Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

−12

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.

8

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.

1

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.

1