<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/nyregion/ny-empire-trail.html>

OMG, this is awful. Couldn't the "vehicular cyclists" somehow have
stopped this boondoggle?

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/nyregion/ny-empire-trail.html>
>
> OMG, this is awful. Couldn't the "vehicular cyclists" somehow have
> stopped this boondoggle?

It's a MUP, and I kind of doubt it was driven by the mythical transportational cyclists. You're trying to generate heat when there is none. This is about forests and not Forester.

In 1974-5, I actually mailed away for a copy of the Oregon Coat Bike Route map. https://tinyurl.com/jm4v33zr They also put up these groovy signs. https://theoregoncoast.info/BikeRoute/Sign.jpg Worked great. I once rode this 4,200 mile bike path. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikecentennial#:~:text=The%20route%20crossed%20ten%20states,rural%2C%20low%2Dtraffic%20roads. It was more like 5,200 for me because I started in SF and took the HWY 1 path up to Ory-gun, and I took another path down to Knoxville. Worked great..

-- Jay Beattie.

On 11/5/2021 11:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/nyregion/ny-empire-trail.html>
>>
>> OMG, this is awful. Couldn't the "vehicular cyclists" somehow have
>> stopped this boondoggle?
>
> It's a MUP, and I kind of doubt it was driven by the mythical transportational cyclists. You're trying to generate heat when there is none. This is about forests and not Forester.

Not at all. As with most MUPs, they are used for both recreation and
transportation. The American River Bikeway that Jorge keeps writing
about, the Stevens Creek Trail near me, the Manhattan Greenway, the Los
Gatos Creek Trail, the San Tomas Aquino Trail, the Coyote Creek Trail,
are all MUPs used also for transportation.

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:45:32 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 11/5/2021 11:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> >> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/nyregion/ny-empire-trail.html>
> >>
> >> OMG, this is awful. Couldn't the "vehicular cyclists" somehow have
> >> stopped this boondoggle?
> >
> > It's a MUP, and I kind of doubt it was driven by the mythical transportational cyclists. You're trying to generate heat when there is none. This is about forests and not Forester.
> Not at all. As with most MUPs, they are used for both recreation and
> transportation. The American River Bikeway that Jorge keeps writing
> about, the Stevens Creek Trail near me, the Manhattan Greenway, the Los
> Gatos Creek Trail, the San Tomas Aquino Trail, the Coyote Creek Trail,
> are all MUPs used also for transportation.

I'm sure -- or at least suspect -- the Empire State Trail gets used by at least some commuters, but according to the State:

"In 2017, New York State launched the Empire State Trail to promote outdoor recreation, encourage healthy lifestyles, support community vitality, and bolster tourism-related economic development."

https://empiretrail.ny.gov/ I have no problem with MUPs that are linear parks, but unless you live on the MUP or near it, they're more or less destinations. They have parking lots.

Your creek trails go through the middle of the densely populated SCV and necessarily connect residential and commercial areas, and some part of the Empire State Trail probably does the same thing, like through Rochester or Albany. It is mostly a park, though -- which is fine -- but it doesn't really have much to do with vehicular cycling. If you get one foot off the trail on to a normal road, you better know how to vehicular cycle.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 11/5/2021 2:01 PM, sms wrote:
> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/nyregion/ny-empire-trail.html>
>
>
> OMG, this is awful. Couldn't the "vehicular cyclists" somehow have
> stopped this boondoggle?

Wait! " Where new bike trails were not possible, blue-and-yellow signs
were installed on ROADS..." [my emphasis] How can that be???

"... a combination of protected paths, city STREETS, HIGHWAY shoulders
and country ROADS ..."

" ... the trail here is a patchwork of poorly marked SIDEWALKS,
multipurpose paths ... "

" ... the shoulder of a BUSY HIGHWAY ..."

How could the bike segregation brigade have approved this?

--

Back to reality: Look, it's a "bicycle route." Those have existed since
the 1970s, if not far longer. I'm not sure, but I think the League of
American Wheelmen may have had them in the 1890s. They certainly had
guidebooks rating various roads. For example,
https://www.ebay.com/itm/384472671547?chn=ps&mkevt=1&mkcid=28

So this is nothing new. The Cardinal Trail was the first modern Across
Ohio bike route, developed and signposted in the 1970s. A friend and I
bought the maps and rode it all in the 1980s. Later, I consulted on
re-routing part of it in my area, since one long road had gained lots of
truck traffic. And a couple years ago I consulted on local routing for a
couple other Ohio bike routes, of which there have been many for years
and years.

