Sharrows are a pet peeve of mine. I think it's stupid bicycles on congested roadways. The bike nazis vehemently disagree with this. They think they are entitled to be on the road, but it makes more sense to me to route them differently, including the use of sidewalks.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2024/02/06/columbus-council-asked-to-consider-allowing-bikes-on-some-sidewalks-along-dangerous-roadways/72456131007/
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Quote from: TempoNick on February 07, 2024, 12:29:38 PM
Sharrows are a pet peeve of mine. I think it's stupid bicycles on congested roadways. The bike nazis vehemently disagree with this. They think they are entitled to be on the road, but it makes more sense to me to route them differently, including the use of sidewalks.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2024/02/06/columbus-council-asked-to-consider-allowing-bikes-on-some-sidewalks-along-dangerous-roadways/72456131007/
Well, in many places, they ARE entitled to be on most roads.
But a lot of cities put in extra wide sidewalks in certain cases like these to allow for both bike and pedestrian traffic.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 07, 2024, 01:17:10 PM
Quote from: TempoNick on February 07, 2024, 12:29:38 PM
Sharrows are a pet peeve of mine. I think it's stupid bicycles on congested roadways. The bike nazis vehemently disagree with this. They think they are entitled to be on the road, but it makes more sense to me to route them differently, including the use of sidewalks.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2024/02/06/columbus-council-asked-to-consider-allowing-bikes-on-some-sidewalks-along-dangerous-roadways/72456131007/
Well, in many places, they ARE entitled to be on most roads.
But a lot of cities put in extra wide sidewalks in certain cases like these to allow for both bike and pedestrian traffic.
The downtown main street here in Appleton, WI (College Ave) was created with a wide ROW at the very beginning (1840s, IIRC', looong before ICE cars were part of anyone's dreams) so that teamsters of the day could U-turn animal-drawn carts within the curbs of the street. Otherwise they would have had to use side streets and go around the block to do that. Riding bicycles has always been prohibited on the resulting very wide sidewalks.
Mike
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Meh, okay, only make it legal at a slow pace. I ride my bike on sidewalks on congested streets whether it's legal or not. I'm smart enough to know not to race down those sidewalks at a high speed.
Quote from: TempoNick on February 07, 2024, 01:52:30 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Meh, okay, only make it legal at a slow pace. I ride my bike on sidewalks on congested streets whether it's legal or not. I'm smart enough to know not to race down those sidewalks at a high speed.
OK, but that's you. Its very apparent many bicyclists don't agree. In 2008, bicyclists in Columbus argued against riding on sidewalks, claiming it was unsafe, specifically referencing crashes with pedestrians. Did the stats change over the years? https://columbusunderground.com/bicyclists-oppose-lifting-sidewalk-ban-in-columbus/
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where
are the cyclists supposed to be?
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
There is no good answer. Redesign of streets for 3 separate flows instead of 2 would be great if there were enough ROW.
Best suggestion I saw so far is converting some parallel streets into bike/ local auto no through traffic. But again, city must have adequate parallel streets for that.
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
Make bikes illegal.
Quote from: kalvado on February 07, 2024, 08:12:05 PM
Best suggestion I saw so far is converting some parallel streets into bike/ local auto no through traffic. But again, city must have adequate parallel streets for that.
That is your answer. From downtown, I used to take the surface streets to Bryden, then to Main. Then I would wind my way further east by going through various residential neighborhoods between there and Hamilton Road. Once I got to Hamilton, I hit a dead end because I have to go further east. I took the bus to get to my destination. Once, I walked back with the bike, but I don't like the idea of a pedestrian (or bicyclist) on a clover-leaf freeway overpass. (Broad Street and I-270).
Bikes should be routed this way. Where there are cul de sacs or other obstructions, seems like there could be some kind of workaround. Better than those stupid sharrows.
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
low speed/not congested road
Quote from: TempoNick on February 07, 2024, 11:34:17 PM
.... Where there are cul de sacs or other obstructions, seems like there could be some kind of workaround. Better than those stupid sharrows.
