Pedal Power
The latest traffic-creating menace isn’t a big-box store or a high school — it’s a bike path along Washtenaw. Writes an “Other Voices” contributor to the News, “I was at the public hearing at Tappan Middle School earlier this month about this issue. The hearing was dominated by property owners who are worried they may be negatively affected by the bike path,” while simultaneously arguing that the path wouldn’t see much use. If there’s anything that could make us warm to the often-tedious faction referred to by conservative columnist Mark Steyn as the Bike-Path Left, it’s the Property-Owning Whiners.
Homeowners have been holding up bike paths all over the state, claiming private property rights. They have stalled the Huron River Path between A2 and Ypsi. In fact I think it was rerouted due to private homeowners.
posted by eileenie on February 21st, 2006 at 12:06 pmOkay, I’m a property owner (albeit not on Washtenaw or any other place a bike path has been proposed) and maybe I’m real dumb, but I don’t get it. Can someone please explain how I may be negatively affected by a bike path in front of my property?
posted by Chris on February 21st, 2006 at 12:26 pmDirty hippie bikers might ride by and ruin your view and smell up the air?
posted by Scott T. on February 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pmI think it might depend on whether the bike path would be another line painted on the road or whether additional paving adjacent to the exisiting sidewalk would be needed. Also, how much benefit would a bike path along Washtenaw really be? Certainly if you drive into Ann Arbor, you won’t be using it. I don’t see it as a big commuting alternative, unless you live in the middle of Ann Arbor and need to go to work at Arborland or Whole Foods.
posted by JCP2 on February 21st, 2006 at 2:16 pm“think it might depend on whether the bike path would be another line painted on the road”
I think you mean a bike lane.
” or whether additional paving adjacent to the exisiting sidewalk would be needed.”
It’s the latter that’s being proposed.
The research I’ve seen says that sidepaths are less safe than on-road cycling. So while I agree that the property owner’s opposition is silly, bicycle advocates are also likely to weigh in against the current plan….
“Also, how much benefit would a bike path along Washtenaw really be? Certainly if you drive into Ann Arbor, you won’t be using it. I don’t see it as a big commuting alternative, unless you live in the middle of Ann Arbor and need to go to work at Arborland or Whole Foods.”
Bike path vs. on-road issues aside, Washtenaw is clearly a popular route for cars, and I’d expect people would want to ride along it for similar reasons. When I’ve personally used it it’s been for various reasons–because my dentist used to be at Stadium and Washtenaw, because I had a friend living just off Hogback road, etc.
posted by Bruce Fields on February 21st, 2006 at 3:04 pm“” or whether additional paving adjacent to the exisiting sidewalk would be needed.”
It’s the latter that’s being proposed.”
Oops, sorry, didn’t read carefully enough—I think the proposal is to *replace* the existing sidewalk with something wider and smoother, not to add something separate. Meaning describing it as “shared use” might be more accurate–I doubt there’s any plan to restrict it to cyclists.
posted by Bruce Fields on February 21st, 2006 at 3:07 pmThe research I’ve seen says that sidepaths are less safe than on-road cycling.
Okay, I’m pretty skeptical of this; most of the stuff I’ve seen seems politically motivated. Does the research take into account that inexperienced, uncoordinated cyclists are probably reluctant to bike on the road because they perceive it as unsafe?
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 21st, 2006 at 3:26 pmFrom talking to one such Washtenaw-facing property owner, my sense is that they mainly are chafing under the proposed assessment that would finance part of the project. Initial estimates had their share at roughly $150,000. With 15 properties to be assessed, that would work out to a sizeable chunk per homeowner. At least one City Council member is optimisic, however, that the total project estimate is way high and that the actual amount assessed would be lower than advertised.
The proposed project wouldn’t create an additional lane in the road, but rather create a ’sidewalk’, so upkeep of the ‘path’ would fall to the homeowners whose properties abut it, which inlcudes snow removal during the winter.
In balancing out the positive and adverse affects of the proposed path to see if there is overall benefit, I think it’s the initial assessment plus ongoing maintenance that is getting filed by the Washtenaw-facing property owners under the category of ‘adverse’.
How much benefit/use would the proposed project give/get? As I’ve told my 5th Ward Council Member, Chris Easthope, as a bicycle commuter I can take or leave it … because I just cycle Washtenaw when I need to commute in that direction … although that is not often.
Chris’s words in support of the project did inspire me to cycle that stretch of Washtenaw in both directions just to refresh my memory. And I was struck by the fact that there is a dirt path worn beside the road along most of the stretch, which is evidence of regular traffic, more likely foot than bicycle. And I was struck by the fact that there’s a bus stop on that side of Washtenaw accessible only via the dirt path. My gut was that the lack of some kind of hardscaped amenity was a little surprising. And probably there’s an overall benefit to the community as it relates to commuting and transportation (by bike or bus, or foot), but not in terms of giving neighborhood kids a place to learn how to ride their bikes.
A question about a path that already exists along the north side of a major east-west artery, namely Geddes: What is the status of the “Dina and Reuben Kahn Memorial Pathway”? Is that technically a ’sidewalk’ which Geddes property owners must now maintain? When was it built? Is that the same Reuben Kahn who worked as an epidemiologist at the UM Medical School? HD
posted by HD on February 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pm“Okay, I’m pretty skeptical of this; most of the stuff I’ve seen seems politically motivated.”
I hadn’t noticed that. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the people responsible for such research may also have been advocates for on-road cycling. But if so, I find it hard to find fault with someone for advocacy based on the conclusions of their research. If you can find fault with the actual research, I’d be more interested…. A google search on “bicycle sidepaths” should turn up lots of material.
“Does the research take into account that inexperienced, uncoordinated cyclists are probably reluctant to bike on the road because they perceive it as unsafe?”
I can’t remember whether any of them specifically control for cyclist experience.
posted by Bruce Fields on February 21st, 2006 at 4:24 pmI did some googling, and the only things I saw seemed only to compare accidents per mile on sidepaths versus accidents per mile on roads, without regard for the cyclists involved. Even if sidepaths aren’t safer, people think they are, so I would think that they’d be more likely to be put alongside roads that are known to be dangerous in the first place.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 21st, 2006 at 5:01 pmWhile the research done on the relative safety of road paths vs bike lanes may be politically motivated (it may even be argued that the research is biased), there is no research that I know of to contradict the findings. My personal experience is that automobile drivers are much less aware of bike path cyclists than they are of cyclists riding in traffic. This is especially a problem at intersections where cars don’t stop for bike paths and turn right on red, cutting cyclists off. I believe that the research focuses on intersection conflicts as well.
On the other hand, I think research also suggests, like AAIO, that cyclists feel safer on off-road cycling facilities. I would guess that this preference is strongly skewed towards less confident and less experienced cyclists.
So who do we cater to? The current trend in Ann Arbor has been to encourage “sharing the road” through projects such as the shared use lanes in downtown. This direction has the added benefit of cheaply and quickly producing bike infrastructure by painting in bike lanes (or shared-use arrows) when roads are repaved or repainted. However, this theory tends to break down outside of town where traffic speeds and volume increase and cyclists are less expected and less welcome by drivers.
The road sharing philosophy is aimed at more than providing infrastructure. It is a policy intended to influence road culture to be more accepting and expecting of cycling. The benefits of cycling infrastructure without this change in attitude will always be limited.
Personally, I find that the best off-road bike (multi-use) paths are those that provide routes beyond the road system. The path going east along the river, the connecting bridge path at Argo, and (without respect to pedestrian safety) the many short cuts through central campus improve mobility for all cyclists, road and sidewalk riders.
posted by Scott TenBrink on February 21st, 2006 at 11:00 pmIs it fair to ask the homeowners both to pay for the bike path and then be responsible to maintain it, when no such path existed before? I’m assuming that they themselves would be unlikely to use it, as opposed to homeowners with pre-existing sidewalks on a more residential side street.
posted by JCP2 on February 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 amThe homeowners absolutely should not have to fund it by themselves — the city should. The homeowners pay their taxes to the city to support such infastructure improvements that will benefit everyone. Snow removal seems less of a serious issue, since they already have to remove snow on the sidewalk.
posted by Anna on February 22nd, 2006 at 12:32 amPer City Code, Chapter 49, Section 4:56-58, the city may require owners of property to construct, rebuild, repair, or pay the full cost of “sidewalk” that is adjacent to their property. I believe that this reasoning is based on the idea that such facilities improve the value of the adjacent property. Like it or not, taxes don’t pay for sidewalks. A “sidewalk” includes paths used for any non-motorized transportation.
Whether or not that is fair or true in this case, complaining about having to foot the bill will get the homeowners nowhere. This ordinance has pretty stable legal footing. I assume that this is why the home owners might choose to argue against the need for the path and raise questions of safety as these are points that could sway the decision. The “I don’t want to pay for it and you can’t make me” argument won’t stand.
posted by Scott TenBrink on February 22nd, 2006 at 1:57 amSpoken like a true bureaucrat. City Code, Chapter 49, Section 4:56-58 can be chantged or ammended, and should; what ridiculous reasoning. If city council is too lazy or mired in post-soviet red tape to change city code, they could also declare the bikepath, “not a sidewalk,” which it isn’t, since side walks involve walking whereas bikes are motors (i.e., devices that convert any form of energy into mechanical energy).
posted by Anna on February 22nd, 2006 at 8:50 amYou’re hilarious, Anna. That is humor, right? Because you do know that is the rule of innumerable cities (even some little burg in the Constitution State who has the audacity to put that up front in chapter 27 of its city code), and not the work of some “lazy” city council?
I’ve never lived in a city which didn’t have the same or similar code… I have fond, fuzzy memories of my father using every curse word imaginable upon receiving a bill for new sidewalks decades ago in a town far away, and I suspect that some child living on Washtenaw will soon share the experience.
posted by FAA on February 22nd, 2006 at 9:59 amWould it be such a bad thing to have a bike path? Wow, encouraging excercising, getting people off their asses, and using less gas.
posted by Shelly on February 22nd, 2006 at 10:28 amI am not arguing that homeowner responsibilty for sidewalks is *not* city code. I’m arguing that extensions for bicycles *should not be* city code, and that the idea of an extension for bicycles counting as “sideWALK” as foregone conclusion is, at minimum, questionable (not to mention defeatist, loser, lazy thinking). You guys are acting like city code is written in stone and making all kinds of assumptions about what must be — if you hadn’t already heard, politics is the art of the possible.
posted by Anna on February 22nd, 2006 at 10:33 am” … Snow removal seems less of a serious issue, since they already have to remove snow on the sidewalk. ”
For at significant segment of the proposed path, there is no hardscaped amenity along that side of Washtenaw. So removing snow from the path would be a new activity … which is not to say snow removal is the serious kind of issue that gives rhetorical traction (okay, so they already have to remove snow from their DRIVEWAYS … thousdands of people across the city shovel snow off sidewalks, etc.)
“The ‘I don’t want to pay for it and you can’t make me’ argument won’t stand.”
I don’t think Washtenaw-facing homeowners are trying to make that argument. I think it’s more like the old I-know-you-can-legally-make-me-pay-but-ten-thousand-bucks-is-a-lot-of-dough-right-out-of-the-gate-especially-when-you-consider-that-I’m-also-gonna-pay-upkeep-just-like-everyone-else-in-the-city-with-a-broken-side-walk-slab-did-last-fall-so-c’mon-we’re-all-neighbors-here kind of argument. But ultimately, even this version of the complaint is not likely to be persuasive with CM’s, so Scott’s making a fair point. Realistically, what Washtenaw-facing homeowners might hope for, though, is a break on the amount of the initial assessment. If turns out that the cost of the total project is less than estimated (apparently a real possibility), and the City’s contribution and the federal grant remain constant, the amount needed from property owners could go down.
It’s worth keeping sight of the contribution the City would make from the general fund. Ballpark number is around $400K, I think. For my little bit of that $400K, I’m not yet convinced I want to prioritize spending on this path. I think there might be some kind of case to be made for the idea that outward and visible signs of a community’s support for cycling culture (like paths and lanes) might ultimately contribute to a more welcoming attitude to cycling. Maybe. Could also have the effect of segregating cyclists off the road. At any rate, the City’s contributing enough so that it’s not just a matter of grouchy neighbors who don’t want to pay. There’s some grouchy general citizens who might not want to pay, either.
Still, I’m curious to know if/how the principle of ‘protecting neighborhoods’ by not ‘forcing anything down people’s throats’ figures into the Washtenaw Bike Path project. (This is some of the rhetoric that’s associated with CC votes against the proposed 1st and William parking structure, … even though some CM’s say that they think there are just better uses for the land than a parking structure, whether neighbors were against it or not.)
posted by HD on February 22nd, 2006 at 11:09 amA bike path is a great thing, unless you’re the one that has to pay for it and maintain it, even though you’re probably not going to use it.
posted by JCP2 on February 22nd, 2006 at 11:13 amI’m no fan of bicycles on sidewalks. I’m not even a fan of the “shared use” bikepath/sidewalk - but that is what has been proposed. The fact there is a “bike” word in there is the only thing giving leeway to property owners to bring down the proposal, and that is where I find fault (there’s not even a sidewalk to the bus stop there, and there definitely should be). If the city would have renamed the bikepath a “foot or two wider than your average sidewalk, sidewalk” we probably wouldn’t even be hearing about it.
The city of Minneapolis has extended bicycles and shared use paths to be covered under the sidewalk code as part of their bicycle master plan. I’m pretty sure that is to have the bicycle become a more viable form of transportation, and not due to “defeatist, loser, lazy thinking”.
posted by FAA on February 22nd, 2006 at 11:22 amI agree, it should not be only the homeowners adjacent to the path that pay. That is ludicrous. I for one, am chickenshit when it comes to roadpaths.
posted by eileenie on February 22nd, 2006 at 11:26 amYou know, as the dude mentions in the letter, there is a bike path / sidewalk (he doesn’t think it’s great, but I’d be wiling to bet it’d be better than a homeowner-maintained sidewalk in the middle of Winter, anyway) on the other side of Washtenaw, by Tappan Jr. High and then County Farm Park, until you get to Platt, at which point you’re in parking lot hell.
I’d prefer to hear about a plan to extend THAT sidewalk out to Carpenter. And Mr. Bikey could cross the street to get to Whole Foods. Of course, that would impact business owners, not homeowners.
I ride my bike like 20 to 60 miles a week on the average around Ann Arbor, year-round (SO LOOK OUT) and I stick to sidewalks unless there’s a real big clear bike lane in the street. It’s a lot bumpier, and the dogs and girls-with-long-scarves-and-cell- phones are pernicious, and I am rolling over the hoods of cars at intersections a lot, but I feel less at risk for getting smooshed utterly by a sixteen-wheeler. Even in the big, clearly marked bike lanes you’re taking a lot on faith that somebody’s not going to come up behind you and squish! No more Mr. Bikey.
But vis-a-vis Tuomy to Platt? Is it so bad to cross the street? Compared with the problem of no sidewalk whatsoever from Platt to Carpenter (not to mention out to Ypsi, since there might not be a bus service available that way soon)?
posted by Nitro on February 22nd, 2006 at 11:58 amI think the consideration of road path vs. sidewalk also has something to do with the specific road. I don’t think there is a high percentage of bicylists who can keep up easily with the 45 mile an hour speed limits on Washtenaw! You couldn’t pay me enough to bike on the road there. Incidentally, if there were a bikepath, I might be likely to use it. I live out near Arborland along with a sizable residential population, and I go downtown fairly frequently. Right now it’s really not feasible. With additional bikers, cars would be more likely to notice bikers trying to cross the street.
posted by Lisa on February 22nd, 2006 at 12:58 pmYou people scare me.
posted by Big John on February 22nd, 2006 at 1:26 pm“Defeatist, loser, lazy thinking” is deciding that something won’t work because of some city code. City councils write city codes, and if the Bill of Rights can be ammended, city codes surely can. If there are other arguments against raised bike paths that exist next to pedestrian walkways, fine, but any argument that rests on city code is just plain idiotic. Sorry.
posted by Anna on February 22nd, 2006 at 9:14 pmI dread when people ask me to meet them out by Barnes & Nobel or Panera (Never mind picking up a Uhaul by Arborland) because I know that means I have to bike the stretch of Washtenaw between Platt & Huron Parkway. No sidewalks, few cross walks, it’s dreadful.
So, I was delighted to hear the proposal for a bike path, but ya know, I’m not picky. I’d be happy if there were just a SIDEWALK the whole way, or a light at Washtenaw & Platt. Something so I knew that someone in a wheelchair could get around (say from Trader Joes to Whole Foods, if you want to be yuppie about it) without going off-road or taking their life in their hands crossing at Platt.
Is that too much to ask?
posted by Chuck Warpehoski on February 22nd, 2006 at 11:51 pmI’d like to disassociate myself from any suggestion that our community should be captive to existing city code. By posting the relevant section, I was not implying that this ordinance was immutable, only that it explained why adjacent homeowners were required to contribute to the cost of construction.
However, I do think that changing this ordinance in reaction to a single proposed facility is rash and reactionary. Furthermore, I think Anna is oversimplifying the process of making this change.
The definition of “sidewalk” in the city code includes use by bicycles. If that definition were changed, it would conflict with other sections of the code that allow cyclists to ride on sidewalks. If that were changed, all cyclists would be forced to ride in the street. While I personally support the “share the road” philosophy, eliminating a perceived sanctuary for less confident cyclists would do little to promote cycling and only add to enforcement costs.
If the code were altered to eliminate home-owner funding of sidewalks, one would have to propose an alternate funding of construction and repair of these facilities. The ordinance would then apply not only to Washtenaw, but all sidewalks throughout Ann Arbor, resulting in a significant impact on the city budget. I imagine any city department whose budget is drawn on would have similar complaints to these home owners.
