vision2020@moscow.com: Re: bicycles -Reply

Re: bicycles -Reply

Diane Prorak (prorak@uidaho.edu)
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 22:12:36 -0800 (PST)

Ray, this path you describe sounds great -- ideal! But how could Moscow
ever afford something like this? Facilities like underpasses are
incredibly expensive. As I see it, bike facility building has to be tied
either to a park (in which case it is shared with pedestrians) or a road
project. I don't think taxpayers will pay for paths mainly for bikes.
We'll be lucky to get the Mtn. View bond passed and it has the plus
of improved facilities for autos.

Believe me, I love linear park paths, and I hope we can add some in
Moscow. (I think the new bicycle committee should look into the paths
that Lori describes). But when dealing with a street and trying to keep
costs down, as well as provide bicycle and ped facilities within limited
right of way, I still think lanes (and sidewalks) are the best alternative.
I agree that lanes aren't perfect -- and neither are all bicyclists. But
we are balancing trade-offs here.

I'm curious, specifically, what you would recommend for Mt. View. Where
would you put the bikes-only path and the sidewalks in relation to the
street? I'm on the committee and we are meeting Wednesday, so I really
am interested in your reply. We only have a limited amount of
right-of-way as well.

By the way, thanks for stimulating this discussion.

Diane

On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, RAY PANKOPF wrote:

> ** Proprietary **
>
> as a kid, i used ride a bicyle path to and from the beach. fourteen miles
> one way, no auto crossings, or painted lanes. it followed a river and
> went under the automobile bridges which span the river.
>
> it was great.
>
> later as an adult, when my job took me back to the area, i used this same
> trail to commute to work.
>
> >>> Lori Sodorff <sodo8711@uidaho.edu> 12/05/95 11:36am >>>
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, RAY PANKOPF wrote:
> > > i'd like to see a balance on such a commission. i am a "sometimes
> bicycle
> > commuter... (not hard core), and i think that the desires of the
> "hardcore"
> > commuters sometimes run roughshod over the needs of the community
> in
> > general.
> > > i am speaking specifically of the desire by the "professional
> commuters"
> > to put all bike lanes at traffic level, on the street, separated from traffic
> > only by a painted white line.
> > > such "applied" bike lanes are great for retrofit situations... putting
> > dedicated lanes in where none currently exist. but i object to such
> > "retrofit" design solutions in new construction (ie highway 8 project
> and
> > the proposed mountain view project)
> > > where one is starting from scratch and has the opportunity to
> separate
> > bikes from autos (and pedestrians) it make just too much sense to do
> so. > why ask for a retrofit compromise, when a permanent solution can
> be
> > constructed? (again, it makes just too much sense)
> > > so... i hope the commission memebership has a balance of views....
> > > ...ray > > Perhaps someone who has the knowledge and access
> can get the bicycle path plans from Old Town Alexandria Va., Rosylin
> Va., Washington D.C. and the surrounding areas. They have some of
> the most beautiful bike, skate, and ped paths I have seen. The are also
> not in direct contact with Autos At least 99% of the time. Also The
> pedestrians understand that the bikes will run over them if they are out
> of there designated area. An another also is that cyclists use and
> pedestrians understand basic courtacies. i.e. "ON the left, on the right,
> etc."
>
> Moscow could go a long way with some of these examples.
>
>
>


This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet