Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

Loony Singer · 07-29-2007, 06:57 AM

We live near the end of the Neck, and I'm a slow (12-13 mph), steady bike rider. I've used Phase 1 of the Path since it was completed, and though I have a couple minor quibbles with it, I sincerely appreciate it.

Phase 2 is a different matter. I rode on it yesterday, I just don't get it. In addition to the problems with gravel already mentioned, I cannot understand why they made it so narrow. On any mixed-use path, sharing between pedestrians and bikers can be an occasional problem. For many pedestrians, a walk is a social occasion, so they walk side-by-side so they can talk. That's one thing on a 6' wide path like Phase 1, but the new section is so narrow that even one biker passing one walker is tight. So who's supposed to veer off the path into the gravel? The biker? The walker?

I hate to be so critical, because I know how long and hard the sponsors must have worked to make the path a reality. But if it was a money issue, they should have waited another year or two and done the job right.

I'd love to hear from someone on the Pathway Committee about their thinking on this design. They must have had their reasons.

07-29-2007, 06:57 AM	#25
Loony Singer Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 110 Thanks: 34 Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts	I don't get it, either We live near the end of the Neck, and I'm a slow (12-13 mph), steady bike rider. I've used Phase 1 of the Path since it was completed, and though I have a couple minor quibbles with it, I sincerely appreciate it. Phase 2 is a different matter. I rode on it yesterday, I just don't get it. In addition to the problems with gravel already mentioned, I cannot understand why they made it so narrow. On any mixed-use path, sharing between pedestrians and bikers can be an occasional problem. For many pedestrians, a walk is a social occasion, so they walk side-by-side so they can talk. That's one thing on a 6' wide path like Phase 1, but the new section is so narrow that even one biker passing one walker is tight. So who's supposed to veer off the path into the gravel? The biker? The walker? I hate to be so critical, because I know how long and hard the sponsors must have worked to make the path a reality. But if it was a money issue, they should have waited another year or two and done the job right. I'd love to hear from someone on the Pathway Committee about their thinking on this design. They must have had their reasons.