Jonathan, thanks for your detailed thoughts. My guess would be that no one has analyzed that particular situation as completely as you.
Overall, I think your observations, also Don's and Gunnar's, validate some concerns that I have expressed in various ways at various times. I'm glad we have diversity on the bike board, let's keep our minds open and keep talking.
John
On Sep 9, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
Everybody, especially Paula who I know from many other organizations, if you go to the very beginning of this thread you will observe that what Paula is interested in is whether the MPO could extend their bicycle facilities to the end of Van Voorhis Road.
I have talked to Chet Parsons many times about including bicycle facilities beyond designated road projects, and the definitive answer has always been "No". Federal laws only allow MPO's to associate bicycle facilities with an existing road project. Since this project ends at West Run, this is where the bicycle facilities will end, too. Chet told me that you can learn what these facilities will be by looking at the Master plan, however, we have no real way of knowing what the exact specifications will be until the Engineers formally work on the associated project. From what I understand, there will be time for public input when each project comes online.
Now let's talk about solutions to Paula's question since the MPO for the most part is not in the picture. I ride Van Voorhis frequently to go mountain biking at the WVU woodlot along West Run so I am very familiar with this road and the situations that exist there. One of the most important situations to consider is the extreme growth of Student Housing, i.e., the District at the top of Van Voorhis and Sterling Ridge with its dangerous but convenient access road right on the blind corner of Van Voorhis. Then there is a huge amount of condominium building going on West Run Rd. between Van Voorhis Rd. and Stewartstown Rd., in fact, in some places there is barely enough room left to widen West Run Rd thanks to the Biafores most recent project.
REASONS:
I wanted to keep this letter short, however, I feel the need to justify why having commuting trails separate from roads can sometimes be a very good thing. The Bicycle Board is a sub- committee of the Traffic Commission. The Traffic Commission states one of its goals shall be to improve the Quality of life by protecting and enhancing neighborhoods, reducing lost time and money due to congestion, increasing opportunities for protecting green space, and incorporating use of best practices in addressing transportation concerns. Furthermore, yet another goal is to improve the health of citizenry by supporting persons’ well-being, improving air quality, reducing stress, and improving pedestrian, cycling, and other transportation opportunities. Here are my three reasons:
- One reason to have bicycle trails separate from roads is that
they tend to be less invasive of green space, which means they tend to protect and preserve natural areas, thereby, preventing the often unmitigated sprawl and associated congestion that occurs when new roads are built. Back in October, 2006 Frank was dismayed when the MPO moved the continuation of West Run down to Collins Ferry to the Illustrative Plan because this meant it made it unlikely that the Bicycle Boards vision of a continuous bicycle transportation loop would become a reality. However, my contention at the time was that it was totally unnecessary to build a super expensive road that would degrade green space to reach this goal, especially since it would not be too difficult or expensive to build a bicycle trail to meet this need!
- Ironically, I just spoke about this next reason to Frank after
our most recent Bicycle Board meeting ended. Bicycle Commuters will often take to shortest path possible to get between point A and point B. What these means is that they deliberately avoid main artery roads that most cars like to use, not because of safety issues as Frank likes to argue, but because they can actually get to point B faster by taking a combination of shortcuts and a variety of lesser used roads. They often choose these routes because they don't want to sit behind traffic or stop lights, and the alternative routes are more scenic and pleasant (no exhaust fumes), and get them to their desired destination much faster .. often faster than a car would. Bicycle trails separated from roads often effectively accomplish this goal, and can be built in places it would be unrealistic to build roads.
- Here is another reason I spoke to Frank about after the recent
meeting. Hills! I have talked to many people who tell me if it wasn't because of such and such a hill, they would definitely commute to Morgantown by bicycle. I attended a meeting in May 2005 where Bill Reger-Nash took minutes. The meeting was to facilitate a bike/pedestrian discussion with MPO director Chet Parsons and WV DOT Bike Coordinator Bill Robinson. The minutes say "The issue of the steep grade of the terrain was raised. Cyclist indicated that the new gearing technology of bicycles is such that 24 and 27 speeds are commonplace. The steep grade is not a substantial barrier as formerly. In addition, many walkers seem to prefer a hilly terrain (as exemplified by the popularity of walking at Cooper Rock State Forest as well as Oglebay Park in Wheeling). The scientific literature report that people are more likely to walk in hilly compared to flat areas." After reading this, I know what you are thinking, however, the reason I raise the "Hill" issue is because this is often the huge barrier why people choose not to bicycle, not safety. Ofcourse, trails can be built in ways that avoid hills, and can, if required incorporate switchbacks. The Bicycle Board has been interested in a continuous loop that would make commuting easy so I am not alone when I bring up hills as an obstacle, i.e., this brings me back to reason 1 where the Suncrest loop in discussed. Now we can proceed to some solutions, including one I proposed back in November 2006.
SOLUTIONS:
What I proposed was that a trail be built from the road adjacent to the intersection of Van Voorhis Rd. and West Run Rd that would then run through the valley behind Sterling Ridge, gradually ascend up to the MUB utility road that proceeds into Morgan Road, then would continue along Morgan Road until the road levels with the Burroughs Run creek where a short bridge could be built. The trail would continue along the fence the parallels the Federal Energy Technolgy Research Center where it would end at Collins Ferry Road. Additionally the old ferry road to the rail-trail could graveled. Greg Good thought another alternative would be to follow West Run where it meets Burroughs Run and eventually pops out right into the Rail Trail. I like my proposed solution the best because it immediately provides a route for both Student Housing locations, and the employees at Mylan and FETL that is short, relatively flat, and gets them where they need to go quickly. As a mountain bicyclist I like Gregs idea, too, however, this area is essentially a flood plan with very steep banks on both sides of the creek, perhaps some anonymous trail builders will work on this project for free. I am not sure where MRTC stands on building connector trails, however, if the right people sit down together with the Sterling Ridge operators and land owners along the route I believe this bicycle trail could easily materialize at a low cost.
Also, for those that are interested, between the main drag between Van Voorhis and West Run, it is also feasible to utilize the existing trail system that exists behind Van Voorhis, to build a continuous trail all the way to Chestnut Ridge Road from The District.
There is much, much more I could say, and I wanted to work more on tying together everything I am saying, but fortunately for my readers I have run out of time. :) In a near future letter I plan to put together a Google Map showing what I am talking about.
Jonathan
Frank Gmeindl wrote:
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 ----- From: John Lozier To: gunn4r Shogren Cc: Nick Hein ; Paula Hunt ; bikeboard@cheat.org 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.
http://bicyclesafe.com/index.html
http://bicyclesafe.com/eci.html
On Sep 7, 2007, at 3:57 PM, gunn4r Shogren wrote:
Judging from the results from google using "cyclists fare best when they"- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=mozilla&rls=org.mozilla %3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&q=cyclists+fare+best+when+they&btnG=Search and these few pages that I brought up- http://bicyclesafe.com/eci.html http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1119262
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 Cc: tim.warner@mail.wvu.edu 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 To: parsons@plantogether.org
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@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
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
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard