The North Logan Parks & Recreation Master Plan for 2005-2025 is an excellent vision statement to guide us as our liveable community strives to be the best place to call home. I commend the efforts of the committee to develop this broad ranging vision for North Logan. Among the significant and appealing plans for expanded community parks, neighborhood parks, sports facilities, and a variety of trails is one issue of concern to me.
Roadside trails seem to have appeal because a lot of mileage can be developed relatively cheaply in the existing public right-of-way. But this appeal should not blind us to the operational complications and hazards that roadside trails present. There is a significant body of research and previous experience about the hazards posed by these roadside trails which should give us pause before further advancing this part of the proposal.
A trail alongside of a roadway is really nothing more than a sidewalk, regardless of its width or the surfacing material used. See the definition of "sidewalk" in Utah Code 41-6-1(46) at: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE41/htm/41_04002.htm and FHWA's "Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access" at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/ .
With those functional definitions of roadside pathway facilities in mind, look at the cautions given in the following documents:
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) especially pages 33-35 or excerpts at: http://cc.usu.edu/~bob/bike/law/hilites_aashto.htm
Wachtel, Alan & Lewiston, Diana (1994) ITE Journal, Sept 1994, pp 30-35, available online at: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf or excerpts at: http://cc.usu.edu/~bob/bike/law/hilites_wachtel.htm
The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning (1997), Paul Schimek, MIT and USDOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, at: http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/dilemma.html or excerpts at: http://cc.usu.edu/~bob/bike/law/hilites_dilemma.htm
We need a complete, connecting network of pedestrian travel facilities (sidewalks and crosswalks and other shortcut paths) for both recreational and mobility needs. But these references should convincingly form a core of evidence against attempting to build recreational facilities in our transportation rights-of-way.
We do not need a facility that people falsely presume will provide a safe haven to bicycle riders from the hazards of traffic. A roadside pathway requires its users to interact with traffic at driveway and intersection crossings. The attention for that interaction is not always available when the user is engaged in play while presuming that the designated facility makes uninterrupted play safe from hazards. And the concern of motorists extends only to pedestrian-speed conflicts at those crossings.
Several of the proposed roadside trails run east and west which, in our community, promises a good slope for an easy buildup of speed by bicycle riders who will have some unmeetable expectation of safety in the allegedly recreational environment of the sidepath. When that speed combines with sight distance problems because of landscaping vegetation or parked cars, or conflicts with slower moving pedestrians, we will have recreation turning to tragedy.
The 2001 session of the Utah Legislature repealed Utah's "Mandatory Sidepath Use" rule for bicyclists. That repeal was approved with little opposition, not to support the convenience of bicyclists but because legislators recognized the safety issues that have come to light over the years about use of sidepaths by bicycle riders.
AASHTO, FHWA, Schimek, Wachtel & Lewiston (and other secondary sources of bike safety education) all agree that bicycle riders should not be encouraged to use roadside pathways. Parents who rightly believe that their little children should not ride their bikes on the roadway should not be encouraged to let those children ride at even greater risk through intersections and driveways on roadside pathways. Children old enough to travel around town on a bike should be taught the safest way, on the road, and should be accompanied until that training is certain.
North Logan should develop its share of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, any available canalbank trails and other available openspace trails for the benefit of our citizenry and our community quality of life. However, we should not attempt to short circuit the normal transportation function of our roadways and roadside pedestrian facilities by promoting what are really sidewalks as recreational bicycle facilities shown by research and experience to be unsafe.
In terms of the goals and vision of the plan, my objection may be resolved with some terminology change and some design adjustments that follow from that change. The parts of the recreational network that are along roadsides should be called "walkways" to distinguish them as facilities intended for pedestrians while reserving the term "trails" for facilities that are away from roadways and are suitable for leisure cycling as well as pedestrian recreation (jogging, hiking, walking).
These roadside walkways serving only pedestrians can be less wide at say 5-6 feet than real trails that are 10-12 feet wide, can be engineered to different standards, paved differently and maybe even extended further along connector roads for the same cost.
Then instead of proclaiming that we have a "connected network of trails", we could strive to brag that we have a "connected recreational network" which consists of walkways and multi-use trails (and, for some users, roads).
Thanks again for your planning and visioning efforts and for your consideration of my concerns. If I can provide any more details, I would be glad to do so.
-- Bob Bayn, safety officer Cache Valley Veloists Touring Bicycle Club 1500 Highland Dr. North Logan.