FBinNY 

Originally Posted by FBinNY
.....thus negating the need for the expenive separate infrastructure we may be building now.


I guess you missed the intended irony. (my bad, but I refuse to use emoticon)



Exponential growth from a near zero baseline is fine, but has to be taken with a grain of salt. What remains to be seen is how much growth is still out there. There is early data (very inconclusive) that seems to indicate a it of a plateau, possibly meaning that some infrastructure is better than none, but there's a point of diminishing return. There are also other factors, fuel cost, demographics, and so on, so while believers will want to assign credit to infrastructure, that may not be true.

I'm agnostic on the infrastructure question, buying into neither the pie in the sky (my opinion) claims of strong advocates, nor the total waste of resources of nayayers. (Since I'm not in either camp, both consider me the enemy).

GovernorSilver

From what I understand, protected intersections are meant to address both goals, though each intersection will have its unique issues to be addressed individually (eg. the Lee Hwy - Lynn St. intersection that Arlington VA cyclists complain/debate about).

CrankyOne

As to how much growth is out there I'd say that a modal share of 40% (Netherlands) is a good target though perhaps around 30% might be more reasonable. The only plateau I'm aware of is Portland and that is likely due to their not having protected infrastructure. It's impressive that they achieved what they did with the unprotected infrastructure that they have.

You seemed to express a desire to stick with the bird we have (vehicular cycling and no infrastructure) rather than potentially two in the bush. The reality is that we're seeing 10 or 20 in the bush (relative to the less than 1% achieved with vehicular cycling) and they very reliably come flying out when they have a safe and comfortable protected place to fly.

genec

Yes, while that does appear to be the case... without scads and scads of data, and charts and graphs with pictures and arrows, there are folks that will deny that there is any connection between infrastructure and the numbers of cyclists using said infra. So in spite of what may happen in other parts of the world, there will be no such changes in good ole America.

Bear in mind these same folks that deny that there is any correlation, will also haul out Davis as an example and say "see, it doesn't work." (Never mind that Davis is an isolated cycling island in a sea of cars)

FBinNY 

Actually No, as I've said a number of times. However, I'm not aligned with those who believe that increased commuter modal share is the sole, or best way to measure policy success. There are tradeoffs, and I'm among those concerned with them.

As I aid earlier, there are two outlooks (or more). More and better opportunities for those who are serious enough to capitalize on them, or more friendliness to attract new faces. IMO- these are not automatically aligned, and warrant some thought. My opinion doesn't matter, it's just my opinion and I won't be around forever. However before flying any flag people should consider what their real goals are, and what may come as bycatch.

CrankyOne

Fortunately we're getting great examples here from Minneapolis to Chicago to NYC.

CrankyOne

Change 'or' to 'and' and I'd agree with you.

Most of the people, largely vehicular cyclists, who fight against infrastructure are fighting against something that they don't even know what it is.

- They say that it will lengthen their commute time, but if implemented correctly it actually makes trips for bicycle riders faster and more efficient.

- They say that you can't ride fast on infrastructure and that people who race wouldn't be able to train—that'd be news to the thousands of people in The Netherlands who race and the world tour pros who live and train there.

- They say that it's more dangerous than riding with traffic which is interesting given that this countries with this infrastructure have about 1/9 the bicycle fatality rate as we do in the vehicular cycling U.S.

In The Netherlands this infrastructure works well for everyone from a 7-year-old child riding a couple of miles to school to Dutch pros Laurens ten Dam and Bauke Mollema.
[h=3][/h]

FBinNY 

You fail to grasp two points.

1- I used or, because I was establishing a dichotomy between two goals, which (as I stated) are somewhat mutually exclusive.

2- I'm not interested in whether you agree with me. You have your opinion and I have mine. You are clearly an advocate for infrastructure. OTOH, I'm not selling anything, just stating my opinion and I thought I was clear in saying that's all it is.

As for saying that those who oppose infrastructure don't understand what it is downright insulting. Having liven and ridden in NYC for decade, both before and after infrastructure was installed, I think I have the credentials to know the benefits and drawbacks.

