On 2019-10-03 16:11, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:42:23 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-03 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:00:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-01 16:46, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:39:22 PM UTC-7, jbeattie
wrote:
This was forwarded to me by one of my bike commuter
cohorts:








-- Jay Beattie.

Pretty much the entire commuter bicycle movement is built
around John as a starting point. ...


I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In
this interview he clearly dodged a key point:

Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy
person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate
that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that
incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since
that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in
the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that
protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly
increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike.

JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then
he veered off the topic above.

Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the
vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure.

On other things I agree with John Forester. For example, I
always leave bike lanes when I want to do a left turn, lining
up with cars in the turn lane. And sometimes getting grumpy
when the traffic engineers were too incompetent to make the
loop for the light detect my bike.


... Though all of these bike lanes and bike trails ideas
COME FROM BICYCLISTS.

But they don't. Most infrastructure design is the product of
national planning organizations like NACTO or state DOTs or
local planning departments. Some of it is from private enterprise
like Alta Planning + Design. Many of these grand designs would
never come from cyclists except perhaps those with suicidal
ideations.


Exactly. And they know.

A lot of the planners don't know and you end up with facilities
that are a nightmare.


How come we have excellent ones like these down here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jededi..._Fair_Oaks.jpg



https://www.usbr.gov/mp/ccao/images/fsc-new.jpg

Because you have lots of empty dirt, which is a luxury in most parts
of the developed world. The American River trail is a linear part,
and the other is a Bureau of Reclamation project along a canal.
https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/storie...RecordID=62139 Both
are considered recreation trails.


So is this but it's my favorite route if I have to go pick something up
in Folsom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zqIKf2T_I

Then I have to use the MTB which is slower but it is so worth it. It's a
matter of attitude. For me, cycling isn't just for environmental and
health benefits. I also do it because it allows me to enjoy nature
better than in or on any other vehicle. So I gladly accept 15-30min
extra ride time. Sometimes, like on the way to Sacramento yesterday,
using a so-called "recreational trail" actually saves time because I
never have to slow down for traffic, stop signs or lights.

Right now though we have a growing problem that sometimes makes bike
paths not so pleasant or even unusable. It's the sprawling homeless
encampments. When I went through there yesterday I couldn't believe it,
one large homeless site had a power generator purring outside the tent.
The guy had an impressive bicycle chop shop going.


... That's nice. It's good you have
those things, but they are not representative of facilities in cities
where bicycles account for any appreciable mode share, e.g.
https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506


That looks almost like my way to work in Hengelo (Netherlands). 200
bikes and three cars waiting for a green light. Back then the bike path
had three lanes and the road had two. Only in the Netherlands.


And to my point, I seriously doubt that either of your recreational
trails were designed by cyclists with some sort of special sense
about what cyclists really need. Any empty bike trail is fine. Its
not so fine when its not empty or when it intersects streets.


It was designed for cyclists, AFAIK more than 100 years ago. Anyhow, it
is now a major bike commuter route and there are times when I avoid it.
Just like I avoid freeways druing rush hour if I can. Weekends are bad
because of lots of slow cyclists but even during rush hour most ride at
a pretty good clip, typically in the 15-20mph range.



... And I have to admit, after battling h4qvy traffic getting
on a nice quiet bike path has a remarkable calming effect.


I know only one cyclist who doesn't care much whether he rides
in the lane or on a bike path, though even he is mostly found
on long segregated bike paths.

All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. Even
the serious commuters do who easily spend 50mi/day on their
bikes. What many do is a split commute. They truck their bikes
to parking lots near the American River Bike Path an then
continue the commute by bicycle. In the evening all in
reverse.

Linear parks are fine if you want to avoid traffic, but then
again, you get hung up behind walkers with dog packs, homeless,
etc., etc. Many times the added infrastructure is inferior to the
prior road arrangement, which around here, may have included a
bike lane or wide shoulder, e.g.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2440/3...340bfe29_c.jpg

The segregated MUP is now bisected by intersecting roads every
25-50 yards. The prior bike lane allowed you to ride without
interruption down the main road. Danger is now increased because
cyclists hit the intersections at the same time as entering
traffic. It's the functional equivalent of putting bikes on
sidewalks. Gee, thanks for that improvement. Now I get to stop
every 25 yards.


Poor design. Have you personally intervened at the city council?


There are many illustrations of foolish choices around here --
and some good choices, which are typically just wide shoulders
and/or bike lanes.


And they can be fixed. As has happened on Freeport Blvd in
Sacramento. To my surprise with a very low amount of hissing from
the automotive league despite the fact that they lost one lane.

This may incite Chalo rage, but I usually don't support taking away
traffic lanes. Cars don't disappear, and it can produce unintended
consequences. There are exceptions.


Sometimes mistaken priorities of the past need to be corrected and
that's what happened on Freeport Boulevard. I support that. Otehrwise
all that environmental consciousness is just ... empty talk.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/