http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-07-we-need-real-bike-paths-for-real-bike-transportaiton
How we roll
We need real bike paths for real bike transportation
by Elly Blue
8 Nov 2010 7:00 AM
Illustration Omitted:
Bikers must yield to pedestrians sign.
Shared-use paths result in inevitable conflict between cyclists and
pedestrians. Photo: Bryan Goebel
Last month, a young woman was jogging along the popular new Katy Trail
in Dallas, Texas, wearing headphones. She turned left and was struck
by a woman on a bicycle. The jogger's head hit the pavement. Several
days later, she died.
The Katy Trail is not a trail in the woods, but a multi-use path, or,
in planning-speak, a "MUP." These paved byways are varyingly
called trails, paths, rail trails, bike trails, or linear parks. The
mix of terminology reflects the current confusion about what exactly
they are for.
The original concept is that of the linear park -- a destination in
the city or suburbs where locals of all ages can go get fresh air and
exercise in a natural setting. Mellow recreation was the idea. The
bicycle has always been part of this mix. But MUPs aren't always
simply about recreation. The use of these paths as transportation
corridors, rather than parks, is being pushed increasingly at a local
level, and even promoted by the feds, including in a recent interview
with U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on this
site.
But there's a disconnect between the speedy reality of bicycle
transportation and the slow, recreational uses these trails are
designed for. Multi-use paths are only required to be eight feet wide.
That's fine for a stroll in the park, but when you factor in two lanes
for bikes as well as joggers, skaters, and roving families, it's
alarmingly narrow.
Most planning guidelines acknowledge that a 10-foot trail width is
better, and recommend 12 for areas with heavy bicycle traffic. Even
that -- as we learned on the Katy Trail, which is still being built to
these state-of-the-art standards and even includes a narrower,
supplemental trail for walking -- isn't enough when bikes are in the
mix.
It should be no surprise that these paths see a high collision and
injury rate. A 2009 literature review of traffic safety studies looked
at bicycle crashes and discovered that multi-use paths are more
dangerous to ride on than even major roads.
Most attempts to address the danger focus on educating users to
"share the path." This has been the gist of the most
levelheaded responses to the tragic incident on the Katy Trail.
In effect, this is a way to blame the users. This becomes more clear
when you brave the comment section on any story about the tragedy. The
vitriolic finger-pointing starts immediately. Some blame bicyclists
who ride fast and don't use their bells when passing. Others blame
walkers and joggers who stop suddenly, don't hold their line, and let
their kids and dogs run freely. Everyone blames people wearing
headphones. Some simply blame everyone.
Meanwhile, few are looking to the real culprit: the increasingly
common practice of building transportation facilities that cannot
safely or comfortably carry the planned types of traffic, promoting
them heavily, and then accepting easy credit for providing bike routes
without having to take the political risks of encroaching on the vast
amounts of roadways reserved for cars.
Shared trails are being heavily funded on the federal level, with
politicians and advocates claiming major bike-friendliness points.
This trend is likely to continue even post-election -- Rep. John Mica
(R-Fla.) in line to be the new chair of the House Transportation
Committee, is already boasting that his state has the most such
multi-use paths in the country.
Even if they were not shared, many of these paths would not be
adequate for bicycle traffic. Sight lines are not good, there is often
no lane to pass slower riders, and the number of users keeps going up,
up, and up. This is not the fault of people who ride bikes on them. In
most cities, as in Dallas, options are slim. A congested, shared
off-road path is often the lesser of two evils.
Politicians, planners, and advocates need to step up. And disgruntled
trail users need to stop blaming each other and demand real bike
paths. Often there's room in the same right of way to have a walking
path and bike lanes in both directions, all wide enough. Many cities
are experimenting with these, including Vancouver, B.C., Manhattan,
and Seoul -- though you can still see an inevitable amount of user
error in each of these photos.
But a few token separated paths, no matter how wide, will never be
more than a political compromise. We need suitable places to go walk
and jog and relax.
And if we are going to fill the rapidly growing demand for bicycle
infrastructure, we need the real thing. Cramming bikes onto serene
paths is like putting a superhighway through a schoolyard.
We already have a wide-ranging network of paved bike routes, where
people can ride as fast and freely as they need to, have plenty of
room to pass each other, and can expect to encounter pedestrians and
joggers at clearly marked intersections. We just need to take back
some of that space from cars. And for the sake of the paths, we need
to do it soon.
Elly Blue is a bicycle activist living in Portland, Oregon.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed, without profit, for
research and educational purposes only. ***
planning