Advocacy & Safety - if a bicycle is a vehicle, is a MUP a 'highway'?

Little tidbit question, one I've thought a bit about:

If a state defines a bicycle as a vehicle, (all states define bicyclists as having the duties of drivers of vehicles, some states classify bikes as 'vehicles' versus 'devices') is a MUP or separated pathway for use by bicyclists considered a 'highway'?

Highway is commonly used to define any right of way publicly improved for travel by vehicles. just because a MUP or bike path excludes motorized vehicles wouldn't override its definition of a 'highway' as it has been improved for use by some vehicles (bicycles) .

anyone else?

How would it matter either way?

Around here, they use the same word as "highway" to describe a bike trail when it passes through otherwise completely undeveloped land (not that unlike a rails to trails conversion you see in the US). When it is a "highway" the bike path is generally given the right of way in intersections (or more commonly, it uses underpasses and overpasses to avoid surface level traffic).... however it is still multi-use- they are just rarely used for other purposes when they are in the middle of nowhere.

A broomstick is an great horse, too.

Highway is commonly used to define any right of way publicly improved for travel by vehicles

Um isn't that a street?

MUPs have a lot of stopping for other right of ways.

In MD trails are highways.

Highway is commonly used to define any right of way publicly improved for travel by vehicles

Um isn't that a street?

Highways generally go pretty far, though I don't know if the distance is ever defined. I think once a road goes between two towns, it counts as a highway.

Note that this is distinct from expressways, which are limited-access, high speed, divided highways (a special class of highway).

There have been highways since Roman times at least.

The primary attribute that would qualify a travelled way as a “highway” is its usefulness and efficiency for transportation. While Boise’s urban MUP system is a tremendous recreational resource, it pretty much follows the Boise River and is seldom useful as a route to get me where I need to go. Plus it is poorly maintained in sections, sometimes covered with tree root fissures, ice, and debris, and is often clogged with obliviots who think of it as a long, narrow, paved park rather than a transportation corridor. Adherence to any "rules of the road" is sketchy at best, and it can be challenging to safely maintain an average speed in excess of 8 – 10 mph. I do use it occasionally for short stretches as a connector between various streets. I enjoy hiking on it much more than cycling on it.

The rail trails I rode in Minnesota, such as the magnificent Root River, Cannon Valley, and Sakatah trails, would seem to better qualify, reminiscent of the pathways Genec describes from his visit to Finland. These are in rural settings, though, connecting small towns, with long stretches between population centers where one seldom encounters pedestrians. I highly recommend them for anyone travelling through that area.

The primary attribute that would qualify a travelled way as a “highway” is its usefulness and efficiency for transportation. While Boise’s urban MUP system is a tremendous recreational resource, it pretty much follows the Boise River and is seldom useful as a route to get me where I need to go. Plus it is poorly maintained in sections, sometimes covered with tree root fissures, ice, and debris, and is often clogged with obliviots who think of it as a long, paved park rather than a transportation corridor. Adherence to any "rules of the road" is sketchy at best, and it can be challenging to safely maintain an average speed in excess of 8 – 10 mph. I do use it occasionally for short stretches as a connector between various streets. I enjoy hiking on it much more than cycling on it.

The rail trails I rode in Minnesota, such as the magnificent Root River, Cannon Valley, and Sakatah trails, would seem to better qualify, reminiscent of the pathways Genec describes from his visit to Finland. These are in rural settings, though, connecting small towns, with long stretches between population centers where one seldom encounters pedestrians. I highly recommend them for anyone travelling through that area.

A highway is defined (http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/highway.htm) as


... [a] public road, street or pathway owned and maintained by the State or local authority for the use of public as per the rules regulations and restrictions made by the authorities for using the same.

Nothing says that the highway must be useful, go anywhere in particular or must carry high speed traffic. For a more detailed, albeit a more automobile centric definition, go here (http://www.answers.com/topic/highway) (bottom of the page).

Is your question with regards to the constantly contested section of the BG Trail through LFP? I thought the issue was settled a couple years ago with the striking of the LFP city ordinance after the county determined that the BG Trail was a county throughway and trumped the ROW over LFP private streets... but I guess that didn't last, since LFP has since replaced all the stop signs and installed bollards across the trail at numerous intersections.

Defined by the RCW, a highway is "the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."
Unfortunately the MUP doesn't meet one qualification by RCW definitions. "Vehicular travel."
Bicycle, defined by the RCW is "every device propelled solely by human power upon which a person or persons may ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is sixteen inches or more in diameter, or three wheels, any one of which is more than twenty inches in diameter." So, even though we're bound to the rules of the vehicle code where applicable, and special bicycle laws in addition, bicycles are not vehicles according to the Revised Code of Washington.

Is your question with regards to the constantly contested section of the BG Trail through LFP? I thought the issue was settled a couple years ago with the striking of the LFP city ordinance after the county determined that the BG Trail was a county throughway and trumped the ROW over LFP private streets... but I guess that didn't last, since LFP has since replaced all the stop signs and installed bollards across the trail at numerous intersections.

Defined by the RCW, a highway is "the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."
Unfortunately the MUP doesn't meet one qualification by RCW definitions. "Vehicular travel."
Bicycle, defined by the RCW is "every device propelled solely by human power upon which a person or persons may ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is sixteen inches or more in diameter, or three wheels, any one of which is more than twenty inches in diameter." So, even though we're bound to the rules of the vehicle code where applicable, and special bicycle laws in addition, bicycles are not vehicles according to the Revised Code of Washington.

Could you please spell out your acronyms the first time you use them? Believe it or not, a couple people on the internet do not live in your hometown, wherever that may be.

bollards on the B-G? just bollards, or split gates?

Boy, it has been a few months since i've ridden up that a ways but didn't think it had been that long. i was at log boom park not too long ago, seems like...

no, Mike S was asking at another forum about liability on the yet to be placed Lake Union trail. just thought i'd see what others around the country and afield thought about it. limited liability on a trail is one of the concerns yes. but the county decision about the burke gilman trail is fairly compelling.

Could you please spell out your acronyms the first time you use them? Believe it or not, a couple people on the internet do not live in your hometown, wherever that may be.

No need to be smarmy about it. I suppose I could have quoted Bek's original statement and made it more obvious that I was responding specifically to him (and I'm certain he understood all the acronyms).

Without getting into the entire saga of the local MUP, the acronyms are:

LFP - Lake Forest Park. A small community on the north shore of Lake Washington, comprised largely of homes on private streets which cross the MUP.
BG Trail - Burke-Gilman. One of the most heavily travelled MUPs in the area, connecting the Seattle metro eastside to westside of Lake Washington.
ROW - Right of Way. Fairly standard.
RCW - Revised Code of Washington. The official laws of the state.

the burke gilman is the first urban rails to trails conversion in the country i believe.

it was widely derided by john forester early on in his criticisms of bike paths.... but the Burke-Gilman is a very viable NS transportation corridor out of the city to the north.

If a car is a vehicle, is a driveway a highway? :rolleyes:

not publicly maintained. :rolleyes:

If a car is a vehicle, is a driveway a highway? :rolleyes:
You are thinking of sidewalks.

You are thinking of sidewalks.
Depending on the area, sidewalks aren't even publicly maintained.

Depending on the area, sidewalks aren't even publicly maintained.
Don't let facts get in the way of snark! (Some of them do have some degree of "public maintainence".) Maybe, a MUP is a sidewalk where bicycles are allowed.

I still don't know why it matters if a MUP is a highway or not. Its a name.

I prefer to call them paths.

its an issue in Los Angeles and California, generally, seems like. there is concern here, locally, about the development of a very urbanized sidepath and the liability of the city in maintainence and liability issues.

Not a "highway" in OR (it appears)

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/801.160



"Bicycle path"
"Bicycle path" means a public way, not part of a highway, that is designated by official signs or markings for use by persons riding bicycles except as otherwise specifically provided by law. [1983 c.338 §24]


California law.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc231_5.htm



Bicycle Path

231.5. A “bicycle path” or “bike path” is a Class I bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc360.htm



Highway

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc670.htm



Vehicle

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=890-894.2


890.4. As used in this article, "bikeway" means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. For purposes of this article, bikeways shall be categorized as follows:
(a) Class I bikeways, such as a "bike path," which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.
(b) Class II bikeways, such as a "bike lane," which provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
(c) Class III bikeways, such as an onstreet or offstreet "bike route," which provide a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with edestrians or motorists.


Then, again, we have a "highway purpose".

It looks like "highway purpose" means for "funding purposes". That is, the laws governing funding highways also govern (and apply to) bikeways.


892.6. The Legislature finds and declares that the construction of bikeways pursuant to this article constitutes a highway purpose under Article XIX of the California Constitution and justifies the expenditure of highway funds therefor.



893. The department shall disburse the money from the Bicycle
Transportation Account pursuant to Section 891.4 for projects that improve the safety and convenience of bicycle commuters, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(a) New bikeways serving major transportation corridors.
(b) New bikeways removing travel barriers to potential bicycle commuters.
(c) Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park-and-ride lots, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings.
(d) Bicycle-carrying facilities on public transit vehicles.
(e) Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety and efficiency of bicycle travel.
(f) Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways.
(g) Planning.
(h) Improvement and maintenance of bikeways.
In recommending projects to be funded, due consideration shall be given to the relative cost effectiveness of proposed projects.


============

A "bicycle path" presumably excludes "vehicles" since its "purpose" isn't for "vehicular travel". If its purpose was for "vehicular traffic", it would be a highway (not a "bikeway"). (Note that, while maintanance vehicles might use a "bikeway", such use isn't the "purpose" of the bikeway.)

While it isn't a "highway", it "constitutes a highway purpose".

I don't think the govenment can ignore maintanence and suitabilty. That is, if they build it, they have a duty to support it.

I still don't know why it matters if a MUP is a highway or not. Its a name.

I prefer to call them paths.

For the purpose of the ongoing case with the Burke Gilman Trail (BGT), if it were officially recognized as a highway, then the city of Lake Forest Park (LFP) could not continue to make modifications to the traffic pattern on it. Currently, LFP continues to place stop signs, bollards, rumble strips and other traffic control measures to stop traffic on the MUP at intersections with the community's private (not city maintained) roadways. The back and forth is as follows:
LFP votes a city ordinance to control traffic on the BGT.
King Co. forces LFP to repeal measure, remove traffic controls and replace stop signs on private streets at intersections with the County maintained throughway.
LFP waits a year and passes a new ordinance, starting the cycle over, using the excuse that the MUP isn't a road, so they can put whatever they want at the intersections.
King Co. and Cascade Bike Club runs yet another survey proving the traffic on the taxpayer funded MUP is higher than the privately maintained roads, and removes all the traffic controls again because public funded right of way trumps private access.
Repeat, ad infinitum.

NC Code:
§ 20‑4.01. Definitions.
(13) Highway. – The entire width between property or right‑of‑way lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular traffic. The terms "highway" and "street" and their cognates are synonymous.

So a greenway within its own right of way is a highway by itself. A sidewalk-type MUP is part of the highway, but whether or not it can be considered a roadway is a real mess, since is is also a sidewalk.

Washington State does define bicycles as vehicles in the RCW.


RCW 46.04.670
Vehicle.


"Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles.


However, the closest ruling I've found to this says MUPs do not meet the definition of a "roadway" because they are not set aside for vehicles only -- they're open to pedestrians, strollers, etc.



The Interurban Trail at issue is an improved multiuse path which may be utilized by pedestrians (i.e., walkers, joggers, roller bladers, wheelchairs, parents pushing baby strollers, etc.), as well as bicyclists, and therefore does not qualify as a roadway. See RCW 46.04.500 (defining "roadway" as that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel)

138 Wn.2d 55, PUDMAROFF v. ALLEN

The definition of a "highway" says it applies when any portion of the way "is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel." That's different from the definition of "roadway", which refers to "that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel," but the two are similar enough that I would not bet against the Court applying the same logic.

Since a bicycle is a vehicle, and MUPs are designed and built to allow bicycle travel, to my mind a MUP clearly is "improved... for vehicular travel," -- pavement, signage, and pavement markings are all in place for cycling use, and are all improvements to the way. But the court disagreed.

So, if having a trail paved, signed, and striped for vehicular use isn't enough to make it "improved" for vehicular travel, would the Court find that same trail "open" to vehicular travel?

I am not a lawyer, I'd be happy to have my misgivings put to rest if someone knows of a compelling case that MUOs are "highways" even if they aren't "roadways".

the question arose as to what the city's liabilities will be on the yet to be completed Lake Union Trail or whatever they'll be calling that transportation abomination.

On the contentious Burke Gilman Trail/Lake Forest Park issue, unfortunately, in February 2009, the Hearing Examiner agreed with many of LFP's deviations from roadway design principles. You can read the full Hearing Examiner's Decision at:

http://www.cityoflfp.com/documents/cu07-01_he_decn.pdf

King County did win on many issues, but LFP won on the non-standard traffic signage and the reduced speed limit.

Little tidbit question, one I've thought a bit about:

If a state defines a bicycle as a vehicle, (all states define bicyclists as having the duties of drivers of vehicles, some states classify bikes as 'vehicles' versus 'devices') is a MUP or separated pathway for use by bicyclists considered a 'highway'?

anyone else?

You have me, as I don't know what an MUP is unless PET and goofy ping pong eyes are attached.

You have me, as I don't know what an MUP is unless PET and goofy ping pong eyes are attached.

Googaly eyes? O.o

You have me, as I don't know what an MUP is unless PET and goofy ping pong eyes are attached.

Multi Use Path -- not a bicycle trail or bike path, but a linear park open to all sorts of non-motorized users.

Multi Use Path -- not a bicycle trail or bike path, but a linear park open to all sorts of non-motorized users.

OH! You mean almost all of Ontario, Oregon! MUP rules!