[Vision2020] Ped/Bike transportation options

[Jeff Harkins]

Joe,

I thought I made it clear in my post - my 
comments about trail non-use referred 
specifically to the Latah Trail section - not the 
Chipman Trail.  Chipman enjoys excellent use - 
although I still see a fair number of bicyclists 
using the Airport Road rather than the trail.

Chipman may be a better investment (from a 
transportation point of view) because it connects 
two specific destination points - UI to WSU.  In 
developing additional trail components, 
destination points may be an important critierion to consider.

It does seem appropriate that as bicycle use 
increases (as a substitute for the high cost of 
driving and commuting) that there is some 
mechanism for taxing bike riders for their share 
of developing a trail network - similar to the 
tax on gasoline is used to build and maintain highways, roads and streets.

At 04:50 PM 5/31/2006, you wrote:
>I ride the trail's often from Moscow (where I 
>live) to Pullman (where I work). Often I ride in 
>the road as well because it is difficult to get 
>from where I live to the trail. There is a trail 
>for part of the way but (a) much of it is gravel 
>and that is hard to ride a bike on, and (b) if I 
>go that route I end up on the wrong corner of 
>Rt. 95 and Rt. 8, which is difficult to pass. It 
>is much faster for me to just ride down Rt. 8. 
>Note that like many of the other speeding cars 
>you see I am on my way to work and just want to 
>get there as quickly as possible.
>
>The trails are great but we need more of them if 
>folks are going to complain about others riding bikes on the roads.
>
>And it is just false that there aren't a LOT of 
>folks using the trails, even if there are lots 
>on the roads, as well. Take a ride or walk on 
>the Chipman trail from Pullman to Moscow and 
>you'll find out for yourself! LOTS and LOTS of 
>people use those trails. Moscow just has a large 
>number of bike riders and has not dealt adequately with this fact yet.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Philip Cook <pcook818 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>=============
>Jeff Harkins, jeffh at moscow.com, Sat May 27 20:45:57 PDT 2006, wrote:
>
>"Bike trails are an interesting element in the 
>transportation mix.  I had hoped that the Latah 
>Trail would be a real solution for encouraging 
>walking and bike/traffic issues on the east 
>side.  But sadly (and I drive adjacent to the 
>trail at least twice a day) I have seen 
>wholesale disregard for the trail as a traffic 
>solution.  Each day, I see more bikers and 
>runners not using the trail - instead, opting 
>for using Palouse River Drive or Highway 8 for 
>their trek. This is puzzling.  It would be 
>helpful to know why so many folks are not using 
>the trail. Now my post is not intended to infer 
>that no one uses the trail - each day I also see 
>many folks walking with a friend, walking a dog 
>- ie, using the trail - my point is that there 
>are many opting to not use the trail."
>
>Response:
>Any transportation system's function (road, 
>trail, rail, air, etc.) is to get people (and 
>goods) to and from the places they want to go. 
>If more than one route exists to get to those 
>places, then people are usually free to choose 
>their routes based on their own preferences 
>(time, directness, risk, etc.) within legal 
>constraints. Why do some cyclists and 
>pedestrians "disregard" using the Latah Trail? 
>Because it doesn't go where they want to go, 
>and/or they prefer another route for that 
>journey. The Trail is an alternative, not the "solution."
>
>"Question, if a more extensive bike trail system 
>were built, would it be appropriate to mandate 
>that bikers and walkers use the trails?"
>
>Response:
>Absolutely not. Among the many reasons:
>
>First, it is doubtful that an extensive enough 
>shared-use path system ("bike trails") could be 
>built to fullfill even a fraction of the 
>transportation needs of non-motorized users, 
>particularly in already developed areas where 
>off-street public right-of-ways do not exist. 
>Certainly, more sidewalks within existing street 
>right-of-ways provide a viable alternative for 
>pedestrians, but not so for cyclists. Shared-use 
>paths provide a viable alternative to on-street 
>accommodation for cyclists only under limited 
>circumstances (see, e.g., http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/shared.htm; and
>http://itd.idaho.gov/planning/reports/bikepedplan/idt.pdf, 
>Chapter3 and Appendix B). Unfortunately, in some 
>places poorly-designed shared-use paths have 
>been constructed; to mandate their use by cyclists would be inappropriate.
>
>Second, where shared-use path systems exist, 
>maintainance is often a problem, particularly in 
>winter. This limits path's usefulness as a viable route alternative.
>
>Third, and most importantly, cyclists have the 
>same rights as drivers of all other vehicles 
>using the roads (but for a few exceptions; see 
>Idaho Code 49-714 et seq). Mandatory sidepath 
>laws diminish those rights for no good reason. Share the road; it's the law.
>
>Philip Cook
>Moscow
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>�����������������������������������������������������
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