[Vision2020] Ped/Bike transportation options

[Philip Cook]

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