The fact is that there are always the first and brave... whether it is to cross a country or a river... and eventually there are resources put in place to encourage the others, and then more come and finally what was seen as unique and scary is seen as normal and everyday.
Yeah, there may not be a magic silver bullet to getting more people to use bikes for transportation... as it is a complex issue, but when nothing is provided, what we have seen is that the numbers tend to remain quite flat... and let's face it, if the words "brave," "fast," "assertive" and "road sneak" are part of your bike plan, well that is going to tend to leave a lot of folks at home.
Interstate Highway Act. Try to imagine driving across the country today and compare it to the roads of the early '50's where there were large gaps in what we would consider a highway today.
If the country looked at things with your logic, we'd still be driving across country on a 2 lane route 66.
I have the same question. And it is an increase in recreational cyclists- and not on bike paths or in bike lanes but on the road.
Here in Boston, when I first joined BF in 2005, there were 60 yards of bike lanes. In 2007 they started to add bike lanes to the point of more 60 miles of bike lanes in the city. I moved to this city in 1980 and had ridden here daily without the bike lanes but expressed my enthusiasm for the new lanes on BF at the time.
My posts were met with a good share of skepticism and a fair share of vitriol. Many opponents of bike lanes said there would be no increase in ridership, that bike lanes and numbers of bike riders were not related. By 2009 bicycle ridership had more than doubled and has continued to increase since that time. The addition of the Hubway bike share system 2 1/2 years ago has contributed to the number of people on bikes in Boston.
All of this is easily documented by surveys and bike counts. And bicycling remains relatively safe in the city, although there have been occasional spikes in accidents the overall accident rate has been dropping and the city is moving towards a 50% reduction in the accident rate for cyclists.
Springfield and Worcester, two of Massachusetts' other large urban centers, have not seen a concurrent increase in cyclists but they are now just beginning to implement added infrastructure, like lanes and bike paths, it will be interesting to watch as ridership rises along with the addition of bike lanes.
To deny, at this point, that bike lanes and bike infrastructure increases ridership while keeping biking relatively safe or making it safer is simply throwing the blinders of bias on in the face of fact.
If you've ever ridden SF and know the bike paths/shortcuts through the city, bikes are as fast or a quicker way to navigate the city. Plus, if you have a place for safe parking, it saves you quite a bit. It's so expensive to rent in the inner city that many of the local workers live out past the Mission district. Makes perfect sense that these areas have created a larger biking culture.
Interestingly cycling is also taught as a regular part of the curriculum in Copenhagen.
But yes, I am curious about the numbers too.
Most interesting fact: roughly half the bicyclists counted were on the sidewalk!!
Wow guess you can't say P*A*K*I on BF... odd.Quote:
Kapahulu and **** had the most riders over the 3 day count. 68.6% of the riders on Kapahulu were on the sidewalk. Almost all the riders were counted on Kapahulu, not ****.
I do support quality infrastructure. Place a higher priority on cyclists than on storing parked cars and I'm ecstatic. Make the bike lanes adequately wide (OR state law is insufficient and even that low standard is ignored) and I'm happy. Make the connections work rather than just doing a shoe-horn job and I think the person responsible is a saint. I just don't care for city officials who oversell their goods and I'm none too happy with so-called advocates who think something labeled bikey, no matter how flawed, is better than nothing. All too often, the infrastructure that gets put in adds to my risk rather than reducing it, all in the name of "bike friendly".:notamused:
I have seen the same 3 to 4X increase in recreational riders in LA. No clue on LA commuters.
And yes Genec, Oahu has a fourth grade BikeEd education run and taught with cyclist hired by Hawaii Bicycle League. Genec, guess who flew out and helped set up the training program - your buddy John.
I do believe education is part of the increases to ridership, contrary to the claims that it is all about the bike lanes.
Kapahulu is pure motorist grid lock all day long - the sidewalk is 10 times faster (and that is no joke), so the only surprise here is that 30% of cyclist are willing to sit in the grid lock. **** is tourist and recreational riders on a park path that also serves as a sidewalk.
Sometimes it actually helps to look at why the numbers are actually that way rather than just throwing out your unsupported bike lane claims.
See how the bike lane guys pile on when you do not buy into their false bike lane paradigm.
For example, my personal observation was that there was about a threefold increase of cyclists on my street route into Boston when the bike lanes and sharrows were added. Bike counts by the city and bike organizations showed an increase of 122 % from the time bike lanes were added to 2009. Since then there are now Hubway (Bike Share) bikes added to the mix. The 122% increase is based on a citywide count, not just on roads with bike lanes but throughout the city. The larger share of the increase is on the roads with the added infrastructure. Since 122% is double the number of riders plus another .22% I would be less than exact to say it had "doubled"on my route. A "threefold increase" may not be exact but certainly it has more than doubled and since the bike share program was added after 2009 and has added substantially to these numbers I feel really confident that my observations are accurate.
I see nothing in your claims of a threefold increase in evidence by the 2013 bike count I linked. Nor do I see evidence that supports your claim of larger numbers of recreational riders on the road in the area. In fact, a quick search of Google about bicycling in the Honolulu area brought up a large number of links citing the poor quality of road riding in that area. Many sites bemoaned the fact that despite Hawaii's ideal weather, excellent scenery and "vacation life style" it is not exactly a bike rider's paradise.
Why, for example, does a city like Minneapolis have such a substantial share of bike riders if not due to their emphasis on added infrastructure? It sure ain't the accommodating year round ideal weather.
All of it adds up to nothing more that correlation = causation claims. There are no normalized double blind studies that show bike lanes increase ridership. There are way too many other and more plausible reasons for ridership increases.
With all the money spent on bike lanes, you would think that such a study would have been performed. But no, just continued claims that correlation = causation.
I give up.
A double blind study is not needed because it's so obvious to all but the most biased of observers.
Why would people like me, who has ridden on the same roads since 1980 with or without bike lanes, have anything to gain by claiming that it makes my ride better, makes it safer and increases the number of riders if, in fact, it did no such thing? If they took the bike lanes away tomorrow I would still ride the same route but it would not be as pleasant, not as safe and I am sure there would not be as many riders sharing that route with me.
Gas prices have some effect on the decision to ride but think about it- the average bike commute is less than 10 miles RT, how much gas money does that represent? If gas prices have climbed roughly $1.10 since 2005 and my car gets only 20 miles to the gallon I'm saving .55 cents a day- is that enough to sway bike share? Not that economic factors are not at play here- overall cost of car ownership may effect the numbers. But you claimed gas prices- I don't think so. I think it is a number of factors. And one major catalyst to riding a bike during times of low economic growth is added infrastructure without it, they'll take the bus, walk or car pool.
A word about Portland vs. Beaverton. There is a small mountain range in between, and there is a pretty good light rail link. It's also about a 10 mile ride by roads that aren't the divided highway. As long as we are rationalizing data, I'll just go ahead and point this out. Also, according to google, since 1990, the population of Portland has increased by about 20%. In the same time period, the cycling mode share went from 1.5% to 6%. I don't see a corresponding 4x increase in population that would justify these numbers.
You are reaching pretty hard right now. Sorry if providing a bit of data feels like we are ganging up on you :rolleyes:.
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.Quote:
Portland commuter numbers across the bridges has increased due to significant population increase across the river with no increase in bridges, increased gas prices, Portland's intentional decrease in auto parking and to their credit - educational efforts.
You should understand that population increases are more dynamic when considering commuting. Larger populations cause more grid lock since our roadways are no longer keeping pace with the population increase. So it is not a straight across number comparative, it is a synergistic affect getting more people willing to choose cycling and mass transit.