Another Reason Why Bike Trails Are Not the Answer

Quoted message said:

Because of what happened in Holland. Some years ago, the government
made a big public committment to an extensive network of bike trails
connecting all the small towns, but somehow it never appropriated all
the money necessary to finish the job. The result is, you'll be riding
along the bike trail and see a sign pointing to a town you wish to go
to, but after following the trail toward that town for about 5 miles,
you come to a dead end and have to go back.

I think that's simply a reason that you should finish what you start, i
this case, the bike trail.

I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending on
the government to build us bike trails.

[email hidden] wrote in news:1128786279.544194.325170
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending on
the government to build us bike trails.

Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to build and
maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle facilities.
Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much to build and
maintain roads rather than bike trails?

--ag

A= What is the number of drivers (to include occasional casual cyclists who
drive)?

B= What is the proportion of drivers who vote?

C= What is the number of cyclists who disdain bike trails?

D= What is the proportion of cyclists who disdain bike trails and also vote?

AB > CD.

Road maintenance wins.

"Andy Gee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending on
the government to build us bike trails.

Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to build
and
maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle facilities.
Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much to build and
maintain roads rather than bike trails?

Andy Gee said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1128786279.544194.325170
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending on
the government to build us bike trails.

Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to build and
maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle facilities.
Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much to build and
maintain roads rather than bike trails?

--ag

Yes.

Wayne

Quoted message said:

Because of what happened in Holland. Some years ago, the government
made a big public committment to an extensive network of bike trails
connecting all the small towns, but somehow it never appropriated all
the money necessary to finish the job. The result is, you'll be riding
along the bike trail and see a sign pointing to a town you wish to go
to, but after following the trail toward that town for about 5 miles,
you come to a dead end and have to go back.

So, the problem with bike trails is that they sometimes don't get finished?

I mean, I'll agree that unfinished bike trails is a problem, but it's
not inherently the fault of the concept of bike trails. It's like saying
the problem with houseplants is that a lot of people forget to water
them and they die. Certainly people forgetting to water houseplants is a
problem, but it doesn't mean that houseplants are bad and that we should
all just give it up and buy silk.

Likewise, lofty public projects that offer high hopes but then fail due
to underfunding is a problem--but it's a problem inherent in the way
governments work, and not something special about bike trails.

Andy Gee <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> [email hidden] wrote in news:1128786279.544194.325170
:> @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
:>
:>> I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending
:>> on the government to build us bike trails.
:>>
:>>
:>
:> Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to
:> build and maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle
:> facilities. Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much
:> to build and maintain roads rather than bike trails?

Yes, if taxpayers expect roads and not bike trails (which, by and large,
they do!).

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

:> Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to
:> build and maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle
:> facilities. Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much
:> to build and maintain roads rather than bike trails?

Yes, if taxpayers expect roads and not bike trails (which, by and large,
they do!).

Maybe somebody should tell Martin Krieg (the Cycle America/NBG guy.)

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"Roger Houston" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

A= What is the number of drivers (to include occasional casual
cyclists who drive)?

In the US, 200,000,000. Oddly enough, there are actually more cars than
drivers.

Quoted message said:

B= What is the proportion of drivers who vote?

80% citizens, 50% voting rate, 80,000,000 voting drivers

Quoted message said:

C= What is the number of cyclists who disdain bike trails?

I don't know. I think that depends on the proportion who have nearby
trails that can take them where they want to go.

Quoted message said:

D= What is the proportion of cyclists who disdain bike trails and also
vote?

I would suspect near 80%.

Quoted message said:

AB > CD.

Shouldn't that be AB > the compliment of C*(1-D)?

E = The price of gas
F(E) is the number of people who can't afford to drive at E.
I think we all know where that's heading...

But here's the thing. Since so much of the federal tax from my zip code
and the surrounding zip codes leaves my city and my state (about 30%)
and so much of the traffic and pollution problems are caused by people
from nearby counties and states, that means I have to subsidize this
dictatorship of the majority. Build roads with your own local funds and
tolls and gas taxes, and then see who wants to vote on the side of
efficiency!

--ag

Quoted message said:

Road maintenance wins.

"Andy Gee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending
on the government to build us bike trails.

Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to
build and
maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle facilities.
Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much to build and
maintain roads rather than bike trails?

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Andy Gee <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> [email hidden] wrote in news:1128786279.544194.325170
:> @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
:>
:>> I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending
:>> on the government to build us bike trails.
:>>
:>>
:>
:> Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to
:> build and maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle
:> facilities. Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much
:> to build and maintain roads rather than bike trails?

Yes, if taxpayers expect roads and not bike trails (which, by and large,
they do!).

Well, here where I live in New York City, I don't think there's been an
actual new road since the Sheridan Expressway, all three miles of it. But
There's been quite a few new greenways, so I guess that's what our voters
expect. From a business point of view, anything in Manhattan that has to
get somewhere in a hurry (lunch, signed contracts, original blueprints,
etc.) moves by bicycle. I suspect there are quite a lot of towns that
could benefit economically from improved bicycle facilities, but it just
doesn't enter anyone's cancsiousness.

--ag

Andy Gee said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1128786279.544194.325170
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending on
the government to build us bike trails.

Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to build and
maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle facilities.
Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much to build and
maintain roads rather than bike trails?

--ag

I suspect that your factor of 20 is quite low.

That said, we *need* roads. Roads allow the effective transportation of
goods and the timely provision of vital services (think fire department).

It *might* be possible to design and implement a system that does not
require roads for kars yet still meets the need for individual
transportation (of everyone, not just cyclists), effective
transportation of goods and the timely provision of vital services.
However, retrofitting an existing city (aot a small town) would be
difficult at best.

It seems, to me, that having cyclists share existing roads would be more
cost-effective and simpler than implementing a parallel (logically, if
not physically) bicycle route system.

A comparison of the costs of the two types of systems really only
matters in an either-or scenario. It might be useful if you are trying
to convince government to pony up the funds for a parallel bike route
system (simply to show how little it would cost).

I have used the bike route system in Ottawa, which is very extensive,
beautiful, and well maintained. It was somewhat useful, but it never
took me door to door. I always had a significant ride on the regular
road system.

FWIW

Jeff

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1128786279.544194.325170
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I think we are better off just riding on the road and not depending on
the government to build us bike trails.

Let's suppose it costs 20 times as much per person-mile of use to build and
maintain automobile roads as to build nd maintain bicycle facilities.
Should we depend on government to spend 20 times as much to build and
maintain roads rather than bike trails?

Roads serve motorists, buses, cyclists, and pedestrians. Bicycle
trails serve a fraction of the bicycle community but do not serve
motorists, and if they're to be safe bicycle trails they don't serve
pedestrians. So should we spend transportation budgets on roads to
serve 90%+ of the population, or on trails to serve less than 3% of
the population who could ride on the roads anyway?

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>

DrLith said:

So, the problem with bike trails is that they sometimes don't get finished?

I mean, I'll agree that unfinished bike trails is a problem, but it's
not inherently the fault of the concept of bike trails.

No, it's just ONE of the many problems with bike trails. Along with
lack of maintenance, truly stupid design faults, over-use by walkers,
joggers and skaters for whom there are no rules, conflicts at
intersections, etc etc.

Let me describe an American incident similar to that of the OP. My
wife, daughter and I did a coast-to-coast tour a couple years ago,
self-navigated. Obviously, we're very comfortable riding roads. But
in Bismarck, North Dakota (which, BTW, has a mandatory sidepath law) we
decided to follow a bike trail out of town.

To begin with, because there were no signs, we missed the start of the
mandatory sidepath, and found ourselves on a limited access four lane
with chain link fences trapping us. We had to ride on to a point where
we could lift our loaded touring bikes over a guardrail and take them
down a steep, high bank to re-access the trail.

The trail soon split into two directions. There was no way to tell
which one to take to head west. Fortunately, a guy came riding along
and gave us directions.

