7 ms·

Mixed-use paths are an extremely bad idea and dangerous for everybody. I actively avoid them as a pedestrian and as a cyclist. They should all disappear. If

Mixed-use paths are an extremely bad idea and dangerous for everybody. I actively avoid them as a pedestrian and as a cyclist. They should all disappear. If ebikes help to accelerate the inevitable dismissal of these stupid mixed-use lanes, so good! A bike-friendly infrastructure is based on three separate networks, for pedestrians, cycles and cars. Each of the three networks must be continuous, reasonably complete and able to stand on its own.

jnwatson 5y ago
We’re starting to separate popular mixed-use paths in Northern VA: https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-ushers-in-a-new-era/article_19e2e7a0-2b80-11ec-a818-17f83b30ee45.html https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-...
stevejb 5y ago
Not sure why you're downvoted on this. I used to live near a very popular mixed-use bike trail, and walking with my kids there was really unpleasant. There were some cyclists who would go really fast and not slow down at all, and I had little kids who might see a butterfly and move unpredictably. It was bad for everyone.
- TrevorJ 5y ago
  I agree with this. I definitely think there are some kinds of pedestrian traffic that probably shouldn't use a high traffic mixed trail. Situational awareness and understanding how to stay on your 'side' of the trial is pretty important.
nradov 5y ago
That's a nice ideal but it's just not realistic in most existing built up areas. There's literally not enough space for three separate networks without knocking down existing buildings and buying a lot of land through eminent domain. Let's focus on what can actually be achieved with realistic levels of funding.
- Maarten88 5y ago
  A bike lane can carry more people than a car lane. Especially in the US there is plenty of space you can take away from cars, both lanes and parking. The Netherlands did not knock down and rebuild Amsterdam to build bike paths. They took space back from cars.
  - rahen 5y ago
    This also scales well with size, so you will see that with NYC, Paris, Tokyo and most large "world cities".
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  That’s only true if you presume that demand for roads remain constant. Ideally you’d hope that cycle infrastructure would offset some road use, which would allow the state to reclaim some lanes for cyclists. Given how space inefficient cars are, it wouldn’t require a significant drop in road usage for cyclists to be given all the space they need independent from pedestrians.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Most roads around here that are not controlled access are one lane in each direction. Those that aren’t have often had a lane dedicated to buses (and emergency vehicles). There are rarely lanes free to be taken unless cycling becomes so prevalent to displace cars to zero on some routes.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      And that's a really good idea
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Depends on your city I guess. You didn’t specify where you live, but I’d broadly categorize the cities I’ve lived into two categories. The first is car centric, with lots of roads and deep set backs. These cities are amenable to bike and public transit transformation in terms of space, but usually have political resistance to change. These cities will be the easiest to add extra bike infrastructure to, once a political mass is reached. My current city is like this, and the current bike path master plan is trying to add enough paths for 96% of the city to be near bike infrastructure (currently it’s 10%). The second category are really dense, and do not have the space for any extra lanes. But these cities dedicate a huge amount of space for parallel parking. Theoretically the city could remove parking for bikes, but practically this means purposefully pricing people out of car ownership, which is obviously unpopular. These cities should focus on public transit, which is by and far the most space efficient way to move people. For a lot of these cities this is less about installing new lines, which is expensive, but about making the existing system feel cleaner and more dignified. It will always be hard to make improvements when even the crappiest sedan is considered a step up from taking the subway to work.
dan-robertson 5y ago
I think I mostly disagree. But this probably depends on the definition of cyclist. If these path users are lycra-clad individuals trying to go as fast as they can and desperately trying not to lose momentum, the experience will be poor. Similarly if you have e-bike users who are basically taking silent mopeds down a trail and swerving between people things won’t go well. But if it’s someone who is not obsessed with speed just trying to go from one place to the next on a wide path it’s probably fine. E-bikes are an advantage here because they remove the incentive to avoid slowing down to preserve momentum. Ultimately it depends on the cycling culture in a place and a lot of that depends on whom cycling is available to. If it is more accessible you will probably find people acting more sensibly and more like pedestrians. A mixed use trail can provide refuge from busy roads. This is much more important if roads are awful for cyclists and I this can often be the case in some parts of the world. If roads are good for cyclists then the obnoxious people who would otherwise endanger those on the trail will be happier going faster and straighter along the roads. But they will only get better if cycling is more popular which will only happen if it is more accessible. I think mixed use paths are not particularly bad and are also necessary on the way to better infrastructure.
- Scroedingershat 5y ago
  Mixed use paths as seen in parks are for dogs, pedestrians, children cyclists and beginners. They are not and should not be for commuting except maybe as a last mile connection, because commuters are moving at about 15-20km/h if they want to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. As soon as they get busy there are so many conflict points that accidents are inevitable. Calling them bike infrastructure is like calling a school zone with zebra crossings and speed bumps a highway. They are what should be built first though, because you don't get new cyclists without low speed, safe, fully separated bike infrastructure. They should always be paired with a nearby road with a cycle lane and somr plan for separated infrastructure though.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I don't think this is true. The mixed use paths are pretty good start. People use them for commute. The special bike lane is more expensive and ideal step, but not necessary.
TrevorJ 5y ago
In a perfect world, sure. But it's quite a bit better than treating bikes as human powered cars. It's also pretty easy to do safely: walk and ride on the right, pass on the left, and only when there's no oncoming traffic. People here follow that convention and it mitigates almost all of the issues.
Gareth321 5y ago
I agree, but I prefer mixed use paths to mixed use roads. In terms of speed and safety, bikes are much closer to pedestrians than cars. It is insanity to have bikes sharing the road.

jnwatson 5y ago

We’re starting to separate popular mixed-use paths in Northern VA: https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-ushers-in-a-new-era/article_19e2e7a0-2b80-11ec-a818-17f83b30ee45.html https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-...

stevejb 5y ago

Not sure why you're downvoted on this. I used to live near a very popular mixed-use bike trail, and walking with my kids there was really unpleasant. There were some cyclists who would go really fast and not slow down at all, and I had little kids who might see a butterfly and move unpredictably. It was bad for everyone.

TrevorJ 5y ago
I agree with this. I definitely think there are some kinds of pedestrian traffic that probably shouldn't use a high traffic mixed trail. Situational awareness and understanding how to stay on your 'side' of the trial is pretty important.

nradov 5y ago

That's a nice ideal but it's just not realistic in most existing built up areas. There's literally not enough space for three separate networks without knocking down existing buildings and buying a lot of land through eminent domain. Let's focus on what can actually be achieved with realistic levels of funding.

Maarten88 5y ago
A bike lane can carry more people than a car lane. Especially in the US there is plenty of space you can take away from cars, both lanes and parking. The Netherlands did not knock down and rebuild Amsterdam to build bike paths. They took space back from cars.
- rahen 5y ago
  This also scales well with size, so you will see that with NYC, Paris, Tokyo and most large "world cities".
ashtonkem 5y ago
That’s only true if you presume that demand for roads remain constant. Ideally you’d hope that cycle infrastructure would offset some road use, which would allow the state to reclaim some lanes for cyclists. Given how space inefficient cars are, it wouldn’t require a significant drop in road usage for cyclists to be given all the space they need independent from pedestrians.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Most roads around here that are not controlled access are one lane in each direction. Those that aren’t have often had a lane dedicated to buses (and emergency vehicles). There are rarely lanes free to be taken unless cycling becomes so prevalent to displace cars to zero on some routes.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    And that's a really good idea
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Depends on your city I guess. You didn’t specify where you live, but I’d broadly categorize the cities I’ve lived into two categories. The first is car centric, with lots of roads and deep set backs. These cities are amenable to bike and public transit transformation in terms of space, but usually have political resistance to change. These cities will be the easiest to add extra bike infrastructure to, once a political mass is reached. My current city is like this, and the current bike path master plan is trying to add enough paths for 96% of the city to be near bike infrastructure (currently it’s 10%). The second category are really dense, and do not have the space for any extra lanes. But these cities dedicate a huge amount of space for parallel parking. Theoretically the city could remove parking for bikes, but practically this means purposefully pricing people out of car ownership, which is obviously unpopular. These cities should focus on public transit, which is by and far the most space efficient way to move people. For a lot of these cities this is less about installing new lines, which is expensive, but about making the existing system feel cleaner and more dignified. It will always be hard to make improvements when even the crappiest sedan is considered a step up from taking the subway to work.

dan-robertson 5y ago

I think I mostly disagree. But this probably depends on the definition of cyclist. If these path users are lycra-clad individuals trying to go as fast as they can and desperately trying not to lose momentum, the experience will be poor. Similarly if you have e-bike users who are basically taking silent mopeds down a trail and swerving between people things won’t go well. But if it’s someone who is not obsessed with speed just trying to go from one place to the next on a wide path it’s probably fine. E-bikes are an advantage here because they remove the incentive to avoid slowing down to preserve momentum. Ultimately it depends on the cycling culture in a place and a lot of that depends on whom cycling is available to. If it is more accessible you will probably find people acting more sensibly and more like pedestrians. A mixed use trail can provide refuge from busy roads. This is much more important if roads are awful for cyclists and I this can often be the case in some parts of the world. If roads are good for cyclists then the obnoxious people who would otherwise endanger those on the trail will be happier going faster and straighter along the roads. But they will only get better if cycling is more popular which will only happen if it is more accessible. I think mixed use paths are not particularly bad and are also necessary on the way to better infrastructure.

Scroedingershat 5y ago
Mixed use paths as seen in parks are for dogs, pedestrians, children cyclists and beginners. They are not and should not be for commuting except maybe as a last mile connection, because commuters are moving at about 15-20km/h if they want to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. As soon as they get busy there are so many conflict points that accidents are inevitable. Calling them bike infrastructure is like calling a school zone with zebra crossings and speed bumps a highway. They are what should be built first though, because you don't get new cyclists without low speed, safe, fully separated bike infrastructure. They should always be paired with a nearby road with a cycle lane and somr plan for separated infrastructure though.
- watwut 5y ago
  I don't think this is true. The mixed use paths are pretty good start. People use them for commute. The special bike lane is more expensive and ideal step, but not necessary.

TrevorJ 5y ago

In a perfect world, sure. But it's quite a bit better than treating bikes as human powered cars. It's also pretty easy to do safely: walk and ride on the right, pass on the left, and only when there's no oncoming traffic. People here follow that convention and it mitigates almost all of the issues.

Gareth321 5y ago

I agree, but I prefer mixed use paths to mixed use roads. In terms of speed and safety, bikes are much closer to pedestrians than cars. It is insanity to have bikes sharing the road.