Originally Posted by
B. Carfree
I was beginning to think that you were finally going to let go of that yarn. I'm disappointed. That was the point of the OP. The city's that get the most press regarding their infrastructure expenditures have been overselling the correlation. By the numbers, they haven't seen much, or in the case of PDX over the past five years, any, bang for their efforts.
Labeling something as bike infrastructure doesn't necessarily make it something that people will want to ride on. Quality builds, like those that allow cyclists to get through pinch-points (bridges, freeway ramps and such) are unarguably good things that have their intended consequences. Just putting bike lanes in the door zones and turning sidewalks into mandatory-use sidepaths will, in my opinion and experience, suppress ridership. I think we agree on the first thing, but not on the second. If this were baseball, we'd have great batting averages in the game of creating agreement.
I very much agree with this entire segment of your comment. Regarding the satisfying demand vs creating demand: That demand is at its highest when the sheer volume of cars has so congested the public roadways that their average speed has gotten down to that of an average cyclist. Add in space constraints that make parking a time-consuming and costly endeavor, and we have a recipe for an urban bike boom. (Of course, the economic condition of our young is certainly playing a large role too.)
In many of the places I have looked, this boom started before any paint was put on the ground and didn't pick up speed with the addition of the paint. This is the problem: everything is/has been in place for a boom. Yet, we are stalling out. The stall appears to coincide with the rise of the supporters of segregation, but correlation isn't causation.
To repeat what Spare_Wheel has said, show me the city that committed to a significant build of bike infrastructure and saw an increase in the rate of increase of cycling as a result. I'd almost accept no decline in the rate of increase or even any continued increase at this point. Then, let's look at what they did and see what is going right.
I'm glad we're finding some room for agreement but I still find your post disheartening for a few reasons.
1. At this point I don't know what you need to satisfy your resistance to the idea that building bicycle infrastructure will increase the number of bike riders in a given area. Several of us have provided bicycle counts from NYC and the Boston area in particular that clearly demonstrate a correlation at the very least if not a direct causal link. You, and some others, are not satisfied by bicycle counts, by observations by several of us who live in these areas who have ridden long before the infrastructure was implemented and still you dismiss it. Either in favor of vague "modal share" figures that seem even more shaky in terms of reliability and accuracy or because you somehow simply "know better".
Why is it that many of these urban bicycle facilities are becoming so crowded (the Minuteman Trail, The Hudson Greenway, The Paul Dudley White Path) that many cyclists move to riding the road because of too many cyclists? And why has Boston (which has added infrastructure) had more than a two fold increase in bicycle riding over the past 5 years while neighboring cities like Worcester and Springfield (which has little or no infrastructure) have had little or none?
2. What is the message you and Spare_Wheel in particular are sending out of the Portland area? Is it really, "don't bother building infrastructure it does not increase ridership"? Is it really, "infrastructure flattens interest in biking"? And is it, "bicycle infrastructure-'intimidates/maims/kills cyclists'? Is that what we, the rest of the country with our woefully low bicycling numbers can learn from you guys?
3. And how does an area increase bicycle ridership? Or is it even worth it to set that as a goal as many cities have? What do you propose to make cycling safer and to promote it?