A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 12th 14, 06:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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  
Old May 12th 14, 06:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default 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  
Old May 12th 14, 10:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old May 12th 14, 11:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default 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  
Old May 13th 14, 02:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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  
Old May 13th 14, 02:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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  
Old May 13th 14, 08:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default 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  
Old May 13th 14, 12:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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  
Old May 13th 14, 01:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old May 13th 14, 03:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.