As to the segregated portions of the route, those would have to be
evaluated individually. But putting a "bicycle route" on sidewalks
raises red flags.

Still, I understand Mr. Scharf's motivations for posting. It comes down
to "Any bike facility is a good bike facility."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 11/5/2021 2:45 PM, sms wrote:
> On 11/5/2021 11:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/nyregion/ny-empire-trail.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> OMG, this is awful. Couldn't the "vehicular cyclists" somehow have
>>> stopped this boondoggle?
>>
>> It's a MUP, and I kind of doubt it was driven by the mythical
>> transportational cyclists.  You're trying to generate heat when there
>> is none.   This is about forests and not Forester.
>
> Not at all. As with most MUPs, they are used for both recreation and
> transportation. The American River Bikeway that Jorge keeps writing
> about, the Stevens Creek Trail near me, the Manhattan Greenway, the Los
> Gatos Creek Trail, the San Tomas Aquino Trail, the Coyote Creek Trail,
> are all MUPs used also for transportation.

Oh please! Nationwide, I'd bet that for every one person using linear
parks for transportation (that is, instead of using a car), there are a
thousand using them for recreation - most often an out-and-back ride,
featuring an extra car ride before and after.

--
- Frank Krygowski

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> On 11/5/2021 11:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/nyregion/ny-empire-trail.html>
>>>
>>> OMG, this is awful. Couldn't the "vehicular cyclists" somehow have
>>> stopped this boondoggle?
>>
>> It's a MUP, and I kind of doubt it was driven by the mythical
>> transportational cyclists. You're trying to generate heat when
>> there is none. This is about forests and not Forester.
>
> Not at all. As with most MUPs, they are used for both recreation and
> transportation. The American River Bikeway that Jorge keeps writing
> about, the Stevens Creek Trail near me, the Manhattan Greenway, the
> Los Gatos Creek Trail, the San Tomas Aquino Trail, the Coyote Creek
> Trail, are all MUPs used also for transportation.

Didn't read the article, didn't want to create a free account. But, I
have seen the bit that runs along the Erie Canal recently. It is a MUP,
and it is mostly used for recreation. In some of the cities, like
Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse there are bits that might be well used
for daily transportation, but that's not true of most of the trail.

If a person needed to ride a bicycle from Buffalo to Albany for
business, I guess it wouldn't be a bad way to go, but who does that?

jbeattie <jbeattie57@msn.com> writes:

> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:45:32 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>> On 11/5/2021 11:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>> >> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/nyregion/ny-empire-trail.html>
>> >>
>> >> OMG, this is awful. Couldn't the "vehicular cyclists" somehow have
>> >> stopped this boondoggle?
>> >
>> > It's a MUP, and I kind of doubt it was driven by the mythical
>> > transportational cyclists. You're trying to generate heat when
>> > there is none. This is about forests and not Forester.
>> Not at all. As with most MUPs, they are used for both recreation and
>> transportation. The American River Bikeway that Jorge keeps writing
>> about, the Stevens Creek Trail near me, the Manhattan Greenway, the Los
>> Gatos Creek Trail, the San Tomas Aquino Trail, the Coyote Creek Trail,
>> are all MUPs used also for transportation.
>
> I'm sure -- or at least suspect -- the Empire State Trail gets used by
> at least some commuters, but according to the State:
>
> "In 2017, New York State launched the Empire State Trail to promote
> outdoor recreation, encourage healthy lifestyles, support community
> vitality, and bolster tourism-related economic development."
>
> https://empiretrail.ny.gov/ I have no problem with MUPs that are
> linear parks, but unless you live on the MUP or near it, they're more
> or less destinations. They have parking lots.
>
> Your creek trails go through the middle of the densely populated SCV
> and necessarily connect residential and commercial areas, and some
> part of the Empire State Trail probably does the same thing, like
> through Rochester or Albany. It is mostly a park, though -- which is
> fine -- but it doesn't really have much to do with vehicular cycling.
> If you get one foot off the trail on to a normal road, you better know
> how to vehicular cycle.

Parts of it are normal road -- mostly nice, scenic, low traffic road,
but definitely open to motor traffic.

On 11/5/2021 12:58 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

<snip>

> If a person needed to ride a bicycle from Buffalo to Albany for
> business, I guess it wouldn't be a bad way to go, but who does that?

Most of these long MUPs are dual purpose. Recreational use for longer
distances, transportational use for short sections.

In my area there are some MUPs that are primarily transportational
because they're not really very pleasant for recreation when they run
adjacent to a noisy freeway or expressway. The MUP my wife uses to go to
work does get some recreational use but is mainly used for commuting.
Here's a portion of her route <https://goo.gl/maps/6hgNTuxavUdwc4Fc6>.
The San Tomas Aquino Trail goes past Nvidia, Intel, and a bunch of other
companies in Santa Clara, then on to North San Jose with Cisco and other
companies. Prior to the trail's completion it was a very unpleasant
route across U.S. 101 because of busy freeway interchanges.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> On 11/5/2021 12:58 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If a person needed to ride a bicycle from Buffalo to Albany for
>> business, I guess it wouldn't be a bad way to go, but who does that?
>
> Most of these long MUPs are dual purpose. Recreational use for longer
> distances, transportational use for short sections.

There are some likely looking transportation routes in Rochester and
Syracuse, but it looked as though they pre-existed the Empire State
trail, which was routed over them. In some spots there were three
separate nominal bike routes over a single physical trail. Not that
there's anything wrong with that -- a lot of state highways follow
pre-existing roads, not to mention the New York state bicycle routes.

Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
tourists, or because they might come back some day?

> In my area there are some MUPs that are primarily transportational
> because they're not really very pleasant for recreation when they run
> adjacent to a noisy freeway or expressway. The MUP my wife uses to go
> to work does get some recreational use but is mainly used for
> commuting. Here's a portion of her route
> <https://goo.gl/maps/6hgNTuxavUdwc4Fc6>. The San Tomas Aquino Trail
> goes past Nvidia, Intel, and a bunch of other companies in Santa
> Clara, then on to North San Jose with Cisco and other companies. Prior
> to the trail's completion it was a very unpleasant route across
> U.S. 101 because of busy freeway interchanges.
>

--

On 11/7/2021 5:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
>
>> On 11/5/2021 12:58 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If a person needed to ride a bicycle from Buffalo to Albany for
>>> business, I guess it wouldn't be a bad way to go, but who does that?
>>
>> Most of these long MUPs are dual purpose. Recreational use for longer
>> distances, transportational use for short sections.
>
> There are some likely looking transportation routes in Rochester and
> Syracuse, but it looked as though they pre-existed the Empire State
> trail, which was routed over them. In some spots there were three
> separate nominal bike routes over a single physical trail. Not that
> there's anything wrong with that -- a lot of state highways follow
> pre-existing roads, not to mention the New York state bicycle routes.
>
> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.

OMG, the cost of bicycle infrastructure is lost in the noise compared to
the cost of building and maintaining roads for vehicles. The bike route
doesn't even have to be paved, it can be hard pack. In my area there
were usually unpaved access paths for maintenance vehicles to access
creeks and rivers and they just had to be cleared of rocks and
undergrowth, and smoothed out and packed down in order to make them
suitable for bicycles.

If you can do a mode shift of just a couple of percent then it makes
financial sense to use transportation funds for bicycle infrastructure,
and at least in my area that mode shift has taken place.

On 11/7/2021 8:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
> The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
> than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
> all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
> considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
> few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
> tourists, or because they might come back some day?

Similar to that:

Many of the early pleas for rail-trails were portrayed as "rail
banking." The purported rationale was that by turning disused rail
rights-of-way into MUPs, that when the country's train system began
coming back, they could easily lay tracks down again.

I took that to be nonsense. Can you imagine how those same MUP promoters
would squeal if a railroad company tried to take away their linear park?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 11/7/2021 11:04 PM, sms wrote:
>
> If you can do a mode shift of just a couple of percent then it makes
> financial sense to use transportation funds for bicycle infrastructure,
> and at least in my area that mode shift has taken place.

A couple percent?

First, almost no U.S. cities have managed to get bike mode share to rise
two percent. And in some of the few cases where it's happened, it
happened with no new bike infrastructure.

But more to the point: Where's the evidence of "financial sense"? Even
cities with relatively large (for the U.S.) bike mode share still have
massive traffic congestion and the detriments it brings. ISTM that at
the city scale, biking benefits are not really detectable.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 11/7/2021 8:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>
>> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
>> The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
>> than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
>> all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
>> considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
>> few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
>> tourists, or because they might come back some day?
>
> Similar to that:
>
> Many of the early pleas for rail-trails were portrayed as "rail
> banking." The purported rationale was that by turning disused rail
> rights-of-way into MUPs, that when the country's train system began
> coming back, they could easily lay tracks down again.
>
> I took that to be nonsense. Can you imagine how those same MUP
> promoters would squeal if a railroad company tried to take away their
> linear park?

If conditions were right for re-establishing a railway it would
certainly be easier to commandeer a single MUP, squeals or no, than to
acquire multiple properties, probably with buildings on them, to string
together into a right of way. By the same token it's much easier to
convert a continuous railroad right of way to a MUP than it is to
recreate the right of way after it is split up.

Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.

Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 11/7/2021 8:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>
>>> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
>>> The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
>>> than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
>>> all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
>>> considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
>>> few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
>>> tourists, or because they might come back some day?
>>
>> Similar to that:
>>
>> Many of the early pleas for rail-trails were portrayed as "rail
>> banking." The purported rationale was that by turning disused rail
>> rights-of-way into MUPs, that when the country's train system began
>> coming back, they could easily lay tracks down again.
>>
>> I took that to be nonsense. Can you imagine how those same MUP
>> promoters would squeal if a railroad company tried to take away their
>> linear park?
>
> If conditions were right for re-establishing a railway it would
> certainly be easier to commandeer a single MUP, squeals or no, than to
> acquire multiple properties, probably with buildings on them, to string
> together into a right of way. By the same token it's much easier to
> convert a continuous railroad right of way to a MUP than it is to
> recreate the right of way after it is split up.
>
> Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.
>

Certainly in the uk with its old railways most, the villages/towns have
moved from where the line was, or at least the town Center so the value in
re opening is quite low, plus some lines where built for industrial which
has gone.

Roger Merriman

On 11/9/2021 4:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2021 8:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
>>>> The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
>>>> than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
>>>> all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
>>>> considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
>>>> few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
>>>> tourists, or because they might come back some day?
>>>
>>> Similar to that:
>>>
>>> Many of the early pleas for rail-trails were portrayed as "rail
>>> banking." The purported rationale was that by turning disused rail
>>> rights-of-way into MUPs, that when the country's train system began
>>> coming back, they could easily lay tracks down again.
>>>
>>> I took that to be nonsense. Can you imagine how those same MUP
>>> promoters would squeal if a railroad company tried to take away their
>>> linear park?
>>
>> If conditions were right for re-establishing a railway it would
>> certainly be easier to commandeer a single MUP, squeals or no, than to
>> acquire multiple properties, probably with buildings on them, to string
>> together into a right of way. By the same token it's much easier to
>> convert a continuous railroad right of way to a MUP than it is to
>> recreate the right of way after it is split up.
>>
>> Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.
>>
>
> Certainly in the uk with its old railways most, the villages/towns have
> moved from where the line was, or at least the town Center so the value in
> re opening is quite low, plus some lines where built for industrial which
> has gone.

In that case, the argument for MUPs as "rail banking" is not valid.

Don't get me wrong. If society chooses to build linear parks, that's
fine with me (provided they're properly designed).

I'd just like some more honesty - like, paying for them as parks, not
pretending a path from nowhere to nowhere is a transportation facility
deserving transportation funding.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 11/9/2021 4:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 11/7/2021 8:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
>>>>> The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
>>>>> than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
>>>>> all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
>>>>> considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
>>>>> few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
>>>>> tourists, or because they might come back some day?
>>>>
>>>> Similar to that:
>>>>
>>>> Many of the early pleas for rail-trails were portrayed as "rail
>>>> banking." The purported rationale was that by turning disused rail
>>>> rights-of-way into MUPs, that when the country's train system began
>>>> coming back, they could easily lay tracks down again.
>>>>
>>>> I took that to be nonsense. Can you imagine how those same MUP
>>>> promoters would squeal if a railroad company tried to take away their
>>>> linear park?
>>>
>>> If conditions were right for re-establishing a railway it would
>>> certainly be easier to commandeer a single MUP, squeals or no, than to
>>> acquire multiple properties, probably with buildings on them, to string
>>> together into a right of way. By the same token it's much easier to
>>> convert a continuous railroad right of way to a MUP than it is to
>>> recreate the right of way after it is split up.
>>>
>>> Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.
>>>
>>
>> Certainly in the uk with its old railways most, the villages/towns have
>> moved from where the line was, or at least the town Center so the value in
>> re opening is quite low, plus some lines where built for industrial which
>> has gone.
>
> In that case, the argument for MUPs as "rail banking" is not valid.
>
> Don't get me wrong. If society chooses to build linear parks, that's
> fine with me (provided they're properly designed).
>
> I'd just like some more honesty - like, paying for them as parks, not
> pretending a path from nowhere to nowhere is a transportation facility
> deserving transportation funding.
>
>
One local to my folks certainly had the idea of commuter which all the
locals said very unlikely particularly since a number of the access roads
are sufficiently steep that a car is in 1st gear so the idea that folks are
going to ride up the the old railway to ride into either town is not
probable.

And this can be seen as the folks you meet are mostly dog walkers and
leisure riders which is fine, though not what was or is the claimed for the
route as it’s a national cycle network.

Roger Merriman.

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 2:35:56 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 11/9/2021 4:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/7/2021 8:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
> >>>>> The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
> >>>>> than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
> >>>>> all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
> >>>>> considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
> >>>>> few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
> >>>>> tourists, or because they might come back some day?
> >>>>
> >>>> Similar to that:
> >>>>
> >>>> Many of the early pleas for rail-trails were portrayed as "rail
> >>>> banking." The purported rationale was that by turning disused rail
> >>>> rights-of-way into MUPs, that when the country's train system began
> >>>> coming back, they could easily lay tracks down again.
> >>>>
> >>>> I took that to be nonsense. Can you imagine how those same MUP
> >>>> promoters would squeal if a railroad company tried to take away their
> >>>> linear park?
> >>>
> >>> If conditions were right for re-establishing a railway it would
> >>> certainly be easier to commandeer a single MUP, squeals or no, than to
> >>> acquire multiple properties, probably with buildings on them, to string
> >>> together into a right of way. By the same token it's much easier to
> >>> convert a continuous railroad right of way to a MUP than it is to
> >>> recreate the right of way after it is split up.
> >>>
> >>> Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Certainly in the uk with its old railways most, the villages/towns have
> >> moved from where the line was, or at least the town Center so the value in
> >> re opening is quite low, plus some lines where built for industrial which
> >> has gone.
> >
> > In that case, the argument for MUPs as "rail banking" is not valid.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. If society chooses to build linear parks, that's
> > fine with me (provided they're properly designed).
> >
> > I'd just like some more honesty - like, paying for them as parks, not
> > pretending a path from nowhere to nowhere is a transportation facility
> > deserving transportation funding.
> >
> >
> One local to my folks certainly had the idea of commuter which all the
> locals said very unlikely particularly since a number of the access roads
> are sufficiently steep that a car is in 1st gear so the idea that folks are
> going to ride up the the old railway to ride into either town is not
> probable.
>
> And this can be seen as the folks you meet are mostly dog walkers and
> leisure riders which is fine, though not what was or is the claimed for the
> route as it’s a national cycle network.
>
> Roger Merriman.

