It's happening! Um... sort of.

On 5/13/2014 8:22 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Here's the classic Onion item:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...blic-tra,1434/


That may be the best Onion article I've ever seen!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, May 12, 2014 6:03:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 10:43:58 -0400, 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."



But isn't the "save the fisheries" an ongoing project. I distinctly

remember an article about people protesting the building of an Atomic

Power Station somewhere in N.Y. state because it was going to increase

the temperature of a river/stream by a degree or two and kill the

trout.

Around here, the annual salmon numbers are watched more carefully than the NFL draft. We spend a lot of time and money on preserving and improving salmon runs because fishing is a significant part of the Oregon economy. What I love is one when other, warm and fuzzy creatures start eating our precious coho. Shoot 'em!
http://www.corvallisadvocate.com/201...gon-sea-lions/




-- Jay Beattie.

On 5/13/2014 3:29 AM, Dan O wrote:

Portland is doing it all, and Frank has nothing but smarmy,
bitter contempt for them.

Portland bike mode is stagnating. Car mode share is up, bike mode share
hasn't budged in five years, despite all the "Innovative!" tricks added
during that time.

http://bikeportland.org/2013/09/19/c...es-climb-94248

http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367

This seems to hint that even in a dense, hip, mild-climate American city
with lots of bike infrastructure, there's a limit to how many people
will join a biking trend.

That's over five years of observation. It will take a while to see the
long-term effects. I suppose bike mode share could increase - although
if five years worth of ever-increasing infra didn't make it happen, it
sure seems like some other tactic will be necessary. $10/gallon gas,
anyone?

OTOH, bike use in Portland pretty much coincided with tattoo use in
Portland. It's entirely possible that the next crew of trendy young
folk will forsake both.

We'll see.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/10/2014 5:40 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
:Some infrastructure fans have bragged about the fact that "It's happening!" -
:that is, that the big investments in bike lanes, cycle tracks, bike boxes and
:such have created a surge in bike commuting.

:I'm all in favor of bike commuting and utility cycling. But I've long been
:aware that the supposed surge has been comparatively minor.

Yeah, the rate of commuting nearly tripled in Chicago from 2000 to 20012.
Totally trivial change. It more than trippled in Portland. It almost
doubled in LA, more than doubled in Philly. It doubled (to over 4
percent) in Minneapolis.

I sugest reading the study (or better, the numbers) and not relying on
bad websites for summaries.

LOL, when reputable web sites and statistics don't support his beliefs
he needs to make up his own web sites and statistics. In fact he's
already been doing this for helmets so it's surprising that he has not
expanded his misinformation support structure to bicycle infrastructure.

San Francisco just about doubled in the last five years as
infrastructure increased. Interestingly enough, they even accounted for
changing the month that the count was done to keep the data accurate,
even though that reduced the increase.

Of course you can't just point to infrastructure as the reason for
changes in cycling levels, there are multiple factors to consider. In
San Francisco the population has been getting younger as the city
becomes a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. But most of those people
don't cycle to work, they take the coach buses provided by their
employers (Apple, Google, Yahoo, etc.).

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:45:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2014 3:29 AM, Dan O wrote:



"Substantial increases in bicycling require an integrated
package of many different, complementary interventions,
including infrastructure provision and pro-bicycle programs,
supportive land use planning, and restrictions on car use."

Portland is doing it all, and Frank has nothing but smarmy,
bitter contempt for them.

Portland bike mode is stagnating. Car mode share is up, bike mode share
hasn't budged in five years, despite all the "Innovative!" tricks added
during that time.

Do you have anything good to say about Portland? It's a
really great city in so many ways, not the least of which
is *leading* transportation bicycling.


http://bikeportland.org/2013/09/19/c...es-climb-94248

http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367


Yawn

This seems to hint that even in a dense, hip, mild-climate American city
with lots of bike infrastructure, there's a limit to how many people
will join a biking trend.

Of course there is.

I think Portland still has growth potential, though there are
some big challenges. They're working on it, though.

But what Portland has done will inform, inspire, and ease growth
in transportation bicycling elsewhere. Hip and innovative are
virtues.


That's over five years of observation. It will take a while to see the
long-term effects. I suppose bike mode share could increase - although
if five years worth of ever-increasing infra didn't make it happen,

Positive things have happened in that five years. You've got that
stupid data stick lodged up your butt again.

... it
sure seems like some other tactic will be necessary. $10/gallon gas,
anyone?

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=...g/twT9KGEhg1wJ

OTOH, bike use in Portland pretty much coincided with tattoo use in
Portland. It's entirely possible that the next crew of trendy young
folk will forsake both.

"... and Frank has nothing but smarmy, bitter contempt for them."

We'll see.

Indeed.

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:01:01 AM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:45:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

That's over five years of observation. It will take a while to see the
long-term effects. I suppose bike mode share could increase - although
if five years worth of ever-increasing infra didn't make it happen,

Positive things have happened in that five years.

For instance:

I think it was right around five or six years ago the front
page of The Oregonian had a new installment in the ongoing
road rage war between cars and bikes. I even started saving
a stack of the newspapers. Relations seem much better now.

snip

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:48:24 AM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:01:01 AM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:45:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

That's over five years of observation. It will take a while to see the
long-term effects. I suppose bike mode share could increase - although
if five years worth of ever-increasing infra didn't make it happen,

Positive things have happened in that five years.

For instance:

I think it was right around five or six years ago the front
page of The Oregonian had a new installment in the ongoing
road rage war between cars and bikes. I even started saving
a stack of the newspapers. Relations seem much better now.


http://bikeportland.org/2014/05/13/s...ortland-105851

On 13/05/14 21:24, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:


"Hmm. We're wasting money."

You can say that again:

http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=bicy...structure+cost

"... cost-benefit analysis of investments in bicycling in a
US city shows that such efforts are cost-effective, even when
only a limited selection of benefits is considered."

... and:

"The data support the need for well-connected neighborhood
streets and a network of bicycle-specific infrastructure to
encourage more bicycling among adults. This can be accomplished
through comprehensive planning, regulation, and funding."

Out of curiosity, how "cost effective"? Are there fewer medical
claims? Better air quality? Cheaper roads?

That seems to be what the Dutch claim. Less weight related illness.
Lower rates of respiratory disease. A study from here (Australia)
indicated that for every 20 minute (each way) commute by bicycle, the
economy was saved $21.

--
JS

On 13/05/14 22:22, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2014 5:11 PM, James wrote:


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.



Indeed, it's a basic difference in worldview.

I enjoy riding and think bicycles and cycling have inherent worth. That
doesn't mean that I would want to beat people about the head, punish tax
and belittle them and then ruin the present transportation system to
force people to ride bicycles. It's human hubris to assume that one's
opinions ought to be mandated but it's also very human to stand defiant
against such rubbish.

Here's the classic Onion item:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...blic-tra,1434/


Yep.

"It's about time somebody did something to get some of these other cars
off the road."

Sums it up.

I have to say, there seems to be a ground swell of urban utility
cyclists around Melbourne. The number I see leaving the city in the
evening is steadily growing. What worries me is the authorities
continuing push for helmet wearing, when half of the people's bikes
don't have lights while they're riding at night. It seems crazy to keep
harping on about a secondary protection device when there's such apathy
shown toward a primary safety device.

--
JS

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:18:22 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 13/05/14 21:24, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:

"Hmm. We're wasting money."

You can say that again:

http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=bicy...structure+cost

"... cost-benefit analysis of investments in bicycling in a
US city shows that such efforts are cost-effective, even when
only a limited selection of benefits is considered."

snip


Out of curiosity, how "cost effective"? Are there fewer medical
claims? Better air quality? Cheaper roads?

I only saw an abstract, but it says:

"Costs of investment plans are compared with 2 types of
monetized health benefits, health care cost savings and
value of statistical life savings. Levels of bicycling
are estimated using past trends, future mode share goals,
and a traffic demand model. Results: By 2040, investments
in the range of $138 to $605 million will result in health
care cost savings of $388 to $594 million, fuel savings of
$143 to $218 million, and savings in value of statistical
lives of $7 to $12 billion. The benefit-cost ratios for
health care and fuel savings are between 3.8 and 1.2 to 1,
and an order of magnitude larger when value of statistical
lives is used."

That seems to be what the Dutch claim. Less weight related illness.
Lower rates of respiratory disease. A study from here (Australia)
indicated that for every 20 minute (each way) commute by bicycle, the
economy was saved $21.

What mostly interested me about the earlier quote above was
the "... even when only a limited selection of benefits is
considered". There can be many, many and great benefits
that may be either too intangible, too subjective, or too
something else to make the cost/benefit analysis. (Trout
fishing, indeed!)

Thing is, they're not even needed to make the case. Bike
infrastructure is *cheap* compared to what is spent propping
up the car culture; and the cost of waiting around for the
car culture to collapse on its own in too immense.