N_C

For the past 3 years here in Sioux City there has been a lot of commercial development. Which for S.C. is great. Because it helps keep the money here. I'm all for that, I support it 100%.

But in certain areas of the new developing as a result the traffic has increased significantly. There has been widening of roard from 2 lanes to 4 which means a increase in speed for vehicles as well.

The city streets that run along these newly developed areas used to be favorite and popular bike routes.

Here is an example or 2:

In one area there was a new Super Wal-Mart built, right now in that same area there a series of strip malls being constructed. this is on the south end of town real close to our AA league ball field called Lewis and Clark Park.

The ball park used to be a great place to start a ride form on Sunday mornings. We could park in the empty parking lot and take off and have a great ride.

But now because of the new commercial development the traffic is just to dangerous to ride in. So we have to start even further south at Seargent Bluff High School. That is a simple compromise even though it shortens the route.

Another example is where a Super Wal-Mart and other commercial developments are currently under construction. This is on Floyd Blvd. Floyd used to be 2 lanes thourhg that area and only 35 mph. It is now 4 lanes wide and up to 45 mph. Now running along Floyd is the Floyd River Bike Trail. Problem is a lot of us hate using the trail.

Granted there are easy solutions to this, starting at the high school and using the trail. But as a cyclist I am sick and tired of compromising to the whims of developers, city hall & traffic.

And yes there are other ares where no cyclist would even think of riding that these commercial developments could have been contructed at.

Along the highway 20/75 bypass is one area. No one rides bike on that highway anyway, (they are not allowed to by law).

It is realy aggrivationg at times. And I know it is more then just the developers. It is also city hall and a lot of other people and organizations involved as well.

Anyone else deal with the same situation in theri community?

Bogleg

On the flip side, in Dane County Wisconsin, they are widening Hwy 12 from Madison to Sauk CIty to 4 lanes and adding a bike path for about half the distance, and providing paved shoulders and a bike path along the bridge across the Wisconsin River, so commuting by bike (around 20 miles each way) will be a possibility, and riding out to Sauk City will be very doable. If you want to do it now, you have to go a roundabout way that adds up to somewhere around 35 miles each way.

But Dane County is very bike friendly.

SamDaBikinMan

Developers are interested only in investing just enough into property that will move it at a profit. They care little to nothing for any amenities that are not absolutely mandatory for reselling the land they have invested in.

They would not invest dollars into anything they do not see as required to cater to the intended customer. If it were a bike only community then maybe.

danr

Most developers don't even care if they displace a family. Do you really think they care about a bicycle route?

I grew up along Lake Michigan. There use to be this cool marina and beach. Now, due to development, there is no longer a beach and it is nearly impossible to fish from that marina.

oscaregg

Here in the Northwest some real-estate slimers are getting religion; new developments in my area (SW Washington) are more likely to have sidewalks
and speed-discouraging designs such as 90-degree corners--when other things are done right, bike lanes really aren't necessary. The rapid Californication of Seattle and Portland's suburbs has knocked some sense into local governments and I really think some of them are leaning on developers a little.

Bobatin

Are they? Or are there laws or building codes that require them to put these in?

Pete Clark

Are devleopers purpously trying to oust out cycling?

Absolutely. You have painted an accurate picture of the way cyclists' needs are pushed aside. But I would not say developers are trying to oust cycling.

More likely, cyclists' needs are being completely ignored.

The "solution" most transportation planners have is to build separate facilities for cyclists. But these "facilities" are not nearly as good for transportation as the roads built for cars, since cars are worshipped in America.

No, we cyclists just don't matter. Throw us a bone and we'll forget about the steak you stole from us.

supcom

Don't you know that the first thing a developer asks his staff when they propose a site for a new mega mall is if the site will maximize the inconvenince of cyclists?

Get a grip. Developers are neither trying to help nor hinder cyclists. There are so few cyclists that developers rarely even consider them. They don't care one way or another.

Ever try to walk to a shopping mall? I have and invariably there are no sidewalks or specific pedestrian access. But if you are in a car, no problem. Also, ever notice how cars entering the shopping mall always have right of way over cars leaving the mall? I guess they want to be extra nice to you before you have spent your money.

As far as road widening goes, that's a direct result of traffic flow. Sorry bubba, but we cyclists are outnumbered there. Just a fact of life.

Where I live there are no bike lanes to speak of. I ride on the streets everywhere. Some are two lane, some are four. Some have a shoulder lane, some don't. I choose my routes partly based on the traffic flow during the ride. I look for alternate routes around the bad spots where I really don't feel safe. I wear a very visible jersey and try not to be riding into the setting sun.

I have found that most major streets have low traffic side streets. If you work at it, you can almost always find a route that avoids most, if not all, of the bad streets. You just have to work at it. I consider that part of the fun and challenge of cycling.

John E

One CAN fight city hall and win. When Vista Sorrento Parkway, an important 45mph commuting street, was restriped from 2 lanes + 2 bike lanes to 4 lanes without shoulders (and, for pedestrians, a crucial missing 1/4 mile of sidewalk on a blind curve), I got the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition to push (successfully) for the bike lanes to be restored. We argued that the city had created an unusually severe hazard and raised the spectre of litigation.

This is true in much of Los Angeles, which is a big floodplain with a grid of streets, but it is definitely untrue in much of San Diego County, where major streets are routed along the valleys which separate its mesas. In fact, in a few places, the only route from Point A to Point B is a segment of Interstate 5 or Interstate 15.

MediaCreations 

This shouldn't be the only way that we can get results - but it does seem to work. Start talking to local authorities about possible litigation or 'duty of care' responsibilities and they start to listen a little more closely.

froze

It' an issue of money. The developers do not want to spend the money for the attorneys to have an impact studies done, than get easement permissions, then get permits, then they have to lay down the path or restripe the road which may mean widing the road which means legal battles from people who's land the widening intrudes upon, then the rights of the endangered kangaroo rat are suddenly threatened and on and on and on. But where ever there is development going on and you feel there should be a bike path there than ge a bunch of bikers together and go to City Hall and fight for the path. We did that here in Bakersfield against a major home builder because he promised a bike path then backed out after the impact study showed the risk was too great. So finally the city and the builder came to an agreement after 8 months of battle to but the bike path in as long as no liability would befall the builder but instead fall upon the city.

Chris L

Well, we've had a lot of new housing developments go in around here over the last eight years or so. Probably more than I would have liked. To be honest most of them don't care either way about providing for cyclists, but I don't believe that makes the situation any worse. I've seen a couple that actually have tried to provide "facilities" for cyclists (Casuarina Beach comes to mind), and these facilities are generally worse than anything the developers do to the road.

nathank

although i do support bike lanes and paths and think we should have more... i think there is a huge danger of developers and planners building thes bike factilies and then forgetting everything else...

this is a BIG danger for many reasons... first off maybe the paths are no good or unsafe for cyclists... but more than anything they allow the other areas to be developed without including thoughts of cyclists or pedstrains (since they'll be on the path). this leads to very ugly unfriendly and unsafe streets - see most new subburbs with their multi-lane high-speed arterial roads, often the only way in or out of a subdivision - bad!

this is the route i hope developers start moving. actually, in the city planning/design world the New Urbanism movement really captures many of these things that are also important for cyclists ---- narrowing streets, taming cars, designing roads and spaces for PEOPLE instead of cars, including lane-norrowing, traffic circles, 90-degree corner and "design" features that "tell" a driver that 30mph is more appropriate than 60mph (instead of building a wide straight road that says "drive 70mph" and then putting up a 30mph sign or speed humps...

this is the direction i HOPE that development goes in the US (New Urbanism, but on a large scale and for all people, not just the rich and priviledged). more and more people are unsatisfied with the tradiotional cookie-cutter autocentric suburb and are beginning to ask for alternatives. hopefully, people think about what they really want rather than just getting the most square footage for the lowest cost and these things will improve quickly...

ParamountScapin 

N_C - What have you and your riding mates done to get involved with the city/county to make your concerns known? If you have done nothing then you should expect nothing. It is up to all of us to get off our bicycles (occasionally) and get involved if we don't like what is happening in our communities (local, state and federal). You can get some good support on what to do and how to approach your local representatives from such groups as the League of American Bicyclists. Our club works with the state to get roads designated as "bicycle routes". We get additional striping and the shoulder swept periodically as a result. While they can't and don't respond to every request, they do provide some amount to help. And they always listen. Get involved. Then you can have an impact on the outcome.

Pete Clark

The American model of transportation is based on our economic
model: serve the customer.

And the "customer" is invariably a motorist. So you have no sidewalks, drive-throughs, parking lots the size of football fields with signs reading, "No bicycles," muddy paths linking bus stops...

If more people walked and cycled, they would be catered to.

I still feel sorry for the majority-motoring public. They are getting
weaker and heavier and sicker with each passing year!



I love to bike, hike, climb, walk, stalk and run. (driving is so drab...)

Gordon P

I first read this thread a day ago and I was wondering about the pathetic cycling path development in my own city, Winnipeg. So today while out for a ride I decided to go to an area I haven’t visited in about twenty-two years and I was blown away by what I found! The developers or the city, not sure at this point, created about 5 km of windy twisty trails along a stream I used to play around when I was a child. Fun stuff and it is only 10 minutes from my house.
I should add, that when I was living in Toronto, the city was developing all kinds of paved and un-paved trails. I think things are getting better.

FOG

I think cu-de-sacs are a greater threat to cyclists than big developers. It used to be that through streets were the rule, many of which were not suitable for high speed driving, but great for cyclists. Now every development is delberately made with no outlets to prevent through traffic, forcing cyclists trying to get anywhere to travel the arterials. We should simply urge planning bodies to change the drainage style transportation model, and we will get a lot more useful paths, and aas a benefit get some very useful backroad paths to use when the arterials are jammed by some mishap or event.

Chris L

I've noticed this too. The latest one being the "temporary closure" of Railway Street, Mudgeeraba this morning. Now I can understand the developers' reasons for doing this (i.e. trying to keep hoons out of residential streets where there are families with young children). However, it shouldn't be up to the developers to get rid of the hoons. It should be up to the government to police the existing laws about speed limits more effectively, then we wouldn't have this problem at all.