Originally Posted by
CB HI
I posted an accumulative list of factors, and you then falsely focus in on only one factor to declare my position to be impossible and far reaching. Try addressing the full picture next time.
Your "accumulative list" is not supported by anything other than assertion. Bring back some hard evidence of your contradictory theories, and I'll certainly hear them out. You are reaching.
If bike lanes are the magical pill you claim them to be, then the Beaverton numbers should have increased as well, not decreased. But maybe I am wrong, maybe the mountains were put in after bike lanes. I also thought Portland put in rail to the east as well, so that claim of rail by you is odd. We are still talking about people commuting into the magical bike lane town of Portland.
http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/Portland-Milwaukie_Map.pdf
Bike lanes are what they are; nobody is claiming some magic pill. I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. You are not familiar with Beaverton; like most outsiders you are blending Beaverton and Portland into some seemless morass called "Portland". The road layout is challenging in Beaverton as it evolved not from a city but from a farming community. But it is better now than it was 15/20 years ago. Regardless of bike lanes, the requirement to use major arterials and vehicular cycling methods at intersections to get almost everywhere within Beaverton is a sever hindrance to increasing bike mode. It is a work in progress.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --
the tiniest sprinter