bmore t1_iqw3lh4 wrote
Reply to comment by roccoccoSafredi in Linking Jones Falls, NCR trails would create a protected bike path from the Inner Harbor into Pennsylvania. A study is proposed. by finsterallen
>In a city with such huge struggles, is funding recreation stuff like this really a smart priority? >
This is a county study. The city trail already goes to within yards of Lake Roland.
>How many more busses could the money for this buy? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many bus shelters could be built? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many more fare inspectors could be hired for the light rail? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many more repair personnel could be hired for the school system? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>I'd think those are all far more pressing and useful needs than linking some recreational trails up.
The economic benefits of linking trails up is discussed in the article, and they are far greater than the cost (which is, as noted, paid for with restricted funds for biking that would otherwise go to other jurisdictions).
> >Don't get me wrong, it'd be a nice thing, but in the list of regional priorities, it just seems odd to focus on unless some compelling opportunity exists for it (like a rail line who's right of way would be needed for it is being abandoned).
As outlined in the piece, the abandoned ROW of the NCR extends further south than the trail does now, and is then utilized by the light rail, which has adjacent unused ROW. The compelling opportunity you want to exist...exists.
bOhsohard t1_iqwf7cq wrote
damn bro, why'd you have to go and read the article? i just want to make reactionary complaints based off of misreading the title 😡
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwlfm9 wrote
Ok, in that case... does it make sense to have funds restricted for bikeways existing, and if it does, does it make sense to use that money for something purely recreational?
Also, I am well aware of the RoW of the original NCR. I think the biggest challenge there is, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is going to be colocating it with the Light Rail's RoW. Much of that right of way was originally acquired in the 1840s so it's not nearly as generous as former railroad rights of way that came later (and had provisions for multiple tracks and access roads). It's a tight squeeze as it already is, and I'm not sure how pleasant of a ride it'll be with a chain link fence between riders and 50mph light rail trains.
bmore t1_iqxc1k7 wrote
If you want to repeal the Maryland Bikeways program that was passed through the House of Delegates 136-0 and the Senate 45-0, go for it!
I don't really see it as purely recreational. With the mileage between stops on the light rail a colocated trail could be a tremendous first and last mile connector between stations and employment and housing.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqxcpcr wrote
You know, from that perspective (the first/last mile thing), I think it makes WAY more sense!
That's the type of thing I think is most useful from something like this, much more so than a trail across Cockeysville.
TerranceBaggz t1_iqywp37 wrote
Trails like this aren’t purely recreational. The Bay Area has one that goes like 30 miles out into the exurbs. People use it to bike to their jobs in downtown SF and Oakland all the time. I’ve biked parts of it and seen people biking to and from work on it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments