Comments on: Thinking big tonight about scenic, dedicated, inter-city bike paths

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:06:50 +0000

Oh absolutely Lauren…I think about that every
time I ride the Saguaro East loop. A trail like
that across the country. A modern-day CCC project
indeed.
I was referring to the cost of the single added
lane on the I-10 as opposed to the cost of the
mentioned bike facilities…not actually having
a bike lane on the interstate.
I rode the interstate in Wyoming…not bad
except for dodging all the disposable diapers!
BTW, kudos for making the Adventure Cycling
routes available on the Google Earth. There’s
been some changes in the transcontinental route
since 1982.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:50:37 +0000

Hi Coghauler- definitely agree with you that in certain places, it helps to have bicycle-specific urban planning implementations.

Not sure what you mean about designating a lane on the Interstate though. In places where one must ride on the Interstate like Arizona and New Mexico, the shoulder is usually big enough that you basically do have your own lane. It’s actually one of the safest places to ride in my opinion.

Still, I’d much rather there be some alternate long distance Rail-2-Trail that would keep me way away from all the 18 wheelers and smog. The ultimate would be a cross country system of interconnected bike paths.

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:33:13 +0000

And another thing…the latest
Downtown Tucsonan (the one with
the cyclist riding from the
underpass TALKING ON A CELL PHONE
depicted on the cover) reports the
desire to create nearly 700 more
parking spaces down there. Now my
better half, who is undeserving of the
title Coghaulerette, will only ride her
bike to places that do not have easy,
available parking for cars. Mostly U.of A.
and Downtown. I reckon she’s like most people
who go places. How happy she will be to be
able to drive downtown instead of ride her
bike. OK…put 700 more car spaces in, but
at the same time and for a fraction of the
cost add 1000 bike spaces. Let’s see which
facility makes the most difference (for the
dollar).

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:16:25 +0000

Sometimes bicycles deserve facilities
that are just for them. (We almost
always end up sharing with pedestrians
and that’s OK) That’s a big chunk of
change for one lane on an interstate.
How much difference will it make?
Things are prettied up a little, too.
But to suggest a tunnel under Grant as
part of that realignment….Oh, we can’t
afford that. Maybe three tunnels under
Speedway weren’t justified when they were
done, but how about now? Someone was
thinking ahead.
By the time the Grant project is done
and gas is at 6-7 dollars a gallon,
many will wish someone had gotten out
of carhead mode and thought ahead.
As bicycles get used in the same fashion
as cars are used, accommodations for
that use are as justified as one lane on
an interstate.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:18:24 +0000

Yes, it would be pretty cool, Erik. I’ve discovered that the east seems to have a lot more Rails-2-Trails. There’s one in Ohio that goes from the bottom of Ohio to Lake Erie, and Florida actually has a lot of these too that aren’t necessarily all interconnected.

These are especially great for leisurely riding. They are a little congested at times and they aren’t appropriate for serious bike racers to train on because exceeding 15 mph on these can be pretty dangerous. However, once outside of an urban area (like a path from Winslow to Bisbee) I would imagine that could be different.