Sedona, AZ — My husband Richard and I have lived at the intersection of two planned SUPs (Gun Fury and Mtn Shadows) since 2006 and are frequent e-bike cyclists and walkers with some actionable feedback to improve the planning of these and other bicycle and pedestrian-friendly projects.
First, this may come as a surprise, but when we cycle down Sanborn we often use the road instead of the SUP despite all the money and work put into it.
Here’s why:
- It’s not just cars that can conflict with cyclists. It is both common sense and also has been found in transportation studies (according to AI) that SUPs are more dangerous than separating walkers from bikers. They are travelling at very different speeds in a narrow space and collisions just happen. Combining bikes and walkers is especially dangerous on E-bikes, which are more awkward for maintaining balance due to their weight, especially for seniors and on stops, starts or swerves should a person or dog lurches into the wrong lane. It could be very dangerous for all parties.Specifically, there are also several unsafe transitional details on the Sanborn SUP and related paths:
- The long grade on Sanborn/Thunder Mtn. with a hard curb a bit west of Rodeo.If you are cycling on the road instead of the path (for reasons stated above), due to the hard curb, you can’t make a quick safety escape onto the SUP from excess cars. Or, if you are on the path, you can’t escape onto the road to prevent collision with another path user. Rolled curbs should be there by default.
- There is similar hazard further west, where Thunder Mountain Ranch’s original sidewalk turns around a blind curvejust before it transitions to the SUP heading east. Going east, you can easily miss the opportunity to join the SUP and are soon blocked by a hard edge. Going either direction, you could collide at that blind curve with another user. It’s a serious collision waiting to happen. (In Eugene, where we used to live a biker was killed in a bike to bike collision around a blind corner).
There is also inadequate warning from either approach that a transition is ahead.
And from a usefulness viewpoint, we have missed getting onto the SUP numerous times coming from Dry Creek Rd. because of this, coupled with inadequate signage. Once you realize it, it’s too late for a while: there is only a hard curb. - The narrow older neighborhood sidewalk connecting Zane Grey and Posse Ground Park is also somewhat blind and is at a sharp 90 degree turn that’s hard enough hard to cycle onto without falling, but much worse if a dog walker and e-biker encounter each other at the same time. The other day I had to stop my e-bike heading uphill on Zane Grey and wait until a woman walking two dogs reached the street. Trust me: it is not easy to make a cold uphill turning start on any bike, but especially with a heavy e-bike, which seem to be the predominant bikes in use here. When it’s time to complete that area, this should be a curving transition with full width in that area.
- The proposed SUP intersection at Gun Fury and Mountain Shadows is situated near a blind spot, a hill two lots to the south that obscures cars, bikes and walkers in both directions. It’s manageable right now on our e-bikes, but a defined more narrow SUP with a sharp turn would decrease the options for making that turn smoothly and safely compared to the wider berth of the roads themselves, which are used a lot for bike tour groups just fine. Given the realities as stated above, bikers would likely continue using the roadways there rather than SUPs. Ojne could say, “Well, they should just stop safely, like a car, and then proceed.” But the reality of e-biking when there are no cars in sight and when on a hill is to minimize stops.
- Bumpy driveways. The pavers on the new driveway connections on Sanborn are pretty, but they make for a bumpy ride that most cyclists avoid in favor of the smooth road made for tires, especially if they are out on an errand and not in a slow leisure mode.
- Frequent intersections: Stops and starts.In the Harmony neighborhood there is a stretch where a cyclist has to transition up and down from the path to local streets intersections after every two houses for several streets. It’s really awkward and somewhat unsafe and awkward if a car shows up. It makes you just want to use the road, where all these stops are not required.
- Bike-unfriendly road crossings. Specifically, the plan to change the Coffee Pot SUP from east to west sides right below the bottom of the hill may be finefor walkers but to me they sound downright scary when cycling downhill at a higher speed into a sharp turn or stop and turn onto a road.. Likewise, it would be much harder to head uphill from a cold start after losing momentum from crossing the road. No thanks. I’d rather take my chances on the road.
Summary and Commentary:
The challenge: It appears quite challenging to redesign an optimal share corridor for drivers. Bikers and walkers, as well as residents, in BOTH directions after houses and drainage ditches are already built and there is limited space. It would be interesting to see what various transportation planners have concluded through years of experience in multiple towns. The most successful bike paths do seem to be along open spaces along rivers, but we don’t have that here.
Dual Corridor Option? For our small neighborhoods, we wonder if it might be better to think in terms of two passages: a bike lane for higher speed cycling and a sidewalk for pedestrians, with a rolled curb to double as an escape for cyclists if traffic is heavy? (We do this a lot coming down Rodeo).
Benefits:
1.Dual corridors would be much less costly for the city, only requiring sidewalks and striping in most cases.
- If placed on opposite sides of the roadway, they might also offer some options for both directions and in many cases in our neighborhood spare deep one-sided incursions into driveways, yards and available parking, which will otherwise be more impactful in the Sedona West neighborhood than on Sanborn, where there is generally more housing setback due to its designation as an arterial.
Need for dialog:
SUP planners may not be frequent cyclists themselves and would likely benefit from more cyclist input about the many challenges of traffic, walkers, strange transitions, gravel, potholes, etc. Likewise, walkers could provide ideas.
As both frequent cyclists and walkers, we would be happy to share the perceptions we have from our usage.
Our general take on these SUP plans is that:
- There is more need for safe pedestrian space than for cycling,because e-cyclists (most cyclists in Sedona) can go pretty fast and blend pretty well with cars on the roadway. This pedestrian need is particularly true on narrow steep passages with ditches like the one near the top of Coffee Pot Drive, which we always hesitate to walk down especially at night. We know of several neighbors falling into local ditches after dark, a related issue. Possibly these are potential legal liabilities for the City as well…
- SUPS seem like overkill, especially on smaller quieter streets with short driveways and rural qualities. We risk turning this aesthetic small town more and more into an urban sprawl, perhaps leading to a high rise metropolis some day. Is that what we want?
Is it really wise or necessary to add all this infrastructure at the cost of the scenic and rural qualities that attracted most of us to Sedona? It makes some sense on minor arterials like Mountain Shadows and Coffeepot, but it gets questionable simply to “connect” quieter streets like Gun Fury, Last Wagon and Zane Grey, taking away street parking, trees, walls, etc. where there is no conflict between walkers, cars and bikers because they are so quiet most of the time. - Maybe planners’ talents could be put to better use. Might they, instead, explore how to maintain what we have (or did have) in its essential qualities, with small projects of beautification, like pocket parks, charming stone walkways and signs, wayside benches, planters, attractive pedestrian crossings on the highway (like the median strip with trees that was once planned), a permanent Farmer’s Market space, and finding reasonable ways to calm down growth and tourism, including the short term rental takeover of residential areas which can lead to a real loss of social cohesion.Sometimes less is more. More nature, more beauty, more peace, more community.
Thank you for hopefully addressing these concerns with love and vision, as best you may be able to given all that is outside of our control. We would be happy to explore solutions to various issues. And thank you for all you do that has helped Sedona stay pretty darn beautiful, in spite of the explosion of tourism here.
All the best,
Susan Pitcairn
This is an advertisement
