Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on February 11, 2011 at 9:51am

+1

T.C. O'Rourke said:

Duppie, I have not missed your point; I disagree with it.

 

1) Pushing cycling to trails, side streets (Wolcott) and secondary arterials (Damen) makes cyclists second class citizens.  The very thing that makes those routes attractive to cyclists is the very same that makes them unattractive to motorists: that they see less and slower moving motor traffic and are not given priority at intersections. However, the fact that these routes are currently safer and more enjoyable to cycle is a merely function of allocation of space in the major corridors; with proper and just planning, the reverse could be true.

 

2) Side streets and secondary arterials are frequently disrupted/interrupted and require extensive navigation.  Major arterials traverse obstacles.  Thus major arterials draw more traffic, become more critical and therefore draw more investment.  Currently this investment is about moving more motor-vehicles through less space in a faster capacity, in which cycling suffers.  A good example of this is the North Av. bridge, which was far more pleasant to cross before reconstruction.

 

By accepting the "alternative route" cycling plan, we allow planners to short cyclists in major investments to infrastructure.  "In a time of fiscal restraint and limited capital available" we need to demand our fair share.

 

3) If I am riding to a destination on Ashalnd, bike infrastructure on Wolcott is of limited use.  Given the density of businesses, schools and other institutions on Ashland, my destination is far more likely to be there than on Wolcott.

When traveling on Western Av., I am often surprised by new/different/closed business that exist within a few miles from my home.  This is because I probably drive or take the bus on Western <10 times a year.  I don't cycle Western Av. often, because it is unpleasant and somewhat less safe.  Therefore, I am excluded from a range of goods & service providers, who would be otherwise conveniently located to me.  Likewise, they are excluded from my business.  All because I choose to travel by bicycle.

 

4)  If we are really concerned about investing our limited resources wisely, bicycle infrastructure vs. expanding major arterial motor-vehicle capacity is the way to go.

 

5) RE: "BTW: Saying that bicycle tracks are in the city's "bike plan" is meaningless."

 

You got that right, brother.

 

T.C.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page