|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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: 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." Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my observations here in PDX. A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid of mean old cars. Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride if you give them a lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam . . . no. We have hills, long commuting distances for employment outside downtown, car love, etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike avenues (and the condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase modal share to 10%. We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a bicycle super-highway are nill. -- Jay Beattie. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/12/2014 1:39 PM, jbeattie 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: 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." Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my observations here in PDX. A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid of mean old cars. Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride if you give them a lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam . . . no. We have hills, long commuting distances for employment outside downtown, car love, etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike avenues (and the condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase modal share to 10%. We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a bicycle super-highway are nill. Same in Montreal, lanes increase ridership. Been studied noted and argued. We'll never be the Netherlands either because we have winter. It takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to ride in Quebec winters. Some do but I don't see it increasing very much. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/12/2014 1:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:
Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my observations here in PDX. A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid of mean old cars. Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride if you give them a lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam . . . no. We have hills, long commuting distances for employment outside downtown, car love, etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike avenues (and the condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase modal share to 10%. We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a bicycle super-highway are nill. Just for the record, I agree with almost everything in that paragraph. My only disagreement is this: Only a few people (percentage-wise) will ride if you give them a bike lane or a bike boulevard, etc. The vast majority will still be uninterested. (And BTW, I personally like bike boulevards. I'd like to see more of them.) If the government (or anybody) wants to get more than a few percent bike mode share, they'll need to find ways to strongly discourage driving. Gas at $10 a gallon will help, but it's only the first of many necessary steps. And most of those necessary steps will be politically impossible in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 13/05/14 07:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2014 1:39 PM, jbeattie wrote: Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my observations here in PDX. A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid of mean old cars. Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride if you give them a lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam . . . no. We have hills, long commuting distances for employment outside downtown, car love, etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike avenues (and the condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase modal share to 10%. We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a bicycle super-highway are nill. Just for the record, I agree with almost everything in that paragraph. My only disagreement is this: Only a few people (percentage-wise) will ride if you give them a bike lane or a bike boulevard, etc. The vast majority will still be uninterested. I think Jay covered that with huge spending might increase modal share to 10%. That kinda says the majority will still be uninterested. (And BTW, I personally like bike boulevards. I'd like to see more of them.) If the government (or anybody) wants to get more than a few percent bike mode share, they'll need to find ways to strongly discourage driving. Gas at $10 a gallon will help, but it's only the first of many necessary steps. And most of those necessary steps will be politically impossible in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 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. -- JS |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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. -- Cheers, John B. (invalid to gmail) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Tue, 13 May 2014 08:11:47 +1000, James
wrote: On 13/05/14 07:00, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/12/2014 1:39 PM, jbeattie wrote: Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my observations here in PDX. A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid of mean old cars. Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride if you give them a lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam . . . no. We have hills, long commuting distances for employment outside downtown, car love, etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike avenues (and the condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase modal share to 10%. We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a bicycle super-highway are nill. Just for the record, I agree with almost everything in that paragraph. My only disagreement is this: Only a few people (percentage-wise) will ride if you give them a bike lane or a bike boulevard, etc. The vast majority will still be uninterested. I think Jay covered that with huge spending might increase modal share to 10%. That kinda says the majority will still be uninterested. (And BTW, I personally like bike boulevards. I'd like to see more of them.) If the government (or anybody) wants to get more than a few percent bike mode share, they'll need to find ways to strongly discourage driving. Gas at $10 a gallon will help, but it's only the first of many necessary steps. And most of those necessary steps will be politically impossible in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. Political suicide in many places around the world. I think the Dutch did it slowly. A gradual squeeze on the cars. No. the Dutch never had the level of car use that is common in the U.S - or probably Australia. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands for info. -- Cheers, John B. (invalid to gmail) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
"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." .... and: "Both nonbicycle commuters and bicycle commuters agreed that bicycle lanes, trails, and paths would encourage them to ride a bike (or ride more often)... " Pretty much goes on and on like that. Here's the closest thing to a challenge (and even it suggests that infrastructure is essential): "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. This is interesting: "The factors "safety" and "awareness" are important over shorter distances. Having a cycling habit increases the likelihood of cycling and a higher frequency of cycling. The perceived opinion of others only affects the mode choice over short distances suggesting indicates mode choice on longer commutes is based on one's own attitudes." That resonates with my own perception and long-distance commuting experience. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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? -- Cheers, John B. (invalid to gmail) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/12/2014 5:11 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/14 07:00, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/12/2014 1:39 PM, jbeattie wrote: Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my observations here in PDX. A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid of mean old cars. Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride if you give them a lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam . . . no. We have hills, long commuting distances for employment outside downtown, car love, etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike avenues (and the condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase modal share to 10%. We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a bicycle super-highway are nill. Just for the record, I agree with almost everything in that paragraph. My only disagreement is this: Only a few people (percentage-wise) will ride if you give them a bike lane or a bike boulevard, etc. The vast majority will still be uninterested. I think Jay covered that with huge spending might increase modal share to 10%. That kinda says the majority will still be uninterested. (And BTW, I personally like bike boulevards. I'd like to see more of them.) If the government (or anybody) wants to get more than a few percent bike mode share, they'll need to find ways to strongly discourage driving. Gas at $10 a gallon will help, but it's only the first of many necessary steps. And most of those necessary steps will be politically impossible in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 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/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/13/2014 8:22 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/12/2014 5:11 PM, James wrote: On 13/05/14 07:00, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/12/2014 1:39 PM, jbeattie wrote: Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my observations here in PDX. A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid of mean old cars. Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride if you give them a lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam . . . no. We have hills, long commuting distances for employment outside downtown, car love, etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike avenues (and the condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase modal share to 10%. We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a bicycle super-highway are nill. Just for the record, I agree with almost everything in that paragraph. My only disagreement is this: Only a few people (percentage-wise) will ride if you give them a bike lane or a bike boulevard, etc. The vast majority will still be uninterested. I think Jay covered that with huge spending might increase modal share to 10%. That kinda says the majority will still be uninterested. (And BTW, I personally like bike boulevards. I'd like to see more of them.) If the government (or anybody) wants to get more than a few percent bike mode share, they'll need to find ways to strongly discourage driving. Gas at $10 a gallon will help, but it's only the first of many necessary steps. And most of those necessary steps will be politically impossible in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 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. You know Andrew that's one of the best posts that I've read here. Especially the last sentence. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sort-of an into, sort of a question.. | The Transporter | Unicycling | 16 | August 31st 06 04:51 PM |
Is this really happening???? | Calogero Carlucci | Racing | 1 | June 26th 06 10:24 AM |
What's Happening With Creed? | Tom Kunich | Racing | 0 | June 5th 06 03:01 PM |
What's happening to RBT | Tom Nakashima | Techniques | 43 | January 7th 06 04:42 AM |
gee... what's happening to me? | [email protected] | General | 61 | June 9th 05 05:20 PM |