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 2:35:56 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 11/9/2021 4:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/7/2021 8:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
> >>>>> The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
> >>>>> than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
> >>>>> all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
> >>>>> considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
> >>>>> few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
> >>>>> tourists, or because they might come back some day?
> >>>>
> >>>> Similar to that:
> >>>>
> >>>> Many of the early pleas for rail-trails were portrayed as "rail
> >>>> banking." The purported rationale was that by turning disused rail
> >>>> rights-of-way into MUPs, that when the country's train system began
> >>>> coming back, they could easily lay tracks down again.
> >>>>
> >>>> I took that to be nonsense. Can you imagine how those same MUP
> >>>> promoters would squeal if a railroad company tried to take away their
> >>>> linear park?
> >>>
> >>> If conditions were right for re-establishing a railway it would
> >>> certainly be easier to commandeer a single MUP, squeals or no, than to
> >>> acquire multiple properties, probably with buildings on them, to string
> >>> together into a right of way. By the same token it's much easier to
> >>> convert a continuous railroad right of way to a MUP than it is to
> >>> recreate the right of way after it is split up.
> >>>
> >>> Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Certainly in the uk with its old railways most, the villages/towns have
> >> moved from where the line was, or at least the town Center so the value in
> >> re opening is quite low, plus some lines where built for industrial which
> >> has gone.
> >
> > In that case, the argument for MUPs as "rail banking" is not valid.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. If society chooses to build linear parks, that's
> > fine with me (provided they're properly designed).
> >
> > I'd just like some more honesty - like, paying for them as parks, not
> > pretending a path from nowhere to nowhere is a transportation facility
> > deserving transportation funding.
> >
> >
> One local to my folks certainly had the idea of commuter which all the
> locals said very unlikely particularly since a number of the access roads
> are sufficiently steep that a car is in 1st gear so the idea that folks are
> going to ride up the the old railway to ride into either town is not
> probable.
>
> And this can be seen as the folks you meet are mostly dog walkers and
> leisure riders which is fine, though not what was or is the claimed for the
> route as it’s a national cycle network.
I certainly wouldn't mind dog walkers and people exercising if they would remember that a bike trail means that there are bikes on the trail and walking four abreast across the trail is not good faith.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 2:35:56 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2021 4:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Radey Shouman <sho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/7/2021 8:08 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bike trails aren't the only questionable use of transportation funds.
>>>>>>> The Erie canal itself, although it should in theory be cheaper transport
>>>>>>> than either truck or rail, didn't seem to have any barge traffic at
>>>>>>> all. Maybe I just missed it. Clearly the canal is still maintained at
>>>>>>> considerable expense, but the only vessels using the locks seemed to be a
>>>>>>> few tourist boats. Do they maintain the canals out of nostalgia, for
>>>>>>> tourists, or because they might come back some day?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similar to that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many of the early pleas for rail-trails were portrayed as "rail
>>>>>> banking." The purported rationale was that by turning disused rail
>>>>>> rights-of-way into MUPs, that when the country's train system began
>>>>>> coming back, they could easily lay tracks down again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took that to be nonsense. Can you imagine how those same MUP
>>>>>> promoters would squeal if a railroad company tried to take away their
>>>>>> linear park?
>>>>>
>>>>> If conditions were right for re-establishing a railway it would
>>>>> certainly be easier to commandeer a single MUP, squeals or no, than to
>>>>> acquire multiple properties, probably with buildings on them, to string
>>>>> together into a right of way. By the same token it's much easier to
>>>>> convert a continuous railroad right of way to a MUP than it is to
>>>>> recreate the right of way after it is split up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Certainly in the uk with its old railways most, the villages/towns have
>>>> moved from where the line was, or at least the town Center so the value in
>>>> re opening is quite low, plus some lines where built for industrial which
>>>> has gone.
>>>
>>> In that case, the argument for MUPs as "rail banking" is not valid.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong. If society chooses to build linear parks, that's
>>> fine with me (provided they're properly designed).
>>>
>>> I'd just like some more honesty - like, paying for them as parks, not
>>> pretending a path from nowhere to nowhere is a transportation facility
>>> deserving transportation funding.
>>>
>>>
>> One local to my folks certainly had the idea of commuter which all the
>> locals said very unlikely particularly since a number of the access roads
>> are sufficiently steep that a car is in 1st gear so the idea that folks are
>> going to ride up the the old railway to ride into either town is not
>> probable.
>>
>> And this can be seen as the folks you meet are mostly dog walkers and
>> leisure riders which is fine, though not what was or is the claimed for the
>> route as it’s a national cycle network.
> I certainly wouldn't mind dog walkers and people exercising if they would
> remember that a bike trail means that there are bikes on the trail and
> walking four abreast across the trail is not good faith.
>
It’s pretty quiet to be honest for various reasons so while you will get
family groups and what not.

And being twin track is quite wide in places, though the amount that is
tarmac can be narrow. Or non existent. But generally I’d not expect to meet
anyone when I use it to meet a friend up the top of the valley.

Roger Merriman.