Don, I appreciate your points, I would say I'm in substantial agreement.

On Sep 9, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Don Spencer wrote:

Hi, All – Just a couple soap box comments and one correction. I do happen to know that the width of the Beechurst lanes are 10 feet.: (3 x 10 = 30).

 

I do hope that there can be a shoulder on Van Voorhis. My up-hill bike speed on steep slopes such as Van Voorhis tends to be about 4 miles an hour – and if loaded, a tad less. This happens to be the same speed as I walk. Regardless of my EC experience, I am not about to travel at walking speed, with my back to the traffic, at any site where there are vehicles (cars, trucks or even bikes) traveling at 45 miles an hour if I have the option of not doing so.

 

There is a place for diversity for bike travel preferences and abilities. Even though trained cyclists, especially with automobile driving experience, should take a proper position in a travel lane, we still need shoulders for some types (and ages) of cyclists who are not ready for this step. We cyclists also need shoulders for steep hill climbing and even for occasional safety and maintenance stops. (Ever had to walk you bike along a highway to a next place for some kind of assistance?) We need complete streets…and shoulders when there are no sidewalks or wide lanes are part of “complete roads.”

 

So much for my 2 cents!

 

Don

 

 

 

From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 6:40 AM
To: Nick Hein
Cc: Paula Hunt; bikeboard@cheat.org
Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] "Improvements" to Van Voorhis Road

 

Since Nick's reply to John missed my earlier reply to John and gunnar, I repeat it here to keep it in the thread-Frank

If Van Voorhis had a wide lane uphill, we wouldn't have to "vie with cars".  They would be able to pass us leaving a 3-foot gap between them and us.  A wide lane is 14-feet wide.  The lanes on Beechurst are 8-feet wide. 

I hope everyone reads the links that gunnar provided.  Our discussions and decisions would be more productive if they came from information rather than just personal opinion. 

I will take issue with the second link "How to Not Get Hit by Cars vs."Effective Cycling"", however.  The unidentified author claims that Effective Cycling teaches that bicycles = cars.  Saying that "Cyclists fare best when they ACT and ARE TREATED AS DRIVERS of vehicles" in no way says that bicycle = car.  That fundamental principle of Effective Cycling is about behavior not machinery. 

Having taken the Road I course, gunnar knows well that our instructor explicitly stated that bicycles are narrower, lighter and slower than cars.  gunnar can also tell you that our instructor taught us how to optimize the advantages and how to minimize the disadvantages that those differences present.  We learned that being visible, predictable, assertive and courteous = safe cycling.  We learned that our body language and our lane position informs the motorist of what to expect and we learned appropriate body language and lane position for every situation. We learned how to ride straight and how to scan, signal and negotiate to obtain the right of way.  We also learned that most crashes occur at intersections and that's where proper body language and lane position are most important.

I can only suppose adults riding bikes on sidewalks downtown is illegal because bicycles present an unacceptable danger to pedestrians.  I really doubt the law was passed to protect bicyclists from getting hit by a car exiting a driveway or parking lot, or getting hit by a car that doesn't expect to see the cyclist pop off the sidewalk in mid-block or at the corner.  I also suppose that riding on sidewalks outside of downtown is not illegal because there aren't many sidewalks and they're not very used.  This week, the Traffic Commission created a Pedestrian Safety Board.  If that Board is successful, and I hope it is, we will have sidewalks along all roadways and they will be used by multitudes of pedestrians.  Of course that will take years.  In the meantime, if the community gets the idea that bicycles are not supposed to ride on the roads and bicycles present an unacceptable danger to pedestrians we will be left to ride our rollers in our living rooms.

My voice is so loud because I dearly love road cycling.  I have ridden well over 100,000 miles and I've ridden in London, Paris, Munich, Vienna, Venice, New York, DC, Chicago, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Denver, Austin and many of the roads and the biggest mountains in between.  Until I studied Effective Cycling and took the Road I course, every time I rode in traffic, I was afraid.  When I heard a loud motor vehicle come up behind me I would cringe.  Since studying and implementing Effective Cycling, confidence and relaxation have replaced that fear and now, 99.99% of the motorists I encounter treat me with respect.  Heck, many of them even smile and wave! 

My voice is so loud because I can imagine a time when it will become impossible for you to experience what I have.

Frank



Nick Hein wrote:

John,

I don't see where there's any conflict with recommending paved shoulders.  I DONT contend that they should be marked as bike lanes.  I DO contend that cyclists should have some training before using them, and that they have a place to practice that training without undue risk of getting hit by cars.  If you don't consider that a suitable solution, what would you propose - under the assumption that a separated path along VanVoorhis would be impractical?  Would a path along West Run (creek) be acceptable as the training ground?

 

I'm as interested as anyone in coming up with a solution that serves the most people in the best way for the longest time - and I agree that the ECer's get a little myopic (they dis recumbents for instance) and I don't want to get sucked into anyone's myopia.  If you think there's a way to put a separated path along VanVoorhis please give details.

 

For such a task I'd recommend the website mapmyride.com.  You can overlay topo and satellite maps to help with routing.

 

You can also find mon county plat maps at www.assessor.org if there's any question about property ownership.

 

For information, the entire length of Van Voorhis from Burroughs (BBT) is 2 miles.  From VanVoorhis to the Mon River trail on West Run Creek is 1.5 miles.  What are the thoughts on a suggestion for paved shoulders on VanVoorhis and a bike trail along West Run Creek.  What do you propose instead?  What do you object to in this proposal?

 

Nick

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:22 PM

Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] "Improvements" to Van Voorhis Road

 

Thanks, Gunnar, for interesting links and supportive words.  I don't want to be involved in rigid thinking one way or another.

 

I encourage folks to read the following links you sent, and consider in relation to the loudest voices on our bike board.

 

 

 

 

On Sep 7, 2007, at 3:57 PM, gunn4r Shogren wrote:



Judging from the results from google using "cyclists fare best when they"-

and these few pages that I brought up-

 

It seems that we're not alone in our two sided argument and such.

 

Bicycles are in a really interesting postion, they can go both ways,

they are quite flexible, square-peg-round-hole.  Whether you like it

or not.

And children, kids, use them, which only adds to the confusion and problems.

Education can goe a long way, but insistence of either way probably

won't do it all.

 

So somewhere compromise probably has to rear it's ugly head and step

in.  Strange but true.

 

Sometimes gray can be good.  Sometimes gray is better than nothing.

It's not the same as selling your soul.

 

I personally think that each situation can demand a different answer,

no one-size-fits-all.

 

Let's keep harping for Harmony.  Sounds nice.

 

gunnar.

 

On 9/7/07, John Lozier <jl@harpingforharmony.org> wrote:

All:

 

That stretch of Van Voorhis is curvy and very steep.  To me it doesn't seem

practical to widen the traffic lanes and expect bicyclists to vie with cars

for priority.  Downhill maybe, but not uphill.

 

That would be a near-perfect example of a place where I would like to see

either 1) a separate bike path, with a curb or other physical barrier

between it and the auto lane, or 2) a wide sidewalk designated for bike-ped

use.

 

Actually, my two options are not really different, as I would allow

pedestrians on my bike path (keep to the right, of course).

 

Okay, this is not what the loudest voices want to hear.  However, that is my

story and I'm sticking to it.

 

John

 

 

 

 

On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Nick Hein wrote:

 

 

Paula,

The best recommendation to make is that the road be built with a paved

shoulder so there is room for bikes, pedestrians AND motor vehicles.  As a

bike board member (and personally as well) my experience has been that

dedicated bike lanes confuse motorists about where bikes are allowed -

essentially giving them the mistaken impression that they don't belong in

the traffic lane.  Under state and federal law bicyclists are a vehicle

subject to the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle

operator, so they should be in the vehicle lane except when there is

overtaking traffic (ie when they are going below the speed limit).

 

Thanks for bringing up this issue.  I've cc'ed this to the bike board.  I

don't believe the road is in the city limits, but it certainly feeds alot of

traffic to the city - many of whom are potential cyclists.  I'll call Chet

today and ask him about the issue.

 

Sorry if it sounded like a rant.

Nick

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Paula Hunt

To: Bill Reger-Nash ; Nick Hein

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 8:15 PM

Subject: "Improvements" to Van Voorhis Road

 

Dear Bill and Nick,

 

Tim and I attended the "Road Service Fee" meeting last night, and I was

intrigued when Chet Parson said a bike lane or trail was proposed to go down

Van Voorhis Rd. and end at West Run Rd.  The following is my note to him

asking him to "connect" the lane/trail all the way to the Mon River Trail

(Rail Trail).   I thought I would keep you both in the loop.  Maybe you were

aware of this already (?).

 

Thanks to you both for all your good work to make Morgantown a more walkable

and cyclable place!

paula

 

 

 

Subject: Improvements for Van Voorhid Road  [yes, I spelled Van Voorhis

incorrectly!]

From: "Paula Hunt" <pjhunt@xemaps.com>

 

Dear Mr. Parsons,

 

During the meeting at South Middle School last night I was interested to

hear that one of the suggested road improvements was safe bicycle access

along Van Voorhis Road ending at West Run Road.  I respectfully ask you to

consider continuing the bicycle lane all the way down to the Rail Trail at

the end of Van Voorhis Road.  Stopping at West Run is sooooooo close, but

not close enough.  I calculate that it will only add 1¼ miles to the bike

lane.  As you know, VanV Road is steep, narrow, and twisty down there, and

a lot of people live on it.  A bike lane would be an inexpensive and

welcome improvement.

 

I'm sure you know that many people use the Trail to commute in to

Morgantown.  I live along the newly opened northern section of the Mon

River Trail, and I know a few people who live in Point Marion and are

using the Trail to commute to work in Morgantown.  The number of cyclists

that go by our house all times of the day is amazing!  My husband is now

riding his bike to work at the University via the Trail.  Many others

travel from the south.  Students living in The District could safely

access the Trail.  I'm sure you agree that linking the Trail to

neighborhoods, major apartment blocks, schools, and major employers will

get a lot of people out of their cars.  As you know, bike lanes and

walking trails are much cheaper to build than roads.  Perhaps we could do

them as a first step rather than as a last step?

 

I wish *I* could ride the Trail to work!

 

Thanks for all your time with this,

 

Paula Hunt

Treasurer

Mon River Trails Conservancy

 

________________________________

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.6/991 - Release Date: 9/5/2007

2:55 PM

_______________________________________________

Bikeboard mailing list

 

_______________________________________________

Bikeboard mailing list

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.6/991 - Release Date: 9/5/2007 2:55 PM

 



 
_______________________________________________
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
 
_______________________________________________
Bikeboard mailing list
Bikeboard@cheat.org
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard