On Monday, May 12, 2014 7:43:58 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:25 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 3:58:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip



Personally, I believe that if the U.S. _could_ get (say) 30% bike mode

share, we would see easily detectable benefits.



Personally, I believe that if one person discovers the joy

of bicycle commuting, benefits are easily detectable...



True, assuming you mean it's easy to detect that person's joy.



That also applies to other activities - for example, the joy of fishing.

But there are no landscape architects lobbying to transform America by

constructing trout streams everywhere.



And if we did construct thousands of urban trout streams, yet fishing

increased only a fraction of a percent in 30 years, I think people would

certainly say "Hmm. We're wasting money."

Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my observations here in PDX. A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid of mean old cars. Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride if you give them a lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam . . . no. We have hills, long commuting distances for employment outside downtown, car love, etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike avenues (and the condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase modal share to 10%. We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a bicycle super-highway are nill.

-- Jay Beattie.