I am an ex-San Antonian who visited in May and pleasantly biked on the San Antonio River expansion three times. I live in New York City now, where I bike regularly for transportation and recreation. I attended Brackenridge High School long before the expansion and played tennis on the courts near the river after school, which resembled an overrun weed filled drainage ditch over which sickening whiffs of hops from the Lone Star Brewery wafted.
I thought about how much more pleasant it would have been to do required running my coach made us do along the river instead of warped city sidewalks. Thus, it is very refreshing to see the changes the San Antonio River Improvements Project brought. So, I braced myself as I read the recent Rivard Report bike-related articles and the inevitable blame bicyclists would receive.
I was fortunate to bike when the river path from the Blue Star Complex to Espada Park was not crowded, so I did not experience major congestion the articles discussed. As I read these articles my premise was reinforced that our problems with transportation begin at the pedestrian level and escalate up the mobility cycle. Yet it seems most articles and discussions on transportation that focus on shared space, almost without exception, place a disproportionate amount of blame on cyclists, whether the complainants are drivers or pedestrians.
I must mention that I regularly experience terrible pedestrian/commuter behavior as a regular bus and subway rider and as a pedestrian on congested sidewalks and at intersections in New York. Urban biking is increasing in many major cities, still cyclists are treated as either an afterthought during planning or a nuisance after designs are finalized, hence the ongoing conflict. A couple of things are important for everyone to keep in mind when engaging in such discussions if we are to have meaningful progress on such issues:
- Collectively, we have an individualistic approach to public space use for transportation regardless of how we travel, but this acknowledgement seems lacking from discussions.
- We seem to be naturally engaged in an us-versus-them mindset over limited resources for such spaces, regardless of the issue involved.
With some truly bold, creative thinking and outreach efforts, we can work to overcome these tendencies.
I have not lived in San Antonio since my early adult years, so I am not familiar with the workings of various agencies, commissions, political, and civic organizations that converge to advance large-scale projects like the river improvement project. I am curious to learn, however, about the planning that went into the expansion. Who was involved? Were bike advocates invited to participate? Were (or are) there possible considerations for repurposing parts of the trail to accommodate higher-speed users? Why are many surprised about the popularity of higher-speed activities on the river, given the lack of such space throughout the city? I am curious to hear if those who have concerns about the current state were engaged during the planning phase. I believe educating a wider audience on the background could be helpful to address issues that may lead to suggested changes on the path or future projects.
Education about the rules of the road is important for everyone, but so is careful planning and questioning. Officials presumably discussed the expectant popularity of the park. Did they discuss plans for either a wider or separate path to accommodate bicyclists? Quite possibly, this could have alleviated some of the current problems if separate bike space had been planned. However, bikes are often not given careful consideration when separating cars from pedestrians. Yet in a classic case of “If you build it, they will come,” the width of the river path seems narrow given the anticipated activity of strollers, walkers, runners, bikers, and bladers that would seek this space for various activities at different rates and speeds of use.
Some might suggest that there is no space to build a wider path along the river, but this is where the unique thinking and advanced planning techniques could help. Such a situation evokes the legacy of Robert Moses, the masterful, if controversial, builder of parks and roads who completed many unimaginable projects with considerable ingenuity to “Get Things Done” throughout an already heavily-developed New York City and metropolitan area. This is not to advocate for an usurpation of property to build a wider or separate path. However, with so much parkland abutting the river on the Eagleland and Mission Reach, it seems that land could be repurposed to create a separate bike lane to alleviate much of the conflict.
Both Rivard Report articles referenced the pedestrian death caused by a cyclist in Central Park in September as proof of the growing possibility of a serious accident along the river. This accident is, of course, unspeakably tragic and has generated considerable discussion among bikers, pedestrians, and the legal community. The layouts of both park roads and density of usage are considerably different, however, and each has its unique problems that do not yield similar equivalents. To be sure, Central Park’s road is much wider – it is an actual road that opens to vehicular traffic at certain hours – more localized and central, and hillier, which encourages continuous higher speed biking, congestion aside.
San Antonio’s River Walk, by contrast, is a curvy sidewalk, which naturally forces bikers to slow at points. This is not to minimize either the risk of collisions that can occur on the path, or the fear a pedestrian might experience as an unsuspecting cyclist whizzes by. Nonetheless, the width of Central Park’s roadway makes continuation of high-speed biking more possible in a way that does not seem possible with any reasonable level of pedestrian traffic on the Mission Reach path.
It is extremely unfortunate that in San Antonio, where the car is king, the few large open spaces like the River Walk exist and such a relatively small amount of pavement is allotted for the amount of activity the park supports. I have kept up enough with recent transportation events in San Antonio to know projects that help render people less dependent on cars, like the closed bike lane on Flores Street and the resistance to carshare and streetcars, to name a few, receive little support and, at times, outright hostility. Until the broader community recognizes the link between such projects and a more efficient, livable city, the car will enjoy its unquestioned primacy.
My hope is that instead of maintaining an adversarial relationship with bicyclists, pedestrians and park advocates can unite with bicyclists to advocate for a separate bike lane. Investment in quality of life improvements in the park will be worth the effort. Because, let’s face it, without an outright ban against bikes, they will be on the path. Perhaps the concerned groups will study a bike path’s feasibility and work together to get things done.
*Featured/top image: Photo taken in early 2012 during the dredging and reshaping of the river along the Mission Reach. This wide floodplain section of the river is known as Lake Davis. Photo by Rudolf Harst.
Related Stories:
Sharing the San Antonio River A Growing Problem
Slow Down and Share the Path, Cyclists
Síclovía No. 7 Turns East to Dignowity Park
Riding Bikes to the Quarry: A Slightly Treacherous Adventure
Thank you.
As a long-time cyclist, I can say for certain little consideration was given to the needs of local cyclists.
One of the most obvious examples of this was the complete removal of Mission Parkway – a road frequented by cyclists but not by cars. Now, any conscientious cyclist that wants to go faster than, say, 15 mph in a southeasterly direction from downtown along the river is essentially forced to ride on trafficed roads such as Presa or Mission.
Don’t get me wrong – I think the net effect of the mission trails is absolutely positive across all users; yet, to suggest that the trails are sufficient for cyclists is incorrect and a bit insulting.
This is an absolutely wonderful perspective (from a San Antonian that has flew the nest) – one of the best articles yet!
Awesome…
Here are the design guidelines: http://www.sanantonioriver.org/documents/sarip_design_guidelines.pdf
12′ wide specs.
That’s a breath of fresh air.
Can’t wait to ride the trail again!
I remember that hops smell so well I can smell it now. Around the corner at St. Cecelia’s we weren’t directly downwind from LS like Brack was, but I still smelled it every day on the way home. I’d try to hold my breath sometimes.
Let’s cooperate and share the space! We are extremely fortunate to have the path at all given the extensive inter-agency cooperation that was required to make it happen in the first place.
No offense, but before (if ever) a separated bike way along the River Walk, we need miles of sidewalk and footpath work at street level and along other waterways in the city to connect parks, schools, shops, neighborhoods, bus stops, etc. The few ‘conflicts’ (or positive congestion, depending on your viewpoint) experienced on the River Walk currently are caused by aggressive cyclists, runners, skateboarders or other risk-taking / out-of-control users thinking this shared, paved path is a training circuit for their exclusive use. You can try, but you can’t out-plan obnoxious (or cowardliness in choosing not to use our abundant secondary road network for higher speed activities). . . and banning cycling and other rolling on the River Walk would simply put yet more City dollars towards policing rather than making much needed basic pedestrian capital improvements to other areas of the city.
Austin has managed well with miles of affordable un-lined and mixed-use crushed limestone trails along Town Lake – as it has benefited from closing some downtown streets to traffic. Yet, Austin has also over-engineered and over-spent trying to accommodate separated pedestrian uses in small areas (see the pointless few blocks of separated bike lanes and miserable bus waiting island created on the Drag by West Campus), while neglecting basic pedestrian infrastructure in other parts of the city.
San Antonio needs a more expansive shared pedestrian network before (if ever) tinkering to try to accommodate aggressive separated pedestrian uses in limited areas.
