

There are dangers in riding on the highway, but knowledgeable riders experience very few life-threatening incidents. I have no experience of US traffic conditions, but found that Toronto traffic very little different from that in the UK and so coped safely enough, even tho' North Americans all seem to drive on the wrong side of the road;)

[genec]

...even tho' North Americans all seem to drive on the wrong side of the road;)

No mate, the drivers are OK, all the bloody roads are in backwards... ;)

[buzzman]

This may be somewhat of an aside, but I wonder whether it really makes sense for Metropolitan Boston bicycle advocacy groups to focus on the MUP's... in part because advocacy related to the paths is often handled by other interest groups, and additionally because the MUPs serve a limited # of users for commuting purposes. In that light might it not make more sense for bicycling advocacy groups to spend their limited resources lobbying for better conditions for cyclists on the road? Not that advocacy will get rid of construction zones or the urban college students (I don't really remember BC kids being that much of a problem, but I suspect that there isn't that much call for them to cross Commonwealth or Beacon (and it's when there are a flock of students all obliviously jaywalking at the same time that they really become a problem, although even one can be problem enough).


good question.

But to be honest, and I've been around cycling and advocacy a long time, the "threats" to our right to ride on the road in Massachusetts are few and far between. Certainly when they occur, and they sometimes do, is a time to rally and be prepared to defend our rights. But I think it's wise to pick our battles- to spend the lion's share of our advocacy energy in that arena seems a bit of "the sky is falling" or the "little boy that cried wolf!". Cry wolf when the wolf is really there but the fear mongering mantra of- "We'll lose our rights to the road!" has often felt like knee-jerk reactionism not always tied into reality. So to devote the resources of bicycle advocacy groups with such a narrow minded almost paranoid agenda seems wasteful to me.


The MUP into Boston from Watertown, which runs on both sides of the river is used by a substantial number of commuting cyclists year round. In the warmer months a fairly high percentage of cyclists on the path are commuting. As has been pointed out in some other recent threads in A&S recreational cycling can be a starting point for many commuters. My informal surveys of riders in Boston and New York support the contention that a spring day ride along the river to Harvard Square or a ride uptown along the West Side bike path has been the initial impetus for many commuters that eventually become at least 3 season commuters on a partial or regular basis.

Finally the path's maintenance, some widening, repaving, relighting has begun in earnest and it makes a difference. The broken pavement, tree roots, narrow, overgrown sections were a discouragement. Any infrastructure requires a commitment. The bike lanes of Cambridge are a prime example. Poorly implemented initially, opposed by some pretty vocal advocates they've been left to fade and now exist as a neither here nor there network of half-assed lanes that are dangerous. Rather than take responsibility to redesign, update, modify or remove them if necessary that infrastructure remains in a kind of purgatory.

To, in a sense, reiterate my OP. I spend a lot of time riding on the roads of Massachusetts and virtually nothing has changed about road riding as a result of a constant drumbeat of "fighting to maintain our right to the roads". To claim we might not still have those rights seems disingenuous or a means of justifying years of marching to that rallying cry. But where I notice a real difference is in the work of Rails to Trails, Livable Streets, Charles River Conservancy. That has had a direct and noticeable impact on my riding and that of many other cyclists both transportationally and recreationally.

[Allister]

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind, buzzman.

[San Rensho]

I would love to see nice wide, bike only paths, with controlled intersections, crisscrossing the city so no matter where I want to go I can go on a bike path, but that is not going to happen any time soon.

Since the reality is that bikes will have to share the road with cars for a long time to come, bicycle advocacy should focus on making the coexistence of bikes and cars on the road as safe as possible for the cyclist.

[mandovoodoo]

I do not believe cyclists should have all the same roadway rights as automobiles. Many car drivers agree with me and "education" will not change that opinion. MUP's (your ironic last choice) seems to be the only safe solution for bicycle riders. I have never had life threatening issues on the shared path, maybe a minor inconvenience of moving out of someone's way, but that is preferable to taking on 3000 lbs of steel!

1. Automobile drivers have no rights, only privileges granted by law.

2. MUPs aren't safe for riders. They could be with proper design, construction, and education. Currently all the MUPs I've been on present serious hazards, very well known ones, including other users, blind sections, holes, off-perpendicular rail crossings, numerous intersections, etc. They're not much use on weekends in urban areas. Mix is dangerous in the extreme. Road bike 22 mph doesn't mix well w/ other users. Let alone a group of 4 at 26 mph. I can only think you're riding slowly. MUPs are fine for low speeds and poking along. And for regular riders at typical road speeds when other users aren't there.

3. MUPs don't generally go where people want to go. We end up on the streets regardless.

4. Lots of bad wrecks on MUPs. I even got hit by a drunk cyclist head on once - GWPkwy trail in Alexandria. I got hurt pretty badly, worst wreck I ever had, including my several with motor vehicles. I've personally seen more non-racing wrecks on MUPs than on the road, even though I hardly ever ride on them.

5. Bikes work fine on roads.


There's room for both, but neither is a substitute for the other. Family walks with dogs don't work on roads and road cyclists don't do well on MUPs when traffic levels rise.

[Ajenkins]

Interesting. I must have lived not too far from where the OP does during my 12 years in Boston, actually West Newton. I rode the same roads and the same bike path, and frankly, I found the bike path useless for commuting. I found the drivers to be as courteous to me as they were to any other vehicle, which is to say, not at all; but the road was infinitely preferable to the MUP with its peds, dogs, kids, BBQs and general crapola. 10 mph on the MUP was a great speed.

Give me the roads, and an advocacy group that supports their use, any day of the week. Give the MUPs to the rollerbladers.

[Bikepacker67]

I think there's always going to be pressure, no matter how irrational, to get bikes off the road completely, so, while it may not be making things better, supporting the right to use the road will hopefully stop it getting worse. There's nothing wrong with supporting both. If nothing else, cyclists competent in riding on the road are also going to be competent path users.

And in a way, a network of MUP's makes it even harder for the commuter/utility cyclist, because Joe Sixpack in his SUV just thinks that you're being an even bigger dink for having the audacity to ride the road (let alone take the lane!) when there's a perfectly good bikepath not going where you want to go!

[ATAC49er]

I do not believe cyclists should have all the same roadway rights as automobiles. Many car drivers agree with me and "education" will not change that opinion. MUP's (your ironic last choice) seems to be the only safe solution for bicycle riders. I have never had life threatening issues on the shared path, maybe a minor inconvenience of moving out of someone's way, but that is preferable to taking on 3000 lbs of steel!

David, David, DAVID...you disappoint me, sir.

I encountered you on another thread, where you expressed your belief in riding against traffic; I pm'd you with the hope that constructive advice would help you realize and achieve your best as a bike commuter.

Regardless of your belief, THE LAW STATES that bikes and cars have the same rights and responsibilities on the road, IN ALL 50! I personally am indifferent to whether car drivers think I don't belong on the road; they can tolerate me or run me over -- and if I survive, I will own three generations of their family. If I don't survive, I won't have to put up with the collective B.S. anymore.

You do not have to 'take on 3000lbs. of steel'; as I stated to you in p.m., drivers will not risk prison to run you over. (Any that do, are a hazard to society as a whole, and not just you.)

If you want ease and comfort, you have embraced the wrong 'hobby'. Cycling and bike commuting are not easy, but they are rewarding...as you may discover if you can endure.

[chipcom]

MUP is for wussy - but the scenery can be nice on a hot summer day. :D

[Allister]

MUP is for wussy - but the scenery can be nice on a hot summer day. :D

You got that right. That's one of the best things about Brisbane - the scenery is nice year round.

[tinydr]

edited

[buzzman]

Interesting. I must have lived not too far from where the OP does during my 12 years in Boston, actually West Newton. I rode the same roads and the same bike path, and frankly, I found the bike path useless for commuting. I found the drivers to be as courteous to me as they were to any other vehicle, which is to say, not at all; but the road was infinitely preferable to the MUP with its peds, dogs, kids, BBQs and general crapola. 10 mph on the MUP was a great speed.

Give me the roads, and an advocacy group that supports their use, any day of the week. Give the MUPs to the rollerbladers.

if you read my first post you might notice that I took the bike path home at 10 pm. I averaged about 18.5 mph on the path on the ride home. I saw about a dozen people on the whole 8.5 ride on the path- no BBQ's no dogs, no kids, no general crapola.

You write as if 24/7 365 days a year the bike path is clogged with people in your way. It's Boston, not exactly the Sunshine State. Yeah, if I wanted to brave the bike path on a gorgeous spring or summer weekend I would absolutely encounter such things and I would fully expect to- but then why would I ride it at that time? I'd ride rather ride on the road unless I just wanted to meander and take in the scenery. If I use it to commute I use it at odd times or I often use it in the winter- it's not plowed with any regularity but on a frigid dry winter day with no little or snow I have it all to myself any time I want. Out of 365 days of the year I would guess that on about 45 of them, mostly in the summer, the bike path is clogged with fair weather joggers, strollers, bladers, dog walkers, meandering bikers and an overabundance of just plain idiots. This occurs from about 10am to about 7:30pm. I avoid the path on those days and at those times but on nights like tonight where I left downtown Boston at 11pm it's the best kept biker's secret there is.

By taking the bike path in I get a couple of extra miles in each way- not something I complain about but something I prefer.

It takes me about 40 minutes door to door using the bike path- a 10.3 mile commute with about 2 miles of it on the road.

It takes me about 30 minutes door to door using just the roads an 8.5 mile commute.

If the bike path seems useless for commuting it's a message I have failed to get.

[buzzman]

And in a way, a network of MUP's makes it even harder for the commuter/utility cyclist, because Joe Sixpack in his SUV just thinks that you're being an even bigger dink for having the audacity to ride the road (let alone take the lane!) when there's a perfectly good bikepath not going where you want to go!

since when does Joe Sixpack in his SUV think?;)

[gcottay]

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind, buzzman.

Allister, Buzzman can, of course, speak for himself.

I have made up my mind on this question. That does not, however, imply I cannot learn and change.

[Denny Koll]

1. Automobile drivers have no rights, only privileges granted by law.

2. MUPs aren't safe for riders. They could be with proper design, construction, and education. Currently all the MUPs I've been on present serious hazards, very well known ones, including other users, blind sections, holes, off-perpendicular rail crossings, numerous intersections, etc. They're not much use on weekends in urban areas. Mix is dangerous in the extreme. Road bike 22 mph doesn't mix well w/ other users. Let alone a group of 4 at 26 mph. I can only think you're riding slowly. MUPs are fine for low speeds and poking along. And for regular riders at typical road speeds when other users aren't there.

3. MUPs don't generally go where people want to go. We end up on the streets regardless.

4. Lots of bad wrecks on MUPs. I even got hit by a drunk cyclist head on once - GWPkwy trail in Alexandria. I got hurt pretty badly, worst wreck I ever had, including my several with motor vehicles. I've personally seen more non-racing wrecks on MUPs than on the road, even though I hardly ever ride on them.

5. Bikes work fine on roads.


There's room for both, but neither is a substitute for the other. Family walks with dogs don't work on roads and road cyclists don't do well on MUPs when traffic levels rise.


This post is full of mis-information.

Many MUPs that I have been on are lightly used and you can easily ride as fast as you want to.

MUPs are not dangerous when compared to riding on roads. Unless you are trying to take blind corners at 30 MPH.

Many MUPs are helpful for getting where you want to go. Ride the roads and MUPs.

[genec]

I think the thing that irritates me the most about paths and bike lanes is they tend to be put where they do the least good. Paths are put in parks or along rivers or RR beds, but rarely in congested urban areas as an alternative to crowded high speed arterials.

Bike lanes are put on quiet roads, and here even arterials, but oddly on the arterials if the road becomes narrow or there is on street parking... oops nothing for cyclists.

Oh we do have two paths that are quite nice... one provides connection where only Freeways go... but it is a narrow path with poor corners...

The other path parallels a new Freeway... the path was added as there was once a road that connected various communities that cyclists could use, but it was replaced by a limited access Freeway, thus cutting off cyclists until the path was built.

[tinydr]

edited........

[Torrilin]

I think the thing that irritates me the most about paths and bike lanes is they tend to be put where they do the least good. Paths are put in parks or along rivers or RR beds, but rarely in congested urban areas as an alternative to crowded high speed arterials.

Oddly enough, both of the paths I use regularly let me bypass an arterial route in a congested urban area. It's not the path's fault if it was laid out badly (and yes, there are bad bike paths in Madison). The fault comes from poor planning. Often in a crowded urban area there is no room to lay out a path without using eminent domain... which tends to create a lot of ill will on the part of the property owners. Getting a road to go someplace useful can be just as hard or harder than getting a bike path to be useful. Just ask PENNdot... they spent over a decade in the courts trying to enforce an eminent domain claim to modify US 322.

It takes a lot of hard work by the planning department to make our roads useful. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a bike path or bike lane to work as well as a road without putting in the work.

Bike lanes are put on quiet roads, and here even arterials, but oddly on the arterials if the road becomes narrow or there is on street parking... oops nothing for cyclists.

Again, this is not a case of bike lanes are evil. It's the planning was done badly.

On street parking is convenient for drivers. It's a source of revenue for most cities. It is dangerous to drivers (think about how careful you are when you use it) *and* to people using the road. Cyclists aren't the only ones who get doored, we're just the ones who get hurt worst by it. It causes problems with various sorts of delivery trucks. On street parking makes street cleaning and road maintenance harder than they need to be. A city planning group has to balance the bad elements and the good elements. Often, it is easy for residents who drive to argue that their convenient and revenue producing parking should stay, even tho it is dangerous.

If cyclists ally with truckers and trucking businesses, it might be easier to get a change. They find on street parking unsafe too, and it's a problem for their business. It's also helpful to have suggestions on how to handle the parking shortage and revenue shortage created when on street parking is removed. You may not get a good bike lane out of this activism, but I'll take not getting doored over a bike lane *g*.

Good design doesn't happen by accident.

[buzzman]

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind, buzzman.

I can understand how you might think that from my posts but I really am a kind of Jeckyll and Hyde on this. I can get as frustrated as the best of them at times on the bike path into Boston. Downright surly, in fact, especially after a winter of having it all to myself. But, as I point out, it's not every day and I try to make sure that I don't use the path during times when it's packed with Bozos- unless I'm in a Bozo kind of mood myself and want to join that tribe.

The thing is with improvements the path could be quite useful. And this I compare to what is basically the same conditions on the roads I have ridden since the 1960's when I first started doing long road rides in New England. There are more cars on the roads and the same percentage of them are dangerous- so even more jerks than 40 years ago in total. Despite all the arm flapping and tongue wagging about our rights to the roads I don't see any improvements in any practical way- unless there are changes in infrastructure. And I must admit a lot of roads don't need much improvement I ride them with no issues. Other roads that have been circuits used for training and racing for many years have an interesting mix of respectful drivers and downright hostile ones. And some of the hostility is worse than ever.

For all the efforts to educate police officers in the rights of cyclists it seems to have spurred police to pull over and cite cyclists for infractions but I've yet to see a cop pull over a car that was aggressing a cyclist, blocking a bike lane, right hooking someone- never- but I've seen cyclists getting tickets- so I guess in some twisted way that's progress?:rolleyes:

[LittleBigMan]

I often prefer a less busy route. Shade, quiet streets, and quaint homes are abundant on my hour-plus-long route home. A nice path by the Carter Center downtown is a nice addition, too.

:)

[Bekologist]

boy, good thing most cities weren't built around waterways or use railroads.

If this were the case, building MUPs with limited intersection chatter along traditional transportation pathways to route 21st century MUP networks might make sense.

[mandovoodoo]

I've ridden on two sets of MUPs extensively. I used to commute on the GW Parkway MUP in the 1970s, Alexandria to Georgetown. I still ride that sometimes. Nightmare on weekends. Highly mixed, random behavior. Most seem to understand how to work with others, but many don't, and that greatly cuts the safe speed. Still lots of weirdness on this system, including quite demanding drops towards Mt. Vernon, wet boards, plenty of crossings, and needless wandering of the path for some kind of misguided desire to make things interesting. Not that I can't ride it - I've done the whole thing on tandem many times.

I've also ridden the Maryville, TN system a bunch. Seems very typical. Blind corners, bumps, needless curves and hazards, incoherent users.

These systems work for slow speed recreational users. They may work somewhat for commuters in off hours. They simply don't work for actually using a bicycle to get places safely and quickly.

The need to blast around blind turns isn't the problem. The blind turns are the problem. A path for vehicles should have a great sight line to allow efficient use, not blind spots and other BS.

This is, of course, from the perspective of someone with lots of miles on roads, interested in riding at typical bicycle speeds (for performance road riders) averaging over 15 mph, often quite a bit more than 15 mph. The MUPs I've seen don't have sight lines, surfaces, camber, or anything designed to allow efficient road type cycling.

Of course slower riders are going to have a much different experience. On the other hand, I've seen slower riders picking up their teeth. The typical MUP mix when use level goes up creates unnecessary hazards. This is pretty well worked out.

And isn't misinformation, as suggested above.

I've only had that GW MUP go where I wanted.

None of the MUPs I've been on is at all suited for riding at my typical speeds, even if assured that no other traffic is present and that I could blow all the stops etc. They're tiny. Even compared to the smallest county road.

[buzzman]

I've ridden on two sets of MUPs extensively. I used to commute on the GW Parkway MUP in the 1970s, Alexandria to Georgetown. I still ride that sometimes. Nightmare on weekends. Highly mixed, random behavior. Most seem to understand how to work with others, but many don't, and that greatly cuts the safe speed. Still lots of weirdness on this system, including quite demanding drops towards Mt. Vernon, wet boards, plenty of crossings, and needless wandering of the path for some kind of misguided desire to make things interesting. Not that I can't ride it - I've done the whole thing on tandem many times.

I've also ridden the Maryville, TN system a bunch. Seems very typical. Blind corners, bumps, needless curves and hazards, incoherent users.

These systems work for slow speed recreational users. They may work somewhat for commuters in off hours. They simply don't work for actually using a bicycle to get places safely and quickly.

The need to blast around blind turns isn't the problem. The blind turns are the problem. A path for vehicles should have a great sight line to allow efficient use, not blind spots and other BS.

This is, of course, from the perspective of someone with lots of miles on roads, interested in riding at typical bicycle speeds (for performance road riders) averaging over 15 mph, often quite a bit more than 15 mph. The MUPs I've seen don't have sight lines, surfaces, camber, or anything designed to allow efficient road type cycling.

Of course slower riders are going to have a much different experience. On the other hand, I've seen slower riders picking up their teeth. The typical MUP mix when use level goes up creates unnecessary hazards. This is pretty well worked out.

And isn't misinformation, as suggested above.

I've only had that GW MUP go where I wanted.

None of the MUPs I've been on is at all suited for riding at my typical speeds, even if assured that no other traffic is present and that I could blow all the stops etc. They're tiny. Even compared to the smallest county road.

you make some good points, mandovoodoo, and many that I am sure I would agree with based on your description of the MUPs you described.

But, in a sense, the conclusion one could draw from your comments is that if the MUPs were straight, wider, went more directly to places one might likely want/need to go and intersections were properly designed and few and far between and pedestrians were prohibited, relegated to a side path or managed/educated to use the path in some way then a bike path might be useful to you. A sizable wish list but, IMO, not completely out of the question.

It seems many of us talk about MUP's being fine for recreational use but not for transportation but I get the sense that often when we're talking about riding in a pack and/or 20+mph we're not talking about the usual commute. My commute speeds are considerably slower than my typical road ride for training or my longer transportational/touring type rides. In those cases, yes, a bike path might not be appropriate. Although, the only time in recent memory that I recall riding a pace line to work was when two or three of us fell in together on, of all things, the bike path- to do so on my streets route to work would be impractical.

If you visit the commuter's forum and read the posts in "How was your commute today?" you'll get the sense that most of the commuters who post there are happy to average about 13 mph. I lived in Rotterdam for a while and felt like a freak because my average speed, be it in a bike lane or on the bike paths, was easily a third to twice as fast as that of every other cyclist. At first I thought these Dutch are out of shape or something and then I realized they were thinking "where's the fire?" or "must be an American." (or idioot! klootzak!). When a substantial percentage of the general population genuinely uses a bike every day for transportation and there is an appropriate infrastructure to accommodate them the pressure to go at speeds approaching that of the automobiles around them is far less.

[wahoonc]

you make some good points, mandovoodoo, and many that I am sure I would agree with based on your description of the MUPs you described.

But, in a sense, the conclusion one could draw from your comments is that if the MUPs were straight, wider, went more directly to places one might likely want/need to go and intersections were properly designed and few and far between and pedestrians were prohibited, relegated to a side path or managed/educated to use the path in some way then a bike path might be useful to you. A sizable wish list but, IMO, not completely out of the question.

