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

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:54:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

snip

Certainly more exercise if better. In fact I read somewhere that of
people who are medically disqualified from entering the U.S. Military
that obesity is the major reason. I might also mention that when you
see two tourists over here the fat one is almost always from the U.S.
:-)

Heh, right you are. We are world leaders in maximum consumption
with minimum output.

It's happening because fuel prices are getting more painful,
because the sedentary lifestyle plague is getting more painful,
because technology induced withdrawal from connection with the
real world is leaving a huge void of human need. Also, people
just want to have fun! (... "I got a feelin' I'm not the only
one" ;-) Replacing car trips with bicycle trips is a win-win
(win-win-win-win-win).

Infrastructure is an enabler - not a catalyst.

But I am skeptical of numbers like $138 - $605 million. I would think
that even a random guess would get closer than a 438% variance :-)

I suppose they were looking at a variety of budget scenarios.

Like I said, it was only an abstract:

Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon.

Source: Journal of Physical Activity & Health . Jan2011 Supplement 1, Vol. 8, pS49-S58. 10p. 1 Diagram, 1 Chart, 4 Graphs.
Author(s): Gotschi, Thomas

Abstract: Background: Promoting bicycling has great potential to increase overall physical activity; however, significant uncertainty exists with regard to the amount and effectiveness of investment needed for infrastructure. The objective of this study is to assess how costs of Portland's past and planned investments in bicycling relate to health and other benefits. Methods: 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. Conclusions: This first of its kind 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.
Copyright of Journal of Physical Activity & Health is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.

.... and I wasn't endorsing or validating it - just including it
that part about "even when only a limited selection of benefits
is considered" in a small sampling of search results.

On Monday, May 12, 2014 7:43:58 AM UTC-7, 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:

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.

The easily detectable benefits I was talking about (and the part
you snipped, "the benefits are more than multiplied by each new
addition", should have given you a clue) are things like:

One bicyclist on the road (even in a bike lane or using a
separated facility that will inevitably intersect the main
road) is *infinitely* more than none. It completely negates
formation of the habit of driving without having to watch out
for or deal with bicycles.

One happy, healthy looking bicyclist is an inspiration to
more.

More bicyclists reinforce these benefits in a compound way,
all the way to a tipping point where motorists get used to
the idea that they're going to have to deal with bicyclists,
to the point where getting upset about it is futile (this is
what I observed in downtown Portland traffic dynamics).

All this actively dismantles the car culture a little bit,
potentially to a point where it's more than a little bit
(but a little bit is still good).

I don't see a parallel to trout fishing (though I rather like
trout streams anyway even... nay, *especially* - if no one
fishes them).

snip

On Tue, 13 May 2014 21:24:15 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:54:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

snip

Certainly more exercise if better. In fact I read somewhere that of
people who are medically disqualified from entering the U.S. Military
that obesity is the major reason. I might also mention that when you
see two tourists over here the fat one is almost always from the U.S.
:-)

Heh, right you are. We are world leaders in maximum consumption
with minimum output.

It's happening because fuel prices are getting more painful,
because the sedentary lifestyle plague is getting more painful,
because technology induced withdrawal from connection with the
real world is leaving a huge void of human need. Also, people
just want to have fun! (... "I got a feelin' I'm not the only
one" ;-) Replacing car trips with bicycle trips is a win-win
(win-win-win-win-win).

Infrastructure is an enabler - not a catalyst.

But I am skeptical of numbers like $138 - $605 million. I would think
that even a random guess would get closer than a 438% variance :-)

I suppose they were looking at a variety of budget scenarios.

Like I said, it was only an abstract:

Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon.

Source: Journal of Physical Activity & Health . Jan2011 Supplement 1, Vol. 8, pS49-S58. 10p. 1 Diagram, 1 Chart, 4 Graphs.
Author(s): Gotschi, Thomas

Abstract: Background: Promoting bicycling has great potential to increase overall physical activity; however, significant uncertainty exists with regard to the amount and effectiveness of investment needed for infrastructure. The objective of this study is to assess how costs of Portland's past and planned investments in bicycling relate to health and other benefits. Methods: 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. Conclusions: This first of its kind 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.
Copyright of Journal of Physical Activity & Health is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.

... and I wasn't endorsing or validating it - just including it
that part about "even when only a limited selection of benefits
is considered" in a small sampling of search results.

Yes, I read that but I'm still rather nebulas about the numbers. I can
imagine what the owners of the company I worked for would have said if
I came in with estimated project costs of $388 - $594 million. I don't
believe that they would have let me bid the project :-)

In spite of all the #Feather Merchants there is still a real world out
there.

# Feather Merchant a derogatory term used by U.S. Military personnel
referring to civilian employees of the government.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On 5/14/2014 1:02 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 7:43:58 AM UTC-7, 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:

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.

The easily detectable benefits I was talking about (and the part
you snipped, "the benefits are more than multiplied by each new
addition", should have given you a clue) are things like:

One bicyclist on the road (even in a bike lane or using a
separated facility that will inevitably intersect the main
road) is *infinitely* more than none. It completely negates
formation of the habit of driving without having to watch out
for or deal with bicycles.


Added facilities have increased cycling numbers. Is someone arguing
that this isn't true?

No facilities but VC principles have had no visible effect on cycling
numbers. Is someone arguing that this isn't true?

Increased cycling numbers lowers the risk of cycling. Is someone
arguing that this isn't true?

One happy, healthy looking bicyclist is an inspiration to
more.

More bicyclists reinforce these benefits in a compound way,
all the way to a tipping point where motorists get used to
the idea that they're going to have to deal with bicyclists,
to the point where getting upset about it is futile (this is
what I observed in downtown Portland traffic dynamics).


One of the most effective ways to increase cycling safety is to increase
cycling numbers. It's not just about the motorists getting upset,
though that's part of it that I don't mind. It's about the motorists
becoming accustomed to cyclists being there.

All this actively dismantles the car culture a little bit,
potentially to a point where it's more than a little bit
(but a little bit is still good).

I don't see a parallel to trout fishing (though I rather like
trout streams anyway even... nay, *especially* - if no one
fishes them).

I suspect that the more bikes and the fewer cars the better for the
trout streams.

snip

On 5/13/2014 10:54 PM, John B. wrote:
I might also mention that when you
see two tourists over here the fat one is almost always from the U.S.
:-)

Every time I've returned from visiting Europe, my first walk through an
American airport has been a shock. The difference in average body mass
is immediately apparent.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/14/2014 1:02 AM, Dan O wrote:

More bicyclists reinforce these benefits in a compound way,
all the way to a tipping point where motorists get used to
the idea that they're going to have to deal with bicyclists,
to the point where getting upset about it is futile (this is
what I observed in downtown Portland traffic dynamics).

I don't doubt that motorists do get used to dealing with bicyclists. I
do doubt that it requires large numbers of bicyclists. As I've reported
countless times, I've ridden in the downtowns of many, many cities,
including (of course) my own. Cooperation has been very much the norm.
Rudeness by downtown motorists has been extremely rare, and the few
times it's occurred, it's been completely inconsequential.

We don't need bike ghettos to be treated well.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/14/2014 8:32 AM, Duane wrote:


Added facilities have increased cycling numbers. Is someone arguing
that this isn't true?

Nobody I know. As the article at the start of the thread noted, we've
added lots and lots of bike facilities, and bike commuting has risen
from a paltry 0.5% mode share to a whopping 0.6% mode share, in just 32
years.

No facilities but VC principles have had no visible effect on cycling
numbers. Is someone arguing that this isn't true?

Well, as an aside, we could first discuss whether the above delta = 0.1%
is "visible" or not.

But the point of Vehicular Cycling principles has never been to increase
cycling numbers. Instead, it's been to make cycling better for those
who choose to employ those principles. And part of making cycling
better is showing riders that they don't need special facilities to ride
where they want; that they can ride safely and enjoyably on ordinary roads.

Obviously, not everyone gets that or admits that. Some persist in
falsifying VC objectives so they can call it a failure.

Increased cycling numbers lowers the risk of cycling. Is someone
arguing that this isn't true?

That hasn't been part of the discussion. We can talk about it if you
like.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:32:59 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:02 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 7:43:58 AM UTC-7, 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:

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.

The easily detectable benefits I was talking about (and the part
you snipped, "the benefits are more than multiplied by each new
addition", should have given you a clue) are things like:

One bicyclist on the road (even in a bike lane or using a
separated facility that will inevitably intersect the main
road) is *infinitely* more than none. It completely negates
formation of the habit of driving without having to watch out
for or deal with bicycles.

Added facilities have increased cycling numbers. Is someone arguing
that this isn't true?

(see OP)

No facilities but VC principles have had no visible effect on cycling
numbers. Is someone arguing that this isn't true?

While VC is often presented as an enabling strategy, I think
it's proponents acknowledge that it doesn't get people out of
cars and onto bikes. It doesn't shift the transportation
landscape away from the car culture. In fact its very
existence is based on accepting car culture dominance and
*joining* it.

VC is fine FWIW. VC principles are very helpful in those
situations where bicyclists _have to_ share the same space
with cars, which is going to be the case for the foreseeable
future where the car culture dominates.

But it seems to me that VC is just common sense for anyone
reasonably versed in traffic rules and conventions. Many
people have a lot of trouble understanding what seems simple
and obvious to me, though, and I think educational opportunities
for them is a good idea.

Increased cycling numbers lowers the risk of cycling. Is someone
arguing that this isn't true?

I think each of your tenets are generally understood to
be true. (There are complications, but yeah.) And it stands
to reason. In any case I would imagine the company would make
most people more comfortable out there.

One happy, healthy looking bicyclist is an inspiration to
more.

More bicyclists reinforce these benefits in a compound way,
all the way to a tipping point where motorists get used to
the idea that they're going to have to deal with bicyclists,
to the point where getting upset about it is futile (this is
what I observed in downtown Portland traffic dynamics).

One of the most effective ways to increase cycling safety is to increase
cycling numbers. It's not just about the motorists getting upset,
though that's part of it that I don't mind.

I do mind.

It's about the motorists
becoming accustomed to cyclists being there.

Frank is on record saying, "they dislike us simply because
we're there".

First, let me say (again) that *most* drivers are very nice
(that many of these have negative feelings toward us is some-
thing to consider, but they deal with it internally and at
least manage decent social interaction with us anyway).

But way too many are not so nice. Aggressiveness resulting
in physical harm is rare (not nearly rare enough), but there
are anti-social power plays *galore* (some small, some not so
small). This results in a hostile environment.

The tipping point is where they wear out their capacity to
handle being upset about our presence, stop getting upset,
and regard us as fellow human beings doing the same thing
they are - making our way from one place to another.

All this actively dismantles the car culture a little bit,
potentially to a point where it's more than a little bit
(but a little bit is still good).

I don't see a parallel to trout fishing (though I rather like
trout streams anyway even... nay, *especially* - if no one
fishes them).

I suspect that the more bikes and the fewer cars the better for the
trout streams.

For sure.

On 5/14/2014 1:43 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:32:59 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:02 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 7:43:58 AM UTC-7, 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:

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.

The easily detectable benefits I was talking about (and the part
you snipped, "the benefits are more than multiplied by each new
addition", should have given you a clue) are things like:

One bicyclist on the road (even in a bike lane or using a
separated facility that will inevitably intersect the main
road) is *infinitely* more than none. It completely negates
formation of the habit of driving without having to watch out
for or deal with bicycles.

Added facilities have increased cycling numbers. Is someone arguing
that this isn't true?

(see OP)

No facilities but VC principles have had no visible effect on cycling
numbers. Is someone arguing that this isn't true?

While VC is often presented as an enabling strategy, I think
it's proponents acknowledge that it doesn't get people out of
cars and onto bikes. It doesn't shift the transportation
landscape away from the car culture. In fact its very
existence is based on accepting car culture dominance and
*joining* it.


Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid.
The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that
makes all other options sins.

VC is fine FWIW. VC principles are very helpful in those
situations where bicyclists _have to_ share the same space
with cars, which is going to be the case for the foreseeable
future where the car culture dominates.


Like I said, some of it makes sense. Defensive driving (riding) makes
the most sense to me. Doesn't preclude bike lanes IMO.

snip

On 5/14/2014 10:43 AM, Dan O wrote:

While VC is often presented as an enabling strategy, I think
it's proponents acknowledge that it doesn't get people out of
cars and onto bikes. It doesn't shift the transportation
landscape away from the car culture. In fact its very
existence is based on accepting car culture dominance and
*joining* it.

That is a very good description. The VC principle essentially gives up
on ever transitioning to a more bicycle-centric culture such as in the
Netherlands. Yet whenever some of the VC adherents go non-linear over
the issue of helmets, the first thing they do is jump up and down and
scream: "No one wears helmets in the Netherlands, and they have lower
rates of injuries and fatalities. That proves that helmets don't work,
and may even actually cause more injuries and fatalities."