Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Skycycle for London (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/927870-skycycle-london.html)

hotbike 01-01-14 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16373023)
This is a very poor example. Times Square has been an entertainment, rather than a business center for over half a century. The only thing that changed is the nature of the entertainment.

Well, I didn't come up with that example, I heard it on the Radio.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/...map-google.jpg

  • Charging zone map (PDF 494KB)
  • But what I was saying also was, on account of Congestion Pricing, there is less traffic for cyclists to worry about, hence the elevated skycycle is not necessary.

genec 01-02-14 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 16373025)
So you claim that people drive to LA for no other reason than there is a road to LA?

The motivator is not the infrastructure.

Others do not drive to LA no matter how great the road is.

No, I claim that the road to LA enables people to drive to LA who otherwise would not take the challenge of driving on either dirt or a poor road. I claim that there is a small group that would go to LA no matter what, but others would only wait until conditions improve to go... Or would go in another manner such as by ship or rail... they would not drive themselves. In fact I contend that there are still those that would not chose to drive even with the road of today.

Remember Buzzman's "different baskets?"

genec 01-02-14 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16372981)
User numbers and infrastructure are locked in a dance with each leading sometimes and following others. Which comes first is a chicken and egg debate with no clear answer.

However, I believe that demand is a better driver of infrastructure than the other way around, but once the process starts each feeds the other.

Fully agreed.

atbman 01-02-14 06:25 PM

PieintheSkyCycle

B. Carfree 01-02-14 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16372981)
User numbers and infrastructure are locked in a dance with each leading sometimes and following others. Which comes first is a chicken and egg debate with no clear answer.

However, I believe that demand is a better driver of infrastructure than the other way around, but once the process starts each feeds the other.

If you change the last sentence to something on the order of a virtuous cycle MAY allow demand to seed infrastructure and vice-verse, then I wholeheartedly agree. I have unfortunately been witness to collapsing demand in the face of rapidly expanding infrastructure. Those pesky outside influences have a way of messing up even the best of plans.

In fairness, some of those outside influences involved massive public investment in parking structures and outlandish amounts of land being dedicated to parking lots. In the infrastructure competition, overly-convenient car parking seems capable of trumping anything bike-specific.

FBinNY 01-02-14 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 16377435)
If you change the last sentence to something on the order of a virtuous cycle MAY allow demand to seed infrastructure and vice-verse, then I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm OK with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 16377435)
In fairness, some of those outside influences involved massive public investment in parking structures and outlandish amounts of land being dedicated to parking lots. In the infrastructure competition, overly-convenient car parking seems capable of trumping anything bike-specific.

One way to look at the impact of infrastructure and demand is that infrastructure clears obstacles and objections, allowing pople to do what they prefer. However, if there's no underlying desire, all the infrastructure in the world won't change anything. The parking lot growth is a perfect example. If people prefer driving, but lack of convenient or reasonably priced parking may keep them from driving downtown. Build the lots and they'll come.

So it's not that infrastructure magically creates demand, it simply allows latent demand to develop.

genec 01-03-14 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16377478)
I'm OK with that.



One way to look at the impact of infrastructure and demand is that infrastructure clears obstacles and objections, allowing pople to do what they prefer. However, if there's no underlying desire, all the infrastructure in the world won't change anything. The parking lot growth is a perfect example. If people prefer driving, but lack of convenient or reasonably priced parking may keep them from driving downtown. Build the lots and they'll come.

So it's not that infrastructure magically creates demand, it simply allows latent demand to develop.

And with that statement you just implied that there IS a certain correlation between infrastructure and ridership.

FBinNY 01-03-14 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 16378528)
And with that statement you just implied that there IS a certain correlation between infrastructure and ridership.

I believe there is a correlation in most cases. But that's a far cry from causation. If you'd read my earlier posts you'd see that I believe that there are numbers of people that would prefer to commute by bicycle but don't because of various factors. Eliminating those objection or obstacles wold allow these people to use their bikes.

But notice that I'm referring to people who already wish to bike commute. For those who don't already wish they could bike commute, better infrastructure won't make any difference at all.

Now we can debate the size of the would but don't because.... segment, which I don't believe is that large, but in places like NYC where river crossings were major barriers, solving that led to immediate and measurable numbers.

So if you build it they will come is true, but only for those who waiting on it.

rydabent 01-05-14 02:05 PM

If they can raise the money for it, it looks like a great idea to reduce auto traffic in the center of the city.

CB HI 01-05-14 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 16384935)
If they can raise the money for it, it looks like a great idea to reduce auto traffic in the center of the city.

It is not intended to reduce auto traffic, it is intended to get those cyclist out of the way of those paying the auto congestion tax. The auto congestion tax is to reduce auto traffic.

rydabent 01-06-14 10:50 AM

But it will reduce auto congestion in the center of the city. Two other things about it is the right of way is already there, and it doesnt interfer with anyone elses right of way, or travel.

hotbike 01-06-14 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 16384935)
If they can raise the money for it, it looks like a great idea to reduce auto traffic in the center of the city.


rydabent: The auto traffic in the center of the city has already been reduced, due to congestion pricing.

CB HI 01-06-14 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rydabent (Post 16387037)
But it will reduce auto congestion in the center of the city. Two other things about it is the right of way is already there, and it doesnt interfer with anyone elses right of way, or travel.

True, but the real intent of Skycycle is not to reduce congestion but to get cyclist out of the way of motorist. This project just happens to be good for cyclist as well. Indeed, a rare occurance.

rydabent 01-06-14 04:46 PM

CB

Then it may be one of the rare win/win situations.

atbman 01-07-14 12:49 PM

Bets are being taken as to whether the Skycycle project or the heat death of the universe arrives first. Currently, they are estimated at 4 to 1 on in favour of the heat death of the un...

howsteepisit 01-07-14 01:04 PM

I would put my bet on the end of the known universe.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:22 AM.