The trails I visited are justifiable as recreational amenities and in some cases for transportation use, but it is indeed true that not enough attention has been given to street and road improvements. A trail does not remove the need for improvements to streets and roads, because bicyclists will still need to travel to and from trip generators along streets and roads. A trail also may not provide the quickest and most convenient route between two points which it does connect. Nonetheless, trails can be useful as shortcuts, for crossings of barriers, and for recreational riding. I did hear of proposed trail projects which parallel existing roads and may be less justifiable than improvements to those roads.

Grant's Trail

The photo below is of the junction of Grant's Trail with Reavis Barracks Road. This intersection has traffic signals controlled by a pedestrian pushbutton. The crossing meets reasonable requirements for safety, as long as all users obey the signals. It is clear who must yield to whom. Vehicle detectors on the bicycle trail far enough in advance of the intersection would, however, reduce the delay to bicyclists.

.

Near Reavis Barracks Road, intersections with minor streets had stop signs facing the trail. In some cases, particularly when trail traffic is heavier than street traffic, greater efficiency would result from the street traffic's yielding to trail traffic. But there could still be a problem with the expectation that trails are refuges from motor traffic. A crossing truly safe for children who are not yet skilled in yielding right of way requires that the street traffic yield to them. For this to be possible at an unsignalized intersection, motorists in the cross street must have a clear view far enough down the trail to see bicyclists to whom they would have to yield. At some intersections, motorists can not see far enough even if they stop, and so either a four-way stop, signalization or grade separation is needed. Of these, only full signalization, as in the photo above, or grade separation meet safety requirements for children who are not skilled in yielding.

Riverfront Trail

The Riverfront Trail serves a useful function in providing access to a stretch of riverfront several miles long for recreational use. This trail passes through parkland and flood plain, and also through a riverfront industrial area of imposing factories and warehouses.

The Riverfront Trail appears less useful for transportation than for recreation. While the southern terminus of the Riverfront Trail is convenient to the downtown St. Louis business district, the industrial area that lies between the riverfront and upland residential areas makes the trail inconvenient for commuting trips. It was pointed out to me that streets leading down from residential neighborhoods were to be designated and improved to provide access to the trail. While this access is useful for bicyclists using the trail for recreation, it does not solve the problem of distance for commuting and utility bicyclists.

Since much of the trail is on the Mississippi floodplain, the trail will not be usable at times of high water. This restriction is of little importance for recreational use, but of considerable importance to commuters and others who might rely on the trail as a transportation route.

There are also safety issues, many of which are related to the trail's having to thread its way between buildings and through floodwall gates.

The photo above shows the southern terminus of the Riverfront Trail. The tire marks crossing the trail in the foreground are from vehicles entering and leaving a driveway to the right of the trail. The presence of this driveway creates a confusing traffic flow pattern. The wide sign with sharp edges in the middle of the trail is an unnecessary hazard. Preferably, a bollard would be provided to prevent motor vehicles from entering the trail, and signs would be placed at the sides of the trail. In the background, the trail turns left around the corner of a building, resulting in a short sight distance. It is my understanding that the terminus of the trail is to be moved, and these problems could be corrected at that time.

The striping for the edges and centerline of the Riverfront Trail is distinct, but in the foreground of the photograph (above), where the trail sweeps across a pre-existing paved area, it could be routed toward the right side of the floodgate and brought out straight from the floodgate for 25 feet or more, rather than immediately turning. This minor design change would significantly increase sight distance past the floodgate opening.

The Riverfront Trail's edge stripes are useful in delineating the edges of the Trail, particularly where it crosses undifferentiated paved areas like that in front of the floodgate shown above. In the background of the photo, the trail is striped with a solid centerline, though it is straight there and overtaking is reasonable. On the other hand, at another location (left) with sharp curves and a chain link fence which obscures sight lines, the centerline is dashed. Preferably, striping policy should reflect the safety of overtaking at any given point along the trail.

Parts of the Riverfront Trail are used by motor vehicles traveling to and from industrial sites, as in the photo below, taken near Branch Road. The trail does not have adequate width, markings or signage for motor vehicle use. Any part of the trail that is used occasionally but regularly by motor vehicles ought to be wide enough for one-way motor vehicle travel and opposite-direction bicycle travel: that is, at least 16 feet.

The north end of the Riverfront Trail falls about a mile short of the Old Chain of Rocks Bridge across the Mississippi River. The photo below shows Riverview Avenue at the north end of the trail. The sign for access to the north end of the trail is visible at the right side of the picture. Two types of connections are conceivable: a trail continuing on the east side of Riverview Avenue, or bike lanes/shoulders on Riverview Avenue. See recommendations, below.

Forest Park Path

The path through Forest Park in St. Louis is not very useful for transportation, as it winds in a loop through the park. This path is heavily used for recreation by bicyclists, pedestrians, runners and inline skaters. I have been told that in the future separate paths are to be provided for those on foot and those on wheels. This will somewhat reduce congestion, but inline skaters -- whose flailing arms and legs make them difficult for bicyclists to overtake -- will remain a problem.}

It was pointed out to me that accidents had occurred at intersections of the path with park roads, particularly at the loop in front of the History Museum.

On the west side of the park, the path parallels Skinker Boulevard. I was told that motorists on Skinker Boulevard sometimes express annoyance with bicyclists on the Boulevard, thinking they should be using the path. The photo below was taken on this part of the path on a Saturday morning. The path traffic included a family with children in strollers. It was not possible for me to overtake the family, with oncoming traffic on the path. A bicyclist wishing to travel at normal bicycling speed would have to ride on the Boulevard, like the bicyclist visible on the left in the picture.

The Forest Park Path is everywhere 8 feet wide, with a solid center stripe.

Great River Road Trail

The video still below shows one of the most popular recreational bicycle facilities in the St. Louis metropolitan area, a mixed use trail (visible at the right side of the image) which runs along the Great River Road, Illinois Highway 100. Fall leaf colors and small towns along the route, such as Elsah, are an attraction.

Where the steep limestone bluffs squeeze out the mixed use trail, the shoulder is marked as a bike lane, as shown below.

To accommodate returning cyclists, a bike crossing is provided, as shown below, but it is not uncommon to see cyclists riding against the official arrowed bike traffic direction, having simply turned around to return in the outgoing bike lane. This same problem is likely to occur on Riverview Drive if bike lanes are provided, especially if the crossing is at grade and unsignalized like this one.

Recommendations:

• Trails can serve as useful transportation routes where they provide shortcuts. This is particularly true in suburbs where a trail can link trip generators which would otherwise be connected only via circuitous routes on arterial streets. Useful shortcuts include crossings of limited access highways and watercourses. Such crossings may sometimes use abandoned railroad bridges and other existing structures. Particular attention should be given to shortcuts that build connections between residential areas and local schools, shopping and employment centers. Such trails enhance rather than substitute for the street network. Use of bicycles on streets can be expected to increase if such trails are successful, and so street improvements need to be considered along with the trails.

• Trails can provide access to areas which otherwise would be inaccessible. In the St. Louis area, the Riverfront Trail is the major example of this use of a trail. A trail can also serve as a linear park, and as such it is a desirable community amenity.

• Trails are less successful as transportation arterials for longer trips. Unlike motorists on a limited-access highway, bicyclists on a trail can not achieve higher speeds than on streets, and so travel times using the trail are shorter only if the trail provides a shortcut. The trail may fare even worse if it is crowded, and especially if many pedestrians use it; if it is circuitous; or if numerous street crossings and other design elements increase travel times. Even if the trail allows a shorter travel time than streets, it can do so only within a limited capture area. Trails are rarely cleared of snow as quickly as streets, and the Riverfront Trail, for example, also is sometimes closed by flooding. These are some of the reasons that bicycle-friendly streets, and not only trails, are necessary if bicycle transportation is to be encouraged.

• Design details affecting safety need to be standardized and enforced. Statistical studies show that the bicyclists' accident rate on trails is no better than that of streets, and in many cases it is poorer. The absence of motor traffic from trails does not offer a safety advantage which compensates for design compromises. Motor vehicles do cross trails at their intersections with streets. The part of Grant's Trail which I visited appeared carefully designed. On the Riverfront Trail and Forest Park Path, however, I noticed a number of locations where details of location, signage and markings could be improved. The crossing of the Great River Road shown in the video still above is hazardous, especially for the novice and child bicyclists who are attracted to off-road facilities.

• Any proposed Riverfront Trail extension to the Old Chain of Rocks Bridge should either be entirely off-road, or conform to standard roadway design. It was explained to me that a two-way bicycle lane on one side of Riverview Avenue has been proposed. This is a nonstandard design which poses many hazards and does not conform to AASHTO bicycle facilities guidelines. A path entirely separated from the roadway would be preferable for casual and child bicyclists, and usable by pedestrians. Restriping Riverview Avenue with a narrower median and/or widening Riverview Avenue would increase outside lane/shoulder width and would be entirely acceptable for adult bicyclists; there is even room for bike lanes without widening the roadway, and they would pose few problems here, as there are very few cross streets. Traffic signals or grade separations would be desirable where southbound bicyclists have to cross Riverview Avenue to the southbound lane. The pavement of Riverview Avenue is overdue for replacement; poor pavement is more of a problem for bicyclists than for motorists.

• Alternatives to the Forest Park Path for through bicycle traffic need to be defined. The Forest Park Path is too circuitous and too heavily used to be suitable for bicycle transportation. On the other hand, roads through the park are lightly traveled. "Share the Road" signs in and around the park would be helpful to indicate that bicyclists are welcome on the park roads. A measure used in some other urban parks is to close some of the park roads to motor traffic, either on weekends or at all times. Forest Park borders the Washington University campus, and bicycle traffic is heavy in this area.

• The Forest Park Path has particular accident risks which need review. The path apparently was built under the assumption that it would inherently be safer than on-street travel. This assumption has been disproven generally, and the design of the Forest Park Path does nothing to suggest that it is safer than the average off-road path. In particular, there are many road crossings with poor delineation and unclear yielding rules, and the narrowness of the path increases conflicts between users. A thorough review and look at possible improvements is warranted, in my opinion. Encouraging bicycle use on roadways, as described above, is one possible way to reduce the traffic count on the path.