But as I said a number of times here. My posts aren't about debating infrastructure per se, but to remind people that there are multiple goals, and they're not all aligned. Everyone should think about the issues in the context of their goals and overall visions, and FORM THEIR OWN OPINIONS.

bronco71

May I add, depending on where you are in the US, the goals, solutions and end results may be very different.

FBinNY 

Absolutely, as do the needs (or preferences) of urban cyclists, rural and suburban cyclists, intercity touring cyclists, and recreational cyclists, especially casual cyclists who simply want an hour or two in a park setting. (and that's just to name a few, not to limit it to those).

genec

I do find it somewhat ironic that the voices that tend to shout the loudest for us to avoid a "Dutch like system" have likely never been to a place where quality cycling infrastructure exists and works well.

At best many of these naysayers tend to point to something in their local area that was poorly implemented and then suggest that "I would never want that... " And the fact is, it is highly likely no other regular cyclist would have wanted it either.

BTW not to be an armchair quarterback myself... I have traveled and biked in different parts of the world... and I have seen things that work, and don't work. Here is an example of something that worked very well... in Oulu Finland.

bronco71

From just that snippet it appears that there is something very similar to that here. I suppose if I were commuting or just tooling along, these trails would be fine. But, I don't cycle that way and I find little use for these trails, I, personally would rather be on a bike lane on the roads.

kickstart

We have many trails like that in the Seattle area thar are really nice to ride except for the Burke-Gillman that can get as crowed as a freeway, although the surrounding roads are often no better.
In my particular area all the trails are North-South and my commute is East-West so I only get to use one for a mile.

bronco71

I don't care if people want to build and use these trails, hell, I may even use them from time to time. However, they shouldn't be built with the intention of excluding cyclists from any other road uses. There is no one size fits all solution to cycling on public infrastructure. The important thing is that we continuously recognize that the infrastructure is public, meaning that we have the right to use all of it when appropriate.

genec

Why would you insist on sharing the road with cars, if the bike path goes everywhere you want to go?

OK I know the above can be a loaded question for some... and it would take paragraphs and paragraphs to go through all the fine details. But if your choices were a bike path built similar to the one I show, that allows a cyclist to get to all the local businesses and avoid 40+MPH arterial roads and conflicts with motorists OR to ride on 40+MPH arterial road with motorists... would you still choose to not use a path?

The sad fact is that most bike paths in America are recreation paths maintained by parks departments and they tend to go nowhere... so folks like yourself see and ride such paths and then declare... "well, they don't go anywhere," or "they are poorly designed." These statements are the heart of the matter I brought up... you've never seen a real working bicycle infrastructure system... so you then arbitrarily declare that "such systems just don't work."

The system I showed works well enough to get people quickly and safely everywhere they want to go, and it supports a 28% modal share in a country that is snow covered many months out of the year.

In other words, what they have in Oulu is likely NOTHING like what you have... What they have in Denmark is likely NOTHING like what you have ever seen.

bronco71

So, you ask me a question,... answer it for me,... support your position with data,... then criticize me for the poor answer.

Brilliant debate tactic.

genec

Yeah I had to do that... because this is a complex issue and not something that can be covered with one blanket answer. But here... try this one:

Why would you insist on sharing a high speed road with cars, if a well designed bike path goes everywhere you want to go?

bronco71

No need to answer, you've clearly got it covered with your assumptions.

genec

My assumptions are simple... you've never been to a place where they had good cycling infrastructure... so your views are based on what you have seen, which doesn't work. This is exactly what I laid out back in post 36. And you have done nothing to dissuade that.

Now tell me I am wrong and what your vast experience is... and why you insist on sharing a high speed road with cars, if a well designed bike path goes everywhere you want to go?

I-Like-To-Bike

Some of our bicycling comrades, usually of the ardent VC religion, might answer because they "always take the lane." No ifs, ands or buts.

genec

Of course... but then to them, there is no other choice.

And I as a long time cyclist I too have done just that when there was no other choice.

