IvyGodivy

KraneXL

On the other hand, if you didn't tell us how would we ever know that? "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

IvyGodivy

livedarklions

It's actually a bit more confusing than that--the Blackstone River Bikeway in RI is, despite its name a MUP, as is the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway in MA.

Troul 

Multi Use Parkway?

Teamprovicycle

i mean honestly people will use it for what ever they want regardless of the name or posted rules ..

KraneXL

I prefer to think of it as a recreational thoroughfare. But regardless of what its call, that doesn't mean that cycling enthusiasts should be relocated to second class users. Especially since cycling was the impetus for the creation of such thoroughfares in the first place.

When they are constructed properly (hence, my MUP Doesn't Work thread), there should be room for all to enjoy it to its full potential.

Sy Reene

But of course there are so many housing developments and roadways now being built without sidewalks (who wants to have to shovel when it snows?), that it's exactly the roadways where pedestrians stroll and joggers jog.
Personally, I don't see the reason to want to use a MUP as an enthusiast cyclist. I guess if one is scared of cars, and would rather be the one who does the scaring (eg. of peds), it would make some sorta sense.

jon c. 

We've gone in the other direction locally. The deep South historically had no sidewalks and a lot of dirt roads. I think in part wanted to overcome that image, they paved every road in the country a decade ago and now require sidewalks to accompany most new development. Makes for a funny site in more rural areas where a new building will be fronted by a sidewalk that goes nowhere, it just ends at the property lines. In some areas it's unlikely I'll ever see these sidewalks connect to anything or actually serve any useful purpose.

KraneXL

The result of poor urban planning. Vote for better leaders that plan for the future.MUP came after the fact. The were invented to encourage people away from automobile traffic and to a safer commuting zone. Just as in your above example, sidewalks would make it safer for pedestrians to get around. NOTE: Do you see a lot of strollers, runners, pedestrians on those sidewalkless roads?

livedarklions

In a lot of places, it's often the shortest distance between two points. Also, if you know the paths, you learn locations and times where you can ride them very fast without scaring anyone. Finally, it's often a more scenic, pleasant ride than the nearby state road passing through the malls or whatever.
I have a great time riding on roads and mups, roads require more tolerance of harassment, mups require more patience.

I actually get a great workout on mups rapidly accelerating right after passing pedestrians repeatedly.

KraneXL

Just like any automotive thoroughfare: there are times when you can travel uninhibited at the speed limit none stop, and times when the roadway is bumper-to-bumper. You just have to learn how to time it to adapt to your workout parameters. BTW, you get this at the gym as well.

Sy Reene

I mispoke.. I don't really know what's being built today.. but what has been built in this area is largely sidewalkless. Not so much urban areas I was talking about, but rather the suburban and even rural areas more conducive to bike riding.
Just travel around a bit in google streetview: Englewood Cliffs area
And yes, you do see all of those people on the street. The proverbial going to the neighbor's for a cup of sugar would entail such.

Maelochs

I'd wager that on a lot of main roads built without sidewalks, planners looked at how much pedestrian traffic the areas got. If not many people were walking and a lot of people were driving, it makes more sense (better use of tax dollars, fewer people PO'd when some of their land is seized by eminent domain) To build wider, safer lanes than to to add a sidewalk which won't get used but will need maintenance. Actually in residential neighborhoods people Don't want sidewalks by and large, because traffic is light enough that people can walk, because people can walk on lawns as needed, and because ti si in residential neighborhoods that people fight hardest when some of their yard is seized to widen roads or build sidewalks.

Personally I have little interest in sidewalks ... I see people walking sometimes, but never what i would call "pedestrian traffic" even in areas with sidewalks.

MUPs do not generally link areas where people live to where people work or shop. generally they are built wholly for recreation, often using unused rails lines or just unused real estate. One big complaint about MUPs (particularly among women) is that they are useless for the kind of daily travel they do---kids to school or daycare, shopping, off to work, repeat ... I don't know of any MUPs which connect suburban housing developments to downtown business districts ... and even fewer to shopping centers or malls.

