Werehatrack said:Multi-use paths, however, with joggers, kids on razors, and roller
skaters, are not a good solution, despite being a less risky one than
shared lanes. Unfortunately, that is what's often implemented as a
compromise because bike usage is not viewed as being high enough to
justify dedicated paths.I view this as a chicken-and-egg problem. It is difficult to convince
those holding the public purse strings to properly accomodate a form
of transportation which they can't see present in the numbers that
would justify it. However, without safe and useful routes available,
it is hard to convince people that a bike is a good choice for
commuting.Here in Houston, millions of dollars in funds allocated for
construction of bike paths were spent on consultant fees (to no one's
benefit but the consultant) rather than being used to build bike paths
on suitable rights-of-way that were already owned by the city. As a
result, there now isn't enough in the budget to hook together several
very good path projects which would, if the original plans had been
executed, have linked my neightborhood with downtown via an entirely
dedicated path system. It would be an understatement to say that
there are a few of us who are a bit annoyed.
I lived in Houston for a few years. Let's see, what was the name of
that street that they restriped for bike lane usage, which justifiably
PO'd the drivers who commuted there every day? A few blocks toward the
Med Center from Stella Link?
As long as other forms of life are allowed on "bikepaths" (like Bray's
Bayou), cyclists will be lowest on the food chain. That's the social
thing here in the USA. In Austin, (having re-established residency in a
supposedly bike-friendly town), Shoal Creek Boulevard, maybe the best
"bike street" in town, was recently messed up by the drive to establish
separate bike lanes. Loony plans to take the car lanes from one side to
the other, to establish alternate street parking zones (i.e., taking
homefront parking away from more than half the residents of SCB),
resulted in "traffic islands", concrete curb-like obstructions meant to
stop motor vehicles from driving two abreast, were installed, with the
MV's moved to the center of the road via a white lane stripe on the
right. Now it's more difficult for everybody. DUH. Plus, many days
there are more "islands" than parked vehicles-- IOW, obstructions to
safe passage have increased, with some being permanent (hoping not)
since they can't be started up and driven away. This was resident
reaction to a perceived incursion by "bikers", and the "transportation
experts" (city employees, some of them) who were going to take their
parking away and basically screw up their neighborhood for no good
reason.
The street could have been re-striped with a solid lane line, and a
dashed bike/ped line inside it (closer to the curb). PLUS some
legislation to the effect that one might drive, park, whatever inside
the bike lane, but that collisions with bikers (or any peds, skaters,
moms walking kids, etc.) inside the dashed line would be assumed to be
the motorist's fault. Nice fat fine, plus determining whose insurance
company covers the damages.
I can remember being in Denver 20-odd years ago when some of their
streets were striped with dashed lines for cyclists/ped lanes, and
public service announcements on radio (maybe TV too, I heard the radio
spots) were given explaining the new rules. You can believe the
motorists "got the message". What was so hard about that?
Given the resentment directed toward cyclists in this country, and we
are the handiest scapegoats around, plus the small numbers of commuters
available to "justify" spending money, dedicated bike lanes, etc. are
pie-in-the-sky. Don't worry, when we run out of oil, this will all get
better... --TP