Ed.

I'm a member of the Town's Conservation Commission (we're responsible, primarily, for wetlands protection). A party has come before us proposing to construct a multi-user path, of about 1000 feet. The proponent's proposal indicates a 10'-wide surface of packed stone dust, with shoulders of 1 to 2 feet on both sides. This 'path' is to be constructed through a wooded area with several vernal pools and wetlands.

I am not a user of 'bike paths', but I have heard stories of conflicts between different user groups (bicycles, walkers, runners, horses, etc). I guess my question is whether a wide surface reduces or exacerbates inter-user issues. From my perspective this isn't a path, and it certainly isn't at all like the areas where we walk/hike.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts/experiences.

Ed

boattail71

Ed, I'm confused. If this path is only 1000 feet, I'm assuming it's a woody, scenic path within a neighborhood whereby only a select group would use it. This would be unlike a many-mile long path/trail through the town where all city commuters might use it. Correct? If so, how do you imagine a conflict with so few users?

Or, do I not understand? Is this path connecting highly populated areas whereby it would be used by many more commuters?

Set me straight.

In my town, there are certain sections of high-use path where cyclists are encouraged to slow down. Ultimately, self policing of all trail users seems to work ok lest we read rancorous letters to the editor in our paper.

Marcus_Ti

Entirely is dependent on how much throughput of traffic you expect.

When people jog/walk in packs (2+) they almost always (95% of the time around here IME) jog side by side spread wide across both directions of travel strangling both directions of traffic. And the workout groupies almost always have earbuds in so they are completely oblivious...and what starts out on an MUT with 10' width with plenty of room...becomes a traffic contest of idiots with earbuds in their ears cranked so loud they wouldn't even hear a jet aircraft landing in front of them. And god forbid they do hear you say "on your left", because the 1st thing 90% of them do will be move over to their left.


Yea I'm a bit jaded when it comes to multi-use paths. I'm amazed most people using them live from day to day with how oblivious to the world around them they are.

Wanderer

An MUP is a highway ----- just like the cellphone drivers on other roads. No difference.

Yes, there will be conflicts, but they will get worked out.

Machka 

1000 feet (0.19 miles?? 300 metres??) is a walkway ... not a place to allow cyclists or horses.

Or does it connect to a cycleway of some sort?

jputnam

Former planning commissioner and park board member, now city council member, with a bit of experience on these issues since our town has been working on completing a trail network for decades...

Does the proposed path connect anything to anything else? For such a short path, you're most likely to see user conflicts if it's a through route for fast riders going elsewhere.

Surface matters -- a crushed stone surface won't attract the fastest road riders, and if it's smooth, it will be too boring for fast mountain bikers. That would tend to reduce conflicts.

What traffic volumes do you expect for pedestrians, horses, bikes?

Note that Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655.603 states that the MUTCD is the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel. Also consider disabled access requirements, any applicable state or local engineering standards, etc. If you do allow the path to be constructed, don't allow them to make it up as they go along. Complying with design standards makes it safer, makes the rules clearer to users, and reduces your potential liability exposure.

Dave Horne

Over here I will see a sign to clear up any confusion. Typically I'll see a sign like this ...

Still Pedaling

1000' - why would anyone waste their time riding a bike on it. A walkway yes, but a bike path? It should be designated as a walkway only.

alathIN

I would hate to see this kind of thing in my town. There are lots of short stretches of MUP that connect different neighborhoods or different trail systems. Putting up barriers to cycle travel only makes things more difficult for cyclists.

I use MUPs a lot and much of my commute would be difficult/dangerous/impossible without them.
As a cyclist you do have to adopt an MUP-compatible attitude. You can't go out on a MUP on your road bike and expect to ride fast and hard with no interruptions. If you have a specific fitness goal or speed/distance in mind, you have to go somewhere else.

Still Pedaling

If they connect, yes. The OP wasn't sure, as he was just making assumptions. So my assumption is that if it was a 1000' path by itself then it would serve better as a walkway.

okane

Without getting into the issue of trail length (1000’ is way too short for bicycle users unless it connects to other venues), I would add the following comments.

In over 20 years of riding our MUP (York County PA Rail Trail) I’ve experienced only 2 negative instances/conflicts, only one of which I viewed as serious. (An asshat at what had to be in excess of 25 mph passing by a trail entrance/trail side restaurant....I was about to enter the trail and was waiting for him to pass and he came within about 3 inches of hitting me even though I was off the trail. I shudder to think of what might have happened had a family with a couple of kids just entered the trail in from of me.)

