John Forester

I repeat, when trip lengths obtained from trip analysis studies are quoted, they are for unlinked trips unless specifically quoted as linked or chained trips. The information typically given in public presentations is not specifically quoted as linked; therefore it is probably unlinked.

Bekologist

or, you could just divide the number of annual average miles driven per american car by 365, and come up with a completely useless figure that is unrelated to actual surveys or population study and relates no accurate trip data whatsoever.

better characterized as 'transportation irrelevance'.

here's a more accurate and interesting dissection of the statistics about american commuting....

2009 national household travel survey



the average american commute, both ways, is less than 12 miles. the average american commutes less than 6 miles each way to work, a very strikeable distance by bicycle.

I've seen statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation that show 40 percent of urban trips are two miles or less.

and a great compilation of bicycle commuting statistics at bikes belong...

bikes belong statistics and links

Despite the urbanization of america, we have low participation in bicycling compared to many other countries. Its not population density of the US that is causing this low participation in bicycling for daily transport.

John Forester

The National Household Travel Survey uses the conventional definition of trip, as a journey from one address to another address.

The same survey gives the average commuting distance as about 12 miles, which produces 24 miles for one day's work.

Digital_Cowboy

Granted I don't drive, but I know that when I am planning my trips that I try to hit as many places as possible. Doing my best not to backtrack. And if I'm not mistaken that used to be the norm for most drivers.

sudo bike

It makes an enormous difference in cycling. I should think this is self evident?


I disagree, for reasons stated.

B. Carfree

Why is it so important how far people drive to get to/from work when 80% of the miles driven are for personal errands and recreation (from the tables in Bek's link)?

Bekologist

they really don't. what's much more compelling is that

more than three quarters of all americans live in densely populated urbanized areas, and 40 percent of all trips outside the home in urban areas are less than 2 miles in trip length.

Those figures support the viability of the bike for daily transport.

the original poster was concerned about different rules for bicyclists. i think collectively we have dispelled any notions for radically differing rules for bike traffic.

Infrastructure that more equitably supports bike trips in urban areas is a different story, and has been shown to be remarkably effective in spurring both ridership and rider safety in every city that plans for and accommodates bike traffic more equitably across the street grid.

Specious complaints about 'breaking the rules' or adding to the ROW for bike facilities are misguided; the vast majority of bikeway miles are installed on existing ROW pavements. Sometimes, a light rail streetcar or a cycleway merits its own signal light. Oh, the contrived horrors of mode specific traffic controls!

Take a look at the videos i posted about bicycling in urban areas in this country.

Be appraised of the incredible variety of bikeway utilized in NYC, and the reality people still ride on the roads in cities with roadway and road proximate bike facilities.

Bekologist

it should also be self evident that US population density is near worthless in a comparison of bike facilities between countries.

79 percent of americans live in urban areas with densities well over 1,000 people a square mile.

79 percent.

hagen2456

"the percentage of car trips of a certain distance is of a certain amount". THAT is self evident

Or, in other words, IF 40% of car trips are three miles or less, THEN density makes no difference to that fact.

You could say that density will influence the difference in the numbers for divers cities or regions, and that sounds probable, but it still doesn't change the logical FACT: that once we've got the numbers, we've got the numbers. You could further say that yes, we've got the numbers but we can't use them in this or that way, and you might still be right (or wrong). That's where we get to discuss things like "car culture" etc.

But the numbers as such can't be logically disputed. (They can, of course, be factually disputed) So, IF the numbers can be trusted, THEN the potential is there.

Pure logic.

sudo bike

Let me put it this way: I'm skeptical of those numbers, and expressing similar concerns that John has. Population and such is far more accurately recorded than other data points, and so, I believe, a more accurate portrayal. That, and annual mileage, I find to be more precise. Something between the two data points just doesn't add up, and I think the more simple, broader number, is more likely to be correct.

It is also pure logic that density differences are a major difference between the two countries. This may be less so on the east coast, but on the west coast, where most development has occurred post-automobile, and during the time freeways and suburbs were touted as the best design and the American Dream, I think this difference is much more dramatic.