Perhaps “defeatist, loser, lazy thinking” would also include complaining about the current city code without making any effort to propose a reasonable alternative through the appropriate channels to initiate a change. I personally support the current funding mechanism for, and definition of, sidewalks. It has proven an effective way to construct and maintain these important public facilities throughout the city. This mechanism has allowed the offended home owners to walk on sidewalks throughout the city which other people have paid for under the same ordinance.
Finally, I would think that these home owners would have the greatest potential benefit of the new side path as they are within easy walking and cycling distance to a number of amenities that the path would connect to. The proposed path would certainly improve their walk to Whole Foods. Whether they continue to choose to drive once the path is installed is a matter of their choice, and not a reason to change the city code.
Of course none of this speaks to whether the community would benefit from the new construction. I’ve come across a number of studies that suggest building off-road cycling facilities either does not change cycling levels or increases risk to cyclists. So my ““defeatist, loser, lazy thinking” does not equate to my support of the proposed path, but only to my support of the current code or a reasonable alternative.
posted by Scott TenBrink on February 22nd, 2006 at 11:55 pmMaybe it would depend on how much it would cost the homeowner. I think that certainly any one time, involuntary, unexpected $10,000 expenditure, for something that I don’t support, is something worth fighting against. Even $1000 is a lot of money to me. Then after that, where’s the money for a bike going to come from?
posted by JCP2 on February 23rd, 2006 at 9:08 amAccording to the letter writer, the proposed path would be from Tuomy to Glenwood (the road next to the Arby’s). There doesn’t seem to be any current proposal to actually get a sidewalk/bikepath/whatever from Platt (or Glenwood) to Huron Parkway, or Arborland. The proposed path is redundant with the existing one on the South Side of Washtenaw, so I could kinda care less about it. Personally, I’m just brave enough to cross the street if I MUST go to Food Hole. I mean Whole Foods.
I would imagine the business owners further along Washtenaw whose parking lots would have to accomodate said sidewalk/bikepath/whatever will be effective in quashing any proposal to go farther East with sidewalk/bikepath/whatevers.
posted by Nitro on February 23rd, 2006 at 10:23 amI doubt how much it costs the homeowner makes much of a difference when it comes to fighting… Even $100 is enough to bring out one’s shouting voice against something.
I knew someone who was on a well and septic system in a township, their city annexed their block, and they were forced to connect to city water and sewer. Final price tag was $16,000. That is horrible, but the cash came out of home equity - not out of pocket (adding $80 a month to the bills) - and in the end the value of their property was raised more than that.
I doubt a sidewalk would raise someone’s home value by ten grand, but our council has already stated they think the estimate is too high. What council should do is obtain a proper estimate and provide at least a rudimentary analysis as to how it would benefit the homeowner as far as property value (I also doubt council would complete this suggestion, but I think it would at least ease the tension…and possibly convince one or a few).
posted by FAA on February 23rd, 2006 at 10:27 amOf course it makes a difference. If I’m screwed by a vending machine for $1 because my mini pak of pretzels got stuck in the spiral thingy, I swear, kick the machine, and maybe yell at the poor clerk at the front desk. No results, then I move on. Probably better that I don’t eat them anyway. If I’m screwed by a special interest group to the tune of $10,000, I can calculate that I can afford 30 to 40 hours worth of attorney’s fees. If everybody there got together, then that would be 450 to 600 hours worth of attorney’s fees. Like you said, maybe they’ll lose, but then the cost to the other side is not exactly zero either.
posted by JCP2 on February 23rd, 2006 at 11:36 amAs an addendum, I don’t live in that area, nor am I against the idea of a bike path. I have a sidewalk and driveway and cheerfully clear it after every snowfall by the 12 noon deadline. I also work hard for my money and would resent attempts by others to spend it for their own interests without my tacit approval.
posted by JCP2 on February 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 amThanks for the addendum - it was sounding as though you were living on Washtenaw.
Still, 450 to 600 of attorney’s fees could possibly pay for a sidewalk (assuming the six figure quote from council is as they claim, and much like their tree bug quote, way too high). It’s the principal of the matter, eh? You’d rather line the pockets of a single (and probably already well-to-do) UM law school alum than contribute to the city as a whole by way of a few feet of concrete?
posted by FAA on February 23rd, 2006 at 12:09 pmYou know, there’s already a perfectly good bike *route* to get out to Whole Foods except for that last stretch from Glenwood to Whole Foods — which apparently isn’t even part of the plan. Why would anybody ride Washtenaw when you can have a very pleasant, safe ride through Ann Arbor Hills that will be only marginally longer? I ride out to Whole Foods or Arborland occasionally–and I use the dirt path after I exit Ann Arbor Hills — which I’ll still apparently have to do even if the bike path is constructed.
So if I’ve got this right, the one (very short) part that’s actually needed isn’t part of the plan, and the long part (that is redudant of neighborhood streets) is part of the plan. Why am I not surprised?
posted by mw on February 23rd, 2006 at 8:57 pmSee, that’s exactly what I’m saying. MADNESS.
posted by Nitro on February 24th, 2006 at 9:32 amFor the record…the proposed path is a “non-motorized, multi-use path”. As such it is eligible for federal funds support which the received via the State in the amount of $358K (sidewalks are not). The City’s portion of the costs, $311K, will come funds available in the Alternative Transportation Fund. The remaining estimated costs, $156K, will be raised by special assessments, but only by property owners that front the path (not those that back up to it, i.e., Adare) - and it’s likely that assessments will be less than initial estimates. Lastly, no property owner will be required to maintain the path - as a designated non-motorized (including bike) path, it will maintained by the City. The main concerns raised by opponents of the path seem to be more about perceived intrusion into private property (the path will be in the ROW), lack of screening and buffering (new trees and shrubs will replace the invasive species), increase in crime (research demonstrates the opposite), and a lack of usage (again history shows that if you build it, they will come). The proposed path is a critical piece in the City’s vision for an integrated, non-motorized and alternative transportation system by which residents can have ready access to their various destinations. It’s simply the right thing to do for the community’s future.
posted by Stephen Rapundalo on February 25th, 2006 at 7:45 pmThe area around Washtenaw is a hole anyway, and I don’t know why someone would want to go there for any reason, on a bike or in a car. There are nicer sections of the city, better communities, and better places to hijack taxpayer money to ‘improve’.
posted by poeticruse on February 26th, 2006 at 12:29 amI haven’t read all of the essays, but this is one of my bitching points.
I have ridden my bike to:
* bring a 3-foot high bookshelf home from the Thrifty Acres in my backpack
* carry a duffel bag of laundry to and from Mr. Stadium on my thighs (regularly)
* carry groceries on my handlebars (regularly)
* ride to Kensignton (couple times each summer)
The stretch of Washtenaw I always bitch about is on the south side of the street from Stadium until you hit the businesses near Arborland. Undeveloped in my time. There is an 8″ rut. When it is dry, it sucks to try to bike it. When it’s wet, it’s impossible. But still that is better than risking a bike-car collision in Washtenaw.
Ann Arbor needs sidewlks more than it needs people who think they are landed lords. I shoveled snow growing up. My dad still shoels snow. Any sad-sack who thinks they have Posse Comitatus going in the middle of the city needs to shovel snow for his or her fellow citizens.
posted by A Different Jon on February 26th, 2006 at 12:47 am… and, by the way, aaio, it’s great to be arguing about an area other than the 3-block wide “downtown”.
posted by A Different Jon on February 26th, 2006 at 12:51 am……more postings on AAIO from Ann Arbor City Council members.
So cool!
Thanks to Councilman Rapundalo.
posted by todd on February 27th, 2006 at 12:28 pm“The proposed path is a critical piece in the City’s vision for an integrated, non-motorized and alternative transportation system by which residents can have ready access to their various destinations. It’s simply the right thing to do for the community’s future.”
A sidepath of some sort is appropriate and ultimately necessary. A sidewalk would suffice in the same way it does throughout the city. I favor the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition’s recommendation for converting Washtenaw to three lanes plus bike lanes on both sides. Apart from the hill, it’s a high-visibility stretch, with few cross streets, that should be a relatively safe ride for bicyclists. The three-lane configuration–especially with bike lanes–also has a traffic calming effect as can be observed on S. State where the roadway transitions to four lanes (and traffic speeds increase), so traffic speed would be less of a concern than it would appear currently.
What’s your thinking on why the sidepath would be a better option than a sidewalk, Stephen, beyond the funding considerations? (And at that, the sidepath maintenance would be an ongoing expense for the city, whereas for a sidewalk it wouldn’t.) And do you support going to three vehicle lanes/two bike lanes to better enable and encourage non-motorized transportation?
posted by Steve Bean on February 27th, 2006 at 8:25 pmActually, there are whole neighborhoods in Ann Arbor without sidewalks, as well as large streets with sidewalks on one side only. Washtenaw is already crowded with commuters who live outside of Ann Arbor and drive out of necessity. What are they supposed to do?
posted by JCP2 on February 27th, 2006 at 8:53 pmSteve Bean,
Couldn’t find details of the WBWC three-lane Washtenaw recommendation on www.wbwc.org
Are there specifics somewhere there? Or just quick-and-dirty, what I wondered was: (1) is the third lane to be a bidirectional ‘turn lane’ ? (2) what stretch of Washtenaw would be included? (3) how does Washtenaw’s status as SR 23 Business … or whatever it technically is … affect the City’s ability to alter the roadway itself?
posted by HD on February 27th, 2006 at 8:56 pmWhy not use a livery system akin to the canoe world? Make a portage and throw the bike on the front of the purple limousine instead of traversing the perilous urban rapids of parking lots. Plus the busses would have to run 24/7 then. Do the Fords know about this plan? These are the kinds of things that are hurting their bottom line!
posted by CUTTER on February 27th, 2006 at 10:23 pmWhy not use a livery system akin to the canoe world? Make a portage and throw the bike on the front of the purple limousine instead of traversing the perilous urban rapids of parking lots. Plus the busses would have to run 24/7 then. Do the Fords know about this plan? These are the kinds of things that are hurting their bottom line!
posted by CUTTER on February 27th, 2006 at 10:23 pmHD, I may have jumped the gun on that–they may not have made an official recommendation yet. Looking back at my source for that, the draft City-wide Non-motorized Plan apparently makes such a recommendation. (I don’t have a copy to confirm this right now.)
1) yes; 2) I don’t know what stretch they proposed (I’d go for whatever stretch[es] made sense–the Huron Parkway intersection is five-lanes, so…?); and 3) the same issue arises with Jackson/Huron, which is under consideration for a similar change, and, IIRC, MDOT is essentially okay with it, at least as long as it’s a just a matter of restriping (and signage, I suppose.)
JCP2, those areas without sidewalks should have them as well. Or are you suggesting that the absence of infrastructure there justifies the continuted absence of it elsewhere? As for commuters, they’re supposed to keep driving, assuming they can’t ride a bike or take a bus (assuming there is one.) Going from four lanes to three doesn’t necessarily slow traffic flow (just top speeds), let alone eliminate it. They may need to leave a little earlier to get to work on time, but, then again, maybe they won’t. If nearby residents could walk or bike to services, the traffic flow might improve further.
Obviously, this is all subject to a traffic analysis.
posted by Steve Bean on February 27th, 2006 at 10:24 pmI’m just saying that knowing some people in those areas without sidewalks, I’m pretty sure that they are okay living without them. Also, the raods are still gravel, and they like it that way. You stated that a sidealk would suffice in the same way as it does throughout the city. Since there are no sidewalks in these areas, either you exaggerated, or the corollary that a lack of a sidewalk would suffice in the same way as it does throught the city could be made. Also, stating that going from four lanes to three lanes wouldn’t slow traffic flow, and then usring commuters to leave earlier to get to work also doesn’t make sense. If it takes more time to get to work, then traffic flow is slowed. It would also take more time to get home. Maybe you mean traffic capacity instead of traffic flow.
The real issue isn’t bike paths (or the lack of one). If more and more people had a chance to live in close proximity to where they worked and shopped and played, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Laying another strip of concrete so that a couple hundred of people a month will be able to bike to Barnes and Nobles is not going to make a dent in the river of cars coming into and leaving Ann Arbor during rush hour.
posted by JCP2 on February 28th, 2006 at 9:20 amJCP2, I meant flow. I used words like “necessarily” and “maybe” for a reason. Sidewalks would suffice for pedestrian use *if they were added*. Is that more clear?
There is no “the real issue”. Your last sentence demonstrates the narrow perspective that prevents us from making progress on quality of life improvements. Bike paths aren’t a magical solution and neither are roads. Neither is affordable housing. They’re all components of a large, extremely complex system that oversimplification for the purposes of shooting down individual components of a broad plan does nothing to improve.
Then again I just may be at the wrong site to expect constructive thinking. (That’s not directed at you, JCP2, just a general observation.)
posted by Steve Bean on February 28th, 2006 at 11:06 amSteve,
I’m not trying to shoot down anybody’s broad plan. It’s just that it’s not clear how implementation of this plan (the details of which I’m still a bit fuzzy on) will benefit me in a concrete manner. I wasn’t such a stickler for detail when I was a student, but now that I’m gainfully employed and paying a fair bit in taxes, I want to make sure that I’m getting the most bang (social good) for my buck. You just can’t leave me out of the policy making process, even if you think that I’m a total ass and my views are narrow and selfish. After all, isn’t that the whole point of having these types of public hearings?
posted by JCP2 on February 28th, 2006 at 1:10 pmSteve Bean,
Thanks for the reference to the City-wide Non-motorized Plan. So far I’ve successfully opened only one of the map files (slow machine, big file), but based on that:
(a) proposed bicycle lanes for Washtenaw (on both sides of the road) would extend past Arborland Mall, ending just before the cloverleaf.
(b) the proposed new muliti-use path on Washtenaw that spawned this thread is a part of this same overall plan.
Specifically, the map depicts the proposed dual bicycles lanes, the existing multi-use path on the south side of Washtenaw and the proposed multi-use path on the north side. So the plan doesn’t see bike lanes and multi-use paths along Washtenaw as mutually exclusive.
posted by HD on February 28th, 2006 at 1:32 pmI really feel sorry for the people in Arbor Hills (AKA the Spaghettibowl). Jeez, you pay 1.4 Million bucks for a place and you don’t even get a sidewalk to drag your pomeranians down.
posted by Nitro on February 28th, 2006 at 2:30 pm…I’m trying to imagine the rush hour traffic on Washtenaw by Arborland constricted to 3 lanes, and hoping they plan to defend the bike path with tire spikes.
posted by Nitro on February 28th, 2006 at 2:34 pmSpaghettibowl?
posted by Carolyn on February 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pmI’m in no danger of being able to afford to live in Ann Arbor Hills, but I would never live in a neigborhood without sidewalks. Where would I walk my dog? How would I meet the little neighbor kids wobbling around on their training wheels? Where would those same kids leave cryptic messages in chalk? So, for at least a certain segment of the population (me, at least), sidewalks increase property value. And if someone said they would build me a sidewalk (or bikepath, or whatever) and shovel the snow off it for me in perpetuity, I would be happy to pay my share of the initial costs. Especially if I had a 200-foot lot. That’s a heck of a lot of snow.
A response to Steve Bean…
Regarding sidewalk vs path…the path was chosen as it would have greater utility, i.e., not just be limited to pedestrians (although I’m sure that if we built a sidewalk some cyclists would use it).
Regarding Washtenaw lane configuration…unfortunately, the mighty MDOT rules, and so irrespective of how we wanted to reconfigure it, I doubt we would get approval unless it meets MDOT’s needs too. But I’m a firm believer that we should push the envelope on that issue if the community so desires - and the NM Plan certainly has that component as noted above. And I would agree that having bike lanes and an off-road path could co-exist. Personally, I’d like to get some sense from a spectrum of traffic engineers and other experts as to the likely impacts on people movement (motorized or non-) depending on various traffic flow scenarios.
posted by Stephen Rapundalo on March 1st, 2006 at 2:26 pm_I’m in no danger of being able to afford to live in Ann Arbor Hills, but I would never live in a neigborhood without sidewalks. Where would I walk my dog? How would I meet the little neighbor kids wobbling around on their training wheels?_
People in Ann Arbor Hills walk their dogs and ride their bikes in or alongside the streets–which don’t have much traffic (a number of them aren’t paved). It’s a fine area to walk, bike, or go for a run. If you want to bike out to Whole Foods, cutting through Ann Arbor Hills is the way to go. That’s also the best way to bike to Gallup Park–much better than riding down Geddes (and there’s a handy little path that cuts from Devonshire over to the crosswalk by the Geddes pedestrian/bike entrance to the park).
posted by mw on March 2nd, 2006 at 8:50 amEli Cooper is the Transportation Program Manager for the City of Ann Arbor. I talked to him the other day about a couple of different transportation topics, including the bike path along Washtenaw. Details here: www.homelessdave.com/tt20060301elicooper.htm
posted by HD on March 3rd, 2006 at 9:27 amSoon, anyone who likes to pedal will be able to fly.
If you can pedal a bicycle 5 miles, you will be able to pilot the Flycycle.
No Olympic athletes required.
This design will bring Human Powered Aircraft to a recreational level.
The intent of the Flycycle Project is to build a Human Powered Aircraft that is 100% practical; the first Human Powered Aircraft to be built in Canada.
This Human Powered Aircraft, with a totally new flying wing design began in Toronto and is being assembled at the Tobermory, Ontario, Municipal Airport. It is currently about half complete. Test flights will take place in the summer of 2007 at the Tobermory airport. With planned flight events to follow. We are confident that this new design will make news breaking all existing Human Powered Flight records.
See our website for the whole story.
http://www.flycycleart.webcentre.ca/index.htm
We are actively seeking sponsors to assist in financing the final stage of construction, test flights and planned flight events.
Now is the time to come on board. If you would like to be part of the Flycycle project when news is made, please phone or email your reply.
Thank you,
Rick Herman
Flycycle Communications
519 596-8310
Or Contact:
posted by Rick Herman on August 16th, 2006 at 3:56 pmRichard Synergy,
Flycycle designer and project leader
flycycle@sympatico.ca
(416) 923-7800