On 13/05/14 07:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2014 1:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:


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.

Just for the record, I agree with almost everything in that paragraph.

My only disagreement is this: Only a few people (percentage-wise) will
ride if you give them a bike lane or a bike boulevard, etc. The vast
majority will still be uninterested.

I think Jay covered that with huge spending might increase modal share
to 10%. That kinda says the majority will still be uninterested.

(And BTW, I personally like bike boulevards. I'd like to see more of
them.)

If the government (or anybody) wants to get more than a few percent bike
mode share, they'll need to find ways to strongly discourage driving.
Gas at $10 a gallon will help, but it's only the first of many necessary
steps. And most of those necessary steps will be politically impossible
in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.


Political suicide in many places around the world. I think the Dutch
did it slowly. A gradual squeeze on the cars.

At the moment I'm working near 30km from home, and need to cart a large
heavy laptop that is not mine to damage, and a few other things. 20-25
minutes on the motorway in the comfort of my Jeep, or an hour risking my
neck on the arterials with wall to wall texting junkies carrying fragile
cargo and no place to shower or get changed at the destination, means
I'll drive, thanks.


--
JS