But I have to wonder how many of those cycling comrades have ever had a chance to bike where there might be some other quality choice beyond having to "take a lane." Can they see "outside the box?"

bronco71

Here you sit criticizing others for making assumptions about that which they have never seen (except in the snippet you posted), yet all along you have not asked where I am that may have a bikeway that is similar. You are making gross assumptions about the bikeways where I am based upon little to no information. You are so lost in your own biased assumptions that you can't see the hypocrisy in your own arguments. Open your mind just a bit.

Now, I did not say that what we have is like Oulu, I said it is similar based upon the brief snippet. Looking at arial mapping, it is in fact similar in that it runs past all of the local shopping with connections that have little vehicle interface. It runs under roadway overpasses without interracting with traffic. In the terms of a bikeway, it is actually a pretty decent design. Interestingly enough, if your information is correct, this https://www.google.com/maps/@32.4077.../data=!3m1!1e3 is only an 8 hour drive from you. Come give it a try.

I usually choose not to use it because I generally travel significantly faster than most other users. So, I choose to use the roadways, where thankfully road design has provided some very nice bike lanes. This is my opinion, it is how I ride and I am happy with it.

My point is this. Build your bikeways, but do not do so at the expense of the ability to use the normal roadways. Advocates can put themselves into positions of authority where they could negotiate certain uses away in order to garner a desired expenditure. Doing so is a mistake, as it is important to leave other cyclists of differing opinions to yours the ability to choose for themselves.

CrankyOne

If my only experience with infrastructure was NYC I might not want it either. NYC, though some of the better infrastructure in the U.S. is quite poor by international standards. Some issues include; two-way protected bikeways alongside traffic lanes (the few remaining in northern Europe are being removed), poor sightlines where bikeways interact w/ motor traffic, no protection through junctions (e.g., what this post is about), too narrow of bikeways, obstructions such as posts in the middle of bikeways, painted bikeways where the paint has worn off, sudden ending of bikeways that dump bicycle riders in to traffic, lack of connectivity of bikeways, and many more.

Bikeways in NYC (and the rest of the U.S.) are a world away from those in The Netherlands and elsewhere.

GovernorSilver

Cool. I believe Holmes Run Trail in our area has several underpasses. The one weakness of that trail is that it also goes through a big storm drain pipe and thus gets flooded after heavy rainfall. We also have Mt. Vernon Trail, which is very long, and popular with bike commuters and recreational riders alike. It passes under several highways/freeways and also connects to bridges to cross over into DC. I don't recommend biking on the highways/freeways here btw, as speeding at 75 mph or faster and reckless driving is common among the motorists here. At any rate, there are plenty of cyclists to be found on these trails. that zip along in excess of 25 mph. As a cyclist who rides at leisurely speeds on these trails, I may actually be in the minority, because almost everyone else ion bikes is trying to get a more intense workout, work on their speed, etc.

To get from my part of Northern Virginia into DC, you either have to take a trail or you have to take a road on which cars are flying at 50 mph or faster. No cyclist in his/right mind is going to take that road option. There is no speed limit on the MVT as far as I know.

genec

You never offered one answer... and still have not offered an answer to the question I provided: Why do you insist on sharing a high speed road with cars, if a well designed bike path goes everywhere you want to go?

Your answer was basically what I outlined earlier... you have not been anywhere where a very high quality bike infrastructure system exists... so you are biased by what little you have seen that doesn't suit you. So you ride on the road. I understand that. You really don't have much of a choice.

BTW I get to Tucson and Phoenix and surrounding areas about 2-3 times a year. I have bike toured through the Tucson area... there may be new bike infrastructure there that I have not ridden... but I honestly doubt it is the quality of that in Davis CA, and even Davis doesn't have what Oulu has. I also get to Portland OR about 2-3 times a year... and Portland for all their bike bluster, is nothing like Oulu. I have also bike toured AZ highways way up north... where really not much in the way of roads themselves exist... I would not expect anything more in those areas except wide shoulders. (this touches on the complexity of the issue... we really don't need bike paths "everywhere;" some roads work just fine as they are... )

Even San Diego has made some interesting changes in the last few years... Bottom line... this nation can do a lot better for cyclists (and thus for the health of the nation) than is currently being done.