When I was growing up, it was somewhat common here in Fairfax County that in neighborhoods near schools, there would be an "access sidewalk" to the school property running between two lots. See this example—the sidewalk running between those two fences provides access to Mantua Elementary. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/3DYHrXfs7jVeWiLD8) Or here is another example with no fences—the sidewalk between those houses runs through to the old Pine Ridge Elementary (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HKRqm8urEADS2qVv7), which closed in 1982 but the sidewalk is still there. It seems like that sort of thing could become part of the planning required for new construction to provide pedestrian or cyclist access from cul-de-sacs or other "no outlet" type neighborhoods. Of course I recognize why some homeowners wouldn't necessarily love the idea of making their neighborhoods more easily accessible to people who don't live there (or, viewed differently, of providing another route for a thief or similar to escape), but for the most part such people can get away easily enough even without such sidewalks or paths.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 08, 2024, 10:35:34 AM
Quote from: TempoNick on February 07, 2024, 11:34:17 PM
.... Where there are cul de sacs or other obstructions, seems like there could be some kind of workaround. Better than those stupid sharrows.
When I was growing up, it was somewhat common here in Fairfax County that in neighborhoods near schools, there would be an "access sidewalk" to the school property running between two lots. See this example—the sidewalk running between those two fences provides access to Mantua Elementary. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/3DYHrXfs7jVeWiLD8) Or here is another example with no fences—the sidewalk between those houses runs through to the old Pine Ridge Elementary (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HKRqm8urEADS2qVv7), which closed in 1982 but the sidewalk is still there. It seems like that sort of thing could become part of the planning required for new construction to provide pedestrian or cyclist access from cul-de-sacs or other "no outlet" type neighborhoods. Of course I recognize why some homeowners wouldn't necessarily love the idea of making their neighborhoods more easily accessible to people who don't live there (or, viewed differently, of providing another route for a thief or similar to escape), but for the most part such people can get away easily enough even without such sidewalks or paths.
I, for one, isn't very happy that there are no outlets from our cul-de-sac. Of course, having some water and tiny ravines on 3 sides doesn't make things easier.
But it felt not great when the street was flooded during heavy rain.
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2024, 10:06:40 AM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
low speed/not congested road
What about places where there isn't a low speed or not congested road? Many suburban areas are deliberately designed so the low speed streets don't connect, so you can't get anywhere on them.
Plus, if your destination is on the high speed/congested route, then the low speed street doesn't actually get you to where you're trying to go.
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 08, 2024, 10:59:16 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2024, 10:06:40 AM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
low speed/not congested road
What about places where there isn't a low speed or not congested road? Many suburban areas are deliberately designed so the low speed streets don't connect, so you can't get anywhere on them.
road diets
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 08, 2024, 10:59:16 AM
Plus, if your destination is on the high speed/congested route, then the low speed street doesn't actually get you to where you're trying to go.
Well, actually, my tongue was pretty far into my cheek. Of course I know it's not a satisfactory answer. You just seemed to miss an obvious solution in some situations: slowing vehicular traffic down.
Is there any space within the city of Columbus to possibly add bike paths for cyclists instead of bike lanes? Here in Madison, there are bike paths within the city limits, as well as some outside of the city.
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2024, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 08, 2024, 10:59:16 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2024, 10:06:40 AM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
low speed/not congested road
What about places where there isn't a low speed or not congested road? Many suburban areas are deliberately designed so the low speed streets don't connect, so you can't get anywhere on them.
road diets
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 08, 2024, 10:59:16 AM
Plus, if your destination is on the high speed/congested route, then the low speed street doesn't actually get you to where you're trying to go.
Well, actually, my tongue was pretty far into my cheek. Of course I know it's not a satisfactory answer. You just seemed to miss an obvious solution in some situations: slowing vehicular traffic down.
This is, of course, the solution, but it's amazing how much people freak out if you suggest this as a solution...
Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.
All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2024, 12:56:22 PM
Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.
All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.
and NOT this:
(https://i0.wp.com/theconstructor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/highway-surface-drainage-system-design.jpg)
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2024, 01:18:47 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2024, 12:56:22 PM
Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.
All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.
and NOT this:
(https://i0.wp.com/theconstructor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/highway-surface-drainage-system-design.jpg)
Of course in that case they put one in that just can't be turned 90 degrees. Imagine arguing with a town where they can turn it but they just choose not to. You really don't see rain gutters like that in the Northeast, outside of some parts of Connecticut I can think of. They probably don't play well with loads of snow.
Unfortunately, around here, cycling advocacy groups say shoulders of any kind are inadequate and unsafe due to the rocks, debris and whatever else that end up in them.
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 01:32:26 PM
Unfortunately, around here, cycling advocacy groups say shoulders of any kind are inadequate and unsafe due to the rocks, debris and whatever else that end up in them.
Funny that I don't have that problem with shoulders in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, etc.
