Advocacy & Safety - Another reason I do not support bike paths

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_11606756


"Blight hits 14-mile bicycle path along the Metro's Orange Line"

This story details the sorry state of this bike path.

I suspect that neglect, disrepair and eventual disuse will be the result of most bike paths; at least, that's what I've seen so far.

Which is why I prefer using the bike paths (i.e. roads) we already have, and teaching the immature among us how to behave responsibly and share.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_11606756


"Blight hits 14-mile bicycle path along the Metro's Orange Line"

This story details the sorry state of this bike path.

I suspect that neglect, disrepair and eventual disuse will be the result of most bike paths; at least, that's what I've seen so far.

Which is why I prefer using the bike paths (i.e. roads) we already have, and teaching the immature among us how to behave responsibly and share.

Why not work with your local cycling groups to demand that that bike path be properly maintained instead of throwing up your hands and being so pessimistic? If the roads were allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair, you can be sure that the cagers would pressure their representatives to repair them.

I have lots of bikepaths. Mine are beautiful and well maintained. I want more of them.

However, there are cities where building a trail would be a waste of time and they will have the same fate as the one on the OP's linky.

What? homeless encampments are the fault of the bike path?

OP needs a reality check, a little maturity and learning how to behave responsibly and share with the rest of society.

If there's a homeless problem, a bike path has little to do with their state of destitution. Sounds like the city has a lot of work in store for them solving the homeless problem.

Some bikes are ill designed, many are neglected, and some are used for nefarious purposes so I suppose the OP does not support cycling.

Is a volunteer group possible to pick up the trash and maintain the path possible? I suggest 20-30 people, with big boomboxes playing bluegrass music arrive at the path at 6 am. and begin trash pickup. Be sure to discuss cycling and the pros and cons of liquid wax versus paste. Loudly. Invite the local police; invite the local immigration office; invite the city councilmen. Invite the press.

I suspect that neglect, disrepair and eventual disuse will be the result of most bike paths; at least, that's what I've seen so far.

Which is why I prefer using the bike paths (i.e. roads) we already have, and teaching the immature among us how to behave responsibly and share.

You should also pass on your views to the Dutch policymakers.
Just explain to them that their whole bikepath idea just isn't working.

On a similar note, someone nearby me farted recently.
It was awful.

I've decided to stop breathing

Bike paths don't work where bicycles represent less than 1% of all transportation...

^ One percent is the cut off point?
1.5% and it's OK?

Do you even ride a bike?

Bike paths don't work where bicycles represent less than 1% of all transportation...
For all you know this bike path may be crowded with bikes during the commute. More bikers on the path won't cure homelessness.

^ One percent is the cut off point?
1.5% and it's OK?

Do you even ride a bike?

Your mileage may vary.

Heck yeah I ride a bike...

My point is that as long as cycling is so low on the transportation scale, it will always be treated as "the illegitimate step child."

But I would rather ride a poorly maintained bike path then try to "take a lane" on a crowded 60MPH arterial.

^ One percent is the cut off point?
1.5% and it's OK?

Do you even ride a bike?

His statement does not imply 1% is a cut off point. Going by the statement alone, he might also think that 99% wouldn't work either. (Though I know he doesn't.)

I was a bit rude earlier.

My point is that infrastructure can change behavior.
If a good trail network is developed, people will take notice and use it.
If one bike path ends up in a less than ideal state, it doesn't necessarily follow that they all will.

Bike paths don't work where bicycles represent less than 1% of all transportation...

They work well for the 1% that does use them for transportation, and are greatly appreciated by a much greater percentage that uses them for recreation.

Frankly I'd be thrilled if even 1% of the transportation budget were spent on cycling.

I was a bit rude earlier.

My point is that infrastructure can change behavior.
If a good trail network is developed, people will take notice and use it.
If one bike path ends up in a less than ideal state, it doesn't necessarily follow that they all will.

I agree... but the flaw is that "a cycling network" has to work... if it is an isolated path without suitable connections, as is often the case in the US where such paths are the domain of parks departments vice transportation departments... then it is virtually useless and will be treated as such.

They work well for the 1% that does use them for transportation, and are greatly appreciated by a much greater percentage that uses them for recreation.

Frankly I'd be thrilled if even 1% of the transportation budget were spent on cycling.

Bingo! This is the key. Imagine what might happen if 2% of TRANSPORTATION budgets were devoted to cycling.

Frankly I'd be thrilled if even 1% of the transportation budget were spent on cycling.

10% and you've got cycling utopia.

I wonder what we could find more examples of
1) A trail that gets constructed in a safe crime free area and the presense of the trail transforms the region ala the example you give.
or
2) An area is run down, blighted, and unwelcoming to the surrounding commuity and is transformed into a pleasant popular green space that the community considers an asset.

In my experience your example is not typical for trail development. What was this region like before the trail? Is this truely new for the area, or was there crime, homelessness, and litter before the trail and the trail was built in hopes of being a solution to the problems that didn't work (or didn't work yet)?

Scot

I've ridden the bike path in the article. The problem I see is that much of it is lacking in lighting and some of it goes through what seems to be a semi-industrial area that makes it easy for people to hide/camp/whatever.. without being disturbed, which is why there are so many homeless people around there. It was slightly unnerving riding home from my friend's place after dark by myself.

I think the pic from the article is a little misleading though, I only saw a couple homeless people when I was riding, and passed a few other bikes, but mostly joggers and people walking their dogs. I'm willing to bet the only homeless guy in that pic is the guy with the cart.

Here's a pic I took of the same path.. of a homeless guy.. heh..
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2691210247_a1d2ea76aa_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/2691210247/)

Amazing leap of logic on part of the OP.

Bike Paths as a social pariah leading to homelessness and trash- that's a new one on me.

Yes, much better to ride on roads that keep us from seeing poverty. :rolleyes:

I'll go out on a limb here and dare to say the issue here is not the bike paths but the social conditions that put people in such dire straits that they feel the need to take up residence there.

Following the OP's logic I could oppose urban park spaces like Central Park in NYC because homeless people take up residence in the park at night.

I could oppose those heating vents for large buildings in cities for the same reason- just a catch basin for the dregs of humanity.:(

The bike path I use frequently to get to work is not always well maintained by the state agency that oversees it but there are several non-profit organizations (Charles River Consevancy/Mass Bike) that have volunteer days to do work on it. It's a great feeling to ride along it when I know I trimmed the brush and picked up the litter with the hundred or so other volunteers.

Since the OP already has a predisposition of dislike for bike paths I doubt he'd be interested in volunteering to either pick up trash or assist the homeless but others might be so inclined should their local bike path suffer a similar fate.

I'm with Bhop on this, industrial areas are preferred by the homeless because they are more open, with more areas to hide out. Residential areas on the other hand will have people around that own property and will take action when they see someone trying to camp out under their lilac bush.

Odds are there were plenty of homeless people in the area before the trail went through, they're just noticed now because people are using the trail.
Nearby there is an old farm house on a narrow road with the house on one side of the road, and the barn and garage on the other side of the road, most people ask why they were built that way. answer is they weren't the original road went in front of the house, it got washed out, and the only way to get another road in was to go through the middle of the guys property.

Most likely the same thing, homeless people and trash was already there, it's just since the trail went through that it's become visible.

Ken.

At least the surface is still ride-able which is more than I can say for some paths I've seen.

The path connects two transit centers. Doesn't sound like a badly thought out path to me.

The path connects two transit centers. Doesn't sound like a badly thought out path to me.

Really... do you happen to work or shop or live at a transit center? Hardly a destination then, is it? A connection between two transit centers is only practical for folks going to transit centers... and a cyclist has their own transportation.

None of the freeways I use go from transit center to transit center... they usually go to housing developments, or shopping areas or city centers where work is done.

One has to wonder if there is an alternate way to go from "transit center" to "transit center," such as by bike rack equipped bus? Or to put it another way... locally if I want to take the light rail line, I am not likely to ride a bike between stations.

All in all I am simply suggesting that perhaps this bike path is not part of a good cycling network. Perhaps it IS part of a transit network, but only as an alternative to using that transit form.

Actually, I really like this bike path but that might be because I can get directly to my friend's house by riding it. It's separated from traffic so it's way less stressful than the usual bike paths I ride with cars zooming past you at 50mph. You don't have to think about door prizes or right hooks. I think if they'd improve the lighting situation at night it'd be great.

[This bike path is] separated from traffic so it's way less stressful than the usual bike paths...

Yes! That's the key, Bhop. I wonder how many of the Americans who oppose bike paths would change their minds if they had the chance to ride on physically separated ones like we have here in Europe. We've seen a tremendous surge in bike commuting since ours were built.

Ekdog, your bike paths actually go places that people want to go, and are generally restricted to bicycles. Bike paths in the U.S. are silly little recreational things full of toddlers and dog poop, poorly constructed from a safety point of view, and even more poorly maintained.

BTW, my point in the original post had nothing to do with the utter lack of support our society provides to those of us in the most need of it. I was pointing out (1) yet another bike path that is not maintained to a useable condition and (2) what the heck are we doing wasting money on these useless things when there is plenty of asphalt already available and there are so many homeless people that are in need of help?

Obviously, I didn't make my points clearly enough.

I hardly think the homeless are not being helped because too much money is being spent on bicycle infrastructure. Here's an idea: How about putting some of those people to work cleaning and repairing the bike path?

By the way, I've noticed that almost all of the African refugees in our city, poor folks who sell Kleenex at stoplights, commute by bike. It's the cheapest way to get around. The bike paths have been a boon to the poor.

Yes! That's the key, Bhop. I wonder how many of the Americans who oppose bike paths would change their minds if they had the chance to ride on physically separated ones like we have here in Europe. We've seen a tremendous surge in bike commuting since ours were built.
+1. Most of our bike paths are recreational and can be good for that but are not well positioned to serve as commuting alternatives. When I was in Seville recently I rode on bike lanes that run along several main roads separated by simple concrete dividers. It looked to me like they simply removed parking from one side of the street, painted the pavement green, and set in the dividers. You could easily do that along many American streets. The dividers keep the cars separate and vastly improve the utility of the bike lane. Riders feel (and are) much safer and drivers are not irritated by riders they view as obstructing their progress since they cannot possibly use the lanes anyway.

I'm glad you were able to check out our bike paths, Donheff. In case you haven't seen it, there's a video here (http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/) that makes the case for physically-separated bike lanes. The cyclists in New York seem to have seen the light and are pushing for them.

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't mind the "crumbling" asphalt of some of our trails here in Colorado Springs! I hope they don't get resufaced and go back to dirt, that's why I got a "fat tire" bike! ;) My complaint is that there's using really nice smooth concrete on the newer trails, BUMMER!! Ya we got lot's of homeless folks on many of our paths, especially the main north/south trail, (Pikes Peak Greenway) so far they've never bothered me or I them so I don't see it as a problem. I don't expect it to be pristine, after all, it's thru the center of a city!!

Ekdog, your bike paths actually go places that people want to go, and are generally restricted to bicycles. Bike paths in the U.S. are silly little recreational things full of toddlers and dog poop, poorly constructed from a safety point of view, and even more poorly maintained.

BTW, my point in the original post had nothing to do with the utter lack of support our society provides to those of us in the most need of it. I was pointing out (1) yet another bike path that is not maintained to a useable condition and (2) what the heck are we doing wasting money on these useless things when there is plenty of asphalt already available and there are so many homeless people that are in need of help?

Obviously, I didn't make my points clearly enough.


It sounds to me like you oppose a recreational MUP's/bike paths that do not serve your transportational needs. Why that leads you to simply not support bike paths isn't easily followed logically- especially when I read your response to Ekdog.

Are you saying that if bike paths were more destination oriented and restricted or more carefully controlled for bikes you would support them?

Funny that you say they are a "waste of money when there is plenty of asphalt and there are so many homeless in need of help."

Are you familiar with the work of Enrique Penalosa, the former Mayor of Bogota, Colombia? How he addressed the needs of a crime torn, poverty stricken urban center by taking money from the autocentric, asphalt driven mindset and reduced the murder rate by 40% all by building more MUP's and park like spaces.

It's a fallacy that MUP's and bike paths somehow shortchange the poor and disenfranchised and serve the privileged. They are a great equalizer and there is a reason why all those homeless people are drawn to that area and that is the a larger societal ill that needs to be addressed but believe it or not bike paths are a means of addressing that ill.

Here's a link to an article about Penalosa, who happens to be speaking tonight in Boston, MA at the Public Library in Copley Square:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070622.whappyurbanmain0623/BNStory/lifeMain/home

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't mind the "crumbling" asphalt of some of our trails here in Colorado Springs! I hope they don't get resufaced and go back to dirt, that's why I got a "fat tire" bike! ;) My complaint is that there's using really nice smooth concrete on the newer trails, BUMMER!! Ya we got lot's of homeless folks on many of our paths, especially the main north/south trail, (Pikes Peak Greenway) so far they've never bothered me or I them so I don't see it as a problem. I don't expect it to be pristine, after all, it's thru the center of a city!!

I have to laugh... this is the very reason I changed to fat tires for my commuter nearly 20 years ago... the crumbling streets of San Diego. We have perhaps the worst roads in the US, due in part to our nice weather (that beating sun), due in part to our wonderful pension program for city workers (can't afford street repairs) and due in part to poor planning by previous mayors and city council. (monies taken in for new developments are directed to new streets)

Streets have to be at the point of crumbling before any maintenance is done... bad news for skinny tire bikes in older neighborhoods.

New development neighborhoods on the other hand have nice new flat pavement; some even have bike lanes, and there is a great new MUP near the new freeway.

I have to laugh... this is the very reason I changed to fat tires for my commuter nearly 20 years ago... the crumbling streets of San Diego. We have perhaps the worst roads in the US, due in part to our nice weather (that beating sun), due in part to our wonderful pension program for city workers (can't afford street repairs) and due in part to poor planning by previous mayors and city council. (monies taken in for new developments are directed to new streets)

Cyclocross commuting? That ought to be fun, as a matter of fact ;)

-Kurt

Uh - I think the bike paths vary a lot by city. I found Calgary's bike paths to be excellent, fun and relatively fast. Given that most areas of the city that are 20 years old or older are fairly cyclable, the network of paths is a nice addition to the mixed car/bike grid.

Toronto's bike paths on the other hand, with the exception of the waterfront trail are more out of the way, and tend to end abruptly. I still use them, but mostly for recreation.

The picture of the LA path looked like a freeway - I would definitely use it if it happened to connect the endpoints of my journey.

Yes! That's the key, Bhop. I wonder how many of the Americans who oppose bike paths would change their minds if they had the chance to ride on physically separated ones like we have here in Europe. We've seen a tremendous surge in bike commuting since ours were built.

Fully separated paths in the US end up going around town or out of town. Actually building them anywhere but in a suburb is cost prohibitive and even in suburbs they usually end up with a few street crossings.

These paths tend to get used for recreational riding because they don't go anywhere important.

Partially separated paths are okay. These will go through a burb but cross streets a couple times every mile. They tend to get crowded with pedestrians but that's how I get to and from work. My other choice is 45mph traffic.

There are paths along the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers. Yes, they are magnets for homeless people but so are freeway off/on ramps. Every once in a while the police come down and run everyone off - like last year when 5 people were shot and killed in a homeless camp along the river. You kind-off have to evaluate what's better : a few homeless or homicidal drivers....

Fully separated paths in the US end up going around town or out of town. Actually building them anywhere but in a suburb is cost prohibitive and even in suburbs they usually end up with a few street crossings.

These paths tend to get used for recreational riding because they don't go anywhere important..

This may be true where you live in the US but is not true for where I live. The MUP (Charles River/Dr. Paul Dudley White Path) I use goes from within one mile of my house to one mile from where I work. My wife gets an even better deal it basically drops her at practically the door of where she works.

The Minuteman path that runs thru Arlington, MA effectively serves recreational cyclists and transportational cyclists and links with some paths that wind through Cambridge that with a bit of riding on streets with bike lanes links to the same path I use to go into downtown Boston.

It is also not my experience in NYC where I also ride frequently. I was able to use the West Side path as my prime thruway to most places I wanted to go in the city. I certainly wasn't the only one doing so.

When I read the Commuting Forum a substantial percentage of those posting in the "How was your commute today?" sticky thread describe their commute as being either entirely or at least partially on MUP's or bike paths.

So when you say, "Fully separated paths in the US end up going around town or out of town. Actually building them anywhere but in a suburb is cost prohibitive..." what are you talking about? I mean I'm not arguing that it is not true in some areas. I know in Florida there were ridiculous side paths, bike paths and MUP's that seemed designed for phantom retirees expected to ride beach cruisers down a one mile stretch to nowhere and back. But all of Florida's road infrastructure is a mess in my opinion not just their wimpy MUP's. But to cast this blanket onto all bike paths? C'mon.:rolleyes:

Fully separated paths in the US end up going around town or out of town. ...
These paths tend to get used for recreational riding because they don't go anywhere important.

Partially separated paths are okay. These will go through a burb but cross streets a couple times every mile. They tend to get crowded with pedestrians but that's how I get to and from work. My other choice is 45mph traffic.

wait a minute! I totally missed that! you use an MUP to get to and from work?!! If by "fully separated paths" you mean paths which never intersect streets those are a rarity. In fact I've never ridden an MUP/bike path that doesn't intersect a street at least once in a while even when it may occasionally use tunnels and bridges over and under streets and highways.

Even separated paths I've ridden in Europe intersect with streets. What do you mean by "fully" separated as opposed to "partially"? I'm not understanding your posts.

I ride that bike path all the time. From Van Nuys to Universal City. In my experience tho, the bike paths are clear and well lit and no sight of homeless bums plus trash. There was one stretch that there was no lights at all but anyone who is serious about commuting has decent lighting to light up the rode.

I agree with Bhop, that bike path is waaayy better than riding with soccer moms driving Hummers. Its actually a very convenient bike path since it takes you across through the valley in a decent amount of time. It takes me 45 minutes starting from Lake Balboa to Universal City. Shocked me actually because it wouldve been 30 minutes by car (assuming it was rush hour).

what happens when infrastructure is starved so our tax dollars can be given to corporations and billionaires exhibit A.

Part of the problem with this particular path is it crosses many streets and the signals (even pushing the pedestrian button) is very slow to respond. I tried the path once and find it easier to just use the streets.

on another note, from the article:

The Orange Line is (devoid) of any leadership to execute the basic support we pay for," said Stephen Box, a bicyclist activist who has peddled the bikeway en route to jobs in Woodland Hills and Chatsworth

Nice to see spelling is still not an issue among journalists and editors

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9293/katytrailjog1ug6.jpg

Katy Trail in Dallas is a MUP with a seperate walking path(on the left of photo) made of old Nike shoes. It actually connects directly to the American Airlines Center where the Mavericks/Stars play. It is a victim of it's own awesomeness. Too many people use the trail creating traffic jams of walkers with dogs.

It does connect Downtown with Southern Methodist University with only two level street crossings and 14 bridges connecting the rest. Traffic free for the most part. The money used to build the MUP was mostly done with private donations. That keeps the city from screwing things up for the most part.

I'd like to see more MUPs built like this. One of the best designs I have ever seen. It's even lighted to 11pm every night.

Sounds great, but why turn out the lights at 11:00?

Bike paths have no source of funding, and are not considered economic necessities. They infact may not be economic necessities. I suspect they are viewed as things that boost local property values, like a park. They are also being used as homeless shelters/economic refugee camps. Their construction is also considered a public employement program. One possibility is a user fee or toll. One thing the financial crises will do is force people to make decisions about what they keep, what they chose to maintain.

It is possible that if you changed the zoning laws the homeless could find suitable rentals (single room occupancy hotels located near where they work.) It might be worth paying the homesless to return to where ever.

Sounds great, but why turn out the lights at 11:00?

Because homes back up to the bike path. Besides who wants to go jogging or cycling past that time of night?

Many of the homes practically sit less than 20 feet from the path. It was originally a rail line, went unused for 25 years and converted into a bike path. Many of the homes that back up to the path are in the $750,000-$1.5 million dollar range.

They are just finishing construction on these.....

http://www.highlandgatesonkatytrail.com/about.php

That start at $850,000 and back right up to the bike path. It's a huge selling point apparently. Strange that the city of Dallas has fought to keep funding away from MUPs, but when a nice one is finally built, people flock to it, the real estate prices go up and crime goes down.

$15 million of the required $23 million to build the bike path were raised through private funding. Mostly from average people just chipping in money. The balance of the rest came from a federal grant that gives money to groups looking to turn rail lines into bike paths. Bikes have to be included in the plan, since it is underwritten buy Department of Transportation funding for bike commuting. A pedestrian only path would not meet the criteria.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9293/katytrailjog1ug6.jpg

Katy Trail in Dallas is a MUP with a seperate walking path(on the left of photo) made of old Nike shoes. It actually connects directly to the American Airlines Center where the Mavericks/Stars play. It is a victim of it's own awesomeness. Too many people use the trail creating traffic jams of walkers with dogs.

It does connect Downtown with Southern Methodist University with only two level street crossings and 14 bridges connecting the rest. Traffic free for the most part. The money used to build the MUP was mostly done with private donations. That keeps the city from screwing things up for the most part.

I'd like to see more MUPs built like this. One of the best designs I have ever seen. It's even lighted to 11pm every night.And what part of the path is the jogger on?

Because homes back up to the bike path. Besides who wants to go jogging or cycling past that time of night?That is right, it is for recreation and NOT transportation. NOT to be used by we cycling commuters who get off work after 11:00pm.