Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hungryhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    360

    bowles bike lane - county commisioners

    I got a laugh this morning:
    Bike lane ideas for West Bowles Avenue to elicit public input - The Denver Post

    A recommendation to add bike lanes along West Bowles Avenue received a less-than-positive response from Jefferson County Commissioners Don Rosier and Faye Griffin at a Sept. 10 staff briefing.
    Commissioner Casey Tighe, however, said he would be interested in what the public has to say about the concept, which is part of a countywide bike plan approved in June 2012 by the Planning Commission.
    Kevin French, director of transportation and engineering, presented conceptual pavement marking plans showing the removal of a through lane in each direction between Zang Street and Wadsworth Boulevard.
    Bowles, which runs east-west, is part of the existing bicycle plan that, pending further study, is proposed to connect C-470 to

    Denver Post file photo
    Grant Ranch Boulevard. It has three major east-west corridors: Quincy Avenue, Bowles Avenue and the C-470 Trail.
    French said a traffic study has been completed. Bike lanes are not proposed east of Pierce Street to Grant Ranch Boulevard since there is an existing four-lane road in this section. A wider outside lane might be considered in future repaving projects.
    "It's the curb-and-gutter projects that are expensive," French said.
    The recommendation was to engage the public to determine their support.
    Tighe said he didn't object to a public meeting to find out what residents want.
    "I know there is a cost associated with having public meetings, but since you showed us the numbers that it will work, and we do have a plan and these tend to be very localized improvements, I think it's worth finding out what people want to improve bicycle safety," Tighe said.
    French said the original bike plan has been narrowed down to consider three corridors: Quincy, Bowles and Kipling.
    French said later, "We plan only to implement changes in striping in association with repaving projects. It would take many years to implement the bicycle lanes project if it moves forward."
    Commissioner Rosier said he was not supportive of adding bike lanes on Bowles and questioned the validity of public meetings, saying, "They will be weighted." He said, "I receive way too many complaints, especially from Deer Creek on 'Why are we putting lanes in for cyclists?' "
    He said, "It's taking away from motorist capacity. We don't have the bike commuter traffic. This is spending money to address an issue that doesn't exist."
    Griffin said, "I get tired of the fact that bicyclists are telling us what to do with the roads that they don't help pay for."
    In response to a query from Rosier about numbers of bicyclists using the corridor, French said that based on anecdotal evidence, "There is not a significant number of bicyclists using Bowles."
    Griffin said looking at the bike-lane concept resembled another issue brought before the commissioners recently asking for a resolution to have five-commissioner structure rather than three.
    "We could maybe have five commissioners at some time, but right now we don't have enough to pay for the employees that we do have. That's where I am coming from," she said.
    Karen Groves: 303-954-2303, kgroves@denverpost.com

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FrontRanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,427
    Good to know that the 5 vehicles I register and pay taxes for don't give me any rights to voice an opinion.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    570
    that's awesome to know that one of the county commissioner crew doesn't quite understand funding. smh but not surprised

  4. #4
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,602
    Riding a bike on Bowles is nucking futs.

    There is an existing bike path that goes from Kipling -> Pierce and it goes *under* Wadsworth. IMO the smart $$ would be to extend this path all the way down to the Platte. Maybe take it right through the Columbine Golf Club?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    Riding a bike on Bowles is nucking futs.
    The problem with bike paths is, they don't go anywhere practical. They're great for recreation, but that is about it. A better solution is, educate cyclists and motorists on the rules of the road. Statements like above are perfect examples of cyclists' inferiority thinking.

  6. #6
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,602
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    The problem with bike paths is, they don't go anywhere practical. They're great for recreation, but that is about it.
    This is true. There are two bike paths within 1/2 mile of one another that go from Kipling -> Pierce (one goes all the way to Sheridan) but they both basically just stop. I still contend that if you hook one/both of these up to the S. Platte and continue them west to the 470 trail that they would go from kind of useless to reasonably useful.

    A better solution is, educate cyclists and motorists on the rules of the road. Statements like above are perfect examples of cyclists' inferiority thinking.
    You keep tilting at that windmill, Don. I still wouldn't go anywhere f***ing NEAR Bowles on a bike. Not *quite* as bad as trying to ride a bike on Wadsworth... but close.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hungryhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    360
    Agree - bowles may not be the best...but something is needed...they are probably thinking bowles because they put that stupid bridge that goes over wads there.

    I think quincy is the best street for the bike path..(and there already is a path on part of it)

    but, all of that is beside the point - the point is we have two idiots as commisioners.

  8. #8
    650b me
    Reputation: golden boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,040
    Jeffco has a rich history of non-progressive commissioners. Frustrating...

  9. #9
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,123
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    The problem with bike paths is, they don't go anywhere practical. They're great for recreation, but that is about it.
    That's why they call them "multi-use" paths.

    You should hear the whining when an engineer or planner finds out they have to build a #$%@! "bike" path. Bike paths kill project budgets and asking property owners for extra land to accommodate a bike path won't make you a very popular person. I can't blame them it's not an easy position to place yourself in.

    Multi-use paths are easiter because you get to ignore the specific needs of cyclist and create routes to nowhere where land is easier to obtain, people can take their pets out to poo, and you can still tell everyone you designed a bike path solution which meets cyclist needs. Plus there's a ribbon cutting ceremony and photo op for the pols. Politicians like that because they can pretend they solved a problem, and cyclist are labeled as whiners if they complain. Multi-use paths are a win/win for politicians, "bike" paths are not.

  10. #10
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,123
    Quote Originally Posted by golden boy View Post
    Jeffco has a rich history of non-progressive commissioners. Frustrating...
    That's probably why everyone wants to live there.

  11. #11
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,602
    Quote Originally Posted by hungryhead View Post
    Agree - bowles may not be the best...but something is needed...they are probably thinking bowles because they put that stupid bridge that goes over wads there.
    I saw a dumb$hit dart across Wadsworth UNDER that f***in' bridge the other day. 50 yards from a light *and* too lazy to climb the stairs.

    Dumba$$.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    That's why they call them "multi-use" paths.

    You should hear the whining when an engineer or planner finds out they have to build a #$%@! "bike" path. Bike paths kill project budgets and asking property owners for extra land to accommodate a bike path won't make you a very popular person. I can't blame them it's not an easy position to place yourself in.

    Multi-use paths are easiter because you get to ignore the specific needs of cyclist and create routes to nowhere where land is easier to obtain, people can take their pets out to poo, and you can still tell everyone you designed a bike path solution which meets cyclist needs. Plus there's a ribbon cutting ceremony and photo op for the pols. Politicians like that because they can pretend they solved a problem, and cyclist are labeled as whiners if they complain. Multi-use paths are a win/win for politicians, "bike" paths are not.
    Exactly. Roads are cycling infrastructure, therefore no need to build cycling specific infrastructure. Bike lanes marginalize cyclists and reinforces the misconception that cyclists are separate from other road users. There is a cognitive dissonance created in how cyclists are told to act on the road and the infrastructure they're given and told to use.

    Ever try to make a left turn on a road with a bike lane on the right side? Even with signaling, most motorists assume bikes must stay in the bike lane causing consternation from lack of understanding.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    966
    Anyone want to forward this to their county officials?

    "Do Roads Pay for Themselves?"

  14. #14
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,123
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Anyone want to forward this to their county officials?

    "Do Roads Pay for Themselves?"
    I read the intro and they've already incorrectly given credit to the government for building "streets", which the gov does not in most cases. Like when Obama infamously said "you didn't build that..." well yes they did actually.

    Subdivision/neighborhood streets, collectors and in some cases arterials are built by developers as part of development agreements/codes agreed to during the development review process.
    Developers have to agree to build streets as part of this process or their plans will not be approved.

    After construction by the developer, streets are then accepted for maintenance by the municipality. Gas taxes pays for the maintenance, like chip seal and snow removal.

    Highways/arterials yes these are often built through taxes/fees.

    I'm responsible for filing the annual Highway User Tax Fund report for EPC. i.e. gas tax. Only roads accepted for maintenance by the county commissioners receive gas tax funds and they are the only roads maintained by the county. Private roads are just that. We don't touch them.

    I appreciate the article but a little skeptical of some of their assumptions and facts. It's like this Mayor who used to go to public meetings and tell everyone that building a bike path up up the middle of Hwy 24 along Fountain Creek would get the roadies off Hwy 24 from Manitou to Woodland Park.

    It does such a disservice to cyclist when people co-opt bike advocacy with half truths and misconceptions so that they can get funding for a project which doesn't really benefit cyclist. He wanted to complete the American Discovery Trail.

    Can you image what that trail would look like right now? How many millions of dollars would have been wasted if we had built that trail?
    Trails are nice along creeks, but too close to the creek, along a cut bank, or on the wrong side of the creek, and they become very, very expensive endeavors. Been there done that...

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    966
    So, developers build roads (and since, they're private do not need to meet all transportation needs) that not all tax payers will use then transfer the cost of maintenance and repair to all tax payers. Gas-taxes and user-fees do not cover the entire cost of repair, maintenance, and building of public roadways ("Gasoline Taxes and Tolls Pay for Only a Third of State & Local Road Spending").

    As far as bike specific infrastructure, slapping some paint on a mile of road, with no connection to or from anything, does a disservice to all road users. The biggest disservice is to cyclists, who get marginalized to the side of the road with no continuity of infrastructure and get labeled as a special interest group by other road users.

  16. #16
    The 5th knuckle
    Reputation: jaycastlerock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,608
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    .... labeled as "special needs" group by other road users.
    There, fixed it for you to better represent the true thoughts and feelings of most road users.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hernando Gutierrez
    The only thing you have to figure out is don't fall down. To keep riding the bike.

  17. #17
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,123
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    So, developers build roads (and since, they're private do not need to meet all transportation needs) that not all tax payers will use then transfer the cost of maintenance and repair to all tax payers.
    Roads which are to be public roads are built to County/City standards outlined in codes/engineering criteria manuals and are inspected by government inspectors, then during acceptance most will go through a warranty period (2 years for us), where the developer is responsible for repairing defects.

    Yes, the City/County accepts the costs for maintenance, that's what makes them public roads. (Maint is far cheaper than construction.) I think it's a pretty fair tradeoff. If they were not made public you probably would not be riding your bike on them.

    Green street name sign = public, brown sign = private.



    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Gas-taxes and user-fees do not cover the entire cost of repair, maintenance, and building of public roadways ("Gasoline Taxes and Tolls Pay for Only a Third of State & Local Road Spending").
    I'm not sure on the final breakdown of how gas taxes are distributed back to the state from the Feds. But it's my understanding that gas taxes are not meant to be used for construction of new roads, they are for maintenance/repair.

    I read the article and believe the author/politicians generalized the data for PRopaganda and shock. I would be hesitant to reference it since they lump construction/maint together as a use of gas tax. It's not that simple.



    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    As far as bike specific infrastructure, slapping some paint on a mile of road, with no connection to or from anything, does a disservice to all road users. The biggest disservice is to cyclists, who get marginalized to the side of the road with no continuity of infrastructure and get labeled as a special interest group by other road users.
    Agreed. But we do it to ourselves when we let other groups advocate for bike infrastructure by misrepresenting our needs in order to get funding for their own projects.

    i.e. we need "bike" trails/paths, not recreational multi-use paths.

    Dog walkers love bike paths... as long as they are called multi-use.

Similar Threads

  1. Your own personal bike lane
    By nuffink in forum Lights and Night Riding
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 04:12 AM
  2. Always ride in the bike lane
    By 96firephoenix in forum Commuting
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-14-2011, 12:55 AM
  3. Stay in the bike lane!
    By schnauzers in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-14-2011, 11:11 AM
  4. NYC Bike Lane Passion
    By Montana Rider in forum Passion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-10-2011, 10:27 AM
  5. Electric bikes in bike lane/MUP
    By jseko in forum Commuting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-11-2011, 07:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •