I love Copenhagen. They have two tiered sidewalks. One for bikes and one for people! genius! Their trainstation has more parking for bikes than for cars! I especially love the 3 wheeled bikes with the giant baskets between the two in the front. I saw a woman biking her groceries home in one of those. I don't understand why I've never seen such simple technology anywhere else.

I live in LA. The roads are almost designed to discourage biking...I don't see bike paths ANYWHERE! Maybe in neighborhoods, but that's not where we need them!

Most people in the US are not bright enough to use a path for walking and a path for cycling. I simply do not have much faith in the average American these days.

Countless times in Boulder, Colorado I have seen people walking in the bike lane of the street, only to be passed on the sidewalk by someone riding their bike.

On the Boulder Creek path, people walk 4 across, blocking the entire path, meanwhile, countless Lance Armstron "wannabes" zip down the path at 30mph. Occasionally the two groups meet in a disaster.

One of my most striking memories from a brief visit to amsterdam, netherlands, was seeing a stylish mother on a bicycle with three of her children on board! no mini van or gianormous suv needed. unfortunately, most of our cities aren't designed to encourage such behavior.

Down here in Panama City, Panama, forget about it... No risk of snow, that's for sure. But try getting on your bike in the City and surviving for even 5 minutes...

I love bike paths. But please do not confuse roadside bike paths with unwanted and intrusive plans to bisect people's backyards and pave existing nature areas (rails to trails for example). Multiply the width X length of a planned paved path and ask if you really want to pave X square acres with asphalt.

I feel that it is worth it along roads where there is already a drainage plan. It is not good at all to convert (for example) raised rail beds. And you can be in the unneighborly situation of forcing people with 'back yards' to have both a sidewalk in front of AND in back of their once nice property. Please exercise some common human kindness and simple courtesy and take the time to look at and discuss the plans with those affected.

Think of the cost to the environment vs. your fun. There is a lot of nature on the unused rail bed, they are used by deer and other animals and there are hundreds of life supporting plants in just a few dozen feet. Paving stops the rain from going into the ground and there is also a lot of tree destruction required for both the path and what is needed for the machinery to do the path construction and maintenence.

Go sit and be still on one of them for an hour or so then ask if you want to pave paradice just to make it freindly for wheels
.
Please see the distinction between roadside bike paths (good) and bringing more destruction into nature (bad) when pushing or supporting these projects.

Whipple, you get no sympathy from me. Whenever presenting bike path options to the public, we include the thousands of Real Estate Ads that we find that use "near multi-use bike path" or "connects directly to such-and-such corridor" as a selling point.

Of course, I come from a city (Portland) where biking is not just a recreational thing or limited to the economically disadvantaged: it's a major commute option, and luckily folks in this region are able to look outside the box about impervious surfaces, connections between land use, and (oh my gosh) having a mixed-use path behind their backyard.

Whipps, you state, "Think of the cost to the environment vs. your fun. There is a lot of nature on the unused rail bed, they are used by deer and other animals and there are hundreds of life supporting plants in just a few dozen feet."

You have a point, but in the same way you implore those us to think of more than one side, it should also be pointed out that without a bike path, many of those who would not otherwise appreciate nature, will.

And besides that, I wonder what life was like when the railroad came rumbling through? (Or what it was when those railroads had accidents -- as they sometimes did -- and forced entire towns to evacuate.) While having a sidewalk both in front and back might seem at first hearing sort of crowded, it isn't any different than what many people have in suburbs or towns already. Often there is an alley behind houses for automobile access (read: fumes, noise etc.), as well as a street in front AND a sidewalk.

Lastly, the more folks that walk and ride bikes there are (and the more there will be if people support rails-to-trails) the less likely that street in front of your house is going to be widened to accommodate auto traffic, taking yet more of your land away.

Yes -- people should be more sensitive, but the only way sometimes is via an intelligent compromise. (For that matter, I'd love to go back 35 years and try to change history so that this kind of dilemma wouldn't even happen.)

To conclude, I think the only real way we're going to ease our own rapacious consumption in US cities is to build elevated bike ways all over the place. Let's pray for that!

Whipps, you state, "Think of the cost to the environment vs. your fun. There is a lot of nature on the unused rail bed, they are used by deer and other animals and there are hundreds of life supporting plants in just a few dozen feet."

You have a point, but in the same way you implore those us to think of more than one side, it should also be pointed out that without a bike path, many of those who would not otherwise appreciate nature, will. And in so appreciating nature, they may very well be less inclined to support more highways, big box stores etc. that destroy deer and other wild habitat.

And besides that, I wonder what life was like when the railroad came rumbling through? (Or what it was when those railroads had accidents -- as they sometimes did -- and forced entire towns to evacuate due to spilled toxic chemicals.) While having a sidewalk both in front and back might seem at first thought as a sort of boxed-in, it isn't any different than what many people have in suburbs or towns already. Often there is an alley behind houses for automobile access (read: fumes, noise etc.), as well as a street AND sidewalk already in front.

Lastly, the more folks that walk on such trails, or ride bikes (and the more there will be if people support rails-to-trails) the less likely that the street in front of your house is going to be widened to accommodate more auto traffic, which will take yet more of precious land away and cause even more pollution and noise..

Yes -- people should be more sensitive and consider other options if possible, but the only way is sometimes via an intelligent compromise. (For that matter, I'd love to go back 35 years and try to change history so that this kind of dilemma wouldn't even happen.)

To conclude, I think the only real way we're going to ease our own rapacious consumption in US cities is to build elevated bike-ways all over the place. Let's pray for that!

One of your previous commentators mentioned seeing a stylish mother of three cycling in Amsterdam with her kids.

On my last visit to that same, wonderful city, a lasting impression was made by some guy on a bike, cycling along with a bookcase on his back.

The thing that so impressed me was not that he was doing this, but that he made it look so easy!!

Obviously, the Dutch have cycling in their genes!

One of your previous commentators mentioned seeing a stylish mother of three cycling in Amsterdam with her kids.

On my last visit to that same, wonderful city, a lasting impression was made by some guy on a bike, cycling along with a bookcase on his back.

The thing that so impressed me was not that he was doing this, but that he made it look so easy!!

Obviously, the Dutch have cycling in their genes!

to react on Josh V´s first comment:

"I don't understand why I've never seen such simple technology anywhere else."

Neither do I. There is a reason for riding bicycles rather than cars coming out from the natural way of Danes´ life, as I see it. It is routine, unforced and spontaneous way of transport, a part of their everyday life.
I had lived in Aalborg, Denmark for ten months. Nearly a paradise for those who prefer to ride a bike (or to walk). I have observed that Danes do not ride bicycles because somebody tells "cycling is good for you" to them on TV, they ride because it is obviously the best way to move around. I would say they all know what is good for them and they see no reason to act any other way.
It is much easier to develop, preserve and improve this kind of transport in cities as long citizens has such approach to the lifestyle, to the public transport in particular. And that is why it is so difficult in regions where people do not have such habits.

Until our leadership here in America values bicycles nothing will change. I live in a small town where I would gladly bicycle to and from work but b/c I have a 3 year old child to move to schoola nd back as well, I would never consider mixing my bike with our traffic.

I surely wish they would split the town with a bike path down the middle where I only had to mix with cars a few times (crossing streets).