Originally Posted by
FBinNY
I don't see things as so clearly black and white. Nor do I consider all infrastructure as equal in nature.
The question isn't whether there's sometimes a direct causative relationship, but what are those examples that have the most effect for the effort, and those with marginal effects. There's also a question defining the objective, ie. less cars, more bicycles, lower accident/injury rate, , more "livable cities" (whatever that means), saving energy, healthier population, or whatever.
So many people begin with a simple assumption, ie. bike infrastructure is good, or bad, and debate based on these absolutes. IMO, regardless of ones general bias, the devil is in the details. Back when I was active in advocacy we weren't focused on the type if infrastructure people speak of today, but on ensuring access, especially at critical choke points, like NYC's bridges, and/or things like bike trap sewer grates. (yes, that's an infrastructure issue).
So the question isn't whether infrastructure is good or bad, but one of identifying goals, and how best to achieve them within reasonable budget restraints.
I hope by my post you're not thinking I see this in black and white terms either- as I said, "its not guaranteed" and there are "many factors at play".
With regards the correlation/causation argument. In true logical terms it would
not be accurate to say that "separated bike infrastructure causes increases to bike ridership". It would be true to say, "that there is a correlation between added infrastructure and increased ridership". The reason being that in the causation example it is not 100% true. Simply adding bike infrastructure does not lead to increases in ridership 100% of the time. I can't dispute that.
The pertinent question then is are there times and circumstances under which adding infrastructure
doescause an increase in ridership? The answer is, "yes." Those factors are:
Economics- everything from the changing distribution of wealth in this country leading to large numbers of younger, educated Americans being jobless, underemployed, in debt for education and/or underpaid to the cost of gasoline and owning and maintaining a private automobile.
Cultural Trends- fitness crazes, environmental concerns, hipness, peer pressure, media influences can shift people to ride or at least want to ride.
Convenience- traffic congestion, parking issues, fines, penalties, tolls, insurance and other car ownership issues make auto commuting unpalatable for many. As do subway and public transit crowding, breakdowns, and poor scheduling or lack of point to point availability.
If any or all of the above factors are at play in an area and there are no infrastructural accommodations specifically for bikes then the adding of infrastructure will give an outlet for potential ridership that is greater than the number of riders, who might otherwise begin bicycling for transpiration.
In that case, we are
satisfying a demand not
creating a demand. Deliberately creating legislation to make it even more unpalatable to drive or forcing public opinion as an objective is not something I think is a good strategy.
For @
Dave Cutter- the history of the League is well documented in several places on line.
Here is just one link of many outlining it's history, especially with regards political advocacy for better roads, government funding and pushing for infrastructural improvements.
The good roads movement initiated by Pope and the League of American Wheelmen impacted state governments as well, as the heavily traveled Northeast established the first highway departments in the nation. The Connecticut program, established in 1895, evolved into a cooperative venture between individual towns and the state government, with towns funding from one-quarter to one-third the construction cost of road improvements, while the state provided the remainder. - See more at:
http://connecticuthistory.org/the-le....rBB9TIg2.dpuf
I look forward to your links that dispute this historical record of the League and early cyclists with regards political activism and their impact on government spending for infrastructure.