Bike path approved for East Bay St.By David Slade (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Charleston City Council approved plans Tuesday for a $1 million bike path along East Bay Street, and also agreed to switch parts of Ashley and Rutledge avenues from one-way to two-way traffic, to slow motorists in Harleston Village. And while slower traffic was seen as a good thing in that neighborhood, council rejected a different plan that would likely have slowed traffic at Broad and Meeting streets. It would have allowed carriage tours to operate there during rush hour. The East Bay Bike Path project will create a 12-foot sidewalk leading to the new Cooper River bridge pedestrian and bike ramp at East Bay Street. While the more than $1 million will pay for just a half-mile of path, the long-term goal is a path that will run down along the Cooper River, then up the Ashley River, and cross the river to connect with extensive West Ashley bike trails. The project was first announced in 2005 after the city lined up a $460,000 federal grant for the work. On Tuesday, the city awarded a nearly $1.1 million contract for the job to Wildwood Contractors, of Colleton County. Council highlightsIn a busy four-hour meeting Tuesday, Charleston City Council: --Approved a nearly $1.1 million contract for a new bike path on East Bay Street. --Agreed to convert Ashley and Rutledge avenues, between Calhoun and Broad streets, to two-way traffic. --Passed a resolution that authorizes city staff to prepare a redevelopment plan for the area where the old Cooper River bridges stood, between Meeting Street and Morrison Drive. --Rejected a plan to allow carriage tours to operate during rush hour at Broad and Meeting streets. --Accepted a $1 million grant from the Spaulding-Paolozzi Foundation, toward the $14.8 million cost of renovating the Dock Street Theatre. --Amended the city's Century V Plan, which is intended to guide development throughout Charleston, to include the new Johns Island Plan that the city developed earlier this year. On Ashley and Rutledge avenues, the switch from one-way traffic to two was supported by the Harleston Village Neighborhood Association, and builds upon an earlier decision three years ago to put two-way traffic on Wentworth and Beaufain streets. City officials and neighborhood residents said the earlier changes slowed traffic down. One resident said that with one-way traffic, Ashley and Rutledge avenues today are essentially a divided four-lane highway. Some residents were opposed to the change, however, saying that there are better and less dramatic ways to calm traffic, such as timed traffic lights. Also, the change to two-way traffic will apply only between Calhoun and Broad streets. Residents living near those streets, south of Broad Street, opposed an earlier plan to extend two-way traffic all the way to Murray Boulevard. City Council eventually approved the change without dissent. The city will need to make roadway and traffic signal changes before the plan can take effect. Operators of carriage tours were hoping City Council would approve another traffic pattern change Tuesday, one that would remove a long-standing city ban on carriages operating on parts of Broad and Meeting streets between 4 and 6 p.m. The city's Tourism Commission had passed the idea along to City Council, where most council members and Mayor Joe Riley quickly stated their opposition. The intersection of Broad and Meeting streets is home to Charleston City Hall and other public institutions. "Broad and Meeting streets during those hours are very busy," Riley said. "This will create unsafe conditions." Carriage company owner Tom Doyle, representing Charleston's five carriage tour operators, said the change was needed because the current rules essentially prevent the tours from operating for two hours each day. Council members suggested that the Tourism Commission could seek some sort of compromise. Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 9 comment(s)
Posted by MHA on October 24, 2007 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow... this is a GREAT sign! All of the low countries problems must be solved! How else can we afford to spend 1.1 million dollars so that people can ride bikes?
Surely they also passed some type of bike registration and tax to help pay for this... or maybe us motorist are still footing the bill so that we can "Share the Road" with bicyclist that don't follow traffic regulations and create huge safety problems. When another bicyclist gets hit by a car and killed while he's trying to ride his bike to the new 1.1 million dollar bike path, maybe we can spend $400,000 or so on a "bicyclist memorial" to remind people that they need to be on the look out for bikes that run red lights, ride the wrong way in traffic and can only do 20 mph on a 45 mph street.
Posted by islanders on October 24, 2007 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think recreational bike paths are a great idea. I also have a vehicle and respect bikes. But when you have so many road rage divers with a low intelligence who resent anyone trying to get some exercise you want to create as much as a buffer as possible.
It's just a road rage nation these days.
Posted by MHA on October 24, 2007 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Recreation areas are great and having a bike path OFF of the roads is a GREAT idea. But in an area that is literally falling apart at the seams, and during a time when the economy is not booming, I'd think this 1.1 million dollars could have been better spent.
Road rage is bad across the board, and I'm certainly not proposing that people treat bicyclists bad on the roads. As long as they are there, we have to be courteous. My point is that I don't think they should be there. You can get exercise without riding on busy streets. Personally, I don't think bicyclist should be allowed on roads with speed limits greater than 25 MPH. They can't ride that fast, so there's no reason for them to be there. I have yet to see a bicyclist that follows traffic regulations. Even the ones that go out all and buy the "race gear" and practice for triathlons and such. They never stop at stop signs or red lights unless traffic forces them too and they never wait in line at a stop, always choosing to creep up along side the line of cars. If I must share the road with them, they should have to pay property taxes and registration fees on their bikes just as I do on my car. My main issue is with safety. Bikes and cars don't mix. The safety hazard is too great. Someone in a car is going to be involved in the death of a bicyclist completely by accident. The bicyclist will be dead and the driver of the car will have to live with that experience the rest of his/her life. I'm sure it's already happened numerous times.
Posted by majorjohnson on October 24, 2007 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How is a half mile sidewalk in Charleston a national concern? $460,000 federal tax dollars? If the folks in Charleston want to spend their money on a half mile sidewalk let them, but this is not a proper use of federal tax dollars.
Posted by trm2105 on October 24, 2007 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If traffic is the real problem here, how do we encourage less vehicles on the road? At the risk of upsetting the hysterical preservationist, I'd say we need more housing downtown, lots of it, no more hotels. Housing for the average joe, not joe riley. Only with a greater concentration of people will CARTA become a viable means of transportation. As long as Charleston keeps building hotels instead of housing things will continue the same.
Posted by icbmman on October 24, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the major point is that if tax dollars are being spent for the benefit of cyclists, cyclists need to CONTRIBUTE. Basically, cyclists have no tax or registration on their bike, but they still want all the privileges of using publically funded roads and streets. This is WRONG and unconstitutional. If bike paths should be built for the benefit of the cyclists (who want exercise or the need to commute), the money to fund them needs to be generated through them. You have to pay car taxes to drive on the freeway, so the same concept should be applied to bikes for a bike path. When will government actually apply common sense?
Posted by MHA on October 24, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EXACTLY icbmman
Posted by Munchabunch on October 25, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wonders Way along the Arthur Ravenel Bridge is great, but in order to reach its potential, it needs to be connected with other good walking and cycling areas. This new path is an excellent step in the right direction. I hope to see more East Coast Greenway development in this area over the next several years.
Posted by nathasm on October 25, 2007 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some complain that cyclists need to contribute. Well, who do you think cyclists are? The majority of people that bike in Charleston live/work in the area and consequently contribute tax dollar...granted not via bike registration. However, what about pedestrians? Do you want to tax their shoes since they use the streets in places with no sidewalks??! <sarcasm>When will the government actually apply common sense</sarcasm> How the money is spent is a give and take, we all pay taxes and I would hope by now that people realize it's not all going to be applied to what we see fit.
Regarding cyclists in traffic and not obeying the laws, it happens. There will always be a couple bad apples in the bunch. I'm sure that ALL drivers adhere to traffic laws: Making complete stops, Driving 25mph in a 25mph zone, Using signals to indicate lane changes and turns, etc... Pot, meet kettle.
Additionally, even though it's a "bike path" I've seen more pedestrians on it than cyclists. I for one think it's a great idea to *finally* have a pedestrian attraction and a great place for people to walk that doesn't dead end into the busy East Bay.
Finally, Charleston is one of the worst places to ride a bike. If busier metropolitan areas can co-exist with cyclists and motorists sharing the road, I have optimistic hopes that Charleston can too, and this certainly is a step in the right direction.