Urbana Bike Paths

To Anon 10:27 pm:   And then you can be an Urbana Bozo  !!

illinipunditposter

A huge expenditure is fine if people want to pay for it.

It would be appropriate if the city put this on a referendum.

II have said this before but here it is again. Reponsible legislation addressing problems consists of 4 parts, and all are of equal importance:

1. Identify the problem from public input. (Is it a pubic problem, or a personal problem?)
2. Define the problem completely, and decide if this is a matter for Government involvement. (Government does not need to be involved in changing diapers)
3. Formulate a complete solution, complete with penalties, if necessary and decide if the solution creates additional problems or infringes on other rights. (Avoid creating problems by solving problems.)
4. Provide a new or identify a revenue source for the implication of the problem. (Never mandate unfunded solutions, on the backs of the public or businesses)

1. So lets see, is this a public problem, or a personal problem?

How many people ride their bike to work East of say Anderson Street or South of Florida Ave? How many people ride their bike to work during the winter months? Were are these paths going to be and who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of them. Someone has to scoop the snow, etc. If the answer to these questions is not a majority of the people in that area, why are we spending money from everyone to do this. Looks like an individual problem that can be solved by using less busy streets for bike purposes.

2. What exactly is the problem that affects the majority of people in Urbana? Urbana is over 40,000 people how many use bikes and why can't they use infrastructure like existing less busy streets?

3. Urbana, has already raided its maintenance funds dramatically, and our streets are showing the effects of that raiding. Unquestionably, more people use conventional means of transportation in Urbana than bicycles. If we have a need to spend 2.8 million dollars, why not first repair our existing infrastructure, then consider uses of the surplus funds ( if it exists)

I don't think the press release contained any good answers to the above 4 steps for responsible legislation, Who does?

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Plenty of people ride their bikes to work in the wintertime, including quite a few from Champaign.   Mostly yes, they do use less busy streets to ride the bike on.   There are a few places where things are just not so great for bicyclists connecting (some of the "jogs" in the streets crossing arterials, mainly).  Most of the discussion I've seen (on mailing lists) is NOT so much in favor of bike paths for commuting, but rather how to improve some of these "rough areas" or figure out better ways to get around. People share their favorite routes, etc.

Thing is, when you do have to go out on the major streets for a few blocks to get somewhere (because the lesser used streets don't go through), inevitably you get people bitching about how bicyclists shouldn't be in the street, so which is it?

In Champaign, one of the big issues is crossing the railroad tracks. Often the "one-off" calmer streets don't cross. Some improvement to John St. would be nice there.  Me, I cross under the viaduct on Logan (coming from White, which actually lines up with Logan nicely, no jogs), but if going to the south, it'd be nice to have a crossing somewhere between Green St. and way south by the stadium. 

I do think that if there were a greenway bikepath without auto traffic that served as a sort of "express" between the two downtowns, say along the railroad tracks or such, it would be greatly popular.  The covered-over Boneyard through the Champaign part of campustown is a nice path, though it would be better if kids quit throwing beer bottles on it from their windows constantly, and if it were better hooked up to either the campus bike path system or the streets (the path goes to Sixth, but to enter it from the main UIUC quad without going the wrong way anywhere, you pretty much need to ride a block on Green St and then turn into it from Fifth).  Some signage alone might help the confusion there.    

There are bike shops in Urbana (at least two), there is also a bicycle coop in the IMC building.

For what it's worth, when I've complained about some really bad streets in Urbana they've been paved pretty quickly (or at least temporarily filled). Often the problem is where the brick streets meet up with the asphalt ones.

Sorry Michael, I mostly agree with you.. when it comes to Urbana Gov't

akibare

"Plenty of people"

There is a huge and significant difference between "plenty of" and "recorded and confirmed" number when it comes to justifying expenditures of 2.8 million dollars.

So, hopped in my car and went to the intersection of Vine and Florida and made an impromptu traffic count concerning cars and bicycles with the following criteria. Counted only the vehicles which crossed the intersection, and made two counts of bicycles, one of the bikes that crossed the intersection and the other of bicycles which I could see looking any direction, and traveling any direction.

I could see a little past Race St. to the West, to Cottage Grove to the East, to Urbana Middle School the the North and to Colorado to the South, and I counted for a hour from noon to a little after one.

Here are the counts,

Bikes crossing the intersection - 3, and 1 of those was the same individual who was going and coming and out for an exercise ride.
Bikes seen in all directions (excluding the 3 above) - 2
Vehicles crossing the intersection - 182

So there were 2 + 2 = 4 (2 of the 3 were made by 1 bicycles)
182 vehicles

I asked the girl who was exercising where she lived and how many people from her area rode their bikes to work or school. She lived on Anderson and she said 3, they were students at the apartment complex on Colorado and Cottage Grove.

Again what you have with the ordinance is the failure of the City of Urbana Mayor and Councilmen to understand a matter of choice.

You, like others, chose to ride your bikes to wherever............a choice.

You, like others, have chosen the route which best serves you and keeps you as safe as you can be with your choice..........a choice.

Many of the others (perhaps yourself) have complained to the City Council that there choice is not as nice as they would like, for example;
""one-off" calmer streets don't cross."
"you do have to go out on the major streets for a few blocks to get somewhere (because the lesser used streets don't go through)"
"few places where things are just not so great for bicyclists connecting (some of the "jogs" in the streets crossing arterials, mainly)"

All of the above complaints are true for motorists also. Those same things are inconvenient to motorists also, but motorists have chosen to "deal with it".

A more reasonable expenditure for the expenditure of 2.8 million dollars would be to construct something that solves the problems of both motorists and bicycles, like;

1. Extend the minor streets so they do, go through. Serves both bikes and cars.
2. Re design "one-off" camber streets to cross. Serves both bikes and cars.
3. Re-align jogs so they align. Serves both bikes and cars.

So instead of spending 2.8 million dollars to satisfy the whimpers of 2 or 4 or 182 persons who use the Streets of Urbana, do something that helps 182 of 182.

Urbana, has a really really really bad habit of spending money on things that are a matter of choice, instead of suggesting that people use their brains an make better choices.

This rank way way way up there.

Incidentally, in my neighborhood I made a concencious effort to just look at the bikes and I live a couple of blocks from a school. The count for all afternoon - 2.

Yep, 2.8 million is a wise expenditure, for sure.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

I don't think that would count anyway--who's to say we wouldn't flip off Rex if he came out on his Big Wheel? :P

The problem with that analogy Rex is that by and large there are very few truckers who get angry at the site of a car and intentionally will perform hazardous manuevers to "teach cars that this is our road". This is not very rare among motorists in reference to bikers.

Of course we must be aware and vigilant of any hazardous situation. However, it is also our solemn duty to do everything within our means to make live safer for others.

I am no great example of a bike rider but I am a new rider, I would say that we need to figure this out. Urbana is more likely to have people riding bikes for more then recreation, which is what people think of when they think of a bike. I know 2.8 million sounds like a lot but it's not when it's spent over10 years. I have talked to people that say they don't like segregated paths because people in cars don't notice riders when they pull out of cross streets. Riders also say the shoulders are full of junk when they try to ride as well as drivers along side that really are not watching.
As a baby boomer that seems to be booming around the belt and as someone that just turned 50 riding a bike seems like a way I can get fit and enjoy life a little bit. There are a few of my friends that could do the same, do you want me to naming names. :-)
I think there is just a trend toward a healthier life style (and higher Ben Gay sales) for us old people so we don't have to think we are old.
 

True. But "as close as practicable and safe to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" does NOT mean "hug the curb unless you're avoiding an obstacle," despite what some overactive honkers seem to think.

Most advice sites for bikers I've seen suggest riding pretty much where the right tire track goes for the cars.  Too much outside of that, and on many streets you run into curb seams, car door problems, and all that trash that gets thrown immediately to the right of the auto traffic by normal tire actions.

The biggest issue I find, with honking, is left-hand turns OR taking any action other than turning right, from a street that has a right hand turn lane.  The issue is, you can't turn in front of traffic. So if you're going straight and the street has a right hand turn lane, you gotta NOT be near the curb at ALL - you need to move into the middle lane (the going straight lane). 

Worse is turning left, there you need to merge into the left turn lane.  You gauge traffic, SIGNAL (that's right, bikers!) and then move left. But for newer cyclists, it can be quite intimidating to do that, particularly because a lot of drivers won't move, some will yell, etc. If it's just turning left from one street to another, often you can do the "pedestrian turn" meaning you go straight across the street and then pull over to the curb on the other side, flip the bike around, then re-enter traffic. But in places where you're just trying to CROSS a major street but the small street you're on has a jog in it, things can get hairy - the scary version is, you gotta turn RIGHT onto the big street and then immediately merge left and make a left.

So, bikers (certainly myself included) prefer to pick jogs where the situation is reversed - you make a LEFT from the small street to the big one (where you have tons of time to sit and wait for an opening in traffic) and then it's just a right turn off the big street.  So, some routes are friendlier than others.  Still, on a small street with cars, sometimes cars will not obey repeated early requests for them to pass you before the intersection (including slowing down, waving them around, etc). But then when you're sitting there waiting for a big break to turn left (and they also want to turn) they sit and start honking for you to hurry up, because they don't see how it takes slightly longer break to turn on a bike, due to slower starts on the bike and also just because you want to have a nice margin.  Those people, well, too bad, they had their chance to pass.  But, to avoid hassles, still you pick a street ideally with less cars on it.

And yet, the cars are all constantly trying to avoid the big streets too to avoid lights, and so they start coming onto the smaller streets, depending on changes made to traffic flow, etc.  Certainly there are many cars now who like to take Logan and zoom at crazy speeds under the viaduct. They hate it if I hog the lane going under the bridge, but there? Too damn bad. I'm not letting anyone pass me under there, and I'm clear of it (and back to the edge of the street) in what, a few seconds?  Mind you, if I've seen someone coming up behind me, again I'll give them all kinds of changes to overtake before I start under.

You know, all of the things that everyone is complaining about existed when I was a kid and riding my bike too. I just followed the rules of the road we were taught in school and respected any traffic. Worked for me.

04:21 PM, Anonymous

"grant is awarded or other funding is granted"

Good luck, that involves Naomi and Rod. Ride your bike to Lincoln Hall and see how reliable they are.

What have I said before?

Figures don't lie, but I figure I would be lying if I used them in that manner to make a point. I heard those higher than average statements when the City was considering Scooping the sidewalks. Problem is, those higher than average walking to work figures occur in a very small geographic and population area which is close to Campus. The same is true of the 8% figure, they are close to campus and the ride is not a long way.

My traffic counts were NOT close to campus and presently the majority of the population in Urbana, is NOT close to campus so the figures are slanted. As I originally asked,

"How many people ride their bike to work East of say Anderson Street or South of Florida Ave? How many people ride their bike to work during the winter months? Where are these paths going to be and who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of them. Someone has to scoop the snow, etc. If the answer to these questions is not a majority of the people in that area, why are we spending money from everyone to do this. Looks like an individual problem that can be solved by using less busy streets for bike purposes."

Akibare points out many of the problems bicycle riders have with traffic, but those problems are Statewide and should be addressed in the Rules of the Road and changed statewide to allow riders more safety. Don't change the road, change the rules of the road, if the majority of the People in the state believe that is necessary.

Trekkie,

I just took the test for Motorcycles and many of the things you suggest are not allowed for motorcycles or bicycles, you might consider riding your bike over to Bradley and picking up a book of the rules. Might save your life.
But more importantly, your suggestions are dangerous and not in good thought. NEVER put someone's life at risk just to make a foolish point.

Akibare

"that trash that gets thrown immediately to the right of the auto traffic by normal tire actions."

Yep, that is a maintenance problem, and maintenance costs money, which Urbana is directing elsewhere.

"And yet, the cars are all constantly trying to avoid the big streets too to avoid lights, and so they start coming onto the smaller streets, depending on changes made to traffic flow, etc. "

of course they do, they are allowed to make those decisions as to their path of travel, just as you are allowed to chose your path of travel. The secretary of state is on their side, in that matter.

I made the example of trucking hoping that someone would pick up on my leading suggestion concerning trucks and no one did. The Cities DO NOT build trucking "paths" they are too damned expensive, but trucks present an unusual problem which needed to be addressed, much in the manner of bikes.

So what did the Cities throughout the state do? The designated specific streets for truck traffic.

Why in Hell are bicycles any different than trucks, both present traffic problems for all involved, those problems can be fatal in nature? Traffic flows can be dramatically affected. Yet Urbana wants to spend 2.8 million to solve the problem by construction of bike (or truck, fill in the blank) "paths. When all that is necessary is to determine the most reasonable existing streets for bike travel (NO CONSTRUCTION COSTS) and simply make them for bikes only.

What's that you say, the local people will be inconvienced? Well personally, I find $2.8 million dollars a little more than inconvenient. Give the local people a Sticker for their windows that allows them to travel to their home and all the bike riders have to worry about is local traffic. NO COST, bike routes for 8% of the people.

However, I suspect that by the time the streets are chosen, the population along those streets will amount to 8% who are inconvenienced. And they will really be ticked in the Winter, when that 8% bike usage drops to 1% or 2%.

But you say, that is wrong to inconvenience them, it was legal for them to drive there when they chose their homes? Yep, just as it was also wrong to inconvenience all the smokers who also were making a legal cholce, but we have set the rules lets keep following them.

So which is better for Urbana? Spending 2.8 million dollars to solve a problem that exists for 8% of the population, or spending no money and solving a problem that exists for 8% of the population?

I choose the latter, worked for trucks, works for bikes.

I looked at the map on that site and was struck by the "share the road" routes (isn't that what is happening now) and the bike route along Washington. Ride that baby at night but hang onto your wallet and head when you get near Lierman.

But in light of the fact that both the bike paths and cell phone ordinances are precipitated on an unfortunate accident on Route 130, will all the bike riders who believe riding along Cunningham Ave., as proposed, is going to be safe. The only thing well thought out about that route is it is close to the Cemetery and they will not have to take you far.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

Responsible government, responsible spending, answer to the majority of the voters, for a start.

What did I suggest from the 50's? I said, during that time I rode a bike and managed to live.

Read akibare's posts, he is obviously a bicyclist who has made choice after choice in an attempt to try and find the safest way to ride his bike. He recognizes the pluses and minuses of different horizontal road patterns and is trying them all. He certainly has seen and heard his share of uncomplimentary drivers concerning bikes. So he is doing his best to describe the problems, complete with some suggestions. His posts are probably the most useful on this particular blog when trying to figure out what is going on.

As I see it, he clearly defines the problem:

The problem is many motorists do not understand the rules of the road and their actions are dangerous to bicyclists. They are not only dangerous by their actions, but their temper affects their driving. Additionally bicyclists no matter how good they are all have trouble if their chosen route causes them to be on a major artery because of the simple number of vehicles. He just wants a reasonably safe travel route.

Do I understand what he is talking about? Hell yes, as I said I rode a bike. Will eliminating travel on some streets allow the passage of bicycles without worrying about cars? Most certainly. Would akibare care if his travel was on a street with no cars, or on an expensive new bike path? I don't think it would matter to him, he just wants to try and reduce the interference with cars and bikes and get on his way. (But he can answer that better than I) Would I have any problem finding a solution that the public could swallow financially that helped him be a little safer? Of course not. But this solution is not good thinking.

Read my 11:19 AM post again for the 4 steps to solving problems. WHere does Urbana plan for the revenue source for not only the construction, but the additional maintenance. Money does not grow on trees, it means a tax increase somewhere.

I made a suggestion on a solution that would NOT cost Urbana any money, and would provide bike riders with access to the University and its bike system. I assume you more favor spending money than not, so anyone who suggests a plan that does not require taxes, bonds, grants (they are public money also) is a "cheapskate", correct?

Here is the bottom line, this is NOT something the general public has supported in the recent past. The City of Urbana is proposing to spend 2.8 million dollars on something that could only be classified as discretionary spending. They are proposing spending this money when other solutions which do not require spending are available and will solve the problems. I just stated them.

"05:08 AM, B is for Business said:
A huge expenditure is fine if people want to pay for it.
It would be appropriate if the city put this on a referendum."

I concur, bike paths are not something that everyone will use, 8%, just like Urbana Parks are not something that everyone uses. Unquestionably, more people use the Parks in Urbana, than ride bikes. The Park District just asked for an increase in taxes to spend on Park District operations and maintenance and the voters did not approve that expenditure. That expenditure was for something that a LOT more people use than bikes and Urbana said no.

Now the City wants to make a similar expenditure BUT they want to say they KNOW what Urbana wants, and that is what you also suggest, spending money. However when Urbana goes to the polls, they say something different. They say no (that is with an "n", not a "k")

If the City Council believes this is what the people want, then put it on a ballot. Do you have a problem with Urbana determining if the voters of Urbana want to spend 2.8 million?

I'm with B, if Urbana wants to spend 2.8 million by a referendum vote, then that is cool with me. But, my bet is 8% of the people is not gonna carry that vote.

Just curious, why is dedication of streets to bicycles only not acceptable? Bike paths require right of way purchase and/or audible delineators on streets (see my post on cell phones), maintenance and snow removal which Urbana already cannot find money for. Those streets are already on the maintenance program and will not be an additional expense. Plowing snow with bike paths requires a different technique, because you can't pile the street snow behind the curb, the bike path is there.

2.8 million does not include the extra maintenance which would be added to the already overstressed budget.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

quit your whinning said "Why should I pay additional tax so that the ninnies who bought on the outskirts of town can bike back over the interstate?"

This would be a reasonable question if the City of Champaign had stayed east of I-57 but greed took over and they annexed west of the interstate.  So q..y.w. needs to quit your whinning as your representatives made the city responsible for providing safe interstate overpasses for their now city residents to enable them to walk or ride their bikes to the rest of the city.  A task they chose to ignore.

If the correct answer is "Wrong" then the city should de-annex those areas which are not served.

The City of Champaign has an opportunity to provide a safe crossing of I-57 at Kirby Avenue for both pedistrians and bikers if they would just consider using the drainage underpass like the golf course uses further south.  The already have a park on the east side and an annexation agreement with the newly developed "Greens" on the west side.  No costly modification of the overpass required.  Is it too much to ask for somewone to "wake up" among the Champaign elected and be good stewards of our current tax dollars for projects needed now.