Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 188
  1. #151
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You advocate some utopian bikeway system that supersedes road use. Where is such? Not even the Dutch have managed that.
    That's a funny statement for you to make. What I'd advocate, unless you or someone can change my mind, is exactly what the Dutch have. The Dutch approach of segregated bicycling, warts and all, has proven far more successful than vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling results in modal shares of about 1%. The more segregated facilities a city has the higher their modal share of bicycling. The Dutch have the highest modal share of OECD countries and the lowest rate of bicycle fatalities.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    And America is a particularly unlikely place for such to develop.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    We have to live with what we have and what improvements we can make to it.
    Yes. In the 1970's some Dutch said that and now look at the improvements they've made. We can do the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    American policy for bicycle transportation has been against it for seventy years.
    Both American and Dutch policy were against bicycling until the 1970's. Since the 1970's; American policy has been against bicycling largely because of the promotion of vehicular cycling that told traffic engineers they need not do anything special for cycling but that cyclists and motorists should simply learn to get along. That sure has worked well.

    Dutch policy became pro-bicycle with the idea that bicyclists and motorists should be segregated as much as possible. The Dutch have continued to refine their segregated infrastructure over these past 40 years with it becoming more and more segregated every decade. And indeed, it has worked quite well.

  2. #152
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    The current generation of bikeway designs, the NACTO designs, are specifically designed for use by a population of cyclists without any traffic skills whatever.

    The result is that the American cycling population displays four different styles of cycling: obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, hugging the curb, sidewalk and path riding, and an undescribable mix of unlawful movements.
    I think we're largely in agreement on all of this. The current NACTO guidelines are a bastardized idea of Ameridutch cycling and are foolhardy. Much of what is in the new NACTO guidelines are elements that the Dutch have tried and tossed as unacceptable such as bike boxes, advanced stop lines, and most bike lanes. However, contrary to your saying that they are for those lacking skills, I think they are for those who are greatly skilled. What mom is going to send their 8-year-old out to use a bike box or a bike lane sandwiched between parked cars and cars going 50 mph?

    Dutch infrastructure on the other hand requires very little in the way of skills for people to use them safely. There, 8-year-olds easily learn to keep right except to pass, stop or yield anytime they encounter shark's teeth or a red light, etc.

    By promoting vehicular cycling instead of segregated (more on this in a bit) you are creating the environment for these four modes because a very few (1% ?) will ride in traffic properly and another few (1% ?) will ride in traffic but also run red lights or other stupid stuff which leaves the vast majority trying to find some alternative or, more than likely, not riding at all.

    The Dutch system of segregated paths meets the needs of nearly everyone, including those of us who desire to ride fairly fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Neither of the last two traffic laws nor any of the bikeway designs were designed to make cycling safer by using the scientific knowledge we have of car-bike collisions.

    The evidence is quite strong that cyclists who obey the RRDV do far better than the general cycling population, no matter to what extent they use bikeways.
    I generally agree. HOWEVER, segregated bicycling, such as in The Netherlands, is massively safer than the safest cycling in the U.S., obeying RRDV or not. Building Dutch style segregated facilities in the U.S. will begin to provide the same level of safety for ALL bicycle riders in the U.S. And to be clear on your comment about people using bikeways, most of our bikeways are not up to Dutch standards and are not as safe as Dutch bikeways, particularly at junctions. However, many of our bikeways, particularly more recent protected ones, appear to be much safer than vehicular cycling.
    Last edited by CrankyOne; 06-01-14 at 01:16 PM.

  3. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Originally Posted by John Forester
    Cranky:You advocate some utopian bikeway system that supersedes road use. Where is such? Not even the Dutch have managed that.




    That's a funny statement for you to make. What I'd advocate, unless you or someone can change my mind, is exactly what the Dutch have. The Dutch approach of segregated bicycling, warts and all, has proven far more successful than vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling results in modal shares of about 1%. The more segregated facilities a city has the higher their modal share of bicycling. The Dutch have the highest modal share of OECD countries and the lowest rate of bicycle fatalities.

