Here is my response to Mr. Ford on the issue of bike routes on arterials in BikeKC.
You notice I gave *some* of this when he asked me about it. I wasn't planning to bring it up if he didn't.
Issue: Bike Facilities on Arterials
Mr. Ford has raised a tough issue here. Most bicyclists would agree that arterials can be uncomfortable to ride on. Most would agree that if alternative routes exist, that are through routes and not much out of the way, these would be preferable.
I happen to live in between Raytown Trafficway and Blue Ridge Cutoff. These are the arterials I know best and they are both proposed bike routes. Speed limits are 35, 40, 45 and sometimes higher. I suggested to my wife that these aren't the ideal bike routes, and asked her to suggest alternatives. She couldn't think of any. I couldn't, either. I looked on a map, and there just aren't any.
So if anyone can suggest practical alternative routes to arterials, I suggest: work them out in detail and let's use them. But when I carefully examined the proposed bike routes in the area of town I know best, I couldn't find a way to replace any arterials and in fact suggested adding a few more key arterials to the plan.
I can see Raytown Trafficway from my front window, and I see bicyclists riding it most every day. They may not like it, but it is the only route that takes them where they need to go.
So, like it or not, we already have a bicycle route on Raytown Trafficway. The real question is: next time we re-build Raytown Trafficway, are we going to make it safer for bicycles and more comfortable for motorists passing them, or are we going to leave it in its present less safe, less comfortable configuration.
Regardless of BikeKC, when arterials are re-constructed, federal law (that's TEA-21 or its successor), will require that the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists be considered. Like it or not, we might as well have a plan in place to deal with this eventuality.
posted by Brent Hugh at
Sunday, August 25, 2002 |
permanently archived here
