On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:

[...]


... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not
"dangerous."


Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't
ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I
know.


That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster
riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like
people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when
everyone else does.


... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300


BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those
folks will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility --
will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or
close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are
already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly
bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the
spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to
handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on
her bike -- at least not on a regular basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and
umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who
are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The
proverbial garage queen owners.

I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them
bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy
roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck
their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their
bikes remain garage queens.

I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to
go for a fun-ride.


That does have serious health benefits. People will truck their bikes as
long as there are no routes to the trails that they perceive as safe.

I am also talking about people riding to an evening in town instead of
taking a cab, Uber or Lyft. That is what happened in Manhattan and also
here in Folsom. It reduces vehicle mileage. It does not matter whether
it's their own motor vehicle or someone else's, pollution is pollution.


... We're talking about transportation facilities
that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat ...


It was clearly not flat after putting in the bike infrastructure, as
evidenced. Naturally, any benefit will eventually plateau if either no
more bike paths are built or nearly all people willing to cycle use
their bicycles. In America that's never going to be a large percentage,
as has been evidenced by your elevator talks.

"Flat" meaning topographically flat.



... and
putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes,
although the facilities can be overrun by walkers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking
or driving, particularly on Manhattan.


In NYC it's the same in a motor vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WiJgI3N4A

A typical sign of a space crammed too full of people and one of them
many reasons I will never live in a large city. Beither will my wife and
she grew up in a huge metropolis.

I can't sing like the guy in the video but I have a few train horn
tracks on my MP3 player. Does the job, gently. Once I couldn't resist.
Two girls were walking on singletrack at a section next to old railroad
tracks. One of them walked on a rail so they could talk. I rode up very
quietly and then turned on the MP3 track with the big Union Pacific
locomotive sound, including horn. There hasn't been a large train since
the 80's but the reaction was priceless.


In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the
facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the
riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3)
Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in
PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities,
and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if
you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my
speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.


Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you start
with a very low number cycling never gets started.

Except that it did in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that busy and there were and are alternative routes through the neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural roads with no shoulders.

Again, I'm not against infrastructure. It has its place, and its particularly valuable if there are no usable roads or where there are lots of bicycles and it relieves traffic pressure. Bikes are traffic, and having a lane for bikes moves traffic.

But putting in bike lanes did not create the bicycle traffic in Portland, at least not initially. Facilities are now necessary just to handle the volume, and the bike lanes and other facilities undoubtedly brought out some more cyclists -- but figuring out who those are would take some effort and not just guessing. I much preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules.

-- Jay Beattie.