RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
The Dispatch wrote
Council OKs 100 miles of bike paths
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Columbus City Council approved a plan last night that will add miles of bike lanes along city streets, create dozens of new trails and add racks and a Downtown changing station for people riding on two wheels.
The Bicentennial Bikeways Plan calls for 100 miles of new bike lanes and trails to be built before the city’s 200th birthday in 2012 and a total of 538 miles of lanes and trails over 20 years.
It will cost $20 million for the first goal and $167.6 million for the long-range plan.
Comments
- itinerantfoodie: Not one mention of Huntington Park or their sparse advertising. (Seriously
- Liz Samuelson: Why can't they just pay someone to do it versus a contest? I really like t
- RichLauro: Awesome! Good for Justin and best wishes!!
- Liz Samuelson: @jpizzow – Thank you for the compliment, yes lots of potential and lots o
- Taz Devil: Oh, and it should be finished soon considering that they work late into the
Top Stories
- Grandview Yard Seeks Retail Anchors for Next Phase of Development33
- Studio 35 Re-Opening is a Revelation17
- Attn: Columbus Creatives!14
- Philanthropy Friday: Bicentennial Towers 14
- More Downtown Public Artwork Coming to Scioto Mile11
- Liberty Place Adding Over 200 New Apartment Units to The Brewery District11
- Columbus Ranks #22 on List of Best Large Cities for Jobs in 201210
- The Short North's Summer of Construction10
- The Hudson Street Market Renovates, Faces Construction Woes10
- Challenge: Could You Go Five Days Using Alternative Transportation?8
Columbus City Council OKs 100 miles of bike paths
Related Posts:
By the way, here’s an example of what I mean by trying to help other cyclists: I’m heading North on 23 to work tomorrow from around the Pig Iron (North of Graceland). If anyone wants to bike up that way, I’d love to meet you there and ride with you in the morning. I’m commuting up to Crosswoods, not too far, but I’ll leave around 6:30 – 6:45 am. If you’re up for it, post it by 10:00 pm tonight and we’ll ride up together. We’ll call it ‘bike-pooling’.
Bike lanes reduce visibility. Drivers aren’t passing a cyclist in the bike lane as they would if a cyclist was taking his or her lane. When it comes to a right turn…
Bike boulevards are probably the best solution, especially in a city with gridded streets and 2 extensive N/S MUPs along major corridors. Bike boulevards change the infrastructure to put cyclists and pedestrians first and can help create the lifelong learning necessary to creating a better culture for cycling.
The research I have seen indicates that bike lanes improve safety.
There is some research here that shows cars pass closer with bike lanes in place, but I haven’t seen any evidence that this has increased bike-car crashes. This research is the best I’ve seen and it shows a 58% higher crash rate on major streets w/o bike facilities compared to major streets with bike lanes. It does not separate shared lane markings (sharrows) into their own category. I would be interested to see how they compare. There is also evidence that bike lanes discourage wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding, both of which are dangerous. Lastly, it is important to ride at the left edge of a bike lane though to avoid being doored. Dooring is my most serious concern about bike lanes. If you want to make a left, just do it like a car. Look behind you, signal, and merge.
The research may be correct, and I’m not trying to defend Columbusite, as he his perfectly capable of defending himself. However, I can say that I would personally prefer no bike lanes. It is a dangerous proposition on most roads, in my cycling experience. For example, imagine a bike lane on the right of Morse Road. Here we have essentially a 4-lane highway, seeing as most people go 45-50 mph on that road (nothing I can sustain on a bike). Then couple that with the stop lights with people who turn right at the light (or worse, left on a full green light with no traffic coming, where you are now WAY off to the right of their customary vision looking for oncoming traffic). It is much, much safer to be behind a car, rather than to the right of a car (or worse, a semi or large truck) who may not see you. But, if you decide to get in the car lane at a stop light when you have a bike lane available, now all hell breaks loose with angry drivers. Not to mention the dangers of bike lanes on roads with street parking (which I’ve seen, believe it or not).
Rather, I would like to see ‘bike routes’ shifted to other roads that may go to the same place, even if a less direct route, but is more residential. I try to go those ways most of the time, if I can. I don’t really have a problem on High Street though, besides the usual poor surfaces. But that messes up my car too. I’m not complaining, don’t get me wrong. I’m glad that more awareness is a priority for the current municipal administration. I think a lot of the work needs to be done by cyclists to try to promote getting more people onto the roads, and teaching them how to be defensive, yet confident cyclists. I’ve personally found that learning to ride a straight line, predictably, with confidence, goes a long way toward getting consideration from drivers. There are jerks, and always will be, but they’re probably jerks to other vehicles too. There’s not much you can do to handle that.
I’m not trying to attack anyone, so there’s no need for anyone to defend themselves. I am just questioning the assertion that bike lanes are uniformly unsafe. The research, which I consider more valuable than individual opinions, seems to say that they are on average more safe. There may be certain roads where bike lanes are less safe. Maybe Morse is one of them? There may be more research that shows bike lanes are less safe, in which case I’m willing to listen. I’m an engineer though. The way to persuade me is with statistics, not angry opinions.
As far as hell breaking loose when riding in the car lane, I’m guessing that cyclists get more respect from motorists here in Chicago. I rarely see road rage from motorists directed at cyclists, although it does happen. Just this morning, a woman in a westbound car on a residential street tried to pass another westbound car at 6:30 in the morning for no reason other than impatience. I was going eastbound on my bike and I quickly swerved out of the way and stopped. She fell back in line behind the car she was passing, but when I yelled, “What are you doing?” she flicked me off. That’s just not necessary. How angry can you be at 6:30 in the morning that you need to try to pass people on residential streets and flick off cyclists that get in your way? Anyway, that’s a useless tangent.
Bike boulevards are probably the best solution, especially in a city with gridded streets and 2 extensive N/S MUPs along major corridors. Bike boulevards change the infrastructure to put cyclists and pedestrians first and can help create the lifelong learning necessary to creating a better culture for cycling.
On the contrary, I think having markings on the street for bikes (bike lanes) would make motorists more aware of cyclists, thus making them more visible. But that’s just my opinion, not research :)
I’m not trying to attack anyone, so there’s no need for anyone to defend themselves. I am just questioning the assertion that bike lanes are uniformly unsafe. The research, which I consider more valuable than individual opinions, seems to say that they are on average more safe. There may be certain roads where bike lanes are less safe. Maybe Morse is one of them? There may be more research that shows bike lanes are less safe, in which case I’m willing to listen. I’m an engineer though. The way to persuade me is with statistics, not angry opinions.
As far as hell breaking loose when riding in the car lane, I’m guessing that cyclists get more respect from motorists here in Chicago. I rarely see road rage from motorists directed at cyclists, although it does happen. Just this morning, a woman in a westbound car on a residential street tried to pass another westbound car at 6:30 in the morning for no reason other than impatience. I was going eastbound on my bike and I quickly swerved out of the way and stopped. She fell back in line behind the car she was passing, but when I yelled, “What are you doing?” she flicked me off. That’s just not necessary. How angry can you be at 6:30 in the morning that you need to try to pass people on residential streets and flick off cyclists that get in your way? Anyway, that’s a useless tangent.
No sweat man, and I’m not in defensive mode (I’m home now :D ). And, by the way, I’m a scientist by training, so I hear what you are saying with regard to research. However, human behavior is the one place where there are so many variables to isolate, that I’d be much more comfortable with the results one the study is actually done in Cbus. That said, you make a good point regarding Chi-town. I have taken my bike to Chicago, and ran on residential streets there, and while it is also a pretty ‘car is king’ city, it’s not as bad as Cbus. People here like their space with cars, which I get, but it is a bit of a dangerous mix right now. That’s why I’d like to see more cyclists getting more cyclists out. I used to drive my bike out of the city just to ride, and thought, “I’m just making it worse. Better to ride out so they might get used to me.” Sure enough, sometimes I see the same cars pass me and they wave. Not too bad for a one man show.
The reason I feel that boulevards do a better job is to educate a wide group, away from those that may use bikes, to the safety and awareness issues.
Boulevards eliminate the use of side streets as shortcuts through traffic calming and diverters to keep traffic to the most local level possible. You can still access them if you live there or are visiting, just takes the convenience factor away.
Now you have a situation where a whole community will be better exposed to cycling and pedestrian activities. Children can actually bike on the roadways without mom and dad taking out life insurance and wrapping them in bubble wrap. Neighbors driving through will expect cyclists and know that if they lose their temper, it could be their neighbor on the bike.
Just in reading threads here and at CB, my own experience, I feel most of the issues lie in the outlying areas that are more car centric than downtown. People just seem to expect pedestrians and bikes more in the central part of the city.
I think we just have very different priorities here–and the cadre of people who have cyclist-first and pedestrian-first priorities is extraordinarily overrepresented on these boards. Quite frankly, I’m amazed that City Council passed the millions they did, considering they couldn’t get $105 million for the streetcar line or even $2 million for a generic CYA study regarding said streetcar line.
Cycling is simply not a viable mode of commuter transit for most people and trying to reprioritize major portions of infrastructure to make it more bike-friendly … which by definition means less car-friendly … is going in precisely the opposite direction we should be going. Bike lanes are a good compromise because they don’t completely remove existing auto rights-of-way from the grid.
Columbus’ efficient traffic throughput is an asset to essentially every constituency in the metro area except hardcore cyclists. There is no reason to be slowing it down or constricting it.
Except that, as gas continues to rise, more and more people will be looking for alternatives to combat gas prices.
What is so wrong about having a complete streets policy, better bike and pedestrian facilities and putting in measures for traffic calming? Foot and pedal traffic can only help small businesses, improve quality of life in the city and help individuals economically.
Since a bicycle is classified as a vehicle, shouldn’t the infrastructure reflect that to some degree?
This is true, and public transit and Amtrak rates are at all-time highs, SUV assembly lines are laying off workers and trimming shifts, used gas guzzlers languish on used car lots, etc. However, the car is still king; it’s just that people are switching to more efficient ones. The reason is that the suburb is still where the majority of the population wants to live; cycling zealots like Columbusite and Cyclist try to spin a narrative about how developers forced people to live out there, but they wouldn’t have been building there if that weren’t actually where people wanted to live. Having a yard, more living space for one’s kids, better schools for those same kids, and freedom from the pandemonium of city life (which is what others call what urbanists call “energy” or “vibrancy”) is still the American Dream to most Americans.
Car companies are starting to pour real research dollars into alternative-fuel vehicles, like electric cars. Nissan has already invested a substantial amount in getting fully electric cars to mass production in the next few years. Because electricity can be centrally generated (and can be generated in a variety of ways, which is a good hedge against any one of those becoming prohibitively expensive), electric cars have costs-per-mile in the 2c. range even with today’s technology. That will likely get better. If it does, the car and the suburb will remain king and will likely even enjoy a renaissance: at 2c/mile, longer commutes don’t look half as problematic and road trips (or just long tips across town … a resident of Hillard going to visit a friend in Gahanna) don’t weigh as heavily on the wallet.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Foot traffic is good for Short North businesses. I’d hate to see Polaris try to rely on it. Or Ohio State. Or any of the major businesses on Capitol Square downtown whose workers live all throughout the suburban ring and need to get to and from downtown quickly and efficiently every weekday (and some weekends).
The horse and buggy is classified as a vehicle, too. I haven’t seen proposals for hitching posts or public carriage houses in Columbus much, either.
What a great way to sell a city :roll:
Screw streetcars, we ought to just put a highway over top of High St, cars are king.
New tourism slogan for Columbus: You’re in, you’re out.
Cycling is simply not a viable mode of commuter transit for most people
Really, I’d have to disagree with you here. Bicycling is easy for most adults and keeping a bike on the road is generally much cheaper than a second car. For many trips, bikes work just fine.
If someone was to come up with a decent municipal bike rental for Columbus like Bicing, this could lower the bar even further.
Well, some may define it like that. I’d much rather see well marked bikeways that share the lane of travel with cars (nothing says bikeway like sharing the road with 20 cyclists). The cars may travel slower (they may even get down to the speed limit), but in general it wouldn’t greatly affect car travel.
Actually, segregated bike lanes would do more to reduce the number of lanes available to cars and trucks.
I’m all for bypass bike paths, but I’d like to see some road sharing as well.
And the whole horse and buggy thing? Head north and east a bit and you’ll find communities that do accommodate these vehicles. Walmart in Ashland has hitching post. :D
I do, but they’re up in the air. If we had streetcars, they would help maintain the speed limit. Try driving on Franklin Park S (along the conservatory) or Duncan in Washington Beach off of High sometime, with the former being even wider and more gradual.
I do, but they’re up in the air. If we had streetcars, they would help maintain the speed limit. Try driving on Franklin Park S (along the conservatory) or Duncan in Washington Beach off of High sometime, with the former being even wider and more gradual.
I’ll try to check those out when I’m home on the 27th through the 29th. If cars can truly go 25-30 mph over the humps without slowing down, then it could theoretically be okay, but the 15 mph, 12′, parabolic humps I’m used to would cause ridiculous congestion and rear-end collisions on a major street like High or Broad. I think it’s important to remember that a complete streets policy isn’t about bikes and peds only, it’s about including everyone’s needs, including cars.
Cycling is simply not a viable mode of commuter transit for most people
Really, I’d have to disagree with you here. Bicycling is easy for most adults and keeping a bike on the road is generally much cheaper than a second car. For many trips, bikes work just fine.
If someone was to come up with a decent municipal bike rental for Columbus like Bicing, this could lower the bar even further.
+1.
25% of all trips are one mile or less. 40% are two miles or less. Those are easily bikeable distances. 50% of work trips are five miles or less. That’s not so bad. I did 15 miles each way today and it only takes ten minutes more door-to-door than the commuter rail.
Source: [url]http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/why/environment.php[/url]
I think biking may have the best combination of speed and costs for urban transportation modes.
Well put John.
Just as people can choose to live in the suburbs and commute 10-20 miles a day to work, 5-10 miles for groceries, you can choose to live where all of this is 5-6 miles away and on very bike-able roads.’
Just like with streetcars and other transit improvements, bikeways and complete streets is all about choice.
Slightly off-topic: Twowheels, I just looked at your blog and I found the advice you gave for beginning cyclists helpful. My roommate (who bikes) and I were talking about biking a bit tonight, and it only just now occurred to me how much effort goes into maintaining a bike. I’m not ready to get a bike yet, but when I do, I’ll keep in mind some of the things you wrote about.
It does take a bit of effort. I think I spent around 4-5 hours tonight (in spurts) getting tires and tubes on front and back, plus new brakes front and rear.
I am learning with my new (to me) 3 speed that these are wonderful bikes to begin with. I was able to use all the tools in our small, crappy tool box here in the apartment. Depending on the type of riding you will be doing, check them out and see if they would work. The vintage ones are wonderful and built to last. Mine is 56 years old and will be my daily ride. :D
I am learning with my new (to me) 3 speed that these are wonderful bikes to begin with. I was able to use all the tools in our small, crappy tool box here in the apartment. Depending on the type of riding you will be doing, check them out and see if they would work. The vintage ones are wonderful and built to last. Mine is 56 years old and will be my daily ride. :D
Alternatively, you can get it done a lot faster and pretty cheap by going to a bike shop. However, you won’t have the internal satisfaction of knowing how to fix your own stuff. I can change a flat, but that’s about it. Of course, that’s all I can do with a car too.
Yeah, but a pile of tools, an hour or two of sweat and a couple cold beers do a lot more for me than therapy.
I have taken the bikes to the LBS before, but bikes are so simple that its worth learning your way through how to fix and maintain them.
I do, but they’re up in the air. If we had streetcars, they would help maintain the speed limit. Try driving on Franklin Park S (along the conservatory) or Duncan in Washington Beach off of High sometime, with the former being even wider and more gradual.
I think it’s important to remember that a complete streets policy isn’t about bikes and peds only, it’s about including everyone’s needs, including cars.
I agree. I’ll have to see how fast I can go on those, though even if I can do 25 (Duncan has a good decline/incline) that doesn’t necessarily translate to cars being able to. I’m pretty sure there are stretches of High that could easily have medians without giving up turn space and would certainly face less opposition.