I invariably come off sounding like I'm
"against" multi-use paths when I really am not. I would push for a
different mix in our funding priorities that would favor on-street
facilities somewhat more than they currently are, and multi-use paths
somewhat less than they currently are, but that is about as far as my
"anti-path" sentiment goes.
I think that a lot the multi-use paths we're starting to see around
the KC metro area, mostly along rivers and creeks, are one of the
best things that has happened in the metro area in a long time. They
are a lot like long, narrow parks. As you know if you have read much
of what I have written on the subject, one of my biggest criticisms
of how things have been handled in the KC area over the past (almost)
200 years is that we have invariably used our beautiful riverfront
areas to dump garbage, toxic waste, and industrial blight. What
should be our most scenic areas, sparkling gems setting off the
natural beauty of the city, are instead ugly, frightening, poisoned,
and (often for those reasons) inaccessible.
The movement to create trails and public access to these areas via
multi-use trails is at least one big step to counteract a century and
a half of abuse.
I would even defend something as "evil" (from the vehicular cycling
perspective) as the Trolley Track trail, as a good and useful linear
park project--despite the fact that my own experience with it is very
like the experience Forrester had riding such a path (famously
described in his book) after which he concluded after riding just a
mile or two on such a path that riding paths were at least 1000 times
more dangerous than riding on the roadway. (In four blocks riding
the path we had more dangerous conflicts and near misses than we had
in an entire summer riding all the way along Gregory and back--20+
miles per week, every week. And that despite the fact that I
consciously held my speed in check and tried to be cautious and
observant. But whenever I am in the area, I invariably choose to
ride Wornall--a very busy street with many fast-moving trucks and
buses--because if you're going somewhere at speed, Wornall is far,
far safer to ride than the Trolley Track Trail . . . ).
Despite that, if I lived in the area of the Trolley Track trail,
would I have have been pushing for the trail to be developed? You
bet I would! It is a wonderful linear park serving tens of thousands
of nearby residents. It's great place to walk, jog, take some sun,
or for ten-year-olds to poop around on their bikes a little (although
my own ten-year-olds would be prohibited absolutely from riding their
bikes across any of the cross streets--VERY dangerous . . . ).
Or to put it another way, as a 'parks'-type project, it is a smashing
success, as a bicycle transportation project it is a moderate success
with a number of significant drawbacks.
That doesn't mean that, even as a bicycle transportation project, it
shouldn't be built. But if such as sidepath project were competing
for transportation money against other bicycle transportation
projects that promised to be even more successful and have fewer
drawbacks, you would have to say that the sidepaths would come out
lower priority and the "better" projects higher priority.
IMHO we have the priorities just a little off right now--that's all.
--Brent
posted by Brent Hugh at
Monday, October 21, 2002 |
permanently archived here
