advertisement

Route K bike lane gets mixed reviews at public hearing

Thursday, July 7, 2011 | 9:57 p.m. CDT; updated 10:25 p.m. CDT, Thursday, July 7, 2011

COLUMBIA — The bicycle lane construction project along Route K received mixed reviews from residents at a public hearing sponsored by the Missouri Department of Transportation on Thursday evening.

Bob Jany, transportation project designer for MoDOT, said the state is set to begin the $2 million project around April of next year and is aiming to finish in September.

MoreStory


Related Media

Related Articles

“It’s going to be a one year project,” Jany said.

The 7-mile construction along Route K will take place from its intersection with Missouri 163 to the Katy Trail in McBaine. The shoulders of the road will be marked as bike lanes with symbols. The road will remain open during the entire process.

Some residents in attendance voiced mixed opinions.

Richard Basnett, 69, who has lived in the Rock Bridge area his entire life, said he is glad to see any improvements for bicyclists' safety. He said he used to ride a bike on Route K when he was young, recalling that there wasn't as much traffic then.

“But now, it’s a thousand times more (traffic)," Basnett said. "I’d just like to see it safer for everybody.”   

Martha and Paul Sabo, who also live in the Rock Bridge area, said they are worried about the project’s commercial purpose.

“I think it’s great publicity, but I like the size of this city now,” Martha Sabo said.

Project Manager Trent Brooks said that the $2 million allotted for the construction will be used solely for the bike lane project and that resurfacing Route K will require additional funds.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Louis Schneebaum July 7, 2011 | 11:42 p.m.

Who's the super spandex jock with connections @ MoDOT? I've ridden my bike to the same destination, using the MKT trail, a thousand times -- it's a great way to get down there, if you're so inclined.

In other words, there's already a bicycle conduit to/from Columbia down to the River. Why is this necessary? That portion of Rt. K is just a big hill, only spandex jockos use that. There is absolutely NO need for it, and this is coming from someone who rides their bike EVERY day and leaves their car PARKED, not one of these guys in tights, dressed up like rainbows.

Two million bucks? Spend it on something we need, not a redundant trail for weekender bike-jocks.

(Report Comment)
Bill Fisher July 8, 2011 | 3:56 a.m.

Louis, I ride my bike along there occasionally, and I'm not covered in spandex. Even if I was, what would that change? MKT is a great way to get to McBaine, but it's not the best way for a road bike, considering it's gravel. The city has spent plenty of money on tennis courts, baseball fields, etc., so a couple million on this project really isn't out of hand. Besides, it'll get us out of your way, so how is that not a good thing? Don't waste your entire life hating people who have different hobbies than you.

(Report Comment)
Bob Hill July 8, 2011 | 5:39 a.m.

Seems like we should fix the road first and then see if any is left over for a bike trail. Not the other way around. Roads then bikes. Simply another case of avoiding real infrastructure improvements to cater to a vocal minority. Any bets that in the near future they'll want to spring a tax on us for road improvements (when they had the money but spent it on other things)?

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield July 8, 2011 | 8:27 a.m.

"The city has spent plenty of money on tennis courts, baseball fields, etc., so a couple million on this project really isn't out of hand."

That's the big problem at every level of government: Too many people argue that everyone else's pet project got funding, so theirs must, too.

"Besides, it'll get us out of your way, so how is that not a good thing?"

How about staying off of that road? I'm a cyclist, and I know better than to ride on roads such as that. If you don't like riding on gravel, sell your bike and find another hobby.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire July 8, 2011 | 11:26 a.m.

There's no such thing as a road you don't go on if you are a real cyclist.

The money is coming from a 22 million dollar grant that was for that exact purpose.

They tried a little to make trails through the city but a every whiny little * had to complain for every stupid reason imaginable. Yeah, I think they didn't try hard enough.

(Report Comment)
Bob Hill July 8, 2011 | 11:42 a.m.

"There's no such thing as a road you don't go on if you are a real cyclist."

Yes there is...roads that weren't built for bikes and are too dangerous. Roads like Route K. Get off your I-can-do-whatever-I-want-because-I-ride-a-bike attitude and consider the needs of others. Your kind of take-no-prisoners attitude is exactly what causes many of our bicycle/vehicular frictions. Use some sense and people will work with you (the Katy Trail is a great example).

FYI -- like Jimmy I am also an avid bicyclist -- 5 times a week, approximately 120 miles a week. Not a lot by some standards. But much more than most. I ride where it's safe...for me and the drivers.

"The money is coming from a 22 million dollar grant that was for that exact purpose."

We don't have money for roads because our tax money is being spent on extraneous projects like this bicycle lane. It doesn't matter to me if it comes from a local, state or federal pool of money ... it was taken from us and spent poorly. The government has no money that it doesn't take from others.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 8, 2011 | 12:05 p.m.

Paul, I don't believe this is part of the GetAbout Columbia grant, but separate money that MODOT is spending. Unwisely.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders July 8, 2011 | 2:18 p.m.

Only $2 million for seven miles of bike trail? Why, they should do this to every road!

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum July 8, 2011 | 3:07 p.m.

As you can see, BIKE-RIDERS do not care for this improvement. This is not part of the federal grant for the CITY. These are STATE monies for a project in the COUNTY. There are so many things wrong with this project, it's almost laughable.

1)Upgrading to cater to a very small minority of people who want to bomb a particular hill on their road bike.

2)It is a REDUNDANT path. Having one access point from the central city to this area is remarkable for any town -- we need TWO?

3)Using state monies for REDUNDANT path in lieu of repairing the road itself, all while MoDOT cans scores of their workers.

PS, I also ride both a road/touring bike. I even build bikes. Hundreds, probably thousands of miles have passed under my 700c and 27" ROAD bike wheels on GRAVEL trails. Put some 1 1/8+ inch tires on your bike, it's cheaper than paving a hill for you to ride in your spandex. A road bike moves on gravel, don't be dense. You are dismissed.

(Report Comment)
Ken Geringer July 8, 2011 | 6:19 p.m.

So, is this state money or not?
If so, there must be a better way to spend this money. Parents as Teachers maybe. Maybe build a little bridge somewhere.
If the bikers are unsafe on this road, let's just keep them off it. Save the money.
Same applies if it is federal money. Are we broke or not.

(Report Comment)
Bob Hill July 8, 2011 | 6:42 p.m.

"there must be a better way to spend this money"

Yes. Return it to those who it was taken from so that they can spend it more efficiently. Funding real government services is one thing...funding vote-buying schemes is quite another.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 9, 2011 | 5:38 a.m.

We are undergoing a period of temporary insanity; hopefully it will not last much longer.

Is there dichotomy in the fact that as parking garages for (mainly) automobiles are being built and proposed there is a parallel penchant for turning every possible situation into bicycle paths?

There are situations in life and politics where a reasonable amount of something is good, but beyond that where it just becomes ridiculous.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire July 9, 2011 | 11:44 a.m.

The trend has been to widen roads continually. I started really getting into bike riding in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach Area. There most every major rural road had a shoulder wide enough that it could have been designated as an extra lane for traffic. What a culture shock it was to arrive back in Missouri. Wide shoulders don't just benefit bikes. Don't kid yourselves. Also, it is much cheaper to upgrade a road before the area becomes massively developed than it is afterward. Sometimes it is virtually impossible to upgrade a road afterward.

“I think it’s great publicity, but I like the size of this city now,” Martha Sabo said.

Right. Keeping the road in as poor condition as possible will keep developers from building in your area and will keep people from moving to Columbia. Developers never build in areas where the roads might become crowded.

"2)It is a REDUNDANT path. Having one access point from the central city to this area is remarkable for any town -- we need TWO?"

Isn't that nice. The people from that portion of town can use the street to ride to the center of town to get on a trail to turn a hundred and thirty five degrees backward and after about ten miles be a few miles from where they started.

"If the bikers are unsafe on this road, let's just keep them off it."

I don't understand why you motorists insist on using that road. After all Columbia is endowed with both I 70 and 63. Isn't that enough?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire July 9, 2011 | 12:16 p.m.

"As you can see, BIKE-RIDERS do not care for this improvement."

Get a little weaker and underhanded in your arguments and I'll start calling you philneel/cielocamino3. As YOU can see you and one other person who calls himself a bike rider does not care for this improvement and that two other people claiming to be bike riders DO care very much for it.

"That portion of Rt. K is just a big hill, only spandex jockos use that."

I see now we have gained an insight into your level of maturity.

"Put some 1 1/8+ inch tires on your bike, it's cheaper than paving a hill for you to ride in your spandex."

No thanks. I prefer to ride on 700 x 23. 700 x 28 is the said 1 1/8 and that's enough to make a good bike handle quite sluggishly. Of course, you probably can't notice the difference. And about five trips down the trail on those tires will give them more wear than a thousand miles of pavement. And how did you know that I was going to use spandex? I haven't worn any of that for years and years. But I want to go get some now, just for YOU.

"Your kind of take-no-prisoners attitude is exactly what causes many of our bicycle/vehicular frictions. Use some sense and people will work with you (the Katy Trail is a great example)."

Yah. And when someone was allocating the money to build the access to the Katy Trail you would have been on here telling me to use some sense and ride on the sidewalk. Bicycle vehicle frictions are caused by morons who can't see beyond the end of their own nose.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock July 9, 2011 | 12:44 p.m.

Paul I think you need to ride you bike in IRAQ! :)

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum July 9, 2011 | 1:14 p.m.

The fact that you think Norfolk / VA Beach is a good place is proof of your aesthetic bankruptcy. Your idea of a good bike is probably something hideous as well. VA Beach is basically a beach strip for white trash, and Norfolk is sinking into the marsh it was built on. Please never use those places as an example, for anything, ever again.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire July 9, 2011 | 1:39 p.m.

Paul I think you need to ride you bike in IRAQ! :)

Why yes, that would be a MUCH better use of the millions of yards of concrete that they have been paying people to ship over there for the last several years. Why didn't I think of that?

"The fact that you think Norfolk / VA Beach is a good place is proof of your aesthetic bankruptcy."

Compare the roads.

"Your idea of a good bike is probably something hideous as well."

Compare your bike against my Cinelli, my Raleigh from the Carlton factory, my Gitane Tour de France...

Wouldn't put 28c's on any of them. Aesthetic this.

(Report Comment)
Ken Geringer July 9, 2011 | 2:40 p.m.

So Paul, in your opinion is this the best use of $2 million?

Also, what does I-70 and 63 have to do with keeping people safe?

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum July 9, 2011 | 3:17 p.m.

I could tell you were the anal-retentive type!

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire July 9, 2011 | 6:22 p.m.

I was just saying that you have 63 and 70 to use so you shouldn't need all those small side streets where people ride their bikes. You complain about the bicyclers, but if you kept your cars on 70 and 63 you wouldn't have a problem. Motorists who are pissed off about seeing bikes and spandex wearing jockos should restrict their driving to I70 and 63. Actually I thought that 63 was kind of redundant since we already have I 70, and especially where they intersect, but there are a lot of automobiles around here, so maybe we actually do need both highways.

"I could tell you were the anal-retentive type!"

You sound kind of excited about that. I don't know if that should worry me. Maybe you could elaborate on what led you to that stunning conclusion.

"So Paul, in your opinion is this the best use of $2 million?"

Not at all. The best use of the two million is in a trust fund in my name that is available immediately, care of Dan Viets. Will you forward my recommendation?

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum July 9, 2011 | 9:41 p.m.

Wow look at him, swingin' his dukes in every direction and sayin' like stupid stuff...!

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements