On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town



I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's
truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before
they had lots of infrastructure.


They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure.
That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days
people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only
the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic
example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike
infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling.

IOW if you don't build it they'll leave.


Change the culture. Create
cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then
the built environment will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending
a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.

The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people
are rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing
cyclists, but does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats
on that. I am doubtful but I could be wrong.


There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular
Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure
has phenomenal growth:

https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903

It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for
restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow.


For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and
riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a
suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I
have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me
how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the
rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in
an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I
would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the
weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the
rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then
this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives
seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good
with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west
of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes
unless it is flat, ...


Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which
were all quite hilly.


... placed near town or some work destination, ...


Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head.


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

-- Jay Beattie.