From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Subject: Re: Bike paths
Reply-To: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Organization: Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:44:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.010813.14801@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> les@cs.stanford.edu writes:
>o  paths that go from somewhere to somewhere ...generally must intersect 
>   roads along the way.  [Statistically] intersections are very dangerous

Indeed, this knowledge about intersection hazards is the biggest thing
that's been learned about sidepaths in the 15 or more years since they've
been in the California design standards.  They now explicitly discourage 
parallel paths adjacent to roads for this reason.  And driveways form 
another kind of "intersection", where the path user and driveway user 
typically disagree as to who has the right of way.

However, several useful types of paths have no intersections except at 
their endpoints, and it's useful to distinguish between these and the 
"off-street parallel bike roads" most non-cyclists think of when you say 
"bikeways":  

A) Freeway overcrossings ("bike/ped bridges") 
B) Freeway undercrossings (usually along waterways)
C) Creek overcrossings (bridges) where no motor vehicle crossing exists
D) Short street-to-street connectors (e.g. between dead-ends) 
E) Long street-to-street connectors (e.g. across fields)
F) Parking-lot connectors

Except for the clearly recreational paths near the Bay, most of the local
examples I know belong to the above categories -- the area is just too
"built out" for it to be otherwise.  Kevin Karplus's UC Santa Cruz 
examples were of types D, E, and F.  Examples from around Palo Alto: 

* [A] Oregon/101 bridge across the Bayshore Freeway 
  (alternative: Embarcadero Road freeway interchange).
* [B] Stevens Creek Trail undercrossing of Bayshore Freeway at Hwy 85 
  (starts construction mid-93.  Alternatives: 2 freeway interchanges)
* [B] Adobe Creek Undercrossing, Palo Alto 
  (alternative: freeway interchange with narrow lanes, or 3-mile detour)
* [C,D] Bryant St. / Matadero Creek bridge (note: has *separate* ped 
  bridge adjacent)
* [C,E] Path from Sand Hill Road / Stanford Shopping Center to Menlo Park,
  including bridge across San Francisquito Creek
* [C,D] Alma / San Francisquito Creek bridge between Palo Alto and
  Menlo Park (funding applied for).  Alternative: narrow railroad 
  trestle, or 1-mile detour.

>o  On paths that are open to pedestrians or other non-cyclists,
>   cyclists can't ride at full speed and are frequently slowed to
>   a walking pace by these shuffling obstructions.  When you do try to
>   go around, there is a good chance that you will be picked off by
>   the unpredictable motions of the shuffling obstructions.
>o  On paths that are not open to non-cyclists and that have stringent law
>   enforcement, you will encounter wobbly toddlers and families out for
>   a slow, communal ride who will make you wish that you had chosen
>   the road.
>o  On paths that are not open to non-cyclists but that also do not
>   have stringent law enforcement, pedestians will still take over.

Agreed -- I don't know of any "bike-only" paths.  "Bike paths" is a 
misnomer because keeping peds off them is unenforceable.  "Mixed-use" 
is more accurate.

Commuting and recreational uses of a given path often occur at different 
times of day or week, allowing "timesharing".  Though the same path I 
often use for part of my commute *is* full of families, strollers, and 
dogs on the weekend, it's nearly empty on a weekday morning or evening.
I'm still cautious, but I don't expect a crowd.  

Also, a convention of "walk on the right, cyclists warn when passing" 
should be encouraged.  Text to this effect is painted on the Foster City 
bayside path every 1/4 mile or so, and I'd like to see it (plus a 
dashed centerline) on all mixed-use paths.

>o  On all bike paths, broken glass and other hazards accumulate because
>   there are no motor vehicles to automatically scrub them clean.

(You mean, "sweep them into the bike lane".  And motorists wonder why
we ride next to the stripe...)

Construction funding grant applicants must usually state that they have 
the money to maintain the project once constructed.  Cities assign 
different sweeping policies: streets usually get swept weekly or biweekly.  
Paths may be put on a "complaint basis" (really, that's the term).  
Advocates and BACs should ask about the local sweeping policies, and have 
the frequency increased if it's not sufficient for a given location. Be
prepared for Public Works to say "but we always do it every two weeks
(or whatever)" -- remind them that if there's glass on the street every 
few days, biweekly (or whatever) obviously isn't frequent enough.

>I will admit that a bike path could be useful for people who want to
>get a little exercise at a very slow pace, don't mind patching their
>tires frequently, and aren't going anywhere in particular, so that a
>closed circuit in a park without crossing roads can be used.  However,
>that doesn't describe any cycling that I have ever done or plan to do.

Methinks you exaggerate.  While I often reduce speed on off-street paths 
and shortcuts, the distance saved or traffic avoided often makes them 
attractive.  Your mileage may vary.  I've gotten more flats on-street 
than on the little off-street path riding I do, maybe perhaps because 
people around here throw (and break) glass bottles from cars more than 
on paths.


Having said all this, I still put in the vast majority of my mileage
on-street, and feel that money is usually better spent for on-street 
improvements, starting with decent pavement and adequate lanewidth.

/John

-- 
John Ciccarelli           Adobe Systems,  1585 Charleston |    _~C      __C
jciccare@mv.us.adobe.com  Mountain View CA USA 94039-7900 |  ='\<,    ='\<,
uunet!adobe!jciccare      415/962-6677,  fax:415/903-0584 | (&)/(\)  (&)/(\)
=== "If you live within 7 miles of your job, why drive?" === BIKE TO WORK ==