So, can you share some constructive, realistic suggestions that would be beneficial to the project making it useful for the greatest number of users, and make transportation cycling more attractive to the non enthusiast, instead of pontificating the rhetoric of your philosophies?
The topic of the thread is the Westlake cycle track project.
Why are buffered bike lanes now being installed all over San Diego on high speed roads... again what forces do you believe are driving those changes?
What about the 56 bike path? Again what drove the substantial investment to create that path?
These are all changes that happened in your local area... to serve those "puny cyclists." And those are just a few examples of changes that can be observed just minutes from your home.
Apparently Genec claims that his three examples demonstrate such significant urban change as, for example, the change from streetcar to automotive cities.
1: The work along La Jolla Blvd was a general traffic improvement project, changing from orthogonal intersections to roundabouts. That did not change the urban form to any extent, because it was done within the existing street pattern and size, and this kind of change is desired by both motorists and some cyclists (some cyclists are opposed to roundabouts).
2: Buffered bike lanes: Buffered bike lanes are just an attempt to correct some errors in the bike-lane concept. Certainly, they are advocated by bicycle advocates, but they involve little cost (the most being, sometimes, loss of a motor vehicle lane) and make no change in the urban pattern.
3: The bike path alongside Freeway Cal 56: This bike path keeps cyclists off the new 56 freeway, and everybody knows that both motorists and government want to keep cyclists off freeways. The cost was minimal, being inside the freeway right-of-way in undeveloped territory.
None of these examples demonstrates even an tendency to amplify bicycle transportation in the way that the streetcar and automobile amplified personal transportation and thereby changed urban form.
I think John expects me to list all the somewhat recent changes in town and how and why they improve life for cyclists...
But if he would just get out there and ride, he might even see for himself such items as the complete Bayshore Bikeway, the bike parking corrals in North Park, the Mike Gotch Memorial Bridge in Mission Bay, the Lake Hodges Bridge... and others, just to name but a few more examples.
Genec ignores the discussion and writes that I am ignoring all the "recent changes in town and how and why they improve life for cyclists". I simply point out that none of these examples shows that it is on the road to producing such massive changes in urban form. I Genec thinks otherwise, then it is up to him to demonstrate his case.
The dedicated enthusiasts may not need bike infrastructure to ride safely, but they are a very small minority just like highly-skilled and passionate drivers are a very small minority of the entire motorist population. The vast majority of cyclists - commuters, recreational/fitness riders, tourers, etc - would benefit from well-designed bike infrastructure.
Badly-behaved cyclists are usually just cyclists with inadequate infrastructure. Or none at all. - Mikael Colville-Andersen