[Vision2020] Ped/Bike transportation options

Thu Jun 1 20:10:44 PDT 2006

Jeff: I hope that you will wait until the Latah Trail is fully paved
between Moscow and Pullman before finally deciding whether it is
adequately used. A large portion of its funding came in the form of
three Idaho Transportation Department enhancement projects, required as
ADA-compliant non-motorized alternatives to complement highway
transportation projects. Although I anticipate that recreational use
will be popular, ITD saw fit to recognize the Latah Trail as a means of
transportation. Federal and State dollars and private donations pay for
such projects. 

The Latah Trail Foundation provided matching funds for grants from Idaho
Parks and Rec and through mailings and word-of-mouth, has developed a
following of loyal supporters. Each of four dinner/auction fundraisers
generated about $20,000 and at this year's event, Gritman Medical Center
pledged $25,000 in match for contributions from the local medical
community. The Latah Trail is part of a growing network of trails in our
region, including Moscow's Paradise Path, Pullman's Riverwalk, the
Chipman Trail and the Ed Corkill/Kendrick-Juliaetta Trail (so far).
Together, they entice students to our campuses, protect our environment,
enhance our health, attract businesses like Comtech AHA that value
proximity to such amenities, and provide us means of connecting and
re-connecting with each other as neighbors and visitors.

If you have not done so, I encourage you to visit
www.latahtrailfoundation.org to learn more...before you decide.

Nancy Chaney
Board Member, LTF  

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Harkins
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:46 AM
To: Joe Campbell; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ped/Bike transportation options

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
>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿
½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿
½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