    Originally Posted by John Forester
    And America is a particularly unlikely place for such to develop.



    CrankyLWhy?

    Originally Posted by John Forester
    We have to live with what we have and what improvements we can make to it.



    Cranky:Yes. In the 1970's some Dutch said that and now look at the improvements they've made. We can do the same.

    Originally Posted by John Forester
    American policy for bicycle transportation has been against it for seventy years.



    Cranky:Both American and Dutch policy were against bicycling until the 1970's. Since the 1970's; American policy has been against bicycling largely because of the promotion of vehicular cycling that told traffic engineers they need not do anything special for cycling but that cyclists and motorists should simply learn to get along. That sure has worked well.

    Dutch policy became pro-bicycle with the idea that bicyclists and motorists should be segregated as much as possible. The Dutch have continued to refine their segregated infrastructure over these past 40 years with it becoming more and more segregated every decade. And indeed, it has worked quite well.

    ===============

    I see that Cranky has imbibed the full flow of American bicycle activism.

    Cranky's first comment argues that the Dutch propensity for bicycle transportation has been created by the segregated bikeway system. That's false, putting the car before the horse, because the Dutch used a great deal of bicycle transportation before there were any bikeways.

    Cranky asks why I think that the USA will not adopt the Dutch segregated bikeway system. Well, different city designs, different histories, different societies, some of which are impossible to change, others very difficult to change.

    Cranky argues that the Dutch situation in 1970 was so like the US situation today that we Americans can make the same improvements as the Dutch have since 1970. Cranky's assumption is completely false; the Dutch situation in 1970 is nothing like the US situation in 2014.

    Cranky claims that Dutch policy opposed bicycle transportation until after 1970. I find it difficult to believe that the Dutch government, or Dutch society, opposed bicycle transportation through all the years since 1900 when almost everybody cycled.

    Cranky claims that my work in bicycle transportation is what persuaded American traffic engineers to not adopt the Dutch system. This is completely false. Every official governmental or traffic-engineering publication that covers bicycle transportation instructs traffic engineers to design in the segregated manner according to the American bikeway standards. Indeed, while I initiated the first traffic-engineering course, for the University of California, that advocated treating bicycle traffic as normal vehicular traffic, the next thing that the Federal Highway Administration did was to take over my course, by offering it without charge, to promote the use of the AASHTO bikeways instead.

    These replies should demonstrate the extent to which Cranky has imbibed the full flow of the errors inherent in American bicycle activism.

  4. #154
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,657
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

    I see that Cranky has imbibed the full flow of American bicycle activism.

    Cranky's first comment argues that the Dutch propensity for bicycle transportation has been created by the segregated bikeway system. That's false, putting the car before the horse, because the Dutch used a great deal of bicycle transportation before there were any bikeways.
    Hey, just like America, before the motor vehicle... and even during the early days of the motor vehicle, before WWII. Remember the Wright Brothers... You may have heard of them... as Bicycle Mechanics. Yes, Americans largely embraced cycling long before the motor vehicle.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post


    Cranky asks why I think that the USA will not adopt the Dutch segregated bikeway system. Well, different city designs, different histories, different societies, some of which are impossible to change, others very difficult to change.
    And yet so many cities did change... with the advent of the motor vehicle... thus nothing is "impossible to change."
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

    Cranky argues that the Dutch situation in 1970 was so like the US situation today that we Americans can make the same improvements as the Dutch have since 1970. Cranky's assumption is completely false; the Dutch situation in 1970 is nothing like the US situation in 2014.
    What, the Dutch did not have overcrowded inner city streets and poor motor vehicle traffic throughput in the '70s, just as America has today?
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

    Cranky claims that Dutch policy opposed bicycle transportation until after 1970. I find it difficult to believe that the Dutch government, or Dutch society, opposed bicycle transportation through all the years since 1900 when almost everybody cycled.
    The Dutch, as did many societies, adopted the individual motor vehicle as the ultimate transportation solution, only to discover that the drawbacks of such a choice far outweighed the positives. This doesn't mean that motor vehicles should not exist or that it doesn't have a place in the transportation network. However, the Dutch soon realized (as have others) that relying only on individual motor vehicles is not a sustainable system, and such a system would soon collapse under the demands of itself. Therefore the Dutch (and others) have worked to provide alternate transportation solutions, such as the bicycle; such as robust public transit (such as that which American once had) as part of a varied transportation network. Americans are largely still too enamored with "drill baby drill" to fully comprehend all the consequences of our transportation system today... however, some American cities are making changes, with the understanding that using only cars to transport individual humans requires far more resources than we as a society can continue to provide on a sustainable basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

    Cranky claims that my work in bicycle transportation is what persuaded American traffic engineers to not adopt the Dutch system. This is completely false. Every official governmental or traffic-engineering publication that covers bicycle transportation instructs traffic engineers to design in the segregated manner according to the American bikeway standards. Indeed, while I initiated the first traffic-engineering course, for the University of California, that advocated treating bicycle traffic as normal vehicular traffic, the next thing that the Federal Highway Administration did was to take over my course, by offering it without charge, to promote the use of the AASHTO bikeways instead.
    And others are trying to now offer further solutions beyond where you stopped... solutions based on examples provided by other societies. You can either lead, follow or get out of the way. Certainly, while Vehicular Cycling does have some strong attributes, it is not a complete solution... just as the motor vehicle is a fine tool, it too is not a complete solution; a mixed system of transportation is a far better solution for the needs of the general public... which means better public transportation, better cycling support, better walking support and even better ride sharing and other solutions, that are only now being explored.

    John, continue to provide and support education for "Effective Cycling" as part of a larger transportation network that consists of various modes of transit beyond the domination of the individual motor vehicle. Vehicular Cycling has a place in the larger picture... as do other solutions. VC is a fine solution, when and where it works, but it is NOT the only solution.

  5. #155
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I see that Cranky has imbibed the full flow of American bicycle activism. ...
    No John, not just imbibed, but brewing and distilling with all my might. :-)

    John's arguments boil down to this. We'll never be able to build good safe segregated bicycle facilities in the U.S. like the Dutch have built and like other countries are building. There are just too many obstacles for Americans to overcome. So we should give up trying, accept our fate, and do our best to get along on the stroads with the motorists and hope they don't kill us. In essence, John advocates that we take an extremely safe mode of transportation, bicycling, and put it in the most dangerous road system of all OECD countries (except Greece). John advocates a solution that discriminates against anyone who doesn't feel safe riding with motor traffic (or who's parents won't let them) and ignores most disabled folk. And for a bit of icing, John believes that segregated bicycle facilities are a conspiracy by motordom to get us out of their way.

    I believe that we can, should, and will build safe segregated bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are as good as those in The Netherlands. Facilities that will provide a safe, comfortable, and efficient transportation network for bicycle riders and disabled folk of all ages, genders, and speeds.

    Vehicular cycling as a technique is good for the few who will venture out on to our stroads and is a good stop-gap until we get more and better segregated facilities. Advocating for it is, in my opinion, a dead-end that will not lead to much improvement in safety nor in the number of people choosing to ride a bicycle instead of drive. Vehicular cycling was a good piece of duct tape but at some point we need a better and more permanent solution than John proposes.
    Last edited by CrankyOne; 06-01-14 at 05:07 PM.

  6. #156
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    John, you've done a lot of naysaying about bicycle paths and what's wrong with this and that. What is your solution to this stretch of Westlake?

  7. #157
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    No John, not just imbibed, but brewing and distilling with all my might. :-)

    John's arguments boil down to this. We'll never be able to build good safe segregated bicycle facilities in the U.S. like the Dutch have built and like other countries are building. There are just too many obstacles for Americans to overcome. So we should give up trying, accept our fate, and do our best to get along on the stroads with the motorists and hope they don't kill us. In essence, John advocates that we take an extremely safe mode of transportation, bicycling, and put it in the most dangerous road system of all OECD countries (except Greece). John advocates a solution that discriminates against anyone who doesn't feel safe riding with motor traffic (or who's parents won't let them) and ignores most disabled folk. And for a bit of icing, John believes that segregated bicycle facilities are a conspiracy by motordom to get us out of their way.

    I believe that we can, should, and will build safe segregated bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are as good as those in The Netherlands. Facilities that will provide a safe, comfortable, and efficient transportation network for bicycle riders and disabled folk of all ages, genders, and speeds.

    Vehicular cycling as a technique is good for the few who will venture out on to our stroads and is a good stop-gap until we get more and better segregated facilities. Advocating for it is, in my opinion, a dead-end that will not lead to much improvement in safety nor in the number of people choosing to ride a bicycle instead of drive. Vehicular cycling was a good piece of duct tape but at some point we need a better and more permanent solution than John proposes.
    Cranky has expressed his hopes for the future. However, America has not yet done anything to implement his hopes; all that has been done in the bicycle transportation field was designed to make motoring more convenient (AASHTO bikeways) or to accommodate people with no traffic skills (NACTO bikeways). Yet throughout this time, vehicular cycling has been the best and safest way to travel by bicycle. There are no signs that Cranky's hopes are about to materialize.

  8. #158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kent Wa.
    My Bikes
    1935 Raleigh Sports X,1970 Robin Hood, Flying Pigeon, Ross hi-tec, Schwinn Phantom
    Posts
    730
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Vehicular Cycling has a place in the larger picture... as do other solutions. VC is a fine solution, when and where it works, but it is NOT the only solution.
    That sums it up right there, there is no single solution. "VCing", on road facilities, and separate facilities, all have their time and place. Promoting one while ignoring or criticizing the others will do more harm than good, and serve no one.

    Those who feel entitled to "advocate" for cyclists should try to remember not everyone shares their abilities, needs, desires, or ideologies.

  9. #159
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Cranky has expressed his hopes for the future. However, America has not yet done anything to implement his hopes; all that has been done in the bicycle transportation field was designed to make motoring more convenient (AASHTO bikeways) or to accommodate people with no traffic skills (NACTO bikeways). Yet throughout this time, vehicular cycling has been the best and safest way to travel by bicycle. There are no signs that Cranky's hopes are about to materialize.
    Vehicular cycling is the best and safest? And just when, with vehicular cycling, will we have the same modal share as just about any city in northern Europe? Or when, with vehicular cycling, will our fatality rate get down to those of countries with segregated facilities? John has had 40 years to get 1% modal share, might vehicular get us to 2% in another 40 years? And at what cost in human lives?

    The signs? John needs to get out more. In the past 2 years, 134 lane miles of protected bike lanes have been built in the U.S., this year another 128 lane miles are being built. Not a huge number of miles but the momentum is going in the right direction. And this project will give us a couple of more miles. But that's tiny compared to the side paths and other bicycle paths (not adjacent to roadways) that are being built in communities across the nation. That bicycling seems to be growing faster in cities with segregated infrastructure may simply be coincidence. But where my hope really lay is with what will happen when we begin implementing facilities to current Dutch standards instead of the much inferior NACTO standards.

  10. #160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    Vehicular cycling is the best and safest? And just when, with vehicular cycling, will we have the same modal share as just about any city in northern Europe? Or when, with vehicular cycling, will our fatality rate get down to those of countries with segregated facilities? John has had 40 years to get 1% modal share, might vehicular get us to 2% in another 40 years? And at what cost in human lives?

    The signs? John needs to get out more. In the past 2 years, 134 lane miles of protected bike lanes have been built in the U.S., this year another 128 lane miles are being built. Not a huge number of miles but the momentum is going in the right direction. And this project will give us a couple of more miles. But that's tiny compared to the side paths and other bicycle paths (not adjacent to roadways) that are being built in communities across the nation. That bicycling seems to be growing faster in cities with segregated infrastructure may simply be coincidence. But where my hope really lay is with what will happen when we begin implementing facilities to current Dutch standards instead of the much inferior NACTO standards.
    The weight of the evidence is that those cyclists who practice vehicular cycling have a crash rate less than 20% of that of the general American cycling public; 20% to 25% when groups in which vehicular cycling is more prevalent than in the general American cycling public.

    You complain that vehicular cycling is not popular. Well, don't blame that on vehicular cycling, blame it on the opposition of the whole weight of American motordom and American society (including bicycle activists), exerted since the 1940s. The fact that any vehicular cycling activity has survived that onslaught demonstrates its value to those who recognize it.

    You argue that America is building more protected bike lanes. I wouldn't argue against that fact, but it merely demonstrates the power of superstition. Please provide a scientific demonstration that protected bike lanes are designed to reduce car-bike collisions. Protected bike lanes have been in the American bikeway agenda for more than forty years, but there has not heretofore been any such demonstration. The evidence is that they protect against less than 5% of car-bike collisions while aggravating the causes of the other 95%. That's clear evidence for the desire of vehicular cyclists to be free to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles rather than the bikeways.

  11. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    John, you've done a lot of naysaying about bicycle paths and what's wrong with this and that. What is your solution to this stretch of Westlake?
    Just build something such as has been proposed. Those who lack cycling skills want it, and they have political power. But don't expect what cannot reasonably be delivered, a facility suitable for cyclists of all levels of skills.

  12. #162
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    In answer to my skepticism about changing American cities to the Dutch pattern, Genec argues that change is always possible: "And yet so many cities did change... with the advent of the motor vehicle... thus nothing is "impossible to change."" Steam power radically changed human societies; so did the automobile. But these innovations created enormously powerful forces, far beyond the puny forces with which Cranky and his associates expect to change American society.

    When I argued that the Dutch urban situation in 1970 was greatly different from the American situation of today, Genec argues back: "What, the Dutch did not have overcrowded inner city streets and poor motor vehicle traffic throughput in the '70s, just as America has today?" American cities have had 100 years to develop in ways that are suited to mass motoring. Not that all have done so completely; NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, come to mind, but even these operate effectively with the amount of motoring that they use. Dutch cities in 1970 had three centuries, or more, of development as walking cities, operating effectively with insignificant motor traffic until the 1960s, when they suddenly became overwhelmed by mass motoring that is entirely unsuited to those cities. The Dutch urban problem when mass motoring entered was immensely greater than the current traffic problems in any American city.

  13. #163
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    John, which do you believe is safer; riding to work everyday on 5 miles of fully segregated bicycle paths in The Netherlands, or riding to work everyday on 5 miles of typical U.S. stroads with 45 mph traffic?

  14. #164
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,657
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    The weight of the evidence is that those cyclists who practice vehicular cycling have a crash rate less than 20% of that of the general American cycling public; 20% to 25% when groups in which vehicular cycling is more prevalent than in the general American cycling public.
    Lovely statistic... basically comparing experienced cyclists with everyone else... No one starts out as a vehicular cyclist... Some folks learn through long bouts of trial and error, some folks learn through classes... all of those practicing vehicular cycling are experienced cyclists. The "general public" can can be anyone riding a bike from the time they remove the training wheels to some oldster just riding occasionally in the park on Sundays.

    Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Nice touch John.

  15. #165
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,657
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    In answer to my skepticism about changing American cities to the Dutch pattern, Genec argues that change is always possible: "And yet so many cities did change... with the advent of the motor vehicle... thus nothing is "impossible to change."" Steam power radically changed human societies; so did the automobile. But these innovations created enormously powerful forces, far beyond the puny forces with which Cranky and his associates expect to change American society.

    When I argued that the Dutch urban situation in 1970 was greatly different from the American situation of today, Genec argues back: "What, the Dutch did not have overcrowded inner city streets and poor motor vehicle traffic throughput in the '70s, just as America has today?" American cities have had 100 years to develop in ways that are suited to mass motoring. Not that all have done so completely; NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, come to mind, but even these operate effectively with the amount of motoring that they use. Dutch cities in 1970 had three centuries, or more, of development as walking cities, operating effectively with insignificant motor traffic until the 1960s, when they suddenly became overwhelmed by mass motoring that is entirely unsuited to those cities. The Dutch urban problem when mass motoring entered was immensely greater than the current traffic problems in any American city.
    Every American city built before 1900 was once a walking city... Vast amounts of tear down and rebuild has taken place in America to form the motoring cities we have today. (which gets right to the fact that any place can be remodeled and rebuilt). In fact, some American cities have actually removed highways and structures designed for the automobile to revert areas back to what they were before the automobile was thrust through longer established neighborhoods to the detriment of said neighborhoods. San Francisco is just one such example.

  16. #166
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kent Wa.
    My Bikes
    1935 Raleigh Sports X,1970 Robin Hood, Flying Pigeon, Ross hi-tec, Schwinn Phantom
    Posts
    730
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    John, which do you believe is safer; riding to work everyday on 5 miles of fully segregated bicycle paths in The Netherlands, or riding to work everyday on 5 miles of typical U.S. stroads with 45 mph traffic?
    Is your question pertaining to the real world of speed differentials and human nature, or the hypothetical world where cyclists ride like motorists and motorists drive like cyclists?

  17. #167
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kent Wa.
    My Bikes
    1935 Raleigh Sports X,1970 Robin Hood, Flying Pigeon, Ross hi-tec, Schwinn Phantom
    Posts
    730
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Every American city built before 1900 was once a walking city... Vast amounts of tear down and rebuild has taken place in America to form the motoring cities we have today. (which gets right to the fact that any place can be remodeled and rebuilt). In fact, some American cities have actually removed highways and structures designed for the automobile to revert areas back to what they were before the automobile was thrust through longer established neighborhoods to the detriment of said neighborhoods. San Francisco is just one such example.
    Ironically, Dexter Ave. which runs parallel to Westlake Ave. is a perfect example of this. it was reconfigured with lane removals and full bike lanes added to the benefit of all road users, and the quality of life for the area residents.
    Last edited by kickstart; 06-01-14 at 10:40 PM.

  18. #168
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,657
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
    Ironically, Dexter Ave. which runs parallel to Westlake Ave. is a perfect example of this. It was a 4 lane road that was reduced to 2 lane and reconfigured for full bike lanes to the benefit of all road users, and the quality of life for the area residents.
    We have examples of this sort of road diet in San Diego too... La Jolla Blvd through Bird Rock was nicely improved by a similar change that removed lanes and 4 way stops and put in traffic circles.

    But I was actually thinking "larger," where areas have removed freeways and exits and brought neighborhoods back to the glory they had before they were ripped apart to support a motor vehicle only freeway.

  19. #169
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Every American city built before 1900 was once a walking city... Vast amounts of tear down and rebuild has taken place in America to form the motoring cities we have today. (which gets right to the fact that any place can be remodeled and rebuilt). In fact, some American cities have actually removed highways and structures designed for the automobile to revert areas back to what they were before the automobile was thrust through longer established neighborhoods to the detriment of said neighborhoods. San Francisco is just one such example.
    Yes. And I'm not aware of any of these where the result has been detrimental in any way, often contrary to the screaming of people and politicians about how horrible the result would be.

    Similarly, businesses scream that they'll loose business and have to close if parking or traffic lanes are taken away for cycletracks. I am not aware of any case where this has proved out, yet there have been a couple of studies (Portland & NYC) where the opposite proved out—business increased.

  20. #170
    Senior Member daihard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    My Bikes
    Trek, Cannondale
    Posts
    1,533
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    Similarly, businesses scream that they'll loose business and have to close if parking or traffic lanes are taken away for cycletracks. I am not aware of any case where this has proved out, yet there have been a couple of studies (Portland & NYC) where the opposite proved outóbusiness increased.
    Reminds me when Washington State enacted a law that prohibited smoking inside "public places" including all restaurants and bars. Bar owners complained out loud saying losing their smoking customers would mean going out of business. As it turned out, most (if not all) businesses were just fine since they now attracted non-smoking customers who had been avoiding such places because of smoking prevalent inside.
    Badly-behaved cyclists are usually just cyclists with inadequate infrastructure. Or none at all. - Mikael Colville-Andersen

  21. #171
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kent Wa.
    My Bikes
    1935 Raleigh Sports X,1970 Robin Hood, Flying Pigeon, Ross hi-tec, Schwinn Phantom
    Posts
    730
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One thing to remember is that the parking also serves those using lake union for recreation, and is one of the few places that offer both parking and access for small boat users.

  22. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Every American city built before 1900 was once a walking city... Vast amounts of tear down and rebuild has taken place in America to form the motoring cities we have today. (which gets right to the fact that any place can be remodeled and rebuilt). In fact, some American cities have actually removed highways and structures designed for the automobile to revert areas back to what they were before the automobile was thrust through longer established neighborhoods to the detriment of said neighborhoods. San Francisco is just one such example.
    This is not so. NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago, Oakland, Los Angeles, all were streetcar (rail) cities before 1900. It is correct that these cities, some more than others, rebuilt parts of themselves to accommodate automobile traffic. Genec thinks that I say that urban changes cannot be made; that's his ideological problem. I do say that significant urban change requires large economic forces to drive it. The economic effects of mass motoring plus significant urban growth were sufficient to cause these inner-city changes and to ensure that the newer areas got built to suit mass motoring. What I also say is that the puny efforts of bicycle activists are entirely too small to accomplish anything as significant as done by these other changes in transportation mode.

  23. #173
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kent Wa.
    My Bikes
    1935 Raleigh Sports X,1970 Robin Hood, Flying Pigeon, Ross hi-tec, Schwinn Phantom
    Posts
    730
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What does this have to do with the West lake bike track? The cycling and general community support and want the bike programs facilities. Any suggestions on how to build it to serve cyclists needs while having some consideration for other users?

    Remember, the goal is to make bike transportation safe and productive for the average person, not just the dedicated enthusiasts.

  24. #174
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
    What does this have to do with the West lake bike track? The cycling and general community support and want the bike programs facilities. Any suggestions on how to build it to serve cyclists needs while having some consideration for other users?

    Remember, the goal is to make bike transportation safe and productive for the average person, not just the dedicated enthusiasts.
    I am curious as to why you chose to phrase the above statement as you did. American policy about bicycle facilities is to design them to suit the popular taste; it is the dedicated enthusiasts who don't like bikeways.

  25. #175
    Senior Member daihard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    My Bikes
    Trek, Cannondale
    Posts
    1,533
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
    One thing to remember is that the parking also serves those using lake union for recreation, and is one of the few places that offer both parking and access for small boat users.
    They are in the same boat (no pun intended) as the business owners, in my opinion. Why are they entitled to free public parking? If a boat user wants to park their car near the marina so they can enjoy cruising on Lake Union, they should pay for the parking. Surely you don't get free parking while shopping at Pacific Place.
    Badly-behaved cyclists are usually just cyclists with inadequate infrastructure. Or none at all. - Mikael Colville-Andersen

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •