January 7, 1995
To: North Logan City Council
From: Robert Bayn, 1500 Highland Dr., North Logan

The Herald Journal reported (Jan. 6, p.1) that Hyde Park has
proposing a canal-side bike and pedestrian trail between USU and
Sky View.  I thought that was an interesting idea when Mike
Noonchester first proposed it as an extension of the bicycle plan
that he developed for Logan City a little over a year ago.  As a
consequence of publicity about that plan, I began to pay attention
to the changing status of cycling and bicycle facilities around the
country.

I have been cycling in Cache Valley for commuting, utility trips,
exercise and recreation for over 20 years.  Much of that time I had
not given much thought to how that type of activity should fit into
the fabric of the community.  After the appearance of Logan's bike
plan, I attended a BRAG conference on bike facility development and
joined Mike Noonchester's ill-fated "Cache Region Bike Trails
Committee", which I believe last met on March 4th with council
member Lynn Stewart in attendance.

Since that time, I have explored many sources of information about
the science of cycling, traffic engineering considerations, laws
that address cycling, safety and risks, and education programs for
cyclists.  The variety of information that I have gained has
tempered my enthusiasm for projects like the bike trail being
proposed by Hyde Park.

In support of the proposed trail, two different concepts are being
offered.  I believe that they are in conflict with each other.  The
trail is proposed as a recreational facility and as a
transportation facility.  A canal-side bike/pedestrian trail may
make a fine recreational facility for activities including some
kinds of recreational cycling.  

That same trail will, at best, be an acceptable transportation
facility only for bicycle travellers whose route can be made to
coincide, in part, with the trail.  Those travellers will probably
live near (especially on the uphill side of) the trail with
destinations near the endpoints of Sky View and USU.  For those few
travellers, the suitability of the trail will be ÃÃinversely
proportional to the popularity of the trail for recreational
purposes, since recreational uses will interfere with the
efficiency and safety of the trail for transportation cycling.

Smithfield's city manager Gass is cited by the HJ as believing that
a bike trail is an accepted feature of communities in other parts
of the country so we should join the throng.  However, I have found
evidence that bike trails have turned out to have high management
costs and high liability risks for some communities that have them
as well as low appeal and satisfaction for potential users.

If this proposed bike trail is embraced by the communities
involved, it should be recognized as a recreation facility and not
as a transportation facility.  It will not provide an attractive
route alternative for many existing cyclists and will not attract
additional travellers to cycling and so will not reduce the effects
of pollution nor reduce traffic congestion on the existing streets. 
It is not clear to me how any of the cities involved would expect
to see a positive return on a combined investment in excess of
$400,000 for one bike trail of under 10 miles in length.  

Where the canal snakes along the contour line through some gullies,
the path would have sharp corners and reduced sight distances. 
Every intersection with a road would require a stop by trail users. 
At both of those types of locations, untrained, exuberant trail
users could have mishaps involving property damage and injury or
death to self or other parties.   

My investigations suggest that the most effective way to spend
money to promote cycling as a transportation alternative is not the
construction of separate facilities but to provide education, like
we do for new motorists.  I have found two well-organized education
programs that have been endorsed and supported by law enforcement
departments throughout the country: the League of American
Bicyclist's "Effective Cycling" program and San Francisco's "Street
Smarts" cycling program.

I am further concerned that this trail proposal seems to have been
made without involving the existing population of cyclists.  People
who do not ride bikes, and are not inclined to, are not well
qualified to guess what kind of facility will meet the needs or
desires of cyclists.  It is not even clear to me that non-cyclists
can evaluate government specifications (sometimes obviously written
by other non-cyclists) to select appropriate facilities and levels
of service to meet the existing and projected needs of local users
and potential users.  

It appears to me that the best modifications that North Logan could
make in support of cycling as a transportation alternative would be
some street widening to allow "lane sharing" on some of the
collector roads.  The section of 8th East between 14th North and
18th North is an obvious bottleneck and deterrent to cycle traffic
along a logical commuter route to USU and collector for utility
trips to the commercial areas near Main street.  Also 18th North
west of 8th East could be widened uniformly to be more attractive
for cycle commuting to the Research Park and for utility trips to
businesses on Main Street.

I encourage the North Logan City Council to proceed with caution
and skepticism in the evaluation of the Hyde Park proposal.  I
would be glad to share details and specifics from my investigations
on this subject.