[Carfreeliving] bike paths and columbus

[Dave Snyder]

Wading back into this thread...

Mike is right when he cites studies that show that sidepaths in the 
U.S. are less safe than riding on the street. That doesn't mean that 
sidepaths in the U.S. couldn't be designed safely. Those studies 
typically analyzed sidepaths designed in the 1970s or earlier or 
sidewalks, and, the bias they suffer from is that experienced 
bicyclists who know better how to avoid crashes ride in the street; 
inexperienced cyclists who are more likely to crash ride on the 
sidewalk.

I agree with Jessica -- that the right design of a sidepath ought to 
be tried. What if we made it wide enough to avoid car doors, distinct 
enough to avoid pedestrians loitering in it, integrated with traffic 
at intersections so that the intersection hazards were no different 
than they are with bike lanes, placed it only where few or no 
driveways cause hazards or obstacles? Market Street is one obvious 
place where a sidepath might work. I think Mike Sallaberry's idea for 
Columbus is the best I've seen on this list.

It's not as if this city avoids sidepaths: the path under Cesar 
Chavez & US101 is one that studies indicate has all the 
characteristics of a dangerous path -- it uses a sidewalk against 
traffic flow right where a freeway on-ramp distracts drivers from 
paying attention to sidewalk traffic -- but it's still the best 
option at that location to accommodate bicycle traffic safely, and 
the planners at the MTA did not remove it from the official bicycle 
network despite the very clear high degree of danger it poses. (And 
I'll defend that decision in court, by the way.)