An entire rebuild of almost every city would be needed to make bike transport workable. Instead of big stores, there would need to be a lot of small stores---which creates more local truck traffic---and a lot more real estate currently used for housing and commerce would need to be torn down so a real network of bike paths could be built.

Please do hold your breath.

Troul 

Bike paths are an afterthought that if possible will go nearby the business district, but not always if any time run thru the areas that have spotty business presence. It'd be beneficial for everyone to have bike paths instead of sidewalks. Blacktop is cheaper, but the county cannot make money off the taxpayers to maintain it like they can with sidewalks (concrete) which is the real reason for sidewalks being put in rather than mups or paths.

KraneXL

In that case you have poor community leaders and urban planners that are wasting your tax dollars. MUP are not wildlife paths that lead out into the wild blue yonder -- they're suppose to be functional.

Using them for recreation is a part of that function, but they should be first and foremost thoroughfares that go somewhere. Hopefully connect to you town's urban center or at least to shops and businesses. That's when you get the best bang for you buck and a combination of all the most practical uses. You should settle for nothing less.

Troul 

They most often dump you at a side walk if you're lucky, that takes you in a residential area, near a public school, or through the industrial area, that most if not always makes you ride on the dirt of someones frontage or in the street... Or it will route you thru a rough part of a city that may or may not contain a bunch of detours with some expensive greasy spoon eateries along the way.

Maelochs

What people seem to have ignored in what i said is that it would involve tearing down most of a city to build bike paths that connect the places people might ride for transport, ias opposed to pleasure.

Petitioning elected officials is useless in this case. The amount of money it would need to raze buildings, reroute roads, and buy land would be beyond prohibitive. But, because there is no unused real estate, there is no where to put those bike paths without widespread destruction and rebuilding. Even more so because major construction---even just top repair existing roads---creates huge uproar. imagine shutting down whole sectors of a city, paying to relocate offices and all their machinery, setting up new commuter routes ... just to build a few miles of MUP that hardly anyone would use anyway .... and based on bike path usage, that's about the fact.

The cities were not designed for cycling ... neither were the suburbs. So stores are far from residences, and people wanting to bike to stores would be exhausted ... and then, try to tell all those big stores that they need to shut down so multiple smaller businesses can replace them .. . you know, the businesses they put out of business? Yeah, that's ll work.

Particularly when all of two down cycling activists with about no political influence show up at a town council meeting, telling the government to evict major portions of t its tax base and major employers.

MUPs are afterthoughts ... they are built long after cities or towns have been fully built out, using whatever leftover scraps are available. And unless tens of thousands of people petitioned and protested and started ballot amendments and lobbied .... the 98 percent of the populace which drives overrules the to percent which rides ... which is called "democracy."

Metieval

there are three of us.

How dare you think you two are entitled to 2/3 rds of the path.

I am entitled to half, and you two only get half!

^ is what I am hearing.

Shrugs I see/experience the opposite. I am the faster rider, and 2 non helmet wearing beach cruiser are riding side by side. No big deal. There is room for 3 wide. I scoot over to the very edge. we all wave and smile. and life is grand at 3 wide.

Troul 

the infrastructure is crumbling rapidly in this area, they minds well make the changes to incorporate bike paths while they're rebuilding the area.

Troul 

Driver's tend to frown upon cyclists being in the way when using the sidewalk's crosswalks, riding in the traffic lane, & disturbing commuting in general.
It would make logical sense to pave in bike paths that keep both the motorized vehicles & cyclists segregated for the safety of everyone.

KraneXL

That's because the infrastructure building boom of the 50s was centered around the automobile. However, the solution is simple: you take from Peter to give to Paul (or it that the other way around?)

Anyway, that's the solution -- much to the chagrin of motorist who prefer street parking -- of most municipalities. And for the record, activism does work. That's how we got this far.