I doubt the numbers because what I have personally experienced in both Europe and America has a hard time reconciling with that claim. My experiences were that the density of Europe as a whole makes mass transit and cycling far more effective for far more people than here. Note that my experiences in America are primarily of the west coast.

That isn't to say either of those things can't be effective here, but it will probably be so for fewer people, at least in the way Europe has executed it. This is why, as I said, we will probably see a solution with a bit of a different mix. I just don't think separated bikeways (not including bikelanes or on-street facilities in this) are practical as transportation for most folks in America, pleasurable as they are. What would be far more effective here (and is another large source of discrepancy), is actually enforcing traffic regulations and taking a more stern attitude towards driving. Hungary, which isn't necessarily a beacon for good drivers, has drivers jumping through far more (reasonable) hoops than here, where getting a license is just not a big deal, and losing it takes a lot of work.

Basically, I think our problem stems more from how we treat driving rather than how we treat cycling. I'd be more in favor of better city planning involving higher speed arterials acting as "mini-freeways" across town, broken up by slower speed and sharable streets. Nobody feels uncomfortable riding with cars down a lazy street, even in the absence of facilities. More importantly, at 25mph (maybe 30-35, tops), injuries occur far less often and with far less severity.

I support facilities, and I think they can be a huge boon to getting more cyclists on the road, and can even effect safety, but I don't think that a) they are the end-all-be-all, or even the most effective solution in terms of safety. Fixing how we treat driving stands to benefit not only cycling safety, but pedestrian, and really everyone. or b) that their use should be mandatory. I see no reason why that should be necessary unless something is wrong with it. If people aren't using it, there's a reason, and for 90% of people, it isn't just to be contrary.

Hope this explains my position more.

hagen2456

You are probably quite right, there, though the cultural attitudes in themselves will likely make even trips which in Europe would be seen as easily walkable, car trips. Thus, after all, widening the biking potential. (In France, I think most people would walk a distance of, say, 500 m. Copenhageners would typically bike that distance)

There will almost certainly be quite big differences in the potential.

A nice and well thought-through explanation, though I reserve the right to disagree on a few points

As for facilities being mandatory or not, I think that even with optimal facilities, everything will have to be some sort of compromise. This means that, should facility use not be mandatory, any cyclist who thinks traffic is too slow in the bike lanes, will take to the car lanes. And then we're back, basically, with the bloody nuisance that cyclists are to the drivers of cars in fast traffic. In my eyes, compromising is crucial to making these things work. I sure know how it feels to be hemmed by slow fellow cyclists on the cycle track, but I leave it to the messenger daredevils to break the rules and be a pain in the *** for drivers. And after all, they are a well defined minority, sticking out from other cyclists, so they won't taint cyclists as such in the eyes of drivers - meaning that there won't be that much anger directed at us. I know, this may seem to over-complicate things, but I really think the psykology of these things will have to be taken into account. And yes, though there are cultural differences, the basic psykology of traffic probably doesn't differ that much.

Oh, and I don't quite understand what "separated bikeways (not including bikelanes or on-street facilities in this)" means.

hagen2456

What are the numbers in, say, the Netherlands, Germany or Denmark?

John Forester

It appears that Hagen is expressing the typical motorist argument that "We have provided bikeways to keep bicycles out of our way."

sudo bike

This is a fair point.

In my experience, this isn't an issue. People pull into the car lane when it is clear, make the pass, and merge back, same as most passing traffic does it. Further, I think you lose more than you gain by forcing people to ride in the (inevitably, at least a few that slip through) unsafe bike facilities which are poorly implemented, such as door zone bike lanes. California has such a law, and doorings are one of the most common accidents here, especially in major cities like San Francisco (according to their PD).

When I speak of separated bikeways, I'm not including on-street lanes in that judgment. I don't really consider that much of a departure from standard planning; like bus lanes or carpool lanes or what have you. In fact, I think those stand a better chance of being effective. Separated bikeways or any facilities off of the traveled roadway, I think are ineffective on the whole for practical purposes, although they can be great for recreation and in certain conditions can be useful.

hagen2456

(Make that "out of harms way" instead of "out of our way", and we're almost there)

hagen2456

Might work, though I'm a little worried that it would take a large amount of education of car drivers to make them see someone making that maneuvre somewhere in the distance and NOT think "Damn, more swerving cyclists!!".

As for dooring, it seems to have been thought of in the New York plans for their bike infrastructure by establishing a bike free zone between parked cars and the cycle paths. More so than in Copenhagen, where we still have quite a few bike paths with parked cars right next to us. Only reason that dooring is relatively rare here is of course that most drivers and passengers KNOW that there be bikes out there.

I agree SO totally, as I've seen the same kind of bikeways made here to absolutely no use.

3alarmer 

If winter were not fast approaching, i would load one of my bikes
on an airplane tomorrow just to ride around there.

I am soooooo weary of near misses and newspaper fatality accounts here.

genec

Yes, but you are dealing with John Forester, who has declared that the motor car is one of the last century's greatest inventions, and that anyone that dares to imply that perhaps one can get there better by bike vice car, is "anti-motoring."

hagen2456

I think that up to 80% of those that commute by bike in the summer, do so during winter, too*. So please come and join us!

* The last two winters have been particularly nasty from a cyclists point of view, with plenty snow storms. For a couple of weeks you would see the bike paths of Copenhagen kept faily well free of snow (their efforts were truly Herculean), but a lot fewer cyclists. The buses, on the other hand, were absolutely stuffed. I'm very glad I didn't feel the need to use the buses. After all, the paths were passable, kinda

John Forester

Genec, you have let your ideological prejudice affect the accuracy of your words. I have indeed sided with those who consider that the motor vehicle is a great invention. That point is hardly debatable. However, I have never written or said that any one who states that a trip can be better made by bike than by car is "anti-motoring". Each person should be the judge as to which mode will best suit his purposes for any trip.

The times that I have complained about anti-motoring ideology is when it is used to produce harm for lawful, competent cyclists. There are far too many such events.

RazrSkutr

HagenXXX's ideal is the Copenhagen cycletrack. That is, a slightly elevated bicycle-lane separated from the other lanes by a physical barrier: frequently in copenhagen a raised curb. In NYC-style lanes it's a parking lane.

It would be pretty hard to use a normal overtaking manoeuver using a passing-lane if such facilities were implemented.

RazrSkutr

I don't understand what you're saying in the above. Are you saying that cyclists ought to have the choice not to ride in the bikelane/cycletrack or not?

3alarmer 

because from a purely practical standpoint, we have a pretty
expensive system of roads and arteries already in place, and
even if the political will were there (it is not), the money to
make separate facilities is not gonna appear in my lifetime.

Having said that, I would urge you to look on Google maps
for the American River Bike Trail here in Sacramento. It is
ideally located for commuting by a large percentage of our
local population, and is so used by increasing numbers of them
in recent years.

Is it unique in terms of opportunity ? Do other urban areas
lack such riverfront or waterfront areas or abandoned rail
lines that could be put to use relatively cheaply and quickly as
separate bikeways that lead directly into the heart of town ?

i ask these as rhetorical questions, because i believe the answer
to both is no. So we certainly have some avenues worthy of pursuit
in this area of paved bike ways that are commutable without rubbing
elbows with the latest SUV.

genec

The differences in our respective philosophies is that I contend that the motor vehicle does not have to have access everywhere... and that there should be some balance to the intrusion in our lives of the motor vehicle, and that balance should be to enable and encourage more walking and cycling. I have stated such preferences to include such things as pedestrian/cycling open mall areas and bicycle boulevards similar to those seen in some European communities.

You take such statements to mean anti-motoring... I am merely trying to offer balance in our lives.

hagen2456

Did the bolding make it any better?

"Or not", really. In general. Where the bike lane/track/whatevah is useable.