The trail wound beautifully through some wetlands along the river. But
then it got back to suburban streets, where it took us down a sidewalk
on the left side of the street! Astonishingly bad design! Narrow,
sharp pavement edges, crossing driveways, etc, etc.

Partly out of "respect" for the law (hah!) and partly out of curiosity
to see how bad this would get, we did ride that sidewalk, slowing way
down to pass a couple pedestrians.

Then the mandatory sidepath swerved away from the road and began
snaking through a park. Still mandatorially, we assumed. So, somewhat
bemused, we followed it, ignoring the traffic-free road to our right.

The path wound through the park for perhaps 1/2 mile and... ended.
That is, the pavement stopped. At that point, they were working on
extending it back to the road. What lay ahead was muddy excavated
turf. We basically hauled our bikes a few hundred yards over the grass
to get back to the road and blessedly out of town.

I should also mention that Bismarck also had some bike trails lined
with signs telling bikes to ride on the LEFT and pedestrians to walk on
the right!

Don't get me wrong. I really liked Bismarck. But whoever sets their
bicycle policies needs to be fired in disgrace for incompetence.

- Frank Krygowski

DrLith said:

So, the problem with bike trails is that they sometimes don't get finished?

I mean, I'll agree that unfinished bike trails is a problem, but it's
not inherently the fault of the concept of bike trails.

However, there are inherent problems with bike trails. Some are useful,
recreationally and/or transportationally, but many are not. Many are
awful for a variety of reasons.

Wayne

Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:32:11 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, Wayne Pein

Quoted message said:

However, there are inherent problems with bike trails. Some are useful,
recreationally and/or transportationally, but many are not. Many are
awful for a variety of reasons.

As I see it, the major drawback of bike trails is that when they're
used, they serve to get bikes off the road and therefore out of
cagers' semi-concious consciousness. They create the illusion that
bicycles don't belong on the roads.

They're too frequently adjacent to and generally dependent upon
parking lots for their users. That undermines cycling by reinforcing
the idea among the weak minded that one must drive to ride.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

As I see it, the major drawback of bike trails is that when they're
used, they serve to get bikes off the road and therefore out of
cagers' semi-concious consciousness. They create the illusion that
bicycles don't belong on the roads.

They're too frequently adjacent to and generally dependent upon
parking lots for their users. That undermines cycling by reinforcing
the idea among the weak minded that one must drive to ride.

Those are definitely huge drawbacks.

They can be chaotic with mixed use. They often have very poor junctions
with roads.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

They can be chaotic with mixed use.

I find it interesting that you don't like mixed use trail (bikes and
peds), but are OK with mixed use roads (cars and bikes). It seems mixed
use is OK with you as long as it's you holding up others and not the
other way around.

A well designed and implemented trail is a nice place to ride. Much
more scenic and quite then roads, and oftentimes many fewer
intersections at which you must stop.

Rich

Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:50:02 -0600, <[email hidden]>,

Rich said:

Quoted message said:

They can be chaotic with mixed use.

I find it interesting that you don't like mixed use trail (bikes and
peds), but are OK with mixed use roads (cars and bikes). It seems mixed
use is OK with you as long as it's you holding up others and not the
other way around.

No. It's that roads have rules to which most users adhere. It's a more
predictable environment that is better engineered, signed and
maintained for moving vehicles. Bicycles are vehicles.

In urban areas, the speed differential is less between bicycles and
cars than between bicycles and pedestrians. Fewer dog walkers, baby
strollers and roller bladers in la la land on the roads than on FMUPs

Bikes belong on roads. FMUPs are sidewalks that often go nowhere.
If you're out for a Sunday twiddle to socialise with other twiddlers,
FMUPs are fine. If you're going somewhere, it's better to take the
route that gets you there.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

FMUPs are sidewalks that often go nowhere.
If you're out for a Sunday twiddle to socialise with other twiddlers,
FMUPs are fine. If you're going somewhere, it's better to take the
route that gets you there.

MUPs around here do go somewhere. I can and do get to numerous
resturants, parks, the Movie Theatre, and numerous other stores by
taking the trail.

rich