Yes,if the design standards for a multiuse path were followed “For most shared-use paths, bicyclists are the primary user group. Cyclists include tandem, recumbent, and hand powered three-wheelers. Road racing wheelchairs may use shared-use paths, reaching speeds of over 30 mph on downhill sections, and should have the same rights and privileges as cyclists. In many cases, the design requirements for bicyclists are similar, if not more stringent, than the design requirements for pedestrians with disabilities. For example, people who use wheelchairs can travel over small changes in level. However, because bicyclists are often traveling at faster speeds, smooth surfaces are needed. Although people with vision impairments can identify an edge protection in a trail environment if it is more than 76 mm (3 in) high, an edge protection lower than a 1.065 m (42 in) railing can be dangerous for a bicyclist. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2/sidewalks214.cfm
Craig,
Great article. Although I disagree on some points, you raise other very good points.
You note that transportation problems begin at the pedestrian level and escalate up the mobility chain. That’s an interesting sentence, and I admit I may not accurately understand your point, but I think I agree with you.
I see one major assumption that contributes to that problem: the assumption that walking is the bottom of the mobility chain, and automobiles are the top of the chain. Society may promote that thought, but only because we prioritize speed over other interests. If we consider mobility as the ability to get from place to place, then walking has some distinct advantages. For example, I have done some backpacking in Denali, AK. It’s a huge wilderness area. It’s rugged and trail-less. My car wouldn’t make it 10 feet off the one dirt road that penetrates the area. Few vehicles could. I could walk just about anywhere, at least anywhere the bears would allow me. Yet the presumption that automobiles offer a higher level of mobility prevails. I even share that value. But it is only that, a value, not fact.
As a result, slower modes are expected to follow rules that allow faster modes the ability to exercise their right of speed. That idea was seen in many of the responses to the articles about pedestrian and cyclist conflicts on the trail. Pedestrians, children, and slow cyclists are expected to stay to the right so faster cyclists have room to pass while maintaining their speed. On the road, pedestrians are expected to stay on the sidewalk, and only cross in a few designated spots when cars are stopped waiting for cross traffic to pass. Cyclists are expected to ride in a manner that at it’s best makes them invisible to the life of motorists, and motorists freely express their frustration with the existence of cyclists on the road.
An equally practical solution on the trails is to allow slower users the freedom to use whatever parts of the trail they desire, and for people moving faster to just slow down and be polite. No other rules would be needed. The same rule could work not only on the trails, but on roads too. Faster road users impose hazards on slower road users, so the burden of safety and liability of accidents should be on them, not the slower users. This point was raised by multiple responders, and was the best solution suggested.
I ride the trails regularly, and I ride the area roads daily. For the most part, I don’t find the trails to be congested. On the rare occasion when there are a so many pedestrians it seems like there is a conflict, I just jump out to the road. My perception is not so much that pedestrians are impeding me, but in those situations, that there is just not enough room for me at the time. I could be over generalizing this, but if you can ride fast on the trails, you can ride fast enough to be comfortable on the streets, especially on the South Side. So, just ride on the street and leave the trail for folks to relax.
To jump tracks here, you commented on the incident where a pedestrian was killed in a collision with a cyclist. Interestingly, others agree that incident was an unacceptable tragedy, and are concerned it could happen on the trails. If a fatality between a cyclist and pedestrian is unacceptable, then I wonder why people so readily accept that fatalities between motorists and pedestrians, cyclists, or even other motorists are normal and just part of daily risk. A pedestrian could be killed by a cyclist, and prevention is necessary, but on average, a pedestrian IS killed by a motorist in San Antonio. Yet there is no response or outcry to solve it.
New York City’s Vision Zero plan is impressive, and I hope it spurs a cultural change that can move across the nation. As Mayor DeBlasio said, pedestrian fatalities are not inevitable and are unacceptable. That’s not true just for New York, but every city.
Planning is an afterthought!
The size of the walks was calculated by some guideline and demanded early on in the design process by people showing at the public meetings. They are the guideline “minimum” and were set by a rule with only pedestrians in mind. As a chair of an AIA team that studied the Museum Reach prior to design, I can say that we proposed a larger easement along the urban reach, as it is tight for pedestrians already, and it is psychologically difficult at times to walk there.
Mark E. Kellmann, Architect, NCARB
San Antonio, Texas
I smell a lawsuit waiting to happen once cyclist and pedestrian collide.
Perhaps the inter-agencies that planned the riverwalk extension will do a case scenario and see what are the best options.