Cyclists want Columbus to allow bikes on sidewalks/inclusion in road upgrades

Started by TempoNick, February 07, 2024, 12:29:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Strider

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.


Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

GCrites

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 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/

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

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.

jeffandnicole

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.

Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Strider

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.

Rothman



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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

TempoNick

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

TempoNick

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.

TempoNick

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 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/

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

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.

Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Rick Powell

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.

Rothman

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
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

jeffandnicole

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.