Bike paths

There is a creek that runs diagonally through town here and a multi-use path that follows it. For the most part whenever a road crosses the creek the path goes under that bridge. So we have a 14 km stretch where you only cross busy roads twice.

Ones that just follow roads seem pointless. And they make intersections dangerous when going against traffic since you can't see left turning vehicles coming up from behind and those drivers rarely check for riders on the path. Its a shit design every bit as bad as sidewalk salmoning.

Bike paths are definitely much safer than wide shoulders. And they encourage people to take up cycling even if they're not that good as they can safely stay in bike paths without cars constantly going past them. My city has awesome bike path/MUP network and there are tons of cyclists from all age groups between 5 and 100 daily on the paths, even through the winter. Building grade separated crossings over any major road improves the safety of bike paths even more compared to wide shoulders.

A well designed bike path network doesn't just follow the roads. It's often possible to not have the bike paths strictly attached to roads but going through some other route while still reaching the same places as roads.

>>1071327
>better spent on widening roads and adding shoulders.
That's just WAY more expensive and in many places impossible.

File: 670x420_Gospodarska__Delo_Foto_2014.3_hires.jpeg4.jpg (46KB, 670x383px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 670x383px

>>1071327
In principle, they're really great, especially when they help you avoid a 90km/h straight and heavily trafficked road.
And I do think they really encourage cycling amongst the normies who aren't prepared to fight it out with cagers for a sunday ride.

I'd say they're much better in the countryside, where you can just make an actual road for bikes and pedestrians.
I'd say that wide shoulders are better in the cities, because of all the driveway grades, bus stations, pedestrians walking on the bike path and so on.
These are, of course, all issues that can be tackled with good design, but often isn't, so it depends on the planners...

File: Denmark.jpg (316KB, 1907x857px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1907x857px

>>1071327
Danish person here.
How can you not love these? if well maintained a bike path is one of the nicest places to go on my bikerides, except when i stray off, and go to some smaller roads
>>1071332
this guys gets it.

Where I live bike paths are essentially the only way to encourage new cyclists because the streets and roads here are almost universally designed to be driver-friendly and encourage speed, which makes them feel like dangerous places for anyone on a bike. On street bike lanes don't really help because lanes disappear at major intersections, aren't maintained well, and get filled up with debris, so they don't do much to address the fears of novice cyclists.

The main problem with bike paths is that they can only go so many places: a long bike path is great for recreational riders, but if the path doesn't run between your house and your work and the grocery store, then it's not going to be especially useful in encouraging people to ride for transport.

>>1071333
My city is expanding rapidly and the road system is already behind. Its only going to get harder the longer they wait. Bike paths are cheap but they just make later expansion even more difficult, not to mention taking up space the could be used by utilities.

> a long bike path is great for recreational riders, but if the path doesn't run between your house and your work and the grocery store, then it's not going to be especially useful in encouraging people to ride for transport.

this is the problem in my area, they spent loads of money converting a old railway into a bike path which is real nice to cruise along over the viaducts, through the tunnels. But it doesn't connect to where people want to go very well

so as a result there are always a bunch of madmen commuting along the 60mph busy main road

I see more dog walkers on the path than cyclists, so i avoid it too when i'm riding for fun, gets real tedious having to slow down every few min to go past a dog walker while they give you evil looks for daring to cycle on the cycle path
Build two bike paths next to main roads, going both ways and separate them from both cars and pedestrians, also make sure there is room to pass slow casuals

UK person here. Interested in finding the best towns and cities for cycling (and walking) in the UK. Hoping to avoid places with extremely high living costs.

I was thinking it might be possible to get a freedom of information request from the Department for Transport on cycling spending for each local authority responsible for transport infrastrucutre. But that's only a snapshot of current spending. Many places may have invested decades ago and still have good facilities.

>>1071345
>Build two bike paths next to main roads, going both ways and separate them from both cars and pedestrians
this sounds nice in theory, but there's usually no space for it
i think cities should just focus on turning side roads into cycle routes
lower cost, and end up with better infrastructure than trying to pave new areas

>>1071327
Bike paths are a good idea whenever they can be separated from any other traffic, like on your pic. This would be perfect in more rural areas, but only if they are well planned and actually connect stuff.

Within cities, studies have shown that it would be more secure for cyclists and motorists to share the road, without bike lanes and other stuff. Bike lanes on intersections are pretty dangerous and bike lanes on the sidewalk are just terrible. Widening roads could be a good idea, but that would be difficult in cities. Also, in my experience, motorist always tend to drive as far on the right as possible. So a wider road wouldn't change that much.

I wouldn't mind more rail trails. I had a paved one (10 miles) going through the suburb where I grew up to the outskirts of the city and an unpaved one (224 miles) that goes right by my current house.

Generally railroads have some sensible destinations in mind so when they go out of business the cyclists who adopt them can have sensible destinations too, if they follow them far enough.

But >>1071345 brings up a good point. They tend to attract children, dogs and casuals. There was no shortage of indignant mothers telling semi-serious cyclists to slow down back in my home town. In general, I prefer riding in rural areas where there simply isn't much traffic on the roads.

I like being to drive past cagers stuck in traffic and ignore pedestrian crossings

File: intersection.png (9KB, 380x630px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 380x630px

>city adds first bike lane
>it literally lasts for one block
>lane ends abruptly into this shit
>been like this for years

It's great but if you live in a big country like the US it's not really practical because most places are too far apart.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4gmo_MaKMI

>>1071551
Fuck off with your cager propaganda

The vast majority of land in the US is an unpopulated wasteland of GMO corn fields and slightly radioactive rocky outcroppings owned by the Department of the Army. It doesn't matter what the physical boundaries of the US are when it comes to transport policy. It would be like saying the Chinese are pressing a maritime claim on the Scarborough Shoal therefore what the Chinese need most is high-speed hydrofoils, not trains

Almost everyone lives in a few urbanized coastal zones, the whole "MUH REAL MURRICA IS SISTER FUCKING TRAILER PARK" was designed by marketers trying to sell pickup trucks to people who don't need them by brainwashing them into thinking they're self-reliant pioneer men whereas they're really just using it to cage down to the local Harris Teeter for some... whatever it is that those kind of people eat

File: abc.png (65KB, 2779x1535px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 2779x1535px

>>1071511
I like these two.. "double danger"
Literally have to break the law to preserve my safety.

>wanting to ride on the shoulder
>wanting to get sideswiped by some retard on their phone
>not wanting a separated bikepath
>not wanting to avoid cars altogether

>>1071331

Denver? I love ours, but on weekends you get the mcfuckface family and their retard kids all over it.

>>1071551

Only because they were designed for cagers. We should start correcting it. INFILL.

>govt will spend Trillions on cage infrax
>"oh no, a bike lane is too expensive"
>when cyclists reduce the need to keep expanding cageways and repairing them from fatass mc suv tearing that shit up with his daily 50 mile commute

In 99% of the US you live close enough to whatever to cycle there. A 10 mile ride is nothing on a proper bike route. Stop pretending everyone lives in rural appalachia, faggot. Most live in/near cities. And hell, if we abolish the suburbs the job would be solved. Build apartment towers, there, everyone is close enough to cycle. Cleaner air, fewer traffic fatalities, less infrax cost, lower taxes. Everyone wins.

>>1071350
Look for places with a university or large student population. They tend to have larger than average cycle usage and investment in infastructure, eg oxford and cambridge (i know they are expensive cities). You can also check this website which shows routes as a guide.
https://www.opencyclemap.org/

I'd maybe ask on some uk cycle forums about good places. Also a good way to check about a local area is to go onto a councils website and find their planning policy. It will have a transport section which will talk about cycling somewhere.

File: IMG_20150913_111259_045.jpg (150KB, 889x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 889x500px

>>1071597
B-but I live in rural Appalachia. The riding is god tier.

File: DSC_1857.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>1071393
You must be talking about The Ironhorse Trail, right? Definitely my favorite ride so far. Looking forward to riding it again.

>>1071597
>>wanting to ride on the shoulder
>>wanting to get sideswiped by some retard on their phone
>>not wanting a separated bikepath
>>not wanting to avoid cars altogether
>he doesn't ride in the middle of lanes like a man
topkek

If you haven't crossed two lanes of 50mph traffic from the right lane to get into a left turn lane you haven't lived.

I grew up in Fresno, CA. There's a decent bikepath network over old railways or along canals. Most portions of it have minimal street crossings, and when they do, there's a signal. They're extremely popular with recreational riders, and connect distant parts of the city in a way that makes them functional for transportation. The problem I see with them is that the distances at which they become more practical than good bike lanes (think of an HSR line having to stop every 10 minutes) far exceed how far the average American is willing to ride their bike to work, especially in an uneducated, balls hot shit hole like Fresno.

>>1071327
>Which city has the best
Minneapolis MN. No competition whatsoever, not even from Amsterdam or Portland.

>>1071655
Minneapolis by itself, hell no.
Minneapolis St Paul metro area plus the western suburbs, hell yes.

>that awkward feeling when cornering hard on a twisty path while passing pedestrains going the opposite direction and the leaning has your head on their side of the path approaching crotch level

Speaking of bike paths might as well ask

Asphalt or crushed limestone/gravel

File: SideA2011.jpg (3MB, 5129x5759px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5129x5759px

>>1071327
Bike paths are great at connecting bike lanes which run alongside roads that aren't linked. I would say that Marin County has some of the best integrated systems of bike trails, paths and lanes. This is largely a product of the fact that the county is very wealthy with an overall population of roughly a quarter million spread out in towns ranging from 50,000 to 10,000 people. Distances are relatively small, in many areas it's less than ten miles from one town to another.

The cycling system is supported by the community at large. But the most important single group are probably the pelotons of middle aged lawyers who arrange themselves by town into local racing clubs. Without their financial and legal support the system would not be as large or as extensive as it is.

The paths are mixed use and accommodate pretty much everyone. You can read more here if you are interested http://www.marinbike.org/

Regarding the paths themselves, they are old rail lines that have since been paved over. The Mill Valley-Sausalito Bike Path is somewhat scenic as it crosses a local wetland area. I rode it every summer of my childhood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aWiJoQCC4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnSZwkwBrvg

File: 85446-largest_1_ISH_with_tire.jpg (49KB, 620x460px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 620x460px

>>1071750
??? ???

>>1071726
>cornering hard on a twisty path full of peds

>>1071726
>I ride so hard my head is often a mere 3ft off the ground.
Uh huh. Tell me more about the the cat6 life.

>>1071724
>Minneapolis St Paul metro area plus the western suburbs, hell yes.
When I say Minneapolis I mean the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metro area as a whole, including all of the suburbs. However, even Minneapolis alone is god tier. The best place to ride is along the Mississippi (so through Minneapolis, St Paul, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, and the suburbs north of Minneapolis)

>>1071953
>not cornering hard on a twisty path full of peds

File: 29296948243_34015d1910_k.jpg (605KB, 2048x1356px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 2048x1356px

>>1071648
Yeah. It's nice and I've run on it many times, but the paved roads around here are more appealing than the gravel for my cycling purposes. Maybe 35mm is not enough and I just need to get n + 1 with some fatter tires.

If I wanted to ride my bike to the west side, 12 and 410 are fucking gorgeous, just not quite as direct. Further east, I've toured through the mountains in northern OR/northern WA and I have a hard time motivating myself to bounce along gravel in the prairie (even though I like prairie).

This is a rail trail I enjoyed somewhere around the SD/WY border.

>>1072147
Oh, and the Northern Rail Trail in NH/MA is pretty awesome too, especially given how angry everyone is on all the roads in that part of the country.

Where I live, I've longed for bike paths through electrical transmission corridors. There's quite a few in my area that cut though conveniently with few intersections. The only downside is that there can't be tree coverage along these for obvious reasons. I've always wondered if the lines can be buried with the bike trail on top.

>>1071333
Anything's possible with ROW acquisition and demolition. What makes it "impossible" is whether they can afford it and convince adjacent property owners to sell part of their land for the new easement.

Most of the ones near me are useless if you want to go at any kind of speed because they run along the river and are filled with pedestrians walking four abreast

I always ride on the road instead along with most cyclists. Occasionally I'll get some bogan in a Commodore yell at me for not being on the bike path and throw shit at me, but it's still much safer

>>1071327
I like the bike paths in my city because they cut through places that the main roads don't and so it is faster than riding purely on the road.

My city has tons of bike paths; the problem, at least all of the paths south of the lake are generally old bumpy piles of shit. Fine for some two-wheeled pedestrian on a full suspension supermarket bike doing 5kmh, but an absolute nightmare at any real speed. Easier to just clog up roads and enrage cager faggots

>>1071327
>What's your opinion on them?
they are good when they separate from the roads like on pic.

>>1074586
one thing that is utterly shit about bike tracks marked on the road body is the right turning cars will have the biker in the blind spot and the bikers don't pay attention to anything in a bike lane because they think they are safe there. a car using it's index is no worry for them they will try to pass it from the right if it slows down.

>>1071551
Dutch ppl are cute! :3