It seems many of us talk about MUP's being fine for recreational use but not for transportation but I get the sense that often when we're talking about riding in a pack and/or 20+mph we're not talking about the usual commute. My commute speeds are considerably slower than my typical road ride for training or my longer transportational/touring type rides. In those cases, yes, a bike path might not be appropriate. Although, the only time in recent memory that I recall riding a pace line to work was when two or three of us fell in together on, of all things, the bike path- to do so on my streets route to work would be impractical.

If you visit the commuter's forum and read the posts in "How was your commute today?" you'll get the sense that most of the commuters who post there are happy to average about 13 mph. I lived in Rotterdam for a while and felt like a freak because my average speed, be it in a bike lane or on the bike paths, was easily a third to twice as fast as that of every other cyclist. At first I thought these Dutch are out of shape or something and then I realized they were thinking "where's the fire?" or "must be an American." (or idioot! klootzak!). When a substantial percentage of the general population genuinely uses a bike every day for transportation and there is an appropriate infrastructure to accommodate them the pressure to go at speeds approaching that of the automobiles around them is far less.

Concise and well done!

Americans appear to treat everything as a competition...even the ride to work. FWIW when I was cycle commuting regularly my speeds were usually under 12mph, I rode in street clothes on an upright Raleigh 3 speed. Still ride that way today.

The single MUP in my nearby town is strictly a recreational trail, it doesn't really lead anywhere except from one small town to another, it is a converted railroad right of way. It also closes at sundown. I have yet to see the Copenhagen bicycle infrastructure in person, but from what I have read, and seen videos of it works and works quite well. The Danes do have a few advantages over us in the US...shorter work weeks, flex scheduling and a 40+ year head start on cycle infrastructure. From what I have seen the cycle paths are for cyclists, not dog walkers, strollers, joggers or anything else. Also the driver's over their are much better educated and trained. They take months of classes prior to driving vs the less than one week of training that most US drivers receive (if that much)


Aaron:)

[genec]

you make some good points, mandovoodoo, and many that I am sure I would agree with based on your description of the MUPs you described.

But, in a sense, the conclusion one could draw from your comments is that if the MUPs were straight, wider, went more directly to places one might likely want/need to go and intersections were properly designed and few and far between and pedestrians were prohibited, relegated to a side path or managed/educated to use the path in some way then a bike path might be useful to you. A sizable wish list but, IMO, not completely out of the question.

It seems many of us talk about MUP's being fine for recreational use but not for transportation but I get the sense that often when we're talking about riding in a pack and/or 20+mph we're not talking about the usual commute. My commute speeds are considerably slower than my typical road ride for training or my longer transportational/touring type rides. In those cases, yes, a bike path might not be appropriate. Although, the only time in recent memory that I recall riding a pace line to work was when two or three of us fell in together on, of all things, the bike path- to do so on my streets route to work would be impractical.

If you visit the commuter's forum and read the posts in "How was your commute today?" you'll get the sense that most of the commuters who post there are happy to average about 13 mph. I lived in Rotterdam for a while and felt like a freak because my average speed, be it in a bike lane or on the bike paths, was easily a third to twice as fast as that of every other cyclist. At first I thought these Dutch are out of shape or something and then I realized they were thinking "where's the fire?" or "must be an American." (or idioot! klootzak!). When a substantial percentage of the general population genuinely uses a bike every day for transportation and there is an appropriate infrastructure to accommodate them the pressure to go at speeds approaching that of the automobiles around them is far less.

While I agree that most paths are poorly designed and are best suitable for some recreation cyclists... I also fully embrace that paths can be designed better to serve as transportation corridors.

What I disagree with is that transportation cyclists "are happy doing 13MPH." This is simply not true... the 13MPH is the average, and that average speed is based on stopping and starting at each darn traffic light and stop sign. Given the opportunity, cyclists will always desire to go faster and to not lose inertia at each and every intersection. But generally our traffic system is not geared for cyclists... it is geared for motor traffic; a situation where inertia is not much of an issue for someone merely flexing their right foot. However, even motorists tire of constant stopping and starting and prefer freeways to surface streets. Cyclists however have no alternative... and thus end up doing 13MPH averages as they cross town.

RE the commentary on Dutch streets... consider that many European cities have far more compact layouts, thus one can get where they want to go in reasonable time as one has a shorter distance to go. "Reasonable time" is always a factor... people tend to think in terms of how long, rather then how far... How long will it take me to get there... Ask anyone how far away something is and the usual reply will be in time... "20 minutes," "two hours..." etc. Even if the reply is in miles, it is often followed by "it's a short drive... only x amount of time... "

Going back to the path issue... the key is moving these things out of the domain of "parks departments" and putting them into the domain of transportation departments and establishing minimum standards based on speed and traffic load... in other words, making them true transportation corridors. The difference between a recreation path and a true transportation path is night and day.

[RobertHurst]

[...]

None of the MUPs I've been on is at all suited for riding at my typical speeds, even if assured that no other traffic is present and that I could blow all the stops etc. They're tiny. Even compared to the smallest county road.

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. It's not perfect, but it certainly is useful. It only takes one such path to make a real difference for a community's cyclists. Any negative repercussions that have come about as a result of Denver's MUPs have not been detectable or significant beside the obvious benefits.

Robert

[Allister]

Seems to me that the typical MUP has the greatest scope for improvement, and could do with a bit more advocacy.

[Ajenkins]

But, in a sense, the conclusion one could draw from your comments is that if the MUPs were straight, wider, went more directly to places one might likely want/need to go and intersections were properly designed and few and far between and pedestrians were prohibited, relegated to a side path or managed/educated to use the path in some way then a bike path might be useful to you. A sizable wish list but, IMO, not completely out of the question.

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.

[Speedo]

My question is how does it serve a cyclist like me when cycling advocacy organizations put their primary focus on our rights to the road and either ignore, oppose or downplay the significance of bike infrastructure?

I'm also from the Boston area. The weather has been fantastic this month hasn't it?

You should ask yourself one question about that bike path. Does it get plowed in the winter?

It's kind of a key question. It goes to the heart of what the bike paths in Massachusetts are all about. They're linear parks. I do part of my commute on the Minuteman Bikeway. It was paid for, in part, with transportation dollars. It's pretty empty during commuting hours. It fills up after work and on weekends. It's a linear park. Not that that's bad, but organizations trying to promote cycling transportation don't really get much bang out of linear parks. The linear parks are where they are because either a park existed, or a railroad right-of-way existed, not that it was the right place for transportation infrastructure. The people in government who support the parks see them as parks. If they were honest to goodness transportation then they would be plowed and salted in the winter. The winter, when the roads are narrowed due to plowed snow, would be the best time to have an off street alternative route. But the linear parks are the domain of cross country skiers (and even snow machines out Bedford way!) then.

So, while it's nice to ride in the park, it doesn't solve any problems.

Speedo

[Bikepacker67]

since when does Joe Sixpack in his SUV think?;)

Ok, maybe it's more like Freud's Id.
Either way, they get their impotent hard-ons from sitting on their asses and toeing a gas pedal.

[buzzman]

I'm also from the Boston area. The weather has been fantastic this month hasn't it?

You should ask yourself one question about that bike path. Does it get plowed in the winter?

It's kind of a key question. It goes to the heart of what the bike paths in Massachusetts are all about. They're linear parks. I do part of my commute on the Minuteman Bikeway. It was paid for, in part, with transportation dollars. It's pretty empty during commuting hours. It fills up after work and on weekends. It's a linear park. Not that that's bad, but organizations trying to promote cycling transportation don't really get much bang out of linear parks. The linear parks are where they are because either a park existed, or a railroad right-of-way existed, not that it was the right place for transportation infrastructure. The people in government who support the parks see them as parks. If they were honest to goodness transportation then they would be plowed and salted in the winter. The winter, when the roads are narrowed due to plowed snow, would be the best time to have an off street alternative route. But the linear parks are the domain of cross country skiers (and even snow machines out Bedford way!) then.

So, while it's nice to ride in the park, it doesn't solve any problems.

Speedo


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.

And, yeah, the weather has been amazing! A little windy but it's awfully nice when it's at your back- it's made for some real fast rides one way and slow rides back.

[buzzman]

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.

Ajenkins, The wornout slogan "we have all the bike paths we need they're called 'roads'" works as a nice little sound bite to stifle dialogue but it has some flaws. Not the least of which is the fact that what I described amounts to a ROAD but one WITHOUT CARS.

I think motorist and cyclist education may be a reasonable starting point. But no changes in infrastructure at all will hardly amount to much change in the cycling environment. Perhaps stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws and speed limits, cracking down on aggressive drivers, better licensing and testing of drivers might help a bit.