I do have that problem with segregated lanes that can't be cleaned by street sweepers, especially in places like Cambridge and Somerville.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2024, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 01:32:26 PM
Unfortunately, around here, cycling advocacy groups say shoulders of any kind are inadequate and unsafe due to the rocks, debris and whatever else that end up in them.
Funny that I don't have that problem with shoulders in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, etc.
I do have that problem with segregated lanes that can't be cleaned by street sweepers, especially in places like Cambridge and Somerville.
I agree with you, but they do not agree with us.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2024, 12:56:22 PM
Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.
All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.
This is a circular argument. You argue that most cyclists are okay with a narrow bike lane, but that usually in the real world means a maybe 1 meter wide lane, next to traffic that's likely going upwards of 60 km/h (basically, this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/urzKDFSEFjGRMmHp6). And, speaking as someone who knows physics, there is no way I want to be that close to cars going that fast. So, sure, if that is the only option, then most cyclists will be okay with that option, because the people who are aware of physics won't be cyclists if that's the way cyclists are expected to get around. But it would be nicer if people who are not into lycra could ride a bike to places without having to worry that the driver of the pickup truck going by at 70 km/h is looking at their cell phone.
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 08, 2024, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2024, 12:56:22 PM
Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.
All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.
This is a circular argument. You argue that most cyclists are okay with a narrow bike lane, but that usually in the real world means a maybe 1 meter wide lane, next to traffic that's likely going upwards of 60 km/h (basically, this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/urzKDFSEFjGRMmHp6). And, speaking as someone who knows physics, there is no way I want to be that close to cars going that fast. So, sure, if that is the only option, then most cyclists will be okay with that option, because the people who are aware of physics won't be cyclists if that's the way cyclists are expected to get around. But it would be nicer if people who are not into lycra could ride a bike to places without having to worry that the driver of the pickup truck going by at 70 km/h is looking at their cell phone.
Translation of this missive: SectorZ is too stupid to understand the risk of being hit by a vehicle. SectorZ wears stupid clothing and should have rampant anxiety but is a weirdo because he can co-exist with other traffic.
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
build lanes that are fixed for bicycles. It keeps them off of the road designed for cars, trucks, etc. and the sidewalks for pedestrians. IMO, there should be some type of bicycle roads across the US. I bet it is not that expensive.
Quote from: Strider on February 08, 2024, 09:06:54 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
build lanes that are fixed for bicycles. It keeps them off of the road designed for cars, trucks, etc. and the sidewalks for pedestrians. IMO, there should be some type of bicycle roads across the US. I bet it is not that expensive.
Oh, you poor innocent soul.
You should see what the localities are getting around here for $50m in shared-use paths...the answer is not a lot.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 08, 2024, 11:28:03 AM
Is there any space within the city of Columbus to possibly add bike paths for cyclists instead of bike lanes? Here in Madison, there are bike paths within the city limits, as well as some outside of the city.
We do have an extensive bike lane network here in Columbus. But there are still some gaps and the bike paths are generally located along rivers/creeks. And you say "Oh that's good! Rivers are often in the most important parts of town!" The issue in Columbus is that none of our rivers are navigable so they often aren't in the most important parts of town -- besides Downtown which does have bike infrastructure along the rivers. And if I'm riding from say Grandview to Downtown I can river ride it all the way. It is surprisingly fast too.
Here's a bike path I like a lot for recreation: https://myhikes.org/trails/alum-creek-greenway-trail (https://myhikes.org/trails/alum-creek-greenway-trail) But is it useful for commuting? Only if you are traveling in the vicinity from Westerville to the nugget-looking thing next to the I-270 shield called Easton. Those are two big job centers. Other than that there are few jobs located on that path.
Here's a link to our Metroparks' bike path system: https://www.metroparks.net/bike-trail-overviews/ (https://www.metroparks.net/bike-trail-overviews/)
There are more bike paths that fall under other jurisdictions such as the Olentangy Trail running along the rivers: https://columbusrecparks.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Olentangy-Trail-South-Section.pdf (https://columbusrecparks.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Olentangy-Trail-South-Section.pdf)
This is another one that can connect people to job centers. But unfortunately most of our bike paths are recreational. It's no ones fault in particular. Our city doesn't have enough nodes and the ones we do have are far from each other.
Quote from: Strider on February 08, 2024, 09:06:54 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
build lanes that are fixed for bicycles. It keeps them off of the road designed for cars, trucks, etc. and the sidewalks for pedestrians. IMO, there should be some type of bicycle roads across the US. I bet it is not that expensive.
I was talking with the guy in my carpool the other day about a railroad bridge with a low-clearance issue. He said, how much will it cost to raise it 3 feet? About a million?
After I recovered from my choking fit, I informed him that the nearby bridge over a creek that they are replacing was $52 million.
He blamed inflation (because, politics). So I just shut up at that point.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 08, 2024, 09:51:23 PM
Quote from: Strider on February 08, 2024, 09:06:54 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
build lanes that are fixed for bicycles. It keeps them off of the road designed for cars, trucks, etc. and the sidewalks for pedestrians. IMO, there should be some type of bicycle roads across the US. I bet it is not that expensive.
I was talking with the guy in my carpool the other day about a railroad bridge with a low-clearance issue. He said, how much will it cost to raise it 3 feet? About a million?
After I recovered from my choking fit, I informed him that the nearby bridge over a creek that they are replacing was $52 million.
He blamed inflation (because, politics). So I just shut up at that point.
Raising rail bridges is so expensive because trains can only handle grades that are only so steep for obvious reasons. So, you're looking at regrading rail for miles beyond the bridge.
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: Strider on February 08, 2024, 09:06:54 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
build lanes that are fixed for bicycles. It keeps them off of the road designed for cars, trucks, etc. and the sidewalks for pedestrians. IMO, there should be some type of bicycle roads across the US. I bet it is not that expensive.
Oh, you poor innocent soul.
You should see what the localities are getting around here for $50m in shared-use paths...the answer is not a lot.
I could say the same for yourself in regarding to that "poor innocent soul". It was a suggestion. If the answer isn't a lot... it is because they haven't done anything significant.
Quote from: Strider on February 08, 2024, 11:03:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: Strider on February 08, 2024, 09:06:54 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
build lanes that are fixed for bicycles. It keeps them off of the road designed for cars, trucks, etc. and the sidewalks for pedestrians. IMO, there should be some type of bicycle roads across the US. I bet it is not that expensive.
Oh, you poor innocent soul.
You should see what the localities are getting around here for $50m in shared-use paths...the answer is not a lot.
I could say the same for yourself in regarding to that "poor innocent soul". It was a suggestion. If the answer isn't a lot... it is because they haven't done anything significant.
Right...which, stay with me here, means shared use paths are expensive and your bet was foolhardy.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 08, 2024, 12:56:22 PM
Bicycling advocates do not speak for a majority of cyclists. In fact, they really only speak for inner-urban extremist types that seemingly have problems riding daily on roads I do only occasionally with zero issues. Cycling on roads isn't that hard, but some people make it out to be and I have no idea why.
All a reasonable cyclist asks for is 3-4' of shoulder beside the lane (which is the rough width of a bike lane). No segregated lane with plastic posts dividing it from the road that causes all the road debris to get shuttled into the bike lane, no riding on sidewalks which is for pedestrians and maybe young bicycle rides, and no sharrows since a sharrow is redundant.
The bike advocates think there is nothing wrong with biking on a congested highway. They have the mentality that since it's legal, everything is hunky-dory. I believe in physics. When a 6,000 lb SUV hits a 20 lb bicycle because the driver was texting or whacking her kids instead of watching the road, the bicycle loses. I don't want to be the one on the losing side of that equation
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 09:26:05 PM
Oh, you poor innocent soul.
You should see what the localities are getting around here for $50m in shared-use paths...the answer is not a lot.
Back in the old days, people used to donate land for the public good. Now, everything is a grift. And I don't blame them, either. I'm not going to be the fool that gives something away while everybody else cashes in.
Quote from: GCrites80s on February 08, 2024, 09:28:52 PM
We do have an extensive bike lane network here in Columbus. But there are still some gaps and the bike paths are generally located along rivers/creeks. And you say "Oh that's good! Rivers are often in the most important parts of town!" The issue in Columbus is that none of our rivers are navigable so they often aren't in the most important parts of town -- besides Downtown which does have bike infrastructure along the rivers. And if I'm riding from say Grandview to Downtown I can river ride it all the way. It is surprisingly fast too.
Here's a bike path I like a lot for recreation: https://myhikes.org/trails/alum-creek-greenway-trail (https://myhikes.org/trails/alum-creek-greenway-trail) But is it useful for commuting? Only if you are traveling in the vicinity from Westerville to the nugget-looking thing next to the I-270 shield called Easton. Those are two big job centers. Other than that there are few jobs located on that path.
Here's a link to our Metroparks' bike path system: https://www.metroparks.net/bike-trail-overviews/ (https://www.metroparks.net/bike-trail-overviews/)
There are more bike paths that fall under other jurisdictions such as the Olentangy Trail running along the rivers: https://columbusrecparks.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Olentangy-Trail-South-Section.pdf (https://columbusrecparks.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Olentangy-Trail-South-Section.pdf)
This is another one that can connect people to job centers. But unfortunately most of our bike paths are recreational. It's no ones fault in particular. Our city doesn't have enough nodes and the ones we do have are far from each other.
Columbus has good paths going north and south, but terrible East-West connections.
Quote from: TempoNick on February 09, 2024, 01:48:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 09:26:05 PM
Oh, you poor innocent soul.
You should see what the localities are getting around here for $50m in shared-use paths...the answer is not a lot.
Back in the old days, people used to donate land for the public good. Now, everything is a grift. And I don't blame them, either. I'm not going to be the fool that gives something away while everybody else cashes in.
No, back in the old days, state and federal governments didn't have to compensate when they just took your land in the name of the public good: Eminent domain.
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2024, 06:53:34 AM
No, back in the old days, state and federal governments didn't have to compensate when they just took your land in the name of the public good: Eminent domain.
Back in the old days when public roads were just coming into being, the value of one's property zoomed when a road was put next to it or through it vs. being isolated in its natural state, so people were seemingly more amenable to having a "dedication" of public right of way on their land where no money was paid, that was considered at the time to be consistent with the compensation clause of the 4th Amendment.
I live on a state highway, and when the road was widened (a few years before I bought the property) the state paid the owner for the newly acquired frontage, plus the old right of way to the centerline, therefore "cleaning up" the state's fee simple title to the land.
Quote from: Rick Powell on February 09, 2024, 08:27:53 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2024, 06:53:34 AM
No, back in the old days, state and federal governments didn't have to compensate when they just took your land in the name of the public good: Eminent domain.
Back in the old days when public roads were just coming into being, the value of one's property zoomed when a road was put next to it or through it vs. being isolated in its natural state, so people were seemingly more amenable to having a "dedication" of public right of way on their land where no money was paid, that was considered at the time to be consistent with the compensation clause of the 4th Amendment.
I live on a state highway, and when the road was widened (a few years before I bought the property) the state paid the owner for the newly acquired frontage, plus the old right of way to the centerline, therefore "cleaning up" the state's fee simple title to the land.
Gee, wonder what changed to legislatively force the government to compensate landowners for eminent domain takings. I mean, if everyone was just happy to freely give their property over, then there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to complain to their elected officials about eminent domain takings at all and no impetus for insisting on compensation.
Short of it is, people got sick of losing property to government and being hung out to dry.
I mean, with all the lawsuits over eminent domain that are ongoing, government's position should just be, "Oh, your property value is going to go up, so we're taking back any offer of compensation at all..." Perhaps we should turn back the clock. :D
Quote from: Strider on February 08, 2024, 09:06:54 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 07, 2024, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Conveniently left out of the cyclist's narrative was the speed differential on sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians.
Okay, so it's dangerous to the cyclists to be in a high speed/congested road, and it's dangerous to pedestrians for the cyclists to be on the sidewalk. So where are the cyclists supposed to be?
build lanes that are fixed for bicycles. It keeps them off of the road designed for cars, trucks, etc. and the sidewalks for pedestrians. IMO, there should be some type of bicycle roads across the US. I bet it is not that expensive.
It may not be all that expensive if you don't do any planning, engineering, design, research, right of way acquisition, public meetings, stakeholder meetings, clearing, signage, curbing, curb cuts, bike-safe storm grates, lines, traffic lights, lighting, paving, surface treatment, repair and maintenance.
In other estimates (btw, estimates are all over the place, and many articles appear to be running with older estimates), it costs about $25 per sq ft of asphalt. Let's say a bike path is 6 feet wide, to allow for 2 direction travel (this seems kinda tight, but good enough). That's $150 for every foot of asphalt. For one mile, that about $800,000, just for the asphalt. Which ignores everything else I mentioned above.
You could use existing roadway pavement to eliminate new asphalt, although you then incur other costs, many of which are mentioned above.
And then you get differing bicyclist's opinions. Many want protected bike lanes. Do you use flexible bollards or concrete curbing or jersey barriers? Does the line go between the vehicle lanes and the parking lane, or between the parking lane and the sidewalk or curbing? Do you install specialized holding areas at traffic lights?
Bridges are especially costly. How are they handled?
So I'm going to bet with Rothman...I'm not sure what your definition of 'not expensive' is, but chances are, it's not the $ you're thinking.