Proposed Protected Bike Lanes on Rath Avenue, Fantasy vs. Reality

[XLFD]

In the video of the Sept. 22, 2025 meeting of the Ludington City Council, City Manager 'Prevaricatin' Kaitlyn Aldrich made a stunning revelation about resolving the dispute over columns in the new AndyS building.  The City maintains that the supporting pillars are too close to the curb and not in compliance with the site review plans, the "Reimer team" disputes both.  

Aldrich would suggest the team could put in a protected bike lane on the east side of Rath Avenue in order to be absolved of all sins, and apparently even for the sin of building the main structure in the right-of-way.  She indicated the city was spending money on an engineering firm to check on the feasibility and cost of this bike lane resolution, despite the lack of any direction given by the council in their standing committees and council meetings.  

For reasons we will look at, this resolution appears to be dead in the water unless the city is looking to make great sacrifices in doing it right.  But first let's look at what the city manager said at the meeting with some analysis, as much of what she says is either untrue or unclear.

Aldrich: (1:02:00 in): "We've heard over the last several months now that we haven't really heard from Dr. Riemer or his team in regard to addressing the site plan violations that were issued in early August that resulted in a stop work order on August 6th."

                                "Several" months have not passed since early August to September 22 but PrevariKaitlin goes on:

"Dr. Riemer and his team did submit some response to that August 6th stop work order a few days after the SWO was issued and those possible solutions all involved moving the curb to the west and at the site plan review committee meeting the following week on August 12th, it was communicated to Dr. Riemer's team that moving the curb to the west was not an option that city council would really entertain."

So contrary to her first sentence, the other team has been heard from at a committee meeting since the SWO was issued.  These constant lies and exaggerations when the truth is so easy to put forth is why she is called Prevaricatin' Kaitlyn.  It should be also noted that no city councilor has made any statements at open meetings about what concessions they would entertain, but she goes on:

"It was really something that we felt was not in the best interest of the city based on our master plan goals and other community goals from what we want to see become of Rath Avenue.  Since that August 12th meeting, we have not received any other potential solution for fixing the columns from Dr. Riemer's team.  When we say we don't have any solutions for the problem, we have not received anything since that Planning Commission meeting [EDITOR:  actually, the SPR Committee meeting as she noted earlier].

"I just wanted to make that very clear.  We have, the City, in the meantime, in the last two weeks, have proposed a potential solution to Dr. Riemer for resolving the issue, which would allow the columns to ultimately stay in place.  That resolution is asking Dr. Riemer to actually install a bike lane on the east side of Rath Avenue."

From the Federal Highway Adm. (FHWA) course on Bicycle Lanes, the reasoning why bicycle lanes are not installed on just one side of two-way streets.

"That is our master plan goal.  It is also part of the multi-use in bike trails master plan that the county, that multiple counties wanted for a few years." 

Bike lanes, protected or not, placed anywhere is not part of the city's latest master plan, check it out for yourself.  The length of Rath Avenue is already a bike route and marked as such, as seen above in a snippet from the 2016 trail's master plan covering coastal West Michigan towns.  That plan only mentions a potential bike lane for Ludington Avenue, rejected even by city leaders that were considering a road diet during the last decade.

"That's why we don't want the curb moved further to the west.  If the curb is moved further to the west, we don't have room for a bike lane.  If Dr. Riemer is interested in potentially installing that bike lane with a protected curb on that block of Rath Avenue, it would then protect the columns that are currently too close to the curb from the plow trucks.  [EDITOR:  As we will show, a protected curb bike lane going the length of Rath will fit within existing curbs, but only with the loss of on-street parking for the whole length and right-turn lanes at Ludington Avenue.  With that sacrifice, the curb could be moved west.]

We do not have the preliminary cost estimate from our engineer yet for Dr. Riemer to actually truly consider what that would look like, we will have that later this week.  So the city has offered a potential solution, we'll have some more details potentially ironed out this week and we hope that it is viable versus the hundreds of thousands of dollars for him to actually move those columns.

We look forward to a solution that would ultimately benefit downtown Ludington and the residents of Ludington and also help us achieve a goal that has been a dream here in Ludington for several years and has not been achievable because there's no way to fund it, and maybe this is a way to achieve a city goal and help Dr. Riemer open his restaurant.  Depending on the results of the engineering study that we are doing, we will see the likelihood of that becoming a viable solution or not."

When considering the addition of protected bike lanes, street widths become very important, we see South Rath looking north, above, and looking south at the top of this article.  South of Foster, Rath Avenue is 36 feet wide, and currently allows for parking on both sides of the street.  The minimum rideable width for one-way protected bike lanes is 6.5-7 ft and the preferred width for one-way protected bike lanes is 8-12.5 ft. 

If they go minimum on bike lanes (6.5 ft.) and add on the 7 ft. minimum for parallel parking going both ways, this allows only 5.5 ft. for the north-south travel lanes left, and that is not enough.  The street would need to be widened to accommodate the minimal street lane width for travel of nine feet.  One would need 45 ft. wide streets from curb to curb to accommodate travel, parallel parking, and to house a protected bike lane.

That might be possible (but costly) by going about four feet over with the curbs on both sides of Rath for this section, but the street widens only to 41 feet on Rath between Foster and Ludington Avenues.  The AndyS' pillars make it impossible to go two feet over on both curbs and have all three. 

Thus, it is possible to have all three street uses for the full length of South Rath other than for parking in the half block you have before Ludington Avenue on the east side, which would not allow for a right turn lane without unsafe lane width reductions.  If North Rath is part of the deal, the street would need to be widened by 6-7 ft. on each side to support the proposed lanes.  This would appear to cost a bit more than moving the columns, 

Alternatively, the city could eliminate on-street parking for both sides of Rath Street and not need to widen it.  This would allow for the widths of travel and bike lanes to be at their preferred widths, but subject those who unwisely park on the bike lanes to misdemeanors as per Michigan law:  

If City Manager Aldrich's estimations were true, then their engineering firm should have some better numbers than I have by this time.  The costs for street widening appear to be very prohibitive towards Riemer's team to accept that option.  Even if it is accepted, having a right-turn lane onto Ludington Avenue will be a thing of the past.  Alternatively, the loss of dozens of convenient downtown on-street parking spots is a cost that neighboring businesses and facilities will bear if Riemer's team puts in protected bike lanes without widening the street. 

The proposal should have been formally discussed in a public forum before being disclosed informally in a city manager's oral report as what appears to be an ultimatum without a clear cost-benefit analysis.  Putting a bike lane on Rath Avenue is and has never been in the city's master plan or the multicounty trails plan, it is an idea that needs to be discussed publicly before a city manager (known for prevarication and abusing her authority) and a developer make it a reality.   

EPILOGUE:  Running parallel to South Rath and considered the Michigan terminus of US 10, South James (above) was one of the first streets changed in character after the City had adopted a complete streets resolution in order to make all streets navigable for all forms of travel.  Both sides of that street have 10 feet set aside for parking, leaving 11 feet for each travel lane.  

By ultimately choosing on-street parking spaces over protected bicycle lanes the city (and state) appeased the desires of James Street merchants, but ignored the underlying safety issues and the complete streets credo.  Parked vehicles obstruct the sight lines of vehicles trying to get on South James through side streets, I personally have seen a couple of car crashes happen while in the area as a result of the limited visibility. 

While the city code makes it illegal to ride on the sidewalks of South James, riding on the street is not safe, and seemingly discouraged because of the traffic behind you, the doors of parked cars beside you, and the drivers from side streets not seeing you as they turn in front of you.  The city chose parking over safe traffic flow on James, will they choose the reverse for Rath?  

[stump]

Heres one idea, make South Rath one way traffic for one block , no parking either side , put in a 11 foot vehicle travel lane and the rest on both sides for the 1 bike that might show up on Sunday afternoon. I have never seen a bike on South Rath in the 50 + years of living in Ludington. Driving daily on North Rath where the painted bike markings are , yep no bikes there either . I know what the problem really is , lack of bike riders except for Tom Rotta. It's nice the City is looking out for your safety, and you think the City doesn't like you.

[XLFD]

I sincerely appreciate the "concern for my safety" that the city has for me as I become an older bicycle rider, but I must confess that I am against bike lanes, as I believe that vehicular cycling is safer and saves a ton of money and road space that could be used for educating drivers and riders how to share the road.  In this Bike lanes don't make roads safer article in Forbes, it notes that it’s impossible to structure bike lanes without vehicles turning into these lanes to get to underground garages, above-ground parking lots, and to make right or left turns at intersections.

Jan Heine, editor-in-chief of Bicycle Quarterly, wrote, “Any barrier that separates the cyclist visually from other traffic effectively hides the cyclist. This is counterproductive to safety. Moving cyclists out of the roadway altogether, on separate bike paths, is even more dangerous, because drivers don’t look for (or cannot see) cyclists off to the side.” He continued, “On streets with frequent intersections, separate paths only make cycling less safe. I wish those who advocate for them would look at the data and stop asking for facilities that will cause more accidents.”

The author of a 2019 thesis looking at bike lane safety concluded that separated bike lanes raise the number of crashes by 117 percent compared with shared roadway. Separated bike tracks, which are separated from cars by a median strip, parking lane, or row of plantings, increased crashes 400 percent more than a bike lane.

City leaders must see me regularly ride my Bike on Rath Avenue and hope that I will become one of these statistics, so thanks but no thanks, city leaders, I like that bike route just the way it is.