The trail has numerous signs indicating walkers have the right of way which I (and apparently others) interpret to mean that if I hit someone, it will be considered my fault regardless. Without getting into a legal debate about contributory negligence, etc., I ride accordingly. (Note: as a former driver education teacher, we called it defensive driving)

However I don't think that such thoughts are foremost in users minds because almost everyone (riders, walkers, horseback riders) seem to me to be universally polite. Joggers usually go to single file as I approach, cyclists overtaking me usually announce their intent, etc. I call it the York County mindset.

It is difficult to legislate or enforce regulations unless users have the right attitude. MUPS are not race courses nor are they owned by walkers who have the right to take up the whole trail!

Therefore if I was "starting" or operating a trail, my focus would be on educating potential users. Signs, especially at railheads and entrances, brochures, local media announcements, websites, etc. would all stress courtesy and universal usage.

Secondly, for the chipped stone base, I hate it.....dusty, washes out easily, and can sometimes be downright nasty when it gathers in piles at trail edges. Would prefer paved trail, and of course wider trail means less conflicts, but there is a financial issue for both of these that may be a problem.

Were I you, I would visit as many trails as possible see what others are doing. Walk some, get a bike a ride some, and talk to users and operators. No need to reinvent the wheel here, just judicious use of information that is already available.

Our trail is truly an exceptional recreational facility. We now have a live steam trail operating alongside the trail and moon light rides are frequently scheduled.

You can find info about the trail on the net, https://yorkcountypa.gov/parks-recre...rail-park.html and if you get into our area I would be glad to show you the trail or ride a bit of it with you. (FYI—I’m not officially affiliated with the trail, just a satisfied user.)

Good luck with your endeavor.

Ed.

Hi,

Thanks for all your comments - I've a party coming momentarily for a tutoring session; I'll attempt to answer questions, later.

Thank you!

welshTerrier2

Hi Ed.

Let me state that I live in a nearby town. Let me also state that MUP's are one of the many holy wars here on the bike forums. I'm sure you'll get plenty of good information by posting here but I think you can do much, much better by making your own observations in the field.

You want to see how bike riders, skaters, walkers, dog walkers, moms with strollers and others get along on MUPs? There are two very nearby places you can go where you can answer your own question.

The first place you could go, and I recommend this because it is being built with a gravel and packed stone dust surface, is the Holliston section of the Upper Charles Trail. If you're not a bike rider, go there and take a walk on a nice, sunny weekend day. This weekend looks like perfect weather, btw. The trail starts right next to the CVS at 101 Central St in Holliston.

Trails like the one proposed in Hopkinton offer many benefits far beyond what many are able to envision. Check out this article about Holliston's trail: New Year's Eve Lantern Walk - Holliston Reporter. Make sure you read the comments at the end of the article too. That should give you all the feedback you need about the benefits a multi-use path can bring to a community. Think outside the box.

The second place you could visit is the paved Milford section of the Upper Charles Trail. From downtown Hopkinton (at the light at Rt 135 and Rt 85), go exactly 3 miles south on Rt 85 until you see the "Entering Milford" sign. The car parking lot is immediately after that on the left. Park your car, take a walk, ask people for feedback about the trail.

A group called the Friends of the Upper Charles Trail has embarked on a very ambitious plan to build a twenty-seven mile multi-use path through the towns of Milford, Holliston, Sherborn, Ashland, Hopkinton and then back to Milford. As a regional resource, the trail will provide almost unlimited potential for recreation, transportation, community-building, economic development, inter-community cooperation and many other benefits.

Sure, what's a little 1000-foot section really going to accomplish? It's just one link in a much larger chain. Hopkinton is a critical link in a regional chain. These paths have to start somewhere.

I've ridden hundreds of miles on these paths this year with my bike club. We met other bike riders. We met dog walkers even including a local pit bull club. We met one guy who uses a canoe paddle to propel himself along on a skate board. The guy is as fast as many bike riders. We met picnickers. We met leaf peepers. We met parents teaching their kids how to ride a bike or how to rollerblade. We even met people who were fishing. Some of these people have become friends and some of them have even joined our bike club.

I'll tell you what I've never seen ... not even once: a conflict between trail users no matter what mode of travel they were using. Not even once.

Please feel free to send me a private message if you want more information.

Fargo Wolf

10' is a good width. Normally, packed stone dust (need clarification as to what that is, but would hazard a guess that it's fine gravel about 3/4" in size). The problem I see is with the equestrians. Horseshoes will chew the trail surface up, so that's one issue that needs to be considered. Also, there is the potential for cyclists spooking horseback riders.* Pedestrians will go wherever, unfortunately. Cyclists already know this and SHOULD slow right down and give a warning that they are approaching from behind. Either with a bell, or a friendly "Look out behind you."** which I use.

Could be a path connecting two areas. I ride a 6' wide MUP of similar length most of the time.

I've seen similar in Vancouver, Canada. They "mostly" work, but that doesn't stop pedestrians/joggers from using the cycling portion of the path, or cyclists from the pedestrian part of the path.

*When approaching horseback riders traveling in the opposite direction, STOP and get off your bike and wait for the riders to pass. If approaching horseback riders from behind, call out to the rearmost rider (if more than one) that you are approaching and wait for the rider to give the OK to pass. If the riders stop, get off your bike and walk past. If they don't stop, ask for them to stop and explain that you're less likely to spook the horses that way.

**NEVER use "Passing on left/right. Pedestrians WILL step in the direction you're passing on.

Ed.

There is currently a trail of a mile plus in length, on a RR bed. This path runs into, and ends, on the grounds of the town's school complex (3 schools, 4th - 12th grade). I've never been on the existing path, and I don't know exactly where it comes out on the school grounds. Presumably one can make one's way to the internal roadways, and eventually come to the point near the 4th and 5th grade school where the new trail would commence. This new, 1000 ft trail would terminate on a street that interconnects with a quite substantial subdivision that has to have at least 100 houses. I have no idea how many of those households have children that would be allowed/encouraged to go to school under their own power (it's hard for me to believe, but it could be 3 plus miles from the furthest house in the subdivision to the school.)

As for the RR bed, it's been abandoned for so long that many whose property backed up to it have been using it as their own for probably over 100 years, meaning the likelihood of the trail being continued is pretty remote.

Stone dust is very fine, and packs pretty firmly, but the design and construction is critical to its lasting.

Given the location of this trail, it's not likely to see hoofed traffic, mostly pedestrian and wheeled I suspect. ATVs and dirtbikes are a bit of a concern, but given the location I think anyone using them would stand a good chance of getting caught. I'm still uncomfortable with its width - making it more like an Interstate Hiway than a wooded path, but it looks like I'll have to live with that.

Thanks for your comments and thoughts.

no1mad 

I was waiting for a bit more info before chiming in.

As this proposed trail is to go through a conservation district, I think that the design of the trail needs to be re-thought. Because of the woods, having a continuous 10' wide main trail w/2' shoulders may mean that some of the trees may need to be removed.

The River Parks trail system in Tulsa was recently upgraded to a twin trail system- one for bikes, one for everyone else- and they are divided when possible and come together when space is tight on either side. In other words, two narrower tracks should have less of an impact/issue weaving through the woods.

Machka 

Go ride the area. Cycle up and down the streets. Ride on whatever paths may exist. Find out where the path comes out. Get a good feel for the area. Also observe the people in the area. Are they currently riding bicycles? Walking?


One of my pet peeves with "planners" is that they often don't know the area. They aren't familiar with the existing roads and paths. They haven't gone out and walked and cycled throughout the area. They haven't observed what the people are currently doing.

spdracr39

Unless it is a connector cyclists won't bother using it so you will have no issues.

Ed.

I've found a map!



You'll note that at the top the path ends at a numbered road, at a not very good intersection at or near the top of a significant hill (which limits visibility), on the side of the road not served by a sidewalk, nor is there any sort of pedestrian crossing. I'm guessing that qualifies as 'poor planning'! (but not atypical, I suspect, for rail trails, most people will stop for a train)

The other end, below the school fields, is the portion in question. That section will end in a residential area, as opposed to the northerly end, which isn't a 'neighborhood', but nothing to do with my questions and concerns about the proposed addition.

Ed.

I am 'familiar' with the referenced trails, tho as one who rides sew-ups, I've not actually graced them with my bike . I understand their potential for community building, etc. Given the constraints I've mentioned I don't see this trail ever being extended beyond the southerly proposed termination. I don't object to the extension by any means, but I do believe it could be done in a more sensitive way that would also be less 'Interstate' like. Certainly my preference would be for something akin to the trails around Lake Whitehall - unimproved, tho I realize, from a community perspective, there are issues related to that, too!

welshTerrier2

Hi Ed.

Thanks for the map. It makes things much easier to understand.

I'm not sure why you think the southern end of the proposed trail can't be extended. While I have absolutely no knowledge about the topography of the area and I have no idea what if any extension might be under consideration, it seems to me that this could be a great way to link the schools to the Upper Charles Trail and to downtown Hopkinton.

Looking at Google Earth, would it be possible to extend the trail west just before you reach the residences on Chamberlain St? Then you could turn to the south past Teresa Rd and Alexander Rd. Next, you could turn east between Daniel Rd and Greystone Lane and then cross Granite St (your first road crossing) near S. Barn Rd. From there, you could go around Echo Lake either on the west side or the east side. Finally, you could cross Cedar St (your second road crossing) where a light would need to be added just north of the end of Jacob Ln (or even just south of Jacob Ln). This would enter the Upper Charles Trail parking lot in Milford.

The spirit of MUP's is to welcome all modes of transport including bicycles. When you raise objections to "Interstate-like" trails, the effect is to discriminate against many bicycle riders. If I recall correctly, that area of Route 85 does not have sidewalks. Last year, a 13 year old boy was killed there. Providing trails that connect schools to a prominent multi-use path provides many benefits to the community not the least of which is providing safer means of transport for kids in the schools.

As for the northern end, and again I have no idea if there are plans to go beyond the proposed 1000 foot trail, it would be great to link the schools and the Upper Charles Trail to Hopkinton State Park.

Anyway ... just thinking out loud. Thanks for reading.

Update: I just looked at this area on Mapquest and you can see what I assume is the entire rail trail that does, indeed, reach the parking lot for the Upper Charles Trail. The trail more or less parallels Route 85.

Ed.

While the rail bed does continue, the issue, as I understand it, is that over the years since the RR was abandoned, abutters have 'taken over' portions of the rail bed. I am not up to date on the particulars, but have read and heard comments in that regard. Further, a trail on a RR bed doesn't involve the issues of crossing a nicely wooded area with several vernal pools, etc.

Shayne was killed while crossing Rt 85. Even if this discussed extension were in place, he still would have had to cross 85 to get to his house.

It may, indeed, be possible to put some sort of trail connecting the northern terminus of the current trail to Hopkinton State Park. It would, however, involve crossing a busy road at a way less than optimal location. Once past the property on the northerly side of Rt 135, there would seem the potential as the land is open, but once down grade the land becomes very wet.

I've mentioned I have several issues with 'Bike Paths', the primary one is concern that when bike paths exist, bicyclists will be banned from streets. Those who've ridden on Nantucket may well have experienced this. I've not been back, and it was a long time ago, but being forced to ride our 753 Team bikes on a bumpy bike path was why we turned about and left Nantucket earlier than we'd planned.

welshTerrier2

Yeah, I was worried that it might be wet on the north side of Route 135. I wonder whether that trail could cross at the existing traffic light near Hopkinton Lumber.

I hear what you're saying about forcing cyclists off the road. Truthfully, though, I'm not worried about the issue. MassDot has really been pushing a "complete streets" policy. They've set an ambitious goal for the year 2030 (I think) that calls for 30% (I think) of trips to be via walking, biking or mass transit.

As for the Upper Charles Trail, it appears that things are really starting to roll on the regional vision. Milford's "missing link" is scheduled to be finished on October 25. Holliston has built substantial parts of their piece from the end of the Milford Trail into downtown Holliston. I believe Sherborn has control over the land they plan to build a trail on although I don't know the status of the trail itself. Ashland just formed an Upper Charles Trail Committee and received a $4 million funding "commitment" in the recent Environmental Bond Bill. I worry about Hopkinton, though. Things seem very quiet there. Hopefully, that will change.

no motor?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the problems that come from people from different cultures using the same path. My old route to work took me along a bike path that was located between some large groups of apartments. I often saw people clinging to their left hand side of the pathway as they came towards me, and I often wondered if they had learned to keep left growing up in one of the many other countries where they keep left instead of right while driving as they looked like they were aware of what they were doing and looked like they thought I was the one on the wrong side.